Tesla satnav confusion

[Mrklaw]

Coming back from Switzerland to Reims and the satnav had me stopping at martigny and then straight through to chateau Villains (or similar). I’d just come down a mountain so only used 1kwh to drive 32km, but I assumed Tesla wouldn’t used your recent energy to calculate the route?

I charged up to 90 even though it said I had enough to leave at 84%. As I left it said we’d arrive at Villains with 19%.

Almost immediately within 5 mins the estimated dropped first to 15% then 12%. Over the next 30 mins it slowly crawled back up to around 15%, but then completely recalculated and stopped me at bussigny then Troyes. I don’t know if it knows something about traffic up ahead or it just felt I wouldn’t reach the original charger as predicted?

Any insight here would be welcome

 

[Mrklaw]

Just stopped for the day..

It seemed very fidgety when I put in a destination a long way out. It started routing me via a supercharger then decided I didn’t need one and it’d be fine ti arrive with 7% battery at my destination (can I edit a preferred minimum in the car)?

Did that a couple of times until I got my wife to add a specific supercharger as a waypoint so it wouldn’t remove it.

Is it usually this indecisive?

 

[Mrklaw]

Back home now. Left at 100% whihc it estimated to get me to Maidstone for a top up and then home. Then it girl we kid so asked me to stop at the Calais superchargers in the Eurotunnel terminal

Left there estimating to get home with 25%, and Ended up getting home with 38%. Does it perhaps think I’m driving across the channel? If so I could have left much sooner or even not stopped at all

 

[mick4545]

I suspect it does think you drive through the tunnel. No proof though.

 

[Andywil]

Have you got "avoid ferries" turned on in navigation options?

 

[Mrklaw]

Have you got "avoid ferries" turned on in navigation options?

nope

 

[Silicon Desert]

In your manual, you will find information as to how to make this more accurate. The calculation is based on the most frequent number of miles driven and that number can be changed in your settings. If I remember correctly, the short calculation is over most recent 5 miles and the longest is 30 miles.. Obviously, setting it to a longer distance will give a less variable estimate.

 

[Mr H]

In your manual, you will find information as to how to make this more accurate. The calculation is based on the most frequent number of miles driven and that number can be changed in your settings. If I remember correctly, the short calculation is over most recent 5 miles and the longest is 30 miles.. Obviously, setting it to a longer distance will give a less variable estimate.

This has nothing to do with the number of miles driven previously. The nav thinks we drive through the Eurotunnel from France to UK and therefore gives an estimate of arrival SoC accordingly, when in fact you drive onto a train and off the train at Folkestone losing around 38 miles, this is the discrepancy the nav fails to account for which is why the OP arrived with a higher SoC than originally intimated.

 

[Silicon Desert]

This has nothing to do with the number of miles driven previously. The nav thinks we drive through the Eurotunnel from France to UK and therefore gives an estimate of arrival SoC accordingly, when in fact you drive onto a train and off the train at Folkestone losing around 38 miles, this is the discrepancy the nav fails to account for which is why the OP arrived with a higher SoC than originally intimated.

Ok, I must have misunderstood one of the OP points. I thought there was an issue with their"estimated range" varying greatly.

 

[Mr H]

Ok, I must have misunderstood one of your points. I thought there was an issue with your "estimated range" varying greatly.

I've just gotten back from Germany, i've just put Calais in and it sees the Eurotunnel as a road without a toll so the SoC would be out no matter what you do. It did this to me in Calais too but wasn't an issue.

 

[Mrklaw]

Ok, I must have misunderstood one of the OP points. I thought there was an issue with their"estimated range" varying greatly.

There was both. Channel tunnel was one. The other was me driving down the mountain so the first stop was almost no energy used. But I thought the nav is supposed to consider elevation change

 

[Silicon Desert]

There was both. Channel tunnel was one. The other was me driving down the mountain so the first stop was almost no energy used. But I thought the nav is supposed to consider elevation change

Ah, ok. Good. That is what I was replying about.

 

[Silicon Desert]

There was both. Channel tunnel was one. The other was me driving down the mountain so the first stop was almost no energy used. But I thought the nav is supposed to consider elevation change

It does consider elevation change to some extent.
Perhaps I will add a bit more about my experience that is "somewhat" related to yours. From time to time, I travel from the Tesla GF here in America (Sparks, Nevada) down to the main factory in Fremont California. I start out at an elevation of roughly 4,500 feet (apology to use feet), travel up over the Sierra mountains to a peak of 7,200 feet and down to the factory at almost sea level....

In my MX, the nav indicates I lose about 30 miles worth of range going from 4,500 feet to 7,200 feet and then gain about 50 miles back while going from the peak to sea level. Although I can see the range dropping and increasing with changes in elevation, the nav properly calculates how much charge I need to get to my destination.

Another example is coming back home. Even though it is only about 100 miles from the last supercharger to my home, the nav knows I have to go over a peak of 7,200 feet before coming back down to 4,500 feet, so it always tells me I need to charge to a range of 145 miles to compensate for the extra energy it takes to get over the summit.

 

[Roy B]

What version was this on? 2022.16 was supposed to include improvements to the energy prediction.