Jump to content
Ford Fusion Energi Forum

larryh

Fusion Energi Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,462

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    152

 Content Type 

Everything posted by larryh

  1. larryh
    I'm not sure what to think of the measurements the car is reporting for plug-in energy consumed. For my 60 mile commute this weekend, I recorded the energy consumed and regen'ed to the HVB. The total amount of energy extracted from the HVB was 7.74 kWh. Regen added 1.99 kWh of energy back to the HVB. That's a net 7.74 - 1.99 = 5.75 kWh of plug-in energy consumed from the HVB. During that trip, I recorded the second highest MPGe I have measured for my 60 mile commutes. According to the BECM, the HVB started with 7.074 kWh of energy and ended up with 1.184 kWh of energy (I had about 0.184 kWh of energy left before the ICE would start). That would suggest the HVB provided a net 7.074 - 1.184 = 5.89 kWh of plug-in energy. The car's trip odometer reported the car consumed 5.6 kWh of energy. Last year, the three different computations all matched closely for the commutes I recorded. This year, for some reason, they are all out of sync. I think the BECM is confused.
  2. larryh
    The following chart shows energy loss during a short trip on a level road (see post 38). I accelerate to 50 mph, maintain the speed for a short while, and then come to a stop. Energy loss is the green line. It gradually increases with increasing speed (friction increases with speed). The slope is greater than what one would expect from friction alone since the motor is not 100% efficient in providing the kinetic energy to accelerate the car. Once 50 mph is attained, energy loss continues at a constant rate due to friction, i.e. the green line is straight with constant slope. When stopping, the slope of the green line decreases as friction decreases with decreasing speed. The slope of the line is slightly greater than from friction alone since regen is not 100% efficient. The green and blue lines coincide at the end of the trip. The road is level, so there is no change in potential energy. The trip began with 0 kinetic energy (the car was stopped) and ended with 0 kinetic energy (again the car was stopped)--the red line. The green line is the difference between the blue (energy consumed from the HVB) and red lines. The majority of the energy loss for the trip is determined by friction associated with the speed of the car. Only a small portion of the loss is due to motor inefficiency in providing kinetic energy to accelerate the car or during regen. Note that energy loss when accelerating the car to 50 mph (prior to time 0.007) was 0.073 kWh. The energy loss when decelerating the car from 50 mph (after time 0.010) was 0.033 kWh. Adjusting for the different time intervals, the average power loss during acceleration was 10.8 kW and the average power loss during braking was 6.9 kW. More energy was lost during acceleration than braking. The average power loss while maintaining 50 mph was 11.7 kW--this is the power consumed from the HVB to maintain constant speed.
  3. larryh
    The two previous charts demonstrate why you will get worse mileage on a hilly road vs. a level road. The light blue lines show the energy output from the HVB less the kinetic/potential energy of the car. This represents energy that you can never recover to do useful work, i.e. energy that is lost forever to heat, sound, and various other non-useful forms of energy. This is unlike the potential/kinetic energy of the car which is always 100% available to do useful work and thus excluded in the energy losses calculation. If you make a round trip, the change in kinetic/potential energy of the car is 0 and the final value of the blue line will be the total energy consumed from the HVB. The blue line will always remain the same or increase. It can never decrease. By definition, an energy loss is not recoverable to do useful work (we would be violating several laws of Physics if the blue line decreased). If we travel at constant speed on a level road, then energy loss will increase at a constant rate, i.e. the blue line will be a straight line with constant slope (the slope representing a constant power loss). If we travel up a hill, the slope of the line will increase. The car needs to supply the potential energy to climb the hill. Since the motor is not 100% efficient, some of the energy from the HVB used to provide the potential energy will be lost during the conversion to potential energy. When we travel down the hill and there is regen, then again the slope of the line will increase. The motor is not 100% efficient converting kinetic/potential energy to electrical energy. In either case, energy loss will be greater than it would be on a level road. The car will have consumed more energy from the HVB for the hilly trip vs. the same trip on a level road.
  4. larryh
    This chart is similar to the previous one except in the reverse direction. The car is now ascending the same hill at 30 mph. You can see the slope of the light blue line (energy loss) is steeper during the 8% grade portion than the rest of the hill, i.e. the slope decreases a little around time 0.018 hours. Even though the motor is about 92% efficient in providing the potential energy required to climb the hill, it has to provide a lot of potential energy. This additional energy loss increases the slope (power loss) during the 8% grade ascent prior to time 0.018 hours. After 0.018 hours, the car no longer needs to supply much potential energy to ascend the remainder of the hill. There is a small amount of regen during the slight decline at the end.
  5. larryh
    The following chart shows Energy Loss when descending an 8% grade hill at 30 mph. The dark blue line shows potential energy assuming the car's mass is 1895 kg. The dark blue line rises at first indicating the car is ascending a slight hill. Then begins to fall slowly at time 0.007 hours as the descent begins. At time 0.015 hours the dark blue line falls more rapidly at the start of the 8% grade descent. The purple line shows the energy supplied by the HVB. It increases gradually when climbing the slight hill. It levels off as the descent begins. At this time, the potential energy supplied by the hill matches the energy required to overcome friction, so the purple line is level. During the 8% grade, regen begins and the purple line begins to fall rapidly as the motor converts potential energy to electrical energy which is then supplied to the HVB. The light blue line, shows the energy loss. This is the difference between the dark blue and purple lines. The light blue line is basically a straight line. The slope of the line indicates the power loss. The slope of the line (power loss) increases by 3% during regen, indicating regen is approximately 97% efficient.
  6. larryh
    I also measured the energy loss descending the same hill. Unlike ascending the hill, the loss was independent of the grade of the hill. The loss was almost the same when traveling on a level road, when ascending a 2% grade, and when descending up to an 8% grade hill (this indicates that regen efficiency is close to 100%). As with ascending hills, the loss increases with increasing speed. The measured power loss at 30 mph when descending the hill was 5.15 kW. When ascending the 8% grade hill, it was 6.71. The difference, 1.56 kW, is due to the efficiency of the motor being less than 100%. The power required for the potential energy to ascend the hill at 30 mph is 19.03 kW. This implies the motor power loss when ascending an 8% grade hill is 1.56 / 19.03 = 8% or motor efficiency is 92%. At least the motor is slightly more efficient when climbing the hill than on a level road (88% efficiency) to help mitigate some of the motor losses when supplying the potential energy to climb the hill. Note: Actually there is a 3% increase in energy loss when descending the 8% grade hill vs. traveling on a level road. That implies regen efficiency is around 97%.
  7. larryh
    I measured the energy loss ascending hills at different speeds. The energy loss is defined to be the difference between the energy output by the the HVB and the potential energy required to climb the hill. The steeper the hill, the more the loss. The faster you ascend the hill, the more the loss. The energy loss (kWh/mile) are given in the table below: hill grade speed (mph) 2% 8% 20 0.10 0.22 30 0.13 0.23 40 0.15 0.27 The loss for the 2% grade hill is similar to the loss on a level road. As the grade of the hill increases, the loss increases significantly, mainly because the motor has to output a lot of power to climb the hill and the motor is generally only around 88% efficient. Speed has less of an impact.
  8. larryh
    I have mainly been interested in driving efficiently, so I haven't collected much performance data on the car. However, there are five modes of operation: 1. Charge Depleting Mode (EV Auto) 2. Charge Sustaining Mode (Hybrid mode when the 2D battery icon is displayed after depleting all the plug-in energy) 3. State of Charge Hold Mode (EV Later) 4. Locked Electric Mode (EV Now) 5. Locked Electric Mode Override by Driver (when the EV Now icon is yellow) For my 60 mile commute yesterday, the maximum discharge power limit from the HVB started out at 68 kW and gradually fell to 60 kW. I used all the modes (except 5) throughout the trip. Changing modes does not change the discharge power limit from the HVB. However, in Hybrid Mode, when the SOC displayed on the 2-D battery icon fell below 40%, the maximum discharge power limit from the HVB suddenly dropped to 35 kW. So the power output of the car is reduced when in hybrid mode and the SOC shown on the 2D battery icon falls below 40%. If you don't want this, simply don't allow the car to enter hybrid mode. Switch to EV later mode before the car enters hybrid mode. My advice is to never allow the car to enter hybrid mode until the very end of your trip. Running the car for long periods of time in hybrid mode is probably hard on the battery. Stay in EV Later mode until the end of the trip and then switch to EV Auto to enter hybrid mode and use up the remaining charge in the HVB.
  9. larryh
    The total output power of the FFE in EV Auto mode (charge depletion mode) is 195 hp. I assume 188 hp applies to hybrid and EV later modes. You can see a torque vs rpm and power vs rpm curve for the motor here: http://www.fordfusionenergiforum.com/topic/3179-ev-dynamics-physics-experiment/?p=20696 The maximum output of the HVB is 68 kW. In the chart, it was only outputting 56.5 kW. So the curve is not quite the maximum power output of the motor. Maximum torque is about 230 N-m or about 170 lb-ft, when rpms are below 2000.
  10. larryh
    Last summer, ETE (Energy to Empty) at 100% SOC for the HVB was about 7.10 kWh. This spring, it has been around 6.95 kWh. The car generally charges to about 98% SOC. So last summer, ETE at the start of a trip was normally 6.96 kWh and this spring it is normally 6.81 kWh. The minimum ETE that you can discharge the HVB to before the ICE comes on is 1.0 kWh. Thus last summer, the maximum energy I could get out of the HVB was 6.96 – 1.00 = 5.96 kWh. This spring it is 6.81 – 1.00 = 5.81 kWh.
  11. larryh
    Regen Efficiency Yesterday, I attempted to measure regen efficiency using Low to slow the car down from 40 mph to 15 mph. The following chart shows the results of one of several attempts. The blue line is the kinetic energy available for regen assuming the mass of the car is 1940 kg. As the car slows down, the kinetic energy of the car decreases. The blue line shows the amount of the decrease with time. After 10 seconds, kinetic energy has decreased by about 0.07 kWh. The green line is the amount of kinetic energy that makes it to the motor. The difference between the red and blue lines is the energy lost due to friction (aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, and internal frictions). The amount lost due to friction is estimated from coast down trials and computing power loss due to friction vs. speed (see post 4). The red line is the electrical energy generated by the motor. The difference between the red and green lines is motor efficiency. From the trials, 82% of the kinetic energy was converted to electrical energy stored in the HVB. Motor efficiency was 95%. Motor efficiency depends on the actual mass of the car. If the estimate of 1940 kg is 2% too low, then motor efficiency is actually 93%.
  12. larryh
    The car also does not report motor output power accurately during regen. The following chart shows regen with the car in Low decelerating from 40 mph to 17 mph. The blue line is the predicted amount of energy available for regen (assuming the mass of the car and its contents if 1940 kg), i.e. kinetic energy minus frictional energy losses. The red line is what the car reports as the mechanical energy input to the motor. It should coincide with the blue line. In order for them to coincide, the car's actual weight would have to be less than the curb weight given in Ford's specification. The green line is the regen supplied to the HVB, i.e the electrical energy output from the motor. The red and green lines coincide. That implies that the motor is 100% efficient during regen. That is very unlikely. Fords specifications state it is 95% efficient during regen. Motor power appears to be correct only when traveling on a level road at constant speed.
  13. larryh
    Your driving style most certainly does matter. It most likely outweighs any charging practices. Some of the main factors in determining battery degradation are the number of charging cycles and average battery temperature. If someone fully discharges the battery and recharges the battery twice a day for their commute to and from work, they are going to have much greater degradation than someone who charges once a day and does not fully discharge the battery. Similarly, someone in the northern US will have less degradation than in the south.
  14. larryh
    Well it definitely does not report motor output power accurately when descending a hill. If I were to believe what it reports, regen would be 100% efficient. I suspect that motor torque (used to compute motor output power), is estimated based upon the power from the HVB. The estimate doesn't take all the variables needed into account. Motor efficiency is probably a very complex function of many variables. That's another reason I can't generate a map of motor efficiency--I don't have accurate torque measurements.
  15. larryh
    Is the green light on the charger flashing when it says waiting to charge? MyFord Touch should provide a scheduled start time when charging will begin if it is waiting to charge. You can also try MyFord Mobile and make sure it is set for Charge Now.
  16. larryh
    Go to the EV Info screen (the leaf icon) on MyFord touch. It should tell you what the car is doing, i.e. Charging Status: Charging, Charged, Waiting to Charge, or Charge Fault.
  17. larryh
    For the 120 V charger, the amount of electricity consumed to charge a fully depleted HVB varies from 7 to 8 kWh.
  18. larryh
    FORScan does indeed allow you to control the car. I tried the BdyCM PIDs to lock and unlock all the doors. They did lock and unlock the doors. I don't think I will experiment with the control PIDs. You might damage the car. Setting the generator voltage, disabling fuel injectors, setting pump speeds, setting the spark advance or the camshaft angle, etc. is probably not the best thing to be experimenting with.
  19. larryh
    Yes-it is the 2.2.4 beta. The Android and iOS versions are still using the old 2.2.3 kernel. So you have to run the Windows version.
  20. larryh
    Energy Consumption Climbing a Hill (Revised) After doing several more coast down experiments and analyzing the data, I strongly suspect that the car does not report motor output power correctly when ascending or descending hills. It is only seems to be accurate on level roads. Based on this assumption, I have revised the chart in Post 39. The friction is the same traveling on a level road as it is climbing a hill. The car is simply reporting motor output power incorrectly. The difference between the red and dark blue lines shows the discrepancy. It appears the motor is more efficient when producing higher output power required to climb hills vs. lower power output required for level roads. For level roads, motor efficiency is about 88%. When climbing this hill, motor efficiency is about 93%. Efficiency appears to be a function of motor output power. The greater the power, the more efficient the motor. This is the opposite from what we saw during acceleration. However, with acceleration, motor rpm is rapidly increasing. When climbing a hill, motor rpm remains constant. I suspect the car is computing the output power of the motor using the input power of the HVB and assuming efficiency is 88%. That does not work when climbing hills when the motor outputs a lot more power and is more efficient.
  21. larryh
    It looks like they also added a new set of control PIDs. I wonder what they are for. Are they used to control various settings in the modules? Is it really safe to be changing the settings in the car? Should one be setting the fan speed for the HVB or turning various pumps on and off?
  22. larryh
    FORScan has released a new Windows version of their software that now properly reads all the modules available on the various CAN buses using an OBD II scanner: HS, HS2, HS3, and MS CAN buses. The organization of the modules is as follows: HS CAN SOBDMC - Secondary OBD Control Module C BECM - Battery Energy Control Module SOBDM - Secondary OBD Control Module A PCM - Powertrain Control Module OBDII - On Board Diagnostic II APIM - Accessory Protocol Interface Module ACCM - Air Conditioning Control Module GFM - Generic Function Module DCDC - DC to DC Converter Control Module PAM - Parking Aid Module BdyCM - Body Control Module HS2 CAN OCS - Occupant Classification System Module ABS - Anti-Lock Brake / Traction Control Module RCM - Restraint Control Module PSCM - Power Steering Control Module SCCM - Steering Column Control Module GWM - Gateway Module A IPMA - Image Processing Module A HS3 CAN DACMC - Digital Audio Control Module C DSP - (Audio) Digital Signal Processing Module TCU - Telematic Control Unit Module ACM - Audio Control Module IPC - Instrument Panel Control Module MS CAN SODR - Side Obstacle Detection Control Module - Right SODL - Side Obstacle Detection Control Module - Left FCIM - Front Controls Interface Module RTM - Radio Transceiver Module PDM - Passengers Door Control Unit DDM - Drivers Door Module GPSM - Global Positioning System Module DSM - Driver's Seat Module
  23. larryh
    The following chart demonstrates that you consume more energy the faster you climb a hill. I drove on the same hill at three different speeds. The faster the car traveled, the more energy consumed. The main reason for more energy consumption at higher speeds is increased aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, and internal friction--the same reason as when driving on a level road.
  24. larryh
    If you use the electric motor to keep you from rolling backwards, the motor does no work. The motor outputs zero power and zero mechanical energy to keep the car from rolling backwards on a hill. However, because the motor is not 100% efficient, some energy will be consumed from the HVB. In the absence of non-conservative forces, i.e. friction, it requires exactly the same amount of energy to climb the hill no matter how you do it, regardless of the speed/acceleration you choose. It takes exactly mgh energy (referred to as potential energy), where m is the mass of the car, h is the height of the hill, and g is the earth's gravitational constant. However, because of friction, it requires more energy the faster you go up the hill. Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. Thus to minimize the amount of energy lost to friction, you want to go slowly up the hill. The total energy to go up the hill will be that lost due to friction plus the potential energy mgh. You can't change the potential energy, but you can reduce the amount lost due to friction by driving slower. Furthermore, I suspect the car is more efficient (less friction and/or the motor uses less electricity) when going uphill than on a level road. If that is the case, you want to maximize the time going up the hill to keep the car operating more efficiently longer. Which again suggests you want to go slowly up the hill.
  25. larryh
    I suspect the amount of charging and depth of discharge has a significant impact on the state of health of the battery. People who have a long commute to work, charge both at home and work, and completely discharge the battery in each direction will probably experience battery degradation much faster. In the summer, I only use about 2/3 of the charge in the battery for my commute to and from work. In the winter, I use almost all of it. So I experience greater depth of discharge of the HVB in the winter. To determine battery degradation, you would need a regular route that you travel and with the same outside temperature. The route and temperature have a significant impact on the amount of energy you can extract from the HVB.
×
×
  • Create New...