And where are these results publicated?
The 181 Wh/km consumption in Tesla's statement are not a R101 consumption!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Return to Singapore
- Thread starter twinklejet
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Singapore
The 181 Wh/km consumption in Tesla's statement are not a R101 consumption!
Below is the energy consumption sticker provided for Tesla Model S cars in Australia.
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 81/02 - Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles) 2008
The test is UNECE R101 NEDW (New European Driving Cycle).
Only the range is measured according to UNECE R101!
The energy consumption then uncorrectly is calulated from it by: (gross capacity of battery)/(range).
This is a trick other OEMs are using too for their BEVs, but Is NOT the correct R101 way to test consumption!
Bad luck for Tesla that this story happened in singapore. The ECE R101 is not 'made' for a big BEV like the model S with (in this case?) stepup charging and up to ~23h balancing/standby charge of a big battery!
From the UNECE R101 document itself:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/updates/R101r3e.pdf
Seems pretty clear that the intention of UNECE R101 is to measure electric energy consumption and electric range of EVs.
Yes
Yes of course. The first independent organization to do this properly concerning energy consumption measurement was singapore LTA!
Tam
Well-Known Member
Please re-read LTA statement again.
It does not challenge Tesla lower reading of 181 Wh / km.
It does not say: if done properly, that Certificate of Conformity should read 444 Wh / km.
Again, the statement says:
"Tesla has informed LTA that based on the car’s original Certificate of Conformity, its energy consumption rating was 181 Wh/km when it left the Tesla factory on 28 June 2014.
LTA confirms that a brand new Tesla Model S would thus have fallen into the CEVS A1 band, and enjoyed a rebate. However, Mr Nguyen did not bring in a new Tesla Model S, but a used car, and as is the policy for the import of all used cars, must be individually subject to emissions and fuel efficiency tests since LTA would not know how much the car’s condition might have deteriorated."
It does not question the accuracy of Tesla's test for a "brand new car" and it does not say its inflated number is wrong.
If Tesla lower number is correct as confirmed by LTA's statement then how can you explain the inflated number 444?
LTA explains:
1) LTA tested a "used car" not a "brand new" Tesla. To LTA, that is a BIG difference between "new" and "used."
That much of big difference?
2) Yes! That much of a big difference because "LTA would not know how much the car’s condition might have deteriorated."
If 2 different tests yields two different results such as in the case of Volkswagen emissions scandal, LTA would immediately ban all new and used Tesla cars.
On the contrary, "LTA confirms that a brand new Tesla Model S would thus have fallen into the CEVS A1 band, and enjoyed a rebate."
That rules out any difference for USA or Singapore tests (at least in a "brand new" Tesla.)
Tam
Well-Known Member
After the owner asked, Tesla is the one who wants a re-test, not LTA.
LTA will grant a brand new Tesla Model S a rebate with no re-test.
It also just granted a brand new Peugeot Ion without a re-test.
Why doesn't it want to test a brand new vehicle if the standards are different?
It does not!
Its rationale for testing is because of the "used" condition, not different standards of tests.
Its reasoning is very easily to be understood.
If you bought a brand new gasoline car, may be LTA should skip the test but if it is used, how do you know the spark plugs are still clean?
That's the rationale for testing the used one.
That's perfectly fine as the owner Joe Nguyen said but when it came to an EV, the government was clueless as he said in this video clip:
http://www.straitstimes.com/movideo/embed/1471260?movideo_m=1471260
Last edited:
No doubt about that! This is the specific consumption your energy meter in the car displays!
But what would a single phase AC 120V energy meter in your garage display if you'd plug in your car coming home from a 22 km trip that you started with 100% SOC keeping the car plugged in for about 23h?
Tam
Well-Known Member
It is good that you know the difference but for Singapore, for 7 months, they passed the buck from one agency to another.
They had no guidance at that time. They didn't know what to do because they couldn't say that an Electric Vehicle has how many kilometers per liter efficiency.
They drained the battery then they said the car's no good because they couldn't charge it back up.
The owner had to come over and saw the bumper was disassembled along with other disconnected wires and sensors. So, he told them to assembled them back and the car was charging again.
To charge a Tesla there are some basic safeguards for working with electricity and if someone just randomly takes things off without knowing the consequences is just too incredible!
and so on...
Singapore is a very rich country. It has very bright people. However, the government failed to use its resources to conduct a proper R & D, failed to recruit a team of engineers, and failed to assemble a team of professors from Singapore for 7 months. And the result reflects of what happened for those 7 months.
[Open Letter] Singapore's Penalty for Electric Cars - The First Tesla Model S in Singapore - Alvinology
Last edited:
Knobby
Member
IngTH is correct. 181 Wh/km is only the power the car uses from its battery, while driving. It does not count charging losses, vampire losses, and balancing losses all of which also contribute to CO2 emissions. So for sure the correct figure is higher than 181. I don't know why Tesla responded with that figure but it is not the true story. Also the sticker that was on the window of my car when it was new in Canada says 236 Wh/km. 2014 P85.
Good grief.
Have you guys actually read UNECE R101? It involves charging the car to 100%, letting it sit, doing two drive cycles (total around 22km), then charging it again and measuring how much power comes from the wall. In other words, it includes the losses you mention. It may not be perfect. It may not replicate your driving/charging conditions. But the designers have obviously tried to simulate real world conditions in a very precise repeatable test.
Here's the link (again): http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/updates/R101r3e.pdf
Skip to Annex 7. Details of the test are on pages 56 through 58. It is 2 1/2 pages.
That would be an interesting data point if Canada actually uses the UNECE R101 test. However, it doesn't so it is not surprising they got a different result from a different test.
Now, whether the UNECE R101 test equates to real-life is another story, and the universal answer is probably not (unless you happen to have a 11km commute with a drive pattern identical to the drive cycle).
Knobby
Member
The 181Wh/km figure that Tesla released was the result of the UNECE R101 test, which includes these factors.
Have a look at page #57:
So the 181Wh/km is the energy delivered from the mains (between the mains socket and the vehicle charger).
This is the equivalent of filling a petrol car 100% full. Driving it a number of kilometers. Then filling it again to 100% and measuring how much petrol you have to add to get back to 100%. You are measuring the petrol added, not relying on anything the car reports to you. Such a measurement would include spillage (the equivalent to your losses).
The document is pretty clear. Only 2 1/2 pages to read.
Knobby
Member
I know how it is measured. But the 181 Wh/km consumption in Tesla's statement is not per UNECE R101. Where do you see that Tesla said it is?
Tam
Well-Known Member
As posted several messages earlier.
LTA does not challenge Tesla number 181 Wh / km as long as it's a brand new car.
It does not say Tesla didn't give it a number per UNECE R101 protocol.
It does not say because that number is not UNECE R101 so it denied the rebate.
It says it accepts that number only if it was a brand new car and a brand new car with that number would get a rebate.
The only thing it challenges is how can you be sure that number 181 Wh / km is still the same after 1,000km of usage?
It then tested and said, ah hah, it's 444 Wh / km as expected with a deteriorated used car.
The statement says:
"LTA confirms that a brand new Tesla Model S would thus have fallen into the CEVS A1 band, and enjoyed a rebate. However, Mr Nguyen did not bring in a new Tesla Model S, but a used car, and as is the policy for the import of all used cars, must be individually subject to emissions and fuel efficiency tests since LTA would not know how much the car’s condition might have deteriorated."
Oh, good grief. Tesla is referring to Singapore. They know Singapore uses UNECE R101. Hence in their statement they used the 181 Wh/km UNECE R101 figure. QED.
To further back this up, Australia uses UNECE R101, and Tesla Australia have published the figure of 181 Wh/km for that market. I suppose if you look in Europe you'll find the same thing. Quoting Canadian figures doesn't work because Canada doesn't use UNECE R101.
Perhaps if you don't believe that 181 Wh/km is not the Tesla result for UNECE R101, you would share with us what you think the result is, and your published source for that?
Last edited:
TesAus
Member
Taking a look at this from another angle if you take an 85kWh battery and consume at a rate of .444kW/km (the Singapore test result) you get a range of under 200kms. Ignoring for a moment that you don't actually get to use all of the battery capacity that would suggest that we should on average be running out of power after 200kms of driving (approx 130miles). That shows that the Singapore result is nonsense.
Before people chime in saying that the test doesn't reflect real driving I would counter that the lab test results for virtually all cars offer a much more optimistic fuel consumption than anyone ever achieves in day to day driving.
The question is why the result is nonsense. Is it because the test standard isn't appropriate but was applied correctly or is it because someone stuffed up the test?
Before people chime in saying that the test doesn't reflect real driving I would counter that the lab test results for virtually all cars offer a much more optimistic fuel consumption than anyone ever achieves in day to day driving.
The question is why the result is nonsense. Is it because the test standard isn't appropriate but was applied correctly or is it because someone stuffed up the test?
Similar threads
