Taycan Turbo - EPA rated 201 miles
12-11-2019, 10:29 PM
#76
conjecture is not proof nor is not having enough understanding to know why a company measures things
Last edited by Bob Roberts; 12-11-2019 at 11:12 PM.
12-11-2019, 10:31 PM
#77
I think the lack of lift off regen could be a serious factor, but we would need to know how the EPA tests on a dyno.
Would they apply the brakes while strapped to a dyno?
Do they test the same as gas cars?
If they run the same range tests as gas cars, I don't believe brakes would ever be used because it actually lowers the efficiency of gas cars.
If they're ramping the cars up to speed and letting them coast, the Taycan would be severely hamstrung because no regen is occurring.
Would they apply the brakes while strapped to a dyno?
Do they test the same as gas cars?
If they run the same range tests as gas cars, I don't believe brakes would ever be used because it actually lowers the efficiency of gas cars.
If they're ramping the cars up to speed and letting them coast, the Taycan would be severely hamstrung because no regen is occurring.
12-11-2019, 10:33 PM
#78
Burning Brakes
I agree that this is not related to regen. Even though the regen was set to Level 0 for the E-Tron and Standard regen was used for the Tesla Model X. But on the dyno it doesn't matter much.
As I mentioned earlier the regen converts the kinetic energy to electric energy.
Kinetic energy of the car on the road is large K=1/2*mass of vehicle * speed^2. However very little on the dyno since the car is stationary, only the wheels are spinning.
Here is a rough calculation:
K_straight_line=1/2m*v^2
K_rotating_mass=1/2mr^2w^2
mass of car = 2500kg
v = 50mph = 22.352m/s
mass of wheel = 25kg just a guess
radius for center of mass = 0.25m just a guess
w @ 50mph for 255/50R20 = 22.352m/s / ((255mm*50%*2+20")meter*pi) = 9.325 1/s
Kinetic energy of a car moving at 50mph = 0.5*2500*22.352^2 = 624.5kJ = 173.5Wh
Kinetic energy of 4 wheels on a car moving at 50mph = 0.5*4*25*0.25^2*9.325^2 = 0.27kJ = 0.075Wh
EDIT: OOOPS one thing I forgot. The dyno can simulate the weight of the car at acceleration, and it might be able to simulate the weight for the deceleration as well. I have to check this. It's not trivial. For acceleration the dyno needs brakes only, but to simulate regen/deceleration, it needs to be driven by electric motors.
As I mentioned earlier the regen converts the kinetic energy to electric energy.
Kinetic energy of the car on the road is large K=1/2*mass of vehicle * speed^2. However very little on the dyno since the car is stationary, only the wheels are spinning.
Here is a rough calculation:
K_straight_line=1/2m*v^2
K_rotating_mass=1/2mr^2w^2
mass of car = 2500kg
v = 50mph = 22.352m/s
mass of wheel = 25kg just a guess
radius for center of mass = 0.25m just a guess
w @ 50mph for 255/50R20 = 22.352m/s / ((255mm*50%*2+20")meter*pi) = 9.325 1/s
Kinetic energy of a car moving at 50mph = 0.5*2500*22.352^2 = 624.5kJ = 173.5Wh
Kinetic energy of 4 wheels on a car moving at 50mph = 0.5*4*25*0.25^2*9.325^2 = 0.27kJ = 0.075Wh
EDIT: OOOPS one thing I forgot. The dyno can simulate the weight of the car at acceleration, and it might be able to simulate the weight for the deceleration as well. I have to check this. It's not trivial. For acceleration the dyno needs brakes only, but to simulate regen/deceleration, it needs to be driven by electric motors.
Followup here, yeah it looks like these dynamometers are able to simulate the regeneration.
Here is one for example that is used by EPA: https://www.aip-automotive.de/en/Pro...3%98-48-Roller It has massive motors, one for each wheel.
It makes sense, otherwise hybrid and gasoline cars would have very similar EPA consumption numbers.
Another one here: https://hofmanntesys.com/emissions-t...-7d48dc72-3377
Will need to dig more on this. Why do they turn off the regen for the Audi and leave it on for Tesla and if so, do they compensate for it?
The following users liked this post:
JB43 (12-23-2019)
12-11-2019, 10:37 PM
#79
Has anyone looked into what the the EPA test entails? I know ICE cars go on a dyno and then they measure tailpipe emissions to get EPA mileage ratings. How do we know that electric vehicles actually get driven on a road for testing? This is a quote from the SAE website regarding the testing procedure that the EPA implements.
“It is the intent of this document to provide standard tests which will allow for the determination of energy consumption and range for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) based on the Federal Emission Test Procedure (FTP) using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)”
So it sounds like the EPA just does the SAE dyno test?? I’m not taking any sides here but that can’t possibly accurately assess aerodynamics, cooling effects on batteries via radiators, etc.
“It is the intent of this document to provide standard tests which will allow for the determination of energy consumption and range for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) based on the Federal Emission Test Procedure (FTP) using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)”
So it sounds like the EPA just does the SAE dyno test?? I’m not taking any sides here but that can’t possibly accurately assess aerodynamics, cooling effects on batteries via radiators, etc.
12-11-2019, 10:46 PM
#80
Burning Brakes
Has anyone looked into what the the EPA test entails? I know ICE cars go on a dyno and then they measure tailpipe emissions to get EPA mileage ratings. How do we know that electric vehicles actually get driven on a road for testing? This is a quote from the SAE website regarding the testing procedure that the EPA implements.
“It is the intent of this document to provide standard tests which will allow for the determination of energy consumption and range for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) based on the Federal Emission Test Procedure (FTP) using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)”
So it sounds like the EPA just does the SAE dyno test?? I’m not taking any sides here but that can’t possibly accurately assess aerodynamics, cooling effects on batteries via radiators, etc.
“It is the intent of this document to provide standard tests which will allow for the determination of energy consumption and range for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) based on the Federal Emission Test Procedure (FTP) using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)”
So it sounds like the EPA just does the SAE dyno test?? I’m not taking any sides here but that can’t possibly accurately assess aerodynamics, cooling effects on batteries via radiators, etc.
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/displ...d=34102&flag=1
12-11-2019, 10:57 PM
#81
the Porsche designers were pretty clear they hated 1 pedal driving and wanted a more traditionally Porsche driving experience. They can certainly software update improvements here, but I don't think that helps with the EPA. The EPA tests your default configuration turning the car on. This is why it's such a pain to turn auto start stop (***) off in a 992 911.
yeah, I don't think the regen is the primary factor here. Early reviews compared W/km with the model S, and these numbers aren't far off what the EPA measured. That was with very aggressive "journalist gets car for a day, GO" driving, but it still compared unfavorably to the model S. Tesla has spent more than a decade optimizing the power efficiency of everything. Power train, thermal management, AC, entertainment system, braking. By all accounts, their thermal management is better, and everything else has had years of tuning and incremental improvements.
yeah, I don't think the regen is the primary factor here. Early reviews compared W/km with the model S, and these numbers aren't far off what the EPA measured. That was with very aggressive "journalist gets car for a day, GO" driving, but it still compared unfavorably to the model S. Tesla has spent more than a decade optimizing the power efficiency of everything. Power train, thermal management, AC, entertainment system, braking. By all accounts, their thermal management is better, and everything else has had years of tuning and incremental improvements.
12-11-2019, 11:08 PM
#82
1st Gear
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my experience with the EPA rating on electric cars. The MB B-class regularly had 100+ miles of range and low 80's in the winter.
So I have had 5 electric cars. Focus Electric, MB B-class, eGolf and 2 model 3's.
The B-class had far more range than the 84 miles it was rated by the EPA. With the others I could only exceed the rated range on ideal days in ideal conditions. i,e. 45-50 mph, 60-70 degrees F. The real world B-class minimum was 84 miles in the worst conditions (<32 F) and much better in other conditions.
With the B-class in cold the first few miles were sometimes close to 1000 Wh per mile for the first few miles but then it would settle into something more reasonable. If the EPA test cycle has a short mileage cold test loop this could explain the 84 miles rated range, as the cars real world range was much better than this. (not an expert in the EPA test cycle..)
My point is this is a test cycle depending on how the cars software manages the battery thermal management and other consumption you could end up with a low rated range but more range in real life depending on how you drive.
Anyway, Porsche should know the EPA test cycle well and should not have not been surprised by the 201mile range. People will look at the range on the sticker to compare. I don't think they can advertise anything but this.
12-11-2019, 11:10 PM
#83
And I’ll beat my favorite dead horse: Porsche promised 310 miles of range, awd and $80k msrp when the Mission E was unveiled (and deposits were first accepted). I assume these were engineering targets that have not just been missed, but missed by a mile! Our hero Elon makes some hokey promises but, well, so does Porsche.
The Taycan Turbo is still a mighty impressive car imo, and I’d love to drive one, but, it is a niche vehicle with a very small (and shrinking?) niche. Comparing it to high volume production cars for general consumption is not really fair to Porsche. VW is under a lot of pressure to get the etron and Taycan into consumers hands by the end of 2019 so perhaps later iterations will deliver more in the range department. In the meantime, very wealthy people who want to scare their spouses and impress teenagers with stupefying acceleration and speed - look no further, here is your car.
The Taycan Turbo is still a mighty impressive car imo, and I’d love to drive one, but, it is a niche vehicle with a very small (and shrinking?) niche. Comparing it to high volume production cars for general consumption is not really fair to Porsche. VW is under a lot of pressure to get the etron and Taycan into consumers hands by the end of 2019 so perhaps later iterations will deliver more in the range department. In the meantime, very wealthy people who want to scare their spouses and impress teenagers with stupefying acceleration and speed - look no further, here is your car.
The following 8 users liked this post by unclewill:
4pipes (12-12-2019),
ace10 (12-15-2019),
daveo4porsche (12-12-2019),
JB43 (12-23-2019),
MM3.9GT3 (12-11-2019),
and 3 others liked this post.
12-11-2019, 11:15 PM
#84
Also, since you are saying that they were taking deposits on a concept car in 2015, since when do they take deposits on concept cars?
The 500 km in the press release is 11% off the WLTP range. In exchange, they blew away the 3.5 0-60 time and they exceed the 440 power output by getting to 560. No sign of any pricing in that press release.
While we are waiting for Musk to complete the promised FSD coast to coast drive by the end of 2017. we will see if they get to 600 miles and 1.9 seconds on the roadster for 250k.
The following 3 users liked this post by Bob Roberts:
12-12-2019, 12:07 AM
#85
Do you have a citation where Porsche "promised" this?
Also, since you are saying that they were taking deposits on a concept car in 2015, since when do they take deposits on concept cars?
The 500 km in the press release is 11% off the WLTP range. In exchange, they blew away the 3.5 0-60 time and they exceed the 440 power output by getting to 560. No sign of any pricing in that press release.
While we are waiting for Musk to complete the promised FSD coast to coast drive by the end of 2017. we will see if they get to 600 miles and 1.9 seconds on the roadster for 250k.
Also, since you are saying that they were taking deposits on a concept car in 2015, since when do they take deposits on concept cars?
The 500 km in the press release is 11% off the WLTP range. In exchange, they blew away the 3.5 0-60 time and they exceed the 440 power output by getting to 560. No sign of any pricing in that press release.
While we are waiting for Musk to complete the promised FSD coast to coast drive by the end of 2017. we will see if they get to 600 miles and 1.9 seconds on the roadster for 250k.
God bless ‘em though, they did give me a full refund last year when I realized this car wasn’t going to deliver - and I gave it to Tesla for a Model Y Performance reservation. 😉
Here is the official reveal:
Here is a 2017 Fortune mag piece on the price:
https://fortune.com/2017/09/15/porsc...tric-car-cost/
Earlier reports slotted it “just under” the starting price of the Panamera but I am too lazy to do ALL of your research for you...
The following 8 users liked this post by unclewill:
4pipes (12-12-2019),
ace10 (12-15-2019),
destaccado (12-12-2019),
JB43 (12-23-2019),
jimjoe997 (12-12-2019),
and 3 others liked this post.
12-12-2019, 12:33 AM
#86
No, what you meant to say is that your are too dishonest to admit that they never "promised" any of the things that you claimed. They never said "We promise to deliver..."
You are also too intellectually dishonest to admit that 11% less on range is a tradeoff for much faster (3.5 vs. 2.8) 0-60 times and significantly higher power output.
You are also too intellectually dishonest to admit that 11% less on range is a tradeoff for much faster (3.5 vs. 2.8) 0-60 times and significantly higher power output.
12-12-2019, 01:44 AM
#87
No, what you meant to say is that your are too dishonest to admit that they never "promised" any of the things that you claimed. They never said "We promise to deliver..."
You are also too intellectually dishonest to admit that 11% less on range is a tradeoff for much faster (3.5 vs. 2.8) 0-60 times and significantly higher power output.
You are also too intellectually dishonest to admit that 11% less on range is a tradeoff for much faster (3.5 vs. 2.8) 0-60 times and significantly higher power output.
12-12-2019, 02:28 AM
#88
Range matters for a lot of people. For me, that is the end of my Taycan reservation. I could barely make my frequent 180 miles round trip in winter with a 253 mile model S P85D. I had to put the heating down to 67F and drive at less than 70 mph. I kept thinking how did I pay 125k for a car if I have to shiver in it and drive like a nanny. I thought the 4S would come close to the same EPA range as the 2014 model S, and that somehow magically winter driving will have less range loss than in Tesla. Not so much now that expected EPA for 4S will be 210-220 miles. As much as I love the design of Taycan and the fit and finish of Porsche, I am not going to buy a car that pretty much guarantees I will need to recharge on such a short trip. So back to hoping that Tesla actually makes a decent interior for their new model S next year. Anyone interested in a high on the list reservation at Porsche Minneapolis let me know.
The following 2 users liked this post by svp6:
daveo4porsche (12-12-2019),
WinterCharm (12-17-2019)
12-12-2019, 02:40 AM
#89
I don’t think anybody has brought this up yet, but the 800lb gorilla in the room is how this will affect resale value of these cars.
My advice: if you buy a Taycan Turbo, drive the living **** out of it and have fun because you will never get your $200k back, not even close. No point in saving it for the next guy....
My advice: if you buy a Taycan Turbo, drive the living **** out of it and have fun because you will never get your $200k back, not even close. No point in saving it for the next guy....
The following 5 users liked this post by unclewill:
4pipes (12-12-2019),
Class5Kayaker (12-19-2019),
daveo4porsche (12-12-2019),
destaccado (12-12-2019),
JB43 (12-23-2019)
12-12-2019, 02:46 AM
#90
I don’t think anybody has brought this up yet, but the 800lb gorilla in the room is how this will affect resale value of these cars.
My advice: if you buy a Taycan Turbo, drive the living **** out of it and have fun because you will never get your $200k back, not even close. No point in saving it for the next guy....
My advice: if you buy a Taycan Turbo, drive the living **** out of it and have fun because you will never get your $200k back, not even close. No point in saving it for the next guy....
