Smidge204 wrote:Quick backstory: After a disagreement with another forum member over the testing procedures used, I decided to go right to the source and get a real answer. The punchline is we were both right and yet both wrong - it seems they used the J1634 test method but applied all the corrections from the 5-Cycle test to the result.
Not to kill your backstory but it seems overly revisionist. In the context of how easy it would be for the EPA to measure the kWh used in charging the Leaf, I wrote: "J1634 requires that the car be run through test cycles until the traction battery voltage falls below the minimum specified by the manufacturer or the car can no longer meet the speed requirements of the test. There isn't any extrapolation. Run till death.
" You replied to this as follows:
"If the EPA used the SAE J1634 test standard you might have had a point. They also would have gotten different numbers. Sadly, they don't use that test so you're wasting your time. ... Grab yourself a nice big mug of hot cocoa and have a read before commenting on the test procedures again.
Just one simple question was at issue: Did the EPA use J1634 to test the Leaf. You said no. I said yes. There was no discussion of anything else.
Moreover, you were actually wrong on two points not just one. You were wrong that the EPA didn't use J1634. And you were wrong in claiming that had it used J1634 the numbers would have been different than had it used the non-existent 5-Cycle test for EVs. As you now recognize, and what was obvious and well known to many at the time, is that the adjustment to the 2-Cycle test is designed to yield the same number as the 5-Cycle test (which is not BTW the same thing as saying the EPA "applied all the corrections from the 5-Cycle test", whatever that means.)