Raymondjram

Well-Known Member
First Name
Raymond
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
467
Reaction score
521
Location
Bayamon
Vehicles
2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid LE sedan
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Country flag
Yep. Although honestly, that's EPA's fault for allowing it.

Of course, the EPA numbers are largely crap for BEV range anyway. (And MPGe is downright silly.) BEVs need a whole new and different standardized range test, with upper and lower measurements included. The public needs to be properly informed about the much higher variability in range on BEVs than they're used to with ICE.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a33825136/evs-deserve-a-new-epa-range-test/
I agree that MPGe is useless. But MPG is based on miles per energy unit (gallon), so I prefer miles or km per kWh which is a valid and recognized energy unit. That " kWh/100 miles" is confusing since very few drive over 100 miles in a trip.
Advertisement

 

trutolife27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
3,247
Reaction score
13,837
Location
Bourbon Country.
Vehicles
Lincoln mkx , Ford f-150, Mache
Country flag
Range does matter for city dwellers, too, since most car buyers live in cities, and travel less than 40 miles a day (I am one). This is most important for apartment dwellers who have no charging facilities close by, so they travel once a week (same as for gas cars) to a station and "fill up". Then they drive all week with their charge. So we city dwellers will be most satisfied with any of the EVs that Edmunds tested, but most will prefer the cheaper models with local servicing.
the range will keep being a point with BEV until the infostructure is better and charging times are quicker. Same news as always with any new product.

I remember when you couldn't take your cell phone off the major roads at all.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
7,288
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Range does matter for city dwellers, too, since most car buyers live in cities, and travel less than 40 miles a day (I am one). This is most important for apartment dwellers who have no charging facilities close by, so they travel once a week (same as for gas cars) to a station and "fill up". Then they drive all week with their charge. So we city dwellers will be most satisfied with any of the EVs that Edmunds tested, but most will prefer the cheaper models with local servicing.
Yeah, I almost threw that case in too, but it's an exception at this point. A BEV usually isn't a very good fit if one doesn't have cheap, dependable overnight charging where they live (or work). Being able to just "plug in and forget it" until leaving the next morning (or end of their work shift) is probably the biggest advantage of a BEV. Without that, most people will stick with cheaper ICE or PHEV instead.

There's always exceptions though.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
7,288
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I agree that MPGe is useless. But MPG is based on miles per energy unit (gallon), so I prefer miles or km per kWh which is a valid and recognized energy unit. That " kWh/100 miles" is confusing since very few drive over 100 miles in a trip.
Same here. 99% of the public is already used to MPG. The logical extension is MPK (miles/kWh). Anytime I see that "kWh/100 miles" that Tesla uses I shake my head and pull out the calculator it convert it.

I also find it goofy to use 100 as a basis. It's unnatural.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
7,288
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
the range will keep being a point with BEV until the infostructure is better and charging times are quicker. Same news as always with any new product.

I remember when you couldn't take your cell phone off the major roads at all.
And honestly, I don't ever see charging times getting short enough to not be an issue (like it's a non-issue for gas). Even if they get way better, it's still probably gonna take at least 15+ minutes to add 60 kWh (a typical road trip fill for the MME).

That would be a big improvement over the 45 minutes it is now, of course, but still way longer than a gas fill. That will always be a drawback with BEVs.
 

Mach-E VLOG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Patrick
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
991
Reaction score
3,668
Location
Denver, Colorado
Website
machevlog.com
Vehicles
Mustang Mach-E - Grabber Blue - First Edition
Country flag
Same here. 99% of the public is already used to MPG. The logical extension is MPK (miles/kWh). Anytime I see that "kWh/100 miles" that Tesla uses I shake my head and pull out the calculator it convert it.

I also find it goofy to use 100 as a basis. It's unnatural.
The "miles per kWh" makes so much more sense to me as well -- especially if you know your battery pack size. It becomes very easy to figure what your range would be at the current average. And it makes it easier to estimate what your remaining range might be.
 

trutolife27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
3,247
Reaction score
13,837
Location
Bourbon Country.
Vehicles
Lincoln mkx , Ford f-150, Mache
Country flag
And honestly, I don't ever see charging times getting short enough to not be an issue (like it's a non-issue for gas). Even if they get way better, it's still probably gonna take at least 15+ minutes to add 60 kWh (a typical road trip fill for the MME).

That would be a big improvement over the 45 minutes it is now, of course, but still way longer than a gas fill. That will always be a drawback with BEVs.
100% agree if they can ever get it under the 20-minute window that would be a pick deal.
 

DBC

Well-Known Member
First Name
Don
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
1,224
Reaction score
1,419
Location
San Diego
Vehicles
Volt ELR
Country flag
Just the opposite. It's measured at an average of 48 MPH, with some mathematical adjustments made to estimate highway speed. That's the whole point, it's NOT a real world measure of high speed.
You're mistaken on two counts. First it most definitely uses higher speeds. I think the top speed is at or above 80 MPH.

Second is thinking that the average speed matters. It doesn't. If you cover a mile when going from 0 MPH to 100 MPH you will use far more energy than if you go a steady 60 MPH over the same distance. Yet in the former case the average speed is 50 MPH and in the latter 60 MPH.

Maybe it would help if you actually ran the numbers. Just off the top of my head I'm guessing the 50 MPH average speed uses maybe 4X the energy of the average 60 MPH speed.

In any event, the US06 cycle, which is what the Highway number is based on, will use more energy than a steady 70 MPH. A steady 70 MPH just doesn't use that much energy. I think I gave you the exact numbers some time ago. Should get the MME over 300 miles. And you can test this yourself. Just find a flat road. Take the MME to 75 MPH, put it in neutral, and time how long it takes to get to 65 MPH. Then calculate the energy used.
 

pt19713

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
510
Reaction score
485
Location
.
Vehicles
.
Country flag
All the Teslarians should do this, drive it pass the 0 mark and see how far they can get it... Especially since there is no guarantee how much you will get out of that "below zero"

I prefer when zero means zero!!!!
The remaining nominal pack can be seen with some 3rd party software. Mine fluctuates between 3.3-3.4 kWh.

20210326_155113.jpg
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
7,288
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
You're mistaken on two counts. First it most definitely uses higher speeds. I think the top speed is at or above 80 MPH.

Second is thinking that the average speed matters. It doesn't. If you cover a mile when going from 0 MPH to 100 MPH you will use far more energy than if you go a steady 60 MPH over the same distance. Yet in the former case the average speed is 50 MPH and in the latter 60 MPH.

Maybe it would help if you actually ran the numbers. Just off the top of my head I'm guessing the 50 MPH average speed uses maybe 4X the energy of the average 60 MPH speed.

In any event, the US06 cycle, which is what the Highway number is based on, will use more energy than a steady 70 MPH. A steady 70 MPH just doesn't use that much energy. I think I gave you the exact numbers some time ago. Should get the MME over 300 miles. And you can test this yourself. Just find a flat road. Take the MME to 75 MPH, put it in neutral, and time how long it takes to get to 65 MPH. Then calculate the energy used.
US06 is 80 MPH for only a tiny slice of the the overall cycle. The whole cycle averages 48.37 MPH. When someone is on a road trip going between chargers along a 75 MPH interstate route, they're not averaging 48 MPH. See how much of this graph is around 75 MPH? Almost none of it.

When you drive 200 miles and get your car up to 100 MPH for 1 minute out of 3 hours, do you count that as a 100 MPH road trip?? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. Just like it's ridiculous to count US06 as an 80 MPH cycle. It's a 48.37 MPH cycle. That spends only a tiny portion over 70 MPH (let alone 75 or 80).

emission-reference-guide-sftpus06.jpg


OF COURSE average matters. When you drive a 200 mile road trip leg, the time it takes you to get there is determined by the average speed you travel between the beginning and end. Range isn't about just what it takes you to get up the onramp at the start of it, it's about the WHOLE LEG. One minute ramping up to 75, 2+ hours at a steady 75 MPH, then slowing down to zero when getting off is not 48 MPH. It's 74+ MPH average.

That's the real word test that's needed: constant high speed (i.e. when people commonly do between legs on a road trip). Not this short stuff you keep describing. You're missing the whole point.
 
Last edited:

Regularmache

Well-Known Member
First Name
Stephen
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
487
Reaction score
754
Location
US
Vehicles
18 F150 Platinum, 18 Mustang GT PP2, 14 QX80
Occupation
Purchasing
Country flag
Seams 70° farenheit is EVs ideal temp. Would have been better if all were run at that temp. Only the Porsche was at that and I'm sure that the numbers would've been different if all cars had the same Sweet Spot runs.

Screenshot_20210326-193434.jpg
 

DBC

Well-Known Member
First Name
Don
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
1,224
Reaction score
1,419
Location
San Diego
Vehicles
Volt ELR
Country flag
That's the real word test that's needed: constant high speed (i.e. when people commonly do between legs on a road trip). Not this short stuff you keep describing. You're missing the whole point.
I don't know if the ratio of miles driven on high speed commutes versus miles spent at a constant speed is 10:1 or 20:1 or 50:1, but I do know it's not 1:1 and certainly not 1:10. Given this, If the EPA numbers are to capture "real world" range, then the EPA is right to use US06 and you're wrong in thinking it should use a constant 70 MPH.

Again, if you want to determine the range at a constant 70 MPH just do the test yourself. It's simple and easy, and should take less time than you spend complaining the EPA hasn't done it for you. :) Or just use the N number of real world tests others have done to calculate the kW needed at the wheels, assume a drive train efficiency, and calculate the range based on the size of the MME's battery.

Regardless of how you approach it, the MME will go further at a constant 70 MPH than the range given by the EPA's highway number. If you want to bet otherwise I'm happy to take your money.
 
Last edited:

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
606
Reaction score
1,200
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
If you like the current EPA test which favors city driving, FINE.

But some of us would appreciate another test from the EPA that favored highway driving over city. For the majority of BEV owners (I've read 80%+) city range doesn't matter for BEVs because you can charge at home/work.

We have the yin, we now need the yang. Not sure why this is so controversial.

Remember,

(1) I can't fill up my ICE at home or work
(2) ICE efficiency is so bad, minor test variations don't matter

The point is we need new EPA cycles specifically for BEVs. Can we agree on that point?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
6,596
Reaction score
7,288
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I don't know if the ratio of miles driven on high speed commutes versus miles spent at a constant speed is 10:1 or 20:1 or 50:1, but I do know it's not 1:1 and certainly not 1:10. Given this, If the EPA numbers are to capture "real world" range, then the EPA is right to use US06 and you're wrong in thinking it should use a constant 70 MPH.

Again, if you want to determine the range at a constant 70 MPH just do the test yourself. It's simple and easy, and should take less time than you spend complaining the EPA hasn't done it for you. :) Or just use the N number of real world tests others have done to calculate the kW needed at the wheels, assume a drive train efficiency, and calculate the range based on the size of the MME's battery.

Regardless of how you approach it, the MME will go further at a constant 70 MPH than the range given by the EPA's highway number. If you want to bet otherwise I'm happy to take your money.
So you expect each consumer to take a dozen new car models on a 200 mile road trip to test their real world road trip range? Sure, that's realistic. Why even have range ratings at all then if that's your solution? Might as well just abolish the EPA since you apparently want everyone to do their own testing on their own. Good luck with that.

You continue to miss the whole point. You referred to it as a "commute". No, a commute is something drivers typically do daily around home. Totally different thing, and where range is usually irrelevant because it's usually <100 miles, where you simply plug back in at home nightly. The point here is ROAD TRIPS, that are long enough to require DCFC charging between legs along the way. You may have a hard time understanding that, but most of us don't. Including Car and Driver...

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a33825136/evs-deserve-a-new-epa-range-test/
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top