Recently the navigation system in my Model S had 2 route choices:
1) a longer distance with higher speed limit roads
2) a shorter distance with lower speed limit roads
The nav system chose route 1
It estimated the time as the same ( to the nearest minute ) even though route 2 was about 15% shorter.
Now, the actual time could easily have been less for route 1 ( because I don't know what the fractional minute was ) but it made me realize I was unhappy with the choice.
In the past I have never cared about any variable other than time. But now I do. I care about energy consumed.
It is true that in my past I would even take the slower route ( total time ) that was longer so I could drive fast.
Now - if the time is equal - I want the route that uses the least energy.
There are many times where the nav system should make this decision for me.
If I ask it to plan a route that is near the range limit of the car - clearly it should choose the fastest route that doesn't run the battery empty. In almost all cases that means shorter distance. In most cases it is shorter distance on slower roads. In some cases it may mean longer distance on slower roads.
If it can't find a route it should suggest that charging will be required ( it should include charging time and location, but that is a topic for another rant. ) it should know to suggest charging will be required.
Even without that case, in my normal driving I would be very happy to be able to switch the nav system into "Eco mode" where it factors energy into the choice. "Eco light" would weight time at 5 times more important than energy. That means I would accept a 5% longer drive to save 25% energy.
Back of the envelope, I believe driving ~15% slower over ~15% less distance is more than 25% energy savings.
"Eco important" would be 3:1, a 5% time penalty is acceptable to save 15% energy.
And "Eco insane" where they are 1:1
1) a longer distance with higher speed limit roads
2) a shorter distance with lower speed limit roads
The nav system chose route 1
It estimated the time as the same ( to the nearest minute ) even though route 2 was about 15% shorter.
Now, the actual time could easily have been less for route 1 ( because I don't know what the fractional minute was ) but it made me realize I was unhappy with the choice.
In the past I have never cared about any variable other than time. But now I do. I care about energy consumed.
It is true that in my past I would even take the slower route ( total time ) that was longer so I could drive fast.
Now - if the time is equal - I want the route that uses the least energy.
There are many times where the nav system should make this decision for me.
If I ask it to plan a route that is near the range limit of the car - clearly it should choose the fastest route that doesn't run the battery empty. In almost all cases that means shorter distance. In most cases it is shorter distance on slower roads. In some cases it may mean longer distance on slower roads.
If it can't find a route it should suggest that charging will be required ( it should include charging time and location, but that is a topic for another rant. ) it should know to suggest charging will be required.
Even without that case, in my normal driving I would be very happy to be able to switch the nav system into "Eco mode" where it factors energy into the choice. "Eco light" would weight time at 5 times more important than energy. That means I would accept a 5% longer drive to save 25% energy.
Back of the envelope, I believe driving ~15% slower over ~15% less distance is more than 25% energy savings.
"Eco important" would be 3:1, a 5% time penalty is acceptable to save 15% energy.
And "Eco insane" where they are 1:1