World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
It is, but there's a big "but" with that. When the range is determined by agencies like the EPA, the car is allowed to run in the most optimal configuration, meaning:
This way they get an artificially inflated official range. Now when a customer buys the car, loads in all their stuff and people and actually uses heating/AC/onboard entertainment/autopilot/... and drives in suboptimal weather their range would instantly show as much less than the official rating. And this is where they were cheating, and would show a range number that was closer to the artificially inflated official one.
To be fair, though, when determining "official" fuel consumption for fuel burning cars, they do the same tricks as above. But they probably won't cheat on the range display, since range is much less of a relevant value for fuel burning cars. Also, everyone expects fuel burning cars to burn much more fuel than it says in the ads.
(That said, when I got my new car, a Dacia Jogger, I was really surprised that the actual fuel consumption is actually lower than the official one.)
EPA tests all cars stationary on a dynamometer through different cycles. Influence of air drag, air condition, cold temperatures etc. are then added through a factor that is typically 0.7 according to EPA‘s official information at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/testing-national-vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-laboratory
I agree part of the EPA range is calculated but I think it’s wrong to claim that a/c and other factors aren’t taken into account.
I’ve driven my EV better than EPA range at times and that included using A/C and having more than one person in the car. I’m not saying that driving it that way is a ton of fun and I’m not saying that I can do that in the midst of winter. But it’s definitely possible.
I just get a 502 error on that link...
Sorry, I have to admit, I didn't look exactly into what the EPA does, but I have some experience regarding NEFZ, NDEC and WLTP, all of which don't care about stuff like heating or AC.
But EPA has it's own bag of flaws. For starters, these tests aren't done by an independent agency or something, they are done by the manufacturers. They also don't test the real road vehicles, but usually just pre-production prototypes.
And to factor in all of:
they just multiply the lab test result by 0.7. Compared with the test results from ADAC, that's a correct adjustment would be 0.6, which is a pretty massive difference. For e.g. the Tesla 3, that's a difference from 415km -> 355km.
What's also not part of either of these calculations is what percentage of the time these cars will have to be heated/cooled. There aren't too many countries where the weather is 15-25°C for the majority of the year, yet still the EPA calculates that heating and cooling will only be used infrequently.
The link works ok here. 502 indicates a server problem, so that might have been temporary.
I’ll state that we don’t really need to discuss how standardized measurements will never be able to reflect every conceivable use case in every conceivable geography, because that is simply not what these ratings are there for. They exist to make vehicles simpler to compare.
And of course manufacturers will use (and emphasize) those estimates if that makes them look better. Doesn’t make a difference if EV or ICE manufacturer.
None of my past ICE vehicles ever got close to the rated consumption. Common sense tells me I shouldn’t expect things to be different with a different propulsion system.
I like the Zoe for this reason. It goes longer and faster than the official stats. Maybe because it was a proof of concept car. Of course like any EV it depends a lot on the weather, so the max. range is a pretty useless metric anyway.
Range anxiety is overblown. Any EV can handle the daily commute, and if not, I d probably consider what I'm doing with my life driving hundreds of miles every day.
It's also simply harder to hit peak rpm for optimal fuel efficency for ice vehicles.
The question is do other ev manufacturers use the same standards for determining range. (Answer is probably yes)
For the official range (so the EPA tests)? Totally, yes.
But this article was about displaying an inflated range in while driving. And with that I don't know. As we know, the car industry is generally not extremely trustworthy. Cheating on stuff like that is pretty common. That's why it needs to be called out and punished, to curb it.
So the story here is one of "Tesla has been caught and they are getting (maybe) some trouble for it", not a "Tesla is much less trustworthy than others". It's consumers vs manufacturers, not one manufacturer-fanbase vs another manufacturer-fanbase.
Well said
It's not a level playing field- Tesla game the EPA testing system and use adjustment factors to inflate their on-paper battery range