Jump to content

What's your Wh/km?


Tawpie

Recommended Posts

With all the new wheels coming out and having one on pre-order, I'm of course curious what sort of range I might expect to get. As an avid EUCWorld user, I log basically all of my tours and thought: I wonder if a polynomial fit (equation) of my typical energy consumption would be able to give me insight as to what I might expect from my new wheel and how does that change based on my speed?

So I pulled up a selection of my tours and manually (@Seba?) copied down my average energy use and average riding speed from each tour and entered them into this website https://arachnoid.com/polysolve/ and was rather surprised at what it showed. That made me curious about what other riders observe from the data provided by EUCWorld—I think it would be fun if others would do the same and share!

In my chart, two things really stood out:

  1. my energy consumption relative to speed is shockingly linear, I was expecting to see more drag effect. Obviously I'm not going fast enough for drag to be a significant factor because physics isn't supposed to lie, right?
  2. I'm going to get near marketing numbers for range from my new wheel. Neener neener! (until I start going faster, which I fully expect will happen even though I don't especially strive for speed)

As a baseline, here's some facts about my test conditions:

  • riding weight: 61kg (basically the same as the rider used by KS to quote 200km for the S20)
  • gear: 11kg of moto gear so I'm a bit of a marshmallow… hiking boots, armored textile pants and jacket, HJC i90 helmet
  • height: 170 cm (not counting the Jack-in-the-box helmet)
  • ride style: conservative… I don't ride like I have the zoomies and in general I go desperately slowly, pretty much Marty except I don't know how fast he really rides
  • ambient temperature: 5-9C
  • altitude: sea level to 100m
  • riding path: mostly paved multi-use path free of cars but some urban riding included (downtown Seattle)
  • minimum ride distance: 9.78 km

My data (with added 0, 0 data point) fits a fourth order polynomial with these coefficients:

-1.0876612882487601e-002
 1.0764557707167037e+000
-9.1082228460135362e-003
-1.9690444537539403e-003
 6.0877300160098145e-005

    Wh/km = -0.01 + 1.07v - 0.009v^2 - .002v^3 + .00006v^4 where v is my average riding speed in km/h.

In very loose terms for head computation, every km/h cost me 1 Wh/km.

Here is a chart of tours at a range of average riding speed in very similar routes. The bulk of the tours were basically dead flat but mixed in there are some runs up and down the 100m tall hill that overlooks my route. 22 of the tours were on my H666 shod KS16XS that has two batteries, 5 tours were on an S18 running a TR1 knobby. The low speed tours were from last year when I had only been riding for about 3 months... I had to go back a ways.

I added a data point at 0 Wh/km and 0 kph average riding speed to anchor the chart. The y axis is Wh/km for the tour, the x axis is average riding speed. You can see the curve is starting to experience the expected cubic relationship to velocity, but I'm not quite into the true drag penalty yet. Rolling resistance and mass still dominate.

Screen-Shot-2022-02-23-at-10-17-01-AM.pn

 

The raw data:

Wheel

Date

Highest Battery

Distance

Riding Speed

Wh/km

 

 

16X

2/4/21

84.5

16.2

15.4

11.9

Alki

AK Junction

16X

1/9/22

82.9

11.4

17.9

8.9

Alki

Lincoln Park

16X

1/8/22

77.3

16.5

19.6

12.9

Alki

Lincoln Park

16X

2/6/21

82.6

39.9

14.8

10.3

Alki

Lincoln Park

16X

2/9/22

84.5

15.4

20.7

10.6

Alki

 

16X

2/5/22

81.1

18.6

19.2

10.7

Alki

 

16X

2/3/22

83.1

13.5

24.7

12.4

Alki

 

16X

1/31/22

82.3

15.7

22.6

11.4

Alki

 

16X

1/10/22

81.6

12.1

20.3

10.5

Alki

 

16X

1/7/22

76.5

15.5

20.7

13

Alki

 

16X

12/15/22

78.4

15.6

24.9

15.6

Alki

 

16X

12/8/22

81.3

15.3

22.6

14

Alki

 

16X

12/5/22

83.8

15.3

23.6

14.4

Alki

 

16X

12/2/22

78.2

15.2

23.6

13.8

Alki

 

16X

12/1/22

80.9

15.1

19.9

12.9

Alki

 

16X

1/23/21

79.3

9.98

14.1

9.8

Alki

 

16X

1/28/21

80.9

10.5

12.2

8.3

Alki

 

16X

2/3/21

84.2

9.78

17

10.9

Alki

 

16X

1/30/21

83.1

22

13.3

10.6

Burien

 

16X

2/12/22

84

45

21.3

12.2

SNR

 

16X

2/6/22

82.9

70.9

24.3

12.3

South Lk WA Loop

 

16X

1/26/21

83.5

10.6

14.2

10.3

WS Hill

 

S18

2/14/22

78.9

14.3

19.2

12.6

Alki

AK Junction

S18

2/8/22

82.9

15.2

19.8

10.2

Alki

 

S18

1/3/22

80.6

14.3

20.1

13.9

Alki

 

S18

12/16/22

79.7

21.4

22.8

13.8

Alki

 

S18

12/18/22

83.5

19.1

13.9

11.5

Lincoln Park

AK Junction

Edited by Tawpie
typo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Eucner said:

Did you try to fit the point to 3rd order polynomial before you went to 4th order?

I did. That website has a button to increase/decrease the polynomial order.

2nd order

Screen-Shot-2022-02-23-at-12-39-11-PM.pn

 

third order

Screen-Shot-2022-02-23-at-12-39-25-PM.pn

deets on the third order

Mode: normal x,y analysis
Polynomial degree 3, 28 x,y data pairs.
Correlation coefficient = 0.8174037021139763
Standard error = 1.23574852201512

Output form: simple list (ordered x^0 to x^n):

-1.7563746529069335e-002
 1.4807379667252345e+000
-7.5312756298021810e-002
 1.5493725588177161e-003


Copyright (c) 2019, P. Lutus -- http://arachnoid.com. All Rights Reserved.

Edited by Tawpie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tawpie said:

I did. That website has a button to increase/decrease the polynomial order.

Nice, why did you choose 4th order? They look pretty same. Physics theory is only up to 3rd order.

Now you need to ride more at the low speed to fill all those empty data points :D.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Eucner said:

why did you choose 4th order?

because the button let me! And it provides a slightly more pronounced visual effect of the 3rd order term. But you're correct, 4th order or higher is meaningless. The correlation is starting to break down at 4th order and only gets nutz at higher order.

56 minutes ago, Eucner said:

Now you need to ride more at the low speed to fill all those empty data points :D.

uh... I did my part with the mid-speed numbers. Low speed and fastfastfast is for "others" to contribute! (I do have numbers for low speed off road—they don't really belong with the pavement numbers though). Maybe somebody that likes to ride distances backwards can give us the low speed numbers?

Edited by Tawpie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EUC World calculates Wh/mi as Power / Speed.

If the speed is very low, changes in riding style have a huge impact on the result.

Below is real data- see if you can puzzle through how such an inefficient number might occur ;) 
At least 5 what-if's are answered by the various parameters logged...
GPS-based altitude is rather noisy in the forest (hint); this ride had no elevation change.

AM-JKLVBqlwBmz1SU-WEhyBJb06QOuRcFTUohdNm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't Begode/Gotway report something like phase current so the 'power' numbers are ~3x what's actually taken from the battery? At the rate you were going though, your day was going to end at 20 miles :mellow:

I chalk up poor Wh/mi at low speeds to the fact that torque takes loads of power but might not result in much distance travelled. So yeah, there's some lower bound where Wh/km isn't terribly useful.

Edited by Tawpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...