Is Tesla losing its USP?

[SpareHeadOne]

I noticed that the Perf started out with an estimate of 307. and did 286 so 93% of what IT thought It could do. The 356 is EPA or WLTP I assume?

WLTP, for the Performance it's quoted as 352.

The problem, of course, is that WLTP creates four figures for driving scenarios covering urban, suburban, rural and motorway all run under lab conditions, but manufacturers often only quote the most flattering figure and we don't know which test produced it for the Tesla.

With that in mind, I think it's a bit unfair for these tests to use predominately motorway driving and then compare the results with what was probably a suburban or rural test - for all of the cars - but I still find them valuable because it lets me see how far I can expect to travel on a long run.

 

[Adopado]

Pretty decent for the Teslas considering it was 99% motorway, so close to a worst case scenario. The car predictions would be based on a mix of driving. Pity they hadn't been using the energy graph so save switching around settings en route ... and to get that to pop up it's a reliable voice command "show energy graph" or "hide energy graph".

 

[Peteski]

WLTP, for the Performance it's quoted as 352.

The problem, of course, is that WLTP creates four figures for driving scenarios covering urban, suburban, rural and motorway all run under lab conditions, but manufacturers often only quote the most flattering figure and we don't know which test produced it for the Tesla.

With that in mind, I think it's a bit unfair for these tests to use predominately motorway driving and then compare the results with what was probably a suburban or rural test - for all of the cars - but I still find them valuable because it lets me see how far I can expect to travel on a long run.

I'm pretty sure the WLTP test protocol combines all 4 parts of the test cycle into a single figure. I very much doubt manufacturers are allowed to quote partial results of the test. Where have you seen/heard this?

 

[Llama.]

I like this thread. Lots of really fair and balanced comments. Tesla need both the challenge and support.

If Tesla loosing its USP means that it has genuine competition for all the reasons mentioned here, then hasn’t it achieved its vision?

 

[SpareHeadOne]

I'm pretty sure the WLTP test protocol combines all 4 parts of the test cycle into a single figure. I very much doubt manufacturers are allowed to quote partial results of the test. Where have you seen/heard this?

Some manufacturer specification documents show all the test results, but as not all manufacturers show them it seems clear that they're available but do not have to be published.

For example, Jaguar's I-Pace brochure has the individual WLTP test results in the technical details section, it used to have it laid out by test cycle but the 2020 one has them as Low, Medium, High, Extra High and Combined (which is the figure you're talking about).

According to their small print, "WLTP legislation dictates that where there is <5g CO2 variance between the lowest and highest figures, only the highest is declared.", so all EVs would only quote the highest figure for mileage since they're at 0g CO2 in all test conditions and manufacturers are not required to show you the other results.

I probably expressed myself badly, but the point is that Carwow are comparing their motorway driving test results with (at the very least) the Combined test results.

When they did this type of test and included an I-Pace they got 223 miles and said it got 76% of its quoted mileage (292 miles WLTP) - but that's rubbish. The WLTP figure for motorway driving has a maximum range of 244 miles, so it got to around 91% of the maximum WLTP range, but the results from the WLTP tests are actually 198-244 for that type of driving, meaning that you could also argue the car exceeded the WLTP figures for those driving conditions or at the very least it achieved the WLTP figures.

I'm happy for them to do tests like this, but I'm annoyed at them effectively misrepresenting the results as WLTP being wrong when it clearly isn't if you have the relevant data but how else do you level the playing field when not all manufacturers publish the figures you need?

So... I'm also annoyed that manufacturers are not required to disclose all test results to allow us to make informed choices based on the type of driving we expect to do or to make these tests more useful - I don't mind only using the highest figure from the combined results on advertising, but I would like to be able to see the other figures because at the moment the best I can do is assume I can get 75% of the advertised figure on long runs for any vehicle, which makes comparison difficult.


The Jag brochure is here and the results are on the third page from the end: https://www.jaguar.com/Images/Jaguar-I-PACE-Brochure-1X5902110000BXXEN02P_tcm660-798742.pdf

 

[Peteski]

Some manufacturer specification documents show all the test results, but as not all manufacturers show them it seems clear that they're available but do not have to be published.

For example, Jaguar's I-Pace brochure has the individual WLTP test results in the technical details section, it used to have it laid out by test cycle but the 2020 one has them as Low, Medium, High, Extra High and Combined (which is the figure you're talking about).

According to their small print, "WLTP legislation dictates that where there is <5g CO2 variance between the lowest and highest figures, only the highest is declared.", so all EVs would only quote the highest figure for mileage since they're at 0g CO2 in all test conditions and manufacturers are not required to show you the other results.

I probably expressed myself badly, but the point is that Carwow are comparing their motorway driving test results with (at the very least) the Combined test results.

When they did this type of test and included an I-Pace they got 223 miles and said it got 76% of its quoted mileage (292 miles WLTP) - but that's rubbish. The WLTP figure for motorway driving has a maximum range of 244 miles, so it got to around 91% of the maximum WLTP range, but the results from the WLTP tests are actually 198-244 for that type of driving, meaning that you could also argue the car exceeded the WLTP figures for those driving conditions or at the very least it achieved the WLTP figures.

I'm happy for them to do tests like this, but I'm annoyed at them effectively misrepresenting the results as WLTP being wrong when it clearly isn't if you have the relevant data but how else do you level the playing field when not all manufacturers publish the figures you need?

So... I'm also annoyed that manufacturers are not required to disclose all test results to allow us to make informed choices based on the type of driving we expect to do or to make these tests more useful - I don't mind only using the highest figure from the combined results on advertising, but I would like to be able to see the other figures because at the moment the best I can do is assume I can get 75% of the advertised figure on long runs for any vehicle, which makes comparison difficult.


The Jag brochure is here and the results are on the third page from the end: https://www.jaguar.com/Images/Jaguar-I-PACE-Brochure-1X5902110000BXXEN02P_tcm660-798742.pdf

Thanks for that, I now see exactly what you mean. The likes of Carwow never impress me with their testing, especially when it comes to EVs.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Thanks for that, I now see exactly what you mean. The likes of Carwow never impress me with their testing, especially when it comes to EVs.

Agree, it never feels very measured or explained. Why aren't they querying the different results they've had doing similar tests and the same car? It feels like they're just copying Bjorns tests hunting clicks (but don't get me started on Bjorn as I've started to fall asleep to his reviews)

Overnight vampire drain, cold weather performance and energy consumption to do 50 miles with a cold soaked battery, plenty you could do that might be more revealing, plus carfs like the Taycan that is a known good performer.

But in a way, all these tests seem to do is reinforce range anxiety is a concern when practically speaking, its not really. I don't really care if the car is 60 or 80% efficient, I just care if it can do 180 miles in winter and a electron guzzling relatively poor performer like the e-tron 55 can do that.

 

[Adopado]

But in a way, all these tests seem to do is reinforce range anxiety is a concern when practically speaking, its not really. I don't really care if the car is 60 or 80% efficient, I just care if it can do 180 miles in winter and a electron guzzling relatively poor performer like the e-tron 55 can do that.

True that you only need to know the daily range no matter the efficiency, but only if range is all you care about. A car that is twice as efficient will charge at home in half the time for that range ... because you only need half the kWh. This is significant if you are on one of the super-cheap tariffs such as Octopus Go where you are looking to fit your charging into a 4 hour slot. Also if you are paying for relatively pricey rapid charging for an EV not only are you going to be spending more time charging you are going to be spending more full stop. One of the major benefits of EVs over ICE vehicles is energy efficiency ... in my view we should be making the most of that difference, especially when most of our electricity generation is still carbon producing.

 

[gangzoom]

The window on our X is working now .

But the door motor isn't, another ranger visit booked .

I cannot honestly say I've never owned a car that is so badly built. Autopilot also tried to drive me off the road the other day........But 4 years on there is still something about these things that means if I had to buy another tomorrow it would be another Tesla.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

True that you only need to know the daily range no matter the efficiency, but only if range is all you care about. A car that is twice as efficient will charge at home in half the time for that range ... because you only need half the kWh. This is significant if you are on one of the super-cheap tariffs such as Octopus Go where you are looking to fit your charging into a 4 hour slot. Also if you are paying for relatively pricey rapid charging for an EV not only are you going to be spending more time charging you are going to be spending more full stop. One of the major benefits of EVs over ICE vehicles is energy efficiency ... in my view we should be making the most of that difference, especially when most of our electricity generation is still carbon producing.

I take your point about expensive rapids, but anyone buying a 40k+ car and are worried whether it costs 1/6 or 1/4 the price of a petrol car to fuel when charging at home and whether they can squeeze the last drop out of the tariff system is probably living too close the edge financially.

 

[Medved_77]

I take your point about expensive rapids, but anyone buying a 40k+ car and are worried whether it costs 1/6 or 1/4 the price of a petrol car to fuel when charging at home and whether they can squeeze the last drop out of the tariff system is probably living too close the edge financially.

I think for most it's become a game to see how little you can pay to fuel your car rather than a necessity to save money. I've never previously been interested in electricity prices, but with the tech available now using the car's api and the electricity vendor's api, I enjoy looking at my high(low) score at the end of each month.

I'm sure it wouldn't interest me so much if my movements hadn't been so heavily restricted for the last 12 months.

 

[SpareHeadOne]

I think that range anxiety will gradually cease to be a thing as the charging network improves, right now I need a car to be able to go more than twice as far as my bladder so that if I can't charge when I stop the first time for whatever reason then I can get to the next stop.

At the moment most services seem to have a charge point, but they're badly maintained and there's often only two, so there's an increasing chance of not being able to charge - a situation that would never happen at petrol station - but in a few years I expect that will change, especially as we seem to be standardising on CCS for connections and some bigger players are getting involved.

Range anxiety is really charging anxiety - you wouldn't think twice if you knew that you'd be able to charge when you stopped or arrived somewhere. When you were driving an ICE vehicle, did you ever wonder if you could get petrol/diesel on your journey or at your destination? I only did that during the fuel blockades a few years ago.

 

[Adopado]

I take your point about expensive rapids, but anyone buying a 40k+ car and are worried whether it costs 1/6 or 1/4 the price of a petrol car to fuel when charging at home and whether they can squeeze the last drop out of the tariff system is probably living too close the edge financially.

Yes, the home charging total cost is low enough (at present) to not bother being on a special tariff at all ... but most of us do still look to minimise our costs. Looking to the (not too distant) future when we have millions of EVs on the road the relative efficiency of vehicles will have a major impact on our ability to achieve a carbon neutral world... at least until 100% of electricity production can be from sustainable sources. The main pressure to have EVs in the first place is because of that issue.