Range Differences Between Model Years?

[Jimrpa]

Has Ford publicly stated that there are range differences between the same trim line and stated battery capacity across model years? For example, when MY 22 came out, there was a stated battery capacity increase and corresponding range increase. The battery capacity increase wasn’t driven by any physical changes in the battery - just in the amount of capacity they “locked in the buffer”, and Ford subsequently released an update to MY 22 to make their available battery capacity equivalent to MY 22. Have they said something like: “Due to the use of lighter weight seats, we’ve reduced the weight of the vehicle and increased range by 50 miles.” Something like that?

Sponsored

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

No.
The weight differences between trims is pretty much irrelevant.

A savings of 220 pounds (100 kg) means a kinetic energy difference of 0.011 kWh if driving at 100 km/hr (~63 mph).
KE=1/2 m * v^2

Over the very long term, this might add up, but on a day-to-day efficiency gain, it's not an important factor.

Speed and aerodynamic drag is what matters.

 

[Jimrpa]

No.
The weight differences between trims is pretty much irrelevant.

A savings of 220 pounds (100 kg) means a kinetic energy difference of 0.011 kWh if driving at 100 km/hr (~63 mph).
KE=1/2 m * v^2

Over the very long term, this might add up, but on a day-to-day efficiency gain, it's not an important factor.

Speed and aerodynamic drag is what matters.

Thanks! That was my intuitive thinking. In another post, a poster asserted that MY23 had a range increase due to the reduction in the number of wiring harnesses.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Thanks! That was my intuitive thinking. In another post, a poster asserted that MY23 had a range increase due to the reduction in the number of wiring harnesses.

Not unless they were using a really terrible conductor and just wasting tons and tons of energy through heat!

 

[ChasingCoral]

Current ER MMEs have a battery with 91kWh useable. MY 2021 has about 3kWh less useable battery. I forget when that was implemented.

However, Tom Moloughney reported on this week’s Inside EVs Podcast that this battery change resulted in no apparent increase in range during his 70mph test.

 

[Teleks]

No.
The weight differences between trims is pretty much irrelevant.

A savings of 220 pounds (100 kg) means a kinetic energy difference of 0.011 kWh if driving at 100 km/hr (~63 mph).
KE=1/2 m * v^2

Over the very long term, this might add up, but on a day-to-day efficiency gain, it's not an important factor.

Speed and aerodynamic drag is what matters.

I have to say I never fully understand how it works, but I'm pretty sure you can't use that formula here. According to KE=1/2 m * v^2 it would take 4 times as much energy to accelerate from 0 to 100 as it takes from 0 to 50, but that's not true. It takes twice as much energy. When you're using energy from the battery, you're not just accelerating the car, you're also accelerating the earth (yes, planet earth), that's why it's not as straightforward with the kinetic energy as it seems...

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I have to say I never fully understand how it works, but I'm pretty sure you can't use that formula here. According to KE=1/2 m * v^2 it would take 4 times as much energy to accelerate from 0 to 100 as it takes from 0 to 50, but that's not true. It takes twice as much energy. When you're using energy from the battery, you're not just accelerating the car, you're also accelerating the earth (yes, planet earth), that's why it's not as straightforward with the kinetic energy as it seems...

To give a vehicle any speed, one must input energy. The measure of how much energy is required to give the vehicle speed is the kinetic energy and that's given by the above equation. And, yes, it's about 4x as much energy required to get the vehicle up to 100 mph vs 50 mph. It's actually more because of air resistance and other factors.

There's also a bunch of additional energy required to move a vehicle from one point to another, but most of it doesn't care about the mass of the vehicle (acceleration does care, but that's also linear with mass).

The friction between the vehicle's wheels and the Earth's surface is what allows the motors to give the vehicle speed.

And, yes, there's some tiny amount of movement of the Earth in reaction due to the motors using friction to move the vehicle, but you're mixing momentum into this and it's important, but it doesn't change the fact that the battery must supply the energy to give the vehicle its kinetic energy.

Spoiler: Further mathematics detail

The fully-relevant equation for the energy expended (including the momentum transfer) just to bring the vehicle up to speed is given by:
KE(car) = -u*p + p^2/2m
KE(Earth) = u*p + p^2/2M
KE(total) = p^2/2m + p^2/2M

p is momentum of the car
u is car speed relative to center of mass of the Earth-vehicle system (the center of Earth)
m = mass of the car
M = mass of the Earth

The second term in the KE(total) is the amount of kinetic energy that needs to cross the road-car boundary. That amount is negligible because the mass of Earth is so large. So, the total kinetic energy is, essentially:

KE = p^2/2m

Momentum units are:
p = kg * meters per second
p^2 = kg^2 meters^2/second^2


Therefore:
kg^2 m^2/s^2
KE = --------------
2 * kg

Doing unit analysis:
KE = 1/2 kg m^2/s^2

Thus,
KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

To give a vehicle any speed, one must input energy. The measure of how much energy is required to give the vehicle speed is the kinetic energy and that's given by the above equation. And, yes, it's about 4x as much energy required to get the vehicle up to 100 mph vs 50 mph. It's actually more because of air resistance and other factors.

All true, unless you push the vehicle off a cliff ??

Spoiler

Yes, I know about the energy used to get the vehicle to the top of the cliff in the first place, resulting in potential energy of the vehicle while sitting at the top of the cliff.

 

[Jimrpa]

Current ER MMEs have a battery with 91kWh useable. MY 2021 has about 3kWh less useable battery. I forget when that was implemented.

However, Tom Moloughney reported on this week’s Inside EVs Podcast that this battery change resulted in no apparent increase in range during his 70mph test.

I hate to dispute you, but I’m almost positive there has been no change in the total ER battery capacity since the vehicle was introduced. It was initially advertised as having a 99 kWh battery with 88 kWh usable. The remaining 11 kWh was a “buffer” put into place to allow Ford to ensure the available battery capacity wouldn’t stop below 88 kWh during the battery warranty period. As I recall, for the 22, all they did was reduce the size of the buffer from 11 kWh to 8 kWh. Subsequently, one of the OTAs (or possibly an update at the dealer?) implemented the smaller buffer for all MY21s. That’s my recollection anyway. I’m not sure how authoritative this is, but it supports my recollection of battery specs and doesn’t show a change from MY21 to MY23

 

[Jimrpa]

All true, unless you push the vehicle off a cliff ??

Spoiler

Yes, I know about the energy used to get the vehicle to the top of the cliff in the first place, resulting in potential energy of the vehicle while sitting at the top of the cliff.

Aren’t there also other system losses, such as friction, that have to be taken into account when pushing the vehicle off the cliff? ?

 

[Jimrpa]

To give a vehicle any speed, one must input energy. The measure of how much energy is required to give the vehicle speed is the kinetic energy and that's given by the above equation. And, yes, it's about 4x as much energy required to get the vehicle up to 100 mph vs 50 mph. It's actually more because of air resistance and other factors.

There's also a bunch of additional energy required to move a vehicle from one point to another, but most of it doesn't care about the mass of the vehicle (acceleration does care, but that's also linear with mass).

The friction between the vehicle's wheels and the Earth's surface is what allows the motors to give the vehicle speed.

And, yes, there's some tiny amount of movement of the Earth in reaction due to the motors using friction to move the vehicle, but you're mixing momentum into this and it's important, but it doesn't change the fact that the battery must supply the energy to give the vehicle its kinetic energy.

Spoiler: Further mathematics detail

The fully-relevant equation for the energy expended (including the momentum transfer) just to bring the vehicle up to speed is given by:
KE(car) = -u*p + p^2/2m
KE(Earth) = u*p + p^2/2M
KE(total) = p^2/2m + p^2/2M

p is momentum of the car
u is car speed relative to center of mass of the Earth-vehicle system (the center of Earth)
m = mass of the car
M = mass of the Earth

The second term in the KE(total) is the amount of kinetic energy that needs to cross the road-car boundary. That amount is negligible because the mass of Earth is so large. So, the total kinetic energy is, essentially:

KE = p^2/2m

Momentum units are:
p = kg * meters per second
p^2 = kg^2 meters^2/second^2


Therefore:
kg^2 m^2/s^2
KE = --------------
2 * kg

Doing unit analysis:
KE = 1/2 kg m^2/s^2

Thus,
KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

Someone clearly has way too much time on their hands ?

 

[ChasingCoral]

I hate to dispute you, but I’m almost positive there has been no change in the total ER battery capacity since the vehicle was introduced. It was initially advertised as having a 99 kWh battery with 88 kWh usable. The remaining 11 kWh was a “buffer” put into place to allow Ford to ensure the available battery capacity wouldn’t stop below 88 kWh during the battery warranty period. As I recall, for the 22, all they did was reduce the size of the buffer from 11 kWh to 8 kWh. Subsequently, one of the OTAs (or possibly an update at the dealer?) implemented the smaller buffer for all MY21s. That’s my recollection anyway. I’m not sure how authoritative this is, but it supports my recollection of battery specs and doesn’t show a change from MY21 to MY23

Why do you think you are disputing me? I listed usable capacity that agrees with what you wrote.

 

[sgriffin130]

To give a vehicle any speed, one must input energy. The measure of how much energy is required to give the vehicle speed is the kinetic energy and that's given by the above equation. And, yes, it's about 4x as much energy required to get the vehicle up to 100 mph vs 50 mph. It's actually more because of air resistance and other factors.

There's also a bunch of additional energy required to move a vehicle from one point to another, but most of it doesn't care about the mass of the vehicle (acceleration does care, but that's also linear with mass).

The friction between the vehicle's wheels and the Earth's surface is what allows the motors to give the vehicle speed.

And, yes, there's some tiny amount of movement of the Earth in reaction due to the motors using friction to move the vehicle, but you're mixing momentum into this and it's important, but it doesn't change the fact that the battery must supply the energy to give the vehicle its kinetic energy.

Spoiler: Further mathematics detail

The fully-relevant equation for the energy expended (including the momentum transfer) just to bring the vehicle up to speed is given by:
KE(car) = -u*p + p^2/2m
KE(Earth) = u*p + p^2/2M
KE(total) = p^2/2m + p^2/2M

p is momentum of the car
u is car speed relative to center of mass of the Earth-vehicle system (the center of Earth)
m = mass of the car
M = mass of the Earth

The second term in the KE(total) is the amount of kinetic energy that needs to cross the road-car boundary. That amount is negligible because the mass of Earth is so large. So, the total kinetic energy is, essentially:

KE = p^2/2m

Momentum units are:
p = kg * meters per second
p^2 = kg^2 meters^2/second^2


Therefore:
kg^2 m^2/s^2
KE = --------------
2 * kg

Doing unit analysis:
KE = 1/2 kg m^2/s^2

Thus,
KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

So, if everyone in the world accelerated to the east at the same time, we could make the days shorter?

 

[Jimrpa]

Why do you think you are disputing me? I listed usable capacity that agrees with what you wrote.

Sorry then, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the total physical capacity of the battery pack had changed between model years.

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

Why do you think you are disputing me? I listed usable capacity that agrees with what you wrote.

Now that Jim finally has his frunk button (everywhere except on FP), he’s getting cocky. ??

Sponsored