Cold weather driving can reduce electric car range over 40 percent, AAA study finds.

[bwilson4web]

No offense bob but this is really just a industry slam. I have surveyed it a bit in the last several days and this is nothing about engineering but all about trying to discount EV.
. . .

I'm somewhat sympathetic as we got our first Prius 2005 only to see year-after-year, anti-Prius nonsense usually from those with an overt political point of view. But their typical pattern is to take less than 10% engineering fact followed by more than 90% of bovine fecal matter. It is best to discuss the apolitical facts and data and let the other stuff rot. Let me share one notorious example: https://www.econologie.com/fichiers/partager/1242076911wwzFvu.pdf

• According to the report, if you had a hybrid Camry and gas Camry on the driveway, the owner would choose to drive the more expensive to operate gas Camry.

There were a large number of false claims that a subsequent version slightly corrected. But one of my favorite tropes are "landfills full of batteries." My answer, 'GREAT! I have a shovel, where are they? Those Prius batteries are full of nickel.' ... <crickets>

I have friends across the political spectrum who share my joy of plug-in vehicles. We're basically the 'frugal' party and we can (and do) collaborate. But as for politics, I smile and return to what unites us, efficient, affordable transportation. <grins>

Bob Wilson

 

[ron in new mexico]

Funny that. Yes did not have time to read the 400 pages or so. Stopped at the jeep wrangler being five times more efficient than the prius. I am certain their means to make that determination are quite valid....not.
Back in the day, you know all this. It was all price...you never get the money back in gas, for the technology. Come 07 the resale of old prius was the same as a new prius. They sold close to within a few thousand of each other new and old.
Put fox news as reference and no offense to anyone, I am probably going to add a political thing or two. Seeing Fox, a thing is clearly with political intention. Put another source which is not fox and I will generally not take exception of such a sort. MSNBC I would add as well in general. They are not good sources to use for technical application or review. If this is engineering we do not have to get to technical, but there are things which are sort of in the middle, publication stating interesting facts with not political content as agenda that are readable by the general public.
They plant a story, then the talking heads attest to the story as fact in discussion, and it developes as fact with no one looking at content. In this specific it is not close to fact, the fact it there, but it has not a thing to do with EV driving nor is it true in application to efficiency.
I own a phev. It is not all electric but the electric part, I live at altitude, it for the vast majority of time in the initial at night temps below 15F always and at times 0….I lost 8% of possible range max.
A clarity has a known not operational below temp but that is a known number far below 0F stated in the owners manual.
How many ICE's will even start 23 below F?
This sort of stuff these slams are absurd if one looks at the specifics involved. How much efficiency is lost a gas engine operating the first five minutes at 2 below F? If I was in the business I would quary that right away. i am guessing till it warms up it is significant, has to be, oil has viscosity. Anyone bothering to look that up?
No of course not just take this as fact and run with it. Comical.

This is just a google search but this is what first comes up..."Cold weather and winter driving conditions can reduce your fuel economy significantly. Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles).
At 20F a gas engine then looses 22% of its range in short driving conditions. My vehicle lost the electric part 8%. Or a longer trip I am still ahead 4%.

Honestly the article goes on to express how hybrids are very much worse.....could be I guess I am no engineer...but are they really?
Seems my electric part of my pHev is degrading way less in range than my gas part.
Why is no one questioning the basic essential part of the claim stated? NO one even mentions loss of gas range. MPG is range for gas only.
No offense but our side is being taken to the cleaners on this clearly based.....dare I say it...fake news. And none of them are even raising the slightest of flags in opposition.
AS much as 40% they say. Want to bet I can find a ICE that looses 40% of gas mileage(which is exactly range) in short driving at 20below F....want to take that bet?
I am not engineer but I suppose I may. Can no one pull up that number on our side? Are we all no offense become brain dead? Someone has studied that militarily it is studied has to be.
Laughing their asses off is a over used term certainly. But I am relatively certain someone in the military complex who is tasked with determinations of operational efficiency which are absolutely necessary, (we must know exactly how far a hummer may go in Siberia at 20F below as we have to meet that humvee with supply at that point), is looking at this 40% range loss by electric vehicle due to cold weather and are actually doing that laughing their asses off.

They know the gas Humvee is loosing more than that, in typical battlefield application, which is yes stop and go.
What is our side doing in debate on this which is war of a sort...protecting from a position which does not exist. A dummy position which serves to distract when real things are found elsewhere.
Which is to my point stated in the earlier post. One side knows how to fight and the other does not clearly.
A position does not exist in war and is pretended as such, real...it must be immediately overrun to find the real position. No time is lost with the fake. All out time is lost with these fake things.
Debate is war. I have no problem with the other side presenting fake things as real,that is tactical strategy employed fairly in war. To suppose them as real and I must take them as real with response,sending vast armies to attack false positions I must not do. I must do away with them immediately with the least effort possible.
In this specific that would be most easily found in showing by military record of established military trial Humvee found in -20F stop and go operation to be 43% at loss in MPG and thus 43% loss in functional range. I suppose I could find that if so I did intend.
If I was not skilled at war I would not even know how that was important. Our side is simply not skilled at warlike things and thus we loose war(debate) on easily won things like climate change and EV's. Taking false positions as real is one common tactical error our side continually makes.

 

[ron in new mexico]

Funny that. Yes did not have time to read the 400 pages or so. Stopped at the jeep wrangler being five times more efficient than the prius. I am certain their means to make that determination are quite valid....not.
Back in the day, you know all this. It was all price...you never get the money back in gas, for the technology. Come 07 the resale of old prius was the same as a new prius. They sold close to within a few thousand of each other new and old.
Put fox news as reference and no offense to anyone, I am probably going to add a political thing or two. Seeing Fox, a thing is clearly with political intention. Put another source which is not fox and I will generally not take exception of such a sort. MSNBC I would add as well in general. They are not good sources to use for technical application or review. If this is engineering we do not have to get to technical, but there are things which are sort of in the middle, publication stating interesting facts with not political content as agenda that are readable by the general public.
They plant a story, then the talking heads attest to the story as fact in discussion, and it developes as fact with no one looking at content. In this specific it is not close to fact, the fact it there, but it has not a thing to do with EV driving nor is it true in application to efficiency.
I own a phev. It is not all electric but the electric part, I live at altitude, it for the vast majority of time in the initial at night temps below 15F always and at times 0….I lost 8% of possible range max.
A clarity has a known not operational below temp but that is a known number far below 0F stated in the owners manual.
How many ICE's will even start 23 below F?
This sort of stuff these slams are absurd if one looks at the specifics involved. How much efficiency is lost a gas engine operating the first five minutes at 2 below F? If I was in the business I would quary that right away. i am guessing till it warms up it is significant, has to be, oil has viscosity. Anyone bothering to look that up?
No of course not just take this as fact and run with it. Comical.

This is just a google search but this is what first comes up..."Cold weather and winter driving conditions can reduce your fuel economy significantly. Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles).
At 20F a gas engine then looses 22% of its range in short driving conditions. My vehicle lost the electric part 8%. Or a longer trip I am still ahead 4%.

Honestly the article goes on to express how hybrids are very much worse.....could be I guess I am no engineer...but are they really?
Seems my electric part of my pHev is degrading way less in range than my gas part.
Why is no one questioning the basic essential part of the claim stated? NO one even mentions loss of gas range. MPG is range for gas only.
No offense but our side is being taken to the cleaners on this clearly based.....dare I say it...fake news. And none of them are even raising the slightest of flags in opposition.
AS much as 40% they say. Want to bet I can find a ICE that looses 40% of gas mileage(which is exactly range) in short driving at 20below F....want to take that bet?
I am not engineer but I suppose I may. Can no one pull up that number on our side? Are we all no offense become brain dead? Someone has studied that militarily it is studied has to be.
Laughing their asses off is a over used term certainly. But I am relatively certain someone in the military complex who is tasked with determinations of operational efficiency which are absolutely necessary, (we must know exactly how far a hummer may go in Siberia at 20F below as we have to meet that humvee with supply at that point), is looking at this 40% range loss by electric vehicle due to cold weather and are actually doing that laughing their asses off.

They know the gas Humvee is loosing more than that, in typical battlefield application, which is yes stop and go.
What is our side doing in debate on this which is war of a sort...protecting from a position which does not exist. A dummy position which serves to distract when real things are found elsewhere.
Which is to my point stated in the earlier post. One side knows how to fight and the other does not clearly.
A position does not exist in war and is pretended as such, real...it must be immediately overrun to find the real position. No time is lost with the fake. All out time is lost with these fake things.
Debate is war. I have no problem with the other side presenting fake things as real,that is tactical strategy employed fairly in war. To suppose them as real and I must take them as real with response,sending vast armies to attack false positions I must not do. I must do away with them immediately with the least effort possible.
In this specific that would be most easily found in showing by military record of established military trial Humvee found in -20F stop and go operation to be 43% at loss in MPG and thus 43% loss in functional range. I suppose I could find that if so I did intend.
If I was not skilled at war I would not even know how that was important. Our side is simply not skilled at warlike things and thus we loose war(debate) on easily won things like climate change and EV's. Taking false positions as real is one common tactical error our side continually makes.

I am vegan have been for years. I have studied the diet extensively and am well versed. There are deficiencies in it such as B-12 which absolutely must be supplemented with or suffer drastic consequence to health. I persist as it is better with less harm and better for the environment. I saw one doc who is technologically most qualified loose to a other in debate(another held on the Joe Rogan podcast) who held no qualification on points of false nature presented. There are real questions health wise which could be posed B-12 and similar. HIs opponent chose unreal things which were false. The doc responded to them as real and lost the debate completely and entirely.
Such is typical of the result of our side in experience of war/debate. We loose by taking commonly unreal things as real and respond in fashion which all the more attest to the real of unreal. Cardboard soldiers then hold positions which they have no right to. So many of them are fashioned we simply think we cannot ever win the day and must instead retreat to the overwhelming forces displayed. Questioned on this we reply...of course we retreated there were so many of them. But they were cardboard we fail to add.
Such are those who are not warriors but engage in war and loose are inclined to do and say things of that sort.So we have lost climate change when once years ago it could have been won. And now are loosing this thing EV. Matters not the rest of the world goes along anyway bothering not with us, but we are better served we learn how to engage in war so we are not lost in the past in things as a result of untoward agenda which does not benefit us.

 

[Paul K]

Funny this. This has now become a industry talking point to slam EV.
Heard a analyst today who is a hard boiled person in the thick of fighting nonsense as the battles are always over money which tends to generate nonsense.
No offense to liberals, but a liberal response it to look at the data and explain it away in nice polite terms, nuance it to death.
This guy is defending his book and is probably in all things quite conservative leaning.
Looked the media person straight in the eye confronted with this and said quite sternly....internal combustion engines average 20 percent efficiency. Electric vehicle engines average plus 80 percent.
Said it all that. NO need to add on its worst day with even a 40% loss due to cold, if that could happen, the electric engine is still more efficient by twice some. No other questions on this were made. Nipped it in the bud he did instantly.
Checked it myself I did to gage the analyst. He knows his business, hundred percent correct. In operation freeway and such electric is even more efficient close to 90. Best any IC engine can do auto, Toyota one engine only at 38% Most are in the 20's
It is a total nonsense claim, some is lost not 40 percent, but nevertheless that, means not a whole lot EV and ICE compared.
Again no offense to liberals but when it comes to a fight I know who I will put my money on. Ever watch youtube Antifa against bald head skin head type guys....it can get pathetic to watch or at least the word comes to mind.
If only we could package progressive ideology in conservative ways of acting I think we may have a thing or two.
Liberals resigning over this and that minor things done as kids. DT does what he wants and tells everyone to suck eggs and they do. Not that I like DT, I don't at all, but how many ways can these Barney Fifes figure to shoot themselves in the foot. How about this..yes I was a kid and screwed up and now I am older and know better..works for me. Or this.....I did that yes, and now I must resign. Seems one comes across as a cowardly wimp and the other a adult by my read.
I would put it easier but I am no politician. I did that yes sorry. You want me out go for it next election is two years out, see you then. Till then I run the place not you. Sorry I was a kid, I will try very hard not to be one again.

What's the political rant have to do with this? Facts are facts. And the facts are as I clearly stated that both my Leafs lose about 40% of their range in the bitter cold. This is a direct observation not an opinion. I don't see this as EV bashing at all. My 40kwh Leaf has enough capacity to do what I need to do even with the range loss and I'm very pleased with the vehicle.

 

[ron in new mexico]

What's the political rant have to do with this? Facts are facts. And the facts are as I clearly stated that both my Leafs lose about 40% of their range in the bitter cold. This is a direct observation not an opinion. I don't see this as EV bashing at all. My 40kwh Leaf has enough capacity to do what I need to do even with the range loss and I'm very pleased with the vehicle.

Facts are facts certainly.
Here are some more..."Cold weather and winter driving conditions can reduce your fuel economy significantly. Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles). MPG for a ICE is range ultimately.
Missed that fact did we? I loose 8% in my electric part of my car at below 15F. Fact also that.
Another one here on why diesels always get significantly less mileage in winter..
"
2 (Diesel) fuel is blended with #1 fuel to lower the temperature at which it starts to 'freeze' or gel into a thick syrupy mess that can't be pumped. This 'winterized' diesel has lower BTU content attributable to the #1 fuel.
The choice is lower mpg with a winterized liquid fuel, or walk because the car won't run on summer fuel."
Another one missed perhaps?
Oh wait you are by statement getting 40% less range....hummm anyone else here getting that?
Curious on that? Fact that then?
Tesla the new models then all getting 40% less range then are we?
My old pick up truck came stock with a 11 gallon tank. Cold weather, well it will not even start but by my guess cold stop and go I am getting what.... 7MPG big V8 probably. It is old new ones probably tanks are way bigger 15 or so sure. The stickers on big new pickups claim way more but what is the real on their gas mileage a 750 HP new dodge challenger wonder what that?
What is my range? Where is the fox headline on that?
May care to change models is my advice. Unless you are living a stone throw from Siberia and must park all your cars outdoors, I think you chose a poor one and that loss excessive. But if you are happy with that stick with it I guess.
I would look for remedy. When and how you charge may be a part of that miserably poor result. Cold batteries simply accept less charge. And use of options affect as well.

 

[ron in new mexico]

To add here are the experiences of that notoriously warm place Norway and their accommodation of this widespread problem of loss of EV range(but not gas vehicle range ever not even the slightest), in that place. A problem not of course in Norway, as they do have the benefit of a much warmer climate than the US has. Silly people thinking ev can work in the cold cold US.
Wiki
"
The Norwegian plug-in car segment market share has been the highest in the world for several years, achieving 39.2% in 2017, up from 29.1% in 2016,[5][14] and 49.1% in 2018.[6]
As a result of the fast rate of adoption, the Nissan Leaf was Norway's best selling new passenger car model in 2018, marking the first time in any country that an all-electric car tops annual sales of the passenger car segment.[15][16] According to a 2018 anaylisis by McKinsey & Company, Norway has already reached a critical mass of electric vehicles, therefore, the country is the only one in the world in the third stage of a disruptive trend, and the EV disruption is inevitable.[17]

The stock of light-duty plug-in electric vehicles registered in Norway totaled 296,214 units at the end of December 2018, consisting of 200,192 all-electric passenger cars and vans, and 96,022 plug-in hybrids (including used imports).[18] As of December 2018, the country has the largest European stock of light-duty plug-in vehicles, and the world's third largest after China and the U.S.[19] Since 2016, Norway has been the top selling plug-in country market in Europe for three consecutive years.[12][20] "

Fox news Fox news you have a target.....Norway run over there now with this story. Excuse me why I take this opportunity to barf.
If this were even the slightest of problem I suggest it is easily solved, add some support for EV, Charging station at work school or retail. Government influence seems it could be pushed that way if desired and this was a problem.
Oh well this is the US this would never work here, think of the longer distances

I suspect it is not a problem except rarely. And while we may say all our vehicles are range bound, the newer ones produced by Kia Hundi and tesla no amount of loss to cold will have a thing to do with any common commute. all 200 or better. Why compare a thing a decade or so ago to today. And truth be told Norway...far far colder than America, all year every year.

 

[Domenick]

What's the political rant have to do with this? Facts are facts. And the facts are as I clearly stated that both my Leafs lose about 40% of their range in the bitter cold. This is a direct observation not an opinion. I don't see this as EV bashing at all. My 40kwh Leaf has enough capacity to do what I need to do even with the range loss and I'm very pleased with the vehicle.

40% is a number I've seen a number of times and don't doubt. It seems most of the losses come from heating the car, so longer trips should see a lower loss as the hard work of warming up the cabin happens mostly at the beginning of a drive. Shorter drives with more cabin rewarming will be worse.

Luckily, most newer owners shouldn't have to worry too much about these kinds of losses because they have lots of range to start with and typically pre-condition the car when it's still plugged in. The study does make some valid points but really glosses over actual owner day-to-day experience.

 

[ron in new mexico]

40% is a number I've seen a number of times and don't doubt. It seems most of the losses come from heating the car, so longer trips should see a lower loss as the hard work of warming up the cabin happens mostly at the beginning of a drive. Shorter drives with more cabin rewarming will be worse.

Luckily, most newer owners shouldn't have to worry too much about these kinds of losses because they have lots of range to start with and typically pre-condition the car when it's still plugged in. The study does make some valid points but really glosses over actual owner day-to-day experience.

Agree change the should to wlll however. With current range perameters no one has a problem with typical application of the product. Americans excepting very rarely drive more than even a hundred miles to work or school daily both ways. This simply has no application to current technology as used. Does it merit a headline front page status on topics as discussion on many media outlets....not at all.
It is within the context of 23% of loss of range with a ICE due to cold. Interesting in view of the cold blast, but not news and not to be presented as a real contrast to purchase of say a tesla, which it was directly related to upon release on the business channels.
Fairly we may discuss it,(it is after all in the news) fairly also we may context the priority of such information.
Everyone in the community knows range is lost, how much and how it affects a person well that varies usually due to application of the technology not the technology limitation itself.
I may accommodate my gas pickups 70 or so miles range in very cold weather. It is not really notable that it has that, everyone knows that who owns or has owned one.

 

[ron in new mexico]

On a side not I have noticed....Toyota's new Prius AWD I have heard is to have only the nickel variety battery available. This I can only assume as AWD they estimate, cold weather lithium being more affected , buyer wise, this is the logical choice. I can not guess they are stepping back in time nor doing this to just save a dollar as the other vehicles of similar sort current prius are lithium. The AWD is a slightly higher priced model so would be in that fashion a upgrade.
They do vary their hybrid battery type to my recollection usually on a cost basis in their other than prius line up. Lithium provides in normal operating conditions more miles per charge. But it is slightly more expensive. Extreme cold that function may not be so. Nickel I have heard degrades due to cold less.
To point I think if this was a problem, say in some future time a car company is only selling EV vehicles of a certain type in Siberia or some equal, it is fully possible technology wise to arrange accommodation to this problem.
Of course this is not a EV, but battery wise, I think there is a direct transmission of technology from hybrid or PHEV to EV only .

The knock out point for a clarity for instance is I think -23F. It simply will not start below that battery damage will result. Owners information attest to that.
Keep in mind however ICE must use battery to start up as well. The chances of a out in the snow ICE starting at -23F are about 50/50 to my guess and experience.

 

[Paul K]

The thought has occured to me that I should qualify my winter range loss numbers a bit. There is a 40% difference between my absolute best summer GOM range and my absolute lowest winter. In summer when just tooling around the city in moderate temperatures I would sometimes see a GOM reading on a full charge of
a few whiskers over 300km. Pretty good given that the car is rated for 240. Full charge in minus 16C or lower tends with some highway in the mix tends to show around 180km with the heater on.
Since these are the extremes on either end the reality is that my real range loss most of the time is less than 40%

 

[ron in new mexico]

The thought has occured to me that I should qualify my winter range loss numbers a bit. There is a 40% difference between my absolute best summer GOM range and my absolute lowest winter. In summer when just tooling around the city in moderate temperatures I would sometimes see a GOM reading on a full charge of
a few whiskers over 300km. Pretty good given that the car is rated for 240. Full charge in minus 16C or lower tends with some highway in the mix tends to show around 180km with the heater on.
Since these are the extremes on either end the reality is that my real range loss most of the time is less than 40%

Really the best way to find a absolute number is by a statistical survey of the owners of EV who live in cold climates.
It could be as simply as a mail out or email that states survey of cold affect upon EV Battery
Do you notice range decrease in temps at or below 20F?
What percent of range do you estimate you are finding fi you are finding a decrease ?
I would add year of purchase and mileage on vehicle for a subset of study.
Pretty simple really. EV owners are really intelligent overall and are inclined to expound about the technology by my guess most buyer will respond. Your base would likely be at least the hundreds and then perhaps most likely the thousands. You could extend it to Norway or do it all in a colder clime if that was able to be done. Really in the EU it is all about EV in some places. Data retrievance would be no problem at all. Plenty of owners in cold climes. The more response you get the more the average will be viable for use by a common owner. Year of purchase and trends of improvement could be determined.

That would be a real study with real results not this nonsense. This is really not amenable to real world a lab study like this AAA thing. Unless you used far larger numbers of vehicles which is likely cost prohibitive.

 

[ClarityDoc]

The impact on EV range is so dependent on personal taste, I don't think these HVAC-sensitive summaries are meaningful. I do care about verifiable impact on battery performance, and also about HVAC losses, but conflating those is not helpful.

I keep my home (and car) cool in winter and warm in summer - I am not very sensitive to temperature and I see no point in wasting energy if wearing a coat in the car (!!) does the trick.

Sent using Inside EVs mobile app

 

[ron in new mexico]

The impact on EV range is so dependent on personal taste, I don't think these HVAC-sensitive summaries are meaningful. I do care about verifiable impact on battery performance, and also about HVAC losses, but conflating those is not helpful.

I keep my home (and car) cool in winter and warm in summer - I am not very sensitive to temperature and I see no point in wasting energy if wearing a coat in the car (!!) does the trick.

Sent using Inside EVs mobile app

I have already seen real line reviews of the newer EV's out there. Actually redline which is one of the bigger ones, hundreds of thousands of viewers, has done one, on the KIA and I have watched it just last week. Redline is calif based, I think, but what do they do, they get the car for three days and drive around and film it. Anyone in Chicago or NY or some place subject to this polar vortex could do the same and come up with real numbers of EV range and use in actual real world driving. Here in the US there is not the focus on you tube review with mileage, but in Ireland the UK, very many of the sites their focus is exactly that.And their three days is just doing that. And they produce real good numbers that speak of real world. I have watched real world reviews both from Ireland and the UK just last month on various vehicles.

Nothing says CR AAA or some other not You tube reviewer, could get the car, leave it out overnights, and give us some real life numbers driving it around in like manner for three days. It is simply done by you tube reviewers that thing, as I mention, all the time. And apparently they are out there for the reviewers as redline just did one.
If redline has it that means a bunch of others do as well.
This is almost in retrospect comically bad. Here we are having things from 17 18, some sort of variety of used cars, with who knows what past use, and they are making statements on EV loss of range in suspect not real conditions but labs. When real world is but a drive away and new cars can be tested.

No thought about it really overnight, this is total complete BS. You tube does It they could do it, if they had the slightest inclination to produce new car real world results on cold effect on EV's. New cars, not some used beat up ones.
Total nonsense produced by the industry (you tube has hundreds who review cars new but are not the industry) which speaks of lacking incentive to do the work or agenda, or a mix of both.
You claiming we can attest results from one or two cars like CR just experimented with...stick it in your hat, a you tuber just did real word KIA EV new vehicle, and they could as well have done the same.... nothing to stop that under the sun.
AAA CR are becoming afterthoughts so many review cars now and do these things. Motor Trend, no one watches they are hardly even there. Can hardly be found on PBS. Once the thing.

This shows clearly as to why they are loosing their base of viewers...why watch a used car review with some made up lab circumstance that does not even approximate EPA testing as opposed to a new car review with some variance to show us real world cold application.
Buy what you want it is not my business. But we are not Fox news and MSNBC but of a new way of looking at things, most of us, and in this CR or AAA(I am surprised they are still around but find it not remarkable with their demographic Fox news picks up on their stuff) because they are filled likely with agenda(as motor trend was as well for years and years) and we have other things we may now see.
I have tried to explain how the CR stuff AAA stuff is faulted technically then applied some real concerns others have versed, it is all likely for naught.
NO offense but you are being lost behind. EV's are out there in use and they are coming bunches more of them. STand in the way and again no offense it is like standing in the front of a steamroller, not much book in that.
Believe this nonsense of AAA, I can not stop you that. Believe Fox news as well, they picked up on this. Pretend you tube redline and them who do review new cars are not out there and producing real good work, those other two no longer do.
It is not my business what you do.
It will not stop this thing of EV. The world is going there if not the US. Climate change is here still denied lost in the past so are we.
CR used them for years subscribed the whole nine yards. New car now checked a review they did as a afterthought after the purchase, subscribe absurd. AAA once a member Yes I was. Now every car maker and the son gives or sells roadside assistance in the beginning free, by fee later why AAA?
I paid yes 2K to extend my warrenty and that is throw in as well for free.

Thank your media for you not knowing climate change is real and the reason most of us globally buy EV. AAA CR they are that same...old media who produces like results, total nonsense, like as not, to just sell things.
Don't expect me to buy in on what was on the edge current and trending a few decades ago.
WE know climate change is real and EV's my guess is this loss of range thing in new ones, is way way being overstated.
Total nonsense Luckily you tube and other media is out there without blatent bias. Some is but some is not. All of your stuff generally is.

Thank you clarity my rant of course is not aimed at you. A rant it is but not without real viable reasons of justification. This is really AAA study complete utter nonsense. Go back To Fox news is my advise to those who take this seriously, (AAA really? does anyone under 30 even know what they are)(what next is AARP going to do EV reviews?) you are well served there and do not even know how far out of touch you are in things. They keep you in that caccoon unknowing. Stay there if you want but don't bother us with this and their garbage.

Here is a clue you clearly need one. Fox news in the headline(this one had that) just bypass it. Like as not there is some real to it but it is made up. Not a real world thing, all bothered by agenda. I did that years ago and have never suffered. MSNBC not much better but truthfully Fox is the worse, Watch their stuff it will rot your brain no doubt about it. Climate change you will think china is all behind it. AAA..…??? Comedy gotta be comedy. NEWS flash...AARP does review of EV's finds they stink, here on Fox news. Come and get it.....

I have already done a pretty in depth analysis on why the AAA thing is structurally faulted the various criticisms to it, ventured into study methodology requirements went here and there but now it is time to get real. Drop it.... sell fox stuff to the crowd, the crowd that buys that sort of thing. they are in majority there not us. WE know climate change is real and do buy EV's. Stay on your fox news site I recommend. WE are chock full of your nonsense it is now why this world is burning and we are upchucking that stuff you sold. It did not work we are done with it, the all of it. Clearly we see that thing now before us.

 

[bwilson4web]

Back in 2007, I remember taking a trip in a 2003 Prius to South Carolina in exceptionally cold weather for Dixie, 17F. I was able to confirm:

1. air inlet block was necessary - a 100% block using duct tape was critical to maintain expected fuel economy.
2. fuel efficiency loss was proportional to air density.

These are the types of engineering studies that fascinate me. So this report was quite useful.

Bob Wilson

 

[ron in new mexico]

At least you were concise.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Inside EVs mobile app

And right. Forgot to add that did we?

 

[interestedinEV]

As I have mentioned before, news media want headlines. 40% is a good headline. I am not going to rule out political slant, there is never black and white, it is all shades of grey but it is not all politics. If the news was 5% or 10% or even 20% loss would it have been as newsworthy as 40%.

We understand in this forum that 40% is fact, but it is not the whole fact and nothing but the fact. 40% is really 40% under certain circumstances, in certain places, at certain times etc. Very few news media get into that level of detail. At the high level Fox was right. CNN and MSNBC and New York Times and the Washington Post have reported incomplete facts at times.

New media cater to their audience. The audience wants sound bites and this is a sound bite. EVs are associated with environment. Environment is a hot button issue. The news about 40% seems authentic and from a reputable organization (AAA), it can be made into a sound bite and looks newsworthy, so why not go with it.

This is going to happen all the time and will happen with all media inclinations. Why a news media runs with one story and not another comes from many angles, some may be based on media's political viewpoints, some on the reputability of the source, some based on the appetite for the audience for that type of news, the other competing news at that time, ability to attract advertisers etc. So I would not say this was all political, there is something newsworthy here also.

 

[ron in new mexico]

As I have mentioned before, news media want headlines. 40% is a good headline. I am not going to rule out political slant, there is never black and white, it is all shades of grey but it is not all politics. If the news was 5% or 10% or even 20% loss would it have been as newsworthy as 40%.

We understand in this forum that 40% is fact, but it is not the whole fact and nothing but the fact. 40% is really 40% under certain circumstances, in certain places, at certain times etc. Very few news media get into that level of detail. At the high level Fox was right. CNN and MSNBC and New York Times and the Washington Post have reported incomplete facts at times.

New media cater to their audience. The audience wants sound bites and this is a sound bite. EVs are associated with environment. Environment is a hot button issue. The news about 40% seems authentic and from a reputable organization (AAA), it can be made into a sound bite and looks newsworthy, so why not go with it.

This is going to happen all the time and will happen with all media inclinations. Why a news media runs with one story and not another comes from many angles, some may be based on media's political viewpoints, some on the reputability of the source, some based on the appetite for the audience for that type of news, the other competing news at that time, ability to attract advertisers etc. So I would not say this was all political, there is something newsworthy here also.

All just to make a buck then a headline..
Which discounts the reality that our media has produced a product. A product whose political will evidences as a non belief in a thing which every single solitary nation in the world knows it happening, global warming. We were the only ones to drop out of the protocal and the only ones not signing it. The only place it is talked about as not real, discussion boards in the US.
No there is only one explanation and that is agenda. Which is exercised through editorial control. The reporters usually lean progressive the editors do not, they represent corporate interest and decide what plays where and sometime content itself.
In such a known climate it is on a progressive fuel thing, always rational to assume national media will show bias until proven otherwise.
WE did not come to this uninformed state as we American are just stupid. Our media and at times our politic conspired to disprove that thing any way possible and in general continue.
You are completely totally wrong in this. The study if we could call it that, is completely biased nonsense designed to produce one thing...the absolutely lowest range findable in a EV. And then a bite, the polar vortex, they release it so it gets the most press. And quite a few of the headlines associated with it are running with 50 half not the forty.

I have shown how new EV's are present for testing. And road testing could provide the real world they describe. Road tests from the EU available on you tube do exactly that all the time. But likely they would show real world not the absolute worst range possible. I am very specific. My specific was a Niro PHEV. So I researched. Know what, multiple real world mileage results in road tests the best from Ireland and the UK. I didn't care about EV but I know they are out there as I watched a few. Five vehicles AAA could not road test 5. Redline a road review site does sometime two a weekend and that is one guy with a staff of two. AAA has to go to a lab? And do five used vehicles?
Stuff the 40% thing. That is very rare and you know it and so does everyone here.
Can it happen sure. Can happen any sort of thing under the sun.
Are you getting that.... truth now can you say the truth? Or just push notions so you show right. So answer are you getting 40% less in your EV in cold?
Real world not could you would you may you shall you if my *** is on fire I would, but this.....are you getting 40% less EV range in cold.

This is so bad it is comically bad. I own a new PHEV. I will not say it applies totally surely it is not completely. I get 8% less range on a charge 15-0F. All things equal starting off I see and know that on gage. If I turn the heater on high blast 85F is the max, for the entire car, wipers on full all lights on defroster on side mirrors heated, radio on cell charger on, all seats heated, I suppose I could manage to get much less.
*(&^….. A would I ever drive like that? Who would one in a thousand? And then publish that as fact? It is only slightly.
So do you get 40% less in range in the cold?

40% is fact then. This is the rubber meeting the road Jack . Where the talking stops and the doing starts....do you get 40% less in range in the cold. I will hold my piece forever if you are on this topic..
So easy as pie Jack....do you? Put up or shut up as they say.

I know you are here I can see you in the sign in log.
Put up or shut up.

 

[ron in new mexico]

Ok I hung around a bit. The threads been here a bit, nothing. And now you are evidently gone from the sign in log, I just checked.
Thinking of some clever way out I guess.
So we are not getting 40% less, it is total complete BS.
Someones brother we know of in Idaho is.
I do admit it is possible to do so. The AAA study was designed to do that, not show real world. The worst possible.
Which means it is in general propaganda and useless for us the buying public.
Please don't try to sell me on it not being that. I will not trust in lies if I know them to be that. This is clearly that. I have just proven it. None are getting 40% less, only in theory, never the real world.
Some toady now will probably show and say...no I am!! But that is not you jack and we all know that.

I say it is possible but really all CR and AAA showed is with older models and beat up used ones to boot. Does the decline in range occur to the same degree with new EV's and the newer models, honestly we just do not know.
Prius hybrid AWD with the new nickel battery seems designed to take cold into account so the industry apparently is working on it. Is it solved or getting better don't go to CR or AAA for a answer, to busy testing beat up old EV;s in labs they are.
Kia EV, I know they are out there being tested as I mention I watched a review last week(redline).
Checking now their public relations persons statements, apparently they are changing wording as we speak. Odd that, did they get caught at something?
No matter central to point is the rest, this study is garbage. I have shown why.

 

[Paul K]

How utterly presumptuous of me to think that going into my third Canadian winter with a BEV that I could offer any meaningful observations about range loss. And those numbers that that the GOM and battery charge indicator show? Pure fiction created by software. Who knew?

 

[ron in new mexico]

How utterly presumptuous of me to think that going into my third Canadian winter with a BEV that I could offer any meaningful observations about range loss. And those numbers that that the GOM and battery charge indicator show? Pure fiction created by software. Who knew?

The industry uses EPA means to evolve gas miliage which in a EV translates to range. This study specifically detached from EPA means in use for thirty plus years and accepted by all as not perfect but pretty good, as essentially they state they know better. A made up a term they used for it and said they more present real world than the EPA. No it was not just that they added cold, they changed methodology, how they did the test.

So certainly your experience is way more important than theirs. So what was your experience. Not did range decrease did you see 41% less in range they state? Was it consistant and they did their tests at 20F was this the temp you found that at if you did?

A elaboration is required beyond simply stating yes I found that. Why that...their application of data is being applied by them and CR to include then we must look for range of EV's twice that stated in warm for purchase consideration.
Which then would exclude a once off or very rare event. Even sometimes ICE does not start in cold but that does not mean we should buy extra batteries and keep them in our trunk.
WE know it is possible. Their tests show that and the industry knows that. But is it probable which is the necessity to identify purchase perameters.
So please elaborate
What percent of loss are you seeing commonly? What is the max ever seen and at what temp? What are you seeing at this testing data point 20F?
What is the maximum actual loss in range you found while driving, ie did the numbers found by gage meet or exceed the found driving range numbers?
This actually by my claim is the best way to find this thing, by survey of existing drivers of EV's in cold climates. It is easily done as I exhibit.

My only qualifier in this is that depending on model year, and vehicle reported on, it may not represent findings that may show with new vehicles. But CR and about a hundred you tube sites do new car reviews out on the road each month. That really is not very hard to do as well, adding a cold weather range loss component as global vortex and all they can just leave the things out in the cold overnight most places for purposes of that test, and then go driving around.