## 2011: The fraud formula for plug-in hybrid consumption measurement## Germany has been unable to reduce the EU's CO2 emission targets for the car industry. But the cheating formula for the whitewashing of plug-in hybrids is working.Large-scale fraud as an industrial basis. There used to be figures for 90 km/h, 120 km/h and urban traffic. These have been replaced by standard consumption figures for urban and extra-urban driving. If, like me, you drive economically as a high-performance sport, you can even get below the standard consumption values. High-performance athletes jump over 2m high poles, run 100m in under 10 seconds or manage to drive across Munich under the standard consumption figure for their car. I also wrote in my book "Caclulation ERROR" how I brought my then Renault Espace DX home to Salzburg from the award ceremony of the European Order of Merit in Brussels in 1994 with only 45 liters of diesel in the tank. 10 hours of driving in the slipstream of large trucks resulted in 10% less than the standard consumption for 90 km/h. On the other hand, the time required was about 3 hours longer. You can also reach your destination at 88 km/h, millions of truck drivers can't be wrong! But:
The standard consumption of plug-in hybrid vehicles is determined using the ECE standard R 101. In the formula for this standard, the battery of a plug-in hybrid is first run down and then recharged after 25 km of combustion engine driving. After 25 km?!? Yes, after 25 km! This is the car lobby's cheating formula for levering out the CO2 standard from Brussels. The consequence of the car industry pushing through this fraudulent formula was a drastic deterioration in plug-in hybrid cars. Driving at a brisk pace, Brussels Salzburg would have taken 7 hours. To even undercut the standard consumption, 10 hours of slipstreaming behind trucks were necessary. Only 3 hours more. What about one of the ultra-modern and extremely expensive plug-in hybrids? A plug-in hybrid with an electric range of 30 km? 30 km electric, 25 km combustion engine and then several hours of recharging. 36 minutes driving time, 2.5 hours charging time. The driving time would also be 10 hours, but 16 stops at charging stations at 2.5 hours would be an additional 40 hours. 10 instead of 7 hours to reach standard consumption with the combustion engine, that's possible, but 50 hours instead of 7 to achieve standard consumption with the plug-in hybrid is a joke. This is why the deviations from standard consumption visible on Spritmonitor.de are much greater for plug-in hybrids than for combustion engines. The consumption values of a plug-in hybrid would have to be stated separately, but my discussions at the IAA 2015 showed how fiercely the manufacturers of plug-in hybrids are resisting a separate presentation. After all, the cheating formula is their central concept for meeting the stricter CO2 standard from 2020. The Opel Ampera presented at the Geneva Motor Show in 2009 had a 16 kWh battery for an all-electric range of 83 km. This was optimized for everyday use. It came close to the ideal of 80% electric driving with an electric range of 100 km and only 20% with the combustion engine. With the introduction of the fraud formula for standard consumption, the battery capacity of plug-in hybrid vehicles deteriorated drastically. The consumption values reported on Spritmonitor.de are drastically higher for the newer plug-in hybrids than for the old Opel Ampera, because they are no longer optimized for everyday use but only for the fraud formula.
Attention! The information from Spritmonitor.de is a snapshot from March 1, 2017. As new entries are constantly being added, the information may change over time. Why do 3 cars have a standard consumption of exactly 2.1 liters? In 2020, vehicles with less than 50 g CO2/km will count double for fleet consumption. 2.1 liters of petrol is just under 50 g CO2/km.
In early September 2011, I gave a keynote speech at the GELS - Global Economic Leaders Summit - economic conference in China entitled "We need an international organization for the oil phase-out. (Calculation ERROR page 324 - 335). 2 weeks later, I gave a presentation on this topic to the works councils at the Mercedes heavy vehicle plant in Würth. The danger that BYD will soon sell more electric buses than Mercedes sells buses. After the presentation, the works councils were somewhere between agony and apathy. At least not in the mood required to master new major economic challenges.
Energy efficiency labeling was also introduced in 2011. Because German manufacturers have completely forgotten about lightweight construction as cars are becoming heavier and heavier, weight has been incorporated into the formula in a very significant way. - A 2200 kg car with 140 g CO2/km gets A
- An 800 kg car with 100 g CO2/km gets D
My 1988 Renault Espace TXE weighed 1280 kg, my 2004 Seat Alhambra 1780 kg and my Dacia Lodgy 1280 kg. All 3 cars had the same amount of interior space, i.e. the same utility value. I always perceived the 500 kg excess weight of the Seat Alhambra as a failure on the part of the product developers, but never as a higher utility value. |