Long drive + Sacramento SAE combo charger suggestions.

[amndrin]

So tomorrow morning me(logged in as my wife right now) and my father are intending to drive my wife's new spark from Angels Camp, CA to the Sacramento to do some errands. We intend to be using the quick charger at smud (actually right by where we use to live). It's about a 70 mile drive each way and we have to be back by 1230 pm though the world won't end if a worst case scenario happens. In hopes of making it as smooth as possible I thought I'd ask if there's any suggestions or warnings from anyone with any experience with such a long turn drive on a short turn around and if anyone has any experience with the sparks quick charger at smud. For a point of reference we've only had the car 3 weeks and never used a quick charger(obviously since there are like none of them). Also for those who aren't familiar with the drive(which i assume is everyone) it's mostly windy country roads with tons of hills so not a whole lot of room for wackiness but shouldn't be a huge problem.

 

[Chaconzies]

Using the fast charger you should have plenty of range even if you were driving at high speeds. I have not used SMUD's SAE bu I have used a SAE fast charger before. You can read about my experience here http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3788 Looking at Plugshare, it seems that there is a cost to the charger and to pay/activate the unit you will need the Greenlots app or card. I would highly recommend downloading the app and creating a profile/adding payment options before you arrive. I'd even browse to make sure you will know how to start and stop a session. I'd also recommend reading the plugshare comments as they usually provide the best info like where the unit is, places to eat, common problems etc.
Also, definitely come back and share the details with the rest of us once you've done it! Good Luck.

 

[GeekEV]

You're in luck. That charger was out of commission for a few days but is back up now. There have been reports of problems charging a spark with that model charger, but the official word from the manufacturer is that they're working on it and that rebooting the unit will resolve it in the mean time. If you have trouble, try powering it off and back on if you can figure out how. If not, call the number on the unit and ask for help.

 

[amndrin]

I actually use to live just around the corner so knowing where to eat won't be a problem. We'll actually probably walk over to the italian deli nearby and just grab some sandwiches for the drive back(we'll probably be pulling into town too early for lunch and too late for breakfast). I guess my main issue is we'll be taking a different route home after a couple errands to stop at the dealership to get them to setup her second fob that they had to send in the mail. It will end up adding 10 miles to the return bumping it to 80 but if time permits we can charge on their L2 for a half hour or so just to get it into the safer zone I sps.

 

[amndrin]

You're in luck. That charger was out of commission for a few days but is back up now. There have been reports of problems charging a spark with that model charger, but the official word from the manufacturer is that they're working on it and that rebooting the unit will resolve it in the mean time. If you have trouble, try powering it off and back on if you can figure out how. If not, call the number on the unit and ask for help.

Huh I thought just the chademo side was down were both actually down? Thanks for the boot advice I'll try and not get too over the top upset and take a few breaths if that happens.

 

[Chocula]

Here is what I learned from my 108 mile round trip on Wednesday to LAX. I incorrectly assumed I would use less power using Pacific Coast Highway rather than the 101 due to the lower speeds. It was early in the morning so there was very little traffic for most of my trip to LAX. The increased wind resistance of being the only car reduced my range more than traveling at higher speeds.

Arriving at LAX at 6 am, I was surprised to see the majority of the charging stations in lot 6 taken, but 2 spots were still open. I had planned on charging for an hour and had 3 alternate locations planned in case I was not able to find an open charger at LAX. During my 88 mile round trip on Monday, both my primary and secondary charging spots were full. Fortunately I did not need to charge to make that trip.

Due to my increased consumption, I charged for one hour and 20 minutes to get be back to 60% before making the return trip. I chose to take the 101 for the return trip and found my power consumption was more inline with previous trips. About half way back, I was able to set the cruise control and sit about 60 - 70 feet behind larger commercial vehicle, adjusting the cruise up and down a bit as needed to maintain this distance. This made a significant improvement in my power consumption; enough to get my average for the return trip up to 5.9 miles per kW, where I was at 4.3 miles per kW for the trip there. The temperature was around 58 degrees on the way there and 63 degrees on the way back. I do not believe the temperature difference was a significant factor. I normally get 5.3 miles per kW, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. The 4.3 was the lowest I had seen since we purchased the Spark.

In a nutshell, stay out of the wind when you can, and have several alternate plans for charging if it is required to make your trip. Good luck and motor safely!

 

[nmikmik]

Here is what I learned from my 108 mile round trip on Wednesday to LAX. I incorrectly assumed I would use less power using Pacific Coast Highway rather than the 101 due to the lower speeds. It was early in the morning so there was very little traffic for most of my trip to LAX. The increased wind resistance of being the only car reduced my range more than traveling at higher speeds.

Arriving at LAX at 6 am, I was surprised to see the majority of the charging stations in lot 6 taken, but 2 spots were still open. I had planned on charging for an hour and had 3 alternate locations planned in case I was not able to find an open charger at LAX. During my 88 mile round trip on Monday, both my primary and secondary charging spots were full. Fortunately I did not need to charge to make that trip.

Due to my increased consumption, I charged for one hour and 20 minutes to get be back to 60% before making the return trip. I chose to take the 101 for the return trip and found my power consumption was more inline with previous trips. About half way back, I was able to set the cruise control and sit about 60 - 70 feet behind larger commercial vehicle, adjusting the cruise up and down a bit as needed to maintain this distance. This made a significant improvement in my power consumption; enough to get my average for the return trip up to 5.9 miles per kW, where I was at 4.3 miles per kW for the trip there. The temperature was around 58 degrees on the way there and 63 degrees on the way back. I do not believe the temperature difference was a significant factor. I normally get 5.3 miles per kW, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. The 4.3 was the lowest I had seen since we purchased the Spark.

In a nutshell, stay out of the wind when you can, and have several alternate plans for charging if it is required to make your trip. Good luck and motor safely!

Thanks for sharing Chocula!

If you don't mind, please tell us what is your driving style/procedure/whatever you want to call it. I am never able to get anywhere close to 5.9 or even 5.3, I usually get around 4.3
Thanks,

 

[Chocula]

Thanks for sharing Chocula!

If you don't mind, please tell us what is your driving style/procedure/whatever you want to call it. I am never able to get anywhere close to 5.9 or even 5.3, I usually get around 4.3
Thanks,

I use the display that shows the kW being used rather than the moving ball. My accelerations are moderate and I try to keep them at less than 25 kW and do everything as smooth as is practical. I try to minimize my accelerations when going up hill. Most of my driving is on relatively flat terrain with moderate traffic. I use the cruise control whenever conditions permit, including in town. My routes are pretty consistent so I can predict when most of the stoplights will turn and adjust my speed to minimize having to stop. I coast to stops as much as practical and generally drive at or a few miles per hour under the speed limit. On the freeway, I normally set the cruise at 60 and sit in the slow lane.

When I got the much better efficiency, I was going an average of 63 and staying in the wind shadow of a larger vehicle, taping the + and - on the cruise to maintain 60 to 70 feet behind. There was a huge difference in my kW used while in the wind shadow.

I have found that the cruise control is better than my foot at minimizing small spikes in power while maintaining speed. The windows are usually up and I seldom use anything besides the fan on the first few clicks for climate control.

 

[amndrin]

OK so back from the day and it was interesting.

So on the way to Sacramento on the 70 mile drive started at 100% ended at 30%. Hit the Smud SAE Combo and brought it back to 96% in ~20 mins which was pretty great.

We spent the day driving all around Sacramento and so we charged up again on it from ~50% to 90% which took just under 10 minutes.

We left to head home and realized we left a wallet at the station so the return added about 5 miles to our drive so our journey home would be ~75 miles on a 90% charge. Leaving Sacramento on the 16(Jackson highway) is all gentle up hill into some heavy central valley wind and I stupidly thought "hey let's set cruise control @70 for 30-40 miles. As expected the last bit of my drive was a nail biter that ended with me rolling into the garage with the min = 0, predicted = 0, max = 0 and a pretty sweet "Car out of energy turning off" or some such message.

So long story short Smud's sae combo = sweet. Setting cruise control @ 70 mph up hill into the wind = not so sweet.
(oh and our AC was on the entire drive until I realized how close we were cutting it)

 

[nmikmik]

I use the display that shows the kW being used rather than the moving ball. My accelerations are moderate and I try to keep them at less than 25 kW and do everything as smooth as is practical. I try to minimize my accelerations when going up hill. Most of my driving is on relatively flat terrain with moderate traffic. I use the cruise control whenever conditions permit, including in town. My routes are pretty consistent so I can predict when most of the stoplights will turn and adjust my speed to minimize having to stop. I coast to stops as much as practical and generally drive at or a few miles per hour under the speed limit. On the freeway, I normally set the cruise at 60 and sit in the slow lane.

When I got the much better efficiency, I was going an average of 63 and staying in the wind shadow of a larger vehicle, taping the + and - on the cruise to maintain 60 to 70 feet behind. There was a huge difference in my kW used while in the wind shadow.

I have found that the cruise control is better than my foot at minimizing small spikes in power while maintaining speed. The windows are usually up and I seldom use anything besides the fan on the first few clicks for climate control.

Thanks again,
I just have to relearn how to drive CALMLY !
Randomly use the cruise control,never follow the big rigs and can't get anywhere without the hills. So results are obvious... but I am still trying.
Btw, one of my friends is driving a big rig and he really does not appreciate the people following him. not

 

[Chocula]

Thanks again,
I just have to relearn how to drive CALMLY !
Randomly use the cruise control,never follow the big rigs and can't get anywhere without the hills. So results are obvious... but I am still trying.
Btw, one of my friends is driving a big rig and he really does not appreciate the people following him. not

The vehicle I was following was a box van, not nearly the size of a big rig. I was far enough back that I still had the occasional car cutting in between and I could see both mirrors so presumably they could see me as well.
The simple existence of traffic in front and around you helps reduce your drag. I am sure I could have gotten better efficiency had I stuck right on their bumper, but I don't feel that is safe.

 

[nmikmik]

The vehicle I was following was a box van, not nearly the size of a big rig. I was far enough back that I still had the occasional car cutting in between and I could see both mirrors so presumably they could see me as well.
The simple existence of traffic in front and around you helps reduce your drag. I am sure I could have gotten better efficiency had I stuck right on their bumper, but I don't feel that is safe.

Oh, I see. That's another thing I didn't know, that just having the traffic in front and around you helps with mileage.
That's what he says, if he doesn't see you in the mirror - you don't exist.
I am sure the Adaptive cruise control would be very handy in this situation, but having just CC is better than nothing.

 

[GeekEV]

Huh I thought just the chademo side was down were both actually down? Thanks for the boot advice I'll try and not get too over the top upset and take a few breaths if that happens.

You're right, it was just the CHAdeMO side. My bad. I must learn to read more carefully.

 

[Chocula]

As expected the last bit of my drive was a nail biter that ended with me rolling into the garage with the min = 0, predicted = 0, max = 0 and a pretty sweet "Car out of energy turning off" or some such message.

Wow, that is cutting it way to close for comfort. Glad you made it all the way into the garage! :shock:

 

[gra]

Thanks again,
I just have to relearn how to drive CALMLY !
Randomly use the cruise control,never follow the big rigs and can't get anywhere without the hills. So results are obvious... but I am still trying.
Btw, one of my friends is driving a big rig and he really does not appreciate the people following him. not

The vehicle I was following was a box van, not nearly the size of a big rig. I was far enough back that I still had the occasional car cutting in between and I could see both mirrors so presumably they could see me as well.
The simple existence of traffic in front and around you helps reduce your drag. I am sure I could have gotten better efficiency had I stuck right on their bumper, but I don't feel that is safe.

There was a lot of drafting of semis and other large vehicles reported early on at MNL, as people wanted to see the effects on their range. Fortunately, sanity has mostly prevailed since then. I expect we all learned in driver Ed. that the recommended minimum safe following distance is 2 seconds from the rear of the vehicle ahead at whatever speed you're going, with 3 or more seconds preferred, owing to seeing, identification, processing and reaction times and braking distance.

At 60 mph you travel 88 ft./sec.; at 70 mph 103 ft./sec. You mentioned in an earlier post that you were following just 60-70 feet back, i.e. well under a second at freeway speeds. Hopefully, now that you've done this and established the efficiency gain from drafting you will conclude that doing so isn't worth significantly increasing your risk of serious injury or death in an accident. My dad was a truck driver, and he saw and had to deal with every variety of dumb driving and the often fatal results, including seeing a car stuffed up under the back of a trailer when the under-run guard failed. I've seen my share of fatal accidents; maybe you have also. https://www.google.com/search?q=underride+crash+images&rlz=1CASMAD_enUS594US594&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&imgil=i9i89zkXPN8z5M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQ5sXV2tCYx339-US03m99XQk1Fg6-RH2xkR79coZ9fum3ftnXyBA%253B376%253B292%253B9CtUdxN7c73BmM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.sandiegopersonalinjuryattorney.pro%25252Fsan-diego-truck-accident-attorneys.html&source=iu&usg=__579gkigqhA6PYlpL9_AD5FIUKGI%3D&sa=X&ei=MNioU-n3CMrhoATBv4LYAQ&ved=0CCEQ9QEwAA&biw=1280&bih=689#facrc=_&imgrc=i9i89zkXPN8z5M%253A%3B9CtUdxN7c73BmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sandiegopersonalinjuryattorney.pro%252Fimages%252Ftruck-underride-car-crashes-no-sideguard.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sandiegopersonalinjuryattorney.pro%252Fsan-diego-truck-accident-attorneys.html%3B376%3B292

If you feel that this is an acceptable risk, then at least restrict it to when only you are in the car. And if you feel that you have to drive like this to reach your destination, you are using the wrong car for the job. [Off the soapbox]

 

[Chocula]

... I expect we all learned in driver Ed. that the recommended minimum safe following distance is 2 seconds from the rear of the vehicle ahead at whatever speed you're going, with 3 or more seconds preferred ... [Off the soapbox]

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I do not dispute that 2 seconds is the minimum safe following distance with 3 or more preferred.

I will argue that it would be extremely difficult to maintain that safe following distance in heavy traffic except when it actually comes to a halt. If you were to slow to down to reestablish a safe gap whenever a car cut in front of you within 2 seconds, you would quickly become a hazard by traveling at a significantly slower rate than surrounding traffic, all the while continuously being cut in front of within 2 seconds. If you maintain a constant speed, you will not keep a 2 second, much less a 3 second gap. There is a reason those chain collisions happen, a large part of it is stuffing more cars on the road than can safely fit. Your options become either deal with the increased risk or find an alternate form of transportation.

Lighter traffic is a different story, but that was not the case on that day. Also, following 3 seconds behind a semi still provides a significant reduction in drag compared to being out in the wind alone.

 

[gra]

... I expect we all learned in driver Ed. that the recommended minimum safe following distance is 2 seconds from the rear of the vehicle ahead at whatever speed you're going, with 3 or more seconds preferred ... [Off the soapbox]

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I do not dispute that 2 seconds is the minimum safe following distance with 3 or more preferred.

I will argue that it would be extremely difficult to maintain that safe following distance in heavy traffic except when it actually comes to a halt. If you were to slow to down to reestablish a safe gap whenever a car cut in front of you within 2 seconds, you would quickly become a hazard by traveling at a significantly slower rate than surrounding traffic, all the while continuously being cut in front of within 2 seconds. If you maintain a constant speed, you will not keep a 2 second, much less a 3 second gap. There is a reason those chain collisions happen, a large part of it is stuffing more cars on the road than can safely fit. Your options become either deal with the increased risk or find an alternate form of transportation.

Lighter traffic is a different story, but that was not the case on that day. Also, following 3 seconds behind a semi still provides a significant reduction in drag compared to being out in the wind alone.

Not in LA, in the Bay Area, and the same thing happens here. My reading of your earlier post was that you were choosing a shorter following distance specifically to draft as was often the case in the early days of MNL, not that you were unable to maintain a larger following distance owing to congestion. If that wasn't the case, then no worries. I rarely need to drive in commute traffic these days (I moved so that my commute was by bicycle), but when I do I drive maintaining the largest gap I can, but generally smaller than will cause someone to jump in. If they do, I just accept it and back off further, but I admit that takes a great deal of patience which is often difficult for me to summon.

As it happens, U.S. traffic engineers have re-calculated the maximum flow that a lane can accept upwards several times, and it's now something like 2,300 cars/hr. at 65 mph, up from 1,800/hr. 20 or 30 years ago. This is inherently less than a safe headway. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow for definitions etc.

For anyone who's interested but doesn't want to read scientific papers, a good book is "Traffic,: Why We Drive the Way we Do (and What it Says about Us)", by Tom Vanderbilt. See http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194 This describes the physiological, psychological, and cultural issues that affect how we drive ('we' humans, showing how factors like societal corruption levels in different cultures affect adherence to traffic laws). I thought it was fascinating, but then I geek out more than a little on this stuff. It's the source of the stat I quoted above.

 

[amndrin]

Ok repeated that round trip again last weekend with much better results. Dropping the AC to 1 and not cruise controlling at 70 mph uphill for 45 mins made the drive easy with about 13 miles to spare(and that was in 106 degree weather).

Now today I'm doing an even bigger drive. Heading to the smud charger then straight to the Bay Area. I'll be doing the same return drive tomorrow afternoon wish me luck.

Here's the route

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Angels+Camp,+CA/Sacramento+Municipal+Utility+District,+6201+S+St,+Sacramento,+CA+95817/Berkeley,+CA/@38.1605772,-121.4787267,9z/data=!4m20!4m19!1m5!1m1!1s0x809095c2047467ad:0x27371c33f7ec3cb9!2m2!1d-120.5385299!2d38.0677832!1m5!1m1!1s0x809ada90db57a1df:0xe5941a106eed283f!2m2!1d-121.431774!2d38.552499!1m5!1m1!1s0x808579363a8549d3:0x94ea1595a675e993!2m2!1d-122.272747!2d37.8715926!3e0

 

[Chocula]

Good luck! Looks like you will have more options once a chargers become available in Stockton.

 

[amndrin]

Good luck! Looks like you will have more options once a chargers become available in Stockton.

I have a feeling a quick charger in Stockton is unlikely though that would make almost all of northern california open to us.

As for the drive everything went really well. I've now used the Sacramento quick charger 6 times and every time it worked amazingly. The part of the round trip from sacramento to Berkeley I knew I would be stopping at the vacaville outlet mall for an hour so I drove a little more mindlessly and ended up having what would be the equivalent of an 86 mile range (1 mile more than the actual drive) but obviously the hour stopped made that a non issue. The drive back I decided to pull into the slow lane and paced myself behind a semi and made it easily to sacramento on what would be the equivalent of about 110 miles on the charge. All in all I'd do it again no problem though it would be great if the dream case scenario off a charger in stockton happened but I won't hold my breath.