EPA Methodology, is it accurately reflecting the actual driving conditions and resultant EV efficiency and range?

[BS8899]

There is a lot of discussions and opinions on whether the current EPA methodologies accurately reflect actual EV efficiency and estimated driving range.

The moderators feel that this topic has "infiltrated" too many other threads and want us to create a dedicate thread to address.

So, let's give it a try.

Let's hear what you have to say.

 

[hydbob]

The real and only answer is...it depends

 

[Steveinarizona]

Impossible task. There are folks who drive slowly and at or below the speed limit; There are others who drive fast. Does the test subject accelerate quickly from red lights or gently? How high should regen be set? Do you do the test at ground level or at elevation? What about election changes? Etc. Etc.

The EPA test is not great but seems to do the job about as well as can be expected. For some, like me, who drive it like we stole it, we won't do anything like EPA range. For others, who view range as a challenge, some will surpass the EPA test standard. It is certainly better and more realistic than the Euro version.

But I do think that EPA should do away with the two cycle test so everyone is evaluated on the same basis.

 

[xponents]

Not sure why my post was deleted, but the answer really is "no." EPA methodologies will never accurately reflect real world driving because:

1. Too many variables (elevation, etc)
2. Differing driving habits between individuals
3. The fact that the EPA cannot test at speeds such as 75 mph, as they likely legally need to test at the speed limit or below.

No matter how the methods are changed, the EPA will never be 100 percent accurate. What they can do is get closer to reality, and they also should put one unified testing standard in plase.

 

[Chizle]

It is a standardized benchmark for comparative data. Anecdotal real-world results are irrelevant.

 

[BS8899]

The real and only answer is...it depends

While no one methodology is all encompassing, I think we must recognize that EV creates a new paradigm in driving metrics for the EPA. Efficiency, range, ambient, infrastructure (e.g.., range anxiety) are all different than that of the ICE paradigm.

The plethora of postings arguing both sides of the equation says it all.

The pertinent questions in front of us is:

• is the current confusion a methodology issue or just need more education. Specifically, the existing methodology is fine but people just don't know how to interpret them?
  
  OR
• EVs, unlike ICE cars, have contraindicating factors that make the traditional EPA methodology not suitable. As such, a de novo methodology in evaluating efficiency, range, drive condition (speed, ambient, etc.) is called for.

The current "free-for-all" is not conducive to advancing the EV agenda.

 

[Bobby]

Write your congressman.

 

[BS8899]

While no one methodology is all encompassing, I think we must recognize that EV creates a new paradigm in driving metrics for the EPA. Efficiency, range, ambient, infrastructure (e.g.., range anxiety) are all different than that of the ICE paradigm.

The plethora of postings arguing both sides of the equation says it all.

The pertinent questions in front of us is:

• is the current confusion a methodology issue or just need more education. Specifically, the existing methodology is fine but people just don't know how to interpret them?
  
  OR
• EVs, unlike ICE cars, have contraindicating factors that make the traditional EPA methodology not suitable. As such, a de novo methodology in evaluating efficiency, range, drive condition (speed, ambient, etc.) is called for.

The current "free-for-all" is not conducive to advancing the EV agenda.

"It depends" appeals to only physicists. It is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

For the larger consumer market to embrace EVs, some credible and simple metrics are neeed.

 

[HC_79]

Until the EPA implements one standard of testing then it is what it is. At the end of the day the EPA should be treated as a guideline as they're so many elements that can affect range it would be next to near impossible to get a standard that meets everyones needs.

To be fair though, I think the same issues apply to ICE vehicles as they do regarding EV's where the EPA numbers are never really met. Probably just not as noticeable because there's a gas station on every corner or freeway exit. Eg: An ICE vehicle traveling into a headwind will use more fuel just as an EV will use more energy

 

[segbrk]

Rather than drudging up this tired topic yet again, I'll suggest again: come up with a better answer. I'm not just trying to be difficult. Seriously.

How about this:
- Test in 10mph increments between 20-80mph.
- Test in 10º increments "temperature-soaked" between -20ºF and 120ºF.
- Skew the results based on Cd and an average, say, 5kt headwind.
- Combine these tests to show every permutation on a graph. In a controlled lab this shouldn't be insanely hard?
- Most people probably won't take the time to read and understand those plots, so use, say, the 70º 70mph test for a "highway efficiency."
- Add in stop-and-go acceleration/deceleration every quarter mile or something (average how often cars stop in a city for traffic or intersections), combine with the 70º 30 or 40mph results for a "city efficiency."
- Now do the same for ICE vehicles. Show in both the native unit for each (mpg, mi/kWh) and a common unit that can actually be compared (e.g. kW). For the whole graph.

I'm sure I'm missing things, but that sounds a hell of a lot better as a starting point to me than what we're currently arguing about. And really, as @Bobby said, if we come up with an answer that we like, write your congress people and quit arguing about it on the internet.

 

[BS8899]

Until the EPA implements one standard of testing then it is what it is. At the end of the day the EPA should be treated as a guideline as they're so many elements that can affect range it would be next to near impossible to get a standard that meets everyones needs.

To be fair though, I think the same issues apply to ICE vehicles as they do regarding EV's where the EPA numbers are never really met. Probably just not as noticeable because there's a gas station on every corner or freeway exit. Eg: An ICE vehicle traveling into a headwind will use more fuel just as an EV will use more energy

The physics of aerodynamics and drag applies equally to ICE and EVs. That said, there are unique EV factors that need to be addressed.

 

[BS8899]

Rather than drudging up this tired topic yet again, I'll suggest again: come up with a better answer. I'm not just trying to be difficult. Seriously.

How about this:
- Test in 10mph increments between 20-80mph.
- Test in 10º increments "temperature-soaked" between -20ºF and 120ºF.
- Skew the results based on Cd and an average, say, 5kt headwind.
- Combine these tests to show every permutation on a graph. In a controlled lab this shouldn't be insanely hard?
- Most people probably won't take the time to read and understand those plots, so use, say, the 70º 70mph test for a "highway efficiency."
- Add in stop-and-go acceleration/deceleration every quarter mile or something (average how often cars stop in a city for traffic or intersections), combine with the 70º 30 or 40mph results for a "city efficiency."
- Now do the same for ICE vehicles. Show in both the native unit for each (mpg, mi/kWh) and a common unit that can actually be compared (e.g. kW). For the whole graph.

I'm sure I'm missing things, but that sounds a hell of a lot better as a starting point to me than what we're currently arguing about. And really, as @Bobby said, if we come up with an answer that we like, write your congress people and quit arguing about it on the internet.

I think this is a good slate and I'd love to see this data. Others may add to it. That said, I don't think this is "Consumer Sticker" data.

We can start with a "Geek Slate" of pertinent data and trim he data down to "Consumer Digestible Format" later.

Rather than creating another post, I want to address @Bobby's point RE: write your Congressman. That's the last thing I want to do. I won't live long enough to see the results.

US car sales is less than 14% EVs. Percentage of EVs on US roads is less than 1%. There is no impetus for the government to drive this.

I was hoping community like us would help elevate the interest.

 

[HC_79]

there are unique EV factors that need to be addressed.

Which the EPA has set in its testing criteria. Your issue that has been stated many times in here is not with Lucid or any other EV manufacturer for that matter but the EPA itself. It's no manufacturers fault that 2 tests exist, that's on the EPA. If you find it misleading or have better suggestions then take it up with your local government official.

 

[HC_79]

Rather than drudging up this tired topic yet again, I'll suggest again: come up with a better answer. I'm not just trying to be difficult. Seriously.

How about this:
- Test in 10mph increments between 20-80mph.
- Test in 10º increments "temperature-soaked" between -20ºF and 120ºF.
- Skew the results based on Cd and an average, say, 5kt headwind.
- Combine these tests to show every permutation on a graph. In a controlled lab this shouldn't be insanely hard?
- Most people probably won't take the time to read and understand those plots, so use, say, the 70º 70mph test for a "highway efficiency."
- Add in stop-and-go acceleration/deceleration every quarter mile or something (average how often cars stop in a city for traffic or intersections), combine with the 70º 30 or 40mph results for a "city efficiency."
- Now do the same for ICE vehicles. Show in both the native unit for each (mpg, mi/kWh) and a common unit that can actually be compared (e.g. kW). For the whole graph.

I'm sure I'm missing things, but that sounds a hell of a lot better as a starting point to me than what we're currently arguing about. And really, as @Bobby said, if we come up with an answer that we like, write your congress people and quit arguing about it on the internet.

Sure, but what value do these suggestions bring in here? They may be valid but nothing can be done about them in this forum. As pointed out elsewhere, the issue solely belongs on the EPA and if people feel so strongly that the data is misleading then nothing is going to change that in here. Take it up with your local government official

 

[BS8899]

Sure, but what value do these suggestions bring in here? They may be valid but nothing can be done about them in this forum. As pointed out elsewhere, the issue solely belongs on the EPA and if people feel so strongly that the data is misleading then nothing is going to change that in here. Take it up with your local government official

If we can motivate reputable web reviewers (e.g., CR, Out-of-Spec, etc.) to take this on, we can move the needle. I think these reviewers are smart and can do this task very easily. If you follow Kyle at "Out-of-Spec", I think he already has most of the data.

 

[segbrk]

I was hoping community like us would help elevate the interest.

Help elevate the interest... and then what? The answer is write to congress. The interest is what might make congress care. You are not going to see results from this any way you go about this in a year or even two. Even if you somehow convinced Lucid to spend a whole bunch of extra time they don't need to spend to produce more detailed data, that isn't solving the problem, because the problem is with comparing between manufacturers. No company in their right mind is going to start doing all this extra work just because some nerds on the internet are interested. Especially if it then makes their advertised numbers appear smaller. And if it's not government regulated, there's no confidence that they're actually all doing the same tests to the same standards anyway. That's why the EPA needs to be involved. This is a waste of time if the EPA isn't involved.

Sure, but what value do these suggestions bring in here? They may be valid but nothing can be done about them in this forum.

That is literally what I said. The value here is only in discussing the ideas and potentially using the community's expertise to come to the best solution before presenting it to your local government.

 

[Halodde]

My thoughts on this are pretty simple. We, as EV owners can (and probably should) help educate non-EV owners on what the EPA range actually means. I'm not suggesting we write our congressman or even suggest different testing algorithms (although those are both good ideas). I'm suggesting that we share our experiences with other people who are not familiar with EV's and certainly not familiar with what impacts range and efficiency in EV's or what they mean to the EPA numbers they have heard about.

Just as an example, when I talk to people about my personal experiences, I tell them that my efficiency and range are impacted by the same things as their gas mileage in their cars. BUT, all of those things impact my range and efficiency more significantly. Things like hills, head winds, speed, acceleration, starting and stopping all impact ICE cars, too. But, they impact EV efficiency and range more so. Obviously, there's other things like ambient temps, too.

So, I guess I'm saying that if someone told me before I bought my Air (my first EV) that the EPA range on my Touring was 426 miles (which is what was advertised before I bought it), but that is only under ideal conditions and pretty unlikely to be achieved in the real world, I would have appreciated that knowledge. In all honesty, I still would have bought the car. But, it would have helped me approach my ownership with a better understanding of EV's and with a more realistic expectation. That's what I think we, as a community, can do to help other future EV drivers.

Gas cars have been around long enough that it is common knowledge what the EPA fuel efficiency numbers represent and the expected amount of variability one can expect. EV's have not been around long enough for the masses to have that understanding.

 

[Adnillien]

The EPA did a disservice to EV buyers when it did away with separate reporting for city and highway range for EVs. As everyone points out, the highway range is the important number if you are planning to use an EV on road trips. ICE drivers are used to getting better mileage on the highway than city which is opposite of what we see with EVs. That and allowing two different test methodologies, 2-cycle vs 5-cycle, make it very difficult for buyers to compare range and efficiency across cars. Maybe even difficult to compare within one brand. Kyle Connor reported on the Batteries Included podcast Friday that the R1S refresh under-performed EPA range by 50 miles.

The real world range tests done by Tom Moloughney, Kyle Connor and other reviewers are helpful but their test conditions are far from perfect and not repeatable because of traffic and weather. Is the under-performance of the R1S refresh range an error in Kyle's test or in the EPA or both?

 

[BS8899]

The EPA did a disservice to EV buyers when it did away with separate reporting for city and highway range for EVs. As everyone points out, the highway range is the important number if you are planning to use an EV on road trips. ICE drivers are used to getting better mileage on the highway than city which is opposite of what we see with EVs. That and allowing two different test methodologies, 2-cycle vs 5-cycle, make it very difficult for buyers to compare range and efficiency across cars. Maybe even difficult to compare within one brand. Kyle Connor reported on the Batteries Included podcast Friday that the R1S refresh under-performed EPA range by 50 miles.

The real world range tests done by Tom Moloughney, Kyle Connor and other reviewers are helpful but their test conditions are far from perfect and not repeatable because of traffic and weather. Is the under-performance of the R1S refresh range an error in Kyle's test or in the EPA or both?

Your first paragraph is exactly my point.

I understand Kyle's and Tom's might not be perfect, but they are far closer to reality than what's quoted by some EV manufacturers. If we can enroll their expertise to come up with a simple set of EV range metrics for long-distance highway driving that are "good enough", that would be a huge step forward.

In the end, if the consumers (especially the less sophisticated consumers) have confidence in the metrics, EV industry will grow. If these consumers are constantly blind-sided by bogus or exaggerated metrics, the entire EV industry suffers.

 

[scal_air]

The real and only answer is...it depends

To further elaborate, it depends on whether your driving and conditions match the EPA tests. The EPA tests are reproducible. The argument is whether the EPA tests should be changed to match the average American’s driving habits. But what is “average”? What is the highway speed that should be tested? Should it be 80 mph, higher than most current speed limits but the speed that many of us here drive? I don’t know that it needs a major overhaul - maybe separating highway from city. But at 65 mph, is it really that different from city?