Mini Cooper SE wet road energy consumption
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2020
- Results from my range tests, banana box tests and other goodies here:
drive.google.com/open?id=1HOw...
ScanMyTesla app for showing battery temperature, etc:
play.google.com/store/apps/de...
/ scanmytesla
www.e-mobility-driving-soluti...
www.e-mobility-driving-soluti...
My Artlist playlist:
artlist.io/mycollection/24628...
Most of my music is from Artlist.io. If you sign up for one year and use my referral link, you will get two months free:
artlist.io/Bjørn-42729
Donation links:
streamlabs.com/bjrnnyland
/ teslabjorn
My live channel:
/ teslabjornlive24
Teslabjørn Discord server:
/ discord
Reduce food waste and get great deals on food:
toogoodtogo.no/ 
Авто/Мото
Rolling resistance grows linearly, Air resistance grows exponentially.... that’s the whole explanation
Does it? If it grew exponentially, would he get less than 20% consumption increase at 120 kph?
@@Bulat_B yes
Wow 20% range decrease on wet roads! No wonder EVs in Britain never meet their intended range expectations. It is always rainy!
ABRP also uses 20% increase when you select wet road in the settings.
Thank you Bjorn.
Interesting test, that should be done with every car, if the weather conditions are ok.
+ 20 % is an important increase that must be taken into account when you make a long trip.
I always look forward to Bjorn’s videos
Great work.
The results seem to make sense (to me atleast) I suggest the tyres are acting as a water pump so the amount of water moved per km will be the same regardless of speed. But at higher speeds the water (mist) tries to accelerate the speed of the vehicle...thus more energy will be required at 120 vs 90.
Great stuff 👍 Thanks. Btw, I suppose it was the same stretch as the dry road test right? Maybe temperature, time of the day (varmer means thinner air) plays in? Anyway, it's top that you do things like that. It would be very interesting if you did the same test in MC HAMMER.
Very interesting, no idea wet road had that much impact.
Had similar delta on Model3 the other day. In the dry I got 172wh/km and return trip in heavy rain was 205wh/km. I was surprised the effect was so large, but happy to see it's normal :)
Advancing knowledge every time. Your channel is rapidly becoming one of the big players on new vehicle technology reviews. (ICE cars utilise outdated vehicle propulsion technologies).
very useful real world test, thanks.
Yes, wet road, rain and side wind and many other things affect the average energy consumption. I did range test in bad weather conditions for 2020 BMW i3s and energy consumption was way higher. Offcourse affect all cars in different way (taller use more energy etc). Effect was my range was significantly reduced. Also windshield wipers are quite hungry for energy, and evaporator (I think) which makes air dryer is working more.
About the auto steer systems recognizing the grooves on the roads, I have thought about it and a very simple solution would be to add an option to choose how center the car is trying to drive. Like, make an offset on the settings and there choose on which side of the lane the car should try to drive on, or try to drive as middle as possible. Even if there were no grooves or anything wrong with the road, Autopilot seems to many times drive way too close to the middle line when I would prefer it to rather drive on the ditch side.
Totally agree, but probably they won't implement it, because it's a too complicated or niche function for the average driver. Nowadays as far as I know, all systems try to keep the car in the middle of the lane. It would be nice to have the car move further to the side, in case of a traffic jam though, to make room for forming an emergency lane, which is mandatory in France, Germany,...
So that puts the Ioniq 38 wet test you did into perspective. It would be nice if you gave it a go in the dry. We've had 122 total over 3000km in the winter here. Wet roads, heater running when needed. Efficiency King indeed.
That's quite a significant change in consumption. Was it also significantly colder? Maybe that added a couple of percent extra consumption
Interesting test!
Rolling resistance and friction are two different things.
I was just about write that, he misunderstood rolling resistance
The road gets "grooves", as they call it.
Hi Bjørn do you also consider the resistance of different road surfaces when dry? When you take different routes the road surface type could influence the result, although I don't know if different road surfaces are used in Norways "Autobahn".
Background of my question is; I noticed that with my car I get consequently better consumption figures when driving in Germany compared to Holland where I live. The German roads seem to consist of concrete (high road noise, awful when wet, a small rain shower transfers it into a pool basically), the roads in Holland are "open structure asphalt". Better in all respects except rolling resistance I think, and perhaps longevity too.
Where was the 'Yo, what's up?' :(
You read my mind!
Brilliant! This is something the BEV manufacturers don’t tell you.
Valid for every vehicle with wheels...
I was on holyday close to Kragerø, and drove home on Sunday. and there was heavy rain on the way home. my consuption went way up. was wondering how much. And couple of days later this video comes up. :) And the charging ques where insane at the way home. to many electrick cars in norway, to few to deal whit summer vecation.
Regarding autopilot etc keeping cars in same central spot on a lane, the Corsa-e has lane assist with position adjustment, maybe this is so you can sit out of the rutts in the road?
that's right, "rolling resistance" because it is harder for the tire to roll as it needs to push away the water. The "friction" is less in case of wet road.
The friction hat absolutely nothing to do with the rolling resistance as long as there's no slip.
It's all about deformation of the tire and everything like that.
It's a common misconception but the friction coefficient changing doesn't explain any change in rolling resistance.
As you correctly state, it does explain why you can't brake as well as on dry road.
Hmm, I wonder if the impact of wet roads is less with the i3 due to the narrower wheels and tyres...
it would be so interesting to see how this car does on a road trip or 1000km challenge
Great experiment!
What was the temperature? If it was roughly 13 C it would account for more than 7% of the consumption increase(?) Check out Geotab, EV, temp charts.
On the consumption...air resistance takes to most energy to overcome when driving. When raining, the 'air' is much thicker, because there's lots of dense fluid in it.
So maybe someday it is possible to test wet road with and without rain...we just have to ask the rain to stop politely then 😂.
Wet road without rain still gives increased consumption, rain gave me a 1l diesel fuel increase (7.5 vs 6.5l/100) and the wet road itself once ran away from the cloud gave a 0.5l increase, that's at 120km/h Hiundai i40 1.6
@@piciu256 it's hard to control all variables when trying to find out the effects of a wet road. And the effect of rain itself. But off course wet road increases energy consumption. Like Bjorn said...the car has to push through a 'wall' of water and kick up the droplets.
Bjørn, the Word you are searching for is "Spurrillen" :-D
Ok so the display says 13. 5 C so the relevant dry figure to compare to would be 137 Wh/km. 155/137 13,1% increase in rain. Its still a lot.
I was on a road trip not long ago, and at 120km/h the wet road (only moist, no standing water) the diesel car I was driving consumed 1l more fuel/100 as soon as the road dried out, the consumption went down, I was driving a steady speed using the cruise control.
7.5l vs 6.5l
You experienced the increase in efficiency that water injection provides to an ICE. When the air became dry, the engine's efficiency dropped more than the reduction in plowing through the water on the road. Read about water injection.
Bjørn, imho you should not only look at percentage rise in fuel consumption when comparing BEV to ICE running with a trailer. Numbers get screwed due to the big difference in efficiency at the starting point
Why not look whats actually happening, like kWh(or Wh) per km? I have tested this several times and every time ICE cars fuel consumption rises much more than BEVs. So BEVs in general consumes less extra energy with a trailer atached.. Nice comment BTW, hope someone bring it to Elon👍
Just call it "Spurrillen"!
Tesla Autopilot already recognized wet roads. There's some raw footage of the tesla autopilot on youtube and it has a value called wet_road but I think they have not implemented anything special yet. It's maybe just there so autopilot drives more careful
DerpyDoom It’ll probably come in the autopilot rewrite!
Notice the absolute value of the additional energy used: 128wh/km up to 154wh/km for the 90km/hr test, but 177wh/km up to 209wh/km for the 120km/hr test. So the wet road needed +26 wh/km at 90km/hr but +32 wh/km at 120km/hr. It could be nearly the same energy needed to push the water out of the way but added energy needed for the aero resistance at the higher speed. Remember that aero resistance energy increases as the cube of the speed, but splashing the water out of the way may only be a linear energy increase. Maybe... I think so... any physicists out there?
was the temperature different to the day before?
I expect that your Model 3 would have less differences between wet/dry road!?
You should also add in the temperature difference if you didn't already do so.
A similar test, on same temperature would be interesting...
Temperature doesn't affect the consumption that much.
That might be.
But my experience with Kia Soul EV and Tesla Model S is that the Kia Soul EV have almost double the % in difference vs the more aerodynamic Model S.
Could the tyres affect the figures? Perhaps those fitted to that particular car aren’t very good a shifting water from the threads?
That doesn't matter, they either move enough water, or don't move enough water, in which case you get aquaplaning ;)
@@piciu256 I think it matters but not very much though. When the tire removes the water there could be difference in the resistance of the path the water exits. When the resistance of the path is higher that requires more energy and that energy must come from somewhere.
It's not only the wet road, it's also the thicker air.
I think the consumption on dry roads already "contains" the exponential function. The growth of 20 % increases that "contained" exponential difference. That sounds plausible to me.
It's generally a good idea to drive a bit slower when road is wet, of course depending on the amount of water and the speed you were going to begin with (at ~100 there is no point slowing down imo, at 140 I think it's a good idea to slow down a little, and surely increase the distance from other vechicles...)
Do the windshield wipers add to the consumption rate increase significantly?
no
Small observation: It wasn't raining as much during the higher speed test... that may have contributed.
It was the same. You only saw a few minutes of the 45 minute test.
correction: ICE engines are so inefficient that the increase in consumption is barely noticable next to the actual losses in the engine. Its like drilling a hole in a water tank that is leaking because of a canon ball hit
Yeah, that is the main reason. Although internal combustion engines do also get more efficient when there's a higher load, even though it might not be very noticeable.
True! Was about to write the same!
But the output doesn't change. 10l fuel through a ICE equals to aprx. 30 kWh output Energy.
So when the electric needs 50% more (45 kWh netto output),
why does the ICE just needs 20% more (36kWh netto output)
That would mean that an ICE gets more efficient under higher power output 🤔
@@GaudiHitByTram the rpm stays the same, but the load increases, depending on the efficiency range atm the engine gets more efficient with more load, let's say at low load it's 15% efficiency, under higher load at the same rpm it's 20% efficiency, that and the fact that there is no recouperation means that slightly increased load doesn't necessarily increase the consumption a lot.
@@piciu256 that's an interesting point
The 1000 km challenge on Renault Zoe was 80% on wet road.
The Zoe could drive 30% longer on each charge during 80% of the test.
Maybe you should also test comma.ai openpilot with supported cars to see how it compares to Tesla and others.
+1 for comma.ai
Hjulspor = Ruts
Norwegian - English
Spurrillen in German
Ruts
Aquaplaning? Haha