as you said - when loaded like a van which isn't part of WLTP recipe - the WLTP halved; like for people towing caravans (that also degrade aerodynamics, as well as adding inertia)
EV general discussion
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,706
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
BORING
True it's probably because I have capitalised the Buzz as a MPV with a stripped out Van edition rather than it being a serious van for serious van work. It's cargo space and payload is pretty low and floor is quite high for a van and it also costs a shed load of money. Where as most other vans with crew cabs are unapologetically van like.
I'm not sure I have actually seen a Buzz Cargo in the metal, I've seen loads of the MPV versions. According to how many left there are only about 2,500 on the road at the moment vs about 3100 MPV's, I'm a little surprised there is not more given the 'buzz' that surrounded this vehicle at concept stage and launch.
The WLTP range isn't halved when you load a van, where have you got that from? Last time I checked, loading an enclosed van also doesn't materially change the aerodynamics like towing a massive square box does.
Laden Vs unladen real world range is something like 20-30% difference - I'd have to look up the numbers I was sent again, which is getting on for half the WLTP range.
Last edited:
How. You get it back in regen ?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,509
- Location
- Cheltenham
What’s regen got to do with rolling resistance? You expend more energy accelerating the mass, and will get back most of that in regen braking through extra momentum, but for the travelling in between at a constant speed you have a higher rolling resistance due to the extra weight on the tyres. You can’t make that back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,706
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
You haven’t jumped to rolling resistance rather than vehicle weight? Please apply critical thinking. Mass becomes bi directionally to an extent in an EV… rolling resistance is pretty marginally in transient stop start situations like delivery trucks. Circa 60% less of an effect of the same payload increase in a normal ICE. You recover more energy slowing a van to stationary from 40mph when it’s heavier!
A full loaded transit is simply heating brake discs a lot more.
It’s all irrelevant anyway. EV vans is the perfect application of the tech and local air pollution. Unless Dave the plumber is gonna get emotional about the sound of his VW T4 diesel?
A full loaded transit is simply heating brake discs a lot more.
It’s all irrelevant anyway. EV vans is the perfect application of the tech and local air pollution. Unless Dave the plumber is gonna get emotional about the sound of his VW T4 diesel?
Last edited:
eg. Mass is a bitch
e:
looks credible
I'll calculate using these estimates for the Tesla model 3: M=1611 kg, C=0.23[1], S=2.22 m²[2], α=0.01[3], at sea level (ρ=1.22 kg/m³, g=9.8 m/s²). At a speed of 100 km/h, the power lost to aerodynamic drag is 6.7 kW, and the power lost to rolling resistance is 4.4 kW. So, under these conditions the mass of the vehicle contributes to approximately 40% of the power.
Last edited:
I'm getting ~42% of WLTP when towing a full size 1250kg caravan behind my car, I just can't see how sticking 800kg in the back of an electric van is getting you down to 50% of WLTP unless there is also other issues going on like terrible van man driving style having a material impact on the consumption of the vehicle.
Yes because some journalists hooning it down some backroads for 10 minutes is a relevant range test. See above.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,509
- Location
- Cheltenham
Vehicle weight IS rolling resistance - the only contact with the road is through the tyres, so the only difference having more mass makes is increasing that rolling resistance, unless you’re suggesting it would take the same amount of energy to move a van at a constant speed with a ten ton weight in the back than it would without it?
I covered the accel/decel parts in my post - more energy to accelerate a heavier load but you recover more back when braking, that’s just common sense.
The more your vehicle weighs, the more rolling resistance you have and the more energy it takes to keep it moving. This is critical thinking. If you’re going to get picky about what TYPE of driving said van is doing then that’s a different discussion entirely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,706
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Don’t try to lecture me how cars work, thanks
Here’s the big clue. WLTP is not a steady speed.
Here’s the big clue. WLTP is not a steady speed.
Last edited:
[ the saying I basta**** is gravity is a bitch ie. weight ]
the independent/concurring calculations in the thread I linked support the high percentage of power being used by a loaded van, getting to the site, as portrayed in the video.
e: WLTP is being used loosely by me anyway - real world range not a contrived urban/extra-urban route, like my regular commute 90% NS, 10% urban (but I don't have bags of sand in the car)
( Trumps retort on being lectured ) "don't tell us what we are going to feel"
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,706
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
What are we even talking about? Next it will be a bloody run to the sun showdown on surfing the web not the Fistral Beach.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,706
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
It was a rhetorical question…
I don't know all the specifics i.e. don't know what models were tested or how they carried out testing - but real world testing with the kind of payloads and equipment we'd be running, and driven like they'd be driven, a range of vans with WLTP ranges of 180-200 miles were getting ~120 miles (I think some were getting higher than that but I have incomplete information) with just 1-2 people and nothing onboard and 78-91 miles with equipment and 600-650kg load. Our average trip distance is ~72 miles so that is a no go.
From Googling the impact from a full payload, with no aero difference, is usually around 14-15% decrease in range - but the numbers for our actual usage is 20-30%. That won't necessarily represent what someone else might see, especially if the person driving is also paying for the electricity
It’s not gonna half the range. As said critical thinking please
Well EVs are crap then as they are heavier and all that matters is weight. Right ?
Stick to circuit boards and that 6mm of cable that’s 4k of your life.
Ah like heating that also doesn’t matter till it does. How about just drive something electric and then you can talk about experience rathe than what Google Ai tells you.