When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think it would be really helpful if you could post said data and the methodology you used. I've used chassis dynos many times and don't see how you can extrapolate power needed for constant speed.
Thanks
Car makers have to provide this data in order to set up the dyno correctly. The data is valid from 10mph to ~65mph. Extrapolating it to 120mph may not be accurate.
Here is an example for Audi:
Audi was nice enough to share the data for both 75F and 20F (Cold CO). Note the difference. // EVs don't have to be measured at low temperatures. Audi wasn't. It's optional.
By using the target coefficients one can calculate the power needed for traction. If the equations are correct, the value for 50mph should match to the "EPA calculated total road load horse power". This is sometimes abbreviated as TRL50 or similar.
Once the power is calculated, one can convert it to consumption by dividing it by the speed. These are true for constant speed only. For something like an EPA cycle the acceleration of wheels and vehicle mass have to be added.
Because of my background and technology involved in EV, I was thinking in terms of silicon, like CPU progression. Like Intel vs AMD.
For successive generations, there are suppose to be 'major' changes, either from a die shrink, or longer pipeline, more cores or added functions. Or in Intel's case, sometimes they just call it a new generation for marketing purposes.
Tesla is the Intel of the EV car business, the dominant one. It is suppose to be the best in the segment. VAG and everyone else will be the AMD.
Between Model S and Model 3, there are changes and improvements, but there isn't quite a change big enough to warrant a next generation label, it's more like a refresh, staying in the same architecture and staying at 14nm. It's faster and higher frequency for sure, that to me is same thing as range in a EV.
Going to 800V to me it's like going to 7nm like AMD did. Initially they aren't faster than Intel's offerings. But going down to 7nm opens up the space to be creative down the road, they can add more cores, more cache, etc that would help later on. Now AMD's offerings are blowing Intel out of the water on work done, yet still can't touch Intel on frequency per core.
Intel still holds the frequency crown now, like Tesla holding the range crown. But some consumers doesn't need higher frequency per core, they want more cores to do more work in parallel, or their programming works better with more cache, etc. With that, they turned to using AMD processors. Not everyone needs the highest frequency on a single core. There are still people that need that though, like gamers, and they are still loyal to Intel processors as that gives them the best performance for their games.
Over simplified and not quite a complete analogy, but that's how I see things.
I get that thinking and perspective. I'm not sure it maps over to cars as well as things like flat screen TVs , however, because cars are rarely dominated by any one technology: even turbos, direct injection, etc are only incremental changes. You can, however, draw boxes around cars with suites of technologies: CAD design, EFI, airbags, ABS and lower profile tires might define a generation of vehicles that began in the late 80s with cars like the 944 Turbo (the first car with dual airbags standard) and 964. Together they improved both performance and safety...
I see a suite of technical improvements in the Model 3 that are difficult to define. The batteries represent a second generation of mass production design and are reportedly far cheaper than anything currently being fielded by competitors (some reports say they are half the price). The mechanical design is significantly more elegant that previous electrics re wiring runs, copper used, etc. The main motor is of a new more efficient design. The car hits impressive weight and performance targets despite being built from relatively inexpensive materials (a mainly steel chassis vs aluminum for the Model S and impractical carbon fiber for the i3/ i8). Most of these impact cost vs the Model S rather than performance, but I think that's one of the main hurdles the next generation of EVs need to overcome. I never found the Model S particularly compelling at its price point, however virtually the same functionality at half the price (which is essentially what the Model 3 is) is a step-change, one that I suspect the next generation of EVs will follow.
It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years and how this thinking ages...
I get that thinking and perspective. I'm not sure it maps over to cars as well as things like flat screen TVs , however, because cars are rarely dominated by any one technology: even turbos, direct injection, etc are only incremental changes. You can, however, draw boxes around cars with suites of technologies: CAD design, EFI, airbags, ABS and lower profile tires might define a generation of vehicles that began in the late 80s with cars like the 944 Turbo (the first car with dual airbags standard) and 964. Together they improved both performance and safety...
I see a suite of technical improvements in the Model 3 that are difficult to define. The batteries represent a second generation of mass production design and are reportedly far cheaper than anything currently being fielded by competitors (some reports say they are half the price). The mechanical design is significantly more elegant that previous electrics re wiring runs, copper used, etc. The main motor is of a new more efficient design. The car hits impressive weight and performance targets despite being built from relatively inexpensive materials (a mainly steel chassis vs aluminum for the Model S and impractical carbon fiber for the i3/ i8). Most of these impact cost vs the Model S rather than performance, but I think that's one of the main hurdles the next generation of EVs need to overcome. I never found the Model S particularly compelling at its price point, however virtually the same functionality at half the price (which is essentially what the Model 3 is) is a step-change, one that I suspect the next generation of EVs will follow.
It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years and how this thinking ages...
Yeah I know, even in car terms it's not quite apple to apple either. Model 3 is a completely different car than a Model S, so even when talking about the battery improvement (which Tesla needed to do as the Model 3 is at a much lower price point), manufacturing material (same deal, steel is cheaper).
But you are correct, Model 3 is like 80-90% of a Model S at like 1/2 the price, why bother with a Model S.
By using the target coefficients one can calculate the power needed for traction. If the equations are correct, the value for 50mph should match to the "EPA calculated total road load horse power". This is sometimes abbreviated as TRL50 or similar.
Once the power is calculated, one can convert it to consumption by dividing it by the speed. These are true for constant speed only. For something like an EPA cycle the acceleration of wheels and vehicle mass have to be added.
Audi @ 50mph needs 13.4hp = 10kW -> 200Wh/mi
Thanks for the details. By calculating consumption that way you're essentially assuming that Battery - Invertor - Motors - Wheels has the same efficiency on all cars, which is a big jump, especially with EVs.
I think it's more realistic to just infer drivetrain losses from this data and having the VW products slightly more energy hungry than Tesla's correlates with what @daveo has been saying from his Tesla engineer friend. That they try to make small efficiency gains everywheverywhere.
Thanks for the details. By calculating consumption that way you're essentially assuming that Battery - Invertor - Motors - Wheels has the same efficiency on all cars, which is a big jump, especially with EVs.
I think it's more realistic to just infer drivetrain losses from this data and having the VW products slightly more energy hungry than Tesla's correlates with what @daveo has been saying from his Tesla engineer friend. That they try to make small efficiency gains everywheverywhere.
You have reached the next level of not_reading_acostes_posts because the answer is in the sentence you quoted from me:
"This would be a consumption at 75F, 100% efficiency and 0 accessories."
Additionally the title of the chart says "net power"
And from here everyone can calculate the realistic consumption based on personal believes.
I used a constant 85% efficiency over there but in reality it changes over speed. The higher the speed the better the efficiency. At 50mph it might be less than 85%.
You have reached the next level of not_reading_acostes_posts because the answer is in the sentence you quoted from me:
I was on my phone and it wasn't in the post I quoted, but in a previous comment. My bad.
However, and forgive me for being so blunt, when the entire discussion is about the overall efficiency of the vehicle, assuming the powertrain efficiency to be identical between competitors is a very big assumption that shouldn't really be made without proof. So the data published here is nothing more than: "What range would these cars have if they'd be powered by a magic box that weighs nothing and has identical efficiency, no matter the car it's put in".
How close to the computer's prediction of range are you actually getting?
The range is dictated by a lot of factors but in our hands and other real world tests have shown the Taycan Turbo S will get over 250 miles on a charge from its 83 KWH usable battery. Now doing repeated launch control starts, driving over 90 mph , heater on full, in sport plus mode, lights on high beam and going up a mountain it will not get that far. The efficiency of this car is less then the competition but it also has 750 hp, weighs 5000 pounds and is the fastest electric sedan in the world. The efficiency of this car is not as catastrophic as the EPA or some on this forum claim but the performance certainly is hitting every claim by Porsche:
On All Season Tires:
0 -60 mph 2.6 seconds as verified on Jason Camissa's VBox with me in the car.
Grip levels:
I cannot wait to see what this car will do on some high performance summer rubber and when the weather gets above 55 degrees...
.
Driving over 700 miles now on our shop Taycan Turbo S and it is steadily going up in stated range with more sedate driving from us....
Is this range reading after multiple short test drives with recharging top ups each time or are you letting the car go down to 5% remaining and then recharging it? Also what is the longest trip you have taking while putting the 700 miles on the demo car and what was the energy usage recorded?
The range is dictated by a lot of factors but in our hands and other real world tests have shown the Taycan Turbo S will get over 250 miles on a charge from its 83 KWH usable battery.
I understand the cars computer is showing a roughly 250 mile range, but that is based on recent driving history. My E-tron has shown a 350 mile range after driving down mountain passes in Colorado. Doesn't actually reflect real world range.
I'm confident that the Taycan will hit close to it's EPA rated range fairly reliably, but I seriously doubt it will ever come close to 250 miles unless you are driving at 55 mph with no head wind and 73 degree temps.
Please don't tell Taycan customers that it will go 250 miles unless a lot more independent tests prove otherwise. From personal experience buying other electric vehicles, I've had sales associates claim much higher figures than EPA to find out clearly the opposite. You may end up with some really pissed off stranded clients.
I understand the cars computer is showing a roughly 250 mile range, but that is based on recent driving history. My E-tron has shown a 350 mile range after driving down mountain passes in Colorado. Doesn't actually reflect real world range.
I'm confident that the Taycan will hit close to it's EPA rated range fairly reliably, but I seriously doubt it will ever come close to 250 miles unless you are driving at 55 mph with no head wind and 73 degree temps.
Please don't tell Taycan customers that it will go 250 miles unless a lot more independent tests prove otherwise. From personal experience buying other electric vehicles, I've had sales associates claim much higher figures than EPA to find out clearly the opposite. You may end up with some really pissed off stranded clients.
haven’t logged all the posts and articles but I think this is one of the many posts that point to a real world range of 230-250
At a dealership it’s usually a mixed loop on test drives (at least that’s what we did at my family’s) and some about town
55mph would be bad for the Taycan wouldn’t it? Stuck in first gear?
haven’t logged all the posts and articles but I think this is one of the many posts that point to a real world range of 230-250
At a dealership it’s usually a mixed loop on test drives (at least that’s what we did at my family’s) and some about town
55mph would be bad for the Taycan wouldn’t it? Stuck in first gear?
No one has provided real world data showing a range of 230-250 miles. A snap in time of a Taycan computer showing 259 miles is not data.
Get someone to drive a Taycan in 70-80 mph traffic for 150 miles in normal weather and provide the watt/mile consumption. That would be a start.
It's possible that the Taycan is that under-rated, but assuming it has similar efficiency as the Audi E-tron with almost the same EPA rating and battery size, my actual driving data shows my E-tron with about a 200 mile real world range. Very close to the EPA (better than how a Tesla performs relative to EPA ratings) but a good 20% below a 250 mile range.
I guess the positive is if people keep pushing the 250 mile narrative prior to having actual data, there could be some good deals on used Taycan's next year.
any dealers taht wanna loan me their taycan for a week I'll happily provide data - I use my daily commute, and take some 180 mile trips with data at normal highway speeds and provide detailed documentation about how I drove the car, temperature, and HVAC settings and car mode…
01-23-2020, 03:32 PM
