Is this scenerio feasible for an S60?

[tga]

I am aware that the rated range is based on a fixed wh/km. But is it not the case that batteries can store less energy in very cold temperatures than when warm?

Given this, is it not possible the battery management system may be re calibrated, revealing additional range in the summer?

Or am I missing something?

I suspect once the battery warms up (charge/discharge/battery heater), that shouldn't be an issue. When the battery is really cold, you'll see the snowflake and blue reduced capacity bar representing that cold battery loss of range, but that goes away as the battery warms while driving.

We'll see what happens in the summer (I got my car in Dec); my current 90% is 234 rated miles.

 

[youlikeadajuice]

Keep in mind that on i95 with 70 mph speed limits, the normal speeds traveled in Florida are 75-80 mph as we have some of the nations nicest highways. This weekend when heading home from Orlando my X90D navigation said to limit my speed to 55 mph on i95 for the last 80 miles to complete my trip and would then have 3% remaining (to close). That slow speed isn't possible to do safely on 95 so we had the navagation rerouted us on 50-55mph secondary roads to get to the turnpike at Yehaw Junction and charged at the Ft Drum Supercharger. Added about 1.5 hours to the trip. According to the navigation it should be easily possible for the full 200 mile round trip but the higher Florida speeds take a 25-35% healthy bite out of range.

I'm surprised 80mph takes 25-35% of the range out of an X...I've seen nowhere close to that kind of a penalty in my S60. Both the S and X have the same drag coefficient, so I guess it must be the extra weight?

 

[LoL Rick]

I'm surprised 80mph takes 25-35% of the range out of an X...I've seen nowhere close to that kind of a penalty in my S60. Both the S and X have the same drag coefficient, so I guess it must be the extra weight?

And the frontal area is much larger on the X.

 

[JasonA-EV]

Both the S and X have the same drag coefficient

HAHAHAHA!!! Really??

Damn!! Now I see they are both at Cd=0.24?? Is this true?

 

[youlikeadajuice]

HAHAHAHA!!! Really??

Damn!! Now I see they are both at Cd=0.24?? Is this true?

Right? I was surprised as well, but everything I've found says that it's the same (despite a larger frontal area). Crazy!

 

[BrettS]

Well, I did the first part of my trip and it went really well. I unplugged the car and it was showing a range of 182 miles as I started off. At the end of the trip it was showing 128 miles left, so I "used" 54 miles of battery. I think thats is pretty amazing as the trip feature reported that the actual distance traveled was 53.6 miles. It showed an average of 272 Wh/mi over the trip.

When I started the trip the navigation app was predicting that I would end with 62% of my battery remaining, during the middle of the trip it dropped to 61% for a bit, then during the last 5 or 10 miles it went up to 63% and that's where it ended.

The trip consisted of about 34 miles of highway where I had the cruise set to 75 and about 15 miles of a two lane road where the cruise was set between 60 and 65. The other 5 miles were just surface streets. It was pretty cool out (low 70's), so there wasn't much power going to the AC and it was drizzling a bit so the roads were wet.

I'll make the trip home in an hour or two and that will be 95% highway at 75, but I don't really expect that to make a significant difference.

I certainly think I'll have no problem getting home with plenty of power to spare.

 

[David29]

Well, I did the first part of my trip and it went really well. I unplugged the car and it was showing a range of 182 miles as I started off. At the end of the trip it was showing 128 miles left, so I "used" 54 miles of battery. I think thats is pretty amazing as the trip feature reported that the actual distance traveled was 53.6 miles. It showed an average of 272 Wh/mi over the trip.

When I started the trip the navigation app was predicting that I would end with 62% of my battery remaining, during the middle of the trip it dropped to 61% for a bit, then during the last 5 or 10 miles it went up to 63% and that's where it ended.

The trip consisted of about 34 miles of highway where I had the cruise set to 75 and about 15 miles of a two lane road where the cruise was set between 60 and 65. The other 5 miles were just surface streets. It was pretty cool out (low 70's), so there wasn't much power going to the AC and it was drizzling a bit so the roads were wet.

I'll make the trip home in an hour or two and that will be 95% highway at 75, but I don't really expect that to make a significant difference.

I certainly think I'll have no problem getting home with plenty of power to spare.

Good for you! Sounds like an enjoyable experience! Hope that gave you some confidence and took the edge of any "range anxiety."

 

[LoL Rick]

It was pretty cool out (low 70's)

When was that? 4:00 this morning?

 

[David29]

Right? I was surprised as well, but everything I've found says that it's the same (despite a larger frontal area). Crazy!

It is amazing that they have the same drag coefficient. But -- Bear in mind that the force to move the car through the air is proportional to the drag coefficient times the frontal area. Having the same drag coefficient does not imply the same energy use to move the vehicle through the air. If the drag coefficients are equal for two cars (say, for the Model S and Model X), then the energy used to overcome air resistance will be proportional to the frontal area. Bigger windshield, more energy used.

Plus, there is also some energy used to overcome friction in moving the car along the ground. At highway speeds, the air resistance dominates but the rolling resistance is still a contributor.

 

[youlikeadajuice]

It is amazing that they have the same drag coefficient. But -- Bear in mind that the force to move the car through the air is proportional to the drag coefficient times the frontal area. Having the same drag coefficient does not imply the same energy use to move the vehicle through the air. If the drag coefficients are equal for two cars (say, for the Model S and Model X), then the energy used to overcome air resistance will be proportional to the frontal area. Bigger windshield, more energy used.

Plus, there is also some energy used to overcome friction in moving the car along the ground. At highway speeds, the air resistance dominates but the rolling resistance is still a contributor.

Gotcha, that makes sense. Not as unbelievable then that they could have the same Cd.

 

[BrettS]

Well, I finished the second half of my trip and made it home without running out of power, so that's good. It was raining a bit harder on the way back and I spent more time on the highway with the cruise control set at 75. I didn't do quite as well on the way back, but still not bad. This time as I started it was predicting that I would end with 26% of the battery left. A bit over halfway that dropped to 24% and that's where I ended. When I started it was predicting I had 111 miles remaining and I ended with 49 miles remaining, so I used about 62 miles of range, but this trip was actually only 53.8 miles. The trip information says that I averaged 311Wh/mi on the way home.

Overall for the whole trip, including a bit of additional driving done at the destination I used 133 miles of range to travel an actual distance of 122.9 miles, averaging 289Wh/mi.

I'm sure those numbers will vary to some degree depending on the weather and other factors, but with 49 miles and 26% of the battery left when I returned home I don't think I'm in any danger of running out of power whenever I make this trip.

I suspect that my rare 160 mile trip is also doable, but I'm thinking that I may want to charge the battery up to 100% before I attempt that trip just to make sure that I'll be good.

 

[David29]

Well, I finished the second half of my trip and made it home without running out of power, so that's good. It was raining a bit harder on the way back and I spent more time on the highway with the cruise control set at 75. I didn't do quite as well on the way back, but still not bad. This time as I started it was predicting that I would end with 26% of the battery left. A bit over halfway that dropped to 24% and that's where I ended. When I started it was predicting I had 111 miles remaining and I ended with 49 miles remaining, so I used about 62 miles of range, but this trip was actually only 53.8 miles. The trip information says that I averaged 311Wh/mi on the way home.

Overall for the whole trip, including a bit of additional driving done at the destination I used 133 miles of range to travel an actual distance of 122.9 miles, averaging 289Wh/mi.

I'm sure those numbers will vary to some degree depending on the weather and other factors, but with 49 miles and 26% of the battery left when I returned home I don't think I'm in any danger of running out of power whenever I make this trip.

I suspect that my rare 160 mile trip is also doable, but I'm thinking that I may want to charge the battery up to 100% before I attempt that trip just to make sure that I'll be good.

Your overall average of 289 Wh/mi is just a tiny bit less than the EPA rated mileage for my 70D (292), and I assume the 60 would be about the same, so that is very good! Up here in the chilly northeast, I envy your moderate temps and flat terrain for low energy consumption!

 

[Xolt]

I'm surprised 80mph takes 25-35% of the range out of an X...I've seen nowhere close to that kind of a penalty in my S60. Both the S and X have the same drag coefficient, so I guess it must be the extra weight?

Drag coefficient is represented as a ratio, a smaller vehicle with the same drag coefficient requires less energy to move thru the wind, likewise a larger vehicle with the same ratio requires more energy because it has more friction based on its larger size. They utilize very similar drivetrains which uses a similar fixed amount of energy to move down the road the greater the wind resistance represents a larger portion of the energy used and thus a higher percentage of range drop