100 mile range! - Page 3 - Renault Z.E. Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-02-2015, 06:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 707
RE: 100 mile range!

Because it was designed to keep the speedo at a set rate - which is a killer for range. You need to base your speed on the terrain - sticking to 65 whilst heading up a hill uses more Kw than if you were light footed and used 65 when going downhill but 45 going up!
Buzby is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-02-2015, 06:57 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 28
RE: 100 mile range!

I am not trying to be argumentative but:

1) on flat terrain, nothing beats a good cruise control. Not in a coal fueled car, oops, an ICE car (as it avoids the extra fuel injected when powering up) as in an EV, as it avoids cycle losses through. I can personally vow for this.

2) on mountainous terrain what I hear my co-Zoe-drivers report is that driving there in itself does not really affect their range much (as long as you end your trip "low", hehe, you have to be able to reach the top!). That tells me nothing about using cruise control there of course, though it suggest it's influence in general is low, due to regeneration of course (d'uh!). My personal experience is no better than "hilly-ish", so I will refrain from stating this as "proven".

3) The general truths about 65 being far more inefficient than 45 (or 55!) holds here too of course, but don't forget there are two effects here:
a) more losses in all components when current goes up, partly compensated by the shorter time that current is flowing. I expect this effect to be only marginally better when not using CC, as the bad effect of going up (55 instead of 45) is partly compensated by going downhill slower. The losses count for regeneration too!
b) wind resistance goes up by the 2nd power (and a bit, if I am not mistaken). The 10 faster going down will have a more significant effect than the going up 10 slower. A constant speed is really better in general, resistance-wise.

I would love to see some experimental data!

ps: Now what is REALLY a bad idea is to use CC on a ICE car in mountenous terrain!
yoh-there is offline  
post #23 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-02-2015, 07:32 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
RE: 100 mile range!

I'm not really qualified to say whether and under what circumstances cruise might be better, although like Buzby, over the years, I think I've found some merit in losing a bit of speed on uphills and gaining a bit going down.

One thing I have noticed though, which may have some impact, is that if I am in cruise and that is interrupted by the need to brake, when I press resume, the car accelerates much more quickly to get back up to the set speed than I would accelerate without cruise when driving with an eye on economy.
ElectricDave is offline  
post #24 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-02-2015, 09:40 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6
RE: 100 mile range!

[quote=ElectricDave]
I think better cruise control keeping kw and not speed, or you can chose. Uphills whithout loosing speed not good idea.

Antonio B is offline  
post #25 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-03-2015, 04:21 AM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 707
RE: 100 mile range!

On a regular journey of 40 miles (in winter, on M77 Glasgow-Kilmarnock) this involved a climb from sea level to the Fenwick Moor and back to sea level at Ayr. If I used CC, the Fluence would report on entering my return destination I did not have enough power to complete it and offered to search for enroute chargepoints. If I avoided CC, I never got this message, primarily because it never took cognisance of the zero (or minimal) Kw used as I regenned back to sea level. On a full charge, it meant CC use lost me around 12miles which was almost 15% of my available range.

Clearly not all journeys are the same, indeed when routeplotting I use a 1960 Bartholomews map - yes, the roads may be out of date, but the contours are not. I can see at a glance a route that the GPS will ignore as beng too long, but avoid long hill climbs when a slightly longer alternative completely avoids it.

Whilst I'm happy to eek every mile from my traction battery, my vote would be for the TomTom to use and calculate journeys based on altitude too.
Buzby is offline  
post #26 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-06-2015, 08:43 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 28
RE: 100 mile range!

I stand corrected then! Thank you for sharing your experiences.

@Buzby: I am not 100% I read your comment right: first I thought you meant there are only a planning issues when planning a route over non-flat terrain, then later on you seem to indicate CC usage REALLY (instead of planning wise) eats into your range. Is that (I mean, both) correct?
yoh-there is offline  
post #27 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-07-2015, 07:02 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6
RE: 100 mile range!

100 miles range? I normally get around 60 miles range with 75 tops if I drive conservatively!

CMDS is offline  
post #28 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-07-2015, 12:50 PM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 707
RE: 100 mile range!

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoh-there
I stand corrected then! Thank you for sharing your experiences.

@Buzby: I am not 100% I read your comment right: first I thought you meant there are only a planning issues when planning a route over non-flat terrain, then later on you seem to indicate CC usage REALLY (instead of planning wise) eats into your range. Is that (I mean, both) correct?
The route driven is paramount, anything else is secondary - which is why a GPS that can route based on altitude (as well as traffic conditions) would be ideal. Cruise control takes the fun out of driving conservatively and as we cannot cover more than 100 miles in a stretch it hardly any benefit bearing in mind it eating up the traction miles.
Buzby is offline  
post #29 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-07-2015, 05:03 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 69
RE: 100 mile range!

My personal best, this was after some days "hypermilling" and a full charge:


109 miles estimated range
alexmol2 is offline  
post #30 of 54 (permalink) Old 08-17-2015, 07:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 803
RE: 100 mile range!

In the 'early days', us early Fluencers were all looking at 90 miles routinely, 100 miles frequently.

I did 122 miles as my best.

Maybe the batteries are degrading and 100 seems special now. It used to be routine when the cars were new. hmmm......
donald is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome