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.