[efbolt]

I rarely find the actual brakes necessary with L mode and the hand paddle.

I'd say option 1 because it's 2 miles shorter and traveling 10+ mph slower.

You could hit the trip reset to test. That's what I do to compare different scenarios.

 

[Voldar]

I rarely find the actual brakes necessary with L mode and the hand paddle.

I'd say option 1 because it's 2 miles shorter and traveling 10+ mph slower.

You could hit the trip reset to test. That's what I do to compare different scenarios.

Sure thing, the answer would have been definitely option 1 IF the time to reach the destination in both scenarios wasn't the same. Which is not the case.

 

[jefro]

My Bolt has an energy screen and pop up that will tell me KWH used. Why fool with all that other stuff?

 

[PLP]

My Bolt has an energy screen and pop up that will tell me KWH used. Why fool with all that other stuff?

Could you elaborate?

 

[ed5000]

My 2012 Mitsubishi I-miev would definitely like option 1. No question about that. With it's tiny 16kwh battery pack it's very easy to see the gas gauge drop like crazy when taking freeways vs. taking city streets. The car is somewhat similar in size and shape to the Bolt (we have a 2021 Preemie) but the I-miev may not be quite as aero as the bolt either.

But if I was in the Bolt, the freeway might more tempting as an easier drive but, then again with one pedal driving...Hmmm.

 

[Voldar]

Could you elaborate?

He's talking about the infotainment screen (the one in the center) where you can see the kWh used. This number is always the number of kWh used between two FULL charging sessions. So, if you start with a full (or whatever SOC you decided to use as "full"), you can do on the way to office the option 1 route and write down the kWh used once arrived at the office. Then when you come back home, you take the option 2 route and register the kWh used when arrived at home. You do the math and you'll see which route used more kWh and that's all.
The info is there, no need to tap on anything.
P.S. You can time each drive and then you decide which is which.

 

[redpoint5]

He's talking about the infotainment screen (the one in the center) where you can see the kWh used. This number is always the number of kWh used between two FULL charging sessions. So, if you start with a full (or whatever SOC you decided to use as "full"), you can do on the way to office the option 1 route and write down the kWh used once arrived at the office. Then when you come back home, you take the option 2 route and register the kWh used when arrived at home. You do the math and you'll see which route used more kWh and that's all.
The info is there, no need to tap on anything.
P.S. You can time each drive and then you decide which is which.
View attachment 42532

That methodology is flawed because we don't know if there is elevation change, or many other variables that are different going in one direction compared to the other.

To reduce the variables, it would be better to complete the whole round trip commute using a single route, noting the time spent and energy consumed. Then take the other route the next day and compare. Even better would be to take the first route again the day after that to confirm similar results (giving more validity to the testing methodology). A-B-A testing.

Personally this is what I'd have done, because I find speculation from random people who have very few details to have little value.

 

[Voldar]

That methodology is flawed because we don't know if there is elevation change, or many other variables that are different going in one direction compared to the other.

To reduce the variables, it would be better to complete the whole round trip commute using a single route, noting the time spent and energy consumed. Then take the other route the next day and compare. Even better would be to take the first route again the day after that to confirm similar results (giving more validity to the testing methodology). A-B-A testing.

Personally this is what I'd have done, because I find speculation from random people who have very few details to have little value.

If you go there, there should be two round trips done the same day, one right after the other, to really count. To have this way the same driving conditions (weather and road surface) as close as possible. I posted the above because I don't think someone really needs to split the hair in 4 to see which of the case is the better approach.

 

[PLP]

That methodology is flawed because we don't know if there is elevation change, or many other variables that are different going in one direction compared to the other.

Well, you can't compare it then as on the way in I drive in the morning, before rush hour, but coming back with the beginning of rush hour. Doing a round trip on same time will not make much sense

I would have to take Trip 1 for a week, note each day, then same for the other one, with the assumption weather is comparable.

I will update once I collect, IF, any good data.

 

[atc98092]

I would have to take Trip 1 for a week, note each day, then same for the other one, with the assumption weather is comparable.

This is the way I would go if I wanted to test two routes. With a multi-day test, you can help iron out traffic variations, and just make note of any significant weather that might skew the numbers. But you still end up with some real world use data.

 

[jefro]

I'd be willing to bet there will be little difference if driving style is maintained between tests. However the test is basically useless. There will be minimal difference.

You can easily use the infotainment screen. Going a round trip will be more exact of course.

I have the energy pop up to display when I power off too. Same as ongoing energy use screen. Generally for me it's 6-7KWH for 30 mile trip. 12-15 for 60 round trip. Tells me return is slightly more costly in terms of power. I assume more uphill and using lighting is reason.

 

[usedBolt]

I have been wondering on my daily for BEV.
I know which one is better all ICE - of course 45-50 mph, but for EV - well, not so sure.
While one would say lower speed less energy use, holds true, it is not so good anymore when you use regen often.
Regen is, what, about 60% efficient? Give or take a few, or a dozen% as it depends how you are slowing down.

The trip is flat.
Option 1: 11 miles, 27 minutes (stop and go, 25-35 mph)
Option 2: 13 miles, 27 minutes (much more steady speed, 45-50 mph)

If I could roll, without frequent stopping, I would always opt for the shorter one, but that is not the case.


So, any science supported answers?
I tried to do some math, but I gave up - too many variables and I did not have enough data to account for braking (regen), meaning time, distance, and power of braking.

If you really can keep the speed steady, below 50 mph, and the longer route doesn't have much in the way of hills or strong winds, you probably will eke out a tiny bit better efficiency. Any more than 50, though, and aero drag will quickly push the longer trip into negative territory.

EVs and hybrids are generally better in-town at low speeds, even with stop n go, than at higher steady speeds. Low speeds keep the aero drag, especially, down, and EVs recover a good bit of the accel energy with regen (use L range to maximize that in a Bolt). Even in a hybrid like a Prius, you'll see a higher MPG rating in city driving (low speed, using the electric mode more, recovering energy with regen, etc.) than on the highway (higher, steady speed, constant power draw with little chance for regen). In the olde dayze, with first-gen EVs like the EV1 and Honda, we used to call freeway driving (constant high speed) the EV-killer mode, because the range would be so much less than when running around town.

Craziest thing I ever saw was with a Corolla FX16 I used to have. EPA rated at something like 24/28. I normally got 25-26 mpg in it around town (suburban type driving, up to 45mph or so, signals every 1/2 mile or so with no effective coordination) and 28-30 on the freeway (65-75mph cruising). On one vacation, though, we did a day's touring around the wine country, mostly on back roads, plenty of hills but little traffic and speeds generally under 40 mph. Filled up the day before, for the touring, and after returning to the hotel, for the next day's trip home, and the tank mileage for that was 50 mpg!

 

[Tim]

I'm really surprised that anyone with much experience in the Bolt has any reason to think that option 2 might be more efficient. In L and with the regen paddle, it's very clear to me that option 1 is more efficient. If I were to operate the Bolt as a taxi in a downtown area or residential neighborhood where the speed limit is 25 and I sometimes go 35, I would expect a range on a full charge of about 500 miles.

 

[usedBolt]

I'm really surprised that anyone with much experience in the Bolt has any reason to think that option 2 might be more efficient. In L and with the regen paddle, it's very clear to me that option 1 is more efficient. If I were to operate the Bolt as a taxi in a downtown area or residential neighborhood where the speed limit is 25 and I sometimes go 35, I would expect a range on a full charge of about 500 miles.

The difference in distance offered by the OP is very small, and the obvious time difference considerable. I'd expect almost anybody to choose #2 even if it were much worse from an efficiency standpoint. In fact, if (and I made this caveat clear I hope) the speed in #2 actually does stay under 50 (preferably under 45 - what's the speed limit?), I'd expect efficiency to be pretty good. Not the best a Bolt can do, but pretty good - well into the 4+ miles/kwh band if HVAC isn't cranking. Where I live, that's the best I can hope for.

True, if #1 were truly low speed, stop & go, with very little go (i.e. traffic isn't drag-race start only to hit the brakes again hard; I've seen that), the theoretical range might approach the maximum the GOM opines. Few people would ever get that, at least frequently. You might get it on one trip when all the stars aligned, like that crazy trip I had in the Toyota. It could happen. So if you're looking for a personal best, once, #1 might be the way to go. Just don't expect it to work often; LOS E-F traffic flow like that is fundaamentally unstable. And mentally disastrous. For repeatable good, #2 is more likely to deliver.

 

[Boltmobile]

Option 1: 11 miles, 27 minutes (stop and go, 25-35 mph)
Option 2: 13 miles, 27 minutes (much more steady speed, 45-50 mph)

That was pretty much my dilemma as well (commute was 27 minutes 13 miles as well) and i chose option 3 (most of option 2 with a little bit of option 1)
I decreased the highway part (option 2) a little bit and added a stop and go part then tried different paths of this stop and go part until i found one that gave me a shorter commute with less variability of time. Shorter commute means less energy wasted because of A/C.

 

[Tim]

The obvious time difference considerable.

What time difference? Didn't the OP say either way would take 27 minutes?

 

[PLP]

I'm really surprised that anyone with much experience in the Bolt has any reason to think that option 2 might be more efficient. In L and with the regen paddle, it's very clear to me that option 1 is more efficient. If I were to operate the Bolt as a taxi in a downtown area or residential neighborhood where the speed limit is 25 and I sometimes go 35, I would expect a range on a full charge of about 500 miles.

Yes, the time is same (per google). Per my own experience so far - depends how I luck out on the lights.

Now, the above.
No, I would not agree.
Regen, although brings back the energy, is very inefficient comparing to a steady state driving.
Yet, I just have not done a good empirical comparison what regen would do and how much more energy is needed to accelerate...

From looking at the Python code shared here a while ago, yes, 30 mph is much more efficient than 50 mph, but we all know regen and accel are like 50% and 75% efficient (guesstimate).

 

[efbolt]

Yes, the time is same (per google). Per my own experience so far - depends how I luck out on the lights.

Now, the above.
No, I would not agree.
Regen, although brings back the energy, is very inefficient comparing to a steady state driving.
Yet, I just have not done a good empirical comparison what regen would do and how much more energy is needed to accelerate...

From looking at the Python code shared here a while ago, yes, 30 mph is much more efficient than 50 mph, but we all know regen and accel are like 50% and 75% efficient (guesstimate).

I agree with Tim. The mileage is 15% shorter and the speed is give or take 33% slower. That's a lot to overcome.

FWIW I'd take the constant speed route though regardless of efficiency. More leisurely drive and less chance of getting hit.

 

[jefro]

I'll pay the OP's electric costs if they do the test.
I have a similar drive but in my case there is a lot of up and down. I've found that the hills take a lot more in both EV and ICE driving. My wife's diesel did a bit better on hills, dunno why, excess torque was my original thought.

 

[PLP]

I'll pay the OP's electric costs if they do the test.
I have a similar drive but in my case there is a lot of up and down. I've found that the hills take a lot more in both EV and ICE driving. My wife's diesel did a bit better on hills, dunno why, excess torque was my original thought.

thanks for the offer

What ICE, EV and diesel are you comparing?

A few things to consider.
I found with multiple cars (petrol ICE - NA and FI) that the BSFC map is really true.
I can get relatively fast acceleration with very efficient driving (assuming slowing down is coasting, not friction braking).
The problem is to be in the most efficient area on the map while driving AT car. With MT it is much easier.
So, what I think, your case is that the petrol one would downshift causing RPM to go higher and use more fuel, while from BSFC point of view you should have gone at 75% - 90% torque/throttle in low RPM.
Diesel, though, due to the higher torque, has different shift points and keeps RPM lower in general. Hence, it would not rev or downshift so easily.

I bet, if you were to use manual shifting and keep foot down with RPM no more than 2200, it would be much better.