Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. That's the key. Not everyone wants to do it that way, of course. Some are content playing the traditional "EV game" of only charging the minimum needed to barely make it to the next charger. That may be fine for the diehards, but most mainstream drivers aren't gonna be comfortable with that. And with such huge variability in EV mileage based on driving conditions, 10% isn't much buffer to ensure getting to the next charger. Plus, chargers may not always be working, or not in use. Many people want extra buffer to be able to make it to an alternate just in case. It all adds up to taking a few more minutes to charge higher being prudent on DCFC charge #1, then carrying those extra kWh as more safety buffer through the day. For those wishing to use such a Top-Down approach, the logical set% is wherever there's a significant taper near the upper end (if any). In the Mach-E, that's easy... it holds DCFC charging power well to 80%, then drops like a rock. So 80% is the obvious routine DCFC charge-to. It's probably a different spot in the e-tron. But we can set that wherever we want in ABRP. I typically just charge to 80% each leg. I may arrive at the next charger at 27% on one leg, 19% the next, 31% the next, etc. It would be nice to have ABRP display those arrival% estimates when charging to a set% each time.
  2. Adding a few minutes to charging overhead might approximate the time it takes to charge a bit higher in the curve, but that's not really the main reason for wanting a Top-Down option. It's more just to easily see what arrival% will be at each charger when charging up to a set% each time rather than driving down to a set% each rime. So we know how much buffer we have that leg for detours, unexpected headwinds, last-minute change of plans, etc. We can always manually calculate it, of course, but the point of a trip planner is to calculate it and display it for us. I do think that as EVs gradually go more mainstream this decade, more people will want to charge up to a set point rather than drive down to a set point before charging on road trips. In other words, apply a more ICE-like approach as they're already used to.
  3. Currently, ABRP always uses a Bottom-Up charging approach for legs 2+. Meaning, when you set the min% to 10% and the max to 80%, and it calculates that the next leg will use 53% of the battery, it tells you to charge to just 63% and drive down to 10% (bottom-up). That makes sense to save charging time if you have a steep charging curve, where it takes a lot longer to charge in that upper part of the curve. The downside though is that you're always "living on the edge" by running it down to 10% each time, where unexpected headwinds or construction detours or last-minute change of mind can be a real problem. However some EVs have a fairly flat charge curve, that don't take much longer to charge in the 60-80% SOC area than the 20-40%. In that case, it's often well worth it to stay at the charger a couple minutes longer each time and just charge up to 80% (that's what I do in my Mach-E since the charge power stays good to 80%). Much safer, and more flexibility. So in the example above that uses 53%, it would recommend charging to 80% and driving down to 27% (instead of 63% to 10%). Top-down instead of bottom-up (like how leg 1 is calculated). A setting to choose which method we want would be great.
  • Create New...