How close do you think real world range will be to EPA range?

[Trandall]

1+ year ago when I placed my preorder (no ev experience) I assumed 300+ miles would mean something like 320 mile range and with "real world" conditions I would have 290-300 miles usable range... I was basing this on experience with my dino juice mobiles. I am a technology, especially ev, fanatic who seeks and reads every bit of ev-centric news/ press I can. I now believe the large pack R1 will deliver between 240-290 miles of usable range for me. I am ok with this, however probably 90%, optimistically, of new ev buyers will not understand be informed about all the intricacies of ev range, charging, etc.. How many ICE drivers can accurately describe octane, anti-knock sensors, egr valves etc... maybe 5%, I can't. This is with technology that has been in cars for 40 years! I totally agree with Mkennedy1996 hilarious yet alarming SAT finger painting analogy the EPA should not be listing results based on optionally different tests. Somebody must step up and start impartially informing consumers about BEV or they will remain 2-3% of vehicles sold.

Sponsored

 

[electruck]

Somebody must step up and start impartially informing consumers about BEV or they will remain 2-3% of vehicles sold.

Nah, the sales will eventually come from the observation that family, friends, neighbors and social media celebrities are getting along just fine with an EV. They will come from the opportunity to ride to dinner in a friend's EV and experience the instant torque. Conversely, EV adoption will continue to be delayed by stories from the same family, friends, etc of hours spent at charging stations, lack of public charging infrastructure in large parts of the country, non-functional public chargers, and other range anxiety inducing tales.

 

[DucRider]

Because that would require the typical EV buyer to:
1) Know how EVs are tested to a very high level
2) Know that the test reports behind the EPA ratings are available
3) Know where to find the test results
4) Be able to read the submissions (they are all formatted differently)
5) Do the math to come to a base number for each vehicle they might consider

Not only unrealistic, but simply absurd to think that but a tiny number of people would actually do this!

Or, they could have all BEVs use the exact same tests (no more tests and no less tests than anyone else) and then publish comparable numbers with the exact same adjustment factor.

As a second step, they should develop a new test method that does not have a margin of error of 30% (or more) requiring a 30% adjustment to come closer to reality.

If a manufacturer wants to perform additional tests that will better reflect real world conditions and incorporate them into their EPA rating, they are currently allowed to do so.
You are suggesting that they all be required to test to the lowest common denominator which is the 2 cycle test. That data is available if people really want it.

Real world results are going to be very different for different people, and there is no standardized test that can reflect that. And those numbers vary with the weather. That is just local. Factor in the varying climates that consumers will live in, and the variation becomes even greater.

One local Bolt owner (238 mile version) consistently sees 300+ miles of range during most of the year and drops down closer to the rated 238 in winter. Other owners in the same area get 220 tops in mild weather and much less in winter. What should the label on the Bolt read? And would someone in Minnesota have a different label than someone in San Diego?

I completely agree that education is the key. We way too often hear (on forums and in person) from new owners when the weather turns cold: "My range has dropped by xx miles/percent! The
manufacturer/dealer is saying there is nothing wrong with my car, but I'm sure my battery is going bad! What should I do?".

I do (or at least pre-COVID) many events a year promoting the adoption of EVs and have had countless discussions with prospective owners - the range issue/questions are key facts that owners must know. Primarily that since EVs are so efficient, that there is very little waste heat that can be used for cabin heat. ~70% of the energy in gasoline gets turned into heat in an ICE vehicle - even in most winter climates the vehicle utilizes the radiator to dump waste heat even after a chunk has been used to heat the cabin. EVs require drawing from the battery to generate heat, and that energy is therefor no longer available to provide propulsion and range.

There is no label that can easily educate the consumer on how EVs are different, for better or worse. This is compounded by the fact that many people just don't pay attention to signs/labels.

No matter what standardized test are done and what number is put on the label, "real world" results are going to be different for most drivers (unless they happen to replicate the test conditions).

Would it be good to have more info available? Certainly.
Would it be confusing to the consumer? Almost certainly.
Will a dealership/manufacturer sales rep be able to explain it? Mostly not a chance (this includes Tesla stores as well as franchised dealerships).

What would I find useful?

• A constant(ish) speed highway test number (70 mph?) that includes some grade and speed change simulation.
• Repeating the 70 degree lab tests at both 32 and 90 degrees (with automatic climate control set to 70 degrees). Wind (fans) and sun (radiant lamps) influences would be useful.

You wind up with four numbers. The base number (mixed driving), effect of cold and hot (as a percentage might be less confusing), highway (road trip) range number.

This is very unlikely, but we can dream?
While we are at it, I'd also like to see a requirement the manufacturers provide both the rated pack "energy" (AJ would be happy) and the useable energy (BMW does this). Since manufacturers use this to determine degradation warranties, those numbers (both original spec and current) should be readily available to the consumer at all times without requiring a test by the dealer/manufacturer.

 

[Smithery]

If I accelerated like a granny and capped out at 65mph, my Model X would get *greater* than promised range.

But I don't. I fully utilize the power and torque available and keep up with the flow of traffic around here - Usually ~80mph.

It gets about 65-75% the rated range when driven like that - depending on the season - and I expect the Rivian to be similar.

 

[mkennedy1996]

I guess you are going to keep throwing "stuff" against the wall to see what sticks.

Honestly, your argument is so intellectually flawed that I will try one last time to help you understand.

First, you are defending, and even advocating for, a test that the EPA knows is so fundamentally inaccurate that the results have to be adjusted downward considerably by an adjustment factor. This is a test that uses acceleration of 0-60 in 18 seconds (grandma would be honking at you to hurry the heck up) and does highway testing that averages 48 mph with a top speed to 60 mph. Have you ever driven on a highway – because an average of 48 mph on the highway would get someone run over.

The EPA knows that the test so overstates range due to type of testing done and the fact that the testing is conducted, not on roads, but is done in a lab on a dyno. The EPA took a WAG (wild ass guess) that the tests are overstated by 30%, so the results are lowered by 30% as the normal adjustment in attempt to make them more real. Anytime you have to modify all of your results of a test by 30% before they even begin to make sense, then you clearly have a problem with your testing! You have to see the fallacy in defending something so erroneous.

The standard 2 cycle tests are bad enough, but at least all manufacturers would be using the same tests and adjustment factor, so the results might be comparable between different BEVs for consumers to make educated buying decisions.

But no so fast as it gets worse. You double down on your support of the testing and defend the EPA testing that allows the manufacturers to add three additional test cycles and then get a reduced adjustment factor (which equals a higher range). These tests are done by the manufacturers at their facilities and then submitted to the EPA. So they can run the 2 cycle tests and adjust by 30% and then run the 5 cycle tests and see if they can get a lower adjustment factor and then just submit the better of the two options. The result is that not all BEVs are tested using the same tests. Some have 2 cycles and others have 5 cycles. Some have an adjustment factor of 30%, while others have a much lower adjustment factor. My Model Y has an adjustment factor of just 22%. All of this testing adjustment, different test cycles etc is opaque to the BEV consumer.

If a manufacturer wants to perform additional tests that will better reflect real world conditions and incorporate them into their EPA rating, they are currently allowed to do so.

Again, your whole premise is fundamentally flawed. The above statement would require that the additional test better reflect real world before they were incorporated into the EPA rating. The evidence indicates the contrary to that position. Using Tesla as an example, their BEVs are generally believed to have an overstated range (a range not aligned with reality) (a range that is not generally achieved by the typical Tesla owner). In nearly all cases, Tesla’s use of the 5 cycle tests allows them to use a lower adjustment factor and therefore, publish a higher range than they would have been able to do if they had used the standard 30% adjustment factor. Using the higher range moves them FURTHER from real world and not closer as your statement requires. If these additional test cycles are designed to better reflect real world, then why do they lead to the opposite result with Tesla?

And again, why are manufacturers allowed to choose the test cycles they run and submit just the best result they find most favorable? If Tesla can take advantage of these additional test cycles to so manipulate their range results, then why should this even be an option.

You are suggesting that they all be required to test to the lowest common denominator which is the 2 cycle test.

I am absolutely not suggesting any such thing. I will be very clear. I am suggesting:

1. That any test that is so flawed that the results have to be reduced by 30% is too flawed to use. I should not fail to mention that the 30% reduction is just a guess and has no scientific basis.

2. Allowing manufacturers to choose their test cycles (2 or 5) does not allow for comparable numbers for EV consumers

3. The additional test cycles are used only when the manufacturer finds them more favorable

4. The evidence clearly suggests that the use of 5 cycle tests by Tesla leads to further inflated range numbers rather than more accurate range numbers

5. I am suggesting that all manufacturers use the SAME test cycles (no more and no less) and those test cycles be better designed to reflect the real world with little to no adjustment factor needed.

a. More real world acceleration (not performance level, just typical and certainly faster than 0-60 in 18 seconds)​

b. More realistic highway speeds considering the current speeds limits on the interstates. A top speed of at least 75 mph and an average of 55 or 60 mph and certainly more than the top speed to 60 mph and average of 48 mph.​

c. A change to 60% city / 40% highway vs the current 55% city and 45% highway.​

​

That data is available if people really want it.

I have already covered why that is absurd. But I will try one more time. The typical EV buyer has no idea how the EPA rating was determined, that there are optional tests that manufacturers can use to raise their score, whether those additional cycles were used etc etc etc.

Looking into the EPA data requires the typical EV buyer to:
1) Know how EVs are tested to a very high level
2) Know that the test reports behind the EPA ratings are available
3) Know where to find the test results
4) Be able to read the submissions (they are all formatted differently)
5) Do the math to come to a base number for each vehicle they might consider

Not only unrealistic, but simply absurd to think that but a tiny number of people would actually do this!

And those numbers vary with the weather.

The variable of weather can be isolated from the testing so that no heat or AC is used. There are other options to standardize on x minutes AC and X minutes heat to be used exactly the same for all manufacturers. Or, in the ideal, they could develop and publish a SEER rating for the Heatng and Cooling systems of the BEVs much like they do with home HVAC equipment so consumers in low temp areas can see the BEVs with the best heating SEER rating and those in high temp areas can look for the best cooling SEER rating.

Real world results are going to be very different for different people, and there is no standardized test that can reflect that.

A test that is so flawed that is has to be adjusted by 30% is not accurate for anyone. Yes, it can be better. A standardized test can be designed to better reflect driving in present day. The government does traffic studies and knows the average highway speeds being driven (hint they are more than 48 mph and peak above 60 mph). I can go on, but hopefully the point is made that defending the current EPA test is ridiculous. The current test is so removed from reality that it is a farce.

I do (or at least pre-COVID) many events a year promoting the adoption of EVs and have had countless discussions with prospective owners

Since 2015, I have also been doing countless events with Drive Electric Week, Dupont Registry Cars & Coffee, numerous local car shows across Florida & Georgia, several parades and EV static displays. In 2015 into 2016, the Model X was still new to everyone, so every time the falcon wing doors went up somewhere, it was like a mini-car show with people wanting to see the car and ask questions. I have had many of the same questions over the years. In 2015, my wife and son made this board and attached an 18650 cell to keep in the car.

 

[mkennedy1996]

This is a test that uses acceleration of 0-60 in 18 seconds (grandma would be honking at you to hurry the heck up) and does highway testing that averages 48 mph with a top speed to 60 mph.

I finally found out where the EPA testing average highway speed of 48 mph comes from. Apparently 1934.

 

[n8dgr8]

If I accelerated like a granny and capped out at 65mph, my Model X would get *greater* than promised range.

But I don't. I fully utilize the power and torque available and keep up with the flow of traffic around here - Usually ~80mph.

It gets about 65-75% the rated range when driven like that - depending on the season - and I expect the Rivian to be similar.

Tried this and can never get anywhere close to the rated range. Need to go 55 mph or slower in the springtime with no wind.

 

[Smithery]

Tried this and can never get anywhere close to the rated range. Need to go 55 mph or slower in the springtime with no wind.

Depending on how long you've had your car, how many cycles you've charged, whether or not you actual took charged it to 100% then immediately left on your trip, etc.... range can be to variable to nail down.

I make my statement based on setting cruise control to 65mph on a flat highway on a 75º day and watching usage hover around 325 wh/mi, knowing that my Model X is "calibrated" to predict range at 333 wh/mi.

I know a lot of Model S owners with the same experience in theirs, using their specific model's wh/mi number.

I wonder how you ran your experiment and - if you really can't reproduce - if you've asked an SC wtf is wrong with your car

 

[Mysta]

Pay attention when EPA numbers come out, if they do 2 cycle epa test it has a correction factor that will likely make it accrurate or conservative even, if its 5, may be overrated like Tesla.

 

[Cactus]

The faster you go, the worse it gets. The force of drag gets very high as velocity increases. I think the equation is something like Drag=air density*square of velocity.

Plus, if you are crawling up a rocky hill in your adventure vehicle, your mileage will be much worse than going 55 mph on a scenic winding road.

 

[jjwolf120]

Drag=air density*square of velocity.

You need to add in the coefficient of drag and the surface area of the vehicle.

The drag equation states that drag D is equal to the drag coefficient Cd times the density r times half of the velocity V squared times the reference area A.

 

[Rob P]

I am counting on 50 percent of epa range which is why I am waiting for the max battery R1S and some real world feedback before I buy. I drive in the 99 percentile fast and will have a roof rack with cargo box and sometimes surfboards and live in Western Washington where I will be driving in rain and snow half the time.

 

[mkhuffman]

So I didn't respond to the survey because Rivian has not released any EPA range estimates. They certainly can do it by now, but for some reason they still use "300+" and "400+". It is very frustrating because the "+" could be 10 miles, or 80 miles. That is a huge difference.

The possibility of a 400+ range BEV is what first attracted me to Rivian. It is what got me excited, because no vehicle prior to Rivian had claimed a range like that. Of course the Model S has since passed the threshold (so they say) but at the time Rivian was the only one. Then I started researching and realized my use case (mostly highway driving) is not likely to even come close to those range estimates.

So I did some math to figure out what range the R1T 180 kWh truck will actually produce. An efficient BEV at 70 mph like the new Ford Mustang Mach-E (MME) was tested on the highway (conditions were not great, but not unusual either) and achieved 2.6 mi/kWh at a steady 70 mph.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ge-test-at-70-mph-true-to-epa-highway-results

It will be impossible for the R1T or R1S to be as efficient as the MME. It is heavier and less aerodynamic, and has bigger wheels/tires. I think that best case, we might see 2 mi/kWh on the highway at 70 mph, but it will probably be worse. But let's go with 2 mi/kWh.

The 180 kWh pack will not have all that capacity available for use. A safe assumption is 90% will be available for use, but it could be less. Let's go with 90%.

Simple math: 2*180*0.9 = 324 miles. That assumes you start at 100% and run the truck until the battery dies. Nobody will actually do that, especially on a trip. Let's assume your first leg of the trip starts at 100%. Your first leg range will be: 324*0.9 = 292 miles (10% reserve before stopping to charge).

But between chargers, you will want to charge at 10% and charge to a max of 80%, because after 80% the charging rate will slow down. So your range between chargers on a trip is 324*0.7 = 227 miles.

The problem is I think 2 mi/kWh is too high for the big, heavy truck. I think these calculations are optimistic, and depressing because I never wanted to stop every 227 miles in my ICE car. My diesel E320 will go 600 miles on the highway before I have to stop to fill it up to 100%, not 80%.

But I still want one. I may get a MME before the "400+" R1T is available. Not decided yet. But I am ready for the adventure.

 

[mkennedy1996]

So I didn't respond to the survey because Rivian has not released any EPA range estimates. They certainly can do it by now, but for some reason they still use "300+" and "400+". It is very frustrating because the "+" could be 10 miles, or 80 miles. That is a huge difference.

The possibility of a 400+ range BEV is what first attracted me to Rivian. It is what got me excited, because no vehicle prior to Rivian had claimed a range like that. Of course the Model S has since passed the threshold (so they say) but at the time Rivian was the only one. Then I started researching and realized my use case (mostly highway driving) is not likely to even come close to those range estimates.

So I did some math to figure out what range the R1T 180 kWh truck will actually produce. An efficient BEV at 70 mph like the new Ford Mustang Mach-E (MME) was tested on the highway (conditions were not great, but not unusual either) and achieved 2.6 mi/kWh at a steady 70 mph.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ge-test-at-70-mph-true-to-epa-highway-results

It will be impossible for the R1T or R1S to be as efficient as the MME. It is heavier and less aerodynamic, and has bigger wheels/tires. I think that best case, we might see 2 mi/kWh on the highway at 70 mph, but it will probably be worse. But let's go with 2 mi/kWh.

The 180 kWh pack will not have all that capacity available for use. A safe assumption is 90% will be available for use, but it could be less. Let's go with 90%.

Simple math: 2*180*0.9 = 324 miles. That assumes you start at 100% and run the truck until the battery dies. Nobody will actually do that, especially on a trip. Let's assume your first leg of the trip starts at 100%. Your first leg range will be: 324*0.9 = 292 miles (10% reserve before stopping to charge).

But between chargers, you will want to charge at 10% and charge to a max of 80%, because after 80% the charging rate will slow down. So your range between chargers on a trip is 324*0.7 = 227 miles.

The problem is I think 2 mi/kWh is too high for the big, heavy truck. I think these calculations are optimistic, and depressing because I never wanted to stop every 227 miles in my ICE car. My diesel E320 will go 600 miles on the highway before I have to stop to fill it up to 100%, not 80%.

But I still want one. I may get a MME before the "400+" R1T is available. Not decided yet. But I am ready for the adventure.

I think your math is pretty close. The car is predicted to be rated at about 428 Wh/mile. So a 17% premium (500 Wh/mile) to go 70 mph is realistic in the Rivians. I average about a 20% premium in my Teslas over 5 years of driving. These have ludicrous and I tend to use it and 70mph is the slow lane for me.

 

[mkennedy1996]

Simple math: 2*180*0.9 = 324 miles. That assumes you start at 100% and run the truck until the battery dies. Nobody will actually do that, especially on a trip. Let's assume your first leg of the trip starts at 100%. Your first leg range will be: 324*0.9 = 292 miles (10% reserve before stopping to charge).

But between chargers, you will want to charge at 10% and charge to a max of 80%, because after 80% the charging rate will slow down. So your range between chargers on a trip is 324*0.7 = 227 miles.

Road tripping in a BEV does require a change of mindset. It took our family some time to adjust. We are over 5 years into a no ICE life and the family including kids and dogs have adjusted to the stops every few hours. The more often you stop, the less time you actually spend charging on a trip. The car is ready to go many times before the family.

Sponsored