[Salty Dog]

A beginner’s guide to the lies, damn lies and some surprising statistics about range anxiety
by DAVID BOOTH | 3 HOURS AGO

https://driving.ca/features/feature-...s-need-to-know

At a perfectly legal 100 km/h, the Leaf used about 20 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometres. That works out to about 310 kilometres — a far cry from the 349 which Nissan claims, but it's hardly worth mentioning. But bump up your speed to 130 km/h, however, and things go to hell in a hand-basket.Handout / Nissan

With so much hype surrounding electric cars, it can be hard for the first-time EV buyer to distinguish myth from reality regarding range anxiety. Is there really a reason to be anxious about the range of your next zero-emissions car, or is range anxiety just the Boo Radley — I’ve always wanted to slide a To Kill a Mockingbird reference into a column — of electrification, perpetuated by recalcitrant piston heads desperate to hold on to their spark plugs for as long as possible? It’s tough to know where to turn to for advice, the discussion as polemic as modern-day politics.

So, what’s real about range anxiety, and what isn’t? Here is Motor Mouth’s basic guide to this contentious issue. The first conclusion may surprise you, namely that:

There’s no such thing as range anxiety …

… in the city. Oh, if you’re driving a particularly low-range porker like Volkswagen’s e-Golf and just happen to live in Flin Flon — cold weather would greatly reduce its already paltry 198-kilometre range — you might have a few anxious moments. But, for the most part, it’s almost impossible to run out of electricity driving around town in a modern electric vehicle. Yes, even in a city as range-y (sorry, it was too obvious to resist) as Toronto.

The reasons are manifold, the first being that electric vehicles are particularly well suited to urban driving. Thanks to the low-speed efficiency of electric motors and the wonders of brake regeneration, most current EVs hit their rated range mileages easily: If your car’s little digital readout says you have 300 kilometres of free electrons in the “tank,” chances are it will eke out every single one of them.

More importantly, most people simply don’t drive as far as they think they do. EV proponents love trotting out the fact that the average commute is something less than 60 kilometres, and they’re right. Most daily commutes are much shorter. Getting stuck in 401 or Golden Gate traffic might make you think your drive to work is endless, but the truth is, with many EVs on the market now boasting ranges of 300 or more kilometres, the one cold, hard, unassailable truth to the range anxiety question, it is that you’re unlikely to run out of lithium ions driving around the city.

Which is a good thing because …

The convenience of plugging in your car at home is definitely situational

Simply put, if you’re a bucks-up Audi e-tron or Jaguar I-Pace owner, then you probably have a multi-car garage with a built-in wall charger. Replenishing your EV’s spent electrons is as simple as popping out of the driver’s seat, reaching for your conveniently placed SAE J1772 plug, and your car will be all juiced up come the morning. What could possibly be more convenient? On the other hand, for those who live without house or apartment parking, street charging is currently pretty much non-existent, and even when (if?) it becomes more common, it will most definitely test your resolve.

Most consumers will find their situations somewhere between those extremes, facing a personal choice as to how committed they are to zero-emission motoring. Personally, I find it a lot easier to gas up at the Esso around the corner once a week than fiddle with electric cars parked in my driveway. Others, in the same situation, might find the opposite.

As for heavy-duty highway use, well, I just spent a week prowling SoCal’s busiest highway and the one thing that stood out — besides the fact that American exceptionalism is alive and well on California roads — is that …

You really don’t see many Teslas in the fast lane

In fact, I didn’t see a single one. Considering how many Model 3s there are on the roads in and around Los Angeles, it was quite startling, especially given Tesla’s reputation for Ludicrous speed. Oh, there might have been a few crawling along in the left-hand lane on LA’s incredibly congested 405, but out in the no man’s land that is California’s famed 101 — where anything less than 80 miles per hour in the fast lane earns you a bazooka up the butt — all the Teslas, every single one of ’em, was way over to the right.

I suppose you could posit that all Tesla owners are all just so safety conscious that they rigorously adhere to the speed limit. But the inconvenient truth of electric motoring is that the flip side of a BEV’s superlative efficiency in an urban environment is that they — all BEVs, not just Teslas — are incredibly profligate with their electrons on the highway. Indeed, an overabundance of curiosity had me take a Nissan Leaf Plus tester out to Ontario’s almost-empty-off-hours Hwy. 407 and measure its electricity consumption at a number of different speeds. This is what I found:

At a perfectly legal 100 km/h, the Leaf used about 20 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometres (the EV equivalent of L/100 km). With 62 kWh of lithium-ion on board, that works out to range of about 310 klicks. That’s less than the 349 km Nissan rates the Leaf SL Plus, but hardly worth mentioning.

Ratchet the speed up to 130 km/h, however, and things go to hell in a hand-basket. Nissan’s consumption metre actually doesn’t go high enough to measure the number of free electrons the Leaf consumes trying to hold a steady buck-thirty, but I do know that I was way over its 45 kWh/100-kilometre maximum the entire time. Way over.

THROW IN SOME BLUSTERY –20°C MERCURY, AND SAID REALISTIC RANGE WILL DROP EVEN FARTHER.

In actual range, the Leaf managed but 165 kilometres (yes, I drove it until the battery was almost depleted). That’s less than half its rated range and much, much less than the range of any gasoline-fuelled vehicle on the market today. It also means that you’d be looking for a charging point after just an hour of freewaying. Oh, and by the way, for those about to scream foul at my supposedly outrageous speeding, please note that I was passed by almost everything on the road, one of only two cars I passed being — you guessed it — a Tesla Model 3.

Nor does said Tesla’s vaunted range offer much salvation. Yes, Tesla boasts its Model S can drive more than 500 kilometres on a single charge, but they won’t manage anything like that at typical Canadian highway speeds. (And for all the Tesla owners already penning their protestations, please read the Tesla Model S and Porsche Taycan comparison in this month’s Car and Driver for a discussion of claimed range. Hint: the Model S only got 10 more miles driving at 75 mph despite Tesla claiming 134 miles more). And that’s without factoring in our wintry weather. Throw in some blustery –20°C mercury, and said realistic range will drop even farther.

So, for all those contemplating buying their first electric vehicle, consider this: If most of your driving is local and you have a convenient home charging station, or if you’ve the patience of Job and don’t mind turtling down the highway, stopping for 30 minutes whenever you do need more electrons, then by all means, an EV is perfect for you. On the other hand, if you’re a true road warrior, a significant portion of your annual mileage spent banging out big klicks at equally big speeds, then you might want to look to something more traditional.

Oh, and enjoy passing all those turtling Teslas.

[Obioban]

Meanwhile, I spend >half of my time in my i3 at its 94mph top speed limiter

If you charge at home, the topic of this thread, there’s no reason I can see to not be as inefficient as you want. It costs me <$2 to charge from 0% (obviously never the actual starting point) to full, and charging at home means I spend zero time on it (more convenient than ICE).

But, yeah, the above is why I said I wouldn’t own one if I couldn’t charge at home.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Meanwhile, I spend >half of my time in my i3 at its 94mph top speed limiter

If you charge at home, the topic of this thread, there’s no reason I can see to not be as inefficient as you want. It costs me <$2 to charge from 0% (obviously never the actual starting point) to full, and charging at home means I spend zero time on it (more convenient than ICE).

But, yeah, the above is why I said I wouldn’t own one if I couldn’t charge at home.

And that has zero effect on your range?

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

And that has zero effect on your range?

Oh, it does-- but it doesn't matter.

As in, so long as it doesn't reduce it so that I can't use the car for something I need (it doesn't), regardless of how I drive the next day I start off with 100% again. The electric bill might be $1.50 instead of $1.00 that night but... who cares? It's pennies of difference.

A similar argument would be that you should never drive an ICEV anywhere other than the highway, because ICEVs are more inefficient in cities than on highways-- only in that case, the cost for doing so is much higher (as ICEVs cost much more to run).

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Oh, it does-- but it doesn't matter.

As in, so long as it doesn't reduce it so that I can't use the car for something I need (it doesn't), regardless of how I drive the next day I start off with 100% again. The electric bill might be $1.50 instead of $1.00 that night but... who cares? It's pennies of difference.

A similar argument would be that you should never drive an ICEV anywhere other than the highway, because ICEVs are more inefficient in cities than on highways-- only in that case, the cost for doing so is much higher (as ICEVs cost much more to run).

So you are in agreement with the article I posted then.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

So you are in agreement with the article I posted then.

How's this as a statement:
If you think ICEVs should never drive on roads other than highways, where they're inefficient, it would logically follow that EVs should never drive on highways, where they're inefficient. The same logic dictates both positions.

(that said, EVs are still more significantly more efficient at transforming energy into motion than ICEVs on highways)

[Obioban]

It's actually an amusingly backwards thinking article-- EVs suffer a range hit relative to ICEVs on highways because they're so much more efficient at turning energy into motion. ICEVs turn 80% of the energy stored into gas into waste heat (radiators, convection, hot exhaust gases), so the percent that the aerodynamic drag hits them just comes out of that 20% of energy stored in gas that they turn into motion. Their baseline inefficiency persists, and dwarfs the aerodynamic drag.

Whereas EVs are significantly more efficient at turning energy into motion, with very little being wasted as heat, so any additional load (drag) comes from the energy source.

Amusingly backwards thinking. It's like claiming heat is more efficient in an ICEV

[GenXer]

I still wouldn't buy an EV just yet. I would prefer a plug-in hybrid instead. I want my cake and eat it too!
I want long range and the ability to chose how I propel and replenish my vehicle.

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by GenXer

I still wouldn't buy an EV just yet. I would prefer a plug-in hybrid instead. I want my cake and eat it too!

Get a 330e with a tune and straight pipe or active hybrid 3 with a tune.

[stein_325i]

If I wasn't able to charge at home? No, but this is because of my location in Baltimore and living in the suburbs. Now if I lived in an area like LA, I would definitely consider it, although I'd only buy a Tesla since Superchargers are the biggest benefit and convenience compared to other EV's.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GenXer

I still wouldn't buy an EV just yet. I would prefer a plug-in hybrid instead. I want my cake and eat it too!
I want long range and the ability to chose how I propel and replenish my vehicle.

To me that sounds like the worst of both worlds, as a member of both worlds.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Obioban

It's actually an amusingly backwards thinking article-- EVs suffer a range hit relative to ICEVs on highways because they're so much more efficient at turning energy into motion. ICEVs turn 80% of the energy stored into gas into waste heat (radiators, convection, hot exhaust gases), so the percent that the aerodynamic drag hits them just comes out of that 20% of energy stored in gas that they turn into motion. Their baseline inefficiency persists, and dwarfs the aerodynamic drag.

Whereas EVs are significantly more efficient at turning energy into motion, with very little being wasted as heat, so any additional load (drag) comes from the energy source.

Amusingly backwards thinking. It's like claiming heat is more efficient in an ICEV

So your experience is valid, but anecdotal. The author is an electrical engineer and has been an automotive journalist for decades and has a vast experience with ICE and EV as well as research to back up his views.....it's just really more information for those thinking about buying an EV.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

So your experience is valid, but anecdotal. The author is an electrical engineer and has been an automotive journalist for decades and has a vast experience with ICE and EV as well as research to back up his views.....it's just really more information for those thinking about buying an EV.

The article itself is anecdotal. The writer never sees Tesla's in the fast lane in LA? Are they serious? I see them all the time. I see them on the way to Santa Barbara, Vegas, Palm Springs, in the fast lane slow lane, carpool lane. Was this a scientific observation with statistics, samples taken at different times etc? I doubt it. My friends with Tesla's don't care enough about highway efficiency to modify what lane they drive in.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by jmg

The article itself is antidotal. The writer never sees Tesla's in the fast lane in LA? Are they serious? I see them all the time. I see them on the way to Santa Barbara, Vegas, Palm Springs, in the fast lane slow lane, carpool lane. Was this a scientific observation with statistics, samples taken at different times etc? I doubt it. My friends with Tesla's don't care enough about highway efficiency to modify what lane they drive in.

There seems to be a lot of sensitivity around this, the article needs to be taken in context and totality. The writer isn't anti-EV, he is a realist though and that is what the article is, realistic.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

There seems to be a lot of sensitivity around this, the article needs to be taken in context and totality. The writer isn't anti-EV, he is a realist though and that is what the article is, realistic.

Realistically, I take my i3 in the fast lane all the time.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by jmg

Realistically, I take my i3 in the fast lane all the time.

So your i3's range isn't affected by driving it at higher speeds? And since you live in SoCal you can't really comment on the parts of the article that refer to cold weather right? Context, don't get bent on one part of the article even though it's true. I get it, you love your i3, the article is just there to shine a light for folks that are thinking about buying an EV for the first time.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

So your i3's range isn't affected by driving it at higher speeds? And since you live in SoCal you can't really comment on the parts of the article that refer to cold weather right? Context, don't get bent on one part of the article even though it's true. I get it, you love your i3, the article is just there to shine a light for folks that are thinking about buying an EV for the first time.

FYI ICEVs are also less efficient above the speed limit

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by Obioban

FYI ICEVs are also less efficient above the speed limit

What's your point? The article was directed at folks that might be considering an EV and is just there to shed some light on the reality of EVs. Have a good weekend.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

So your i3's range isn't affected by driving it at higher speeds? And since you live in SoCal you can't really comment on the parts of the article that refer to cold weather right? Context, don't get bent on one part of the article even though it's true. I get it, you love your i3, the article is just there to shine a light for folks that are thinking about buying an EV for the first time.

I didn't say the article was wrong about cold weather.

I also didn't say that my range isn't affected by high speeds. I said I still drive in the fast lane. The range reduction isn't significant enough for me to modify my driving behavior. The same thing goes for my M3. I don't avoid stop and go traffic solely because my fuel economy is worse.

[GenXer]

Originally Posted by Obioban

To me that sounds like the worst of both worlds, as a member of both worlds.

The opposite is true. I've owned 2 hybrids but wish I had the plug in model. My last hybrid can run 670 miles on a tank of 87 unleaded fuel. It was incredibly convenient too especially for my 500 miles/week commute. Just 5 minutes splash of the cheap fuel was all it took. The 2000 miles round trip to Florida was great as well.

[Flying Ace]

My friend primarily charges his i3 at work as it's highly subsidized there. He only charges at home on weekends using his 110V charger.

It comes down to how much you'll use the car on the weekend. We don't have access to a charger at work or cannot be bothered to go to a charging station.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Stay at home orders and everything being closed sure takes the wind out of the argument for owning an EV when you can't charge at home. I guess these people would have to just sit in their car at the charger? It's not like you're going for a bite or walking around a mall while your EV charges.