The true typical motorway range of the latest electric vehicles is up to 50% lower than advertised figures, new research has revealed. Neil Winton, who carried out the research, has written up his findings for Forbes. Here’s an excerpt.
New buyers of EVs need more information. Current range data rarely mentions speed, but it assumes about a 55 mph average. Tesla CEO Elon Musk admitted this to me at a Geneva Car Show press conference in 2016. It’s true that at this speed, EVs are very efficient. It’s only when high speeds are held for long distances that a big problem emerges. Particularly for buyers in mainland Europe, where the autoroute speed limit is often 130 km/h, i.e., 81 mph. (It’s 70 mph in the U.K.) So it makes sense to be honest about range at these speeds, not least because it will be severely cut.
The Lexus RZ 300e (£54,595/$71,350 after tax) for instance claims a range of “up to” 297 miles, but the battery only filled to an average 224 miles. In autoroute cruising mode the range was slashed by 39%.
The Peugeot 3008e (£49,650/$65,000) claimed a range of 326 miles. This was repeated daily, but because of other wild results, which included an autoroute penalty of at least 50% and unconvincing explanations from Peugeot, it can’t be taken seriously. (Peugeot has been asked to comment.)
The Kia EV9 (£77,025/$100,000) battery averaged consistently around the claim of 313 miles after six refills, but the penalty was 50% on the autoroute.
The Hyundai Ioniq 6’s (£55,735/$72,800) battery filled up to an average 270 miles compared with the claim of 384 miles, a 30% shortfall, while on the autoroute the penalty was 38%.
This www.wintonsworld.com data for each vehicle are the result of each being driven for a week over the same country roads and motorways in similar conditions. The data shows autoroute and battery inadequacies on more than 30 other EVs.
These negative results shouldn’t be a surprise because of the basic science.
Emmssions Analytics CEO Nick Molden put the problem this way.
“Air resistance (drag force) is proportional to the square of the speed. Drag will correlate (negatively) with range. So range will decline more than proportionately as speed increases. Vehicle design can change other factors, such as the coefficient of drag (Cd), which is why Tesla has focused so much on aerodynamics,” Molden said.
“All other things being equal, the drag force will be 164% higher at 130 km/h than at 80 km/h (50 mph) which is a speed increase of 63%,” Molden said.
Peter Wells, Professor of Business Sustainability at Cardiff Business School has summed up the problem like this.
“Range falls off a cliff at high speed. For an electric car, the extra energy required getting from 60 mph to 75 mph is astonishing and virtually doubles energy consumption to move all that air out of the way,” Wells told me in an interview a couple of years ago.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/new-report-young-people-dying-of-cancer-at-explosive-rates-uk-government-data-show/
Somewhat related.
Horrifying, how the hell does this get put into widespread reporting so that it can’t be ignored?
And this- “The Trainwreck of all Trainwrecks”.
https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwreck-of-all-trainwrecks-billions-of-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/
From Igor Chudov’s article yesterday.
SV40 – surely tptb cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the jabs are “somewhat related” to turbo charged cancers – Hallett and her Inquisitor in chief will swerve around this as being “ not in the remit” just as they brushed aside Gove’s cat out of the bag revelation.
But….they did not deny the veracity of his statement ……did they ?
Fiasco? Reasoning? God give me strength. Enough with the cock-up theory.
Naked greed on display in so many instances.
Cock-up is single incident – what we saw was serial, intensifying abuse of Rights, civil liberties, of children, of We The People.
The man is a dyed in the wool Corbynista, the actual question is why are the pretend Tories appointing such abject ppl.
Two hundred mill to come their own pre-set conclusions. Hume or Homer aside, we all know where this is going. No one to hold them to account. No proper, meaningful delving into the actual science and the actual facts that could lead us to the unravelling of this diabolical fiasco and the demand for trials and justice. Nothing like that. What have we done to deserve such feckless, dishonest leaders? How has the entire political, medical, legal world etc become so completely corrupted seemingly so quickly? We took our eye off the ball and never for one second imagined that TPTB would commit such traitorous acts against us. We trusted that these people had our best interests at heart. How wrong one can be.
“We trusted that these people had our best interests at heart.”
Herewith lies the problem…
Since when has our government been our friend…
I think Thatcher governed with the best intentions of improving the lives of the British people.
Apart from any working class people…
She created the greed /yuppism I am alright jack, attitude that haunts society to this day.
Yeah all them working class ppl who could actually own their own home really hated her. Wake up she’s the only time there was any in charge faintly in touch with ordinary ppl as she was one. As for greed I suppose you try to earn as little as possible. The good Samaritan could help because he had money.
She also crushed the Miners !! The last large group of indigenous MEN who could have given the Government lots to think about had they risen up on masse !
How many pits were shut by a Labour administration? Now tell us all how many Thatcher’s administration closed?
Rubbish- as ever. Just as Oct 7th has exposed a dangerous predisposition to rampant antisemitism, the period from the 70’s onwards exposed how greedy and gullible large sections of this country already were – THATS what infected society – and yes that did exist – and continues today.
Exactly. Personally, I haven’t trusted a politician in aeons, I was thinking of the main voting public who go out every four years or so hoping that things will get better if they vote for that nice man with the big smile…
I doubt that ‘Humeric’ would be the natural adjective from Hume. Vallance’s correction seems correct, but the logic that people only believe what is in front of them now is surely Homer Simpson’s, not the Greek bard’s.
I think it’s exactly the type of made-up word Johnson would have used in reference to David Hume. And it’s clear from the context that he was referring to Hume, as this article demonstrates.
‘Humeric’ is not in the Oxford English Dictionary, whereas ‘Homeric’ is.
The adjective from’ Hume’, in the dictionary, is ‘Humean”.
A wordsmith like Johnson isn’t going to be confining himself to any dictionary when he’s reaching for an adjective.
Humean doesn’t echo homeric, and has been used approx one ten millionth as often.
😂
I can understand why the KC agreed and moved on immediately.
“First of all, Homer is not known for his logic. He was a poet, not a philosopher. ”
Man, if you can read Homer and NOT see the philosophy underscoring his work – especially The Iliad, on man’s propensity for endless violence – why bother?
Scheesh. Homer was WAY ahead of his time. His subject in The Iliad was mankind at war, and is as pertinent today as it was at the time of writing.
All I can assume and hope is that the author has not read Homer. Fix that. The Iliad and The Odyssey are both astonishing.
Good analysis.
“Nothing is more certain than that men are, in a great measure, governed by interest, and that even when they extend their concern beyond themselves, it is not to any great distance; “
In recent times explained in Public Choice Theory.
We live in bigger times. In a sense it behoves us to look at bigger things. We were always a wholly inadequate society on many levels and we know that, as well as being highly accomplished as well. I am just telling you straight there are plenty of clever people in our country. I wouldn’t keep them excluded for much longer. It won’t just be intelligence it will be toughness and stoicism.
Very interesting article. “Hume goes on to argue that since human nature cannot be altered…” But isn’t that the ultimate aim of mRNA and human augmentation? To change human nature? No more hate and no more love mean an end to free will and all war. I prefer our imperfect condition.
Splendid piece, and more important than it first appears in the battle with the technocratic mindset.