Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Honda Jazz, HR-V & Hybrid Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: peteo48 on December 31, 2019, 12:03:14 PM

Title: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on December 31, 2019, 12:03:14 PM
https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/local/uk/cars/WLTP-PDF/19YM%20JAZZ%20-%20WLTP%20Data.pdf

Some interesting stats here. Now my car - a 1.3 SE CVT on a 17 plate - isn't on here but the 2019 model, which is pretty much identical in every respect is.

Under the old NEDC figures, Honda claimed that the CVT was more efficient than the manual but, it is clear that, under the new and more accurate measures a Manual is marginally better than a CVT.

Kind of confirms my gut feeling. My current car is a bit more economical than the Mk2 1.4 Manual it replaced but that's largely due to efficiencies in the engine. I spend a lot more time at higher revs in the CVT, even with careful driving, than I ever would in a manual and common sense dictates that more fuel is being burned especially when accelerating. The CVT is more efficient at 70 mph but, in day to day driving, a manual is best and the WLTP figures confirm this.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Kenneve on December 31, 2019, 03:00:29 PM
Had occasion to drive today, in my EX CVT 19 plate down to Banbury from Solihull, a round trip of 71 miles mostly on the M42/M40 with about 2 miles each end on local roads. Kept the speed down on the motorway to around 60-62 MPH
Filled up before i started, so the 'Fibometer' was set to zero.

Now reading 70.8 miles, 57.3 MPG, which I don't think is bad. I noticed that engine speed on the motorway was a tad over 2000 RPM which gives a very relaxed style of motoring.
I accept that the 'Fibometer' may be a bit out, but i would suggest on that style of motoring, not much.

As regards day to day motoring, the 'Fibometer' rarely drops below about 48-50MPG, so more than happy!
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on December 31, 2019, 04:48:50 PM
Good figures. I got a 57 plus real world mpg on a trip to Scotland in September.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on December 31, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/local/uk/cars/WLTP-PDF/19YM%20JAZZ%20-%20WLTP%20Data.pdf

Some interesting stats here. Now my car - a 1.3 SE CVT on a 17 plate - isn't on here but the 2019 model, which is pretty much identical in every respect is.

Under the old NEDC figures, Honda claimed that the CVT was more efficient than the manual but, it is clear that, under the new and more accurate measures a Manual is marginally better than a CVT.

Kind of confirms my gut feeling. My current car is a bit more economical than the Mk2 1.4 Manual it replaced but that's largely due to efficiencies in the engine. I spend a lot more time at higher revs in the CVT, even with careful driving, than I ever would in a manual and common sense dictates that more fuel is being burned especially when accelerating. The CVT is more efficient at 70 mph but, in day to day driving, a manual is best and the WLTP figures confirm this.
The higher consumption of the CVTs is not due to higher revs, but to the power drain of the cvt. A manual transmission  is very efficient, only bearings and gears drain a little bit of energy,while  a CVT needs more power both for the scratch between chain and pulleys than  for the hydraulic pump (pulleys need a high pressure circuit to regulate their diameter).
So even if the engine runs in a slighty more efficient way, the trasmission runs in a highly worst way, so the sum is better for the manual.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on December 31, 2019, 05:06:18 PM
In general, though, the WLTP figures are a huge improvement over NEDC which would have the average consumer believing that the Jazz is a genuine 50 mpg + car. The 47.9 combined figure for the 1.3 SE CVT is much nearer what most people get (Fuelly bears this out). My lower figures reflect my pattern of driving - I note there is 43.3 figure for the short type stuff and I'm reasonably happy that I better this in real life.

WLTP also very useful for EV buyers. The almost criminally laughable claim that a 24 kwh Nissan Leaf could do 124 miles would not happen under the new criteria.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Downsizer on January 01, 2020, 09:33:32 AM
In general, though, the WLTP figures are a huge improvement over NEDC which would have the average consumer believing that the Jazz is a genuine 50 mpg + car. The 47.9 combined figure for the 1.3 SE CVT is much nearer what most people get (Fuelly bears this out). My lower figures reflect my pattern of driving - I note there is 43.3 figure for the short type stuff and I'm reasonably happy that I better this in real life.

WLTP also very useful for EV buyers. The almost criminally laughable claim that a 24 kwh Nissan Leaf could do 124 miles would not happen under the new criteria.
WLTP figures suggest that the going rate for small electric cars is 4 miles per kWh of battery capacity.  For example: Nissan Leaf - 40 kWh hour battery with 168 mile range;  e Honda - 35 kWh battery with 135 mile range.  I think the new hybrid Jazz will have a battery of about 1 kWh capacity, so the engine will soon kick in as a generator.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 01, 2020, 10:15:04 AM
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Downsizer on January 01, 2020, 10:34:06 AM
The WLTP figures for the CR-V show an overall fuel consumption of 40.9 mpg for the hybrid as against 38.7 for the 1.5L turbo.  So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.  We'll see later this year how the new Jazz compares.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: culzean on January 01, 2020, 10:38:27 AM
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.

The downside of PHEV is that battery lasts about 20 miles,  but when running on engine the vehicle is carting around 500Kg+ of empty battery and MPG is about 30... ( and unlike most things, empty batteries weigh the same as full ones ).. and 500Kg is pretty much 50% of the weight of a normal ICE Jazz.  Most company car drivers had a PHEV for tax and ULEZ purposes but never charged them up..
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 01, 2020, 10:46:03 AM
So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.
Yes, and a careful driver could easily make that gain driving a petrol version.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 01, 2020, 11:32:12 AM
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.

The downside of PHEV is that battery lasts about 20 miles,  but when running on engine the vehicle is carting around 500Kg+ of empty battery and MPG is about 30... ( and unlike most things, empty batteries weigh the same as full ones ).. and 500Kg is pretty much 50% of the weight of a normal ICE Jazz.  Most company car drivers had a PHEV for tax and ULEZ purposes but never charged them up..

That's definitely true. My brother is a BMW man and he was told by his local dealership that most of the PHEV beemers they sell are for company tax and ULEZ purposes only and they have taken them back after leases/pcps have expired and it's clear that the battery has never been charged.

The Toyota hybrids (self charging LOL!) are another case in point. Use them on the motorway with any regularity and the mpg figures are actually worse than a conventional ICE. Round town, a completely different story which is why they are so good as taxis.

These days, there is a car for every type of driving scenario but you do need to go through the critical thought process first. A PHEV would suit me as I probably only use the ICE about 7 or 8 times a year with most of my trips being 5 miles or less.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: ColinB on January 01, 2020, 12:18:39 PM
Has there been any clarification yet about how hybrids sit with the ban on ICEs in 2040? Logically, a ban on all ICEs would ban all hybrids and PHEVs. But I recall seeing something suggesting that hybrids would still be OK provided the battery was big enough to travel 30 miles. No current hybrids can do that, and I suspect many PHEVs would struggle as well. Anyone know with any certainty?

Regarding charging PHEVs, I believe BEV owners can get quite grumpy when they find public charge points blocked by PHEVs that donít really need it.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Downsizer on January 01, 2020, 12:53:56 PM
Power for electric vehicles has to be generated somewhere.  Using the WLTP figure of 4 miles/kWh, an EV doing 10,000 miles in a year will need 2500 kWh of electricity.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so this averages 285 watts.  A simple calculation shows that a wind farm in a stiff breeze can generate about 2 watts/sq metre, or say 1 watt/sq metre allowing for weather variation.  So each EV will need 285 sq metres of windfarm.  A million EV's would need 285 sq km if we are to go carbon-free and we don't want more nuclear power.  Are our politicians thinking about these things?
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 01, 2020, 03:21:56 PM
Power for electric vehicles has to be generated somewhere.  Using the WLTP figure of 4 miles/kWh, an EV doing 10,000 miles in a year will need 2500 kWh of electricity.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so this averages 285 watts.  A simple calculation shows that a wind farm in a stiff breeze can generate about 2 watts/sq metre, or say 1 watt/sq metre allowing for weather variation.  So each EV will need 285 sq metres of windfarm.  A million EV's would need 285 sq km if we are to go carbon-free and we don't want more nuclear power.  Are our politicians thinking about these things?

I don't have the scientific background to assess these figures. I read a lot about EVs using the grid at night when the drain from other sources is minimal and there is work going on around smart grids with EVs giving power back at certain times and taking it away at others.

Having said that, I am reading a lot of stuff from people who are quite clear that the idea we replace the nations fleet of approximately 30 million passenger cars with a fleet of 30 million EVs is for the birds. In short I have read many environmentalists saying that EVs are absolutely not the answer. Lower car ownership, more walking, more cycling, more working from home and cheap and efficient public transport are what is required. Lashing out £100,000 on a Tesla is just a very expensive form of virtue signaling.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 01, 2020, 04:33:16 PM
Car ownership has got to fall and an interesting thing is that young adults are tending to shun car ownership. When my kids came of age they couldn't wait to get a driving licence, but not so much these days. Young Millennials and Generation Z are public transport minded. Their lifestyle, and the preponderance of private hire taxis and "Ubers" makes it more convenient and good economic sense not to own a car. When I started to drive our town (pop 6,000) had one taxi. It was only available when the owner's garage/petrol station was open (not on a Sunday), unless you booked it in advance. Since most people did not have a phone back then, you had to visit the garage to make a booking. Hardly convenient.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: John Ratsey on January 01, 2020, 04:56:59 PM
A few points to add:

1. I had a CVT Mk 3 Jazz in 2015-16 and averaged 57.8 mpg (fuel into tank) over 5300 miles. This was mainly longer journeys at 50 to 60 mpg. A visit to and around Scotland averaged 62.8 mpg over nearly 1500 miles. However, it was a challenge to keep the vehicle running in the efficient Atkinson cycle mode as there was a tendency to substantially increase the revs when only a little more power was asked for (this behaviour was one reason for trading the vehicle in for my HR-V). I can well understand why the WLTP test hit the mpg claims because of the vehicle's tendency to go into a less efficient operating mode at each change in road conditions. I was under the imprssion that Honda tweaked the behaviour when the Mk 3 was refreshed but maybe I'm wrong.
2. I agree that the CVT is less efficient than a conventional mechanical gearbox. Usually this is offset by the software being able to keep the engine running in its most efficient operating range. However, a careful driver who knows what this operating range is can operate a manual gearbox to give the optimum mpg (eg the Land's End - John O-Groats trip involved someone from the factory driving a manual gearbox Mk. 3).
3. I would hope that Honda would use a battery pack larger than 1 kWh in the Mk 4 Jazz. Otherwise the little battery will have a hard life and the hybrid system will struggle to give much benefit in other than simple stop-start-accelerate-brake urban driving conditions.
4. Let's not overestimate the weight penalty carried by a PHEV. Assuming 40 miles battery range at 4 miles/kWh indicates the need for a 10kWh battery. For guidance, the 13kWh Tesla Powerwall domestic battery weighs about 130 kg. However, an automative battery pack will need better thermal and power management (the Powerwall is designed for a sustained 5kW output).
5. Visit Gridwatch https://gridwatch.co.uk/ to see how wind power contributes to the UK generating capacity. I've seen it peak at around 12 GW. However, it is an unreliable source as shown by the attached graphic which I captured on Christmas day (the wind is light blue). Unless there's investment in some massive (multi-GW x multi-day) storage, I think we need to bite the bullet and invest in more nuclear if we are going to have a reliable source of electricity.
6. The sensible solution is to cut back on travel. Closer proximity of homes and work places would be a good start plus road charging to discourage Amazon and the like from moving truckloads of stuff up and down the country.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 01, 2020, 06:49:54 PM
The WLTP figures for the CR-V show an overall fuel consumption of 40.9 mpg for the hybrid as against 38.7 for the 1.5L turbo.  So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.  We'll see later this year how the new Jazz compares.
According to Spritmonitor, 2019 CRVs fuel consumption is 42,8 mpg for i-mmd and 38.9mpg for the 1.5t, a 10%.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 01, 2020, 09:42:34 PM
1. I had a CVT Mk 3 Jazz in 2015-16 and averaged 57.8 mpg (fuel into tank) over 5300 miles. 
Mine is 46,3mpg, manual, 35500miles.
Quote
3. I would hope that Honda would use a battery pack larger than 1 kWh in the Mk 4 Jazz. Otherwise the little battery will have a hard life and the hybrid system will struggle to give much benefit in other than simple stop-start-accelerate-brake urban driving conditions.
CR-V and Accord have a 1,3kwh lithium ion battery pack, the Insight has a 1,2 kwh, Jazz Hybrid hardly will have a bigger pack. Toyota HSDs have similar capacities (Yaris 0,9kwh); using the electric part only for efficiency purpose, a bigger pack would be unuseful.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 01, 2020, 10:08:45 PM
Car ownership has got to fall and an interesting thing is that young adults are tending to shun car ownership. When my kids came of age they couldn't wait to get a driving licence, but not so much these days. Young Millennials and Generation Z are public transport minded. Their lifestyle, and the preponderance of private hire taxis and "Ubers" makes it more convenient and good economic sense not to own a car. When I started to drive our town (pop 6,000) had one taxi. It was only available when the owner's garage/petrol station was open (not on a Sunday), unless you booked it in advance. Since most people did not have a phone back then, you had to visit the garage to make a booking. Hardly convenient.

Spot on about the younger generation. A number of factors are kicking in not least the shear cost of getting on the road and we are talking about generation rent here. They are much happier to use taxis and don't have the misguided cost hang ups that some of the older generation have. Put 2 people in a taxi from my house to Warrington town centre and it's cheaper than the bus. The increasing use of social media has been quoted as a factor as well.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Downsizer on January 01, 2020, 10:09:53 PM
The WLTP figures for the CR-V show an overall fuel consumption of 40.9 mpg for the hybrid as against 38.7 for the 1.5L turbo.  So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.  We'll see later this year how the new Jazz compares.
According to Spritmonitor, 2019 CRVs fuel consumption is 42,8 mpg for i-mmd and 38.9mpg for the 1.5t, a 10%.
Yes - senior moment, my arithmetic was wrong!  The WLTP figures I quoted represent a 5.6% improvement for the hybrid S model CR-V.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 01, 2020, 10:37:52 PM
Spot on about the younger generation. A number of factors are kicking in not least the shear cost of getting on the road and we are talking about generation rent here. They are much happier to use taxis and don't have the misguided cost hang ups that some of the older generation have. Put 2 people in a taxi from my house to Warrington town centre and it's cheaper than the bus. The increasing use of social media has been quoted as a factor as well.
My grandsons don't drive, despite their dad being a motor mechanic. They are happy with trains, buses and taxis.
I had a mate who didn't need a car to get to work. They used a taxi to do the shopping (before supermarkets delivered to your door), and every summer hired a brand new car to go on holiday. He was quids in. He liked a pint and a short walk to the pub meant no risk of getting breathalysed.
I really miss my car when I don't have it (like after surgery).
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 01, 2020, 11:11:00 PM

4. Let's not overestimate the weight penalty carried by a PHEV. Assuming 40 miles battery range at 4 miles/kWh indicates the need for a 10kWh battery. For guidance, the 13kWh Tesla Powerwall domestic battery weighs about 130 kg. However, an automative battery pack will need better thermal and power management (the Powerwall is designed for a sustained 5kW output).

Just a question: which is the  power of a standard home  electric supply in UK? 3-5kw?
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Kenneve on January 02, 2020, 09:30:31 AM
The main supplier fuse in my (UK) house is labelled as 60 amps (although the fusebox itself is rated at 100 amps) which gives a maximum power available of 15 Kw
Individual sockets are rated at 3 Kw, so any plug in type charger would be limited to this value,
It would be possible to install a larger capacity charger, wired directly to your distribution board, but you would still need to take account of other loads within the house ie heating, cooking etc.

If you look at the Gridwatch website, on a cold midweek winters day, you will see that we are, on occasion, already perilously close to maximum grid capacity. I just wonder what will happen, when millions of cars are plugged in for charging?
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: culzean on January 02, 2020, 09:31:45 AM
Here is a tale of premature PHEV battery degradation from a guy in Western Australia, it is well known that hot climates kill batteries.

https://www.speakev.com/threads/phev-battery-degradation-and-warranty.124746/

His battery is 27% lower on capacity than it should be,  which is like Honda saying 'sorry, the original 41 litre petrol tank on your jazz is now only 29 litres, but it is not covered by our warranty until it shrinks to 25 litres... sorry for any inconvenience'.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 02, 2020, 09:55:21 AM
What it doesn't say is whether the battery has been treated correctly during the life of the vehicle. This is maybe one of the vehicles where the owner never plugs it in and has been running round with a substantially flattened battery in high temperatures.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: culzean on January 02, 2020, 10:08:18 AM
It is now becoming apparent ( well battery engineers knew it all along but bEV car makers never let on ) that keeping Lithium batteries fully charged damages them, they are stored for maximum shelf life at about 45% charge - keeping them above that figure shortens their life.  it also damages them to fully discharge them,  which is why BEV batteries have an algorithm to keep them in the 30% to 80% zone when new and increasing the envelope as they go through more charge / discharge cycles and  age to maintain range. Also fast charging damages them, through heat and the cells can become unbalanced, that is why many Leaf owners were shocked when the battery control would not let them do a fast charge at motorway services and were stuck there for 3hours+ on a slower charge ( some motorway services now fine people for staying too long ( over 30 minutes sometimes ), wonder if that includes waiting while the car charges up ? )
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 02, 2020, 10:39:01 AM
Battery management does seem to be very important. My mate has an early 2014 24 kwh Nissan Leaf. He does most of his charging at home and more or less sticks to the 20% to 80% state of charge which does him for most of his journeys. He does a handful of rapid charges a year when out and about (when he can find a working one that is!!) and will charge to 100% if he needs it.

The car is now not far of 6 years old and he has a 92% State of Health. Total mileage on the car is about 50,000.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: madasafish on January 03, 2020, 03:40:04 PM
An electric car should be white goods.
Any special attention needed is a nogo..
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: culzean on January 03, 2020, 03:56:24 PM
An electric car should be white goods.
Any special attention needed is a nogo..


In an ideal world yes,  but batteries are complicated chemical things that unlike a washing machine cannot be left empty or too full for any length of time.  Unlike a washing machine you cannot fill a battery too fast, Frequent rapid charging seems to be a no-no as the battery can get all confused and lose capacity.  Maybe one day .........
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 04, 2020, 11:03:25 AM
An electric car should be white goods.
Any special attention needed is a nogo..

I think that it is more or less where we need to get to if we want mass adoption sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: andruec on January 12, 2020, 09:54:16 PM
1. I had a CVT Mk 3 Jazz in 2015-16 and averaged 57.8 mpg (fuel into tank) over 5300 miles. 
Mine is 46,3mpg, manual, 35500miles.
Quote
3. I would hope that Honda would use a battery pack larger than 1 kWh in the Mk 4 Jazz. Otherwise the little battery will have a hard life and the hybrid system will struggle to give much benefit in other than simple stop-start-accelerate-brake urban driving conditions.
CR-V and Accord have a 1,3kwh lithium ion battery pack, the Insight has a 1,2 kwh, Jazz Hybrid hardly will have a bigger pack. Toyota HSDs have similar capacities (Yaris 0,9kwh); using the electric part only for efficiency purpose, a bigger pack would be unuseful.
Just to pop back in (hi to those who remember me) my Corolla (1.8 Hybrid) has averaged some 10% better than my Jazz after nearly a year. My Jazz used to manage between 49 (winter) and 54 (summer) mpg over the year, excluding long journeys. My Corolla has managed between 55 and 63. Same driver, same driving style. Bigger wheels. But its worst figure in the depths of a cold wet winter was better than the best average my Jazz could do.

Even long journeys are surprisingly better, albeit not by much. I typically get around 65 to 70 on the 180 mile drive to my Dad in the Corolla. The Jazz was between 60 and 65.

Oh and its e-CVT gear box is as efficient as a manual because it's all done with gears.

But that isn't the best my car could do. On the Toyota forum I now frequent there are a couple of taxi drivers and they've been averaging 70 to 80 mpg.

It'll be very interesting to see how the new hybrid Jazz performs because comparing the CRV and the Rav-4, the latter has more power and is more efficient so the evidence so far is that Honda's hybrid system is just not as good as Toyota's.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: andruec on January 12, 2020, 10:00:16 PM
It is now becoming apparent ( well battery engineers knew it all along but bEV car makers never let on ) that keeping Lithium batteries fully charged damages them
My Corolla likes to keep the battery between 30 and 70% and Toyota indicate that clearly in the manual.

But a note about charging electric vehicles. Most people do not drive hundreds of miles a day. A typical EV would probably only need a few hours to recharge and if done overnight (a simple timer would suffice, but smart metering would be better) the grid could easily accommodate the load. In fact with smart metering allowing cars to supply power in the early evening or if plugged in during the day they could be beneficial in helping stabilise the grid especially with increasing amounts of power coming from variable sources like wind.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 12, 2020, 10:33:00 PM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Downsizer on January 13, 2020, 09:45:40 AM

But a note about charging electric vehicles. Most people do not drive hundreds of miles a day. A typical EV would probably only need a few hours to recharge and if done overnight (a simple timer would suffice, but smart metering would be better) the grid could easily accommodate the load. In fact with smart metering allowing cars to supply power in the early evening or if plugged in during the day they could be beneficial in helping stabilise the grid especially with increasing amounts of power coming from variable sources like wind.
I agree that a large number of electric cars plugged in via smart metering would be a useful resource for the grid to balance power supply from intermittent sources. However, this would require a huge investment in charging facilities where people usually leave their cars, and many people leave them on the roadside.  We would all like to go carbon-free, but not it it interferes too much with our normal lives!
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 13, 2020, 09:53:26 AM
My Corolla likes to keep the battery between 30 and 70% and Toyota indicate that clearly in the manual.
Toyota hybrids do the same since 2004, both with li-ion and ni-mh batteries. This is the safest way to keep alive their batteries.
Quote
But a note about charging electric vehicles. Most people do not drive hundreds of miles a day. A typical EV would probably only need a few hours to recharge and if done overnight (a simple timer would suffice, but smart metering would be better) the grid could easily accommodate the load. In fact with smart metering allowing cars to supply power in the early evening or if plugged in during the day they could be beneficial in helping stabilise the grid especially with increasing amounts of power coming from variable sources like wind.
This can work only in a perfect world. I could plug my EV with 75% SOC because I quickly need a 100% (long trip or other), and I would be very disappointed looking my SOC going to 70% because of the smart grid. I think I would press the button "fast charge and disable smart grid", and I would always do the same... If I plug my EV, I do this because I want to GET energy, not to GIVE energy.
About the daily drive: yep, you're right, my daily usage is about 20km, but sometimes I drive 400km in the same day. A BEV would be perfect for my 20km daily drive, definetly not for my sundays..
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 13, 2020, 10:53:42 AM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.

The figure 90% seems to jog a memory. The average car is sitting in its garage, drive or parking spot for 90% of its life.
Just done a back of the envelope calculation for me and I reckon my car is idle for 98% of the time!!!
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: zzaj on January 13, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.

The figure 90% seems to jog a memory. The average car is sitting in its garage, drive or parking spot for 90% of its life.
Just done a back of the envelope calculation for me and I reckon my car is idle for 98% of the time!!!

98% unused is quite normal!!!
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 13, 2020, 11:16:52 AM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.
Sure, but I'm  as much sure that we cannot think only in terms of "average". I'm thinking about fireman's vehicles, they run about 10 miles twice a week, the most of times they work for one our or two at idle to power pumps or other devices then they go back to the station, where they could stay plugged to the grid; perfect usage for an EV. But this is only the AVERAGE usage, because something of unusual can happen  (a quake, a railway crash, a big fire in a big building of the city center, ...) when a fireman vehicle have to work continuosly for hours and hours or for whole days: in this case an EV would be very bad, considering how long would take the recharge, compared with ten minutes to refill a diesel tank. This is the matter: now BEVs are very good, no, they are very very very good for a limited usage mode, short trips or also longer if the area has many carging points, close to your final destination. But BEVs are not good if you cannot plan your trips by destination and lenghth, because petrol and diesel still give  more more flexibility.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 13, 2020, 11:38:33 AM
The electric buses Glasgow has introduced this week can run from 6 am to 11 pm on one charge, and can recharge in time to start the next shift.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 13, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
The electric buses Glasgow has introduced this week can run from 6 am to 11 pm on one charge, and can recharge in time to start the next shift.
Could you give me the tech specs of these vehicles and of the charging stations?
Many thanks.
Anyway, a BE bus can be good: it run on a well known route, and in same points (end of line) you can place an ultrafast charging system, inductive or with automated plugging sistem. An emergency vehicle must be able to go everywhere. 
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 13, 2020, 03:02:20 PM
This is the bus on the manufacturer's website.
https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/byd-adl-enviro200ev/ (https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/byd-adl-enviro200ev/)
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: John Ratsey on January 13, 2020, 03:41:42 PM
A typical EV would probably only need a few hours to recharge and if done overnight (a simple timer would suffice, but smart metering would be better) the grid could easily accommodate the load. In fact with smart metering allowing cars to supply power in the early evening or if plugged in during the day they could be beneficial in helping stabilise the grid especially with increasing amounts of power coming from variable sources like wind.
What you are suggesting is not metering (which is measurement) but some form of control. This misrepresentation is one reason why some people have been reluctant to have smart meters installed. In reality, smart meters only do measurement and automatically upload the usage data - mine is 1/2 hour time slots which I think is standard.

Some of the suppliers are taking advantage of this detailed usage data to introduce time-based tariffs. For example, the Octopus Go tariff (aimed at EV charging) costs only 5p/kWh for electricity used between 00:30 and 04:30. It doesn't need a special meter - all the household usage during this time period is charged at that rate. An EV user would need to put a timer onto their charger, but that isn't difficult and may be built-in. For those who want even more flexibility there's the Octopus Agile tariff for which pricing changes every half hour and the rates for each day are published one day ahead. The rate is known to go negative on occasions if there's an expected surplus of generation but I suspect this is too complicated for most consumers.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: jazzaro on January 13, 2020, 05:10:53 PM
This is the bus on the manufacturer's website.
https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/byd-adl-enviro200ev/ (https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/byd-adl-enviro200ev/)
Looks nice, thanks. I can't find detailed specs, as battery capacities, weight and engine power, anyway this is a good news.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: peteo48 on January 13, 2020, 05:13:00 PM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.

The figure 90% seems to jog a memory. The average car is sitting in its garage, drive or parking spot for 90% of its life.
Just done a back of the envelope calculation for me and I reckon my car is idle for 98% of the time!!!

98% unused is quite normal!!!

You could be right. Just thinking of my daughter who reckons she spends 2 hours a day in her car and that's probably more than most and even that works out to 92% idle!
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 13, 2020, 07:30:18 PM
Looks nice, thanks. I can't find detailed specs, as battery capacities, weight and engine power, anyway this is a good news.
This is the chassis, drivetrain manufacturer.

http://www.bydeurope.com/pdp-bus-coach (http://www.bydeurope.com/pdp-bus-coach)

It uses an Iron-Phosphate battery and the power comes from 2 x 150 kW motors. It is good for an 18% gradient.

The coach states it recharges in 3 hours from 2 x 40 kW AC chargers.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: zzaj on January 13, 2020, 07:54:12 PM
Today I did a lot of driving. 7 miles in fact! On the days I visit my mother-in-law we do 80 miles, but that is only twice a week. Most days I do no more than 2 miles. Many days the car never comes out the garage. It is amazing how little most people use their cars.

The figure 90% seems to jog a memory. The average car is sitting in its garage, drive or parking spot for 90% of its life.
Just done a back of the envelope calculation for me and I reckon my car is idle for 98% of the time!!!

98% unused is quite normal!!!

You could be right. Just thinking of my daughter who reckons she spends 2 hours a day in her car and that's probably more than most and even that works out to 92% idle!

Yep. Sounds right. I think the "average" car spends +/- 95% of its time sitting idle doing nothing.
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: culzean on January 13, 2020, 08:28:27 PM

Yep. Sounds right. I think the "average" car spends +/- 95% of its time sitting idle doing nothing.

Just as well, because if too many cars are on the road at once nobody goes anywhere.......
Title: Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
Post by: Jocko on January 13, 2020, 08:38:49 PM
Just as well, because if too many cars are on the road at once nobody goes anywhere.......
That's the trouble with rush hour and Bank Holidays. Everyone wants to take their car out at the same time.