EPA estimate rework for EVs proposed

[superdave80]

I have NEVER got within 40 miles of the EPA estimate.

Why would you expect to get EPA range at 75 MPH?

The problem with any EPA estimate is that at some point you have to decide what 'highway speed' is, and that can range from 55-75. If you pick 55, people are going to be mad when they are doing 75 and don't get that range. If you pick 75, a lot of people are going to see that terrible range and not buy an EV.

My solution is:

Highway (65MPH/72 deg) range: 250
'higher speeds will result in lower range. Lower speeds will result in higher range'
Highway (65MPH/32 deg) range: 200
'temperatures lower than this will result in lower range'

City range is pointless, because, that range will be higher and you will just charge in town anyways. This will be the simplest to put on a sticker and will bring some awareness to how speed/temperature will affect range.

Sponsored

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

in Florida, which seems to be an outlier.

Truer statement has never been made (from the other total outlier state) ?

 

[DevSecOps]

Why would you expect to get EPA range at 75 MPH?

I, and many others, would expect the EPA range for Freeways to be at the Freeway speed.

Freeways in California are mostly 65-70mph. Why then would the EPA speed be 48? That makes no sense. Moreover, I think the EPA Freeway speed should be what the fastest speed in the USA is, which is even more appropriate since it's a Federal EPA. Therefore, it should be 85 (Texas).

Why is it a problem in your mind to give us accurate numbers? Most people, I would assume, want to know the truth, not some unrealistic number based on driving 40!!! mph under the fastest limit.

a lot of people are going to see that terrible range and not buy an EV.

If people aren't going to buy an EV because of the truth, then EV mfgs need to do better.

 

[superdave80]

Triggered much?

About what? About people trying to make unfounded justifications for speeding? If you want to speed, go ahead and speed, I don't care. Stop acting like you are doing it to avoid being run over and killed.

Yeah I'm the idiot who will cut you off going 60 in a 70 and blow you a kiss while I'm at it, deal with it.

Or, just go 70 in the left lane? That's what it's there for. Again, speed all you want.

Shocked you can't figure out why some of us think it's a good idea to have highway EPA vs In Town.

The EPA does need to have a highway only range. What led you to believe I thought otherwise?

 

[AhardFSU]

I, and many others, would expect the EPA range for Freeways to be at the Freeway speed.

Freeways in California are mostly 65-70mph. Why then would the EPA speed be 45? That makes no sense. Moreover, I think the EPA Freeway speed should be what the fastest speed in the USA is, which is even more appropriate since it's a Federal EPA. Therefore, it should be 85 (Texas).

Why is it a problem in your mind to give us accurate numbers? Most people, I would assume, want to know the truth, not some unrealistic number based on driving 40!!! mph under the fastest limit.

85 mph maybe the highest in the country, but going with the median mph between 65 and 85 would seem to be the appropriate approach.

 

[DevSecOps]

85 mph maybe the highest in the country, but going with the median mph between 65 and 85 would seem to be the appropriate approach.

I can agree with that as a better option, but I still think it should be what people CAN legally travel at. I don't know why people think the current way of taking 55% city EPA + 45% freeway EPA (at 48mph) = A good EPA. People are bashing on C&D because they drive 75mph, which is more realistic than 45mph imo.

Multiple publications and studies have found that the current EPA numbers are unrealistic for EVs. No one is arguing that the MFGs can get away with it. The point is that we see hundreds of people on this forum every year complaining about the EPA numbers due to climate and freeway driving. I welcome a change to the EPA numbers to make them more in line with reality and I'm flabbergasted as to why some people would oppose that.

At least go on averages:

vs fastest:

 

[superdave80]

I, and many others, would expect the EPA range for Freeways to be at the Freeway speed.

This is where the confusion of the EPA rating begins; it is not a 'freeway range', it is an all-around driving range. That's why C&D then doing 75mph and saying they can't get that range is silly. Of course they won't get that range. Them calling for an EPA freeway range number is a valid point.

I think the EPA Freeway speed should be what the fastest speed in the USA is, which is even more appropriate since it's a Federal EPA. Therefore, it should be 85 (Texas).

I couldn't disagree more. We've never done MPG at 85mph, why would we do that for EVs? And if you want worst case scenarios, would you want to have the range shown at, say -10 degrees? Because there are plenty of places in the US that hit that regularly. good luck selling SUVs with a range number tested at 85mph in -10 degree weather.

Give me a reasonable, middle of the road number highway speed, and put a note about higher speed reducing range. We want good information, but we don't want to scare off 90% of customers from buying EVs.

 

[AhardFSU]

I can agree with that as a better option, but I still think it should be what people CAN legally travel at. I don't know why people think the current way of taking 55% city EPA + 45% freeway EPA (at 45mph) = A good EPA. People are bashing on C&D because they drive 75mph, which is more realistic than 45mph imo.

Multiple publications and studies have found that the current EPA numbers are unrealistic for EVs. No one is arguing that the MFGs can get away with it. The point is that we see hundreds of people on this forum every year complaining about the EPA numbers due to climate and freeway driving. I welcome a change to the EPA numbers to make them more in line with reality and I'm flabbergasted as to why some people would oppose that.

At least go on averages:

vs fastest:

I agree. I think that it is fine if the EPA has the combined number but they should also include the highway number as you've mentioned.

I'd also like to see all of the major review publications do 70 or 75 mph range tests. Motor Trend and Edmunds only does a combined highway/city range test, which is useless bc the EPA provides the same number and I don't think that it gives potential owners the range estimate that they really care about.

In my opinion Motor Trend, Insideevs and Out of Spec do range tests that are actually useful to someone researching which EV to get.

 

[DevSecOps]

This is where the confusion of the EPA rating begins; it is not a 'freeway range',

That's the entire point of this post. ICE vehicles have a city and freeway EPA. EV's should as well. The combined EPA is stupid and pointless for EVs. We aren't basing range on cost, we're basing it on if we can get to another charger, hence why it needs to be accurate.

Give me a reasonable, middle of the road number highway speed, and put a note about higher speed reducing range. We want good information, but we don't want to scare off 90% of customers from buying EVs.

I'm fine with that, average speed limit in the entire continental USA is 68.78mph. Your argument that they won't be able to sell EVs if they told us the truth is strange. Just like tax credits, we shouldn't incentivize people to buy EVs based on money or lies. EV's should be able to stand up on their own and if they aren't then mfgs need to do better.

And yes, I think EVs should come with a temperature chart for range. I believe in empowering and educating the buyer with facts, not deceiving them.

 

[superdave80]

Your argument that they won't be able to sell EVs if they told us the truth is strange.

Even stranger is that I never said such a thing. I never said to not tell the truth. I just said that if you put a worst case scenario on a product (85mph in -10deg weather), you will sell less of it. An average number is a better balance between informing the consumer and not scaring them away. And, strangely, you agree with me:

I'm fine with that, average speed limit in the entire contenental USA is 68.78mph.

So... is that a lie? For California, that's nearly dead-on acurate. In Texas, people are going to be complaining about their range.

 

[superdave80]

Even the current EPA "highway" test is at an average speed of 48mph, not realistic at all.

They add a .7 multiplier to the final range, so that speed will 'look' closer to 60+ mph.

 

[DevSecOps]

Even stranger is that I never said such a thing. I never said to not tell the truth. I just said that if you put a worst case scenario on a product (85mph in -10deg weather), you will sell less of it.

You said:

If you pick 75, a lot of people are going to see that terrible range and not buy an EV.

That's a whole lot different that 85mph in -10. 75mph is the limit for nearly 1/2 of the USA and quite reasonable.

I also said that I think it should be at the highest speed that one is legally able to travel at, but as a compromise I would take 68 over the current blended highway/city. All of my driving is highway. I live in a rural area, 20 minutes from a grocery store and I traveled 20 hours alone last week for work. I am the perfect example of someone who needs to have accurate range for long distance traveling. All I want is a true number. Give me a chart with climate and I'm even happier. Giving me unrealistic numbers and removing range based on history and climate (which Ford did) is a bunch of BS. My MME is now completely unreliable when it comes to range. It says I get 250 in the winter, when I'm lucky to get 180. Planning routes with 70 miles of inaccuracy is not acceptable.

 

[Blue highway]

That's a major problem, I agree.
There should only be one method.
Even so, manufacturers have always found ways to make the tests come out in their favor...

I don't think the current method is all that bad, but sure, raise the average speed for the highway test, though not all the way to 75 mph. Unless I'm speeding on the highway, my average speed for highway driving is closer to 60 mph than 75 mph. Instead, do a real test of leaving home, getting to the highway, getting off the highway and to a charger, etc.

60? wow. no wonder you get good range. I'll vote for 75+ as a standard for measurement.

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

Can we please just talk about @Jimrpa’s frunk?

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

60? wow. no wonder you get good range. I'll vote for 75+ as a standard for measurement.

My point is that driving a couple of hours on the freeway from one destination to another includes a pile of miles at less than 25 mph; it includes slowdown on the freeway from traffic; it includes stop lights and turns and more than a few minutes at 0 mph. This all brings the average speed down rather quickly.

Example: Driving from the EA charging station in Needles, CA to the EA charging station in Barstow, CA is 142 miles. Assuming a 75 mph average would put you at the Barstow charger in about 114 minutes.

However, leaving the charging station in Needles means crossing the relatively busy J Street and waiting on confused truckers who took the wrong exit to figure out what they're doing. This might mean an extra five minutes, maybe even ten if it's really busy. That's 5 minutes at 0 mph.

The speed limit from the AZ/CA border to Barstow is 70 mph. I typically stay around 73 mph on this stretch, but there are several sections where slow trucks are going uphill and they leave the slow lanes to pass other slow trucks. There are numerous speed traps along this route, so I don't go above 73 mph, and sometimes I have to slow down below that to deal with the slow truck traffic.

There's often traffic from Goff merging onto the freeway, which slows everyone down a bit. Similarly, there's traffic at Ludlow, again for a short period, but it slows us all down just a bit.

Then we get to Barstow. There's a left turn with a traffic light right off the freeway, that often takes up to about five minutes (at 0 mph) to make the turn. There's another traffic light just beyond the overpass. These two traffic lights are not always in sync, so it can be another five minutes of 0 mph here. There's a third light, this one again a left turn crossing traffic, though it seems to be faster, maybe 2 minutes at 0 mph. Then there's the navigating the parking lot, at about 10 mph for a minute or two.

When all is said and done, there can be an extra 15 minutes or so of not actually moving, moving very slowly, or moving below the 75 mph average we wish we had. If it takes 130 minutes to go between the Needles and Barstow EA charging stations, that's a 65 mph average speed, and it's only 16 minutes more than the 75 mph average would have suggested.

In my usual road trips, for some places (Kingman, Goff, Gallup, and ABQ, for example), the charging stations are even farther from the highway and the time driving at low speeds is an even larger percentage of the overall driving time.

My point is that it doesn't take much time at low speeds to dramatically reduce the average speed.

Sponsored