Autopilot and v7 coming this Thursday! (15-10-15)

[MrClown]

The outside circle graph for energy being instantaneously used is not related to the inside historical energy energy graph. Think of it as two independent sources of information. I think it's very clever.

The energy meter was there before, they just took the regen/acceleration portion of the speedomoter in the Model S, rotated it, and overlaid the two pieces.

Agreed. The outer instantaneous usage graph is showing a mild power draw in the screencap. It kind of looks like a duracell battery at that moment.

 

[Max*]

If that is true, why isn't anything showing on the outer part of the meter? The "current" energy usage would have to be between 250 and 300, give or take.

He was likely parked. When you're parked your instantaneous usage is 0kw (or close to 0kw, since you're running AC/heat/music). But the graph is for the past 5/15/30miles, and at the last pixel (before he stopped) he likely was using 250-300wh/mi or so.

Also he could've been in nuetral, or using just enough go pedal to keep the regen and acceleration balanced.

 

[MrClown]

If that is true, why isn't anything showing on the outer part of the meter? The "current" energy usage would have to be between 250 and 300, give or take.

kW (instantaneous power) and Wh/mile are totally different things. I would not expect 250-300 on the outer graph at that moment.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Do any of you understand the new power meter? (Screen capture from the WSJ video below.) I imagine the graph is some recent length of time, and in some way the height represents power used and regen when below the line. But the 400 mark is below the 200 mark. Also -50 is as far from 0 as + 100. And looking at the distance below the line, it would appear regen braking never achieved more than, say 5 kW (not including the very beginning of what's shown,) and that's reading the graph generously.

This isn't a complaint. I am upset about the loss of the combined power meter speedometer, but that's a separate issue. I genuinely want to know how the heck we're supposed to interpret this.

The numbers on the arc are just for the regen meter, not the Y axis of the graph. There is no Y axis (or X axis for that matter) for the energy graph. The entire thing is an ill-conceived clusterfart of a design. The energy graph over time isn't really related to instantaneous energy or regen usage, other than they're both have "energy" in their names.

 

[Max*]

kW (instantaneous power) and Wh/mile are totally different things. I would not expect 250-300 on the outer graph at that moment.

Yep. People just need to think of the two graphs as independent sources of information. (even if they're not independent)

 

[Andyw2100]

The circular part is just the instantaneous power meter (the orange or green bar we have now). You can see the little mark very low near the "kW" (0) mark. It goes up and down around the circle for power or regen.

The inner part is unrelated and is just a tiny version of the energy graph we already have, except without any labels.

Annoyingly, there are no ticks or anything to accurately quantify any of this data, so it's mostly useless IMO, compared to the current setup.

Thanks. (To you too, Max.)

I'll go back and watch the video again, and see if I can see the tick moving. It just didn't seem like it should be at 0 at that point, but I guess it's possible. My luck that I happened to pick a moment in time to cause the most confusion, because the tick mark was at 0, making me not realize there was one at all.

 

[Max*]

The numbers on the arc are just for the regen meter, not the Y axis of the graph. There is no Y axis (or X axis for that matter) for the energy graph. The entire thing is an ill-conceived clusterfart of a design. The energy graph over time isn't really related to instantaneous energy or regen usage, other than they're both have "energy" in their names.

That graph has an X-axis and a Y-axis. They're just not labeled .

 

[brianman]

Guessing from the screenshot:
The scale of the outer meter troubles me in at least 3 ways: (1) the scale is odd (doesn't seem linear or exponential/log scale but something ... different), (2) no tick marks, and (3) for normal driving the [10, 80] kW range is the most important and (IMO) it's deemphasized in that UI.

 

[Max*]

Guessing from the screenshot:
The scale of the outer meter troubles me in at least 3 ways: (1) the scale is odd (doesn't seem linear or exponential/log scale but something ... different), (2) no tick marks, and (3) for normal driving the [10, 80] kW range is the most important and (IMO) it's deemphasized in that UI.

(1) I think it's exponential. 0-100 has the same arc span as 100-200, same arc span as 200-400. The regen is not on the same scale as the acceleration, but it's not on the same scale on the current UI also (0-60kw regen spans the same as 0-~200kw acceleration in 6.2)

 

[brianman]

(1) I think it's exponential. 0-100 has the same arc span as 100-200, same arc span as 200-400. The regen is not on the same scale as the acceleration, but it's not on the same scale on the current UI also (0-60kw regen spans the same as 0-~200kw acceleration in 6.2)

Assertion: arclength(0,100)==arclength(100,200)==arclength(200,400)
Conclusion: exponential
Incorrect, this is not exponential.

For exponential you'd want...

• AL(200,400) == AL(100,200) == AL(50,100) == AL(25,50)=...
• AL(100,200) == 2*[AL(50,100)+AL(25,50)+..]
• AL(100,200) > 2*[AL(50,100)+AL(25,50)+..]

Put more simply, for an exponential scale if the arc length for any two segments is identical then the numerical distance for those two segments must not be the same. As such, for (0,100] and (100,200) to be matched then we know it's not an exponential scale.


How can you tell the scale for regen arc with only one non-zero data point? It could be linear. It could be exponential. It could be exponential squared.


I'll add a 4th nit: I don't like the open-ended (no numbers, no ticks) nature of the arc, especially in the interesting/controversial 450-550 kW range.


For me this is one of the most important instruments in the vehicle, so it needs to be the most refined and functional.

 

[HankLloydRight]

(but it's not on the same scale on the current UI also (0-60kw regen spans the same as 0-~200kw acceleration in 6.2)

Looks more like 60kw to 80kw to me. 200kw is way up there on the energy use scale.

 

[Max*]

How can you tell the scale for regen arc with only one non-zero data point?

Point taken.

That's an extrapolation based on what I know from the 6.2 display, and what I see from the acceleration portion of the 7.0 display.

But you're right, I don't know with 100% certainty.

 

[MrClown]

(1) I think it's exponential. 0-100 has the same arc span as 100-200, same arc span as 200-400. The regen is not on the same scale as the acceleration, but it's not on the same scale on the current UI also (0-60kw regen spans the same as 0-~200kw acceleration in 6.2)

Yes, the power scale is log 2 just like in 6.2. The regen part is separate but likely still log 2 just like today.

 

[Andyw2100]

He was likely parked. When you're parked your instantaneous usage is 0kw (or close to 0kw, since you're running AC/heat/music). But the graph is for the past 5/15/30miles, and at the last pixel (before he stopped) he likely was using 250-300wh/mi or so.

Also he could've been in nuetral, or using just enough go pedal to keep the regen and acceleration balanced.

This is the full screen capture:

He wasn't parked or in neutral. He was cruising at 68 MPH.

 

[Max*]

Looks more like 80kw to me. 200kw is way up there on the energy use scale.

View attachment 97761

I googled for a photo, my car is parked. But it would vary by car, as the 70D only goes to 240kw(?), the 85D goes to 320kw(?) and the P85D goes to 420kw(?).

- - - Updated - - -

This is the full screen capture:

View attachment 97762

He wasn't parked or in neutral. He was cruising at 68 MPH.

If you find another photo of him driving and that graph at 0kw, I will NOT eat my hat, but I will admit I was wrong.

 

[hockeythug]

It could just default to that position when in crusie control.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I googled for a photo, my car is parked. But it would vary by car, as the 70D only goes to 240kw(?), the 85D goes to 320kw(?) and the P85D goes to 420kw(?).

And that's another thing with this new regen scale that really bugs me. When I floor it in my P85+, the energy goes right up to EXACTLY 320kw. And full regen goes to exactly 60kw (and 30kw on "low" mode). I know other cars have different limits. but with this new graph and at "full electrons", the line would be as some indeterminate spot between 200 and 400. It's like "what were they thinking???"

I think it's what others have said -- everything about this new design screams that it was designed by someone who has never driven the car.

 

[brianman]

... He was cruising at 68 MPH.

At that exact moment, I think the meter is telling you he was essentially coasting (near 0kW instantaneous consumption). I bet if you had terrain and climate data he was going slightly downhill or had a tailwind.

 

[Andyw2100]

kW (instantaneous power) and Wh/mile are totally different things. I would not expect 250-300 on the outer graph at that moment.

Yes, of course. I'm not sure why I wrote that. Brain fart on the units, etc., but I still would not expect the meter to be at 0.

 

[brianman]

I googled for a photo, my car is parked. But it would vary by car, as the 70D only goes to 240kw(?), the 85D goes to 320kw(?) and the P85D goes to 420kw(?).

240, 320, 480

The first acceleration limiter hits at 160 and 240 for the P85 and P85D, respectively.