EV Discussion thread

Krakkkers

Just out of interest where does the "wasted" energy go to? Surely an opportunity for someone.
Reminds me of Richard Pryor in one of the Superman movies who harvested all the fractions of a cent that peoples wages are adjusted by when rounding down.

Grumpy_chap

noitsnotme said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I was out in the car today, on a short trip and I noticed a whirring sound (similar to that when the battery is pre-conditioning for charging).  I assume that is the heat pump operating to provide cabin heating.  Observed energy consumption (as per the on board display) was greater than I have been used to.  One short trip does not make a valid data set, but gives an indication that there will be an impact - possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless.

Another observation I have had recently is a message that parking distance sensors are inaccurate and the images of obstacles have been just blurred blobs.  I assumed that was dirty cameras because of the wet weather and salt spray we have had so much of recently so I cleaned the cameras (that I am aware of - front, rear, door pillars, wing mirrors) today but I still get a blurry display.  Previously the depictions were crystal clear.  Does anyone know why this would be?

That’s the new Tesla Vision 3D rendering for Park Assist that came with the latest updates.  Or are you saying you’ve seen the new 3D rendering clearer than that?

if you don’t already know, put your finger on the screen when in that mode and move it around.  You can see the car and obstacles around it from any angle.

I know it’s not been popular with some but I really like it and find it far more accurate than the old squiggly lines.  It also shows parking bay lines when in a car park.

https://electrek.co/2023/12/17/tesla-unveils-bird-eye-view-3d-reconstruction-park-assist/

I don't know about any update.
I had an absolutely crystal clear image before and it was gradually getting worse.
That was accompanied with messages (preceded by exclamation mark) that the parking distance estimation was inaccurate.
Now, I just have this useless load of blurred blobs and no parking distance estimation at all.
It seems like the system is not working to me.
Are you saying is has been turned off by Tesla?

JKenH

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

Netexporter said:

possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless

ICE vehicles waste over 60% of their fuel all the time the engine is running.

Not wishing to start an ICE vs debate but, perhaps, in pointing out the inefficiency of an ICE vehicle we should also acknowledge that typically only around 75% of the energy an EV draws from the plug is used to propel it, the rest might be considered “wasted”. 

IMO,  75% 'efficiency' is a lot better than 40%.

And of course for most of us the cost/unit energy of electrical fuel is a lot less than for liquid fuel.

Yes, I will acknowledge that. Fuel for 1 mile for Nick in his Tesla costs him around 2.5p (and it’s probably similar for you) on average whereas it costs me around 12p a mile. Whether you get 2 mpk or 4 mpk home fuelled EVs are still cheaper to fuel than petrol or diesel but we don’t need to turn any discussion about EV consumption into an “ah but” comparison with ICE cars? 

My post with the graphs from Inside EVs was not in anyway intended as a comparison (good or bad) with ICE cars but rather to point out the huge inconsistencies in performance compared to EPA ratings - some better/some worse - which makes a comparison of EV efficiency based on manufacturer’s published figures meaningless. The Recurrent figures are not simply anecdotal evidence from 2 or 3 drivers but a survey of data from 4.5k vehicles in Tesla’s case which suggests there is a major issue if drivers, on average in ideal temperature conditions, are only achieving 60% of advertised range and as little as 40% at around 32F. 

UK motoring journalists virtually always quote the manufacturer's range figures whereas, at least in the U.S., a number of organisations now attempt to provide objective figures such that finally manufacturer’s claims are being scrutinised. (Unfortunately, in the U.S. it means Tesla, rightly or wrongly, because of their massive presence, are always in the regulator’s cross hairs.)

noitsnotme

Grumpy_chap said:

noitsnotme said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I was out in the car today, on a short trip and I noticed a whirring sound (similar to that when the battery is pre-conditioning for charging).  I assume that is the heat pump operating to provide cabin heating.  Observed energy consumption (as per the on board display) was greater than I have been used to.  One short trip does not make a valid data set, but gives an indication that there will be an impact - possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless.

Another observation I have had recently is a message that parking distance sensors are inaccurate and the images of obstacles have been just blurred blobs.  I assumed that was dirty cameras because of the wet weather and salt spray we have had so much of recently so I cleaned the cameras (that I am aware of - front, rear, door pillars, wing mirrors) today but I still get a blurry display.  Previously the depictions were crystal clear.  Does anyone know why this would be?

That’s the new Tesla Vision 3D rendering for Park Assist that came with the latest updates.  Or are you saying you’ve seen the new 3D rendering clearer than that?

if you don’t already know, put your finger on the screen when in that mode and move it around.  You can see the car and obstacles around it from any angle.

I know it’s not been popular with some but I really like it and find it far more accurate than the old squiggly lines.  It also shows parking bay lines when in a car park.

https://electrek.co/2023/12/17/tesla-unveils-bird-eye-view-3d-reconstruction-park-assist/

I don't know about any update.
I had an absolutely crystal clear image before and it was gradually getting worse.
That was accompanied with messages (preceded by exclamation mark) that the parking distance estimation was inaccurate.
Now, I just have this useless load of blurred blobs and no parking distance estimation at all.
It seems like the system is not working to me.
Are you saying is has been turned off by Tesla?

What software version are you on?  This is the Parking Assist “upgrade” that was part of the holiday software update in December to version 2023.44.30.4.  It was in the release notes.

The old parking assist images with the squiggly lines as below are gone.

JKenH

noitsnotme said:

JKenH said:

Netexporter said:

possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless

ICE vehicles waste over 60% of their fuel all the time the engine is running.

Not wishing to start an ICE vs debate but, perhaps, in pointing out the inefficiency of an ICE vehicle we should also acknowledge that typically only around 75% of the energy an EV draws from the plug is used to propel it, the rest might be considered “wasted”. 

The charging loss on my Model Y seems to be around 10% or less.

I charged last night, the Myenergi app says it delivered 32.02 kWh through the Zappi charger.  The Tesla app says the car received 29.75 kWh.  I don’t know how accurate those are but that’s only a 7% loss.

I think that’s similar to what Nick sees in his M3P but overall for every 100kWh that leaves the plug only 75kWh is used to propel the car. The remainder is lost in electrical conversion, heat, running electrical systems, thermal management, and heating the driver and passenger etc. I am not suggesting ICEVs are anywhere near as efficient (or even half as efficient for that matter) as an EV in converting energy supplied to the car into forward motion. I am simply pointing out that EVs are not 100% efficient either so if we are to point out that ICEVs are x% inefficient we should also acknowledge that EVs are also but to a lesser, but still significant, degree. (For what it’s worth, I think @Netexporter was being generous with his 40% efficiency for ICEVs. I would probably have put it lower.)

CKhalvashi

Just for info;
Rode in an EQV (EU spec) with some friends (one I married in 2018 for a few hours against the wishes of OH when my autocorrect changed 'meet' to ''marry' you outside H&M at 19:30' (she's now married with 2 children of her own) yesterday.

We drove Tbilisi to Marneuli for the 'old' new year (which is today) with some Georgian and Armenian friends.

Electricity consumption was showing as almost 1kWh/km with heating, with 7 passengers (5 adults and 2 small children) with heating and a lot of up/down hills. I drove back in similar conditions (we celebrated yesterday as we have memorial for a friend today on what would have been her 44th birthday, she died in August) and averaged 0.6kWh/km). This to me proves that driving style is the most important thing here, especially as I remember we are slightly higher in elevation here than in Marneuli.

We did the same trip 2 years ago in a (borrowed) 3.6l Dodge equivalent of the Grand Voyager (owned by the friend who died last year) and on LPG used approximately 29l of fuel. Again I drove there and a friend drove back, with my driving style being a lot less aggressive than the 'average' Georgian.

I'm sure from this someone can work out the average emissions, but the costs are significantly less in the EQV and both vehicles at the time were largely used for tourism work. At the time the other party had an Opel Zafira 2.2 with an LPG system installed, but they don't know the efficiency of that vehicle on that specific run for comparison.

Edit: the return trip is about 100km with very little of it being flat.

Grumpy_chap

noitsnotme said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What software version are you on?  This is the Parking Assist “upgrade” that was part of the holiday software update in December to version 2023.44.30.4.  It was in the release notes.

The old parking assist images with the squiggly lines as below are gone.

I am on software update 2023.44.30.8. 
I just checked the release notes and they do say that included "Park Assist Upgrade" so that it will display a "high fidelity 3D representation".
I am not opposed to an enhanced visual display, but the previous display which you have shared a graphic of was perfectly crystal clear, accurate and simple.  If the display graphic is to be "enhanced" I don't want that to be at the expense of usability.

In the picture I posted upthread, the rear of the car is shown as crashed into the brick wall behind the car where it is actually 2'-6" away.  The brick wall displays as simply a series of uneven blobs; you would expect a brisk wall to be a very easy thing to detect and display correctly as it is a clear and defined regular structure.
The flower bed to the side is 3' away.  Oddly, the edge of the flowerbed has a fairly defined straight line yet is a softer and harder to interpret profile, while the fence and path beyond are shown as blurry blobs (though less important as they are not near the car).

When I drive onto the driveway, the brick pillar which I rally am keen to avoid does not even show in the distance measurement indications.

I am intrigued by the car also being shown as having two scorching hot streak lines behind the rear - almost like a DeLorean might be expected to show.  Now, that would be a good software update

I have also had a lot of caution / warning messages display stating that the distance measurement is inaccurate.  All of these changes, the messages and the blurry graphics seem to have happened together and at the same time as a bout of wet weather.  I had put the two down to dirty lenses, but cleaning the lenses yesterday made no improvement.

It does seem as though "improved" graphics has not improved the graphics and degraded the functionality.

We are back to Tesla having got the "electric" part of the electric car to a great place but the "car" part being woeful.

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

Netexporter said:

possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless

ICE vehicles waste over 60% of their fuel all the time the engine is running.

Not wishing to start an ICE vs debate but, perhaps, in pointing out the inefficiency of an ICE vehicle we should also acknowledge that typically only around 75% of the energy an EV draws from the plug is used to propel it, the rest might be considered “wasted”. 

IMO,  75% 'efficiency' is a lot better than 40%.

And of course for most of us the cost/unit energy of electrical fuel is a lot less than for liquid fuel.

True, and the 40% figure for ICEV is more a theoretical figure for large diesel trucks, the reality is much lower. A petrol car will in reality be running at around 15%-25%. And the BEV gets an additional boost via re-gen, adding back / re-using some of the energy that would otherwise be wasted in heat and brake wear by an ICEV.

Even the 75% for a BEV is misleading, since that will include transmission losses, charging losses, and running other devices like the thermal management. For an ICEV we would therefore also need to consider the transportation of the fuel to the petrol station etc.*

In fairness to petrol, it's amazing that it has lasted so long, despite being such a poor and inefficient idea/process. Just goes to show what happens when externalities aren't considered.

*Obviously I'm only considering the transportation of the petrol here (such as trucks and their fuel consumption), to reflect grid transmission and distribution losses. We could of course go further and consider the construction of the leccy generation, and compare that to the oil exploration, extraction, shipping, refining etc etc. But for the purposes here, just sticking with like for like against that 75% figure.

JKenH

JKenH said:

Not a new story, it comes up every year, but I am posting because of the graphs shown which suggest the TM3 SR+ might only achieve around half its EPA range at around 0C and 60% or so in ideal conditions. The LR AWD fares the best of the TM3 models. What winter  (if we get one) range might we see in the UK? 

EVs Lose 30% Of Their Range On Average In The Winter Vs. Ideal Conditions

https://insideevs.com/news/704318/ev-winter-range-loss-vs-ideal-conditions/

By contrast the Hyundai Kona can achieve around 130% of EPA range in ideal conditions but this drops off rapidly below 5C.

Here is the full article from recurrent with graphs for several other vehicles.

Winter & Cold Weather EV Range 10,000+ Cars

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

Netexporter said:

possibly there would not be the same level of impact from an ICE because the ICE simply uses heat energy that is wasted at all other times regardless

ICE vehicles waste over 60% of their fuel all the time the engine is running.

Not wishing to start an ICE vs debate but, perhaps, in pointing out the inefficiency of an ICE vehicle we should also acknowledge that typically only around 75% of the energy an EV draws from the plug is used to propel it, the rest might be considered “wasted”. 

IMO,  75% 'efficiency' is a lot better than 40%.

And of course for most of us the cost/unit energy of electrical fuel is a lot less than for liquid fuel.

True, and the 40% figure for ICEV is more a theoretical figure for large diesel trucks, the reality is much lower. A petrol car will in reality be running at around 15%-25%. And the BEV gets an additional boost via re-gen, adding back / re-using some of the energy that would otherwise be wasted in heat and brake wear by an ICEV.

Even the 75% for a BEV is misleading, since that will include transmission losses, charging losses, and running other devices like the thermal management. For an ICEV we would therefore also need to consider the transportation of the fuel to the petrol station etc.

In fairness to petrol, it's amazing that it has lasted so long, despite being such a poor and inefficient idea/process. Just goes to show what happens when externalities aren't considered.

As of course the electricity just arrives at our plugs by magic - no need to build a transmission grid, wind turbines, solar farms, generating plant, transport gas or coal around the world or build nuclear power stations.