schtruck Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 I changed recently my Kona 64kw for A model 3 AWD LR Aero, and i did last week my first long trip (2500km) , Simulation on ABRP was very precise and strangely i found a big difference with one which was pessimistic No Wind, Dry road and temperature around 20 degrees, 135km/h when it was possible , i arrived with 25% when ABPR was calculating i arrived at 10% Last week it was i think a previous version of ABPR because my simulation was expecting i Charge up to 86% instead of 81% today on the screenshot but anyway the difference is still big Can you check what could be the cause of a such big diff? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octon Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Hello schtruck, I did part of the same road last week-end (A75 between Clermont-Ferrand and Béziers), in both direction. I had some surprises when going to the south between Albaret Sainte-Marie and Le Caylar, Tesla's GPS told me that I could reach my destination with 20% of battery when leaving Albaret Sainte-Marie's supercharger, but 30 minutes later it told me first to lower speed to reach my destination, and then told me destination was not reachable. I was obliged to stop at Le Caylar supercharger to complete, without reason. On the return route, I stopped once more at Albaret Sainte-Marie, and prevision of GPS at Clermont-Ferrand was far pessimistic as you have observed. From what I had simulated with ABRP before taking the road, both ABRP and Tesla's GPS gave me consistent prevision. In both cases, no wind, temperature around 7°C when going to the south, 20°C when going to the north, and full respect of the speed limits. I think there could be a wrong information elevation on A75 road between Clermont-Ferrand and Le Caylar, which could explain why it is pessimistic when going to Clermont-Ferrand, and optimistic when going to Le Caylar. I will do the same trip this week-end and will observe both ABRP and Tesla's GPS to check if there could be a map error on both. I'm not sure to get right datas, as the weather is announced quite bad on the road (rain and wind). I'll let you know the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Please explain, does ABRP take ambient temperature into account, or do I need to do it myself via the wh/mile efficiency parameter? And, does the minutes to open charge port take into account time to AND from the charging place, to get back on the route? Ie suppose it takes 12 minutes total wasted time to go to and from a Supercharger and get back on highway; should I enter 12 or 6? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-ABRP Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 1 hour ago, johnalan.gibby@gmail.com said: Please explain, does ABRP take ambient temperature into account, or do I need to do it myself via the wh/mile efficiency parameter? And, does the minutes to open charge port take into account time to AND from the charging place, to get back on the route? Ie suppose it takes 12 minutes total wasted time to go to and from a Supercharger and get back on highway; should I enter 12 or 6? Thanks. We do take ambient temperature into account, but it's definitely not the most accurate part of the model. If you find our results are mismatched to reality, you may be better off using a Wh/mi efficiency input instead. Minutes to open charge port is only time at the charger you spend getting connected once parked. We account for driving time to/from the charger in the planning process, no need to include that yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jason (ABRP) said: We do take ambient temperature into account, but it's definitely not the most accurate part of the model. If you find our results are mismatched to reality, you may be better off using a Wh/mi efficiency input instead. Minutes to open charge port is only time at the charger you spend getting connected once parked. We account for driving time to/from the charger in the planning process, no need to include that yourself. Great, thanks! I was going overboard and decreasing my efficiency AND entering low expected temp. And putting too much time for charge opening port... Thanks for the app, it's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 (edited) I realize now I could have figured at least some of this out for myself. By changing the temperature in ABRP, I now see that it changes the trip wh/mile in the expected way. Another question: on a proposed trip, ABRP has me charge to 67%, then stop at 10% and charge to 24% before the last leg. I figured this additional charge stop was to save time; but when I forced ABRP to leave out that short stop and charge to 81% before the last leg, the trip duration was reduced by a few minutes. Why the preference to make that Supercharge to 67% instead of 81%; better for the battery? https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=d392a2f7-6af4-43d8-bc79-1a7c530ac7e6 Edited November 10, 2019 by johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-ABRP Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 Hmm, when I do what you're proposing I find that the 81% charge is 1 minute slower than the 67%: versus: Since it's marginally faster, that's the plan that gets selected (ABRP is time-optimized). One thing we've toyed with is adding a "prefer fewer stops" option, which would pick the second alternative under discussion in the case that they're functionally equivalent. Something that's lower on our priority list for now, but definitely something we want to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 Great!! Clearly, I mis-read the results. Thanks for the prompt help. Next question is about sharing to Tesla the next charging stop. I'm not sure it's letting the car know this stop is a CHARGER; seems to be just an address to go to. So the car might not know to pre-condition for charging. Am I wrong? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-ABRP Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 7:45 AM, johnalan.gibby@gmail.com said: Great!! Clearly, I mis-read the results. Thanks for the prompt help. Next question is about sharing to Tesla the next charging stop. I'm not sure it's letting the car know this stop is a CHARGER; seems to be just an address to go to. So the car might not know to pre-condition for charging. Am I wrong? Thanks! No, this is a thorn in our side for a while. We're not sure how to tell the Tesla nav that the charger we want to use is a supercharger. A workaround that we think should do the trick is zooming in on the address we sent and then manually selecting the charger as the destination. It's a little bit more work-intensive, but should do the trick especially if it's cold outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalan.gibby@gmail.com Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 yes, that's not hard, I will do that. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
