Official range figures useless - just give us motorway range
Discussion
Big thanks to those who have posted links to motorway range tests.
My problem is not so much that official range numbers are useless and fooling people, it's that, even knowing that, it's hard to find useful info. You end up finding different owners reporting more or less scientific observations that may or may not be realistic or comparable to those posted by other people.
And that makes sense, as you're trying to infer efficiency at 70mph from testing done mostly at under 30mph. The proportions of energy spent on aero drag, rolling resistance, acceleration and HVAC will vary significantly between the two scenarios, and so you'd expect not only quite a big difference, but also that different cars may achieve quite different proportions of their official range figures, depending on how efficient they are in different ways.
Say a car had an 'official range' of 200 miles based on my method.
If I got 170 in winter and 230 in summer, that would be understandable.
If I got 170 at 80mph and 230 at 60mph, that would be understandable.
If I got 170 with a headwind and 230 with a tailwind, that would be understandable.
But if it has an official WLTP range of 200 miles, and then I discover that's at an average of 29mph and there is no way I can get anywhere near that on a long journey without travelling so slowly that lorries are forced to pull out to pass me, then it's just a completely unhelpful and misleading number.
Yes there are people for whom WLTP range is useful. Taxi drivers for one. I'm saying that the vast majority of buyers when they ask about range, they mean in the context of a long journey, and so official range should be aimed at answering that question, not one derived from legacy ICE fuel consumption methodology that's almost completely unfit for purpose.
C.A.R. said:
Is it though?
I would argue that anyone making a £30k+ investment who didn't do their homework first has nobody to blame but themselves. It doesn't mean poor salesmanship doesn't exist, but most manufacturers that I've spoken with have no problem quoting a 'real world' total range (MG, Polestar).
There are Daily Mail-grade instances of hard-of-thinking EV owners who didn't do their homework, but this makes for a good click-bait-y story rather than any form of reality of a problem "en-masse".
Is this yet another non-issue being cooked-up?
I'm "doing my homework" before buying an EV as you recommend, and as I google for "<EV> motorway range" I'm finding quite a few forum posts from disappointed owners. Hence yes, it is a thing.I would argue that anyone making a £30k+ investment who didn't do their homework first has nobody to blame but themselves. It doesn't mean poor salesmanship doesn't exist, but most manufacturers that I've spoken with have no problem quoting a 'real world' total range (MG, Polestar).
There are Daily Mail-grade instances of hard-of-thinking EV owners who didn't do their homework, but this makes for a good click-bait-y story rather than any form of reality of a problem "en-masse".
Is this yet another non-issue being cooked-up?
My problem is not so much that official range numbers are useless and fooling people, it's that, even knowing that, it's hard to find useful info. You end up finding different owners reporting more or less scientific observations that may or may not be realistic or comparable to those posted by other people.
C.A.R. said:
TL;DR - real-world range is almost always around 80% of the quoted WLTP range. There. If you have access to a calculator and a couple of functioning brain cells, have at it.
Whataguy said:
As a very very rough ballpark figure I take half the 'official range' figure as real world.
It seems like it's not so clear-cut how to guess real world long distance range from the quoted official figures. And that makes sense, as you're trying to infer efficiency at 70mph from testing done mostly at under 30mph. The proportions of energy spent on aero drag, rolling resistance, acceleration and HVAC will vary significantly between the two scenarios, and so you'd expect not only quite a big difference, but also that different cars may achieve quite different proportions of their official range figures, depending on how efficient they are in different ways.
SWoll said:
So many factors that can dramatically affect efficiency and thus absolute range.
Raining? How heavy?
Headwind? How strong?
Cold? Have you preconditioned?
Speed? Do you stick to 70mph or like to cruise at 85?
The only way to build an accurate picture for your usage is to read as much real world data as possible and go from there. Of course manufacturer numbers paint a pretty picture, has ever been thus.
Yes, there are many factors. But a 70mph range number would be at least right on average, and individual drivers would get more or less than that based on the individual factors you give.Raining? How heavy?
Headwind? How strong?
Cold? Have you preconditioned?
Speed? Do you stick to 70mph or like to cruise at 85?
The only way to build an accurate picture for your usage is to read as much real world data as possible and go from there. Of course manufacturer numbers paint a pretty picture, has ever been thus.
Say a car had an 'official range' of 200 miles based on my method.
If I got 170 in winter and 230 in summer, that would be understandable.
If I got 170 at 80mph and 230 at 60mph, that would be understandable.
If I got 170 with a headwind and 230 with a tailwind, that would be understandable.
But if it has an official WLTP range of 200 miles, and then I discover that's at an average of 29mph and there is no way I can get anywhere near that on a long journey without travelling so slowly that lorries are forced to pull out to pass me, then it's just a completely unhelpful and misleading number.
Yes there are people for whom WLTP range is useful. Taxi drivers for one. I'm saying that the vast majority of buyers when they ask about range, they mean in the context of a long journey, and so official range should be aimed at answering that question, not one derived from legacy ICE fuel consumption methodology that's almost completely unfit for purpose.
kambites said:
samoht said:
The thing is, no-one cares about an EV's urban range.
I don't care about urban range, but as and when I buy an EV I very much will care about urban economy. Far more so than about motorway range, in fact. 
And when it comes cost per mile taking a wider view, a household with one EV and one IC car can save a lot if more journeys are done in the EV.
If having a good range tips more weekend outings into EV territory, you might get better value from it.
OutInTheShed said:
If having a good range tips more weekend outings into EV territory, you might get better value from it.
If your idea of a fun weekend outing involves a three hour drive each way, I suppose so, but I can't remember the last time we drove more than about 100 miles away from home. I've never owned a car where the majority of (or even the single largest) cost over my ownership period has been depreciation and don't intend to start now!
Edited by kambites on Monday 24th July 19:38
kambites said:
OutInTheShed said:
If having a good range tips more weekend outings into EV territory, you might get better value from it.
If your idea of a fun weekend outing involves a three hour drive each way, I suppose so, but I can't remember the last time we drove more than about 100 miles away from home. I've never owned a car where the majority of (or even the single largest) cost over my ownership period has been depreciation and don't intend to start now!
Edited by kambites on Monday 24th July 19:38
I view 'depreciation' as including the annual cost of nailing a shed back together. Other definitions are fine by me.
Even doing 10k miles a year in a shed, it's a good year when depreciation and decay don't exceed the fuel costs.
For balance, I've had bikes where depreciation has been negative, and I'm sure some aspirational cars can do that too.
But this is an EV thread and EVs cost money when new and become junk in a number of years, that number being debatable in the 10 to 15 arena.
So a cheap EV costing £30k new is going to cost someone a good bit in depreciation.
It seems to me that EV depreciation is more time-based than mile-based, so the more miles you do, the less the cost per mile.
You could almost consider the depreciation as fixed per year, and do as many miles as you like.
So long as it's not leased of course!
Of course, if you've got a nice IC vehicle like a Ducati that you enjoy using, then the 'value' you get out of using it makes any thought of 'saving' by using an EV instead irrelevant.
I don't disrespect your way of thinking, it's in line with my Ducati-owning side, but I have a flip side of wanting to go places and liking it when it doesn't cost too much!
OutInTheShed said:
It must be awful to never drive to nice places like Wales, Cornwall, Shropshire Hills, visit friends and family further afield etc.
Odd that different people have different priorities and likes isn't it? I can't imagine many things more hateful than spending 2+ hours sitting on a motorway without taking a break personally. I generally avoid motorways entirely where I can. I'm not trying to say that the ability to do long road trips shouldn't be important to anyone, just that you need to avoid making the mistake of believing that it's important to everyone, because it simply. isn't. Urban efficiency is important too.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 25th July 07:49
OutInTheShed said:
But this is an EV thread and EVs cost money when new and become junk in a number of years, that number being debatable in the 10 to 15 arena.
So a cheap EV costing £30k new is going to cost someone a good bit in depreciation.
Tell me, how many EVs have been around for 10-15 years for you to be able to determine that that’s their lifespan before they become ‘junk’?So a cheap EV costing £30k new is going to cost someone a good bit in depreciation.
And any new car costs someone a good bit in depreciation.
CheesecakeRunner said:
OutInTheShed said:
But this is an EV thread and EVs cost money when new and become junk in a number of years, that number being debatable in the 10 to 15 arena.
So a cheap EV costing £30k new is going to cost someone a good bit in depreciation.
Tell me, how many EVs have been around for 10-15 years for you to be able to determine that that’s their lifespan before they become ‘junk’?So a cheap EV costing £30k new is going to cost someone a good bit in depreciation.
And any new car costs someone a good bit in depreciation.
Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
Nomme de Plum said:
There was a rule of thumb for ICEs before the more recent distortion in the market due to undersupply that as soon as a new car leaves the showroom it depreciates 25% should you return it the next day. 3 years later with average mileage depreciation runs at 50-60%.
Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
Seems to be all that the majority of potential owners care about IME, even if they never/rarely do long trips. MY FIL (70) is a perfect example, he does a 200+ mile trip perhaps 3 time per year but won't even consider an EV despite 99.9% of his usage being <50 miles as "they don't go far enough on a charge at motorway speeds and it's expensive to charge away from home". He also has cheap charging at his destination.Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
And on those longer trips he also always stops for half an hour after 2-2.5 hours for a toilet break and a spot of lunch. There's no convincing him though, despite the fact he' seen us charge on a similar trip without issues.
samoht said:
Range is one of the biggest issues with EVs, and one relatively commonly encountered thing on forums is new EV owners being underwhelmed/disappointed/alarmed by their new car's lack of range, compared to the official range the salesman quoted them.
There have obviously been much-needed efforts to make the test cycle more realistic, which is good. But there is a more fundamental problem, which is that 'official range' is asking the wrong question.
Official range is tested over a combination of driving types. The 'more realistic' WLTP cycle is 52% urban, the rest extra-urban, with an average speed of less than 30mph.
The thing is, no-one cares about an EV's urban range. Nobody is going to drive 180 miles in town at an average speed of 20mph in one go, as it would take nine hours. It's a completely irrelevant number.
EV range is only relevant on longer trips (over 100 miles), and the vast majority of such longer trips are undertaken largely on motorways or dual carriageway. Lots of people are going to drive 180 miles on a motorway in a three-hour trip - and that's when you either do or don't need to stop to charge, depending on your EV.
So the only range that matters is motorway range.
Take your new EV to Millbrook, charge it fully, head out onto the high speed bowl, find the lane with a 70mph hands-off speed, set the cabin temp to 22 degrees, set the cruise to 70mph and count off the miles until the car comes to a halt. Voila, this is the range. (Ok, do it twice in summer and winter).
That would generate a simple pair of range numbers which would tell most owners how far they can travel between charges on long trips. Yes you could get more or less range by driving faster or slower and with any number of other variables, but most people on most trips could get pretty much this range by setting the cruise to 70.
Fundamentally the reason we have the WLTP 'cycle' for EVs is that it's a carry-over from legacy ICE vehicles, where what owners care about is MPG and thus cost per mile, hence you want a test that represents a 'typical' balance of use. But this is the wrong question when someone asks about EV range.
The upshot would be that people could more easily make realistic choices about which EV is best for them, would come to EV ownership with more realistic expectations, and the value of those EVs which have relatively better motorway efficiency would be more evident.
Note: I'm not saying this to bash EVs, nor am I arguing about how much range is or is not important 'if you can charge easily anyway'. My point is, if someone asks the question about range, 99% of the time what they care about is motorway range, and they are being misled by the misuse of a carry-over test method from combustion-powered cars. I'm looking to buy an EV, and I'm finding it pretty hard to find solid numbers for range at 70mph, which is what I care about when it comes to range.
To a point I agree. For me it's frustrating having to dig around manufacturers' websites or look on Wikipedia for the usable battery capacity so I can multiply it by 3 and get a rough idea of realistic range. Most small/medium EVs tend to do somewhere around the 3 miles/kWh mark on a long-distance run so this is the easier measure of approximate range than anything else.There have obviously been much-needed efforts to make the test cycle more realistic, which is good. But there is a more fundamental problem, which is that 'official range' is asking the wrong question.
Official range is tested over a combination of driving types. The 'more realistic' WLTP cycle is 52% urban, the rest extra-urban, with an average speed of less than 30mph.
The thing is, no-one cares about an EV's urban range. Nobody is going to drive 180 miles in town at an average speed of 20mph in one go, as it would take nine hours. It's a completely irrelevant number.
EV range is only relevant on longer trips (over 100 miles), and the vast majority of such longer trips are undertaken largely on motorways or dual carriageway. Lots of people are going to drive 180 miles on a motorway in a three-hour trip - and that's when you either do or don't need to stop to charge, depending on your EV.
So the only range that matters is motorway range.
Take your new EV to Millbrook, charge it fully, head out onto the high speed bowl, find the lane with a 70mph hands-off speed, set the cabin temp to 22 degrees, set the cruise to 70mph and count off the miles until the car comes to a halt. Voila, this is the range. (Ok, do it twice in summer and winter).
That would generate a simple pair of range numbers which would tell most owners how far they can travel between charges on long trips. Yes you could get more or less range by driving faster or slower and with any number of other variables, but most people on most trips could get pretty much this range by setting the cruise to 70.
Fundamentally the reason we have the WLTP 'cycle' for EVs is that it's a carry-over from legacy ICE vehicles, where what owners care about is MPG and thus cost per mile, hence you want a test that represents a 'typical' balance of use. But this is the wrong question when someone asks about EV range.
The upshot would be that people could more easily make realistic choices about which EV is best for them, would come to EV ownership with more realistic expectations, and the value of those EVs which have relatively better motorway efficiency would be more evident.
Note: I'm not saying this to bash EVs, nor am I arguing about how much range is or is not important 'if you can charge easily anyway'. My point is, if someone asks the question about range, 99% of the time what they care about is motorway range, and they are being misled by the misuse of a carry-over test method from combustion-powered cars. I'm looking to buy an EV, and I'm finding it pretty hard to find solid numbers for range at 70mph, which is what I care about when it comes to range.
Our Mokka is currently showing 3.7 mi/kWh over the last 5,000 miles in warmer weather, we know it's lower in winter, but the 45kWh usable batter gets a comfortable 135 miles on a motorway trip in "medium" weather.
Nomme de Plum said:
There was a rule of thumb for ICEs before the more recent distortion in the market due to undersupply that as soon as a new car leaves the showroom it depreciates 25% should you return it the next day. 3 years later with average mileage depreciation runs at 50-60%.
Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
I suppose those who regularly do long motorway distances consider it - sales reps being an obvious example. But most people? No.Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
I've never looked in detail at the range or efficiency on different road types of any EV I have considered buying - because, for me at least, there are far more important factors. That may sound a little flippant but realistically all EV's with a certain size battery are going to get 200 miles+ range in general driving and the efficiency/running costs are so low it doesn't matter if I end up with one that's technically one of the least efficient for my journeys.
The efficiency spectrum across ICE cars is far broader - you can have 15mpg to over 100mpg these days! But I'm on PH so naturally I always tended towards cars that were fun and therefore nowhere as efficient as a more sensible choice. Funnily enough when I used to post about those cars questions of efficiency were never raised!! Yet when I post about EV's, even if specifically to talk about fun/performance/handling, before very long someone comes along and posts a graph and starts talking about watts per mile
OutInTheShed said:
It must be awful to never drive to nice places like Wales, Cornwall, Shropshire Hills, visit friends and family further afield etc…...
We’ve had an EV as our main family car since 2015, I’m not sure why people are suggesting EVs are only good for local trips. We literally just gone over Stelvio and Furka passes with fully loaded car (6 people + luggage). Last week we were in Como and last year we were in Norway at the Atlantic road. 
OutInTheShed said:
I don't disrespect your way of thinking, it's in line with my Ducati-owning side, but I have a flip side of wanting to go places and liking it when it doesn't cost too much!
I don’t think you can compare Ducati ownership costs with ownership costs of mass produced family cars designed to take the abuse/usage families have. Our EV is now 6.5 years old, done 70K, and due to previous incentives for European roads trips have essentially access to ‘free’ fuel, along with not eating brakes on Apline descents thanks to regen. Of course if you really want the cheapest, most depreciation proof, and some would argue most ‘fun’ way to travel, some would argue there are even better options than a motorbike
.
gangzoom said:
OutInTheShed said:
It must be awful to never drive to nice places like Wales, Cornwall, Shropshire Hills, visit friends and family further afield etc…...
We’ve had an EV as our main family car since 2015, I’m not sure why people are suggesting EVs are only good for local trips. We literally just gone over ........Nomme de Plum said:
There was a rule of thumb for ICEs before the more recent distortion in the market due to undersupply that as soon as a new car leaves the showroom it depreciates 25% should you return it the next day. 3 years later with average mileage depreciation runs at 50-60%.
Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
Yes of course, it’s only situation where range matters. Back on thread topic. Does anyone buy a car based on consumption/ range it does on a motorway? This is not a typical user profile and contradicts available data on typical car usage.
What I do is run simulations on ABRP which take into account both charging and mostly motorway range. I pick common longer journeys to see if they are feasible. Or at least I used to when public charging was much cheaper. Now I just use ICE for that stuff.
romeogolf said:
To a point I agree. For me it's frustrating having to dig around manufacturers' websites or look on Wikipedia for the usable battery capacity so I can multiply it by 3 and get a rough idea of realistic range. Most small/medium EVs tend to do somewhere around the 3 miles/kWh mark on a long-distance run so this is the easier measure of approximate range than anything else.
Our Mokka is currently showing 3.7 mi/kWh over the last 5,000 miles in warmer weather, we know it's lower in winter, but the 45kWh usable batter gets a comfortable 135 miles on a motorway trip in "medium" weather.
3 miles/kWh in small/medium cars on a run seems pretty pessimistic to me, even for winter use. Our horribly inefficient etron 55 is doing 3miles/kWh on a run at the minute as below. Most small/mid sized EV's will manage around 4 IME a per the i3 and Model 3 we had previously. Our Mokka is currently showing 3.7 mi/kWh over the last 5,000 miles in warmer weather, we know it's lower in winter, but the 45kWh usable batter gets a comfortable 135 miles on a motorway trip in "medium" weather.
Your Mokka sounds quite poor so perhaps a Vauxhall thing?
OutInTheShed said:
gangzoom said:
OutInTheShed said:
It must be awful to never drive to nice places like Wales, Cornwall, Shropshire Hills, visit friends and family further afield etc…...
We’ve had an EV as our main family car since 2015, I’m not sure why people are suggesting EVs are only good for local trips. We literally just gone over ........
Get real please. The UK is tiny! It doesn't take much range to get around the place... I've been all over Cornwall and Wales for fun and work and never felt limited by my none Tesla EV.
SWoll said:
romeogolf said:
To a point I agree. For me it's frustrating having to dig around manufacturers' websites or look on Wikipedia for the usable battery capacity so I can multiply it by 3 and get a rough idea of realistic range. Most small/medium EVs tend to do somewhere around the 3 miles/kWh mark on a long-distance run so this is the easier measure of approximate range than anything else.
Our Mokka is currently showing 3.7 mi/kWh over the last 5,000 miles in warmer weather, we know it's lower in winter, but the 45kWh usable batter gets a comfortable 135 miles on a motorway trip in "medium" weather.
3 miles/kWh in small/medium cars on a run seems pretty pessimistic to me, even for winter use. Our horribly inefficient etron 55 is doing 3miles/kWh on a run at the minute as below. Most small/mid sized EV's will manage around 4 IME a per the i3 and Model 3 we had previously. Our Mokka is currently showing 3.7 mi/kWh over the last 5,000 miles in warmer weather, we know it's lower in winter, but the 45kWh usable batter gets a comfortable 135 miles on a motorway trip in "medium" weather.
Your Mokka sounds quite poor so perhaps a Vauxhall thing?
We did a 140 mile trip last weekend, weather was warm but intermittent rain. A few small villages to the M3, then M25 and A1 to north London and return. Car was showing 8 miles as pulling into the drive.
A few weeks prior we did a similar trip but had to run a few errands while visit family that end and did around 150 miles total. Car went into crawl mode as we turned into our street and was doing 11mph with foot to the floor for the last 100 metres or so, suggesting around 3.3 mi/kwh total before car shuts down!
Neither trip was particularly heavy-footed as we knew we'd be at the maximum of the possible range, but we kept up with traffic doing somewhere between 68-72mph on average once on the motorways.
Have you ever done 100%-crawl mode in yours and seen what the true maximum is?
I'm guessing the Model-3 is far more aerodynamic than the Mokka.
Bjorn Nylander got 220Wh/km from the Mokka and 180Wh/km from the Model-3 at 120kph, which fits with the above. That's about 2.8m/kWh in the Mokka and 3.5m/kWh in the Tesla (those figures including charging loses so will be worse than the car records).
Bjorn Nylander got 220Wh/km from the Mokka and 180Wh/km from the Model-3 at 120kph, which fits with the above. That's about 2.8m/kWh in the Mokka and 3.5m/kWh in the Tesla (those figures including charging loses so will be worse than the car records).
gangzoom said:
We’ve had an EV as our main family car since 2015, I’m not sure why people are suggesting EVs are only good for local trips. We literally just gone over Stelvio and Furka passes with fully loaded car (6 people + luggage). Last week we were in Como and last year we were in Norway at the Atlantic road.
Heck, you should have dropped a message and I'd have offered you a beer! Nice trip, btw
TheDeuce said:
OutInTheShed said:
gangzoom said:
OutInTheShed said:
It must be awful to never drive to nice places like Wales, Cornwall, Shropshire Hills, visit friends and family further afield etc…...
We’ve had an EV as our main family car since 2015, I’m not sure why people are suggesting EVs are only good for local trips. We literally just gone over ........Get real please. The UK is tiny! It doesn't take much range to get around the place... I've been all over Cornwall and Wales for fun and work and never felt limited by my none Tesla EV.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff