Nonsense WLTP rangeHow far can you get at 120 km/h? Typical for combustion cars is 88% of the WLTP range, but only 66% with the Tesla Y and even only 55% with a 9-seater bus, therefore a nonsense.Headline: Italian authorities take action against VW, Tesla, BYD and Stellantis for allegedly providing false information on battery performance. But I don't think the manufacturers are to blame, but the completely stupid WLTP cycle. In the past, fuel consumption was indicated at 90 km/h, 120 km/h and in city traffic. This was a good guide when buying a car. You could even interpolate to estimate consumption at 110. These 3 meaningful figures have been replaced by a single one, which is completely meaningless and confusing. Because fuel consumption has no longer been indicated in 90, 120, city for many years, I have to fall back on very old cars, consumption for 100 km in each case:
It was characteristic of all cars with combustion engines that consumption was highest in the city. Only the Citroen Jumper's consumption at 120 km/h was slightly higher than the city consumption because it was 2 m wide and 2.5 m high. That's about twice as much air resistance as a normal car.
From 1997, this easy-to-understand consumption standard no longer existed. Then came the NEDC. My Dacia Lodgy 90 hp diesel was specified with 4.9 / 3.8 / 4.2 l/100 km. In town, out of town, weighted. In the past, 90 was associated with country roads and 120 with highways. In the NEDC, these values were combined into one value. In most cases, only weighted values were given. 2/3 out of town, 1/3 in town. My consumption over 206,250 km was 4.35 liters, just above the NEDC standard consumption. The absolute record was set at the end of August 2015 during a trip to Romania, 3.33 liters/100 km, well below the 3.8 liters outside the city according to the NEDC standard. The averaged and often solely stated NEDC was mostly achieved at around 110 km/h.
The type certificate for my Tesla Y SR RWD LFP states a range of 455 km and a city range of 646 km. Originally, the specification was for 90 and 120 km/h. In the NEDC, this was changed to extra-urban. With the WLTP, there is no longer any information for extra-urban, only mixed and city. Of course, you can calculate everything with the information in the type certificate. It says 121.9 N - 0.776 N / (km/h) - 0.02701 (N / (km/h)²). All you have to do is assume the efficiency and consumption of the systems that are activated when driving. I can only assume estimated values, insert them into the formula and then check whether they correspond to personal experience. I assume 90% efficiency from the battery to the drive wheels and 300 watts basic consumption. With the 3 mysterious N values from above, I now calculate the ranges for 90 and 120 km/h for my Tesla Y.
With a combustion engine, you had to move a van with a high roof through the air to achieve 120 km/h consumption just below the city consumption. But even with the aerodynamically very good Tesla Y, the range at 120 km/h is not even half that of inner-city traffic. With the combustion engine, you could expect standard consumption at around 110 km/h. The Tesla Y achieves its 455 km WLTP range at 81 km/h.
There are some electric cars with 9 seats. To simulate these, I assume a 10% higher weight and 80% more air resistance. In a bus, the frontal area increases and the cw value gets worse.
The range in the city is still impressive, but the range at 120 km/h is only a third of that. This vehicle would be specified with a WLTP range of 350 km. The car buyer who has gained his experience with combustion engines would now assume that he could drive 350 km at 110 km/h. In reality, however, only 79 km/h is possible. In reality, however, it is only 79 km/h. At 110 km/h, the end would be reached after 220 km. Internal combustion vehicles can typically achieve 88% of their WLTP range at 120 km/h. The Tesla Y SR achieves 66% of its WLTP range at 120 km/h. In the simulated bus, on the other hand, only 55% of the WLTP range is possible at 120 km/h.
With combustion engines, you could estimate the consumption in city traffic with a 2% incline and 30 km/h. If you first accelerate to 50 km/h every 500 m and then brake, this corresponds to driving at the same speed on a 2% incline. If you assume 80% efficiency for recuperation in an electric car, you can estimate consumption in city traffic with a 0.4% gradient and 30 km/h.
Bureaucrats think that car buyers are far too stupid to be able to do anything with 3 numbers. But the idiots here were the bureaucrats who created the utter nonsense of the WLTP range. You can easily compare cars with 90, 120, city, but this is not possible with the WLTP without a great deal of expertise. 99.9% of car buyers have probably understood the information 90, 120, city. But who would have known before my article that electric cars only achieve their WLTP range at speeds of around 80 km/h, whereas combustion engines achieve it at around 110 km/h?
My recommendation: return to the tried and tested specification of consumption and range at 90, 120, city, but at 2 different temperatures, 20° C and -5° C.
Net zero emissions means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that nature can supposedly absorb for a long time. For the rich, this means Maintain poverty, cause poverty, so that enough emission rights remain for the rich. See the architect and her opinion that Africans don't need roads.
Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means around 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich human race, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it. One million km² of energy-optimized settlement areas alone should contribute 150,000 TWh for the necessary electricity for world-wide prosperity and planetary restoration.
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 10 times or 100 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal? Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that there is no solution that is even remotely viable. On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy. It's about survival! The social situation in 2024 compared to 2004. Extrapolating that to 2044 makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements. One new shareholder said, "Me with my very modest investment", but €4,000 times €1,000 is also €4 million for all investments up to the opening of the settlement in Unken as a starting point for global expansion. There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program. Here are the details.
The situation has changed fundamentally since this company visited Slovakia. Necessary investment volume reduced by around 90%. Time to marketable product shortened by around one year. |
