The fact that the EPA allows two different suites of tests to be ran then marketed under the same name, without any disclaimers, is insane. Either do something like "X miles EPA 1 (est)"/EPA 2, or deprecate the EPA test cycle that only Tesla seems to still be using (probably for backwards compatibility/comparisons to older Tesla cars).
But why would you need a separate number and test for that? It’s guaranteed to be more than the highway range and for the small percentage of the time that range matters at all 99% of the time that will be on a highway. Do people seriously consider driving >200 miles inside of a city in a single day?
It would be useful for people who do not have a home charger, so that they understand if they can do a whole week with it. It is also useful for taxi drivers (though I would hope they do more than just reading a single number).
It is difficult to find a good solution for this, even providing 3 ranges (city, suburban, highway) has its limits and will confuse people.
I don’t think people without a home charger are buying a lot of EVs. The value isn’t there.
But anyway my point is that this combined number is meaningless and unhelpful even in that case. Highway provides a minimum number. Any other test just produces confusion and disappointment.
I imagine car-companies all scrambling to do their testing on the same small section of some US highway which meet the criteria of long-enough for the EPA's measure, consistently downhill, and mostly straight.
... Or if the stakes are high enough, building their own "test track".
The same test can be done on a dyno, although I wonder if it could require a dyno + thermal chamber (maybe at 60f) + maybe a wind tunnel to ensure similar test conditions every time.
That only incentivizes optimization for one use case. And the testing methodology matters.
I simply do not understand why a comprehensive set of basic tests aren’t performed, and I assume that’s my own ignorance. But I’ll say my opinion anyways… It’s not like creating a new car doesn’t cost a billion dollars. Is it really unreasonable to have a test suite that gives consumers accurate information across a spectrum of driving conditions?
AND that would FINALLY represent a significant gate to “cheating on the test” as it wouldn’t create the “single test” paradigm that’s clearly not possible for manufacturers to follow.
70 is the rule[0], at least based on length - given rural highways have the most of it and the standard speed is 70mph. On the interstate maybe 1 in 1000 drivers in a car is actually going 65mph in the 70 zone, and by doing so is slowing down right lane traffic and requiring 70mph semi trucks to pass them.
The semi trucks normally don't go 70. They go slower than that going up hills and much faster downhill. They constantly pass me on the downhill portion only to slow me down on the uphill
Sure 70/75 whatever. The point is that range means “how far can I go on a highway”. The city range is more than that and also doesn’t matter for noncommercial vehicles.
The headline is slightly misleading. The range estimations are lowered for these two reasons instead (buried in the article):
> First, are “comfort and functionality improvements” made by Tesla that require more energy, and second is the implementation of revised EPA testing requirements that result in a “higher consumption and a slight decrease in overall range.”
Personally I think the second reason is the main one. EPA gave automakers way too much leeway to tune the tests and report an inflated figure. It's good that they are tightening the procedures.
However, it's quite possible that without the exaggeration attempts there wouldn't be any changes to EPA testing requiments.
Those reasons are not officially from Tesla, in case it wasn’t clear. They’re supposedly leaked from internal documents- Tesla has given no official word publicly on the adjustments.
