EPA E-miles numbers being cooked.

[pdad13]

Originally Posted by Buzglyd

So you already knew about that test loop?

Nice try. Don't hurt your back moving those goal posts. I hope you forgive my vocabulary choices.

I'll let you select the appropriate word to describe that joke of a test.

Let's be fair about this. The article in question is about how the EPA is calculating MPGe, or "miles per gallon" as applicable to EVs. It also appears that the author might have gotten something very wrong, specifically, the conversion factor, which he sites in the article as "33.7 gallons per KWh." It's 33.7 KWh per gallon. If he used the wrong conversion factor to do the calculations and not just misstated it, he would have arrived at an erroneous result. I haven't checked the math, but I suspect his whole conclusion is backwards.

None of this has any effect on the test loop, however, which seems to be a mockery of good sense. There's no question that the government has an interest in developing the e-vehicle market, being that they've invested a lot of our money in it. Things like this make me worry that they're being forced down our throats.

[Buzglyd]

Originally Posted by pdad13

Let's be fair about this. The article in question is about how the EPA is calculating MPGe, or "miles per gallon" as applicable to EVs. It also appears that the author might have gotten something very wrong, specifically, the conversion factor, which he sites in the article as "33.7 gallons per KWh." It's 33.7 KWh per gallon. If he used the wrong conversion factor to do the calculations and not just misstated it, he would have arrived at an erroneous result. I haven't checked the math, but I suspect his whole conclusion is backwards.

None of this has any effect on the test loop, however, which seems to be a mockery of good sense. There's no question that the government has an interest in developing the e-vehicle market, being that they've invested a lot of our money in it. Things like this make me worry that they're being forced down our throats.

You mean like when we were going to "grow our own fuel?"

We'll never get rid of the ethanol mandate. What's worse than the gov't picking winners and losers is that it never gets off the loser. It rides that pony into the sunset!

[pdad13]

Yeah, something like that.

I actually think alternative fuels are very promising, but not the way that mess has been handled. We have to figure out how to make enough of a viable fuel. Growing it in the traditional sense ain't gonna cut it.

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by sarnali2

I'd like to see Anne Hathaway's vagina too please....

You really do. It's magnificent.

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by Buzglyd

So you already knew about that test loop?

No, I simply wasn't stupid enough to think that a car that doesn't use gas would have "gas-mileage" figures based on anything other than someone's test scenario and assumptions. What did you expect them to do anyway, the old "Shell Platformate" test where they have big glass bottles of fuel mounted on two identical cars and see which one stops first?

The Platformate Style of Reporting

The Second-Most-Expensive Car Commercial Ever Made - Inside Line

[Buzglyd]

Originally Posted by The Spaceman

No, I simply wasn't stupid enough to think that a car that doesn't use gas would have "gas-mileage" figures based on anything other than someone's test scenario and assumptions. What did you expect them to do anyway, the old "Shell Platformate" test where they have big glass bottles of fuel mounted on two identical cars and see which one stops first?

The Platformate Style of Reporting

The Second-Most-Expensive Car Commercial Ever Made - Inside Line

So you're basically admitting that all these range claims are complete bullshyt?

[jmdonald]

To give us the proper perspective we need a long term review of an electric bike in a practical everyday usage scenario. Does anyone know of one? I could not find any.

[pdad13]

Originally Posted by The Spaceman

You really do. It's magnificent.

Maybe you could describe it?


On second thought, maybe you shouldn't.

[The Spaceman]

Originally Posted by Buzglyd

So you're basically admitting that all these range claims are complete bullshyt?

OF COURSE IT'S BULLSHEEIT

What else could they possibly be? You're comparing a car that uses a refined liquid fossil fuel to a car that uses transmitted eletrical energy. Surely you didn't think those numbers were anything else but a fabricated number to use for comparisons, did you?

Hell they've never gotten it right when it's just one type of fuel in one type of engine. Like Mr. Duke said, it's just a number; a scale you hold up to each vehicle to compare.

[pdad13]

Originally Posted by The Spaceman

Like Mr. Duke said, it's just a number; a scale you hold up to each vehicle to compare.

Except it isn't.

MPGe is presented in a context that is familiar to consumers, in this case, "Miles Per Gallon." One would then have to assume that the relationship between MPG and MPGe is sound and accurate. I believe it's also meant to be a meaningful comparison between fossil fuel-powered vehicles and EVs, but even if it wasn't, the way it's derived all but ensures that it will be used that way.

If we were comparing just EVs to other EVs, I think a much more useful scale would be MPKWh (Miles per kilowatt hour) or even MPCH (Miles per charge hour), etc., etc.

If we're simply referring to the EPA range estimates, Kevin's advice to use it as a measuring stick between EV's is fine, except it still doesn't accurately portray range in a manner that people understand. Since EVs' range suffer at the expense of performance (and vice versa) worse than ICEs, it's a misleading number. We might advise people to take that EPA estimated range and subtract 30 or 40% to get in a realistic ballpark.