Volkswagen ID Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered User
Joined
·
29 Posts
so, if my conversion calculator is correct, he was down to about 170 miles on that trip going from 99% to 8%. Granted he was going pretty fast (75-80MPH) in most of what they showed, but that seems like a very significant drop off the ~310 miles per charge sticker claim
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
so, if my conversion calculator is correct, he was down to about 170 miles on that trip going from 99% to 8%. Granted he was going pretty fast (75-80MPH) in most of what they showed, but that seems like a very significant drop off the ~310 miles per charge sticker claim
People tend to forget how much more aerodynamic drag the car has to overcome at higher speeds, since drag increases exponentially, not linearly, as speed increases. The efficiency difference between 60mph and 80mph is dramatically different, all other variables being the same. So my guess is that the high speeds probably had something to do with the difference you note. The EPA range estimate on the sticker is based on a highway/city mix in a simulated environment with no drag, wind, or other weather variables accounted for, and should be taken with a very large grain of salt for 100% highway driving at 75-80mph. But even though the EPA rating has its issues, it is much less optimistic than the European WLTP range estimates, which are sometimes 20-30% higher than the EPA ratings for the same vehicle.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,516 Posts
It amazes me that some folks just don't get how exponential that factor is. ICE or BEV it's the same detriment to efficiency. 🤷‍♂️
People tend to forget how much more aerodynamic drag the car has to overcome at higher speeds, since drag increases exponentially, not linearly, as speed increases. The efficiency difference between 60mph and 80mph is dramatically different, all other variables being the same. So my guess is that the high speeds probably had something to do with the difference you note. The EPA range estimate on the sticker is based on a highway/city mix in a simulated environment with no drag, wind, or other weather variables accounted for, and should be taken with a grain of salt for 100% highway driving at 75-80mph. But even though the EPA rating has its issues, it is much less optimistic than the European WLTP range estimates, which are sometimes 20-30% higher than the EPA ratings for the same vehicle.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
It amazes me that some folks just don't get how exponential that factor is. ICE or BEV it's the same detriment to efficiency. 🤷‍♂️
As I understand it, in general the difference in efficiency is masked to an extent in an ICE vehicle for two main reasons:
  • ICE vehicles are almost absurdly inefficient at any speed, but less so at higher speeds up around 60 mph because this is where a typical ICE vehicle's power band is running as efficiently as it's ever going to. ICE vehicles are even more inefficient at lower speeds (like in traffic or in city driving). Because an EV's power band is fairly linear from 0mph, the power increase needed to push the vehicle through the air as drag increases exponentially is much more noticeable — that is, efficiency loss in an EV isn't masked at higher speeds by a higher efficiency than at lower speeds (as with an ICE), if that makes sense.
  • At their most efficient, EVs are extremely proficient at turning battery energy into motion — like up to around ~85-90% of the energy in the battery is used to move the vehicle— compared to an ICE which is down between 15-30% (IIRC, the DOE estimates the average ICE efficiency at under 20%— meaning of course the other 80% of the fuel is being used to create waste heat of some sort, rather than being converted into forward motion). Friction (from air or road) reduces efficiency in both EV and ICE, but when, say, drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from a 28% efficient ICE machine it isn’t as noticeable as when drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from an 85% efficient electric motor. The EV doesn't mask the efficiency losses because it's so incredibly efficient to begin with.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I understand it. I'm happy to be corrected if there are any physicists or other experts in the house...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,516 Posts
For ICE race cars to achieve 200 mph they have to add a staggering exponential power to overcome the drag. Aerodynamics can significantly help but only to a point.

Powerband efficiency is certainly a consideration, but again battling drag coefficient above 70 mph in particular really takes its toll (EZPass doesn't help :ROFLMAO:
As I understand it, in general the difference in efficiency is masked to an extent in an ICE vehicle for two main reasons:
  • ICE vehicle are almost absurdly inefficient at any speed, but less so at higher speeds up around 60 mph because this is where a typical ICE vehicle's power band is running as efficiently as it's ever going to. ICE vehicles are even more inefficient at lower speeds (like in traffic or in city driving). Because an EV's power band is fairly linear from 0mph, the power increase needed to push the vehicle through the air as drag increases exponentially is much more noticeable — that is efficiency loss in an EV isn't masked at higher speeds by a higher efficiency than at lower speeds (as with an ICE), if that makes sense.
  • At their most efficient, EVs are extremely proficient at turning battery energy into motion — like up to around ~85-90% of the energy in the battery is used to move the vehicle— compared to an ICE which is down between 15-30% (IIRC, the DOE estimates the average ICE efficiency at under 20%— meaning of course that the other 80% of the fuel is being used to create waste heat of some sort, rather than being converted into forward motion). Friction (from air or road) reduces efficiency in both EV and ICE, but when, say, drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from a 28% efficient ICE machine it isn’t as noticeable as when drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from an 85% efficient electric motor. The EV doesn't mask the efficiency losses because it's so incredibly efficient to begin with.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I understand it. I'm happy to be corrected if there are any physicists or other experts in the house...
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
The only thing I'd add to your second point is that the potential energy in a gallon of gas per pound is very high compared to the same energy density in a current EV battery per pound. So a 15-gallon gas tank hides a lot of sins compared to most people's 'butt in seat' meters, despite the largely horrible energy conversion factor you note.

The higher efficiency of the electric system means that they don't have to reach the same figures for an EV to have the same range as an ICE car. But we aren't at that point yet for reasonable battery sizes/cost.

EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point - CleanTechnica seems like a reasonable summaton with verifiable links to underlying data.

As I understand it, in general the difference in efficiency is masked to an extent in an ICE vehicle for two main reasons:
  • ICE vehicles are almost absurdly inefficient at any speed, but less so at higher speeds up around 60 mph because this is where a typical ICE vehicle's power band is running as efficiently as it's ever going to. ICE vehicles are even more inefficient at lower speeds (like in traffic or in city driving). Because an EV's power band is fairly linear from 0mph, the power increase needed to push the vehicle through the air as drag increases exponentially is much more noticeable — that is efficiency loss in an EV isn't masked at higher speeds by a higher efficiency than at lower speeds (as with an ICE), if that makes sense.
  • At their most efficient, EVs are extremely proficient at turning battery energy into motion — like up to around ~85-90% of the energy in the battery is used to move the vehicle— compared to an ICE which is down between 15-30% (IIRC, the DOE estimates the average ICE efficiency at under 20%— meaning of course that the other 80% of the fuel is being used to create waste heat of some sort, rather than being converted into forward motion). Friction (from air or road) reduces efficiency in both EV and ICE, but when, say, drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from a 28% efficient ICE machine it isn’t as noticeable as when drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from an 85% efficient electric motor. The EV doesn't mask the efficiency losses because it's so incredibly efficient to begin with.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I understand it. I'm happy to be corrected if there are any physicists or other experts in the house...
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
101 Posts
As I understand it, in general the difference in efficiency is masked to an extent in an ICE vehicle for two main reasons:
  • ICE vehicles are almost absurdly inefficient at any speed, but less so at higher speeds up around 60 mph because this is where a typical ICE vehicle's power band is running as efficiently as it's ever going to. ICE vehicles are even more inefficient at lower speeds (like in traffic or in city driving). Because an EV's power band is fairly linear from 0mph, the power increase needed to push the vehicle through the air as drag increases exponentially is much more noticeable — that is efficiency loss in an EV isn't masked at higher speeds by a higher efficiency than at lower speeds (as with an ICE), if that makes sense.
  • At their most efficient, EVs are extremely proficient at turning battery energy into motion — like up to around ~85-90% of the energy in the battery is used to move the vehicle— compared to an ICE which is down between 15-30% (IIRC, the DOE estimates the average ICE efficiency at under 20%— meaning of course that the other 80% of the fuel is being used to create waste heat of some sort, rather than being converted into forward motion). Friction (from air or road) reduces efficiency in both EV and ICE, but when, say, drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from a 28% efficient ICE machine it isn’t as noticeable as when drag causes a 20% drop in efficiency from an 85% efficient electric motor. The EV doesn't mask the efficiency losses because it's so incredibly efficient to begin with.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I understand it. I'm happy to be corrected if there are any physicists or other experts in the house...
I think there is also a component related to the gear you're driving in with an ICE, and the variable torque it provides (as opposed to EV motors). An ICE is probably most fuel efficient in the lower speed range of its highest gear. Depends on the car, but something around ~40mph. I think another part of it is that most people got used to driving traditional ICE cars without as much concern for real time efficiency (rather than on a per tank basis, which could include lots of different conditions)...and they never had access to high quality real time data that would make it easier to keep track of what was affecting their efficiency.
 

·
Registered User
21 ProS Red - 23 ProS Plus Arctic Blue locked
Joined
·
486 Posts
By my calculations, at 80 MPH under ideal conditions without elevation gain, expect ID.4 efficiency of around 2.5 - 2.6 miles/kWh, and range of a bit less than 200 miles from 100% to 0% SOC. This is simply a factor of air and rolling resistance. You're going to do worse than that if the conditions are not ideal: if you factor in HVAC, a wet road, cool/cold ambient air temperature, etc. Slowing to a steady 70 MPH could add around 30 more miles of range. Slowing to 65 ups that ideal 100% to 0% range to about 250 miles. This is just physics (and a few reasonably informed estimates on some of the variables), and while I'm not a scientist, the math is at a 9th grade level with a bit of help from Excel. I'm happy to share the math with anyone who is interested.

As for ICE cars compared to EVs, I think the commenters above have it right. ICE cars are just as subject to air and rolling resistance as EVs, but they're carrying a lot more potential energy, and they're so wildly inefficient compared to EVs that we don't notice the impact of the change of speed as much. And as there are so many gas stations everywhere, we're not paying close attention to changes in efficiency in our ICE cars. EVs make us more mindful energy consumers, which I consider to be mostly a good thing.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
I was shocked when I found I can get right at 27 mpg with my 2020 Ford Ranger 4X4 with mud tires on the freeway if I keep the speed around 60 mph. But 21 mpg is much easier to achieve on the same stretch just going with the flow of traffic. It greatly helps it has the awesome 2.3T from the Focus ST in it and a 10-speed transmission. In most ways it seems more technologically advanced (especially drive-train wise) than my ID.4 Pro RWD.

(And the truck was $9,000 less too)
 

·
Registered User
Enthusiastic 1st Edition Owner
Joined
·
5,149 Posts
This conversation seems to be focused on the range. Let's not lose sight of what this was: a battery capacity degradation test. It's a bit difficult to read on the screenshot at the end (I certainly couldn't read it from my phone), but the results seem great. They're showing a 0.5% battery capacity loss vs. new.

Where I'm confused is where does this 72 kWh model of battery come from? I thought the two European ID.4 battery options were 77 kWh like in the the US, or 52 kWh. Is there an error in these results?

Wheel Vehicle Motor vehicle Font Hood


Font Screenshot Beard Electronic device Multimedia
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
Great results but like was mentioned why 72 KWh? The real test is battery degradation/total miles vs. a quality internal combustion engine’s lifetime. Where will the ID.4 battery be in 200,000 miles? That is the real relevant comparison for the Average Jane/Joe.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
This conversation seems to be focused on the range. Let's not lose sight of what this was: a battery capacity degradation test. It's a bit difficult to read on the screenshot at the end (I certainly couldn't read it from my phone), but the results seem great. They're showing a 0.5% battery capacity loss vs. new.

Where I'm confused is where does this 72 kWh model of battery come from? I thought the two European ID.4 battery options were 77 kWh like in the the US, or 52 kWh. Is there an error in these results?

View attachment 16510
View attachment 16511
This question is also asked in the comments at the bottom of the video.
Answer from Chris is;
Aviloo tested many ID4 cars and all had new around 72kwh 0-100%
 

·
Registered User
2021 White ID.4 Pro S AWD
Joined
·
104 Posts
@Nai3t, yes post is about degradation, a big curiosity for me.

Battery Life YouTuber I think used Aviloo as well with his ID3. Similarly showed less capacity than expected. He lost about 10% in two years, not promising.

 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
99 Posts
so, if my conversion calculator is correct, he was down to about 170 miles on that trip going from 99% to 8%. Granted he was going pretty fast (75-80MPH) in most of what they showed, but that seems like a very significant drop off the ~310 miles per charge sticker claim
The Original video doesn't have anything to do with Range or range loss.

The point of this video is to determine battery degradation of this particular vehicle after 10,000 miles of driving.

As it turns out it was about 1 percent which is extremely low for the first year of ownership.

Chris's battery degradation of "Walter", his vehicle an ID3, was significantly higher. Likely due to him using DC Fast Charging more frequently and discharging to under 10 percent and charging to 100 percent much more often than the average owner.
 

·
Registered User
Enthusiastic 1st Edition Owner
Joined
·
5,149 Posts
ID3. Similarly showed less capacity than expected
True, but only 1kWh off the published 55kWh new capacity, and that test showed either 7% or 9.5% loss depending on which figure was used.

Azure Communication Device Font Screenshot Technology
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
Or he just said it for clicks? Can I trust people who make more money the more outlandish the claim? Not where I come from but that was a time when people used their own research and reasoning a whole lot more. But it is entertaining sometimes so there is that I guess. 🤷‍♂️

I do like to watch YT to see all the videos out these days claiming that the U.S. actually did very little to win the war in Europe. 😂
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
29 Posts
The Original video doesn't have anything to do with Range or range loss.

The point of this video is to determine battery degradation of this particular vehicle after 10,000 miles of driving.

As it turns out it was about 1 percent which is extremely low for the first year of ownership.

Chris's battery degradation of "Walter", his vehicle an ID3, was significantly higher. Likely due to him using DC Fast Charging more frequently and discharging to under 10 percent and charging to 100 percent much more often than the average owner.
And the major point of battery degradation is that it will charge well and hold range, so if if the mileage drops to almost 60% it does have to do with range loss
 

·
Registered User
Enthusiastic 1st Edition Owner
Joined
·
5,149 Posts
And the major point of battery degradation is that it will charge well and hold range, so if if the mileage drops to almost 60% it does have to do with range loss
No, not directly. There's range loss due to reduction in battery capacity, and there range loss due to driving inefficiency.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top