BEV Range Discussion – We Need to Talk About the Way Automakers Establish Them

If you do not recall Tesla's latest controversy, Reuters revealed that Elon Musk ordered the company's BEVS to show the maximum EPA range possible with the available charge even in the worst conditions, such as cold weather. The company also created a team to cancel complaints based on that.

According to Reuters, when Tesla BEVs reached 50% charge, the mileage would drop drastically to show the accurate ranges. The first lawsuit against that has three practical examples. One plaintiff drove 92 miles and lost 182. Another one took his Model 3 on a 180-mile trip, but his car showed a 283-mile drop. The last one needs his Model 3 for daily trips of 150 miles, but his BEV loses 200 miles of range. And he only charges to 90% capacity, as Tesla recommends for BEVs with NCA chemistry. These recommendations deserve a closer look – and show how distant we are from an acceptable range standard for these vehicles.

Tesla has different suggestions depending on the battery pack chemistry. Those that use lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells should be frequently charged to 100% – at least once a week. For vehicles that rely on ternary batteries, the owner's manual states that "Tesla recommends limiting the battery's full charge level to below 90% for daily use and charging to 100% only if needed for a long trip." There you have it: if a vehicle should only be charged to 90% of capacity for daily use, why does the BEV maker disclose its range as the one achievable with 100% capacity? That's the exception, not the rule.

It is as if you could never fill up the fuel tank in your ICE car because that could damage it. If carmakers bragged about ranges – which they don't – it would be only theoretical for everyday use if they did as BEV makers do with their ternary battery packs. But it gets worse: Tesla also wants customers to avoid letting the battery pack "get too low (the battery icon turns yellow when the capacity remaining in the battery drops to 20% or below)."

Follow these recommendations to the letter, and the range you can count on goes from 20% to 90%. That's 70% of the official EPA range figures. In Tesla's case, they are also under scrutiny because the company adopts an optional five-cycle testing procedure that presents more generous range numbers. Why EPA allows that is hard to understand.

What good is a range that is not always available? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider only what drivers can use at all times and leave the eventual extras to a "reserve?" It would be twice as large as what ICE vehicles offer, but that could be highly welcome to address range anxiety and cold-weather use. Some BEVs facing low temperatures may lack half the range that they normally have in warm conditions – which is another concern related to how far these vehicles can travel. The deal is that it would have made the very first modern electric cars much less attractive. Just check what the Roadster would offer.

When Tesla presented it in 2008, it said it had a range of 244 miles (393 kilometers). If it also had the same charging recommendations – which it should have, considering its ternary battery pack – 70% of that would be 170.8 mi (274.9 km). The owner's manual of the Roadster reveals these tips were yet to be developed. If the vehicle was left unplugged, it should have at least 15% of charge, but that's everything it contains about percentages. If Tesla already knew what it now does, would it convince as many people as 244 mi did? Probably not.

Now think about the first Nissan LEAF and its 73-mi (117-km) EPA range: 70% of that is 51.1 mi (82.2 km). Not even the maximum range was appealing. With the Model S, the 208-mi (335-km) range that the 60-kWh battery pack offered would be reduced to 145.6 mi (234.3 km), while the 85-kWh would get 185.5 mi (298.5 km) instead of the 265 mi (426 km) that helped Tesla sell the car. Ironically, the higher the alleged range, the more meaningful the 70% restriction is. If Tesla had followed this more straightforward approach, none of its early vehicles would have broken the 200-mile barrier.

In a way, Our Next Energy (ONE) has proposed to address that with the Gemini battery pack. Comprised of cells with two chemistries, this hybrid solution will use LFP cells for daily driving needs and anode-free batteries to extend that range when that is necessary. The heavier LFP accumulators provide 150 miles of range in the 185-kWh battery pack, while the anode-free cells deliver energy for 450 miles more. ONE proposes that only LFP batteries be charged for regular driving, and the anode-free units will be just a reserve.

They do not directly power the car or get charged: the LFP cells intermediate everything. In other words, when the vehicle needs more power, the anode-free batteries charge those made of LFP so that they can power the motors. When they need to recover energy, the LFP cells provide it in a gentler way than regular charging would allow. It will be enlightening to see how carmakers using the ONE Gemini will disclose the range it offers.

As I already said, the anode-free cells provide only an energy reserve to the LFP batteries, which should only be used in emergencies and road trips. Is it reasonable to count on that when calculating the range?

The truth is that BEVs will demand us to discuss what this word means. Any definition for "range" will include the distance a vehicle can cover, but under which circumstances? Should they be frequent use without damage risks to the battery pack or the most favorable situations, even if with some sacrifice from that component – such as a full charge? Doesn't it sound strange that fully charging something compromises its lifespan?

When you look at the ONE Gemini, it may sound ridiculous to say its range is 150 miles when it can drive a car four times that much. However, you should not count on 600 miles every time you charge the BEV if you want it to last. At the same time, batteries that do not charge may present damage. How will ONE deal with that? Again, it will be interesting to observe how the vehicles that adopt this hybrid battery pack will frame and explain the possibilities it offers.

When it comes to the BEVs we already have for sale, the discussion may be a lot easier. If those with LFP battery packs do not have the lower-than-20% restriction, they may be the only ones entitled to claim a range that is equivalent to 100% of their capacities. Even in these cases, having a reserve would probably be welcome to provide some safety margin.

As for those with ternary cells, establishing the range between 20% and 90% – or between 10% and 80% – of the total capacity would theoretically offer some advantages. Apart from a more realistic travel capacity, fast charging could be done from 0% to 100% if 0% and 100% did not mean what they say. They would just be reference points for, respectively, 10% and 80% of the battery pack's true capacity. That means the car would still have 10% capacity when the dashboard said it had nothing left. When it reached 100%, that would be equivalent to 80% of the total capacity, saving 20% of the battery pack. That should make the component last longer than it currently does, even if that did not eliminate the need to eventually replace it when it got too old, as I have already discussed.

If BEV makers adopted this as a rule, most of them would naturally migrate to LFP, which would be no surprise. BYD based its whole expansion strategy on these cells, and it has just achieved 5 million NEVs, which include BEVs and PHEVs. Another possible outcome would be searching for new chemistries that did not combine nickel and cobalt. ONE tried to do that due to the risk of having thermal runaways – fires, in simpler terms.

Would this range approach be feasible? Would automakers accept informing lower ranges – even if they were more trustworthy? What about customers: do they prefer to know how far their BEVs can travel or are more interested in bragging about something their cars cannot achieve most of the time? Should governments impose this more-realistic range-calculation method? Whatever you think about that, this is a discussion we must stimulate. The bottom line is that each BEV maker currently defines what range means for them. To add insult to injury, deceiving allegations can lead to frustration or even make battery packs die before they were supposed to bid farewell. As you can see, we need to discuss a lot more about BEVs than just how far they can genuinely travel, but as we have to kick it off at some point, the range may be a good starting point.