jlv
Well-known member
+1dgpcolorado said:
Tesla Supercharger Network
- Thread starter palmermd
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
dgpcolorado
Well-known member
The air pressure in the tire is relative to atmospheric pressure. As the atmospheric pressure increases with lower altitude the relative pressure in the tire decreases. It is the same phenomenon that makes a balloon expand as you increase in altitude and shrink as you decrease altitude (or chip bags explode as you bring them from sea level to the mountains — happened to me at 7000 feet in Utah coming from Oregon).SageBrush said:
A further complicating factor is that temperature is generally higher at lower altitude which offsets some of the altitude related tire pressure decrease, so I never know quite what to do when setting out on a trip save for checking the tires cold at the low altitude destination.
GRA
Well-known member
Same here. I check and adjust tires in the driveway before leaving on a trip, although I've got a station only a block from me that wouldn't cause any significant heating by driving to it when cold; to me it's more convenient (if more work) to use my hand pump. I also may check/adjust them before driving each day during the trip if I think it's necessary, but it rarely is unless I've got a slow leak (haven't had one in years - knock plastic) and don't want to put the spare on. Unlike you I'm always starting from sea level, so needing to increase pressure following a descent isn't a factor, and the highest I've driven a car is maybe 12.5k (allowing for density altitude in summer, maybe 15k). I can't remember if I ever reduced pressure for such an altitude just to be on the safe side and then re-inflated when lower, but as my most common driving high points in California are no more than 10k and that on mountain two lane that precludes interstate speeds (Tioga Pass 9,941; Saddlebag Lake 10k even; Sonora Pass 9,624, with a max. density altitude of say 13k), I don't think I've felt any need to do so for at least a quarter century. For Trail Ridge maybe, but the Eisenhower Tunnel on a hot day when traffic is free-flowing seems most likely, if I hadn't adjusted since leaving home.dgpcolorado said:
GRA
Well-known member
Sounds like they finally got the nav system working right. Early on I remember there were tons of complaints about it on TMC, and people were using EVtriplanner or one of the other homebrew sites rather than trust it. ISTR routing as well as energy calc were issues.dgpcolorado said:
scottf200
Well-known member
I really like the new driver's information center (DIC) navigation display. The below article touches on it and the video was excellent showing side by side of highway driving. It is really nice in suburban driving as the solid background rectangular street name bubbles are handy ... but it also shows (at the right count and level) transparent background rectangular street name bubbles as you are approaching so you can get a feel but glancing at street signs where you are at. Just a nice reinforcement. It seems very smooth and clear on the level of google and waze on your phone IMO.GRA said:
https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/tesla-new-maps-navigation/
dgpcolorado
Well-known member
Yes, the new navigation/energy algorithm, pushed out OTA in April, is terrific. It handles high speed highways really well now.GRA said:
Occasional quirks about routing and you can't force it to an alternate route except by just driving it (adapts instantly to route changes or missed turns). Also doesn't have a waypoint feature, a longtime complaint. The best part is the energy use projection — and real time updating — is much more accurate now. With voice navigation, all you do is state your destination and let the car take you to each Supercharger Station as needed. Also does a really good job at projecting the ETA, charge level, and time charging at each stop and the destination, even when driving most of the day.
You really have to see it in action to believe it.
scottf200
Well-known member
https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1005572789934305280
GRA
Well-known member
Gaylord, MI opened Thursday. This is the first SC to expand coverage, as opposed to infill for density/capacity, since Estes Park. At the moment, out of the 33 SCs known to be under construction at supercharge.info, only Leavenworth, WA expands coverage. Things look better as far as those permitted, but permitted can mean very little (Ft. Stockton now at 569 days and counting). As it is, Gaylord was noted under construction on Oct. 1st and may have begun a week earlier, and I think this is probably the longest construction time to date, up to 9 months.
scottf200
Well-known member
I plan on using the Gaylord one in the near future. It will be nice to get a MI UP one done to make that around-the-lake tour simple. There are hotels, marina, and plenty of campgrounds with 14-50s to so I'll make due. I'm not use to having to plan my charges as I usually just go and let the car route me through the Supercharger 'railroad'. It has been simple. The CCS travelers will have to do a lot of planning for a while I think.GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
Does it matter to you whether Mackinaw City or Escanaba is next? They haven't updated the map yet to show Gaylord as open, but it's the one furthest north on the Lower Peninsula (besides Mackinaw).scottf200 said:
I expect it will be 2020 at the earliest before CCS travel starts to resemble SC travel circa 2014 or so, but we'll probably see the first X-C route next year, not that I've ever thought those were very important (except as P.R. and psychologically). EA has 'coming soon' fast QCs on both I-70 and I-80, in KS and NE, among their next 18, plus five on I-10 from Houston to Gulfport, MS. For some reason they've also got several on I-30/40 between Dallas and Tennessee, although it doesn't seem likely that there's a lot of BEV owners in the area compared to other regions. Probably it's just due to which corporations they have site deals with.
EVDRIVER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 6,753
GRA said:
I know several people that have done many XC trips and I intend to do at least one. I don't think it's PR. many people like to drive long distance plus the ability to do this means very good interstate opportunities, basically a solid network. Anyone that has done any road trips over a few hundred miles knows this is a game changer for many many people. Looking forward to a Tesla "Camper" version with a 100kwh pack, fridge, lighting, HVAC, etc.
GRA
Well-known member
Sure, there are road warriors out there who enjoy that, but most people will fly. I've never driven further east than I-25 from the west coast, and have no desire to look at hundreds of miles of wheat, corn, soybeans etc., and the silos they're stored in. Take care of the inter-regional destinations (1 or max. 2 QCs), and the X-C routes will only require a few fillers, primarily west of the Mississippi. It makes little sense to enable X-C trips if most people still can't get to a normal weekend destination. It's a question of priorities, that's all.EVDRIVER said:
scottf200
Well-known member
To me it definitely looks like Escanaba would be a better location for people making the loop.GRA said:
The SuperCharges are marked in purple SCs on this planning map.
GRA
Well-known member
Checking Google maps, I think both will be more or less required, and one in between them wouldn't hurt either. Somewhere between Gould City and Manistique. It's 207 miles from Gaylord to Escanaba, and still 149 from Mackinaw City to Escanaba. The latter's doable if not ideal for small battery cars in warmer temps, but would be problematic if you needed lots of heat/defrost, maybe with some headwinds.scottf200 said:To me it definitely looks like Escanaba would be a better location for people making the loop.GRA said:
The SuperCharges are marked in purple SCs on this planning map.
scottf200
Well-known member
You said does it matter to YOU [scott] which is next. To ME the Escanaba, MI location would be best ... but I drive an X 100D and am not doing scenic road trips in the north in the Winter!GRA said:
I was at the Albuquerque Supercharger for the second time. I arrived with 70 EPA rated miles remaining and left 14 minutes later with 102 EPA miles more added, so 7.3 EPA miles per minute charge rate.
Charged $3.31. It is really a treat to just pull up and plug in, then be ready to leave a few minutes later. Supercharging is an awesome experience.
One interesting perk I was not expecting: since I stayed in the car I ran the A/C. I was not charged for the use and it did not effect my battery charging rate. I presume the free A/C was a side-effect of Tesla charging by the minute in NM. As for the battery charge rate not being affected by the A/C, I think it means that the A/C is fed separate from the battery, rather than from the battery as I expected.
Charged $3.31. It is really a treat to just pull up and plug in, then be ready to leave a few minutes later. Supercharging is an awesome experience.
One interesting perk I was not expecting: since I stayed in the car I ran the A/C. I was not charged for the use and it did not effect my battery charging rate. I presume the free A/C was a side-effect of Tesla charging by the minute in NM. As for the battery charge rate not being affected by the A/C, I think it means that the A/C is fed separate from the battery, rather than from the battery as I expected.
GRA
Well-known member
I know, my comment about both being needed wasn't specifically referring to your requirements, which you stated; sorry for the confusion. But if Tesla hopes to sell cars in that area, they'll definitely need closer spacing, even though much of the route isn't on a freeway. I checked using EVtriplanner, and from Gaylord to Escanaba an S60 has issues even @ 72 Deg., no HVAC use, zero wind, 200 lb. load, charging to 100% and keeping 15% as a reserve. Coming the other way is slightly uphill, so worse. A Model 3 SR does considerably better as you'd expect, but it's not home free in less than ideal conditions either. IMO you want SCs spaced no further apart than can be reached with an 80% charge and a reasonable reserve (>=10%, preferably more) given average conditions, and that's with a new battery; it would be better if they were spaced to do that with a degraded one. Even better would be to space them so they can do it in worst case conditions, which is the kind of density Tesla is now achieving on some of their existing routes via infill.scottf200 said:
scottf200
Well-known member
I understand what you are saying and completely agree that SCs need to be placed reasonably close together for several conditions. Personally, I think a S75D is a more appropriate lower limit but I guess I could see an argument for a S60. I'm not sure people buying the smaller batteries thought they were getting a roadtrip vehicle under anything but good non-winter conditions.GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
I use a degraded S60 as a lowest common denominator. If you can do the trip in that, you can do it in any other car Tesla sells. The number of S60s will be quickly dwarfed by the 3SR once it arrives, but I tend to think of the 3SR as an S60 with a bike/ski rack on it.scottf200 said:
