Wheels!

All Honda E related discussions
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

keithr wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:24 pm The printed brochure also had glaring iconsistencies/errors in it, namely that thay claimed a range of "up to 136 Miles" and at the same time a "Electric Energy Consumption: 18-20kWh/100km", which works out at a range of 99-110 miles. I see today on the confugurator website it says it has a "EV Operation Efficiency" of 17.2 kWh/100km, or 115.6 miles range (from 32kWh available on a 100% charge with a new battery). That still doesn't match with their claimed WLTP combined range - so it's not very helpful information!
Interesting that the Advance spec now quotes a value range for "Range (WLTP combined)" of between 131-137 miles, which we could assume means it's all about the wheels?
I assumed the usable capacity is the quoted 35.5 kWh, which would yield 129 miles at that average "EV Operation Efficiency" of 17.2, which is pretty close to the WLTP lower figure (for the Advance) they now quote as 131 miles. Or course this then makes the efficiency figure further out for the higher quoted range of 137 miles.
keithr wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:24 pm It does seem strange though that they would put options on the website, like leather seats and particularly different design wheels, without also showing photographs of them. The last time I looked(today) they still didn't have photos of the optional wheels. Would you buy either the E7701 17" Alloy Wheel Set for £945, or the E7702 17" Alloy Wheel Set for £1,025 without knowing what they looked like?! I wouldn't!
specifications were, or how much it would cost!
You have always been able to see the wheels and other trim options by using the German version at https://www.honda.de/cars/new/honda-e/o ... b/exterior, which makes it all the madder that you can't on the UK site. Why don't they just use the same code?!

Btw the German site quotes the higher consumption figure you have in the printed brochure - "Kombiniert (kWh/100 km *2)) 20-18" :roll:

User avatar
RAL7004
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:39 pm
Location: Germany

Post by RAL7004 »

Kleiner Service für Euch:

Untitled-1.png

User avatar
keithr
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:30 pm
Location: Dorset, UK

Post by keithr »

rickwookie wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:01 pm I assumed the usable capacity is the quoted 35.5 kWh, which would yield 129 miles at that average "EV Operation Efficiency" of 17.2, which is pretty close to the WLTP lower figure (for the Advance) they now quote as 131 miles. Or course this then makes the efficiency figure further out for the higher quoted range of 137 miles.
The 35.5kWh is the gross battery capacity, but most manufacturers prevent you from using the top and bottom 5% in order to help the battery last longer. So that means there is only 90% of the gross battery capacity that you can use (from 5 to 95% charge), or in this case 90% of 35.5 = 32kWh. Honda don't specify how much is usable; the EV database estimates it at 32kWh, to be consistent with all other lithium-ion battery powered electric cars. I doubt that it will be far different from a usable 32kWh.
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

keithr wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:34 pm
rickwookie wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:01 pm I assumed the usable capacity is the quoted 35.5 kWh, which would yield 129 miles at that average "EV Operation Efficiency" of 17.2, which is pretty close to the WLTP lower figure (for the Advance) they now quote as 131 miles. Or course this then makes the efficiency figure further out for the higher quoted range of 137 miles.
The 35.5kWh is the gross battery capacity, but most manufacturers prevent you from using the top and bottom 5% in order to help the battery last longer. So that means there is only 90% of the gross battery capacity that you can use (from 5 to 95% charge), or in this case 90% of 35.5 = 32kWh. Honda don't specify how much is usable; the EV database estimates it at 32kWh, to be consistent with all other lithium-ion battery powered electric cars. I doubt that it will be far different from a usable 32kWh.
I assumed it was the usable, not gross capacity, otherwise none of their figures add up! (ev-database are only guessing, right?)

EDIT: Oh no you're right, the brochure (https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/loc ... UKV3LR.pdf) specifically states, under "TECHNICAL DATA" on page 7: ♦ Gross Battery Capacity: 35.5kWh
User avatar
keithr
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:30 pm
Location: Dorset, UK

Post by keithr »

keithr wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:34 pm the EV database estimates it at 32kWh, to be consistent with all other lithium-ion battery powered electric cars.
I've just remembered that therre was/is one car that's different - the Chevrolet Bolt. I think they specify a usable battery capacity, but the capacity is actually bigger and hidden from the user. It does that so that the available range does not reduce as the battery pack gets older. So, for example, let's say when new the capacity is 100kWh but the car only uses 80kWh (80% of the available battery capacity) to give a range of n miles, and three years later when the state of health of the battery has reduced so that it can now only hold 90% of the original battery capacity, it will then use more of the actual battery capacity (about 89% of the 90kWh available) so that it still has 80kWh it can use and the range will still be n miles. Most, or all, other manufactures just use as much of the battery capacity as it can (apart from the top and bottom 5%), so that the range reduces over time. I guess that the Bolt also won't let the car use the bottom 5%, or charge to over 95% of the grosss battery capacity.
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

Okay so more on this:
rickwookie wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:15 am
AdamM94 wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:56 pm Haven't seen a few of these accessories yet either!

Looks like the brochure was updated as well - https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/loc ... e-20YM.pdf
That brochure finally puts into print the comparison between the e Advance with 16" and 17" wheels. As per speculation in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90 the 17" wheels gain nothing in performance, take a BIG hit to the overall efficiency, probably decrease ride comfort (pure speculation on my part) and won't even look nicer once they've been curbed to f*%k, which they'll more likely be after the first wife-drive.

I think I'm going to tell my dealer that we want the wheels swapped for the 16" when he calls on Monday. I know we chose on order in September, but this detail on efficiency was not in the public domain back then.
I just noticed another article that shows the same is true of the e-Golf: https://insideevs.com/news/433127/vw-e- ... ange-test/

Now bogga reckons that the 16" rims are wearing Yokohamas
bogga wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:13 pm Rear: Yokohama Bluearth A AE-50 205/55R16 91V. Roll resistance C, grip A, noise 71db.
Front: Yokohama Bluearth A AE-50 185/60R16 86H

Same as tyre type as the Honda Jazz
but when you zoom in on the 16" rims in the 3D view (on the regions where the website allows that, such as honda.de or honda.nl) they're still wearing Michelins.
User avatar
bogga
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:41 pm

Post by bogga »

rickwookie wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:22 pm Okay so more on this:
rickwookie wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:15 am Now bogga reckons that the 16" rims are wearing Yokohamas
I reckon so, the yokohama's have a lower rolling resistance, I think they are a B not a C as I wrote before, that and they are thinner. That's the reason for increased range. I don't think Michelin Pilot Sport 4's come in such small sizes.
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

bogga wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:29 pm
rickwookie wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:22 pm Okay so more on this:
rickwookie wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:15 am Now bogga reckons that the 16" rims are wearing Yokohamas
I reckon so, the yokohama's have a lower rolling resistance, I think they are a B not a C as I wrote before, that and they are thinner. That's the reason for increased range. I don't think Michelin Pilot Sport 4's come in such small sizes.
No you're right. I zoomed in on the image and they where 19"! I then checked and they definitely don't come in anywhere near that narrow a tyre - 215 minimum.

The rear Yokohama Bluearth A AE-50 205/55 R16 (91V) are (C - A - 71db). Slightly lower rolling resistance can be had while not significantly increasing tyre noise from Bridgestone Turanza T005 205/45 R16 W (87) with (B - A - 72db). If it's all about noise, then Dunlop Sport Maxx RT 205/45W16 are (E - A - 67db), but you're probably eating as much battery with those as anything you can get on the 17" rims.

The front Yokohama Bluearth A AE-50 185/60R16 86H don't seem to be available outside of Japan, so they'll have to be changed for an alternative once they need replacing (something that comes around faster than expected with EVs so I'm lead to believe). I found the Dunlop Enasave EC300+ 185/60H16 with (B - C - 67db). Seems pretty good, if a little poor on the wet grip. Toyo Proxes R39185/60 R16 H (86) have better wet grip, with still good low noise at (B - B - 69db).
Trykpaa
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm

Post by Trykpaa »

18" will look awesome on the E, I am sure 😉 Those from my Civic may fit. Have to try it one day.
User avatar
bogga
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:41 pm

Post by bogga »

Does anyone know the wheel size's, for after market options?
Post Reply

  • You may also be interested in...
    Replies
    Views
    Last post