AAA FUD: Winter Driving Range

[sjg98]

I calculate a 32% range reduction which is nothing close to 50% which was the AAA headline, no?

I agree that the headline was FUD on two counts, the tests were not appropriate for considering range and 41% is not so close to 50% in this context.

Your case was a real anomaly because of the valet parking preventing you from actually seeing the problem which may have been fixable and then the error itself which is not a normal part of the range issue. Had it not been for the charging problem you would not even be reporting this day.

I think the real story in your report is the importance of having charging where you live or stay. I've learned that lesson. Just having access to a destination charger during dinner last night made a big difference in my confidence reaching a Supercharger today.

The snowflake is the real ambiguity.
On a straight reading the total driving was "only" 32% reduced 106/155.
However snowflake usually means 5-10% of range is locked due to cold.. that is if I had 180mi + snowflake it's because I parked it with 195-210 mi.
So 106/195 gets me to 45% less, 106/210 gets me to 49% loss.

For those of us in colder climates, the snowflake is still very ambiguous several months into the season.
Sometimes I can drive for miles with snowflake before my range starts decreasing (it's just eating the "hidden range").
Other times I lose range immediately and the snowflake eventually disappears without every delivering me any noticeable "hidden range"

Whether we call it reduced range, reduced efficiency or increased vampire drain.. the kWh are going somewhere.

And I am not pre-heating cabin, I leave my fan set to 3 and the temp to 64-65F max so I am not burning kWh on cabin heating.
Had my car been parked longer than 4 hours between the 2x 50mi drives, I would have had worse range loss due to cold soaking, snowflake, etc.

And to be clear I agree with the poster above me - I'm incredibly happy with my Model 3, not blaming Tesla and not complaining here.
However these losses are real actual facts, and are much closer to AAAs 40-50% than they are to 0% so I find the attacks on AAA unfair.

 

[gnuarm]

[/QUOTE]

I would absolutely call 41% close to 50%. To each their own i guess but come on people. This is an "issue" for many many people.

41% is closer to a third which is a very nice, easy to remember figure.

The mass market expects a similar experience to what they have become accustomed to with ICE vehicles.

Yes, that is the "gold" standard. I had an image occur to me the other day. We picture autos as being these magic boxes that transport us with no side effects. The real image of an ICE is a box carrying people with a cloud surrounding it of obnoxious fumes requiring you to drive to an equally polluted location with lots of other smog belchers to be fueled. We simply can't see this cloud, but if we are in an even slightly enclosed space, we will become aware of it quickly.

Should we try to emulate that as well? But wait! The whole fueling experience goes away for most of us since we charge at home every night and in a couple of hours have restored the small amount of charge we have used during the day, ready to begin a new day of electric driving without ever needing to even be aware of our range.

Im sorry, but i have never owned an ICE vehicle that effectively had a leaky fuel tank, by design.

I guess you live someplace where it is always warm. My pickup (that I drove for the previous 20 years) always got less mileage in the winter. It got blamed on the ethanol added to the fuel, but I did calculations to show that couldn't be it.

Everyone here is right. 99% of the population does not need the 500km range. But that means that this (cold-gate??) "Issue", affects a large group. If we are all doing relatively short trips, then the percieved range loss is more than those who try to do a Bjorn Nyland range test all in one go.

Not sure what you are saying here. For most people, and by that I mean the vast majority, the range of the car is not really an issue. That's why so many are holding back waiting for the 200 mile range model 3. The issue of range is really a matter of trips or when you simply can't charge which is a very small percentage of the time and is a separate use case from most daily driving.

My personal experience is a *lot* of trip driving where range matters and so I bought a 100 kWh battery. I am disappointed that my battery loses some 20-30% when the mercury dips, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great car to drive on trips. I do skip fewer chargers.

When you fill your gas tank then take your car home, does it lose more than 27km in less than 8 hours? Cause my model 3 does (because of science i know.. but you have to get my point..)

My pickup will have less range in the winter, yes. 30% less, no. I lose between 5 and 10% and that is not noticed because I don't drive it on trips anymore.

As i have said before, i am not upset or surprised by this as i knew whay i was getting myself in to. But seriously.. look at it from the perspective of the masses.

Yes, look at the facts and the reality, not the FUD of saying 41% is 50% on a range test where 99% of EV owners won't be challenging the range or miss the lost range.

 

[SageBrush]

If we are all doing relatively short trips, then the percieved range loss is more than those who try to do a Bjorn Nyland range test all in one go.

I think you are missing the point. Tesla aside, why did you buy a ~ 300 mile EV ? Was it to cover the winter hit to efficiency in your daily commuting ?

 

[McFlurri]

I think you are missing the point. Tesla aside, why did you buy a ~ 300 mile EV ? Was it to cover the winter hit to efficiency in your daily commuting ?

Yes.. yes it was.

Im not missing any point. Are you missing mine?

 

[SageBrush]

Yes.. yes it was.

Then you are very atypical since the average commute is ~ 30 miles

 

[McFlurri]

Then you are very atypical since the average commute is ~ 30 miles

I know. Thats the point im making though. 99% of people have a short commute. This means that the larger range loss people are seeing is the norm.

Not everyone charges every night for a variety of reasons. Some people live in condos and apartments. Or for me.. i share my charger with my tenant.

I don't think its very atypical at all. I knew my situation (irregular charging.. living in Canada in my igloo), and therefore i purchased the highest range i could afford (thanks to the generous $14,000 government rebate).

 

[sjg98]

I think this is just important to have the information out there.. especially with forthcoming SR battery.
SR @ 220mi rating
= 176mi warm weather regular range (x80% since generally don't charge above 90% and don't get below 10%)
= 85-130mi cold weather range (x55-75% cold weather hit)

This is a measure of comfortable, safe to use range when you don't have pre-warmed battery with chargers at both ends of travel.

Pre-warmed batteries, chargers on both ends, charging to 100%, using range all the way down to 1%, hypermiling at 40mph, downhill both ways, etc are all strategies to maximize above this.

 

[gnuarm]

Then you are very atypical since the average commute is ~ 30 miles

Range is not about the average commute. Range is about every trip you want to make. If you want to be able to drive longer trips on the weekends, then you want range. If you are happy commuting 30 miles in your EV, then a Leaf is not a bad choice.

 

[SageBrush]

Range is not about the average commute. Range is about every trip you want to make. If you want to be able to drive longer trips on the weekends, then you want range. If you are happy commuting 30 miles in your EV, then a Leaf is not a bad choice.

My point exactly

 

[SageBrush]

I know. Thats the point im making though. 9

How many ICE owners know (let alone care) that their cars are inefficient in the winter during short commutes ?
Maybe 1/200 ?

I ask you why.

 

[McFlurri]

How many ICE owners know (let alone care) that their cars are inefficient in the winter during short commutes ?
Maybe 1/200 ?

I ask you why.

Kind of an apples and oranges situation though don't you think?

An ICE vehicle fuels up in 5 minutes and there are stations all over the planet. Also, for 100 years its basically a little needle on a gauge. It doesnt tell you your range in % and km.

When an EV can charge in 5 minutes (to lets even say 80% due to science), then i will absolutely agree with you. But for now, eventhough they are both vehicles.. the mindset of an ICE driver to that of an EV driver are different.

 

[EinSV]

For daily commutes, EVs take less time to refuel than ICE if, like most people, you have access to charging at home. A few seconds to plug in when you get home and a few seconds to unplug the next morning.

It is on long drives that refueling typically takes longer with EVs than ICE.

 

[SageBrush]

Kind of an apples and oranges situation though don't you think?

The point I wanted you to see is that ICE drivers ignore efficiency (unless doing so becomes expensive) because they can refuel at need. To the extent that EV commuters have the same access (home, work etc) they tend to behave the same way.

Long drives are different for an EV because they lose their home/work options -- and then battery range comes into play. Which brings us back to the AAA "study." Casual reading or reliance on the echo chamber tells the uninformed reader that EVs cannot be long trips cars in the winter. All Tesla owners know that is not true in areas served by the Supercharger network because the study design is inapplicable to long trip driving.

I tired of explaining this to every Joe with a efficiency anecdote that is not relevant to long distance driving.

 

[gnuarm]

Kind of an apples and oranges situation though don't you think?

I absolutely agree.

An ICE vehicle fuels up in 5 minutes and there are stations all over the planet. Also, for 100 years its basically a little needle on a gauge. It doesnt tell you your range in % and km.

When an EV can charge in 5 minutes (to lets even say 80% due to science), then i will absolutely agree with you. But for now, eventhough they are both vehicles.. the mindset of an ICE driver to that of an EV driver are different.

Yes, the mindset of the typical ICE driver is different that the mindset of the typical EV driver. The typical EV driver will never consider it to be acceptable to require a trip to a filling station where they have to breath carcinogenic fumes, pull a dipstick to check oil levels and watch where they walk to avoid stepping in spilled oil and other obnoxious substances and wear a plastic glove to avoid getting fuel on their hands when they can charge in the convenience and cleanliness of their own home at a lower cost.

Daily drive to work requires frequent refueling? Just plug in every night and have a fully charged car every day for whatever unexpected events happen rather than trying to find a filling station along your way and that doesn't have a line.

Need to prepare for a long trip? Just plug in the night before rather than driving to a gas station to make sure your tank is full.

Yeah, once you are on a longer trip, the charging stops take more time (for now until they build more chargers closer together to let every charging stop be a meal stop), but that's relatively seldom for most people whereas driving to the gas station to fill the tank is a regular annoyance which most ICE owners could completely avoid if they drove EVs.

 

[gnuarm]

Oh yeah, here's a personal anecdote. I often drive 120 miles to visit friends (by often I mean sort of weekly) spend a night or two and return. In warmer weather I can almost make it round trip on one charge, but I would always need to stop somewhere to get some charge on to return home. They have now installed a Supercharger at the halfway point so now my local driving can be more extensive before the return trip. With the winter weather even with this halfway charger I have trouble completing the trip without more charging.

Tonight I made it back to the halfway charger by using a destination charger at dinner last night getting back some 25% or so in a couple of hours. I arrived with just 4% left and needed to spend an hour to get a decent charge on. This is at a Sheetz and I've sworn off their food. Tonight I FOUND A DECENT RESTAURANT in walking distance. HUZZAH! Now I can charge while eating killing two birds with one stone.

 

[McFlurri]

The point I wanted you to see is that ICE drivers ignore efficiency (unless doing so becomes expensive) because they can refuel at need. To the extent that EV commuters have the same access (home, work etc) they tend to behave the same way.

Long drives are different for an EV because they lose their home/work options -- and then battery range comes into play. Which brings us back to the AAA "study." Casual reading or reliance on the echo chamber tells the uninformed reader that EVs cannot be long trips cars in the winter. All Tesla owners know that is not true in areas served by the Supercharger network because the study design is inapplicable to long trip driving.

I tired of explaining this to every Joe with a efficiency anecdote that is not relevant to long distance driving.

I not debating the differences in efficiency from long range travel vs daily commuting.

My personal experience with long distance (338km round trip with 111km left after a 100% charge - preheated while plugged in at about -4C), is MUCH better than the ~41% range loss that AAA is mentioning. EV's can be still quite efficient for long distance I AGREE WITH YOU.

I'm just pointing out that there are situations where the AAA report IS accurate.

Example from today for me;
Charged to 90% (447km) completed at 2:30am
Began preheating car to 20.5C at 1:27pm and car showed 421km (car is parked outside and was still plugged in even after 2:30am)
Left with 415km at 1:35pm
Work is 7km away round trip (chill mode on and temp at 20.5C) outside temp around -5C (arrived at work at 1:45pm) - wife shuttling me
Finished work and car drove 8.6km round trip (again wife shuttle service) and arrived home with 360km of range.

So my car physically drove 15.6km today, but the car used/ lost 87km worth of range.

Am I concerned.. no, because I still have ample range to do this for several more days. But here is my personal experience. Car was left alone to go to sleep. no one logged into the app to keep the car awake, I don't have that keep climate on setting turn on...

For daily commutes, EVs take less time to refuel than ICE if, like most people, you have access to charging at home. A few seconds to plug in when you get home and a few seconds to unplug the next morning.

It is on long drives that refuelling typically takes longer with EVs than ICE.

I am sorry but this is simply false.

EV's take significantly more time to refuel than an ICE vehicle. Just because it takes the operator less time out of their day to plug in the car vs pumping gas, doesn't mean it's quicker.

Example,

I have a 40A charger which charges my car at a peak rate of 48km/h. So in 1 hour my car will get 48km worth of range. How long would you have to pump gas for to get 48km of fuel? 1 minute? ok but you have to pay for the gas, use the gas pump.. 5 minutes? vs 1 freaking hour!

EV's are convenient in many situations and I love owning one. I will NEVER go back to ICE. but sorry... EV's do NOT take less time to refuel.

I absolutely agree....

Daily drive to work requires frequent refueling? Just plug in every night and have a fully charged car every day for whatever unexpected events happen rather than trying to find a filling station along your way and that doesn't have a line....

For sure! IF the EV owner has personal access to a charger at home/ work. But what about those people in Condo's or apartment buildings? They have to rely on Public charging. and "losing" 41% of range IS a big deal.

 

[gnuarm]

EV's take significantly more time to refuel than an ICE vehicle. Just because it takes the operator less time out of their day to plug in the car vs pumping gas, doesn't mean it's quicker.

Actually it does. In the majority of cases I don't give a rat's rear how long the car needs to focus on monitoring the electrons coursing into the battery. I care about how long I need to wait for it. So I charge at home and don't wait for it, just like I do laundry and don't normally care how long it takes unless I'm at the laundromat. So with the ICE you want a fast fill because you are hanging out at the laundromat watching the scurvy guy with one wild eye, but with an EV your laundry is tumbling while you watch TV and eat popcorn on your couch with your girlfriend.

I have a 40A charger which charges my car at a peak rate of 48km/h. So in 1 hour my car will get 48km worth of range. How long would you have to pump gas for to get 48km of fuel? 1 minute? ok but you have to pay for the gas, use the gas pump.. 5 minutes? vs 1 freaking hour!

Who cares? Nobody plugs in their car and thinks, "How many miles will I have in an hour?" They plug it in and possibly set the timer for starting the charge later in the evening, then they go into the house to live their lives without setting foot in a filling station.

EV's are convenient in many situations and I love owning one. I will NEVER go back to ICE. but sorry... EV's do NOT take less time to refuel.

They take less of MY time and that's what's important.

For sure! IF the EV owner has personal access to a charger at home/ work. But what about those people in Condo's or apartment buildings? They have to rely on Public charging. and "losing" 41% of range IS a big deal.

I had to dig pretty hard to find reasonable numbers, but I think it came out to something like 80% of people live in homes where they likely can charge overnight. That doesn't count the few who are in apartments or condos but do have access to charging or the few who are in detached homes but for some reason (like HOA restrictions) can't plug in (my friend had what is classed as a detached house but has a sidewalk between the house and parking lot, so no cord). So 80% is not exact, but the best number I could come up with.

For the remaining 20%, then they will need to charge elsewhere, but that doesn't mean waiting for charging. Many will be able to charge at work. The number of level 2 chargers is much higher than the level 3 chargers and growing.

Charging is not a perfect scenario still. But it is improving and relatively few EV owners need to wait for charging other than when driving on trips. So yes, the AAA headline is rather misleading. It's a bit like a big headline saying the "price of gas is over $3 a gal in most of the US" when that would only be the high octane fuel, then talking about how this is a reasonable headline because 20% of ICE require high octane.

 

[McFlurri]

Actually it does. In the majority of cases I don't give a rat's rear how long the car needs to focus on monitoring the electrons coursing into the battery. I care about how long I need to wait for it. So I charge at home and don't wait for it, just like I do laundry and don't normally care how long it takes unless I'm at the laundromat. So with the ICE you want a fast fill because you are hanging out at the laundromat watching the scurvy guy with one wild eye, but with an EV your laundry is tumbling while you watch TV and eat popcorn on your couch with your girlfriend.

I get that, but again.. just because you are physically "charging" your car in a few seconds.. doesn't mean the car is faster/ quicker to refuel. it still take X many hours vs X many minutes.

I agree that I much rather prefer to plug in at night and wake up in the morning. but the car still took MORE time to fuel.


Who cares? Nobody plugs in their car and thinks, "How many miles will I have in an hour?" They plug it in and possibly set the timer for starting the charge later in the evening, then they go into the house to live their lives without setting foot in a filling station.

When HOME charging you may very well be correct. But for public charging, Level 2 or 3, I can imagine that those people who solely rely on it are wanting to know how quick their vehicle charges. Why does every car manufacturer say "charge to 80% in X time". Because people DO care how fast their vehicle charges. (Whether on a road trip or day to day charging)


They take less of MY time and that's what's important.

In your situation (which I'm assuming you have home charging), absolutely. Plug in and forget. But it still doesn't mean this vehicle itself is refuelling faster than an ICE vehicle.


I had to dig pretty hard to find reasonable numbers, but I think it came out to something like 80% of people live in homes where they likely can charge overnight. That doesn't count the few who are in apartments or condos but do have access to charging or the few who are in detached homes but for some reason (like HOA restrictions) can't plug in (my friend had what is classed as a detached house but has a sidewalk between the house and parking lot, so no cord). So 80% is not exact, but the best number I could come up with.

For the remaining 20%, then they will need to charge elsewhere, but that doesn't mean waiting for charging. Many will be able to charge at work. The number of level 2 chargers is much higher than the level 3 chargers and growing.

Charging is not a perfect scenario still. But it is improving and relatively few EV owners need to wait for charging other than when driving on trips. So yes, the AAA headline is rather misleading. It's a bit like a big headline saying the "price of gas is over $3 a gal in most of the US" when that would only be the high octane fuel, then talking about how this is a reasonable headline because 20% of ICE require high octane.

Because I'm from Canada, the StatsCan numbers in 2016 shows that 33.5% of people live in dwelling with multiple residences.

But lets assume your 20% number is accurate for the USA... that still leaves 65 million people. lets be super conservative and say that only 20% of those people are age of majority and can drive and that's still 13 million people. That's a lot of potential car buyers that don't have access to home charging.

I don't know about the USA, but in Canada workplace charging is not common place. So that's not a guarantee for these 13+ million people. Hell.. I work for my municipal government in the Silicon Valley of Canada, and I got laughed at for even suggesting the idea of workplace charging.

 

[jkeyser14]

The numbers aren't FUD, I have been getting a 40-50% reduction in range when temps hit low single digits Farenheit. My commute is ~40 miles each way. The battery snowflake never goes away.

 

[jerry33]

I don't know about the USA, but in Canada workplace charging is not common place. So that's not a guarantee for these 13+ million people. Hell.. I work for my municipal government in the Silicon Valley of Canada, and I got laughed at for even suggesting the idea of workplace charging.

Workplace charging is not all that it's cracked up to be. Usually, there are a very limited number of spots (one or two). You have to move your car when charging is complete (not very practical if your job has criticality and you can just get up when you get the finished alert--even if you can get it because the car is often in a cell dead zone), it typically costs 5x or more than charging at home. And unless your commute is long, there's no need to charge at work anyway.