DaveinOlyWA wrote:it probably is negligible if only considering energy from battery to wheels but there is always going to be accessories running that will use power too.
So you are claiming that accessories are not included in m/kWh? That is possible, though I think we can say very confidently that climate control is.
oh they most definitely are included. i have seen my miles/kwh drop when stationary. seeing it once, i would chalk up to the car "adjusting" but have seen it drop at least twice a few times so there is power being consumed enough to make a difference
DaveinOlyWA wrote:notice the faster you go the better the ratio? probably due to less running time, less overhead? dk. if that was the case, how can people drive 150 miles?
Now that you mention it, that makes no sense at all. The ratio of wall to battery should only depend on how fast you charge, not how fast you drive. But the differences are small enough that perhaps they are only rounding errors.
how fast you drive verses how fast you charge? there is real no difference. only the direction the electrons are flowing. so the ratio is better while driving faster only because the duration of the drive is lower so the "somewhat" static overhead the car needs to operate support systems is less of an impact but only because the drive time is lower at higher speeds. But the same overhead experienced when charging is also present while driving right? the pumps that run the water to cool the inverter, etc at least part of the time.
Like Tony, i think there is something missing from the report (since there is very little said about how the test was done) that might be more important than the testers realized?
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 4411.3 mi, 96.88% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;