Official range figures useless - just give us motorway range
Discussion
Can see the argument for a winter and summer range, the two are quite different I find!
I did a three hour motorway trip recently (well, guess an hour or so was getting to and from either side but that's fairly representative, no one drives from service station to service station as a trip. Anyway point is I set the cruise control to 73mph and did the trip over midday and actual average speed for the whole journey was exactly 50mph. Some of which from the travelling to and from motorway but a fair chunk from the regular 50mph sections due to roadworks, etc.
Not sure what the best option is for consumers, urban v non-urban kinda works but then could those split by summer and winter temps. Much more and it'll get lost to the consumer.
Be nice to have something representative of real life I guess, ideally the actual usage from real life users over a year or two would be more representative but not something that would be easy for manufacturers to get.
I did a three hour motorway trip recently (well, guess an hour or so was getting to and from either side but that's fairly representative, no one drives from service station to service station as a trip. Anyway point is I set the cruise control to 73mph and did the trip over midday and actual average speed for the whole journey was exactly 50mph. Some of which from the travelling to and from motorway but a fair chunk from the regular 50mph sections due to roadworks, etc.
Not sure what the best option is for consumers, urban v non-urban kinda works but then could those split by summer and winter temps. Much more and it'll get lost to the consumer.
Be nice to have something representative of real life I guess, ideally the actual usage from real life users over a year or two would be more representative but not something that would be easy for manufacturers to get.
kambites said:
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).
That's useful info.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).
The speed is knocking the Mokka's economy by a chunk, but not disastrously.
TheDeuce said:
Nomme de Plum said:
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.I've never looked in detail at the range or efficiency on different road types of any EV I have considered buying
samoht said:
TheDeuce said:
Nomme de Plum said:
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.I've never looked in detail at the range or efficiency on different road types of any EV I have considered buying
Surely anyone with a bit of a brain can do their own calculation like we all used to do.
Stupot123 said:
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.
Nobody is going to drive 180 miles in town at an average speed of 20mph in one go, as it would take nine hours.
So the only range that matters is motorway range.
Yeah, I have not direct first hand experience, but I can well imagine that is basically true.Nobody is going to drive 180 miles in town at an average speed of 20mph in one go, as it would take nine hours.
So the only range that matters is motorway range.
Maybe if you have a couple of nights away in rural wales/lakes/cotswolds in accommodation which des have any charging I can see the range there becoming a thing. But as you say, otherwise on the assumption you can charge overnight, the only time a modern EV will have any issues with range is on a long distance motorway drive, or if you forgot to charge it!
samoht said:
So if we're going to have range numbers, the motorway range would be the most helpful measurement to publish.
Yes, would be useful to have. Virtually all my miles are on the motorway so I never get anywhere near the official figures even for petrol and diesel cars.I've had hybrids and diesels that were supposed to do 65mpg but only got an average of 45mpg on the motorway - it will be the same for EVs.
Speed does make a big difference, I was getting 70mpg at 50mph but down to 50mpg at 70mph.
Despite cruising at 70mph for long distances, when you add in the start and end to a journey I'm also finding average speed of mid 50s mph. But that doesn't reflect the actual fuel economy if I had actually never gone above 50mph when cruising.
Diesel cars are great at motorway cruising at around the speed limit.
Electric much less so. My car, Citroen EC4, has a range of 224 miles,which I guess travelling at 50mph in perfect conditions might just be possible. Real world, 170 bumbling around town and a roads. Motorway, 70mph 130 miles, 60mph 145 miles.
Averaged 3.8 miles per KW so far.
Electric much less so. My car, Citroen EC4, has a range of 224 miles,which I guess travelling at 50mph in perfect conditions might just be possible. Real world, 170 bumbling around town and a roads. Motorway, 70mph 130 miles, 60mph 145 miles.
Averaged 3.8 miles per KW so far.
Based on this “Arnold Clark handy EV guide”, hopefully helpful to someone…
Apologies I can’t post links yet..
I managed to get my agreement ended based on that I was not adequately informed by Arnold Clark the real life mileage I would get.
After a year of fighting the FOS sided with me hopefully this is of help to someone…
When putting everything together, on balance, I don’t think Mr R was adequately informed about the real-life range he’d be able to achieve. He ought to have been clearly informed that the range is based on the usable battery, and that the battery would not perform the same if it was new (if that’s the cause of the reduction in range). He complained within a couple of days of being supplied the car. Had he been adequately informed I don’t think he’d have acquired the car. That in itself would be sufficient to uphold the complaint. But in addition to that, there’s also evidence there are faults with the car. There have been repairs carried out. And Mr R says there’s still fault codes present. He’s also supplied evidence that some of those faults may affect range and/or performance. I don’t think the reasonable person would have expected those sorts of faults within the first year or so of acquisition given the car [was around] two years old when it was supplied, it had only covered around 23,600 miles and it cost more than £41,000. So in addition to being misled prior to entering into the agreement, there could be grounds to say Mr R has a valid right to seek rejection as well. Once again, I appreciate some of these issues manifested after VWFS sent its initial final response letter, but it seems practicable to consider everything under this complaint, rather than direct Mr R to raise further complaints. And for the reasons I’ve given, I think there are grounds to uphold the complaint, even based on what happened leading up to the first final response because the events happened at the point of supply.
Apologies I can’t post links yet..
I managed to get my agreement ended based on that I was not adequately informed by Arnold Clark the real life mileage I would get.
After a year of fighting the FOS sided with me hopefully this is of help to someone…
When putting everything together, on balance, I don’t think Mr R was adequately informed about the real-life range he’d be able to achieve. He ought to have been clearly informed that the range is based on the usable battery, and that the battery would not perform the same if it was new (if that’s the cause of the reduction in range). He complained within a couple of days of being supplied the car. Had he been adequately informed I don’t think he’d have acquired the car. That in itself would be sufficient to uphold the complaint. But in addition to that, there’s also evidence there are faults with the car. There have been repairs carried out. And Mr R says there’s still fault codes present. He’s also supplied evidence that some of those faults may affect range and/or performance. I don’t think the reasonable person would have expected those sorts of faults within the first year or so of acquisition given the car [was around] two years old when it was supplied, it had only covered around 23,600 miles and it cost more than £41,000. So in addition to being misled prior to entering into the agreement, there could be grounds to say Mr R has a valid right to seek rejection as well. Once again, I appreciate some of these issues manifested after VWFS sent its initial final response letter, but it seems practicable to consider everything under this complaint, rather than direct Mr R to raise further complaints. And for the reasons I’ve given, I think there are grounds to uphold the complaint, even based on what happened leading up to the first final response because the events happened at the point of supply.
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.
Do, just like MPG figures? 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.
I get the OP's point - the 'headline' figure would be more useful if it related to motorway range, it's true that range hardly matter unless you're on the sort of journey that involves motorway speeds.
But I don't see it as an actual issue and I don't believe that people buying EV's are surprised or disappointed to discover the truth. It takes a few seconds to google any EV's real range, you'll instantly be presented with actual owners of the car and their real life experiences - as if anyone gets as far as ordering a new EV without doing that basic level of research!?
But I don't see it as an actual issue and I don't believe that people buying EV's are surprised or disappointed to discover the truth. It takes a few seconds to google any EV's real range, you'll instantly be presented with actual owners of the car and their real life experiences - as if anyone gets as far as ordering a new EV without doing that basic level of research!?
IMHO we just need a better standard for establishing manufacturer figures. For the last 50+ years it's been woeful and mass dissatisfaction with claimed economy figures is just the norm nowadays. In this respect it's a bit rich to focus on EVs so personally don't worry about it. I've never bought a car based on range. I just buy what I like and it does what it does.
Sure motorway mileage is an issue with EV but there are just too many variables and for me, it's irrelevant whether a car does 200, 250 or 300 miles. On a long journey you're going to have to stop so it doesn't really matter to me if I stop once or twice. Alternatively just drive slower.
Sure motorway mileage is an issue with EV but there are just too many variables and for me, it's irrelevant whether a car does 200, 250 or 300 miles. On a long journey you're going to have to stop so it doesn't really matter to me if I stop once or twice. Alternatively just drive slower.
Not sure why the OP says nobody cares about urban range. I care about urban range. Almost all my driving is urban.
How about not trying to simplify range to one meaningless number. Give us range at 30, 50 and 80mph and maybe 5c and 25c figures for each. I think the average human mind could handle that massive complexity.
It’s still not ideal but it’s better than what we get now.
Incidentally my EV6 GT with an official range of 200 miles has averaged 190 in winter and is hovering around 270 now which I’m pretty happy with. I think come summer proper it coukd do pretty well.
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
How about not trying to simplify range to one meaningless number. Give us range at 30, 50 and 80mph and maybe 5c and 25c figures for each. I think the average human mind could handle that massive complexity.
It’s still not ideal but it’s better than what we get now.
Incidentally my EV6 GT with an official range of 200 miles has averaged 190 in winter and is hovering around 270 now which I’m pretty happy with. I think come summer proper it coukd do pretty well.
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
fatjon said:
Not sure why the OP says nobody cares about urban range. I care about urban range. Almost all my driving is urban.
...
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
How many times have you had to stop to charge your car in urban driving though? Most EV owners even in a Mokka won't get through a full charge in urban driving before returning home, at which point there's no loss to plug in. I can see it mattering for owners without home charging, but that's a fairly small minority of all EV owners....
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
TheDeuce said:
But I don't see it as an actual issue and I don't believe that people buying EV's are surprised or disappointed to discover the truth. It takes a few seconds to google any EV's real range, you'll instantly be presented with actual owners of the car and their real life experiences - as if anyone gets as far as ordering a new EV without doing that basic level of research!?
So you're saying that actual buyers should know to disregard the range quoted in the brochure because it's useless, and should go online to survey owners experiences. I agree, they should. However, they don't all. And if they do, owners experiences differ widely in how scientifically and accurately they report all the relevant factors, so this isn't quite as straightforward as one might hope. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if motorway range was tested and reported consistently for all EVs on the market?
I extracted the range numbers from Citroen's website for the e-C4 (50 kWh gross) and plotted them:
The WLTP range is something like 217 miles, so basically the 'top of the hill' from this graph. A 70mph range number at any reasonable temperature would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know.
fatjon said:
Not sure why the OP says nobody cares about urban range. I care about urban range. Almost all my driving is urban.
How about not trying to simplify range to one meaningless number. Give us range at 30, 50 and 80mph and maybe 5c and 25c figures for each. I think the average human mind could handle that massive complexity.
It’s still not ideal but it’s better than what we get now.
Incidentally my EV6 GT with an official range of 200 miles has averaged 190 in winter and is hovering around 270 now which I’m pretty happy with. I think come summer proper it coukd do pretty well.
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
I think 6 possible figures isn't that helpful, really. Unless you compare things in minute detail.How about not trying to simplify range to one meaningless number. Give us range at 30, 50 and 80mph and maybe 5c and 25c figures for each. I think the average human mind could handle that massive complexity.
It’s still not ideal but it’s better than what we get now.
Incidentally my EV6 GT with an official range of 200 miles has averaged 190 in winter and is hovering around 270 now which I’m pretty happy with. I think come summer proper it coukd do pretty well.
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
The simpler the better.
samoht said:
A 70mph range number at any reasonable temperature would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know.
Frankly *any* speed at a reasonable temperature and not the fantasy 23c that the WLTP is conducted at would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know - but the likelihood of manufacturers agreeing to test their cars in less than perfect conditions is about zero.samoht said:
fatjon said:
Not sure why the OP says nobody cares about urban range. I care about urban range. Almost all my driving is urban.
...
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
How many times have you had to stop to charge your car in urban driving though? Most EV owners even in a Mokka won't get through a full charge in urban driving before returning home, at which point there's no loss to plug in. I can see it mattering for owners without home charging, but that's a fairly small minority of all EV owners....
I think the worst EV I've driven for dodgy range figures was a Mokka. Vauxhalls number is 206 miles IIRC, I was getting 130-140 in summer during the 3 weeks it was inflicted on me. This was all urban too.
TheDeuce said:
But I don't see it as an actual issue and I don't believe that people buying EV's are surprised or disappointed to discover the truth. It takes a few seconds to google any EV's real range, you'll instantly be presented with actual owners of the car and their real life experiences - as if anyone gets as far as ordering a new EV without doing that basic level of research!?
So you're saying that actual buyers should know to disregard the range quoted in the brochure because it's useless, and should go online to survey owners experiences. I agree, they should. However, they don't all. And if they do, owners experiences differ widely in how scientifically and accurately they report all the relevant factors, so this isn't quite as straightforward as one might hope. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if motorway range was tested and reported consistently for all EVs on the market?
I extracted the range numbers from Citroen's website for the e-C4 (50 kWh gross) and plotted them:
The WLTP range is something like 217 miles, so basically the 'top of the hill' from this graph. A 70mph range number at any reasonable temperature would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know.
People are used to those selling them something bulls
tting them in terms of how great the thing being sold really is. It happens on some level with just about anything you can buy. There's no chance of the same stopping with cars, and of course it's been all cars from day one that get given VERY optimistic economy figures...SpidersWeb said:
Frankly *any* speed at a reasonable temperature and not the fantasy 23c that the WLTP is conducted at would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know - but the likelihood of manufacturers agreeing to test their cars in less than perfect conditions is about zero.
I suspect government types much prefer the optimistic range claims also, seeing as they are the main promoters of EVs. DMZ said:
SpidersWeb said:
Frankly *any* speed at a reasonable temperature and not the fantasy 23c that the WLTP is conducted at would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know - but the likelihood of manufacturers agreeing to test their cars in less than perfect conditions is about zero.
I suspect government types much prefer the optimistic range claims also, seeing as they are the main promoters of EVs. Do you really think the "government types" who you say "are the main promoters of EVs" also want to promote the efficiency of petrol and diesel engined cars as those are also tested at 23c when they perform an awful lot better than in more usual temperatures.
SpidersWeb said:
DMZ said:
SpidersWeb said:
Frankly *any* speed at a reasonable temperature and not the fantasy 23c that the WLTP is conducted at would be far more useful and representative for what most buyers want to know - but the likelihood of manufacturers agreeing to test their cars in less than perfect conditions is about zero.
I suspect government types much prefer the optimistic range claims also, seeing as they are the main promoters of EVs. Do you really think the "government types" who you say "are the main promoters of EVs" also want to promote the efficiency of petrol and diesel engined cars as those are also tested at 23c when they perform an awful lot better than in more usual temperatures.
WLTP (Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure) came into force 2018 and supreceded NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) 1970 which interestingly was itself heavily criticised.
"The NEDC, which is supposed to represent the typical usage of a car in Europe, is repeatedly criticised for delivering economy-figures which are unachievable in reality. It consists of four repeated ECE-15 urban driving cycles (UDC) and one Extra-Urban driving cycle (EUDC). The WLTP test cycle replaced NEDC for vehicles approved for sale in Europe after September 2018, and all published figures for vehicles on sale after January 2019 should use WLTP fuel economy figures[1]"
This link explains the transition.
https://www.sandicliffe.co.uk/blog/what-is-wltp.ht...
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff