Official range figures useless - just give us motorway range
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff