How much range is lost with 400 kg weight in the car?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 07. 2024
- Get 30 day free Premium trial on ABRP by using referral code "Teslabjorn":
abetterrouteplanner.com/ref/t...
Get 20 % discount (also works on discounted prices) when ordering from Stormberg online by using discount code "Teslabjorn":
www.stormberg.com/no/kampanje...
Kempower make awesome EV chargers:
kempower.com/teslabjorn/
Want to sell your Tesla/EV? marcusbil.no/selge-bilen/?utm...
Want to buy a Tesla/EV? marcusbil.no/biler-til-salgs/...
Leasing a Tesla/EV? marcusbil.no/leasing/?...
MisterGreen EV leasing:
mstr.gr/bjornnyland
Results from my range tests, banana box tests and other goodies here:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Main folder with everything:
drive.google.com/open?id=1HOw...
ScanMyTesla app for showing battery temperature, etc:
play.google.com/store/apps/de...
/ scanmytesla
www.e-mobility-driving-soluti...
www.e-mobility-driving-soluti...
The OBD dongle I use in Tesla, Leaf, Ioniq, e-Niro, e-Soul, i3, ID3/ID4 (Android only):
www.obdlink.com/products/obdl...
My Artlist playlist:
artlist.io/mycollection/24628...
Most of my music is from Artlist.io. If you sign up for one year and use my referral link, you will get two months free:
artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
Donation links:
streamlabs.com/bjrnnyland
/ teslabjorn
My live channel:
/ teslabjornlive24
Teslabjørn Discord server:
/ discord
Reduce food waste and get great deals on food:
toogoodtogo.no/ - Auta a dopravní prostředky
This shows that speed/air resistance is the dominant factor at higher speeds.
The extra load would have had a much more noticeable effect if a lot of acceleration was involved, I would not expect it to have a large effect at constant speed, just as shown here..
@@randomsurfer3963 Yep, weight comes into play in city driving and diving through areas with a lot of elevation change. Some charge is recovered when slowing down or going downhill but not as much as was consumed, at least that is what I have noticed with my EV especially when I have weight in it verses just myself.
Yep and tire rolling resistance / maintaining proper tire pressure. As the EV pickups become more popular more aerodynamic enclosed designs will be the norm.
An additional demonstration of your statement is the MG ZS EV 44kwh : A quite lightweight EV model (1.6T) with very high consumption on highway (Hard to get it below 20kwh/100 at 110km/h) because of its SUV styling.
@@randomsurfer3963 My thought too, up and down hills would affect the result more.
These findings are consistent with expectations, actually. At a constant speed weight is almost immaterial. If you did a multiple start stop test it would show a big difference.
Indeed it is so.
depends on your drivingstyle... I drove dieselvan for many years. Had several long journeys on hilly "backroads" here in Norway and barely noticed any difference in consumption.
Uses more energy when accelerating more mass, but if you manage to preserve it when slowing down, the difference actually will be very small.
The extra weight gives more momentum which in turn allows for more regen. Key is to not use the friction brakes to minimize even further the affects of extra weight.
Stop start in an ICE car - yes it will be different, in an EV should be no - but see comment.
The extra weight will create more momentum due to the additional kinetic energy of the car. As long as an EV has enough regen braking to practically recover that energy which was gained by more acceleration energy required to get to the same speed (ie you don't need the friction brakes as the car is heavier) then there will be little change as you recover that energy. (Proviso : regen is not 100% efficient)
In an ICE you don't recover the extra energy required to accelerate, so you lose this and get worse millage.
@@lemongavine You are correct. Multi stop/start is consuming a lot more petrol in ice cars. Evrey time you brake you're creating more heat with the brakes when loaded to the max.
But....regen is not 100% efficient.
Depending on electronics in a car. I've been able to estimate this effciecy once, in a teslaS (2014). Not with braking but with hill up and down.
My estimates came to 75% efficiency....in other words ...we got 75% of the lost km by climbing back when going down again.
In comparison to an ICE....A 2 ton heavy EV will loose the same amount of energy with stopping/starting as a 500KG heavy ICE (total mass counted).
(In all my years EV driving I never had any range change between loaded and nearly empty car driving)
it's going to make a bigger difference in town where you need to accelerate that extra weight more often. on the highway you're not accelerating, only maintaining the speed.
But regular people driving on the highway don't brake and accelerate repeatedly, no?
I guess in the city you will also regenerate more due to that extra weight.
@@bjornnyland You talk about Pizza drivers! They have to stop and deliver 300kg of Pizza :-)
And yet people bug me about adding weight in the car when I do 1000 km challenge and range tests...
@@bjornnyland at least now you can just direct them to this video. Thanks for doing the test, I was one of the people asking for it because I had some discussion and people did not believe me that weight almost doesn't matter.
It makes perfect sense for highway driving as there the energy needs is mostly for air friction.
In city driving the difference will be more significant tho with good regenerative breaking you should recover a big part.
So maybe people can stop bugging me that I need to add payload when I do 1000 km challenge and range tests? ;)
@@bjornnyland :) People have a hard time understanding energy and energy conservation.
@@bjornnyland That's giving people too much credit. :-)
I agree with you, I’m sure a test in city driving will make a big difference moving a bigger mass in start/stop situations. Highway driving at a steady speed shouldn’t be affected with a 25% weight increase.
@@jorgeluque4220 City test would be awsome.
Hey Bjorn, thanks for doing this. Just demonstrating basic physics, that with no elevation difference, weight isn't such a factor.
Please do a Geilo test with 400kg more, it should be fun. Much harder to get to Geilo, but back to Oslo will be mega low consumption 😉
Dont remember what geilo test is, but just the extra weight is miniscule difference even then. Doubt a test of just more weight would be necessary.
@@GoldenCroc Geilo starts in Oslo and ends up at 1000m altitude. As energy to bring weight up is mass x gravity x height it will be significantly higher with 30% more mass. That's just physics ... Which a lot of people don't understand 😉
@@fabriziom Well in that case it will make a difference for sure, though maybe still not as large as many people would expect. With regen, it might even potentially still get lost in margin of error when measuring.
You are quite right, most people dont understand physics, even at such a low level as this, which all developed countries teach in compulsary school. As an aside, this is is why I am a big advocate for making normal schools more real life/trade education focused, since most people obviously dont remember what they were taught in physics class anyway...
Thanks Bjørn, that was a very interesting test. Carefully done, with interesting result. Not entirely unexpected that the effect on consumption is less than other variables, like wind and air density. Even despite Bjørn’s best efforts to keep everything as consistent as possible, and doing a capping run after testing both unloaded and loaded. I also think that Bjørn was right to expect a fixed difference, instead of a percentage, between the 90 and 120 kph tests, since the only effect of added weight would be on tire rolling resistance, which is not speed dependent.
We really appreciate the effort! Great test that actually raises some questions about efficiency like you mentioned (Etron and similar heavy cars).
They always say, it must be the weight AND the wider tires... I never believed that...
I don't care if no body watches these videos - I totally appreciate what you do!
Circle K - official sponsor of Bjorn's driving experiments.
That’s an interesting test! It’d be also cool to repeat this test in town traffic, even with a van if possible.
Thanks for the test. With this and other tests, I hope we can finally put to bed the myth of how much weight impacts overall efficiency. With starts/stops and elevation changes, sure, there's a greater impact, but on flat roads, it gets lost in the noise of other impacts on efficiency.
Physics don't lie: you need to quadruple the weight to double power consumption. In your test there might be lots of variables changed, like temperature, tire pressure (which might have increased with the first test) or improved aerodynamics with the lower height of the vehicle due to the load. What really matters in power consumption is acceleration. And in highways with cruise control... It's not an issue. Still very nice test, this shows that weight is not all in efficiency.
Sorry, but what physics are those that are relevant to this test result and vehicle? I would ask you to please explain further, because I have never heard of this...
The last part of your post I agree with, but as I said, consumption should be almost independent of vehicle weight at these (almost constant) speeds. So I dont get the first part.
@@GoldenCroc E=0.5 x Weight x Speed^2. here is a video:czcams.com/video/5jBOHKUcxoE/video.html ... I duno why it uses a constant that halves the weight though. Sus.
@@GoldenCroc KE=1/2m*2v
@@alvarogalagonzalez5374 I suspected this was the thing you were thinking of.
However, this formula isnt applicable at all for this test, since the speed is steady. In this formula, weight is irrelevant for energy consumption as steady speeds.
@@GoldenCroc that's exactly my point
How big are the pizzas in Norway for delivery drivers to need a van ? 😂
On the highway there is less frequent momentum changes which require energy so stop and go traffic may be where weight makes the biggest difference.
Thanks for this test, since the weight discussion with EVs is a common topic. Even more interessting would be the same test in city traffic with way more often speed changes. Due to changing condition you would have to do at least 3 runs each. Regeneration can prove its effectivness.
Citydriving will boil down to driving style more than added weight... Hard acc+ brake will have high consumption and give significant increase with higher wheight. Steady acc and hard regen will have higher consumption than steady acc and coasting/low regen (steady speed), and the latter shouldn't show a lot of increasee when added weight.
Interesting test and awesome effort on your part. Thanks.
Awesome job and great video.
Keep it coming.
Love physics. Great test Bjørn!
I think the type of test makes the difference. Compare constant speed for an extended periods versus start/stop urban environment delivery style, the efficiency difference will be more apparent because the additional energy used to move from a standstill will not be offset by the regen when you slow to a stop. Getting identical conditions may be a problem unless you do it in a closed circuit simulation. Just a thought.
the last 2 kia soul van videos were very good. I liked the Benny Hill like speed up moments and the many extra innuendos.
the information was good too 😂
What a great concept! We know about towing with an EV that's cost significant more consumption.
Yesterday I fully loaded my classic Ioniq with 24 bottles of wine ( it's for the company! 😂) and 4 heavy bag of shopping bags and I used about 10,5 kw / 100 km, mixed driving and on highway only 100 km max.
It really doesn't effect the consumption.
Ioniq is the lowest EV consumption overal!
While towing my experience in that aerodynamics is important.
I have done a few 70 km trips with my Model 3 and trailer, and different load.
Lowest consumption I had fully loaded, where the load kind of slip streamed the car.
Slightly higher consumption with empty trailer
Way higher consumption, light load but odd shape.
@@thorbjrnhellehaven5766
Aha, of course the shape is more dangerous than weight, that what we learned about those tests anders experiences! 👍
I think it depends on elevation. It would be interesting to have Geilo test or some similar stretch with some elevation.
An interesting video with for me a surprising result. Thanks.
Nice test, watching your videos I've decided to purchase a Kia Ev6. I think you're doing great. Don't worry about those people who bugs you. Hope I can see more videos of ev6, because mine will arrive at September...😂😂
It depends a lot on the higher profile you are driving. My impression based on your video is, that you drove more or less in the plain. Then additional weight is only important for acceleration an a bit for additional tire resistance. But i would have thought it has a higher impact
Nice video, Keep on with tests like this👍👍
Great video It confirmed what i suspected load makes no difference it is Drag Drag Drag i.e speed that make the difference.
This is also my experience with eNiro in the mountains.
One person or four in the car makes no discernible difference in consumption
The figures are more or less as expected, once you have accelerated a mass up to a set velocity the energy required to hold that velocity is very minimal.
Very interesting, thank you for making this video.
Great video, thanks for the effort 👍
Very useful. I suspect a very hilly route would show a greater discrepancy. Another "variables" test for the future Bjorn? Hills vs flat - recoverable power losses from working harder uphill, and inefficiency in regen/recovery downhill. I have noticed significant increase in Wh/km on long journeys hilly vs flat sections (not "minor" hills - climbing then descending long gradients of 100s of m altitude change in Alps)..
quite interesting. i always thought the old ioniq is partly so efficient because it's somewhat light, but i guess it's just the shape and the drivetrain
Extra weight could have more of an affect on fossil cars because it could require downshifts on inclines and the higher revs are much less efficient. It would also hold gears longer when accelerating so higher revs for longer periods of time. Neither of these happen in an EV.
The washer fluid test, let's turn up the pitch and start counting...
Great and surprising results. It appears wind resistance is the main culprit until getting into really heavy pull loads like towing....
Maybe try with a mountain road where the car has to climb a lot. I guess the weight would be more important in the consumption. With a loaded leaf we had huge consumption going to a mountain station (and huge regeneration going down)
Adding that amount of weight is going to change the inertia of the vehicle but if you aren't doing much stop/start like you would in town driving, then it probably won't significantly affect the consumption unless you're climbing up steep gradients where you'll increase the losses to heat because of the additional load on the drivetrain. If you're keeping the speed constant on relatively flat motorway journeys then the difference will probably be within the noise on the test unless you do a bunch of runs. If you exit/stop/rejoin the road at every junction on the trip you might get a better idea (but you'll want to secure those jerrycans).
Sounds pretty efficient car when loaded vs empty
ABRP says that with 500 pounds of extra load for a trip from Chandler AZ to Flagstaff AZ in a refresh Model S I will lose 3% SOC or roughly 3kWh. That trip has roughly 5800 feet of net elevation gain.
Weight affects rolling resistance, however wind drag is a much bigger factor. Keep in mind that weight would affect more in start/stop traffic conditions 🙂
And elevation change, both with driving around in my EV and ICE pickup they really chew through energy when going uphill and are loaded down. The EV recovers some range going back down but not nearly as much as folks think.
For contrast, I can tell you that towing a glider trailer can (depending on the trailer) reduce range by up to 50%. I'm towing with a 72kWh RWD Ioniq 5.
Wow - now this is an interesting test. Well done. Maybe when accelerating / decelerating the regen recovers most of the extra energy accelerating (as there is more energy to gain in braking too), but I'm surprised there is not a bigger affect on rolling resistance (as you say maybe vehicle height is having an affect). Now I'm wondering if the situation is any different on hills or stop start driving. Certainly I'm not going worry as much about range affect when I have more people / stuff in my M3! This is a useful real world test.
Rolling resistance is a very small factor at highway speeds, that is what you are seeing here.
The only thing is higher rolling resistance and higher wind resistance due to the pitch of the car if it squats. Also no conversion of power is perfectly efficient. So there should be a difference in town.
A good control would be to drive loaded and unloaded for a longer amount of time. Unload and load each day, gives a nice workout as well and then compare the wh/km from the plug and not what the dashboard tells you. Hope you're interested in such a thing.
Great work Bjørn. Have ordered a Thule onto, and planing to use it on my BMW I4 coming soon, any plans to test this hitch mounted box? It may even improve drag! Regards from Bodø
Yeah as more folks go EV we are going to see a lot more hitch mounted storage or small aerodynamic trailers than the roof mounted solutions from the ICE age.
@Bjørn Nyland at 11:08 remember weight of Ethanol is less than water.
@ 15:30 also a fully loadet car will not have increased break distance - a lot of accelerations will give a bad economy with a load
"I suck at math. I fail at being an Asian." That made me laugh.
Good test. I wonder if the same test with a higher elevation would show quite different results ... You spend more energy to elevate more weight, some of that energy is recovered going down, but not all.
Unexpected result! Nice vid 👍
Obviously weight increases consumption only when accelerating or when going uphill.
That's not how it works...
Interesting result! For our trip I calculated with 200Wh/km, but driving only 80km/h but with rooftop tent and all-road tires
We will also check how wind is affecting rang. Follow our CZcams channel and website for more information!
Shouldn’t the weight be more of an issue with changing elevation instead of a relatively leveled route?
You need to add hills. I have to go up 160m every day and it’s the climb that will dramatically increase consumption. Going back downhill gets some back but nowhere near as good on flat roads
When you calculate, it shows less than +8wh/km with this load. So around +4 to 6% consumption. Not that much.
Rain and wind is usualy way more important than weight..
Now, we have the experience. thanks ! 👍
Well, this is true if constant speed.
So during a long trip in highway no big deal.
But, when it comes to urban trip with brakes and accélération, it is not the same !
15:21 Other variation....
When that car is loaded it will be a little lower to the ground. (I do not think that car has any active suspension to keep the car at the same height loaded as unloaded.)
And lowe to the ground means lower drag....Especially at higher speeds this will count.
It means something if you accelerate and de-accelerate a lot, and also if you drive a lot in the mountains. Heat loss from recuperating will be higher, and not all the kinetic energy will be put into the battery again.
Great video, great test. You should repeat with a roof carrier or a bike carrier. Now we should get a big difference especially at 120km/h
I have already done a video about this.
Great test!
I would be interesting to test consumption on hilly road or city driving in compare with almost flat highway with no changing speed. Then it should measure higher differences.
This is some dedication!
I think we learned what high torque means in this test.
Nice test!
If you were at a constant speed you only had to accelerate the extra weight once.
Picking a route that isn't a highway where the speed changes and running that route with and without the extra weight would show a clear difference.
This test shows that since the mass is accelerated once, the difference is very small. In city conditions with many starts and stops, I expect much bigger differences. I've had a Tesla S in the past. On motorway trips at 130 km/h I've had trips with a consumption of 150W/km, where our i3 has a higher consumption but a significantly lower weight. In the city, the S has a significantly higher consumption due to its higher weight. You have to accelerate this higher mass every time you have to stop at a traffic light or in a traffic jam. Regen is then not as efficient to equalize that disadvantage.
I think its the acceleration what counts most, once you are on speed, the weight difference (almost) doesn't matter.
So, here is your next exercise: do 10 times the 0 to 100 km/h test and compare the figures with and w/o cargo. And bring along Maya to assist you ;-)
Very surprising result!
You should also have tested in a climbing and also in city environments. That would change a lot.
I really liked musical reference (originally from Bonnie and Clyde car chasing scenes) from #8:10.
Doing the empty and loaded test needs doing on a hill / mountain route, and clockwise and anti-clockwise. Does the extra weight climbing get equalled out regening back down. Well no!
Video started in middle for some reason. Thought it was a crazy version of the banana box test.
I'm wondering, how would than a small trailer (or a bike rack having 2 heavy e-bikes on it) effect the consumption.
Washing fluid is often with alcool or things that are lighter than water so that is your answer ;-)
By physics you need the same energy to keep a constant speed, weight doesn't matter. You only consume more energy initially to get to that speed, but also because EV have regen you usually get back most of that energy any way
The rolling resistance of your tires is a huge part of efficiency. A heavier vehicle could have more rolling resistance. There are other friction areas that could be affected by weight.
@@ecospider5 at highway speeds aerodynamic drag is the primary loss as supposed by this experiment. For rolling resistance to have a larger effect you have to be driving much slower, and at that point stoping and accelerating in a city environment takes more energy than losses from rolling resistance.
I agree completely for a well engineered vehicle. But do this test with low pressure off road tires and you might get a different results. That is why testing is a good idea. Making sure the manufacturer didn’t screw something up.
Weight *does* matter. It increases rolling resistance.
@@bjornnyland Yes, but I think the rolling resistance increase is negligible
Nice! Does this mean the Kia Soul EV is the way to go for light goods? EPA official range is 243 miles (391 km)?
Just wanted to say before the video starts that in the Tesla model S plaid more than 50% of the energy goes towards rolling resistance but that's also a heavy and pretty aerodynamic car. That's at 70 mph
No way it does, if find that incredibly hard to believe. Out of the question in my book. But perhaps you can tell me where you saw this, so I can check their data for myself? Could be interesting. Cheers mate.
5:40 To know how much you can load in the car without trailer, just loook at the very first number "Tillat totalvekt: 2170 kg".
That is the total allowed weight when using the car without trailer.
The subtract the actual weight you made: 2170 kg - 1860 kg = 310 kg
So 310 kg is the maximum leagel extra load you can bring to not go above the allowed total weight of 2170 kg without trailer.
What?! So you legally aren't allowed to bring 4 passengers?? Without any luggage or something...
Sounds pretty stupid to me
Our rav4 has the same tyre pressure requirements...same pressure whether its fully loaded or not! Don't really understand why.
Interesting. Maybe something for ABRP to consider, since you are asked how much you load the car. If it doesn't matter, they could exclude this feature. Haven't checked how much the trip differ in ABRP if having no load compared to full load. Maybe something for you to shoot a video about.
It does matter, when changing speeds. He made almost no such changes in this test.
It does matter if you go to montain, abrp need to know if you will have enough battery to go to the top of the mountain !
Loving this new version of the banana box test. OK I know it's a different test 🙂
I found this interesting and I'm very courious if you've made a test of wind resistance? Would be interesting to see how the consumption changes with greater wind resistance. We know it is a factor, but how much?
What do you mean by "wind resistance"? If you are talking about aerodynamic drag of the vehicle, it is the vast majority of energy consumption when going these speeds i.e. consumption will increase almost exactly by the same percentage as added drag.
@@GoldenCroc I don't know the correct term for this (luftmotstånd) in English, but I don't mean the turbulence behind the car, but the resistance in the air that the car face when travelling in especially higher speeds. The "resistance of air" increase exponentially in speeds over 130-140 km/h. Does my explanation make any sense? 😅
@@generalwolff1502 I am from Sweden, so I understand the swedish word perfectly.
"luftmotstånd" can be translated to aerodynamic drag, yes.
It can be expressed as a force in Newton, which varies with speed. It increases by the cube of speed, right from 0 km/h.
since most of the propulsion force is used to cut through the air at reasonably high speeds, (and increasing, since other factors dont scale up as much with speed) it is more or less directly related to power usage / energy consumption. I.e. 50% more drag means an almost 50% increase in power usage. Which is what I wrote in my last post, so you were correct in assuming this.
Pretty easy to calculate actually, you just need to know the CdA value. (aerodynamic coefficient of the car * frontal area)
All his range tests are done at 90 km/h and also 120 km/h, and it often makes a pretty big difference.
Ooh thought those were Soul taillights in the thumbnail:)
You can not take "maks vogntogvekt" minus trailer.
The correct number is actually listed in the vognkort, "Tillatt totalvekt" 2170 kg.
The "maks vogntogvekt" is the legal total weight of car and trailer combined.
Not a big deal in this instance (just 10 kg diff, and still well within getting a fine), but several cars have much lower total vogntogvekt than totalvekt of car + trailer..
Björn can you also test how much more it cost to charge AC 6kW compared to 11kW for example at summer and wintertime
I hope Munroe Live picks this up. This was clearly always the case, but there seems to be a misguided thought that the weight is very important for cars. For planes it adds drag, cars it changes rolling resistance plus a slight loss in regen being not perfect and higher weight adds more kinetic energy to regen.
But Monroe is still right about cost going up and about weight killing acceleration. Another thing he doesn't talk about is extra weight increases braking distance.
Theoretically, 50 kg extra weight would cause an extra consumption of around 1 Wh/km, just from the increased rolling resistance. So the extra weight in this video would expectedly give an extra consumption of around 6 Wh/km due to increased rolling resistance.
Then the car sits a bit lower due to added weight, so aerodynamics might improve slightly, which would counteract the other effect a bit.
So overall a very small difference would be expected, which is hard to measure because it is within the margin of error due to natural variations between different runs.
Would be interssting to see how it effects city driving. Weight matters most when you are changing your speed
Maybe for fossil cars. But EVs with regen can re-capture most of the energy.
I think this test is much more realistic than the freezing condition test as it’s more likely going on holiday for family and luggage. Also gradients are factors with extra mass.
But keep in mind that the numbers are pr km. So if you drive 400km with 5-10 wh/km, you use quite a bit more over the 400km(10wh more is 400wh more) , even though the consumption looks small. Good comparison anyway!
Even if the increase was 10 Wh/km, over 400 km, it would only be 4 kWh or about 25 km.
I think if there were some hills on the test traject, there would have been a much bigger effect on the comsumption ...
Very interesting. We know from your tests that the thirstiest cars are usually the biggest and heaviest ones. But here, you couldn't reproduce it. Any clues? Maybe 320 kg difference is too little to see any major difference
Adding the weight directly increases rolling resistance. But at very high speed (highway speed) aero resistance is much greater than rolling resistance, so the relative increase of total resistance is small.
Doing a test at a constant 50 kph you would see a bigger difference between loaded and not loaded, but the real impact of the load comes when you accelerate and slow down a lot.
@@GregHassler The EQS is very aerodynamic, but is extremely heavy. If you compare it to the EQE, which is the same platform, the EQE is more efficient while having nearly the same drag coefficient. So weight still has an impact
The theory tells for more rolling resistance: 90 km/h: 400 kg * 25 m/sec * 1% rolling resistance * 9.81 m/sec² gravitation = 981 W more consumption.
Rolling resistance for 2000 kg would so be 4905 W
Let's estimate air resistance at 90: 2.3 m² * cw 0.3 * 25 m/sec * 1.3 kg/m³ air * 25² / 2 = 7008 W
So it is possible, that the air resistance changes, also that the rolling resistance increases not linear with the weight.
I didn't add 400 kg to the car. It was 320 kg.
@@bjornnyland The theory tells for more rolling resistance: 90 km/h: 320 kg * 25 m/sec * 1% rolling resistance * 9.81 m/sec² gravitation = 785 W more consumption.
Great test, Bjørn. In really like your videos. Could you do a range-test with a roofbox, sometime? Greetings from the Netherlands.
czcams.com/video/Z0P6i1YsgII/video.html
Thanks for the link! Have a great day.
Nice job circle k owner being cool.
Love all your risky jokes!
Interesting with these different scenarios. Kind of expected that a higher weight during a semi-high speed test run wouldn’t make a big difference. A test I’m eager to do is between say a BMW i4 edrive40 and an IX xdrive40 pulling a normal 1500kg caravan. Would just be interesting to see if the big front area of the caravan would make the consumption more equal between a low slim car and a bigger one. I think it will.
I would also be nice if he did range tests with boxy enclosed trailers and different aero designs and show us the difference in consumption at highway speeds.
Yes, it will.
Interesting - perhaps the extra weight adds slightly better regen performance?
Very interesting result. I would love to see a consumption test with a roof box attached.
czcams.com/video/gdxo42elpv8/video.html
czcams.com/video/Z0P6i1YsgII/video.html
czcams.com/video/gdxo42elpv8/video.html
czcams.com/video/bb6e5f3W12A/video.html
Done already on a model 3: czcams.com/video/gdxo42elpv8/video.html
They need to sell those "backwards" boxes in the U.S.
Next test should be a test of the influence of wind resistance. I think you could test it with a ski box; one run with and one run without it, voilá! I see some people driving with their ski boxes on their car whole year all the time anyways, at least up here in the north...
He has already done this, search his videos.
@@GoldenCroc Thanks, didn’t know!
LIKE A NINJA! xD ahaha love ya bjorn
Interesting test. There are two ways to test this. 1. Drive on a uphill road, one way, with and without extra load. Higher gravity force will demand more power. 2. Drive in traffic for an hour or so for which you need to accelerate more often. To accelerate a larger mass you need to impose a higher inertia force. Alternatively, do a 0-100 acceleration 50 times with and without extra load.
@@GregHassler What goes up must come down.
@@GregHassler you are right. As I said, “One way”.
I've always been told that at speed above 80 km/h (-ish) the main resistance is air. As it gets denser (= more air resistance) with lower temperature, it explains why cars use more energy in winter. Fat e-Tron is so thirsty because it's a brick, like this e-Soul :)