Not specifically an EV thing, but when is someone in a position of power going to address the ludicrous and fanciful NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) range and consumption figures quoted for cars throughout Europe ?
Here is the perfect example:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... -deceptive
The 30kWh 2016 Leaf - the NEDC quoted range for it is 250 kilometres or 155 miles. The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency - at least until Trump neuters it) rating for the exact same car ? 107 miles.
Which one is closer to reality ? The EPA rating. 107 miles is pretty much bang on the button of what real world drivers are getting from the 30kW Leaf. The 155 mile NEDC figure isn't just "a bit out there", it's a complete and utter fantasy that only a deluded tester would ever believe.
In ICE cars the NEDC figure is just as laughable, but because ICE cars do such high miles per tank and the comparison of full tank range is not therefore a buying consideration anyway people might roll their eyes a bit about the outlandish claims but nobody really cares or even notices.
On an EV range is everything and it is one of the major selling points of one EV vs another in the buying decision, especially if you are trying to work out whether the EV you're thinking of can even make your commute at all!
How would you feel if you bought the 30kW Leaf based on an official range of 155 miles only to find it was really 107 miles (in summer!) and couldn't comfortably make your 100 mile commute in summer and couldn't make it at all in winter ? Not too chuffed I'd imagine!
Another example - if you look back to the launch of the i-Miev/Ion/C-Zero in Europe in 2010 it was widely touted as having an NEDC range per charge of 93 miles.... yeah right, in fantasy land maybe!!
You can find review after review on Youtube and on websites parroting that 93 mile claim with not a single reviewer saying "well actually, in our testing we only managed 60 miles...". Not one. So much for journalistic integrity.
What is the EPA range rating of the US version of the i-Miev ? (Which admittedly is a slightly wider and heavier than the EU version) 62 miles. Does that sound about right ? Yes - it's spot on, for real world driving. My rule of thumb for the Ion is 60 miles. I know from first hand experience that puttering about at 30-40mph I can manage about 70-75 miles on a charge, but also that doing a constant 70mph on the motorway I can only manage about 55 miles. At a constant 60mph I would probably get about 60-65 miles. Or a mix of 30mph and 70mph I would get about 65 miles. I can't see it possible ever getting higher than 75 miles in real world conditions.
So once again the NEDC figure of 93 miles is pure fantasy and the EPA figure of 62 miles is spot on. So why is this nonsense allowed to continue ? If you read the article I linked above it describes the test conditions of NEDC, which is a complete and utter joke. And from what I've read elsewhere the testers are also allowed to run the tyres at ultra high pressure, tape up all the panel gaps in the car and remove the wing mirrors - what the hell ?
With comparatively short range EV's of today there needs to be range figures that are not only comparative between models, they need to reflect actual real world driving, not some testers fantasy.
One thing I give Tesla a lot of credit for is that they give the EPA figures in all markets including the EU/UK. This makes them not look as good as they could from a numbers point of view, but if they say you can get 230 miles on a charge, you will get more or less 230 miles from a charge in the real world. You won't get only 150 on a car that claims 230...
Whereas most other manufacturers will simply quote the ridiculous NEDC figures in Europe and quote the completely different EPA figure in the US for the exact same model of car.
Should we all just adopt EPA figures and pretend NEDC doesn't exist or should NEDC be thrown out completely and a new testing protocol put in its place that is actually representative of real world use ?