AAA confirms what Tesla, BMW, Nissan electric car owners suspected — cold weather saps EV range

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
SageBrush said:
You deserve a Darwin award

3 edits later and that is your response... bravo!

Considering the fact that Darwin awards are given to "recognize individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool via death or sterilization by their own actions" it wouldn't be a stretch to call that bullying. What do you think moderators??

Tell me SageBrush, should I die or be sterilized for acknowledging EV's have a weak spot in cold weather? Please clarify.
 
I've asked you both to dial it back. You seem to be bullying each other, more or less. That's it from me until much later today.

I wonder if the AAA was expecting the InterWeb to bet set afire by their report...
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
The report is a big step in the right direction.
If you want FUD, sure.
I maintain there is value in the report. You can take issue of their use of the word "RANGE", if you want, call it whatever you like, but in my experience, and the experience of some others who posted in this thread, they have found real world experiences to mirror what this study found. Namely there is a significant reduction in range, capacity, miles, whatever you want to call it when it's cold. And that reduction can be very large.
 
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
The report is a big step in the right direction.
If you want FUD, sure.
I maintain there is value in the report. You can take issue of their use of the word "RANGE", if you want, call it whatever you like, but in my experience, and the experience of some others who posted in this thread, they have found real world experiences to mirror what this study found. Namely there is a significant reduction in range, capacity, miles, whatever you want to call it when it's cold. And that reduction can be very large.

The emphasis should be on "CAN BE."
In other news hot off the AAA press, ICE cars sitting idling at stoplights suffer a drop in MPG so you should think twice about taking an ICE on a road trip.

I'm reminded of all the stories of people trying to escape the flooding in Houston a couple of years ago and running out of fuel on the road. Who wudda thunk that sitting in the car stuck in traffic with the windows up and the AC blasting would cut their range ?!?? I'm only surprised that the EPA was not sued for false advertising :lol: :lol:

Here a a couple of facts that people who are not complete morons take for granted:
1. Seat heating is much more efficient than cabin heating for personal comfort
2. The heat required to heat up something in the car is a lot more than the heat required to KEEP it at temperature.
3. It is idiotic to expend battery energy on heating areas of the car that no one comes into contact with.
4. An ICE and an EV are not identical.
 
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
The report is a big step in the right direction.
If you want FUD, sure.
I maintain there is value in the report. You can take issue of their use of the word "RANGE", if you want, call it whatever you like, but in my experience, and the experience of some others who posted in this thread, they have found real world experiences to mirror what this study found. Namely there is a significant reduction in range, capacity, miles, whatever you want to call it when it's cold. And that reduction can be very large.


I venture to guess that most of us agree with your assessment. This study provides useful information when put in the proper context. If you take a bunch of short trips (like most people do) and the car cools off between trips (like most cars do) and you turn the heat on when you get in (like most people do) then this test does a decent job or representing typical EV range losses on cold days. We can debate if that is the best way to drive an EV but it is certainly not an usual way for people to drive their cars.

We also all understand that if you pre-heat the cabin, bundle up, and use seat/steering wheel heaters you can get much better range on cold days. No regular poster on this forum would argue with that, even apparent "complete morons" like myself. :D

Of course, in addition to our personal preferences, some of us have wives that like to be warm and want the heater on. And some of us have people that sit in the back seat who would also like to be warm where there aren't heated seats. And some of us have children in car seats who we'd like to stay warm and who can't benefit from seat heaters because they are in a car seat or wear heavy coats in the car seats because it is dangerous. Some of us don't have to consider those things but some of us do. And they all matter as well.

At the end of the day I just want people to know what they are getting themselves into. We can differ on the best way to communicate that but the media and the dealerships definitely aren't communicating it well up until now. If they were then people wouldn't be so surprised when winter hits and their EV only goes 70% as far on a charge as they expected and we wouldn't have articles about it and need studies to examine it.
 
I am a psychologist, and am familiar with "studies".... Most things that are reported in print or on the news are not really "Studies", and most of all, not scientific. I could do a study asking 10 people if they prefer "Pizza" or "Hamburgers". Let's stay 7 out of 10 say the prefer PIZZA. Then you could write a "study" that says "70% of Americans have reduced their meat eating because meat is unhealthy".

I suggest that when you hear about a "Study", try to answer two questions.. 1) What is the overall message they are trying to convey, and 2) Who would benefit the most by affecting you to change your behavior after hearing of the "Study".

In this case, the article used a trusted sounding source (AAA) to tell you that EVs are not really as good as they may seem. Who would want this information to be advertised? Maybe.... Gas companies.. Or even better... Car companies... Who pays a lot to AAA - Car companies.. This is just more fake news propaganda to keep people on the fence about adopting EVs.. Don't take it seriously. You could easily fight back by saying, "Gasoline vehicles in cities lose 50% of their mileage!!" Yeah because they are stuck in traffic.
 
I can easily cut my range in half by not slowing down and running the heater till I'm very comfortable..
Denying the issue doesn't make it go away.
Diesel fired heaters will help.
 
powersurge said:
I am a psychologist, and am familiar with "studies".... Most things that are reported in print or on the news are not really "Studies", and most of all, not scientific. I could do a study asking 10 people if they prefer "Pizza" or "Hamburgers". Let's stay 7 out of 10 say the prefer PIZZA. Then you could write a "study" that says "70% of Americans have reduced their meat eating because meat is unhealthy".

I suggest that when you hear about a "Study", try to answer two questions.. 1) What is the overall message they are trying to convey, and 2) Who would benefit the most by affecting you to change your behavior after hearing of the "Study".

In this case, the article used a trusted sounding source (AAA) to tell you that EVs are not really as good as they may seem. Who would want this information to be advertised? Maybe.... Gas companies.. Or even better... Car companies... Who pays a lot to AAA - Car companies.. This is just more fake news propaganda to keep people on the fence about adopting EVs.. Don't take it seriously. You could easily fight back by saying, "Gasoline vehicles in cities lose 50% of their mileage!!" Yeah because they are stuck in traffic.
As a psychologist you are of course familiar with confirmation bias, which perhaps you express a little of in your post :)

Have you actually explored the methodology in their study/analysis? I haven't. But I don't think AAA would come up with a totally rubbish pro-oil study. Is it not a scientifically reasonable study? Is it not at all repeatable? Do they not have enough data points to make a statistically relevant observation?

Oilpan4 said:
I can easily cut my range in half by not slowing down and running the heater till I'm very comfortable..
Denying the issue doesn't make it go away.
Diesel fired heaters will help.
Yes, I really believe personally that promoting the idea that to drive an EV we should be wearing thicker gloves and dealing with a "cool" cabin temperature is not doing anybody in the movement any favors.

I personally refuse to compromise on the cabin temperature. Does that make me spoiled or selfish, I don't really care. I just will not do it. I like heated seats and steering wheels and I like a warm cabin.
 
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
I really believe personally that promoting the idea that to drive an EV we should be wearing thicker gloves and dealing with a "cool" cabin temperature is not doing anybody in the movement any favors.
Straw man arguments.
I do not wear thicker gloves;
The 'cool' cabin temperature I mentioned is the temperature I am comfortable in the winter.
So that is for many but not all people. I do not doubt you are spoiled.


However, none of that makes the AAA study garbage. it is garbage because their protocol is not a range test by accepted norms such as published by the EPA. AAA devised a test that uses a lot energy to heat/reheat/reheat ... the car and published the result that battery energy was consumed.

I would have guessed that even science illiterate would find that obvious but I obviously give too much credit to some people.
 
To Mr. Eatsandshootsleafs

I actually DO HAVE AN AGENDA... And your trust of an article is naively trusting of the media.

I will defend EVs as useful, wonderful technology against the news writers that are constantly hunting for controversy. Yes, range goes down in the winter, just like with any other car....

What I am against is for these articles to poison the well for others who may wish to get an electric vehicle. They have limitations, but they work.

Complaining about winter range is like complaining when planes were just invented - - To complain that the propellers are not fast enough, and to wait for jet engines... They are useful today... So shut up and stop complaining..
 
Do I have to issue warnings? Powersurge, don't tell anyone to "shut up." A psychologist should be able to exhibit more self-control than what we're seeing. I actually agree with some of what you wrote, but keep in mind that we tend to reinforce our own opinions. The AAA is indeed likely to exhibit bias towards ICE vehicles, but unless you investigate the funding sources and find that the study was funded by oil companies and car manufacturers without a substantial EV offering, you are just expressing your opinion.

Sagebrush, I know that you believe that you're surrounded by morons, and now we all know this too. Do NOT keep telling us. A truly Superior Being wouldn't stoop to this behavior.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Do I have to issue warnings?
Is it part of your self-declared limit to only use your moderator privileges to delete spam ?
Or have your trousers lost their zipper ?
 
Having to be cold and deal with less range if you live some where that gets an actual winter are not going to encourage to EV sales.
I was looking at some of the EV face book groups and some people have already given up on EVs after their first winter. Even if their EV adoption was poorly planned now the world has more anti-EV people who have actually owned an EV and probably don't have much good to say about them.

AAA probably doesn't like the idea of the EV. Once people learn how to not run their vehicles out of power, then larger battery longer range vehicles are common and charging stations are put everywhere about the only thing AAA will be good for is fixing flat tires.
 
powersurge said:
To Mr. Eatsandshootsleafs

I actually DO HAVE AN AGENDA... And your trust of an article is naively trusting of the media.

I will defend EVs as useful, wonderful technology against the news writers that are constantly hunting for controversy. Yes, range goes down in the winter, just like with any other car....
I wouldn't say "just like any other car", the effect is much more significant with an EV. ICEs use much more fuel than usual for their first 10 minutes or so after a cold start, and they are subject to the same sources of increased drag like denser air, more viscous bearing and gear lubricants and increased rolling resistance on snowy roads. However, they also have the ability to capture a portion of the heat they normally waste to keep the windows clear and the occupants comfortable, while EVs need to use extra battery power for that. The maximum battery charge capacity and maximum charge rate also drop in the cold, so a fully charged EV is starting with less stored energy when it needs more to do the same job, and its ability to preserve energy using regenerative braking is compromised. Together, these things result in cold having a much larger effect on EV range than ICE range. Finally, the EV's lower normal range and slower refuelling rate adds to the inconvenience. When an ICE vehicle's range drops from 500 km to 350 km, the owner needs to spend 5 minutes and $50 at a gas station a couple of extra times a month. When an EV that used to be able to go 150 km can only go 80 km, an owner who needs to drive 100 km needs to spend an extra half hour hooked up to a charger every day. It likely still costs less than feeding gasoline to an ICE, but it is much more of a PITA.


powersurge said:
What I am against is for these articles to poison the well for others who may wish to get an electric vehicle. They have limitations, but they work.

Complaining about winter range is like complaining when planes were just invented - - To complain that the propellers are not fast enough, and to wait for jet engines... They are useful today... So shut up and stop complaining..
Early planes were useful, but they didn't replace passenger ships until they had the range and reliability to cross oceans. Some of the pioneering aviators who first attempted such things were never heard from again. People who buy EVs without being aware of their limitations and then become disgruntled are the ones who "poison the well". I bought my leaf expecting half the advertised range in very cold conditions, and I have found that to be slightly optimistic. The advantages over an ICE are pretty slim right now, but I know things will improve when it isn't -30°C in the mornings any more.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I know that you believe that you're surrounded by morons, and now we all know this too. Do NOT keep telling us. A truly Superior Being wouldn't stoop to this behavior.

Perhaps our psychologist friend can diagnose that condition, there must be a name for it. :lol:
 
Titanium48 said:
I wouldn't say "just like any other car", the effect is much more significant with an EV. ICEs use much more fuel than usual for their first 10 minutes or so after a cold start, and they are subject to the same sources of increased drag like denser air, more viscous bearing and gear lubricants and increased rolling resistance on snowy roads. However, they also have the ability to capture a portion of the heat they normally waste to keep the windows clear and the occupants comfortable, while EVs need to use extra battery power for that. The maximum battery charge capacity and maximum charge rate also drop in the cold, so a fully charged EV is starting with less stored energy when it needs more to do the same job, and its ability to preserve energy using regenerative braking is compromised. Together, these things result in cold having a much larger effect on EV range than ICE range. Finally, the EV's lower normal range and slower refuelling rate adds to the inconvenience. When an ICE vehicle's range drops from 500 km to 350 km, the owner needs to spend 5 minutes and $50 at a gas station a couple of extra times a month. When an EV that used to be able to go 150 km can only go 80 km, an owner who needs to drive 100 km needs to spend an extra half hour hooked up to a charger every day. It likely still costs less than feeding gasoline to an ICE, but it is much more of a PITA.
I agree with much of your post although I think you give something of a pass to ICE vehicles. There is no waste heat until the ICE has reached operating temperature. Or put another way, ICE efficiency is quite a bit worse when cold. My Prius was a champion when it came to time to heat up the ICE but I think it mostly reflected the fact that the car had a small Alu block and the car prioritized ICE warm-up. Owners who did not wish to wait used resistance heating or came to Prius forums complaining that their hybrids were no better than a regular ICE in the cold weather. Somewhat ironically they were told the same thing as I am telling EV owners here: short trips take a hit to fuel economy.

This requirement to warm up the engine block after every cold soak plays out all the time with ICE owners but they usually do not understand what is going on. They have just gotten in the habit to run the ICE to "pre-heat" the car for 10-30 minutes before they drive the car. You can bet that these ICE cars put through the same protocol that the AAA used would show awful fuel economy.

Do ICE owners then say "Ahh, I guess that means I cannot take my ICE out for a long trip ?"
Obviously no, for two reasons:
1. is that they refuel more often
2. The other is that during a long trip the warm-up penalty is diluted by the length of the trip.

It is (2) where the AAA has failed so miserably.

Lastly, it is exactly because EVs pull all the energy from the battery that any EV worth its salt has heated seats and sometimes a heated steering wheel. The cars are engineered for efficient personal comfort although it is still possible to defeat the efficiency by stupidity. I cannot speak to AB type climates but I drive in 15F - 40F temperatures for most of the winter and I average ~ 250 Wh/mile overall by mostly relying on the seat heating for comfort and use of forced air as a supplement. And that was the second miserable fail of the AAA study: they did not use the EV as designed.
 
SageBrush said:
Do ICE owners then say "Ahh, I guess that means I cannot take my ICE out for a long trip ?"
Obviously no, for two reasons:
1. is that they refuel more often
2. The other is that during a long trip the warm-up penalty is diluted by the length of the trip.

It would probably be useful to add

3. They can put 300+ miles of range back in their vehicle in about 2 minutes using a vast network of refueling stations as opposed to a best case scenario of an hour to do so in an EV. This is admittedly, at least in part, an infrastructure issue that could be fixed in time... but it explains a lot of the reason why people are more sensitive to EV range losses than ICE range losses.

For what it is worth, I would see about a 10% loss in winter range when I had my WRX on my daily routine using the heat at 70deg. I see about a 30% loss in my Leaf doing the same. Of course I don't drive my Leaf like that unless the family is with me but it is illustrative none the less.

For those who are sticklers about following EPA procedures, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory actually did compare ICE vehicles and hybrids using EPA procedures. They found the following:

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).

The effect on hybrids is worse. Their fuel economy can drop about 31% to 34% under these conditions.

Unfortunately they don't link to the actual study and I couldn't find it with a quick search. But they do offer a lot of helpful info on maximizing your winter efficiency in any type of vehicle.

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml
 
golfcart said:
For those who are sticklers about following EPA procedures
IIRC the cars are pre-heated for the range test and the thermostat is set to a designated temperature.

You do not pre-heat an engine in an EV (although at even colder temperatures an EV may expend energy to warm up the battery.)
An EV driver who is not an idiot uses efficient heating strategies that have been engineered into the EV. Those strategies are not part of the EPA protocol.

3. They can put 300+ miles of range back in their vehicle in about 2 minutes using a vast network of refueling stations as opposed to a best case scenario of an hour to do so in an EV. This is admittedly, at least in part, an infrastructure issue that could be fixed in time... but it explains a lot of the reason why people are more sensitive to EV range losses than ICE range losses.
It may take you an hour to plug in an EVSE, but thankfully it only takes me a few seconds of my time to replenish charge used for my commuting.
 
SageBrush said:
It may take you an hour to plug in an EVSE, but thankfully it only takes me a few seconds of my time to replenish charge used for my commuting.

You were specifically talking about "long trips" (not commuting) in the part I responded to. I at least try to have these discussions in good faith...

SageBrush said:
Do ICE owners then say "Ahh, I guess that means I cannot take my ICE out for a long trip ?"
Obviously no, for two reasons:
1. is that they refuel more often
2. The other is that during a long trip the warm-up penalty is diluted by the length of the trip.
 
golfcart said:
You were specifically talking about "long trips" (not commuting) in the part I responded to.
If so, then irrelevant to the Oak Ridge or AAA results.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we are talking about short trips and then the refueling time is trivial for EV owners with convenient L2 charging; or you are talking about long distance driving and then the SINGLE cold soak penalty is diluted.

Which brings us back to why the AAA study is FUD:
Efficiency of short trips does not extrapolate to long trips;
EVs are designed to be heated differently than an ICE.
 
Back
Top