MFM regional averages seem about HALF what they should be

[WattsUp]

For the longest time, comparing my average energy usage (the blue bars) on the MFM website with a regional average (the green bars) , pulls up regional averages that appear to be about half of what they probably actually are (since I know my energy usage is probably pretty average):



I refuse to believe that the average energy usage of most other FFEs out there is something like 110 Wh/mi (as the green bars seem to show). Double it (to 220 Wh/mi), and it starts to seem more believable.

Anyone else seeing this? Doesn't this seem obviously wrong? Anybody who knows the car would know that 110 Wh/mi is a very low and atypical energy usage. There's probably some stupid mathematical mistake in the backing database query or presentation logic on the MFM site (computing the average with a doubled element count, or something like that).

I know the comparison is just an "entertainment" feature, but it's like Ford doesn't even test this stuff for basic correctness. :roll:

 

[NightHawk]

Yeah I find under 200 Wh/m average unbelievable.
I haven't been able to get under 260Wh/m average for the past 3 weeks I've owned my FFE.

 

[jmueller065]

Remember when the zen master ranking was showing a bunch of cars using only 0 Wh/mile. My guess is that the average is also including those.

 

[ElSupreme]

Remember when the zen master ranking was showing a bunch of cars using only 0 Wh/mile. My guess is that the average is also including those.

Yeah in the SE region you can't even hope to show in the consumption list because they are all 0 Wh/mi. I have always assumed these are dragging down the average.

 

[Rogerschro]

Remember when the zen master ranking was showing a bunch of cars using only 0 Wh/mile. My guess is that the average is also including those.

Yeah in the SE region you can't even hope to show in the consumption list because they are all 0 Wh/mi. I have always assumed these are dragging down the average.

Mine is kind of interesting, my rate of consumption is 220.1, regional ave. is around 113. However, my ave. Energy consumption is 34800.w vs regional ave. of 93200.w. Miles driven for oct are 158.1 for me and 845.56 nat. ave. This biases my energy consumption much lower as well while the Rate of consumption stays up.

I think what is happening is the algorithm is calculating ave. against each day of the mo. for the collective use and then compares the ave. for each day of the month for my own personal usage. So if I drove my car every day it would ave out more consistently. But if you take all the cars registered in the region and computed an ave. to represent driving everyday, the numbers would be much lower for the group simply because the cars not being driven everyday count as 0 or near to 0 and this affects the ave. overall. The less each car gets driven the lower the ave. consumption for all. My car, being parked 5 out of 7 days a week, brings consumption down overall while those who drive daily will have a high consumption rate. Make sense?

What Ford needs to do is set an algorithm that does not include non operating days. If a car is not used, it does not count as consuming energy for those days of the month, thereby correcting the energy used to more closely follow actual usage of EVs in the region.

 

[WattsUp]

I think what is happening is the algorithm is calculating ave. against each day of the mo. for the collective use and then compares the ave. ... Make sense?

No, the average (the one I was referring to in my OP above) is per mile (Wh/mi), not the overall energy consumption (which is just an absolute total). The average Wh/mi should not be affected how frequently the car is driven.

For example, if I drive my car with an average Wh/mi of 200 for just one day out of the month, or I drive it every day of the month with the same average, my average for the month will still be 200 Wh/mi in both cases.

 

[WattsUp]

Remember when the zen master ranking was showing a bunch of cars using only 0 Wh/mile. My guess is that the average is also including those.

Yeah in the SE region you can't even hope to show in the consumption list because they are all 0 Wh/mi. I have always assumed these are dragging down the average.

Yeah, but half of all FFEs would have to be reporting 0 Wh/mi in order to drag the overall average down by half. Possible, but seems unlikely.

 

[unplugged]

Yeah, but half of all FFEs would have to be reporting 0 Wh/mi in order to drag the overall average down by half. Possible, but seems unlikely.

Most likely, all these FFEs are actually parked in someone's garage waiting for the price of their USED FFE to drop another $6,000.

(This is a sarcastic reference to the price of new FFEs dropping by $10,000 since I purchased mine in 2013.)

 

[tinilk]

Remember when the zen master ranking was showing a bunch of cars using only 0 Wh/mile. My guess is that the average is also including those.

Yeah in the SE region you can't even hope to show in the consumption list because they are all 0 Wh/mi. I have always assumed these are dragging down the average.

Yeah, but half of all FFEs would have to be reporting 0 Wh/mi in order to drag the overall average down by half. Possible, but seems unlikely.

In the New England "Zen Master" rankings, the top five all say 0 Wh/mi. Slots six & seven are in the low 100's, which can't be accurate either. The rest are over 220, including my car.

I don't know how many cars are in the rankings, my guess is around 30. (Very few FFEs here compared with California.)