Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Discussion about EV/Battery charging infrastructure, Electric highways etc.
HuffnPuff
Groupie
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri, 01 Sep 2017, 12:27
Real Name: HR

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by HuffnPuff » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 05:16

Warb wrote:
Sun, 21 Apr 2019, 14:58
bladecar wrote:
Sun, 21 Apr 2019, 06:14
I'm all for EV's but just noting that our 6 year old Elantra manual goes down to somewhere like 5.4 l/100 at highway speeds (not sure about A/C use after all this time and up to high 9's around town.
That's the exact opposite of my experience - at 50kph my Ranger (and previous Hilux, wife's Prado etc.) will use around 5l/100km, but that increases dramatically as speed increases. It was the discrepancy between the official quoted figure and what we were actually achieving that made me investigate the standard "test", at which point I discovered that the test was almost entirely at town speeds, with only a small percentage being at >80kph......
The main difference being that the city cycle includes a lot more acceleration and braking being stop start. Acceleration is where most of the fuel gets used, accelerate to speed, coast to a stop and repeat every few hundred metres. If you could travel at 50km/h consistently in city traffic it would be a lot more efficient than highway driving at 90 or 100km/h which typically is heavy acceleration up to speed then little bits to keep at speed.

Warb
Noobie
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed, 17 Apr 2019, 11:51

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by Warb » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 06:34

HuffnPuff wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 05:16
The main difference being that the city cycle includes a lot more acceleration and braking being stop start. Acceleration is where most of the fuel gets used, accelerate to speed, coast to a stop and repeat every few hundred metres. If you could travel at 50km/h consistently in city traffic it would be a lot more efficient than highway driving at 90 or 100km/h which typically is heavy acceleration up to speed then little bits to keep at speed.
That's entirely true, and the main issue is the "heavy acceleration". These days, especially in cities, many people have automatic gearboxes and seem to feel that one or other pedal MUST be pushed to the floor at all times. I don't really feel the need to accelerate quickly in normal road driving, having discovered over the years that it makes no difference to journey times, so my diesel ute achieves the official figures for city driving. I have the dashboard display set to show me the instantaneous consumption (and in my Hilux I had a device plugged in to the diagnostic port that did the same thing) so I can see at a glance how much fuel I am using. I can, admittedly, also see the other drivers pulling away from me and then grinding down their brake pads before I gently coast up beside them at the next set of lights.........

Driving "style" is, as you suggest, the main factor in fuel economy. Over the years, before I retired and became a farmer, I have owned many vehicle including a number of quite high performance cars. They all respond the same way, and can all be driven reasonably economically considering what they are. Earlier this year I was driving a Dodge Charger R/T in the US. Driven at flat chat (launch control!) I'm guessing it used petrol faster that a bowser could refill it, but on the freeway it could shut down 4 cylinders and run quite (edit: perhaps "relatively") economically on the other 4. In town it could snap your head back, but only if you pressed the pedal down. Otherwise it just burbled around. When I picked it up the econometer said it was averaging 9.5mpg. At my first refill of the tank, even including a couple of play launches (you've got to, don't you?), it was around 20mpg and the last time I looked it was pushing 25mpg. That was the overall average, so included the couple of hundred miles ( @ 9.5mpg) that it had recorded when I picked it up.

Country driving is largely 100kph or sometimes 110kph. You can ease off and slow down a bit going uphill, but other than that the only difference the driver can make is to turn off the aircon. On a flat, straight piece of road on a calm day my Ranger will show around 10.5l/100km on the display at 100kph, but it takes very little headwind or slope to push that upwards of 12 or 13l/100km, or 20+ on a steeper gradient.

User avatar
bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by bladecar » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 06:51

I guess you're talking about a square-rigger going directly into the wind when you mention the Ranger, and the Hilux will be driving big tyres, heavy build and poor streamlining.

The Elantra is made to carry people and seems to have been made to appeal to people who care about fuel-consumption. I rarely drive it but the sticker on the windscreen of the Elantra was accurate. The sticker mentioned 5's for best consumption and 8.9 (maybe) as worst. I drove between Brisbane and Gladstone and was doing low 5's at highway speeds, up to 110, memory tells me, after all this time, and was very surprised at what they had achieved. This prompted me, in the past, to attack the poor old Prius that we own for not having enough of a margin to justify its complexity, and to not have moved forward enough, particularly in the battery category. However, the Prius does have far more consistent lower fuel consumption generally (around 5.2 l/100 when driven without care around town).

If you own a heavy blimp, then of course it will chew the juice when you try to make it go faster, and a blunt heavy blimp will bang its head against the wind the faster you go. It's often said that the bigger the motorcycle the smaller the d. I'm forever rating drivers of huge vehicles, aside from real trucks, about their physicality and their mentality, and often, I'll wish them well. After all, since we all began doing all our own individual research on any subject or activity about 30 years ago, our backs have been against the wall. If you get done by a company that cold-calls you, you didn't do your research, as if "doing your research" is a standard or easy thing to do.

When largish vehicles blast past in city traffic, it is very often driven by females and one has to wonder if they ever fill the vehicles with fuel.
From an environmental point of view, it is so pleasing that diesel fuel has broken away from the fuel cycles and is mostly staying above 1.50. The popularity of this dirty engine was driven by very cheap fuel in Europe.

By the way, I'm only talking about the city drivers. I have no opinion as regards country drivers because only they know what their requirements are for rough and off-road driving.
Neither am I talking about tradies but I feel for those poor people because once upon a time each tradesman didn't have to transport the factory to the worksite with their own vehicle.
Ahh, that feels better

User avatar
bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by bladecar » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 07:11

Warb wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 06:34
HuffnPuff wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 05:16
The main difference being that the city cycle includes a lot more acceleration and braking being stop start. Acceleration is where most of the fuel gets used, accelerate to speed, coast to a stop and repeat every few hundred metres. If you could travel at 50km/h consistently in city traffic it would be a lot more efficient than highway driving at 90 or 100km/h which typically is heavy acceleration up to speed then little bits to keep at speed.
That's entirely true, and the main issue is the "heavy acceleration". These days, especially in cities, many people have automatic gearboxes and seem to feel that one or other pedal MUST be pushed to the floor at all times. I don't really feel the need to accelerate quickly in normal road driving, having discovered over the years that it makes no difference to journey times, so my diesel ute achieves the official figures for city driving. I have the dashboard display set to show me the instantaneous consumption (and in my Hilux I had a device plugged in to the diagnostic port that did the same thing) so I can see at a glance how much fuel I am using. I can, admittedly, also see the other drivers pulling away from me and then grinding down their brake pads before I gently coast up beside them at the next set of lights.........

Driving "style" is, as you suggest, the main factor in fuel economy. Over the years, before I retired and became a farmer, I have owned many vehicle including a number of quite high performance cars. They all respond the same way, and can all be driven reasonably economically considering what they are. Earlier this year I was driving a Dodge Charger R/T in the US. Driven at flat chat (launch control!) I'm guessing it used petrol faster that a bowser could refill it, but on the freeway it could shut down 4 cylinders and run quite (edit: perhaps "relatively") economically on the other 4. In town it could snap your head back, but only if you pressed the pedal down. Otherwise it just burbled around. When I picked it up the econometer said it was averaging 9.5mpg. At my first refill of the tank, even including a couple of play launches (you've got to, don't you?), it was around 20mpg and the last time I looked it was pushing 25mpg. That was the overall average, so included the couple of hundred miles ( @ 9.5mpg) that it had recorded when I picked it up.

Country driving is largely 100kph or sometimes 110kph. You can ease off and slow down a bit going uphill, but other than that the only difference the driver can make is to turn off the aircon. On a flat, straight piece of road on a calm day my Ranger will show around 10.5l/100km on the display at 100kph, but it takes very little headwind or slope to push that upwards of 12 or 13l/100km, or 20+ on a steeper gradient.

Warb, I drive my Imiev like that. I drive according to the econometer thing on the dash and try not to go over half-energy according to the needle when accelerating. That usually means that I briefly leave average cars behind from the lights and then they overtake me in the other lane (I use more go if I'm in front of a car but still try not to go too far over half energy) and then I do a longish gentle regen to the next lights where these other vehicles are now waiting, as you describe. So I have used least electricity, next to no brakes and am in the same place. I often wonder if a driver behind is annoyed but I reckon that only some drivers might be because they see the same red light up ahead and I wouldn't do this behaviour if it was a fair distance to those lights so that they might feel like they were being blocked. In fact, I think they would occasionally realise that they hadn't had to put the brakes on significantly and that they were still in the same place :)
My fuel consumption conversion app says that 9.5 miles/gal us is 24.7594 l/100. I vaguely remember that ludicrous toy bugatti that they made one of (and an owner of the company was the successful bidder) did something like 35 l/100km. Such fairytales.

edited incorrect fuel consumption figure

Warb
Noobie
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed, 17 Apr 2019, 11:51

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by Warb » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 13:08

bladecar wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 06:51
The popularity of this dirty engine was driven by very cheap fuel in Europe.
Petrol in the UK at least has always been cheaper than diesel, though I'm not sure about the rest of Europe. The advantage of diesel has been that it has lower CO2 emissions (when we all got hung up on CO2 without regard to other emissions this was important), better fuel economy and the engines lasted forever. The vehicles were slower, cost more and were noisier, but for high mileage usage they were cheaper over the long term (in Germany all the taxis were diesel Mercs right back to my first visit in the 70's or early 80's). To be honest I have no idea how clean or otherwise the current crop of diesels are, now they have particulate filters and AdBlue etc. My guess is that whatever the reality is it will have been crushed under the politics and opinions formed by people judging older engines. I suspect a similar thing impacts petrol engines, because a very long time ago I was reading about a super-clean petrol engine that had been designed (by a UK university?) to be far cleaner than the existing engines but was illegal because it didn't have a cat. It didn't actually need one to be cleaner, but by then the fitment of cats on new cars had been made a legal requirement. There was a reason why a cat couldn't be used, something to do with over-stoicheometric air:fuel mixture that cats didn't like if I remember correctly, but as it was technically illegal it was abandoned. At the time, the designers were accusing the platinum producers of pushing the catalytic converter for profit reasons, when a better non-cat solution was available. The whole thing could have been nonsense, of course!

For rural users, the big advantages of diesel have been the torque, economy and (for farmers especially) the long life, happiness to run at tickover or low revs for hours on end and much lower exhaust temperatures. Sadly the last advantage has been killed by the particulate filters that have periodic burn-offs. Ford had an issue with the Ranger setting fire to its surroundings - for the entire first year of ownership of my Ranger it was under a factory recall with a ban on driving it offroad (they didn't advertise that very much). Finally, a year down the line, Ford fixed this by fitting a massive sump-guard that supposedly keeps grass away from the exhaust, but also removes about 50mm of ground clearance. Like I said, not a great vehicle around the farm!

Warb
Noobie
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed, 17 Apr 2019, 11:51

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by Warb » Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 13:19

bladecar wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 07:11
My fuel consumption conversion app says that 9.5 miles/gal us is 24.7594 l/100. I vaguely remember that ludicrous toy bugatti that they made one of (and an owner of the company was the successful bidder) did something like 35 l/100km. Such fairytales.
"Gas" is cheap in the US, when I was last there at the beginning of this year it was below AU$1/litre. The cars are also cheap so fuel economy is seen as less important. And the Charger is fun! People also have a sense of humour about them - my wife got a discount at a valet parking service in San Diego, because the guy taking the money said "that's a hybrid, isn't it?" and winked at her........

User avatar
Richo
Senior Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: Mon, 16 Jun 2008, 00:19
Real Name: Richard
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by Richo » Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 13:01

Warb wrote:
Sun, 21 Apr 2019, 15:41
The EV owner would pay a monthly fee to lease a battery, and then simply drive in to a service station and have it replaced rather than recharged, much the same way that LPG bottles are used.
Yeah it was called "project better place".
Epic fail.

If ev's were common place with replaceable packs - ie 4 bolts and a connector.
I see that you're car won't drive the next morning as the pack was stolen.
Who pays for the $20k leased pack then?
Insurance wont after they twig.
So the short answer is NO but the long answer is YES.
Help prevent road rage - get outta my way!

User avatar
bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by bladecar » Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 14:55

Warb wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 06:34
HuffnPuff wrote:
Mon, 22 Apr 2019, 05:16
The main difference being that the city cycle includes a lot more acceleration and braking being stop start. Acceleration is where most of the fuel gets used, accelerate to speed, coast to a stop and repeat every few hundred metres. If you could travel at 50km/h consistently in city traffic it would be a lot more efficient than highway driving at 90 or 100km/h which typically is heavy acceleration up to speed then little bits to keep at speed.
That's entirely true, and the main issue is the "heavy acceleration". These days, especially in cities, many people have automatic gearboxes and seem to feel that one or other pedal MUST be pushed to the floor at all times. I don't really feel the need to accelerate quickly in normal road driving, having discovered over the years that it makes no difference to journey times, so my diesel ute achieves the official figures for city driving. I have the dashboard display set to show me the instantaneous consumption (and in my Hilux I had a device plugged in to the diagnostic port that did the same thing) so I can see at a glance how much fuel I am using. I can, admittedly, also see the other drivers pulling away from me and then grinding down their brake pads before I gently coast up beside them at the next set of lights.........

Driving "style" is, as you suggest, the main factor in fuel economy. Over the years, before I retired and became a farmer, I have owned many vehicle including a number of quite high performance cars. They all respond the same way, and can all be driven reasonably economically considering what they are. Earlier this year I was driving a Dodge Charger R/T in the US. Driven at flat chat (launch control!) I'm guessing it used petrol faster that a bowser could refill it, but on the freeway it could shut down 4 cylinders and run quite (edit: perhaps "relatively") economically on the other 4. In town it could snap your head back, but only if you pressed the pedal down. Otherwise it just burbled around. When I picked it up the econometer said it was averaging 9.5mpg. At my first refill of the tank, even including a couple of play launches (you've got to, don't you?), it was around 20mpg and the last time I looked it was pushing 25mpg. That was the overall average, so included the couple of hundred miles ( @ 9.5mpg) that it had recorded when I picked it up.

Country driving is largely 100kph or sometimes 110kph. You can ease off and slow down a bit going uphill, but other than that the only difference the driver can make is to turn off the aircon. On a flat, straight piece of road on a calm day my Ranger will show around 10.5l/100km on the display at 100kph, but it takes very little headwind or slope to push that upwards of 12 or 13l/100km, or 20+ on a steeper gradient.
What I'm about to say has not really been discussed, as far as I'm aware.
I started out with a Vectrix electric scooter with really poor nimh batteries which MAY have performed adequately when new but by the time I adopted one was completely unpredictable as far as range went. It would go to turtle mode when the battery bars indicator was still over 50%. I 'upgraded' the bike to calb batteries and thought all my worries were over and it performed really well in comparison. Eventually, it started to become worrisome where I would leave it showing, say, 70% battery capacity, but after say 5 days like this, failed after a short ride. Coaxing the batteries with endless resets brought it back up to not as realiable but this isn't what I've been looking for. Currently, it seems to be the thing to always have it fully charged to make me feel that it is reliable, and I don't test it with riding to 2 bars, that sort of thing.

The Blade Mk6 had REALLY unreliable range indication.

So this is two vehicles which were not positive as regards EV confidence. Admittedly, the Blade was an understandable product. Elon Musk inherited a shed full of faulty Teslas when he joined the company but he had money and he instructed his company to find the faults first, then ship them out. He gave the chance of moving on and up with Tesla as a 10% chance, so I've never felt badly done by, just very very very overly optimistic with regards to Blade. Plus I was really really shorty with the whole car industry for being so farlying destructive with their direction and I was far too impatient. Thank non existent for Tesla and the American economic ability to forge new paths, even against themselves.

I could not believe it when Adverse Effects would report that he was travelling almost to the full extent of his imiev's reported range with 3 kms left, fairly often, it seemed. With the history I was used to, such behaviour reminded me of riding a 350 honda from Annerley to Mayne railway yard (in 1975) with vice grips attached to the gear shift under threatening clouds, just because it made no sense to do it and felt like REAL adventure.

So I treat my vectrix and imiev with kid gloves and luxuriate in the sheer good feelings which come from low pollution, low cost transport over SHORT distances. These are not my first transport vehicles necessarily, but are my first transport vehicles by choice. Why would I take anything else. Quite a few people here understand.

When I see all the fast charging that's going on, and the concern about long distance travel, I think that people are still buying a cheap suit to go to the opera, when they already own a good suit as well. We're really on the way to reliable long-distance EV travel, but I consider that 1000Km range is when we get to there, so that we can travel 500 or 600 km and charge the car more slowly overnight. The fast chargers exist to make ongoing travel possible and not too daunting but they should exist like expensive fuel in the cycle exists. We fill our crappy cars with $1.60 fuel or even high $1.90/L fuel because we want to do something and we can't or couldn't be bothered planning properly when the (there is no competition) $1.30/L fuel will appear occasionally.
It seems to me that fast charging is not good for batteries in the long run, just like hard driving is not good for internal combustion motors in the long run. We should avoid it.
I don't see why we would be inclined to treat cars that are now nearing 400km range as though that 400km is the usual target. Those cars should be used usually for 200 km drive or 250 km drives, because it makes sense.
Times are changing fast and batteries are getting better.
I tried very hard to chase away "Better Place" with their replaceable battery packs. There is a glint of "freedom" with being able to charge your car at home, over night, or when you're not using it. Now is not the time to pine for the Service Station. We all know how much sense not pining for the good ole service station makes.

User avatar
bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Re: Newbie question about practicalities of charging and range

Post by bladecar » Thu, 25 Apr 2019, 20:57

and to follow up a little:
I think there is a need for ev owners to understand their vehicles.
Prius's charge their cells between 30% and 70% only, in the interests of cell longevity (don't care about exact figures).
Owner's should be informed about optimum charging strategies for their particular EV vehicles, and these strategies should be obtainable electronically.
So, if 30 to 70 is ideal in the short term when you're not going to push your car, the vehicles should be programmable to charge to a set maximum charge, much less than full charge, much of the time. Maybe the vehicle should be smart enough to know to fully charge the batteries at suitable intervals, like a prius runs its internal combustion motor to heat up the catalytic converter as required and owners should have the information to know how to deal with these cars, if they could be bothered. Am I on the wrong track or heading in a silly direction?

Post Reply