Anyone driving in L for extended periods seeing better range

[PowerstrokeNC]

I have recently started driving in L to see if there is any difference in range performance with the more aggressive regen. I have about 6200 miles on FFE with D driving.

In the last few hundred miles I feel like I am actually getting better range, I am not sure if this is wishful thinking as I don't have a " control sample" to test against yet. So I wondered if anyone else has experienced or tested this?
As a side note I seem to be getting more consistent 100% braking scores as well....

 

[Astrand1]

I can't say that I really see better range but I almost always drive in L. I really like it in traffic cause it allows me to one foot drive. Sometimes I shift into D or N if I want to free flow coast but mostly for me it's right into L.

 

[michael]

I haven't done an experiment, but I would expect range to be worse in L. The reason is that it causes more power to flow into and out of the battery, at each step having some efficiency losses.

L has purposes on downhills, for example. But I think in general D is the way to go. L will increase the reported amount of regen which may feel good, but I think coasting is actually more efficient. Gentle braking is all regen anyway.

Obviously, if one prefers the "feel" of driving in L, that's fine too. But from the standpoint of overall efficiency and range, I'd go with D.

 

[WattsUp]

I almost always drive in L. I really like it in traffic cause it allows me to one foot drive.

Yeah, but without brake lamps when you are slowing down... probably not the best idea?

 

[Astrand1]

I almost always drive in L. I really like it in traffic cause it allows me to one foot drive.

Yeah, but without brake lamps when you are slowing down... probably not the best idea?

No different than driving a car with a stick and down shifting to slow down. Or in my case when I drive a semi and use the engine brakes (jake brakes) and not the foot brake. This is one reason it's not smart to tailgate. Lol. I always leave a decent amour of space in front of me.

 

[WattsUp]

No different than driving a car with a stick and down shifting to slow down. Or in my case when I drive a semi and use the engine brakes (jake brakes) and not the foot brake. This is one reason it's not smart to tailgate. Lol. I always leave a decent amour of space in front of me.

Well, EV or stick shift, folks who slow down without using their brake lights are simply asking for it, IMO. You may well drive safely behind others who might slow down without warning, but others may not always be so observant about you doing the same, was my point.

Personally, I use L for going down hills, but that's about it. Supposedly the car is slightly less efficient if driven in L all the time, so the risk doesn't seem to match the reward. Also, the level of regen is pretty light (this isn't a Model S), so the "one-footed driving style" is pretty limited in the FFE anyway.

 

[Astrand1]

Hey to each his own opinion. Your point is well taken. Although I would not say I'm asking for it but I agree the "risk" of getting rear ended might be somewhat higher not using brake pedal. Although at least CA is not a no fault state so if some ******* does rear end me it's their fault not mine.

 

[WattsUp]

if some ******* does rear end me it's their fault not mine.

Legally, yes. But it doesn't really take away any contributing blame for slowing dangerously.

 

[PowerstrokeNC]

Thanks for the comments, I didn't think about the potential for a higher % of loss during a more aggressive regen.
Also the brake light issue is an interesting one, maybe future electric cars will have an option for automatic brake light activation when in an aggressive regen mode...

 

[rabar10]

Also the brake light issue is an interesting one, maybe future electric cars will have an option for automatic brake light activation when in an aggressive regen mode...

Tesla vehicles (Roadster and Model S) already do this -- the brake lights are activated during heavy/aggressive regen.

I too drive in L all of the time, and noticed that the brake lights were not coming on unless I stepped on the brake pedal. I try to pay attention to traffic, and tap the brake pedal just to provide warning to vehicles behind when necessary. Would prefer if the lights came on automatically though.

 

[Lithium]

According to the manual, Yes, I've been perusing the Manual, Page 149, 2014 FFE, Driving in L doesn't get you better mileage and it shouldn't be used for extended periods of time. The benefit is to help slow the car on long descents so you don't shred your brakes, offering maximum engine braking.
H

 

[Snowball 14]

According to the manual, Yes, I've been perusing the Manual, Page 149, 2014 FFE, Driving in L doesn't get you better mileage and it shouldn't be used for extended periods of time. The benefit is to help slow the car on long descents so you don't shred your brakes, offering maximum engine braking.
H

I need to read the manual some more this is good to know. When I was doing my research on this car I came across a You Tube video and some guy was recommending driving in L would give you higher regen so I've been doing it. But I'll stop now after seeing this. Thanks for reading the manual!!

 

[unplugged]

I need to read the manual some more this is good to know. When I was doing my research on this car I came across a You Tube video and some guy was recommending driving in L would give you higher regen so I've been doing it. But I'll stop now after seeing this. Thanks for reading the manual!!

I used to be a proponent of using the "L" selector only when slowing. But my theory is now that if you have the "foot sense" to be able to properly control the accelerator, using "L" shouldn't really cause any adverse issues. The key is understanding that anytime you are using regenerative braking (which is really a misnomer, but for want of a better term...), you are wasting valuable battery charge. Yes, I know that when you regen, you are putting electricity back into the battery. But you can never put the same amount back that you take out. So, understanding this fact, and keeping regen to an absolute minimum when you are NOT slowing down is a good practice.

Whether you have the selector in "D" or "L", when you coast, you are not really coasting. In either selection, you are regenerating and this equates with wasting electricity unless you intend to stop soon. The key is teach your foot at what point to find a neutral position between accelerating and regenerating. You will have to use the gauges to get the hang of not regenerating, but not using power also. If you don't want to bother, then yes, using the "D" selector is probably more efficient.

 

[WattsUp]

The key is teach your foot at what point to find a neutral position between accelerating and regenerating.

Or simply get in the habit of using the cruise control whenever you're going to cruise along at a steady speed for a while. It does a perfect job (much better than even the best-trained foot) of maintaining speed without triggering regen. I use cruise almost everywhere (not just on the freeway) once I get up to speed.

 

[hybridbear]

The key is teach your foot at what point to find a neutral position between accelerating and regenerating.

Or simply get in the habit of using the cruise control whenever you're going to cruise along at a steady speed for a while. It does a perfect job (much better than even the best-trained foot) of maintaining speed without triggering regen. I use cruise almost everywhere (not just on the freeway) once I get up to speed.

I find that the cruise quite often starts regenerating though so that we don't speed up going down hills. Then it has to expend extra energy going up the hill on the other side. In MN our freeways are almost never flat, they're rolling hills. I try to use cruise control set to the minimum speed I want to drive and then I keep my foot lightly on the gas pedal so that the car won't regen, but just coast, when going down a hill. This, I hope, is more efficient.

 

[EVA]

The key is teach your foot at what point to find a neutral position between accelerating and regenerating.

Or simply get in the habit of using the cruise control whenever you're going to cruise along at a steady speed for a while. It does a perfect job (much better than even the best-trained foot) of maintaining speed without triggering regen. I use cruise almost everywhere (not just on the freeway) once I get up to speed.

I find that the cruise quite often starts regenerating though so that we don't speed up going down hills. Then it has to expend extra energy going up the hill on the other side. In MN our freeways are almost never flat, they're rolling hills. I try to use cruise control set to the minimum speed I want to drive and then I keep my foot lightly on the gas pedal so that the car won't regen, but just coast, when going down a hill. This, I hope, is more efficient.

Oddly, I'm not following that reasoning, making the car go faster down hill. I'm trying to play this in my head - you've decided 62 MPH is the speed you want to go. The car does a great job maintaining 62MPH going up hill. Unlike an ICE, it doesn't do anything stupid, it just goes the right speed within one MPH. On the down side of the hill, you would regenerate electricity and never use the brakes to maintain the speed you want to go - 62MPH. Not exactly energy neutral, but way more energy returned than coasting. There is absolutely no loss of energy to heat by using the brakes - they don't get used at all.

So you use the accelerator to actually let the car go faster, like 70MPH. And then slow down again to 62MPH going up the next hill?

I don't see how that is more energy efficient than getting power back through regen. Never mind the whole thing of driving the drivers around you insane changing your speed so much.

 

[hybridbear]

Or simply get in the habit of using the cruise control whenever you're going to cruise along at a steady speed for a while. It does a perfect job (much better than even the best-trained foot) of maintaining speed without triggering regen. I use cruise almost everywhere (not just on the freeway) once I get up to speed.

I find that the cruise quite often starts regenerating though so that we don't speed up going down hills. Then it has to expend extra energy going up the hill on the other side. In MN our freeways are almost never flat, they're rolling hills. I try to use cruise control set to the minimum speed I want to drive and then I keep my foot lightly on the gas pedal so that the car won't regen, but just coast, when going down a hill. This, I hope, is more efficient.

Oddly, I'm not following that reasoning, making the car go faster down hill. I'm trying to play this in my head - you've decided 62 MPH is the speed you want to go. The car does a great job maintaining 62MPH going up hill. Unlike an ICE, it doesn't do anything stupid, it just goes the right speed within one MPH. On the down side of the hill, you would regenerate electricity and never use the brakes to maintain the speed you want to go - 62MPH. Not exactly energy neutral, but way more energy returned than coasting. There is absolutely no loss of energy to heat by using the brakes - they don't get used at all.

So you use the accelerator to actually let the car go faster, like 70MPH. And then slow down again to 62MPH going up the next hill?

I don't see how that is more energy efficient than getting power back through regen. Never mind the whole thing of driving the drivers around you insane changing your speed so much.

Because regen is far less than 100% efficient. By eliminating that regen except when I really want to stop I'm stopping that inefficiency. Very few ppl use cruise control around here in the city, everyone is all over the place with their speed. It's quite annoying when you'd like to just use cruise and go. Often times if I don't want to have to cancel my cruise and brake I have to change lanes a lot so as to go around those who are going slow. I also set my cruise at the speed limit or even slightly below and then use my cruise to control my speed as needed.

 

[unplugged]

Oddly, I'm not following that reasoning, making the car go faster down hill. I'm trying to play this in my head - you've decided 62 MPH is the speed you want to go. The car does a great job maintaining 62MPH going up hill. Unlike an ICE, it doesn't do anything stupid, it just goes the right speed within one MPH. On the down side of the hill, you would regenerate electricity and never use the brakes to maintain the speed you want to go - 62MPH. Not exactly energy neutral, but way more energy returned than coasting. There is absolutely no loss of energy to heat by using the brakes - they don't get used at all.

So you use the accelerator to actually let the car go faster, like 70MPH. And then slow down again to 62MPH going up the next hill?

I don't see how that is more energy efficient than getting power back through regen. Never mind the whole thing of driving the drivers around you insane changing your speed so much.

It is a fascinating discussion. I am a serious recreational bicyclist. (No humor at all.) And on my tandem, as you can well guess, we go down hills pretty darn fast. The uphill, not so much. So the key is to gain as much speed on the downhill so that momentum carries us up the other side. So, theoretically, this same procedure should work in a car. I have practiced this method to the consternation of fellow motorists. Thus I keep the old foot at the same location down the hill as I do up the hill, as long as possible. Now whether this actually works, I have not a clue. Sounds good, though.

 

[unplugged]

The key is teach your foot at what point to find a neutral position between accelerating and regenerating.

Or simply get in the habit of using the cruise control whenever you're going to cruise along at a steady speed for a while. It does a perfect job (much better than even the best-trained foot) of maintaining speed without triggering regen. I use cruise almost everywhere (not just on the freeway) once I get up to speed.

So do I, actually. But don't criticize the foot. I have a well-trained foot that happens to be certified as a cruise control substitute.

 

[EVA]

Well the scenario sounds like it makes a great physics problem. Which uses the least amount of energy to get from point A to point B? And how much difference in energy use is there? 1) Glide down the hill with no regeneration at all, or 2) Maintain same speed using regeneration.

My gut says the answer will be your gliding down the other side is more efficient. My other guess will be there isn't a lot of difference. And the last guess would be, one mistake with your foot and all the savings go totally out the window (the thing that most likely happens all the time).

I know the answer in the mountains - gliding is completely the wrong way to go. You will not be able to maintain a safe speed without using your brakes. The second you touch the brakes that method loses. You win many times over using cruise control and allowing the car to regen to slow it down automatically.