I recently did a 75 mile round trip mostly motorway, I have a ZS ev it's averaging 3.8kw on mg pilot at 65mph left with 100% (152 miles ) got home with 85mile range left ,well pleased and so relaxing only had the car 2.5 months but I'm sold love it ,love the experience and ease of driving an ev ,plus my 3.5 mile trip to the shops has become a challenge to see if I can do it and get home with the Same range as I set out (nearly) did the 7miles used 2mile of range ,very addictive.
I do a 100 mile commute to work once a week in my ZS ev. Had if for a month, love it so far. I find that on the free motorway, I get about 17 kwh/100km or 3.6 miles/kwh However when there are traffic jams (a lot of the time actually) I get 13 kwh/100km of 4.8miles/kwh Both of those include AC on in normal mode as I live in a hot country. I usually have enough range to last a week including my commute.
Find the mg zs EV a much maligned car but I really do find it a lovely drive and range is actually quite good. Having an ev has made me slow down to conserve a bit of battery and makes it a safer and more comfortable driving experience.
A couple of years ago we had a puncture on holiday in France. As it was a Sunday we could not replace the tyre and had to drive 350 miles of autoroute on a space saver tyre at 50mph. At that speed it returned 83 mpg. Usually on a long run we get a little over 60 mpg. I can't say it was an enjoyable run with HGVs bearing down on us at around 60 mph, but it shows how much more fuel efficient vehicles are at lower speeds.
@@philtucker1224 2009 Ford Focus TDCI estate. Have only driven 700miles since February 2020, due to COVID. As the Ford has 196k on it, I could replace it with with an MG5 when we start to travel again next year.
@@Bettys_Eldest Thanks for your reply and also a coincidence- I also have a 2009 Ford Focus but regrettably it’s an automatic petrol version and very juicy at only 29 to the gallon…I certainly miss my previous diesel version. Kind regards to you.
There is something else that really makes a difference - how you drive the car, and getting to know how to get the best out of it. We got our EQC in December, but hardly used it until the last few weeks, when my wife is needing to make a 15 mile journey two ways each day. Her initial rate was 2.2m/kWh (yes I know - it's a big heavy car!). As she has got used to driving with the different drive modes and varying the regen, she is now getting 2.8m/kWh. There is a skill to knowing how to use a car's features to give more economy, even without going slower. And my wife still sometimes puts on Sports mode to burn off and annoy some ICE driving person in an expensive performance car next to her at the traffic lights 😂
As a HGV driver I've noted far more the EV's tailing me for long periods. Personally couldn't think of anything worse than looking at my Taillift all that time.
@@stevezodiac491 My comment was to focus on the fact that it appears some EV's feel the need to sacrifice any driving pleasure in the pursuit of range . ( lousy infrastructure I'm guessing as it can't be cost as you keep telling us how cheap they are to own ) I also don't like the 3 mile overtake of two HGV's so don't participate but in light of your expectation we are all the same send me your reg and I can oblige.
These type of videos are really useful. We’ve just done a 260 mile journey to the father-in-laws, at between 75 and 80mph (with the flow), with one charge stop from 38% to 95% (from 95% at the start, SR+). We arrived with 15%, and paid £7.60 for the electricity, (it’s getting a free charge at the house now). When all EVs are charging at 130 kWh upwards, it’ll become too compelling not to move over from ICE. It’s effortless.
For context, my last ICE (before getting a Tesla) my commute journey on the M11 during rush hour before the pandemic hit was 25 miles with 18 miles on the M11. You could join the head to tail fight in the outside lane, or sit behind a lorry with little stress and take 2 minutes longer. In a 2.0L diesel Passat I could get about 50mpg at 70 (ish), or normally 60mpg or up to 70mpg with slip-streaming a lorry. So nearly as much loss (or gain) as an EV.
Absolutely spot on. As a newish EV driver I am always trying to eke out a few more miles from the battery. Granny driving I find does actually work, often doesn't take that much longer than when driving like a mad fella!
The national express coaches are your best friend on a long run. They usually push along about 65. In reasonable weather I can get nearly 5 miles per KW from my model s when tucked in behind. With the music on and a coffee it's a much nicer drive than the continually accelerate, break in the faster lanes.
I did an experiment once going to windsor from north lincs and back ( a journey I did a lot at the time) going down i gave it death at every opportunity in the fast lane. On the way back I did 70 or less in the middle or slow lane. the second option was much better for my mood and the difference in journey time over 240 miles??- 10 mins
@@Chriswales I always wonder why Brittany Ferries give each of their passengers a free code to access the free WiFi on board. Who do they think is going to piggy-back on it in mid channel if they didn't secure it like this.
About fifteen years ago they used to play movies or whatever.. Once or twice saw the coaches following each other, the driver behind watching the movie in front. Maybe not the safest move on the planet.. And in short order there were curtains in the back window which was probably just as well!
I just completed my first long trip of 150 miles (300 return) in my Kia E Niro and went using mainly motorways for the trip down , with a few slower roads towards the end. I was averaging 3.5 miles/kWh and this picked up to average nearly 4 at the end of the trip. Battery had used 66%. For my route home, I took the more direct but slower and more scenic route for the first half of the journey, before being back on the 70MPH sections. I averaged 4.6 Miles/kWH and used only 45% Battery to get home. A/C, Phone charging and dashcam were all being used. So yes faster and lack of engine braking to recuperate energy makes a big difference.
Thanks for doing this video, what a long way to go for evs. I’m looking forward to the days when evs are mainstream - 1,000kwh charging, people just driving to their destination without slipstreaming a milk float, being able to tow a small trailer to the tip (and by implication having an aftermarket tow bar fitted), being able to buy a 7 seater, being able to drive through a waterlogged road etc.
Just got to try this out in my new VW e-up! 212 mile journey. One direction kept to max speeds from Wales, through London to a Kent suburb - one fill up on the way so took 1.4 batteries worth of power. However, on the way back, did not go above 50 and managed the entire journey without recharging! (Not bad when the e-up! has a range of 159 miles.) This meant that the 'slow' journey was the quicker one.
You should watch a few of the videos from Out of Spec Motoring in the US. I personally like the way that Kyle believes in charging where he basically jumps charger to charger with the odd jump over a charger but is never stopped charging very long as he only charges til it starts to taper or enough to get to the next charger(checking the charger status in the App) with about 10% buffer extra and arrives with about 10% at the charger so he gets the fastest charge rate possible. This is where I think the mass market ICE drivers are going to need some education otherwise they will treat their EV like an ICE and think they need to fill it to 100%. That way he also is out of the car more often plus stops for comfort breaks and food as well if you watch any of his long distance trips.
We recently drove from near Aberdeen to the ChannelTunnel terminal at Folkestone. According to A Better route Planner it should have taken 11 1/2 hours but we decided to drive at 65 rather than 70 so it took closer to 12 1/2 hours. Forgot to check the usage but will do next time.
Nailed it. People that complain about EV range reduction at Motorway speed, but never consider that the same dynamics come into play with petrol and diesel and I agree that about 20 to 25% reduction in range (ie economy which is what you would call it driving an ICE car) driving at 70 mph rather than 60 mph. About 20 years ago when I had a 106-mile commute each way to the office mainly on the motorway I tried driving a 1500 cc diesel Renault Grand Scenic at 10 mph below every speed limit on my journey (other than the 30 mph of course) and saved 25% fuel cost and TBH it made very little difference to the journey time because on a commute there was far less bunching and braking and definitely less tiring drive. I don't drive to commute these days (who does) and generally choose when to drive but with an EV and shorter-range than ICE car the economic impact of fewer Motorway/Highway Rapid Charge stops through dropping the driving speed means more of your fuel can be homegrown 5p or less / kWh and less Rapid/Ultra-Rapid convenience fuel at up to 10 or 11 times the price. After all, many of us have made the Total Cost of Ownership argument to ourselves and spouses and based on the premise of lower costs of home charging.
Some years ago in the 1990s I was living in Hertfordshire (Harpenden) and working in Bournemouth (staying in a hotel during the week) - I tried the journey (About 175 miles) with a maximum speed of 70, 60 and 50 on successive weeks, with a break at fleet services each time. it made no more than 10 minutes difference in journey time. Car was a 2.1L Volvo 244 carb.
There's something in science called the Inverse Square Law. For the car to push through air at twice the speed, you need four times the energy to do it (2² = 4). Five times the speed, 25 times the energy needed (5² = 25). Going at 60mph means you use 60² amount of energy (that's 3,600), but going at 70mph means 70² (4,900) amount of energy. Just for the air resistance, dividing 4900 by 3600, you use up 136% (1.36 times) of the energy at 70mph than you would use 100% of the energy at 60mph. Swap around that fraction, it's the same as saying going 60mph would only use up 73.5% of your battery pack at 60mph if going at 70mph would drain it 100%...𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟲.𝟱%. When EVM says 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝟮𝟯% 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟮𝟳% 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 at 11:42 ...absolutely right in the predicted range. The difference in mechanical efficiencies at the different speeds probably alter it by a percentage or two but using the Inverse Square Law shows you an accurate way to calculate how many more miles per kWh you can get at a slightly lower speed, and saves you money on DC Fast Charging too. Anyone that moaned in maths at school because "you don't need to use this in the real world" must cost themselves a small fortune by not knowing stuff like this.
I used ABRP for a trip I take frequently in my Tesla Model 3. (Phoenix AZ to San Diego CA 367 miles). I entered speeds as a percentage of the speed limit from 70% to 200%. The total time dropped steadily until I reached 140% and decreased minimally after that. But the total continued to drop all the way to 200% Any speed over 110% of the speed limit would probably take longer to account for the time waiting for the police to write the ticket. There was no speed slow enough to allow the trip to be nonstop. This is all dependent on the 150 and 250 kWh/hour Tesla charging speeds. I did the same exercise with a Chevy Bolt with its slower charging speeds and found the same thing. Driving faster and charging longer results in lower elapsed time!
I have the same car as yours and prefer to drive as fast as possible as my bladder range is much lower than the cars range so better off getting to the charger faster, discharge myself and carry on. Never waited for the car (for Tesla at least) to charge, as by the time I’m ready to continue, so is it. Frequently it is actually ready before me. But I never travel alone long distance so there’s other humans needs that need considering which sums it up in a very nice experience overall
I used to do a regular drive from Sheffield to Silloth in a Series 3 petrol Land Rover. On one of the trips I decided to do an economy run and attained 29mpg rather than 18-20, but it took me an hour longer!
Good point about charging speed. I've always thought that if an EV could support high charging speeds, a small range wouldn't matter so much. Unfortunately high charging power capability usually goes with big batteries...
It's true. The irony is that the bigger the battery, the more cells, so for a given charging power the lower the charge rate per cell. So it may be that the push for large batteries is driven more by the need for fast charging than the desire for long range
My option is to drive more slowly. Public charging is more expensive than charging at destination, or at home. It's also less cyclic stress on the battery, allowing more miles out of the lifetime of the battery. If you can get there in the same amount of time, and do it at ~1/2 the cost, why not? (I'm including the reduction of battery degradation, as well as the lower electrical cost to make that journey)
A few years ago, the RAC published some figures about fuel consumption at different speeds with a conventional petrol engine. In line with your own observations, they concluded that the difference in fuel consumption between driving at 60mph and driving at 70mph was on the order of 24%, which confirms your comment at 13:24.
I think the real question is how good is your bladder, if you can get from a to b without needing to stop driving slower may help you get there. However if you need to stop for the loo makes no difference might as well driver quicker
Normal motorway practice for heavy mist is to hog the middle lane while blasting everyone’s retinas with rear fog lights. If you can see to go more than 30mph you do not need fog lights. Because it’s not foggy.
So weird to hear the words "Grantham Services" after being out of the UK so long, and to hear it in the context of EV charging blows my mind even more ;)
When fuel was cheap I didn't worry about it and just drove fast everywhere, as prices increased I realised the amount of extra miles per tank at lower speeds was significant, I realised this after I got stuck in steady 50mph traffic on s long section of a journey and decided to just relax and drive the trip at these speeds, the holiday was about a 800 mile trip and I did it on one tank ( VW golf tdi ) which I would normally only get around 500 to 600 miles from. As electric prices increase it might not just be charging times we worry about but the actual cost so encourage slower driving maybe.
Reminds me of a test made by a MC magazine where they tested going high speed North - South on German autobahn on the fastest bike of that time ZZR1100 and a Goldwing. The Goldwing won since the sport bike needed refuling all the time.
Doing my first EV long run on may 1st. Stoke to southbank centre and back. 336 mile round trip. 2021 Polestar 2 dual motor, 78kwh. Currently averaging 3.7-4 miles per/kwh. Tho today was doing 5.
What is the biggest useage of energy (ICE and EV) is the speeding up repeatedly when you inevitably have someone slower pull out in front of you and have to reduce speed to their level. So driving slower usually is a double whammy: better aerodynamic efficiency but also not having the constant accelerate/decelerate cycle. Saves the old blood pressure too!
"Normal UK motorway speeds". That was about 45-50mph last time i was in the country :) With the respect to the driving speed vs overall trip time discussion, the maths is pretty simple on this: So long as you can charge with higher power than you consume you will get there faster. So just go faster until your power consumption is about the same as your average charging speed (including time to get to and from the charger). It can be surprising how little power is actually needed to maintain speed - probably around 30-40HP (22-30kW) to maintain a Model 3 at 70mph - so you can drive faster than you think. So unless you are on the autobahn (or you have a car with patheticallly poor charging speeds like a Leaf) you want to travel as fast as you can and stop more often. The "crossover" point (assuming HPCs) is at about 90-100mph for the Model 3 once you factor in the overhead time for getting to and from the charger. But even if you only have access to 50kW chargers you are still good to run over UK speed limits.
Very good video explaining range at speed. What does fast charging all the time do to your battery???? I think a Tesla owner in the USA killed his battery as he needed to fast charge everyday.
It annoys me that Zap map says you don't need a charge on this journey assuming you can charge at your destination instead of asking if you can charge at your destination. Keep up the fantastic work .
25% difference is what I see, between driving at 55-60 and driving at 70 on long distance. In mine (2016 i3) the miles/kWh are 3.3ish and 4.4ish. On long distance I prefer to stop anyway, typically 2.5 hours is where I need to stretch my legs etc. I've found I prefer to take my time and make the journey much less effort, mentally.
It’s much more than that if you drive fairly close behind a large HGV. The range difference between driving at 70 and doing 56 close behind a big lorry is well over 40%. So you might not have to stop to recharge at all, if you drive smart.
Theoretically, air resistance increases with the square of the speed, and therefore so too does fuel consumption. As an example, increasing your steady speed from 60 mph to 70 mph results in an increase in air resistance and therefore fuel consumption of 36% from the value at 60 mph. In practice, the square law doesn’t hold accurately because overall losses include lubricated frictional losses in the drive train etc. but the figure of 36% is close enough to illustrate the point. Similarly, reducing your steady speed from 70 to 60 mph improves fuel consumption by 26.5% from its value at 70 mph.
The 4:53 stop is quite relevant. I have a Tesla model 3 and I need to stop before the car needs to charge, and the car is ready to continue before I am. So I would say it takes no more time than with an ICE car. My car is a LR so supercharge to go to the next supercharger are generally between 15 and 20 minutes. But when I play with ABRP I see that with a SR+ it would have been almost the same, just one more stop on a (very rare) 1000 km trip. In fact the only supercharges that take 30 to 45 minutes are when I am having a lunch because I want to finish my desert, so I charge until 100%. And of course it is for very long trips, most of the time I only charge at home and it just takes the time to plug (5 seconds ?), and a supercharge for a not so long trip can take less than 10 minutes, just enough to go home.
My LEAF experience leads me to drive at lorry speed on adaptive cruise control. I get the best balance, for me, between range and journey time, and time between toilets. Biggest range killers are high speed, high winds and heavy rain.
I did 100 miles out and back today in my Seat Mii. Out was mostly 70 ish dual carriageway, 4.7 ml/kWhr. Back was mostly across Dartmoor at (as fast as safe) 40+/-, 5.3 ml/ kWhr average for the total trip. So 5.9ml/kWhr when slower. Agrees with your video.
Slipstreaming is the key here. Ask any cyclist, you save ~20% of your effort tucked in behind something (the bigger the better and the closer the better).
@@JohnR31415 One of our works vans' auto cruise dealt very well with the vehicle in front doing an emergency stop - The driver in the 7.5 Tonne truck behind, not so much. RIP one two week old T6 VW (no-one hurt thankfully).
The effort saving increases exponentially as the speed goes up. If you get close behind a bus when on a bike you can easily maintain 30 -40 mph with very little effort. It feels like the bus is pulling you down the road. At truck speeds you probably increase your range by around 40% when driving close behind in an EV relative to driving at 70 with no slip stream.
Every weekend we do the same journey with our MG ZS, it’s a 101mls trip. We have done it both methods, 60mph and 70mph average speeds. On the 70mph trip we generally make a short stop at a fast charger to top up, not because it was absolutely nec just the fact there are no chargers within 25 mls near vicinity of our journeys end so don’t want to take any risks. In my wife’s view anything less than 20% range is a risk👵🏻😄. When doing the same trip at 60mph without stopping the journey time is the same🤷🏻♂️. When you get to our age, it is definitely bladder capacity that dictates range between stops😂😂
Proved this time after time travelling on motorways to Italy and back. I wold cruise along at 65 mph (100kmh) for 2 or 3 hours at a time between loo breaks and snacks. I would see the usual racers pass me at 90 to 100 mph (160Kph) and then they stopped in a service area to refuel etc.while I cruised by. After 600 miles I would arrive a few minutes earlier than them (they were friends of the family). They were very surprised when I explained my tactics but couldn't argue with the result. This was in petrol cars but I have come to the same conclusion in my EV's I've owned over 8 years in the UK. I don't need to travel to Italy anymore as I fly there and hire a car when i arrive. I read some years ago that all cars do the same fuel consumption at 90 mph whether it is a Mini or a Rolls Royce as the mini is doing 5000rpm and the Rolls Royce only 3000 rpm, air resistance rises as the square of the speed so 60mph to 100mph raises the fuel consumption by nearly 3 times!
Absolutely. 3-4 hours driving is the max one should do non-stop from a health perspective AND a concentration/focus perspective. Idiots will say that they pee in a bottle or whatever but they are the ones who crash more often.
@@mkkm945 I’ve tried peeing in a bottle (rapid charger in Sussex with no toilet nearby) and can’t figure out how to actually pee in the bottle without making a mess everywhere. :)
Here in the states they have a brand called TravelJohn that sell disposal bags with a powder that turn to gel, so no leakage. Pilots of small planes use them. Runs 6 for less than $20. Shaped for men and women.
We often make motorway journeys of 200 mile+ in Toyota Yaris hybrid. Going at 70mph plus would get us around 57 - 62mpg. Driving at between 58 and 62mph, and slipstreaming trucks at a safe distance (only a fool breaks the two second rule!) could get us 77mpg. Time difference was no more than 30 minutes on a 5 hour journey. We now routinely drive for economy rather than speed.
I plan for a pit stop every two hours and based around that scenario pick out the best spot to stop.. I spend my time out of the car and preferably on my feet moving around to stretch etc and preferably giving my eyes a rest
Yesterday we did oour first long journey since getting our e-niro 4+ down to my other halfs dad in Oxfordshire from up here in North Yorkshire. On the way back we stopped at a InstaVolt charger just off the M1 in Northampton. We had 132 miles to go to home and we had 82 miles range left so I added another 90 miles to give me a buffer of 38 miles. However, we were driving in the early hours so very little traffic. I sat at 65 all the way and when I got home I had 21 miles left. Yes the headlights were on and we had the heater on (20deg) but panic set in and with about 35 left on the car as the buffer had reduced quite a bit I turned off the heater which didn't please the other half very much. The car had dropped from a buffer of 38 miles to about 19. Cruise control most of the way but as there was virtually no traffic it was steady all the way no slowing down or speeding up. Car said I was getting 4.2m/kWh. Lesson learned...sitting relaxed for an extra 10 or 15 minutes means less range anxiety. Also, wish Tesla would open thier chargers up to the rest of us. 44kw charge seems to take forever.
Can anyone help me! So I do 250 miles a week. A vast majority of those miles are in a motorway (commute into work) should I go for an electric car or should I go for a diesel ?
So - what you are trying to express is - driving faster, you don't go as far, but you get there sooner! - The real problem that remains is when you get to where-ever, if there is a charger, will it work!
I wonder how much influence the air temperature and weather had on the reduction in efficiency in the two runs? I own a Kona and regularly make a 135 mile trip up and down the M6 at an indicated 72 mph (c. 70 mph real). In mid winter, I have an average 3.2 mi/kWh as a worst case but in the summer with warm, dry and calm conditions I can reach 4.2 mi/kWh for the same run. Either way, it highlights the impressive efficiency provided by the M3! Really useful video...
Knowing your car is key. I drive diesel hatchback and never goes over 5l per 100km while some people are close to 7l and I do not drive slow 😅. Usually I have avarage 45km/h and I do not use motorways and I care when I drive trough settlements, schools etc. 1000km journey I avarage 4.5l and avarage speed close 80km/h.
interesting .. i usually travel at truck / bus speed in my petrol car ( i find it less tiring ) but if i need to i'll travel at 70 ( ish ) along with the rest of the outside lane traffic .. and i think i use about 25% more fuel
So at 70 ish my old 2.0 Pertrol focus does around 44 MPG but that gives a range of 440 ish miles, give me an EV that can do that for 25K and I will buy one.
@@davidlewis4399 Hi David, well, if you regularly drive 440 miles all at once then an electric car is probably not an ideal option for you. However, if like many you occasionally do long distance driving, say around 200 miles, then many of the newer EVs will be fine, you will not pay road tax, servicing costs are lower, running costs are about 60% of a petrol car and you are not polluting the atmosphere. No fuel solution is necessarily the ideal for all but tailoring your vehicle to your needs appears to be the key. How much would you like to pay towards the costs of cleaning up the 50+ years of petrol and diesel pollution?
I agree with you there, i also find it more relaxed trundling behind the trucks at 56mph, getting high 60’s mpg from my petrol Honda Jazz (Hondy). I used to drive a thumping golf tdi140 and do loooong journeys to Aberdeen at pace and the fatigue would kick in around 3hrs i reckon. Think it was just from needing to be super alert. I prefer the trundle. Let the habit brain 🧠 take the wheel.
@@davidlewis4399 imagine it be another while yet before EV can handle 440miles @ 70mph. Im intreated to see what the UK model Y can do but likely way out of my price range. Be happy with a 300mile EV (not vw group) for 25-30k at a squeeze :D
@@ftb2772 My old Peugeot 407SW would do 57mpg & nearly 600 miles on a tank of chip fat. However, my bladder, attention span/caffeine requirements are only around 150miles and the highway code states a 15min break in every 2 hours anyway (an accident outside of this, & your insurance company can wash their hands of you). A 200 mile real world range means stopping no more frequently, or for any longer than I did with diesel - I drive 25,000 miles a year so this is not an occasional thing. EVs give easily over 4 times the effective MPG of any diesel and have superior performance too. I for one will never go back
Great vid illustrating the reality of speed vs consumption. You don't get such a pronounced difference in fossil fuel cars as the efficiency is only about 30% instead of 80-90%, and this base heat output of 70% masks the difference a bit.
That's not my experience, a couple of years ago we had a puncture on holiday in France. As it was a Sunday we could not replace the tyre and had to drive 350 miles of autoroute on a space saver tyre at 50mph. At that speed it returned 83 mpg. Usually on a long run we get a little over 60 mpg. I can't say it was an enjoyable run with HGVs bearing down on us at around 60 mph, but it shows how much more fuel efficient vehicles are at lower speeds. 2009, Ford Focus Estate TDCI.
You do get a pronounced difference in fossil cars because the efficiency loss, or else being equal, is based on drag. You just don't notice the difference in fossil fuels because you can fill up easily at a gas station in minutes.
The point is, if you can make it to your destination at a lower speed without charging and you can charge at destination, then the lower speed is faster, as you don’t spend time charging at destination, the car does it without help. But if you have to stop no mater at what speed you drive, then high speed charging will help you being faster at a faster driving speed. But if you average 20-25% more kWh/mile it is also 20-25% more £/mile. I think in the past the cars hadn’t enough range and the charging speed was too low, so hypermiling made sense back then.
Thanks EVM, it's really timely for me as I'm planning our first trip away from the comfort blanket of a home charger - five days in Devon, driving across country from Kent plus days out. I've started to notice that my e-tron is noticeably more efficient at 60-65 than at 70. Given that the e-tron has terrible efficiency anyway (the best I've got for about 90 miles is 3.0 miles per kWh on a warm, dry day!) it's definitely going to be a 60mph journey until we build our confidence with public rapid charging.
My Zoe used to do about 130 miles at 70 and 180 if I slipstreamed a truck. It could only charge at 22 kw so truck speed actually the fastest way in that. In my ice car 70 mph equals 40 mpg and truck speed equals close to 50 mpg
I'd be curious what your retention graphs look like. Your topics always get my attention, and you have interesting conclusions - but it seems it takes a long time for you to get to the point.
Much higher than average. If you skip stuff people ask why you didn't include XYZ. If you include XYZ people say it's too long. All I make sure is that nothing is repeated unnecessarily.
@@ElectricVehicleMan - I meant how different parts of your video perform when compared with other parts of the same video. I didn't mean you should SKIP stuff. In this case, for example, I think you could have said the same thing in half the time.
This test now needs to be done in reverse. 70 "legal" limit on initial way down and then 60-62 on way back. Then average it out. Inclines make a huge difference, and another test will take that variable out. Yes i need to go out more.
Excellent video. So driving at 60mph compared to 70mph gives a percentage efficiency difference of 20ish percent. Allow me to throw this curve ball in. Car is a 2.5 litre V6 normally aspirated auto. Doing a 35 mile trip in manual mode sticking in 4th gear at 5k revs, yes speed is over the legal limit. Oh and for a couple of miles flat out in 4th gear. Trio back is in auto and sticking at 70mph. Going mog was 31. Coming back mpg 35. Go figure that. But most definitely Yes. The faster you go the more 'energy' you use.
I just did a 400 mile round trip in my MG5 at 'normal' speeds (but it was a Friday so lots of hold-ups). Two stops totalling 90 minutes and home easy, mad driving but in eco mode..... Average 4.1 mpkW or something 😋. All the chargers were 50kW slow (sorry RAPID) chargers.
Your results are exactly what is expected, whether it's an EV or an ICE. What you're using power for is to overcome resistance and that goes up with the square of your speed. Comparing 60 and 70. 6^2 / 7^2 = 36 / 49 = 72 / 98 ~= 74/100. So you'd expect to use 74% as much energy at 60 compared to 70. It's a significant saving, regardless of fuel type.
I don’t know how about in UK but in my country if go on a motorway where I can legally do 140 km/h. My audi a6 takes approx 7 l/100 km so if I want to make a weekend in Austrian Alps, I can go on one tank, and be there within 7-8 hours. I guess none of electric cars can do the same. Usually I’m passing them by going in between big trucks and intercity coaches.
slower is slower if you have high power charging. Eg 60mph for 250 miles is 250 minutes - maybe with no charging (I think you might still need a short stop but lets go with it). 70mph will do the same distance in 214 minutes. But at 3.8kwh/m thats 65kwh so you’ll need to top up 10-15 kwh so 15 minute stop maybe? Thats 230 minutes so 20 mins faster than non-stop at 60. Assuming you’ll want a pee/greggs break anyway on a 3-4 hour trip, driving at faster speeds is probably the way to go
If fact, according to Tesla embedded "GPS", it is some time faster to go slower. For example by driving at 110 km/h instead of 130 km/h, because you can skip a charge and so the (even very small) detour. But who minds, you can just drive as you like and the car will change the planning on the fly. The only planing you have to do is when you have no charge point at destination, because for now the car (at least Teslas) cannot deal with way-points, so you have to be sure you will have enough watts to go back from your destination to a supercharger (and then you are safe). It would be nice Tesla to address that.
We'll all be filling in a questionnaire when it comes to planning a trip soon. Where do you want to go? When did you last pee? How much have you drunk today? Are you hungry? Etc...
@@everusualsuspect No, you just have to fill the destination, and of course just if you need or want assistance. And even if you do, you can do what ever you want, make any detour, stop where you want for the time that please you, and the embedded computer will adapt without any intervention. Regarding drunkenness, I think you don't need a computer to know that it is unwise to drive if you have been drinking. But it would not be difficult for the car to detect if you are sober enough to drive (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417413008105).
The longer you own an EV the faster you drive... as you get to know the capabilities of the car. Having watched many ev videos before buying my e-golf I was under the impression that the range would shoot down at 70mph.. in reality it wasn't a huge difference
a few comments i get about preheating the LEAF24 or using aircon or heating. Doesn't that drain the battery and reduce the range? Yes but i only need 24 miles for work commute, i'd get a minimum of 60 miles, not going to miss the 36 miles.
I would like to know if I tow a trailer such as a horse box with horse combined weight 1,200kg and the degradation of battery power, or should I stick to my diesel.
Like Betty's Eldest said, having huge HGVs bearing down on you on the motorway is no joy in any way, shape or form...! For that reason, I tend to stick to about 68mph - it's enough to glide passed the lorries, yet I don't feel the urge to hunker down in the outside lane at 'rat race' speeds...
Do you have the total time taken for both trips please or did I miss it in the video? It would be very interesting to see which was quicker if there was any real difference
I'm pretty sure that the "indicated" speed is legally required to overestimate your actual speed by 3 or 4 mph while the satnav speed is allowed to be accurate. Apparently driving instructors / examiners now allow people to work with this and drive with the indicated speed a mile or two over the limit.
Chatting to an old fella at Hopwood services (Birmingham) he tells me he's doing his third trip from Cornwall to the Lake District. I asked him what the range on his i3 was. He answered, 'about the same as my bladder.' I've been doing a fortnightly trip to Brum from Manchester (100 miles) for nearly two years in my ioniq. I've found 62mph to be the sweet spot plus knocking cruise control off on downhill sections helps efficiency. I'm averaging 5 miles per kWh. Quick question: Did you confirm your speed with gps? I've read that Teslas are more accurate than other manufacturers.
Difference of driving around 100kph (eco pro) and around 125kph (comfort) on a 150km stretch in a BMW i3: 7kwh. The question is could I make up the time gained in speed in charging the extra kwh. The i3 has a flat, but limited to 50kw, charge curve to ~85% charge... I’ll see on my planned trip to Berlin later this month.
Wow, I wasn’t expecting for there to be such a difference. I wonder whether the efficiency loss is a curve or straight line between those speeds? Is 65mph a 12% from 70 or more or less..? Although my current ICE car is less efficient at 70 than 60, it’s not over 20% less efficient, maybe 10% max? Or maybe I need to test it..:
Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. So an easy way to estimate range loss is to take the percentage increase in speed and double that. If you drive 10% faster you will likely see 20% less range.
What was the terrain like in each direction? I found I got 5.2 on a flat terrain, but it is very different between the 2 directions (4.7 avg) on my Leaf.
Don't quite get the preference for the higher speed and acceptable loss in the efficiency and additional cost of charging to cover this loss of efficiency against installing solar panels and battery storage with the aim of saving money. There seems to be a distinct line between saving money on electricity bills and generating income from feeding back into the grid, but when it comes to the car then quite happy to spend extra money to forgo the proven savings of driving more economically....
As you found out, stops are not always for charging but you can take advantage to charge at the same time. So have you lost any time that you would not have lost anyway to satisfy your bladder and stomach? Would the added weight of eating two pasties have reduced the cars efficiency?
The battery in my mid-range model 3 has the BTU content of 2 gallons of Gas. If ICE vehicles had two gallon gas tanks ... they would notice the difference in a lot more than just speed.
I got routed to Grantham supercharger the other day on the way up north, I couldn't believe Greggs shuts at 6! Had to have a lukewarm BK. Did you set the supercharger as a destination each way?
That was an interesting video apart from your sums... Some of us have not had the experience of always working usage out in KW's or else like me always work things out in MPG instead. I'm sure your used to it but can you tell those thickness like me what you actually got in mpg please? If I'm going to have to go back to school I'll just stay with ICE vehicles! 😉
Because you fill up with a liquid then you're naturally interested in Miles per Gallon. Generally people use mpg to see how frugal a car is which comes down to £. Therfore to compare mpg with miles/kWh you'd need to compare price per litre with price per kWh, and consequently how far you could go on a gallon of petrol (4.546 litres). £1.20 is our £/litre. Multiply by 4.546 to get £/gallon = £5.45. If you divide that by the cost of one kWh (14p typically) then you get the number of kWh you could get for £5.45 = 38.9kWh, multiply by your miles per kWh to get how far the £5.45 will take you and its 155MPGe (e=equivalent). Of course if the price of petrol changes or the price you get your electricity changes then you'd have to recalculate. In general driving a family EV would get between 5 and 3 miles to each kWh :- 5 miles /kWh =198 MPGe 4 miles/kWh = 155 MPGe 3 miles /kWh =116 MPGe
The most I ever got from my sr+ was 126kW that was after 3 hours driving, pre conditioning and starting at 14 %. Wonder why I didn't see the sort of speed you saw there.
I very happily drive at 55mph. Some good radio, podcasts, music. Feel rested and less stressed.
I recently did a 75 mile round trip mostly motorway, I have a ZS ev it's averaging 3.8kw on mg pilot at 65mph left with 100% (152 miles ) got home with 85mile range left ,well pleased and so relaxing only had the car 2.5 months but I'm sold love it ,love the experience and ease of driving an ev ,plus my 3.5 mile trip to the shops has become a challenge to see if I can do it and get home with the Same range as I set out (nearly) did the 7miles used 2mile of range ,very addictive.
I do a 100 mile commute to work once a week in my ZS ev. Had if for a month, love it so far.
I find that on the free motorway, I get about 17 kwh/100km or 3.6 miles/kwh
However when there are traffic jams (a lot of the time actually) I get 13 kwh/100km of 4.8miles/kwh
Both of those include AC on in normal mode as I live in a hot country.
I usually have enough range to last a week including my commute.
Life is a bit too short to drive an MG
Find the mg zs EV a much maligned car but I really do find it a lovely drive and range is actually quite good. Having an ev has made me slow down to conserve a bit of battery and makes it a safer and more comfortable driving experience.
A couple of years ago we had a puncture on holiday in France. As it was a Sunday we could not replace the tyre and had to drive 350 miles of autoroute on a space saver tyre at 50mph. At that speed it returned 83 mpg. Usually on a long run we get a little over 60 mpg. I can't say it was an enjoyable run with HGVs bearing down on us at around 60 mph, but it shows how much more fuel efficient vehicles are at lower speeds.
Hi Betty, you forgot to mention what vehicle you were driving?
@@philtucker1224 2009 Ford Focus TDCI estate. Have only driven 700miles since February 2020, due to COVID. As the Ford has 196k on it, I could replace it with with an MG5 when we start to travel again next year.
@@Bettys_Eldest Thanks for your reply and also a coincidence- I also have a 2009 Ford Focus but regrettably it’s an automatic petrol version and very juicy at only 29 to the gallon…I certainly miss my previous diesel version. Kind regards to you.
There is something else that really makes a difference - how you drive the car, and getting to know how to get the best out of it. We got our EQC in December, but hardly used it until the last few weeks, when my wife is needing to make a 15 mile journey two ways each day. Her initial rate was 2.2m/kWh (yes I know - it's a big heavy car!). As she has got used to driving with the different drive modes and varying the regen, she is now getting 2.8m/kWh. There is a skill to knowing how to use a car's features to give more economy, even without going slower.
And my wife still sometimes puts on Sports mode to burn off and annoy some ICE driving person in an expensive performance car next to her at the traffic lights 😂
As a HGV driver I've noted far more the EV's tailing me for long periods. Personally couldn't think of anything worse than looking at my Taillift all that time.
Ignore them, anything happens is their fault
@@stevezodiac491 My comment was to focus on the fact that it appears some EV's feel the need to sacrifice any driving pleasure in the pursuit of range . ( lousy infrastructure I'm guessing as it can't be cost as you keep telling us how cheap they are to own )
I also don't like the 3 mile overtake of two HGV's so don't participate but in light of your expectation we are all the same send me your reg and I can oblige.
@@stevezodiac491 there is more to life than this
Never underestimate the attractions of a tail lift😮
These type of videos are really useful.
We’ve just done a 260 mile journey to the father-in-laws, at between 75 and 80mph (with the flow), with one charge stop from 38% to 95% (from 95% at the start, SR+). We arrived with 15%, and paid £7.60 for the electricity, (it’s getting a free charge at the house now).
When all EVs are charging at 130 kWh upwards, it’ll become too compelling not to move over from ICE.
It’s effortless.
For context, my last ICE (before getting a Tesla) my commute journey on the M11 during rush hour before the pandemic hit was 25 miles with 18 miles on the M11. You could join the head to tail fight in the outside lane, or sit behind a lorry with little stress and take 2 minutes longer. In a 2.0L diesel Passat I could get about 50mpg at 70 (ish), or normally 60mpg or up to 70mpg with slip-streaming a lorry. So nearly as much loss (or gain) as an EV.
Yes any ICE drops off between 50 to 70mph. Yet people only are critical of EVs.
rubbish lol
Absolutely spot on. As a newish EV driver I am always trying to eke out a few more miles from the battery. Granny driving I find does actually work, often doesn't take that much longer than when driving like a mad fella!
The national express coaches are your best friend on a long run. They usually push along about 65. In reasonable weather I can get nearly 5 miles per KW from my model s when tucked in behind. With the music on and a coffee it's a much nicer drive than the continually accelerate, break in the faster lanes.
I did an experiment once going to windsor from north lincs and back ( a journey I did a lot at the time) going down i gave it death at every opportunity in the fast lane. On the way back I did 70 or less in the middle or slow lane. the second option was much better for my mood and the difference in journey time over 240 miles??- 10 mins
15 years ago I had to follow a National Express coach because a work colleague was use its free WiFi
@@Chriswales I always wonder why Brittany Ferries give each of their passengers a free code to access the free WiFi on board. Who do they think is going to piggy-back on it in mid channel if they didn't secure it like this.
@@johnwinters4201 Never underestimate the lengths we went to getting free WiFi before 4G and cheap data plans...
About fifteen years ago they used to play movies or whatever.. Once or twice saw the coaches following each other, the driver behind watching the movie in front. Maybe not the safest move on the planet.. And in short order there were curtains in the back window which was probably just as well!
I just completed my first long trip of 150 miles (300 return) in my Kia E Niro and went using mainly motorways for the trip down , with a few slower roads towards the end. I was averaging 3.5 miles/kWh and this picked up to average nearly 4 at the end of the trip. Battery had used 66%.
For my route home, I took the more direct but slower and more scenic route for the first half of the journey, before being back on the 70MPH sections. I averaged 4.6 Miles/kWH and used only 45% Battery to get home. A/C, Phone charging and dashcam were all being used. So yes faster and lack of engine braking to recuperate energy makes a big difference.
Thanks for doing this video, what a long way to go for evs. I’m looking forward to the days when evs are mainstream - 1,000kwh charging, people just driving to their destination without slipstreaming a milk float, being able to tow a small trailer to the tip (and by implication having an aftermarket tow bar fitted), being able to buy a 7 seater, being able to drive through a waterlogged road etc.
Just got to try this out in my new VW e-up! 212 mile journey. One direction kept to max speeds from Wales, through London to a Kent suburb - one fill up on the way so took 1.4 batteries worth of power. However, on the way back, did not go above 50 and managed the entire journey without recharging! (Not bad when the e-up! has a range of 159 miles.) This meant that the 'slow' journey was the quicker one.
Excellent comparison- sounds quite accurate/ plausible despite the last minute-ness. Keep up the great work.
You should watch a few of the videos from Out of Spec Motoring in the US. I personally like the way that Kyle believes in charging where he basically jumps charger to charger with the odd jump over a charger but is never stopped charging very long as he only charges til it starts to taper or enough to get to the next charger(checking the charger status in the App) with about 10% buffer extra and arrives with about 10% at the charger so he gets the fastest charge rate possible. This is where I think the mass market ICE drivers are going to need some education otherwise they will treat their EV like an ICE and think they need to fill it to 100%. That way he also is out of the car more often plus stops for comfort breaks and food as well if you watch any of his long distance trips.
We recently drove from near Aberdeen to the ChannelTunnel terminal at Folkestone. According to A Better route Planner it should have taken 11 1/2 hours but we decided to drive at 65 rather than 70 so it took closer to 12 1/2 hours. Forgot to check the usage but will do next time.
Nailed it. People that complain about EV range reduction at Motorway speed, but never consider that the same dynamics come into play with petrol and diesel and I agree that about 20 to 25% reduction in range (ie economy which is what you would call it driving an ICE car) driving at 70 mph rather than 60 mph. About 20 years ago when I had a 106-mile commute each way to the office mainly on the motorway I tried driving a 1500 cc diesel Renault Grand Scenic at 10 mph below every speed limit on my journey (other than the 30 mph of course) and saved 25% fuel cost and TBH it made very little difference to the journey time because on a commute there was far less bunching and braking and definitely less tiring drive. I don't drive to commute these days (who does) and generally choose when to drive but with an EV and shorter-range than ICE car the economic impact of fewer Motorway/Highway Rapid Charge stops through dropping the driving speed means more of your fuel can be homegrown 5p or less / kWh and less Rapid/Ultra-Rapid convenience fuel at up to 10 or 11 times the price. After all, many of us have made the Total Cost of Ownership argument to ourselves and spouses and based on the premise of lower costs of home charging.
The "and spouses" being the most important factor!
Bladder + age = inevitable stops
If only you could charge a car in the time it takes to do a piss.
You'd put about 500m back into the batteries at current charging rates.
My E Niro with 4 people on board managed 4.1 miles per kWh on a motorway 65-70 mph run the other day. I thought that was fairly good going.
Next time you go down.... do it the other way around (fast down, slow back) to check for any direction specific changes
True, elevation changes, wind speed and direction, amount of rain etc - hardly ever those factors stays the same during the both legs of the trip...
Yes you really need to compare identical journeys.
It’s downhill going down south isn’t it? Smile!
You are brilliant with your comparisons - tortoise passing the hare :-)
Thanks for another great video ! Yer driving eco is good but can get boring with everyone passing you !
Some years ago in the 1990s I was living in Hertfordshire (Harpenden) and working in Bournemouth (staying in a hotel during the week) - I tried the journey (About 175 miles) with a maximum speed of 70, 60 and 50 on successive weeks, with a break at fleet services each time. it made no more than 10 minutes difference in journey time. Car was a 2.1L Volvo 244 carb.
There's something in science called the Inverse Square Law. For the car to push through air at twice the speed, you need four times the energy to do it (2² = 4). Five times the speed, 25 times the energy needed (5² = 25).
Going at 60mph means you use 60² amount of energy (that's 3,600), but going at 70mph means 70² (4,900) amount of energy. Just for the air resistance, dividing 4900 by 3600, you use up 136% (1.36 times) of the energy at 70mph than you would use 100% of the energy at 60mph. Swap around that fraction, it's the same as saying going 60mph would only use up 73.5% of your battery pack at 60mph if going at 70mph would drain it 100%...𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟲.𝟱%.
When EVM says 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝟮𝟯% 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟮𝟳% 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 at 11:42 ...absolutely right in the predicted range. The difference in mechanical efficiencies at the different speeds probably alter it by a percentage or two but using the Inverse Square Law shows you an accurate way to calculate how many more miles per kWh you can get at a slightly lower speed, and saves you money on DC Fast Charging too.
Anyone that moaned in maths at school because "you don't need to use this in the real world" must cost themselves a small fortune by not knowing stuff like this.
Good to see a real-world comparison.
I used ABRP for a trip I take frequently in my Tesla Model 3. (Phoenix AZ to San Diego CA 367 miles). I entered speeds as a percentage of the speed limit from 70% to 200%. The total time dropped steadily until I reached 140% and decreased minimally after that. But the total continued to drop all the way to 200% Any speed over 110% of the speed limit would probably take longer to account for the time waiting for the police to write the ticket. There was no speed slow enough to allow the trip to be nonstop. This is all dependent on the 150 and 250 kWh/hour Tesla charging speeds. I did the same exercise with a Chevy Bolt with its slower charging speeds and found the same thing. Driving faster and charging longer results in lower elapsed time!
I have the same car as yours and prefer to drive as fast as possible as my bladder range is much lower than the cars range so better off getting to the charger faster, discharge myself and carry on. Never waited for the car (for Tesla at least) to charge, as by the time I’m ready to continue, so is it. Frequently it is actually ready before me. But I never travel alone long distance so there’s other humans needs that need considering which sums it up in a very nice experience overall
I used to do a regular drive from Sheffield to Silloth in a Series 3 petrol Land Rover. On one of the trips I decided to do an economy run and attained 29mpg rather than 18-20, but it took me an hour longer!
Good point about charging speed. I've always thought that if an EV could support high charging speeds, a small range wouldn't matter so much. Unfortunately high charging power capability usually goes with big batteries...
Hyundai Ioniq 5 should fit the bill. Smaller battery for everyday and 800v charging for trips.
It's true. The irony is that the bigger the battery, the more cells, so for a given charging power the lower the charge rate per cell. So it may be that the push for large batteries is driven more by the need for fast charging than the desire for long range
I find if you drive slower you see more and it makes the drive more interesting. Take the scenic route.
My option is to drive more slowly. Public charging is more expensive than charging at destination, or at home. It's also less cyclic stress on the battery, allowing more miles out of the lifetime of the battery. If you can get there in the same amount of time, and do it at ~1/2 the cost, why not? (I'm including the reduction of battery degradation, as well as the lower electrical cost to make that journey)
A few years ago, the RAC published some figures about fuel consumption at different speeds with a conventional petrol engine. In line with your own observations, they concluded that the difference in fuel consumption between driving at 60mph and driving at 70mph was on the order of 24%, which confirms your comment at 13:24.
I think the real question is how good is your bladder, if you can get from a to b without needing to stop driving slower may help you get there. However if you need to stop for the loo makes no difference might as well driver quicker
Normal motorway practice for heavy mist is to hog the middle lane while blasting everyone’s retinas with rear fog lights. If you can see to go more than 30mph you do not need fog lights. Because it’s not foggy.
Also keeping 3:03 a smooth driving style. Starting from standstill uses a little of energy due to overcoming rolling resistance.
So weird to hear the words "Grantham Services" after being out of the UK so long, and to hear it in the context of EV charging blows my mind even more ;)
When fuel was cheap I didn't worry about it and just drove fast everywhere, as prices increased I realised the amount of extra miles per tank at lower speeds was significant, I realised this after
I got stuck in steady 50mph traffic on s long section of a journey and decided to just relax and drive the trip at these speeds, the holiday was about a 800 mile trip and I did it on one tank ( VW golf tdi ) which I would normally only get around 500 to 600 miles from.
As electric prices increase it might not just be charging times we worry about but the actual cost so encourage slower driving maybe.
@@Brian-om2hh company van was lol.
Reminds me of a test made by a MC magazine where they tested going high speed North - South on German autobahn on the fastest bike of that time ZZR1100 and a Goldwing. The Goldwing won since the sport bike needed refuling all the time.
Doing my first EV long run on may 1st. Stoke to southbank centre and back. 336 mile round trip. 2021 Polestar 2 dual motor, 78kwh. Currently averaging 3.7-4 miles per/kwh. Tho today was doing 5.
What is the biggest useage of energy (ICE and EV) is the speeding up repeatedly when you inevitably have someone slower pull out in front of you and have to reduce speed to their level.
So driving slower usually is a double whammy: better aerodynamic efficiency but also not having the constant accelerate/decelerate cycle. Saves the old blood pressure too!
"Normal UK motorway speeds". That was about 45-50mph last time i was in the country :)
With the respect to the driving speed vs overall trip time discussion, the maths is pretty simple on this: So long as you can charge with higher power than you consume you will get there faster. So just go faster until your power consumption is about the same as your average charging speed (including time to get to and from the charger). It can be surprising how little power is actually needed to maintain speed - probably around 30-40HP (22-30kW) to maintain a Model 3 at 70mph - so you can drive faster than you think.
So unless you are on the autobahn (or you have a car with patheticallly poor charging speeds like a Leaf) you want to travel as fast as you can and stop more often. The "crossover" point (assuming HPCs) is at about 90-100mph for the Model 3 once you factor in the overhead time for getting to and from the charger. But even if you only have access to 50kW chargers you are still good to run over UK speed limits.
Very good video explaining range at speed. What does fast charging all the time do to your battery???? I think a Tesla owner in the USA killed his battery as he needed to fast charge everyday.
It annoys me that Zap map says you don't need a charge on this journey assuming you can charge at your destination instead of asking if you can charge at your destination.
Keep up the fantastic work .
Nice video and thanks for putting me off EV's
25% difference is what I see, between driving at 55-60 and driving at 70 on long distance. In mine (2016 i3) the miles/kWh are 3.3ish and 4.4ish. On long distance I prefer to stop anyway, typically 2.5 hours is where I need to stretch my legs etc. I've found I prefer to take my time and make the journey much less effort, mentally.
i noticed this in my petrol car. 60mpg at 60mph, 50mpg at 70.
Maybe we'll end up with long distance lanes?
It’s much more than that if you drive fairly close behind a large HGV.
The range difference between driving at 70 and doing 56 close behind a big lorry is well over 40%. So you might not have to stop to recharge at all, if you drive smart.
Really interesting video, 25% loss is quite significant. I wouldn't think 10 mph would make that much difference.
Theoretically, air resistance increases with the square of the speed, and therefore so too does fuel consumption. As an example, increasing your steady speed from 60 mph to 70 mph results in an increase in air resistance and therefore fuel consumption of 36% from the value at 60 mph.
In practice, the square law doesn’t hold accurately because overall losses include lubricated frictional losses in the drive train etc. but the figure of 36% is close enough to illustrate the point.
Similarly, reducing your steady speed from 70 to 60 mph improves fuel consumption by 26.5% from its value at 70 mph.
The 4:53 stop is quite relevant. I have a Tesla model 3 and I need to stop before the car needs to charge, and the car is ready to continue before I am. So I would say it takes no more time than with an ICE car. My car is a LR so supercharge to go to the next supercharger are generally between 15 and 20 minutes. But when I play with ABRP I see that with a SR+ it would have been almost the same, just one more stop on a (very rare) 1000 km trip. In fact the only supercharges that take 30 to 45 minutes are when I am having a lunch because I want to finish my desert, so I charge until 100%. And of course it is for very long trips, most of the time I only charge at home and it just takes the time to plug (5 seconds ?), and a supercharge for a not so long trip can take less than 10 minutes, just enough to go home.
My LEAF experience leads me to drive at lorry speed on adaptive cruise control. I get the best balance, for me, between range and journey time, and time between toilets. Biggest range killers are high speed, high winds and heavy rain.
I did 100 miles out and back today in my Seat Mii. Out was mostly 70 ish dual carriageway, 4.7 ml/kWhr. Back was mostly across Dartmoor at (as fast as safe) 40+/-, 5.3 ml/ kWhr average for the total trip. So 5.9ml/kWhr when slower. Agrees with your video.
Slipstreaming is the key here. Ask any cyclist, you save ~20% of your effort tucked in behind something (the bigger the better and the closer the better).
Thats why adaptive cruise control pays for itself
The problem is reacting to that big thing slowing down...
@@steveharvey2001 for me the problem is how dirty a lorry makes the car.
@@JohnR31415 One of our works vans' auto cruise dealt very well with the vehicle in front doing an emergency stop - The driver in the 7.5 Tonne truck behind, not so much. RIP one two week old T6 VW (no-one hurt thankfully).
The effort saving increases exponentially as the speed goes up.
If you get close behind a bus when on a bike you can easily maintain 30 -40 mph with very little effort. It feels like the bus is pulling you down the road.
At truck speeds you probably increase your range by around 40% when driving close behind in an EV relative to driving at 70 with no slip stream.
Every weekend we do the same journey with our MG ZS, it’s a 101mls trip. We have done it both methods, 60mph and 70mph average speeds. On the 70mph trip we generally make a short stop at a fast charger to top up, not because it was absolutely nec just the fact there are no chargers within 25 mls near vicinity of our journeys end so don’t want to take any risks. In my wife’s view anything less than 20% range is a risk👵🏻😄. When doing the same trip at 60mph without stopping the journey time is the same🤷🏻♂️. When you get to our age, it is definitely bladder capacity that dictates range between stops😂😂
Proved this time after time travelling on motorways to Italy and back. I wold cruise along at 65 mph (100kmh) for 2 or 3 hours at a time between loo breaks and snacks. I would see the usual racers pass me at 90 to 100 mph (160Kph) and then they stopped in a service area to refuel etc.while I cruised by. After 600 miles I would arrive a few minutes earlier than them (they were friends of the family). They were very surprised when I explained my tactics but couldn't argue with the result. This was in petrol cars but I have come to the same conclusion in my EV's I've owned over 8 years in the UK. I don't need to travel to Italy anymore as I fly there and hire a car when i arrive. I read some years ago that all cars do the same fuel consumption at 90 mph whether it is a Mini or a Rolls Royce as the mini is doing 5000rpm and the Rolls Royce only 3000 rpm, air resistance rises as the square of the speed so 60mph to 100mph raises the fuel consumption by nearly 3 times!
As demonstrated, I find most of my trips are bladder and/or stomach limited, not battery range limited.
Absolutely. 3-4 hours driving is the max one should do non-stop from a health perspective AND a concentration/focus perspective. Idiots will say that they pee in a bottle or whatever but they are the ones who crash more often.
@@mkkm945 I’ve tried peeing in a bottle (rapid charger in Sussex with no toilet nearby) and can’t figure out how to actually pee in the bottle without making a mess everywhere. :)
Lenor bottle with a wide neck!
Here in the states they have a brand called TravelJohn that sell disposal bags with a powder that turn to gel, so no leakage. Pilots of small planes use them. Runs 6 for less than $20. Shaped for men and women.
@@JBoy340a I’d rather stop and use a free toilet if at all possible. Lol
We often make motorway journeys of 200 mile+ in Toyota Yaris hybrid. Going at 70mph plus would get us around 57 - 62mpg. Driving at between 58 and 62mph, and slipstreaming trucks at a safe distance (only a fool breaks the two second rule!) could get us 77mpg. Time difference was no more than 30 minutes on a 5 hour journey. We now routinely drive for economy rather than speed.
I plan for a pit stop every two hours and based around that scenario pick out the best spot to stop.. I spend my time out of the car and preferably on my feet moving around to stretch etc and preferably giving my eyes a rest
Yesterday we did oour first long journey since getting our e-niro 4+ down to my other halfs dad in Oxfordshire from up here in North Yorkshire. On the way back we stopped at a InstaVolt charger just off the M1 in Northampton. We had 132 miles to go to home and we had 82 miles range left so I added another 90 miles to give me a buffer of 38 miles. However, we were driving in the early hours so very little traffic. I sat at 65 all the way and when I got home I had 21 miles left. Yes the headlights were on and we had the heater on (20deg) but panic set in and with about 35 left on the car as the buffer had reduced quite a bit I turned off the heater which didn't please the other half very much.
The car had dropped from a buffer of 38 miles to about 19. Cruise control most of the way but as there was virtually no traffic it was steady all the way no slowing down or speeding up. Car said I was getting 4.2m/kWh. Lesson learned...sitting relaxed for an extra 10 or 15 minutes means less range anxiety. Also, wish Tesla would open thier chargers up to the rest of us. 44kw charge seems to take forever.
Can anyone help me!
So I do 250 miles a week. A vast majority of those miles are in a motorway (commute into work) should I go for an electric car or should I go for a diesel ?
I would say diesel.
So - what you are trying to express is - driving faster, you don't go as far, but you get there sooner! - The real problem that remains is when you get to where-ever, if there is a charger, will it work!
Stick with Tesla.....light years ahead
I wonder how much influence the air temperature and weather had on the reduction in efficiency in the two runs? I own a Kona and regularly make a 135 mile trip up and down the M6 at an indicated 72 mph (c. 70 mph real). In mid winter, I have an average 3.2 mi/kWh as a worst case but in the summer with warm, dry and calm conditions I can reach 4.2 mi/kWh for the same run. Either way, it highlights the impressive efficiency provided by the M3! Really useful video...
Knowing your car is key. I drive diesel hatchback and never goes over 5l per 100km while some people are close to 7l and I do not drive slow 😅. Usually I have avarage 45km/h and I do not use motorways and I care when I drive trough settlements, schools etc. 1000km journey I avarage 4.5l and avarage speed close 80km/h.
interesting .. i usually travel at truck / bus speed in my petrol car ( i find it less tiring ) but if i need to i'll travel at 70 ( ish ) along with the rest of the outside lane traffic .. and i think i use about 25% more fuel
So at 70 ish my old 2.0 Pertrol focus does around 44 MPG but that gives a range of 440 ish miles, give me an EV that can do that for 25K and I will buy one.
@@davidlewis4399 Hi David, well, if you regularly drive 440 miles all at once then an electric car is probably not an ideal option for you. However, if like many you occasionally do long distance driving, say around 200 miles, then many of the newer EVs will be fine, you will not pay road tax, servicing costs are lower, running costs are about 60% of a petrol car and you are not polluting the atmosphere. No fuel solution is necessarily the ideal for all but tailoring your vehicle to your needs appears to be the key. How much would you like to pay towards the costs of cleaning up the 50+ years of petrol and diesel pollution?
I agree with you there, i also find it more relaxed trundling behind the trucks at 56mph, getting high 60’s mpg from my petrol Honda Jazz (Hondy). I used to drive a thumping golf tdi140 and do loooong journeys to Aberdeen at pace and the fatigue would kick in around 3hrs i reckon. Think it was just from needing to be super alert. I prefer the trundle. Let the habit brain 🧠 take the wheel.
@@davidlewis4399 imagine it be another while yet before EV can handle 440miles @ 70mph. Im intreated to see what the UK model Y can do but likely way out of my price range. Be happy with a 300mile EV (not vw group) for 25-30k at a squeeze :D
@@ftb2772 My old Peugeot 407SW would do 57mpg & nearly 600 miles on a tank of chip fat. However, my bladder, attention span/caffeine requirements are only around 150miles and the highway code states a 15min break in every 2 hours anyway (an accident outside of this, & your insurance company can wash their hands of you). A 200 mile real world range means stopping no more frequently, or for any longer than I did with diesel - I drive 25,000 miles a year so this is not an occasional thing. EVs give easily over 4 times the effective MPG of any diesel and have superior performance too. I for one will never go back
Great vid illustrating the reality of speed vs consumption. You don't get such a pronounced difference in fossil fuel cars as the efficiency is only about 30% instead of 80-90%, and this base heat output of 70% masks the difference a bit.
That's not my experience, a couple of years ago we had a puncture on holiday in France. As it was a Sunday we could not replace the tyre and had to drive 350 miles of autoroute on a space saver tyre at 50mph. At that speed it returned 83 mpg. Usually on a long run we get a little over 60 mpg. I can't say it was an enjoyable run with HGVs bearing down on us at around 60 mph, but it shows how much more fuel efficient vehicles are at lower speeds. 2009, Ford Focus Estate TDCI.
You do get a pronounced difference in fossil cars because the efficiency loss, or else being equal, is based on drag. You just don't notice the difference in fossil fuels because you can fill up easily at a gas station in minutes.
I would need to pee after an hour and a half so that would be the limiting factor. 😅
... can make it two at a squeeze :D
My limiting factor is bladder + Starbucks. :)
@mev202 who can charge a car in the time it takes to do a piss?
20 minutes will barely get you out of the service station on most motorway chargers.
Totally agree. Slower is way more efficient than hoofing it.
Hi gadget,if your a boy racer they are never going electric so therfore the planet is second.
Sometimes cruising (no regen) and sometimes hold a speed using regen. I was it was easier to switch between in my polestar.
The point is, if you can make it to your destination at a lower speed without charging and you can charge at destination, then the lower speed is faster, as you don’t spend time charging at destination, the car does it without help. But if you have to stop no mater at what speed you drive, then high speed charging will help you being faster at a faster driving speed.
But if you average 20-25% more kWh/mile it is also 20-25% more £/mile.
I think in the past the cars hadn’t enough range and the charging speed was too low, so hypermiling made sense back then.
I drove 10 miles on the M60 in a Peugeot e-208 yesterday and used 17 miles of range. I drive at 70-73mph on the motorway
Thanks EVM, it's really timely for me as I'm planning our first trip away from the comfort blanket of a home charger - five days in Devon, driving across country from Kent plus days out. I've started to notice that my e-tron is noticeably more efficient at 60-65 than at 70. Given that the e-tron has terrible efficiency anyway (the best I've got for about 90 miles is 3.0 miles per kWh on a warm, dry day!) it's definitely going to be a 60mph journey until we build our confidence with public rapid charging.
My Zoe used to do about 130 miles at 70 and 180 if I slipstreamed a truck. It could only charge at 22 kw so truck speed actually the fastest way in that. In my ice car 70 mph equals 40 mpg and truck speed equals close to 50 mpg
Yep. drive slow behind truck = no charging = get there faster
I'd be curious what your retention graphs look like. Your topics always get my attention, and you have interesting conclusions - but it seems it takes a long time for you to get to the point.
Much higher than average.
If you skip stuff people ask why you didn't include XYZ.
If you include XYZ people say it's too long.
All I make sure is that nothing is repeated unnecessarily.
@@ElectricVehicleMan - I meant how different parts of your video perform when compared with other parts of the same video. I didn't mean you should SKIP stuff. In this case, for example, I think you could have said the same thing in half the time.
This test now needs to be done in reverse. 70 "legal" limit on initial way down and then 60-62 on way back. Then average it out. Inclines make a huge difference, and another test will take that variable out.
Yes i need to go out more.
Excellent video. So driving at 60mph compared to 70mph gives a percentage efficiency difference of 20ish percent.
Allow me to throw this curve ball in. Car is a 2.5 litre V6 normally aspirated auto. Doing a 35 mile trip in manual mode sticking in 4th gear at 5k revs, yes speed is over the legal limit. Oh and for a couple of miles flat out in 4th gear. Trio back is in auto and sticking at 70mph. Going mog was 31. Coming back mpg 35. Go figure that.
But most definitely Yes. The faster you go the more 'energy' you use.
I just did a 400 mile round trip in my MG5 at 'normal' speeds (but it was a Friday so lots of hold-ups). Two stops totalling 90 minutes and home easy, mad driving but in eco mode..... Average 4.1 mpkW or something 😋. All the chargers were 50kW slow (sorry RAPID) chargers.
Your results are exactly what is expected, whether it's an EV or an ICE. What you're using power for is to overcome resistance and that goes up with the square of your speed.
Comparing 60 and 70. 6^2 / 7^2 = 36 / 49 = 72 / 98 ~= 74/100. So you'd expect to use 74% as much energy at 60 compared to 70. It's a significant saving, regardless of fuel type.
I don’t know how about in UK but in my country if go on a motorway where I can legally do 140 km/h. My audi a6 takes approx 7 l/100 km so if I want to make a weekend in Austrian Alps, I can go on one tank, and be there within 7-8 hours. I guess none of electric cars can do the same. Usually I’m passing them by going in between big trucks and intercity coaches.
slower is slower if you have high power charging. Eg 60mph for 250 miles is 250 minutes - maybe with no charging (I think you might still need a short stop but lets go with it). 70mph will do the same distance in 214 minutes. But at 3.8kwh/m thats 65kwh so you’ll need to top up 10-15 kwh so 15 minute stop maybe? Thats 230 minutes so 20 mins faster than non-stop at 60. Assuming you’ll want a pee/greggs break anyway on a 3-4 hour trip, driving at faster speeds is probably the way to go
If fact, according to Tesla embedded "GPS", it is some time faster to go slower. For example by driving at 110 km/h instead of 130 km/h, because you can skip a charge and so the (even very small) detour. But who minds, you can just drive as you like and the car will change the planning on the fly. The only planing you have to do is when you have no charge point at destination, because for now the car (at least Teslas) cannot deal with way-points, so you have to be sure you will have enough watts to go back from your destination to a supercharger (and then you are safe). It would be nice Tesla to address that.
We'll all be filling in a questionnaire when it comes to planning a trip soon. Where do you want to go? When did you last pee? How much have you drunk today? Are you hungry? Etc...
@@everusualsuspect No, you just have to fill the destination, and of course just if you need or want assistance. And even if you do, you can do what ever you want, make any detour, stop where you want for the time that please you, and the embedded computer will adapt without any intervention. Regarding drunkenness, I think you don't need a computer to know that it is unwise to drive if you have been drinking. But it would not be difficult for the car to detect if you are sober enough to drive (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417413008105).
@@didierpuzenat7280 yes, I realise what things are like now. I was just joking about what it maybe like in the future...
@@everusualsuspect Sorry, I was not 100% sure it was a joke ;-).
The longer you own an EV the faster you drive... as you get to know the capabilities of the car. Having watched many ev videos before buying my e-golf I was under the impression that the range would shoot down at 70mph.. in reality it wasn't a huge difference
a few comments i get about preheating the LEAF24 or using aircon or heating.
Doesn't that drain the battery and reduce the range?
Yes but i only need 24 miles for work commute, i'd get a minimum of 60 miles, not going to miss the 36 miles.
Do it again with four people in it AKA Holiday run and do the 70 MPH test will be interested to see how much more you lose in range I guess over 10%.
I would like to know if I tow a trailer such as a horse box with horse combined weight 1,200kg and the degradation of battery power, or should I stick to my diesel.
Like Betty's Eldest said, having huge HGVs bearing down on you on the motorway is no joy in any way, shape or form...!
For that reason, I tend to stick to about 68mph - it's enough to glide passed the lorries, yet I don't feel the urge to hunker down in the outside lane at 'rat race' speeds...
That loss seems about the same as with a petrol/diesel car. My diesel does about 60mpg at 60 and 50mpg at 70.
Do you have the total time taken for both trips please or did I miss it in the video? It would be very interesting to see which was quicker if there was any real difference
Roadworks skewed that this time so not worth mentioning.
@@ElectricVehicleMan Shame, it would have been very interesting to see
Bjørn does very well doing long boring rides so work away. Hopefully the £300m infrastructure project will help; bring it on Gov asap.
Were driving at an indicated 70mph or "true" GPS 70mph or are they the same in a Tesla?
It was a ‘cough cough’ 70
I'm pretty sure that the "indicated" speed is legally required to overestimate your actual speed by 3 or 4 mph while the satnav speed is allowed to be accurate. Apparently driving instructors / examiners now allow people to work with this and drive with the indicated speed a mile or two over the limit.
@@londonwestman1 Cars are allowed to overread but never underread. Most of the cars I've driven have over read by 10%.
Chatting to an old fella at Hopwood services (Birmingham) he tells me he's doing his third trip from Cornwall to the Lake District. I asked him what the range on his i3 was. He answered, 'about the same as my bladder.'
I've been doing a fortnightly trip to Brum from Manchester (100 miles) for nearly two years in my ioniq. I've found 62mph to be the sweet spot plus knocking cruise control off on downhill sections helps efficiency. I'm averaging 5 miles per kWh.
Quick question: Did you confirm your speed with gps? I've read that Teslas are more accurate than other manufacturers.
Difference of driving around 100kph (eco pro) and around 125kph (comfort) on a 150km stretch in a BMW i3: 7kwh. The question is could I make up the time gained in speed in charging the extra kwh. The i3 has a flat, but limited to 50kw, charge curve to ~85% charge... I’ll see on my planned trip to Berlin later this month.
Wow, I wasn’t expecting for there to be such a difference. I wonder whether the efficiency loss is a curve or straight line between those speeds? Is 65mph a 12% from 70 or more or less..?
Although my current ICE car is less efficient at 70 than 60, it’s not over 20% less efficient, maybe 10% max? Or maybe I need to test it..:
Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. So an easy way to estimate range loss is to take the percentage increase in speed and double that. If you drive 10% faster you will likely see 20% less range.
What was the terrain like in each direction? I found I got 5.2 on a flat terrain, but it is very different between the 2 directions (4.7 avg) on my Leaf.
Don't quite get the preference for the higher speed and acceptable loss in the efficiency and additional cost of charging to cover this loss of efficiency against installing solar panels and battery storage with the aim of saving money. There seems to be a distinct line between saving money on electricity bills and generating income from feeding back into the grid, but when it comes to the car then quite happy to spend extra money to forgo the proven savings of driving more economically....
Having 33k of free supercharger miles helps.
As you found out, stops are not always for charging but you can take advantage to charge at the same time. So have you lost any time that you would not have lost anyway to satisfy your bladder and stomach? Would the added weight of eating two pasties have reduced the cars efficiency?
How long, time wise did the two trips take?
Wish they would use m/kWh. Makes more sense.
Good to compare TM3 with a LEAF, range won by TM3 - Price is won by LEAF.
Repeatedly mention one off them and never the other gives a false picture.
I didn’t compare them, I was mentioning what I use to do in my leaf for years before this. Oh Lordy!
Yes, ICE cars get worse economy when driving faster but… they are so inefficient anyway that the difference doesn’t show as much as when using an EV.
The battery in my mid-range model 3 has the BTU content of 2 gallons of Gas. If ICE vehicles had two gallon gas tanks ... they would notice the difference in a lot more than just speed.
😁🤪 you could put it on auto pilot while weeing in a bottle ?
I got routed to Grantham supercharger the other day on the way up north, I couldn't believe Greggs shuts at 6! Had to have a lukewarm BK. Did you set the supercharger as a destination each way?
Me in my poor LEAF24 I plan to get to a charger with low % if I can't do the whole trip in one go. Charge speed being better at lower %.
Genuine question: is the plural of Nissan Leaf Nissan Leafs or Nissan Leaves?
That was an interesting video apart from your sums...
Some of us have not had the experience of always working usage out in KW's or else like me always work things out in MPG instead. I'm sure your used to it but can you tell those thickness like me what you actually got in mpg please?
If I'm going to have to go back to school I'll just stay with ICE vehicles! 😉
th-cam.com/video/upo7CkjuCZM/w-d-xo.html
Because you fill up with a liquid then you're naturally interested in Miles per Gallon. Generally people use mpg to see how frugal a car is which comes down to £.
Therfore to compare mpg with miles/kWh you'd need to compare price per litre with price per kWh, and consequently how far you could go on a gallon of petrol (4.546 litres).
£1.20 is our £/litre. Multiply by 4.546 to get £/gallon = £5.45. If you divide that by the cost of one kWh (14p typically) then you get the number of kWh you could get for £5.45 = 38.9kWh, multiply by your miles per kWh to get how far the £5.45 will take you and its 155MPGe (e=equivalent).
Of course if the price of petrol changes or the price you get your electricity changes then you'd have to recalculate.
In general driving a family EV would get between 5 and 3 miles to each kWh :-
5 miles /kWh =198 MPGe
4 miles/kWh = 155 MPGe
3 miles /kWh =116 MPGe
The most I ever got from my sr+ was 126kW that was after 3 hours driving, pre conditioning and starting at 14 %. Wonder why I didn't see the sort of speed you saw there.
Greggs on free vend!