ABRP Sample Roadtrip Comparison Across EV's

[timbop]

Where does the standard range model fit in?

Letting ABRP do the planning, it is obvious that you need to tweak the stops to get the truly fastest plan. For the SR AWD I edited 1 stop to allow max SOC to 70%, saving a stop at a 50kw charger. The same thing goes for the SR RWD; I changed the max SOC% to 82% for 1 stop and it also got rid of a stop at a 50kw charger:

MME SR RWD (60% max SOC): 1:41, 8 stops
MME SR RWD (80% max SOC): 1:42, 4 stops - MANUALLY EDITED 1 stop to 82% max
MME SR AWD (60% max SOC): 1:52, 7 stops - MANUALLY EDITED 1 stop to 70% max
MME SR AWD (80% max SOC): 1:56, 5 stops
MME SR RWD (80% max SOC): 1:58, 5 stops - but 1 stop is at a 50kw charger
MME SR AWD (60% max SOC): 2:03, 8 stops - but 1 stop is at a 50kw charger

Sponsored

 

[TheLight75]

For a true comparison between EV's you should also map a trip from say Philadelphia to Atlanta where there are CCS chargers comparable to Superchargers, and thus the difference among CCS cars will be more pronounced as well as more competitive with Tesla.

For those of us in New England, this is a “real” trip. I think it’s important for potential BEV owners to understand what ideal and non-ideal trips look like from a practical perspective. I don’t think it’s invalid to include Tesla and their SC network because at the end of the day people want to understand how long it will take to get from point A to point B. If someone does a lot of road trips in the New England area, then they may prefer a Tesla due to better coverage.

Maybe tomorrow I’ll run the numbers for a trip that allows high-rate DCFC’s for all vehicles to compare a fully ideal situation.

 

[timbop]

For those of us in New England, this is a “real” trip. I think it’s important for potential BEV owners to understand what ideal and non-ideal trips look like from a practical perspective. I don’t think it’s invalid to include Tesla and their SC network because at the end of the day people want to understand how long it will take to get from point A to point B. If someone does a lot of road trips in the New England area, then they may prefer a Tesla due to better coverage.

Maybe tomorrow I’ll run the numbers for a trip that allows high-rate DCFC’s for all vehicles to compare a fully ideal situation.

OK, well your route seems to intentionally cross a fast charging desert. Along the eastern seaboard there are plenty of >50kw chargers as evidenced by this map from plugshare:

 

[TheLight75]

For comparison, I ran a trip from Philadelphia to Durham, NC (379 miles) which has lots of DCFC charging along the way:

Excluding the prototype vehicles, aside from the ER RWD MME coming close to the Model X results, Tesla still owns the trip. Once again, the ER AWD MME is sandwiched between the Polestar 2 & the Volvo XC40 (this one REALLY surprises me given the lower range on the XC40). The ER AWD MME is still 29 mins behind the Model Y and a whole 83 mins behind the reference ICE vehicle.

This data makes me consider the XC40 as its virtual performance shows it may be the more efficient AWD vehicle, performing very similarly to the MME but with only a 75 kWH battery. It also has a tow rating and a heat pump .

For EV adoption to take off, total travel times are going to need to come closer to ICE vehicles. For the average person, I'd say that means EV travel times within ~30ish minutes of an ICE vehicle. We're probably still 2-3 years away from that outside the Tesla world.

 

[FredT]

ABRP absolutely takes into account the charging curve. I didn't write it, I'm only reporting on it

How does it use charging curves for cars for which curves that are not known?

 

[TheLight75]

How does it use charging curves for cars for which curves that are not known?

They have 3 levels of models:

• Alpha - Based on published EPA & WLTP numbers
• Beta - Based on limited real-world numbers
• Release - Based on extensive real-world dat

https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/35-helping-abrp-improving-car-models/

 

[FredT]

This data makes me consider the XC40 as its virtual performance shows it may be the more efficient AWD vehicle, performing very similarly to the MME but with only a 75 kWH battery. It also has a tow rating and a heat pump .

The problem is, as you say, it's virtual performance. ABRP use a "reference consumption" figure for efficiency, and the one it uses is not very realistic. It's the same one used from before EPA efficiency and range were listed and is way too high for that car. There are plenty of other examples. For example, they use a better consumption figure for Audi e-tron than for Mach-e AWD/ER.

 

[TheLight75]

The problem is, as you say, it's virtual performance. ABRP use a "reference consumption" figure for efficiency, and the one it uses is not very realistic. It's the same one used from before EPA efficiency and range were listed and is way too high for that car. There are plenty of other examples. For example, they use a better consumption figure for Audi e-tron than for Mach-e AWD/ER.

This is very true! It will be interesting to see how the numbers change once real-world data is available. At the very least, it’s gotten me to consider more options. I’d like to be able to someday rent both an MME & XC40 for a day each to run my own 75-mph battery drain test to see how they compare.

 

[ChasingCoral]

I put together a chart showing the ABRP (abetterrouteplanner.com) results for a 324 mile EV road trip I took last December across 29 different EV's. The trip starts in Marlborough, MA and ends in Montreal, QC at a constant outside temp of 40F and goes through both flat plains and mountains. The chargers along the way include EVgo 50 kW but no EA DCFC's as they aren't in operation yet. I also included a standard "ICE Vehicle" for the same trip using Google Maps (assuming one 15 minute gas/snack/bio break stop). Vehicles with asterisks are not yet available.

Not surprisingly, Tesla dominated the top end of the results. I was surprised to see the Mach-E stuck between the Polestar 2 (EPA: 233 miles) and the Volvo XC40 (EPA: 208 miles). Perhaps this is due to the sheer weight of Mach-E?

Lots of assumptions in four of the vehicles faster than the Mach E in that chart. We'll see if those companies can live up to their own hype.

 

[DBC]

Sorry but the whole comparison is misguided if you are actually doing a real world trip. For a real world trip you need to be fully charged, or close to it, when you reach your destination. You can come up with hypotheticals where this isn't true but those aren't likely to ever be realized in the real world. And in fact it's as easy or even easier to come up with hypotheticals where charging shortly before your destination at a faster DC charger is faster than charging more slowly when you arrive at our destination, mostly because this is a more realistic scenario.

Look at a full charge to a full charge and all BEVs which charge at the same rates take roughly the same charging times. The only differences would be the efficiency of the vehicles, which are usually closer than the EPA numbers suggest. So the most important issue is the charging speed. Everything else -- including range -- is more or less irrelevant.

 

[DBC]

For those of us in New England, this is a “real” trip. I think it’s important for potential BEV owners to understand what ideal and non-ideal trips look like from a practical perspective. I don’t think it’s invalid to include Tesla and their SC network because at the end of the day people want to understand how long it will take to get from point A to point B. If someone does a lot of road trips in the New England area, then they may prefer a Tesla due to better coverage.

There are a ton more BEVs in CA than in New England, and using your protocol any vehicle -- Porsche, GM, or Lucid -- would be the fastest. Why? Because how much time you spend charging is directly but inversely related to the charging rate, and Electrify America has rolled out 350 kW charging all over CA.

Saying that a BEV which chargers at 150 kW will take less time charging than one which charges at 50 kW is about as profound as saying that a vehicle going 60 MPH will cover more distance in the same amount of time than going 30 MPH. True but something of a "Duh".

 

[TheLight75]

Sorry but the whole comparison is misguided if you are actually doing a real world trip. For a real world trip you need to be fully charged, or close to it, when you reach your destination. You can come up with hypotheticals where this isn't true but those aren't likely to ever be realized in the real world. And in fact it's as easy or even easier to come up with hypotheticals where charging shortly before your destination at a faster DC charger is faster than charging more slowly when you arrive at our destination, mostly because this is a more realistic scenario.

Look at a full charge to a full charge and all BEVs which charge at the same rates take roughly the same charging times. The only differences would be the efficiency of the vehicles, which are usually closer than the EPA numbers suggest. So the most important issue is the charging speed. Everything else -- including range -- is more or less irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that you'd need to arrive at your destination with nearly a full battery. This is just not practical nor necessary.

When planning a BEV trip, you need to arrive at your destination with enough battery power to get you to the closest charging station (whether that's on the way back or in the middle of your trip is up to you). I've done a few trips in my Kona to remote places where the closest charger was 70+ miles away. I arrived at my destinations with less than 15% battery. This wasn't an issue as I was staying at least 2 nights and I was able to plug in the 120V charger that came with my vehicle so I had ample battery level by the time I headed home.

The charging speed isn't necessarily the most important issue as all BEVs charge on a curve where charging is most efficient between 10%-80%. Beyond 80%, charging is speed is going to crawl as the battery approaches 100%. Some BEV's like the Kia e-Niro step down the charging rate as the battery fills up as you can see from its charging curve. In this instance, there's no charging speed improvement between a 175 kW charger & a 50 kW charger beyond a 72% charge level. For these reasons, two BEV's that are both rated for 125 kW DCFC charging can have very different charging session times.

There's a lot of calculus involved in planning a big EV road trip. Thankfully, tools like ABRP make it much easier since they do most of the number crunching (factoring in elevation, temperature, charging speeds, vehicle charging curves, etc).

 

[ArtyMachy]

For those of us in New England, this is a “real” trip. I think it’s important for potential BEV owners to understand what ideal and non-ideal trips look like from a practical perspective. I don’t think it’s invalid to include Tesla and their SC network because at the end of the day people want to understand how long it will take to get from point A to point B. If someone does a lot of road trips in the New England area, then they may prefer a Tesla due to better coverage.

Maybe tomorrow I’ll run the numbers for a trip that allows high-rate DCFC’s for all vehicles to compare a fully ideal situation.

Personnaly, I like your example as it is actually a trip I might take as soon as they open the borders.
I also have a Tesla M3 and based on this I would saved myself some time by taking a Tesla instead of Mach E STD range AWD that I am plannig to buy. And when that charging networks improves in that area I might venture out further in my Mach E. Bur as far as I am concerned it represents reality for now. Thx,

Sponsored