Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner
101 - 120 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
2017 VW Passat Estate Diesel (omg!)
Joined
·
274 Posts
I really love how the IONIQ 7 looks. Feels right back together with the 5. The 6 seems to share no or hardly any design language with the 5 and 7. Hopefully the 7's range and efficiency will be a lot better in 4 years compared to now :)
 

·
Registered
2019 Ioniq 28kWh
Joined
·
356 Posts
I really love how the IONIQ 7 looks. Feels right back together with the 5. The 6 seems to share no or hardly any design language with the 5 and 7. Hopefully the 7's range and efficiency will be a lot better in 4 years compared to now :)
Brick walls will never be efficient shapes for cars... :-/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Interesting. The Ultimate has wider tyres than the model tested, so that might make a difference. The XC40 has brutal initial acceleration, so much so that my wife is still complaining of neck pain (I did warn her just before flooring it but not clearly enough, and obviously she won't let me forget it...). For the I5 to get to 30 quicker is quite something!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
They misquoted the I5's battery capacity, but that's not a big deal. Anywhoo, 180 miles at ~75mph is kinda bad. Not catastrophic, but basically the I5 shouldn't be driven at sustained speeds over ~60mph if we want to actually get anywhere. Assuming linearity, the US battery should do ~190 miles at that speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
They misquoted the I5's battery capacity, but that's not a big deal. Anywhoo, 180 miles at ~75mph is kinda bad. Not catastrophic, but basically the I5 shouldn't be driven at sustained speeds over ~60mph if we want to actually get anywhere. Assuming linearity, the US battery should do ~190 miles at that speed.
I read somewhere he was going to retest. I do see mixed results online... It's no Tesla, obviously, but it seems his test wasnt great

However the charging made up for it and it was still one of the fastest cars in the 1000km test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
The figures suggest all the cars where driven pretty gently in optimal summer conditions. They are a suggestion of what the cars might be capable of, but not an indication of average real world performance.

One thing that strikes me about electric cars is the huge range of efficiency as they are very responsive to temperate and drag. So slow, warm driving is best, fast in cold temperatures the worst. I think this means that many electric cars are capable of exceeding WLTP, but also massively under performing too, depending on conditions. My assumption with petrol cars was to knock about 20% off WLTP to get a realistic figure. That efficiency then wouldn't vary as much throughout the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
They misquoted the I5's battery capacity, but that's not a big deal. Anywhoo, 180 miles at ~75mph is kinda bad. Not catastrophic, but basically the I5 shouldn't be driven at sustained speeds over ~60mph if we want to actually get anywhere. Assuming linearity, the US battery should do ~190 miles at that speed.
Also, this was the AWD model. The RWD model should get over 210 miles range at that speed, assuming linearity in the published range variation. And, as has been mentioned, recharging is much faster and so will have less of an impact on the overall trip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
The figures suggest all the cars where driven pretty gently in optimal summer conditions.
Ioniq 5 was driven with rain for half of the route. That messes up the "ideal" comparison.

In Bjorns Ioniq 5 video he explains this.

He suggests in better conditions he could have done it in 9:40. Can watch from here:

Which would make it better than the MY, but just due to the higher charging.

~230 consumption is he expectation without rain (vs 260). Still no Tesla, but better.

Which is why I believe he is doing a retest later this month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I read somewhere he was going to retest. I do see mixed results online...
There's something not quite right about the Tesla Bjorn consumption numbers. The difference between consumption at 90 and 120 km/h is too great for the usual rolling resistance + drag model. Using that model, with documented Cd of 0.288 and A of 2.619, with Crr of 0.007 at the low end and 0.012 at the high end I get this figure:
Rectangle Slope Plot Font Parallel


It wouldn't surprise me if the quoted Cd relies on optimal conditions and the real world may be a bit worse, but I have to increase it to 0.4 for the model to come close to matching the test which seems unrealistically high.

Slope Rectangle Plot Font Parallel


It will be interesting to compare this model against one derived from the EPA coastdown coefficients, but they're not yet available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Problems with range tests are almost only exclusive because of the environment.
You can mitigate the variables by driving the cars you want to test the exact same route at the exact same time.
But as we saw with the Tesla MY that Bjørn tested with both 18” and 19”, just a slight wind and temperature change, changed the consumption by about 5-10%.
a side by side comparison between the I5 and the MY would be great, or in a years time when we have more data points.
it can’t always be raining when the influencers are testing the I5?

edit:fixed typo (dyac)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Using that model, with documented Cd of 0.288 and A of 2.619, with Crr of 0.007 at the low end and 0.012 at the high end I get this figure:..
Link to that model please?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Link to that model please?
It's just the classic equation for resistance for a road vehicle, where the main components are rolling resistance which stays constant, and aero drag which is proportional to the speed. It's basic, but close enough most of the time. I just put it in a spreadsheet.

Constants are g = 9.81 m/s^2, air density roh = 1.2 kg/m^3

Vehicle properties:
Mass, m = 2200kg (from Bjorn's test)
Coefficient of drag, Cd = 0.288 (I've seen this quoted a few places)
Frontal area, A = 2.619 m^2 (quoted from the certificate of conformance in the www.goingelectric.de forum)

Coefficient of rolling resistance varies with tyre, road surface, weather (particularly rain), but I've seen the Primacy 4 quoted at 0.007 (it's dimensionless, but represents resistance force/weight), and a more typical number is 0.012.

Rolling resistance force
Frr = m*g*Crr = 2200 * 9.81 * 0.012 = 259 N

The aero drag force =
Faero = (Cd * A * roh * v^2)/2 where v is the velocity in m/s, so varies with velocity. For 90 km/h = 25 m/s,
Faero = 0.288 * 2.619 * 1.2 * 25^2/2 = 283 N

Ftotal = Frr + Faero = 259 + 283 = 542N

Power = Ftotal * v = 542 * 25 = 13,550 W. If you drive for an hour at 90 km/h you use 13.55kWh to travel 90 km, so consumption is then 13.55*100/90 = 15.1 kWh/100km.
 
101 - 120 of 142 Posts
Top