I wanted to test several different things. So, I went around a 5.7-mile loop, with an elevation change of 760 feet. Starting near the top of this hill (at my house), I drove around the loop, until I was almost down to 10% (7 miles) remaining on my battery. The bottom of the loop was on level ground, with lots of stop signs/lights.
I was able to go around the loop 14 times, in about 3 hours and 15 minutes. I kept my top speed between 40 and 45 mph. My average speed for the entire trip was just under 25 mph. My trip odometer showed 80.0 miles, at 212 Wh/mi, using 17.0 kWh.
When I turned off the car, the final screen showed that I had gotten 30 miles of regen and had achieved a braking/accelerating score of 99%. Needless to say, I had driven very carefully, with gentle and gradual braking and accelerating.
I had not expected to be able to keep my average as low as 212 Wh/mi, while going up this 760-foot hill, 14 times! If pushed to its limits, the regen efficiency of the Ford Focus Electric is absolutely amazing! Keep in mind that I had the car in "Drive," not "Low." The loop that I drove on turned out to be ideal. The downhill slopes were somewhat more gradual than the uphill slopes, allowing me to minimize the amount of energy lost to regular (friction) braking.
I checked the braking regen "top ten" charts, for all of the different regions. One person has 27 miles of regen. Everone else has 20 miles or less. Granted, my trip was somewhat contrived, but it was still real-world driving conditions, with no car-sized treadmills involved. ...and my 30 miles of regen probably won't ever show up, because my car is currently unable to connect to MyFordMobile.
The other motivation for using up a full battery charge, yesterday, was so that I could compare the amount of energy used by the car to the amount of energy used to recharge the car and watch to see if the charging efficiency varied from the beginning of the charging process to the end. It did not.
I currently use a 110-volt outlet to charge my car. I have a TED (The Energy Detective) whole-house, energy-monitoring system, with a separate monitor that allows me to isolate the breaker that the car is using to charge. I actually kept track of the time when I started charging the car and the times it reached 25%-charged, 50%-charged, 75%-charged, and 100% charged. Yes, that means that I did my best to predict when it would reach each of those points, then I stood and stared at the blue light, until the flashing quarter of the ring stayed on and the next quarter started flashing.
The grand result of this massive waste of time: The energy-efficiency of charging the car on a 110-volt circuit is between 72% and 73% (in cool, but not cold, weather). ...and each quarter of the battery-charging sequence has the same efficiency. A secondary result is that the part of the battery capacity that you are allowed to use and charge back up (from a completely discharged battery, up to the point where the blue light, around the charger, finally goes out) is between 19.20 and 19.25 kWh. The battery usually (always?) continues to charge, after the light has gone out. I unplug mine, immediately after the blue light goes out, because that leaves me just enough capacity to capture regen, on my way down the hill, in the morning. However, leaving it plugged in seems to "top off" the battery, but probably does so at a very low efficiency. (It continues to draw the same amount of power, for an extended period of time, while the battery obviously no longer has the capacity to store more than a small fraction of that energy.) At this point, I'm not sure if this "topping off" behavior is a "bug" or a "feature," of the car's software. In any event, it's very wasteful! ...and it's not "conditioning your battery," during this time. Conditioning should require much less power than charging!
Finally, I wanted this test to help me understand more about the "fuel economy" and range of the FFE. The EPA fuel economy rating of 105 MPGe (in combined driving) seems to be an attempt to incorporate the total cost of CHARGING the FFE. If this fuel economy rating were based purely upon the number of miles travelled per kWh of energy DISCHARGED from the FFE's battery, it would be 131 MPGe (which is 257 Wh/mi, as reported by the car). ...but it seems that only applies, if you're using a 220-volt charging station (which I've heard are about 80% efficient). For charging done on a standard 110-volt outlet, the COST-BASED fuel economy is 95 MPGe (131 X 0.725). That would have been useful information to know, when I was deciding NOT to buy a 220-volt charger, for my home.
IMHO, the "total cost per mile" info is useful, but should not be mixed in with the fuel economy and range estimates. Let's remember that these "EPA" numbers are often simply "provided to" the EPA, by the auto companies. Tell me if I'm crazy, here, but I think that the "fuel economy and range estimates" are totally meaningless, unless they represent the fuel economy that a driver would have to achieve (as displayed on the car's screens), in order to be able to drive a certain distance (the range). In other words, the "fuel economy" number and the "range" number should be determined by the same TEST TRIP!!!, at the same TIME!!! After all, that's what customers want to know: a typical fuel economy number, that is achievable by a typical driver, in typical driving conditions, AND the CORRESPONDING RANGE that the driver will experience, when the driver achieves that typical fuel economy.
So, the FFE's window sticker SHOULD SAY that you must achieve 131 MPGe, if you want to go 76 miles, on a single battery charge. It is deceptive to say that the fuel economy is 105 MPGe, a number which is calculated by including (in the denominator) the energy lost, during the charging process. That's like calculating the fuel economy of a gasoline-powered car, by including the gasoline that spilled on the ground, when the pump was accidentally allowed to overflow the car's tank. It's deceptive.
The main reason that it's deceptive is that it allows the car companies to INFLATE THE RANGE of their fully-electric cars. If you announce that a 105-MPGe (321-Wh/mi) car has a range of 76 miles, you are effectively telling prospective customers that a range of 76 miles is EASILY achievable and that, under optimal circumstances, they can probably achieve about 1.5X that range (114 miles!!). That is what I expected, based upon the information given. It is NOT an unrealistic expectation, either. Consider the range that actually CORRESPONDS to a fuel economy of 105 MPGe: 61 miles!
If we actually drive recklessly enough to only get 105 MPGe, we will be limited to a range of 61 miles. As for achieving 1.5X the "typical" range of the FFE, I have just proven that it is possible. Yesterday, I went 80.0 miles on 17.0 kWh, in a car that seems to have a maximum usable battery capacity of AT LEAST 19.25 kWh. When driving the way that I did, yesterday, anyone should be able to achieve 1.5X the actual 61-mile range of the FFE: 91 miles.
(80.0 miles) X (19.25 kWh / 17.0 kWh) = 90.6 mile
However, contrary to the false advertisement on the FFE window sticker, 76 miles is NOT a TYPICAL range for the FFE. A 76-mile range does not correspond to a fuel economy of 105 MPGe. A 76-mile range actually corresponds to a fuel economy of 131 MPGe, which is already much more efficient driving than is TYPICAL. So, it is not possible to improve upon it, as much as it WOULD BE possible to improve upon a fuel economy of 105 MPGe.
There are only 4 ways to exceed 91 miles of range, on the FFE: 1) Never exceed a speed of about 15 mph, 2) Drive down a big mountain (but don't let anyone see you drive back up), 3) Only drive your car on a car-sized "treadmill," or 4) Get confused between actual range and "projected" range, in the FFE.
I was able to go around the loop 14 times, in about 3 hours and 15 minutes. I kept my top speed between 40 and 45 mph. My average speed for the entire trip was just under 25 mph. My trip odometer showed 80.0 miles, at 212 Wh/mi, using 17.0 kWh.
When I turned off the car, the final screen showed that I had gotten 30 miles of regen and had achieved a braking/accelerating score of 99%. Needless to say, I had driven very carefully, with gentle and gradual braking and accelerating.
I had not expected to be able to keep my average as low as 212 Wh/mi, while going up this 760-foot hill, 14 times! If pushed to its limits, the regen efficiency of the Ford Focus Electric is absolutely amazing! Keep in mind that I had the car in "Drive," not "Low." The loop that I drove on turned out to be ideal. The downhill slopes were somewhat more gradual than the uphill slopes, allowing me to minimize the amount of energy lost to regular (friction) braking.
I checked the braking regen "top ten" charts, for all of the different regions. One person has 27 miles of regen. Everone else has 20 miles or less. Granted, my trip was somewhat contrived, but it was still real-world driving conditions, with no car-sized treadmills involved. ...and my 30 miles of regen probably won't ever show up, because my car is currently unable to connect to MyFordMobile.
The other motivation for using up a full battery charge, yesterday, was so that I could compare the amount of energy used by the car to the amount of energy used to recharge the car and watch to see if the charging efficiency varied from the beginning of the charging process to the end. It did not.
I currently use a 110-volt outlet to charge my car. I have a TED (The Energy Detective) whole-house, energy-monitoring system, with a separate monitor that allows me to isolate the breaker that the car is using to charge. I actually kept track of the time when I started charging the car and the times it reached 25%-charged, 50%-charged, 75%-charged, and 100% charged. Yes, that means that I did my best to predict when it would reach each of those points, then I stood and stared at the blue light, until the flashing quarter of the ring stayed on and the next quarter started flashing.
The grand result of this massive waste of time: The energy-efficiency of charging the car on a 110-volt circuit is between 72% and 73% (in cool, but not cold, weather). ...and each quarter of the battery-charging sequence has the same efficiency. A secondary result is that the part of the battery capacity that you are allowed to use and charge back up (from a completely discharged battery, up to the point where the blue light, around the charger, finally goes out) is between 19.20 and 19.25 kWh. The battery usually (always?) continues to charge, after the light has gone out. I unplug mine, immediately after the blue light goes out, because that leaves me just enough capacity to capture regen, on my way down the hill, in the morning. However, leaving it plugged in seems to "top off" the battery, but probably does so at a very low efficiency. (It continues to draw the same amount of power, for an extended period of time, while the battery obviously no longer has the capacity to store more than a small fraction of that energy.) At this point, I'm not sure if this "topping off" behavior is a "bug" or a "feature," of the car's software. In any event, it's very wasteful! ...and it's not "conditioning your battery," during this time. Conditioning should require much less power than charging!
Finally, I wanted this test to help me understand more about the "fuel economy" and range of the FFE. The EPA fuel economy rating of 105 MPGe (in combined driving) seems to be an attempt to incorporate the total cost of CHARGING the FFE. If this fuel economy rating were based purely upon the number of miles travelled per kWh of energy DISCHARGED from the FFE's battery, it would be 131 MPGe (which is 257 Wh/mi, as reported by the car). ...but it seems that only applies, if you're using a 220-volt charging station (which I've heard are about 80% efficient). For charging done on a standard 110-volt outlet, the COST-BASED fuel economy is 95 MPGe (131 X 0.725). That would have been useful information to know, when I was deciding NOT to buy a 220-volt charger, for my home.
IMHO, the "total cost per mile" info is useful, but should not be mixed in with the fuel economy and range estimates. Let's remember that these "EPA" numbers are often simply "provided to" the EPA, by the auto companies. Tell me if I'm crazy, here, but I think that the "fuel economy and range estimates" are totally meaningless, unless they represent the fuel economy that a driver would have to achieve (as displayed on the car's screens), in order to be able to drive a certain distance (the range). In other words, the "fuel economy" number and the "range" number should be determined by the same TEST TRIP!!!, at the same TIME!!! After all, that's what customers want to know: a typical fuel economy number, that is achievable by a typical driver, in typical driving conditions, AND the CORRESPONDING RANGE that the driver will experience, when the driver achieves that typical fuel economy.
So, the FFE's window sticker SHOULD SAY that you must achieve 131 MPGe, if you want to go 76 miles, on a single battery charge. It is deceptive to say that the fuel economy is 105 MPGe, a number which is calculated by including (in the denominator) the energy lost, during the charging process. That's like calculating the fuel economy of a gasoline-powered car, by including the gasoline that spilled on the ground, when the pump was accidentally allowed to overflow the car's tank. It's deceptive.
The main reason that it's deceptive is that it allows the car companies to INFLATE THE RANGE of their fully-electric cars. If you announce that a 105-MPGe (321-Wh/mi) car has a range of 76 miles, you are effectively telling prospective customers that a range of 76 miles is EASILY achievable and that, under optimal circumstances, they can probably achieve about 1.5X that range (114 miles!!). That is what I expected, based upon the information given. It is NOT an unrealistic expectation, either. Consider the range that actually CORRESPONDS to a fuel economy of 105 MPGe: 61 miles!
If we actually drive recklessly enough to only get 105 MPGe, we will be limited to a range of 61 miles. As for achieving 1.5X the "typical" range of the FFE, I have just proven that it is possible. Yesterday, I went 80.0 miles on 17.0 kWh, in a car that seems to have a maximum usable battery capacity of AT LEAST 19.25 kWh. When driving the way that I did, yesterday, anyone should be able to achieve 1.5X the actual 61-mile range of the FFE: 91 miles.
(80.0 miles) X (19.25 kWh / 17.0 kWh) = 90.6 mile
However, contrary to the false advertisement on the FFE window sticker, 76 miles is NOT a TYPICAL range for the FFE. A 76-mile range does not correspond to a fuel economy of 105 MPGe. A 76-mile range actually corresponds to a fuel economy of 131 MPGe, which is already much more efficient driving than is TYPICAL. So, it is not possible to improve upon it, as much as it WOULD BE possible to improve upon a fuel economy of 105 MPGe.
There are only 4 ways to exceed 91 miles of range, on the FFE: 1) Never exceed a speed of about 15 mph, 2) Drive down a big mountain (but don't let anyone see you drive back up), 3) Only drive your car on a car-sized "treadmill," or 4) Get confused between actual range and "projected" range, in the FFE.