Yes, you do put more charge in the HVB by shifting to Low but you stop in a significantly shorter distance than you would with Normal Regen Coasting (which is simulating normal engine braking), or shifting into Neutral. So, if one uses LOW, one needs to account for the energy required to cover the difference in distance from Normal Regen Coasting or coasting in Neutral. For example, I just ran some tests and recorded data with ForScan. To keep it simple I ran the test from 24 mph to 10 mph results in the following covered distances. Distances were computed by integating speed over time with ForScan data. Of course, if one can apply brakes to get 100% brake score in shortest distance, then the data should move towards Low Coasting.
Low Coasting = 95 feet
Normal Regen Coasting = 554 feet
Coasting in Neutral = 1155 feet
The estimated net energy stored based on integrating current flow in/out of HVB is:
Low Coasting = 11.4 Wh
Normal Regen Coasting = 7.8 Wh
If one assumes 250 Wh per mile, the 11.4 Wh of energy stored from Low Coasting would be equivalent to about 241 feet of EV. The 7.8 kWh would be equivalent to about 164 feet of EV. So, Low Coasting comes up short by 382 feet total compared to Normal Regen Coasting (164+554) - (241+95) = 382 feet. Extra energy is needed to cover the 382 feet. At 250 Wh per miles, 382 feet requires about 18 Wh of energy.
Bottom line: Regeneration is not as efficient as most think it is. It's much better to coast in neutral or with normal regen and allow as much kinetic energy to move the car rather than be converted to electrical energy. Use the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle to the fullest extent before applying the brakes to stop (more regen or friction braking). The downside of such is one's time (the reason I don't coast in Neutral). I do coast in Drive when timing lights. I see no benefit to use Low to increase regen other than to shorten travel time.
Edited by Plus 3 Golfer, 01 November 2018 - 07:40 PM.