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.
Except in my i3s, I did 56k miles in just over 2 years by never driving to work on a motorway and achieved 3.8-4 miles/kWh average, which is about right.
70mph is a meaningless measure for me as my speed depends on the distance and type of road. I hired an i3 before buying one and was advised that I'd get to my destination quicker if I slowed down. Very sensible advice and has stuck with me. So far any journey that's about 110 miles I'm better off at 60 and getting there in one go, than doing 70 and having to stop to charge.
Then there's ambient temperature and the fact that it's rare to average 70mph for three hours in the UK.
WLTP isn't great and could be more accurate but even with ice, the ability to get close to the quoted figures is dependent on the driver. I don't think EVs are much different.
70mph is a meaningless measure for me as my speed depends on the distance and type of road. I hired an i3 before buying one and was advised that I'd get to my destination quicker if I slowed down. Very sensible advice and has stuck with me. So far any journey that's about 110 miles I'm better off at 60 and getting there in one go, than doing 70 and having to stop to charge.
Then there's ambient temperature and the fact that it's rare to average 70mph for three hours in the UK.
WLTP isn't great and could be more accurate but even with ice, the ability to get close to the quoted figures is dependent on the driver. I don't think EVs are much different.
I've found the figures on EV database pretty accurate. Summer and winter 'Highway' range figures are about right for the three EVs we've had. For Highway, they're working on a 70mph constant speed.
https://ev-database.org/uk
https://ev-database.org/uk
I'm pretty sure the WLTP test actually gives three figures - urban, extra-urban and combined? Although even the extra-urban bit varies between about 70kph and 120kph so it's not really representative of driving on a clear motorway.
As others have said though, there's load of people doing inidependent tests so the data is out there if you want it. Bjorn Nylander's spreadsheet would be my go-to: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWu...
As others have said though, there's load of people doing inidependent tests so the data is out there if you want it. Bjorn Nylander's spreadsheet would be my go-to: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWu...
The WLTP test even if optimistic, at least gives you a guide when comparing ICE cars and the environment in which they are used.
I've been underwhelmed by the efficiency data for EVs, just one range figure is meaningless. It's as if they think that's all buyers want to know. Stick a 2 ton battery in, range 500 miles, great. Err no. The consumption figures for ICE were mandated and I presume EVs are too so it's a p**s poor job they've done. For a comparison, they should be quoting miles per kw in urban and combined usage.
I'm not anti EV, I'll likely get one when they get cheaper 
but it's an unknown what your range will be, without having to trawl through personal reviews!
I hadn't been aware that they did a test providing 'real' range figures, that's encouraging, although that website only covers current new cars. But cars listed for sale just have 1 range figure from the manufacturers.
I've been underwhelmed by the efficiency data for EVs, just one range figure is meaningless. It's as if they think that's all buyers want to know. Stick a 2 ton battery in, range 500 miles, great. Err no. The consumption figures for ICE were mandated and I presume EVs are too so it's a p**s poor job they've done. For a comparison, they should be quoting miles per kw in urban and combined usage.
I'm not anti EV, I'll likely get one when they get cheaper but it's an unknown what your range will be, without having to trawl through personal reviews!I hadn't been aware that they did a test providing 'real' range figures, that's encouraging, although that website only covers current new cars. But cars listed for sale just have 1 range figure from the manufacturers.
Edited by sixor8 on Monday 24th July 09:08
Still won't be that accurate anyway. Wind, road surface, wet/dry, uphill, downhill temperature etc. How do you even classify temperature? Summer is 20 degrees in UK but 30 degrees in Spain? What is the official 'winter' temperature. 5 degrees, minus 5 degrees? Its just one of those things you need to research yourself. Same for ICE. Isn't that how the honest John website came about?
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.
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.
I agree with the OP, probably because I’ve written similar things a couple of times.
Some magazines do these exact tests and it’s the only thing worth looking at to understand range. As well as real-world charge speed tests.
I believe many manufacturers provide it also on their web sites. You can select type of driving eg 100% motorway and it’ll give you a good estimate.
Some magazines do these exact tests and it’s the only thing worth looking at to understand range. As well as real-world charge speed tests.
I believe many manufacturers provide it also on their web sites. You can select type of driving eg 100% motorway and it’ll give you a good estimate.
I think you'd be better off knowing the miles per KWh (Can we abbreviate this to MPK?) and range for urban journeys and the same for long distance. You'll get an understanding of your range and new age MPG for the average work commute, and the same for when you go visiting family, go on road trips or go on holidays. Use "MPK" as a measure of generally how efficient the vehicle is and the range for calculating how many trips you can complete before recharging.
Knowing how many times you can expect to complete your work commute can be a decision maker for those without home charging options. If you can only commute to and from work 3 times before a charge as opposed to 5, that's a lot more time hunting public chargers and waiting around. If you can get by with a car that you can use all week then charge for 2 hours during your weekly shop then it's a far less stressful ownership experience. With longer journeys, you can plan your stops more effectively so you can judge arrival times to catch boats, flights or whatever you need.
Knowing how many times you can expect to complete your work commute can be a decision maker for those without home charging options. If you can only commute to and from work 3 times before a charge as opposed to 5, that's a lot more time hunting public chargers and waiting around. If you can get by with a car that you can use all week then charge for 2 hours during your weekly shop then it's a far less stressful ownership experience. With longer journeys, you can plan your stops more effectively so you can judge arrival times to catch boats, flights or whatever you need.
autumnsum said:
Isn't this what carwow do on their channel on a regular basis? They drive EVs on the motorway at 70 until they die. Tesla always wins, from what I remember, although maybe a super expensive merc once won?
It isn't about 'winning', it's about useful info for those who are interested.TBH, looking for 'exact' ranges is a waste of time, there are lots of variables and you would be silly to rely on using over say 80% of what you thought the range would be on a journey, just as you'd be silly to rely on the expected range of an IC car on a long trip with no money or credit card.
Two identical cars doing the same trip can often get quite different answers.
What we need to know is some useful guidance about various cars miles/kWh under different conditions. Urban, A road, free flowing motorway at 55 and at 70?
One number will never tell you the whole picture.
At the end of the day, a Tesla is a sensible shape for a reasonably fast car, while SUVs have the aerodynamics of a portaloo.
So for a longer trip like Devon to Bristol and back, the hour+ each way on the M5 won't be much like 20mph urban driving.
So some guidance about the relative effect on different cars would be handy.
I don't think 'motorway range' is enough, these days my 'motorway driving' tends to be 95% 70mph cruises at carefully chosen times, in a previous world I did my share of M3 and M25 intense traffic and got very different MPG.
The WLTP test works - the problem is people don't understand what it means.
Most think it's the range they can achieve, when in reality it's a lab test and very likely the absolute best case range done in the best conditions.
It's there to compare range across different cars and brands tested under controlled conditions.
It's obvious from reading the few responses in this thread, that real world range is different for everyone, so it's not possible to do a test at 70mph which will be the same for other people.
Most think it's the range they can achieve, when in reality it's a lab test and very likely the absolute best case range done in the best conditions.
It's there to compare range across different cars and brands tested under controlled conditions.
It's obvious from reading the few responses in this thread, that real world range is different for everyone, so it's not possible to do a test at 70mph which will be the same for other people.
SDK said:
The WLTP test works - the problem is people don't understand what it means. .....
In the same way that the urban, extra urban and combined cycle 'work' for IC vehicles?A bigger number is better when comparing 'similar' cars.
It doesn't really tell you how much worse an SUV is than a saloon for any particular driver.
OutInTheShed said:
SDK said:
The WLTP test works - the problem is people don't understand what it means. .....
In the same way that the urban, extra urban and combined cycle 'work' for IC vehicles?A bigger number is better when comparing 'similar' cars.
It doesn't really tell you how much worse an SUV is than a saloon for any particular driver.
Battery capacity and MPK knowledge needed here.
Edited by sixor8 on Monday 24th July 12:46
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.
Yes, this makes absolute perfect sense.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.
The end.
samoht said:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Is that 'almost always' = 'until you drive your BEV-SUV up the M5 at an indicated 75'?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.
I think we'd agree that a higher cruising speed will hurt range on an un-aerodynamic car, but roughly how bad might it be?
TBH it's the same with IC cars. I've always got reasonable MPG on long trips, over 45mpg in my diesel shed, I got to Scotland on one tank in my 2 litre petrol Mondeo. But friends and relatives with newer euro 6 cars are telling me they don't get close to the claimed numbers.
As a very very rough ballpark figure I take half the 'official range' figure as real world.
For a 320 mile 'official range' car that gives me a useful estimated range that would cover nearly all of my trips with no problem.
To start with, if you are on the road on holiday/on a long trip you are likely going to be charging 10-80% as charge speed drops off a lot above 80%.
The extra percentage allows for high speed cruising.
I have driven a 58kW VW id3 both in summer and winter. In summer on country roads the indicated range of 220 miles from a 95% charge was realistic as that's what I achieved.
But on nearly solely motorway trips in warmish weather the range was maybe 150 miles.
In the winter the same car had an indicated 140 mile range at 80% charge, which dropped to 110 when I turned the heater on. It was minus 7 though and the car had been parked outside overnight not plugged in or preheated.
For a 320 mile 'official range' car that gives me a useful estimated range that would cover nearly all of my trips with no problem.
To start with, if you are on the road on holiday/on a long trip you are likely going to be charging 10-80% as charge speed drops off a lot above 80%.
The extra percentage allows for high speed cruising.
I have driven a 58kW VW id3 both in summer and winter. In summer on country roads the indicated range of 220 miles from a 95% charge was realistic as that's what I achieved.
But on nearly solely motorway trips in warmish weather the range was maybe 150 miles.
In the winter the same car had an indicated 140 mile range at 80% charge, which dropped to 110 when I turned the heater on. It was minus 7 though and the car had been parked outside overnight not plugged in or preheated.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff