So, just another comment. As I don't have a lot of experience with these long downhills, but is it normal for the car to have used net zero miles between mile 8 and mile 85? Or is it even possible to regenerate so much SOC, to go from about 67% at Mile 32 to peak at about 73% at Mile 52?
View attachment 875248
Just looking at the elevation/SOC chart in ABRP, it shows some short flat SOC stretches, around the Mile 8-10 area, and even some short sections that actually gain some SOC, like Miles 20 and 25 and Mile 45, but these gaining SOC sections tend to be no more than a few miles, and are the steepest drops on your trip. So, I'm still wondering if the elevation estimate of Tesla's latest software is just overestimating things.
As I mentioned in my first post, what drew me to your post was the fact that I have noticed some odd elevation figs in the latest software, where it always says I'm using too much energy due to elevation. My elevation changes are quite modest around my area, and I'm having a hard time understanding how I should be doing better, so I naturally assumed the software's elevation estimate is wrong.
Just looking at ABRP's estimate compared to your actual, it looks pretty good. Starting at 75%, it drops to 44% at the finish, where you ended with 48%. Maybe, I had your speed wrong, as I used 108% of limit; otherwise, ABRP's estimate looks good.
I mean, your comment seems like your estimate issue began 2yrs ago, when you had your first time change?
Yeah I mean I was able to meet what the route planner said several times before my tire change 2 years ago. And 80 west past donner summit is basically all downhill for 7,000 ft and 80 miles. I've got just under 1,000 miles on the new MXM4 tires and I'll be doing the brake service this weekend so there's still a few things I need to factor out. I don't doubt there's some room for improvement in the new route planner though.