Friday, November 8, 2024

Fuel Economy - What's your MPG?

 ...or, in EV terms, your mi/KWhr?

The answer is... It depends.  And, it depends more if you're driving and EV.

We've been driving gasoline (or diesel) cars for a loooong time.  We think about fuel economy in terms of mile per gallon.  We kinda know that we get better mileage on the highway than driving around town.  We've been told things to help us improve our MPG, like "avoid jackrabbit starts" and "avoid abrupt stops".   The government has even gotten in on the game, mandating fleet average fuel economy numbers and publishing "EPA city and highway" fuel economy numbers, e.g. "18 city, 27 highway mpg".

Now, EVs show up and the whole game seems upside down.  How do you even compare?  One way is with MPGe, or MPG equivalent where you take the electrical energy and just convert, knowing there are 33.7 KW-hrs in a gallon of gas, if you burn it.  This is a pretty fair comparison, actually.  If you buy a gallon of gas, it costs about $3.00.  To buy 33.7 KW-hrs at 12 cents per, it would cost $4.00.   

I compared a Hyundai Ioniq 5 with a Hyundai Tuscon (non-hybrid) - similar sized cars - using spreadsheet calculator I built and some trip profiles I created.  Here's the result.







If you'd prefer it in cost per mile...





There's two really noticable things here.  One is the EV is considerably more efficient than the ICE car.  The second is the ICE car does better on highway trips than the ICE car on local trips.  The EV is exactly the opposite!

What the heck is going on?  Is it because of how the cars are propelled or because the fundamental differences in design make EVs move down the road more easily?

There are two parts to making a car go: Propulsion and Resistance.  Propulsion is what pushes the car forward - the engine or motor and the drive train than connects that to the wheels and wheels and tires to the road.  Resistance is what pushes back against the propulsion - primarily the friction/rolling resistance between the tires and the road and the aerodynamic drag - pushing through the air.  Another part of resistance is inertia, that is pushing to accelerate the car up to speed.  

On the surface, resistance wouldn't seem to have much impact.  The EV is a bit heavier, because of the propulsion battery.  Even replacing a heavy engine and transaxle, the EV comes in at 4700 pounds vs 3900 for the ICE. 

But, the EV is a bit more aerodynamic with a coefficient of drag of 0.29 vs 0.33 for the ICE.  The reason here is the ICE needs to allow a lot of air directed under the hood and over the radiator to keep the engine cool.  It is also harder to keep smooth airflow under the car having to deal with exhaust pipes and drive shafts.

Let's take a close look to see how these differences actually play out.

Resistance

Let's start with the resistance.  Here's the fancy equation for steady speed.

 

Where:

    cR     =     coefficient of rolling resistance
    cD      =     drag coefficient
    m      =     mass of vehicle
    A      =     frontal surface area
    g       =     acceleration of gravity
    r       =     density of air

The first part is the rolling resistance.  It's linear and goes up with the weight of the car.  It also depends on what the wheel and road are made of.  Cars tires on concrete have a CD of about 0.015.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/rolling-resistance

For my Ioniq 5 EV, it takes about 70 lbs of force to overcome rolling resistance.  To make the car roll, you have to push it with 70 lbs force.  To make it roll one mile, you need 70 x 5280 =  370,000 ft-lbs of energy. 

How fast you can cover the mile depends on the power available.  Power is the rate at which energy is used.  If a person pushing on a car can produce about 1/4 HP, it would take 45 minutes to cover a mile (370,000 ft- lbs x (1 HP/33,000 ft lbs/min)  x 1 person/0.25 HP)


I baked this into a spreadsheet and calculated for various speeds. 


At 30 mph, you need 5.7 HP.  At 60 mph, you need double, 11.3 HP.

If there was no aerodynamic drag, you'd get a steady 7.5 mi/KW-hr.  It wouldn't matter how fast you went.  It takes the same energy to move each mile regardless of speed. Speed just tells you how fast you have to supply that energy.

Now lets add in aerodynamic drag - the second part of the equation.  It really is a drag.  It goes up with the square of speed.  Every time you double your speed, you quadruple your air resistance. 

It depends on  two factors- how aerodynamic the vehicle is and the frontal area of the vehicle. Shape determines the aerodynamics.  A flat fronted truck isn't very aerodynamic as it plows it's way through the air, but a smoothly shaped car would be very aerodynamic as it slices it's way through.   Size also matters.  Two similarly shaped vehicles with different cross-sectional area would have different aerodynamic drag.   The larger one would have proportionally more drag.   

I plugged the numbers for my Ioniq 5 EV into my spread sheet.   Here's the results.




At 30 mph, it takes 16.6 lbs force to move through the air.  At 60 mph , it takes 66.2 lbs.  

Including the speed you are going to the when you are producing that force, gives you this HP curve:



At 30 mph, it takes 1.3 HP.  At 60 mph, it takes 10.6 HP.  Speed kills energy efficiency.

Putting the two parts together, you get this:



Doing the same for the Tuscon and comparing, this is what you get.



Notice the Tuscon rolls a bit easier at low speeds because it's lighter, but a bit worse at high speeds because it's less aerodynamic.

The takeaway here is the differences between the cars in terms of resistance are very slight.

Some more resistance

There are a couple of other ways the car "pushes back."

One is inertia.  If you apply a force to an mass, it will accelerate.  It takes energy to go from a stop to speed or from a lower speed to a higher speed.  A mass moving at speed gains kinetic energy as its speed increases.  That energy comes from the propulsion system.  The equations for this is are

F = ma

where:
F is the net force applied 
m is the mass of the car
a is acceleration

and

KE = 1/2mV^2

where:
KE is kinetic energy 
m is the mass of the car
V is the speed of the car

The energy it takes to accelerate to a certain speed is exactly equal to the kinetic energy at that speed (less any spent to over come rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag).

How fast you accelerate depends on how fast you can deliver that energy.  Higher HP means faster acceleration, but it doesn't change the amount of energy required.

The energy to accelerate my Ioniq 5 to various speeds looks like this:


Here's the HP effect on acceleration


This chart shows acceleration times based on getting full HP to the wheels from start all the way to 60 mph.  Real world acceleration isn't this good for a couple of reasons.  One, is at very low speeds, you're limited to the adhesion of the tires.  Power = force x speed.  If speed is very low, the force is very high and tires will spin - a "burn out".  An ICE engine with a mechanical drive train just can't put out full HP from the start.  Full HP usually requires full throttle close to the "red line" of engine speed. At lower RPM, the max HP is lower.  An EV can put down the full HP almost instantaneously and hold it all the way through the speed range.  

Back to the energy...

The 0.21 KW-hr to 60 mph doesn't look like much compared the 3.5 it takes to move the car a mile at 60 mph, but driving involves lots of braking for stop signs, traffic lights, traffic, etc.  Every time you slow down, you have to spend some energy to accelerate again and that energy is later destroyed as heat from braking.

If you can capture that braking energy instead of burning it off and use it to reaccelerate, your economy will improve.  EVs and to a lesser extent, hybrid cars can do this.  It's called regenerative braking. 

Regenerative Braking

It works like this.  EVs have a motor that is attached directly to the wheels through a reduction gear set and a differential.  

When you put power to the motor, the wheels propel the vehicle.  

When you don't apply power, the motor just spins freely, with a very, very, very slight drag from friction and you basically coast. 

But when you connect the motor to a load and let the wheels drive the motor, you get braking.  You are running the motor as a generator.  If the load was just a big resistor, you'd just make heat.  But, regenerative braking connects the motor to the battery and recharges the battery instead of just wasting the energy.

The concept is simple, the execution is hard.  You have to be able to charge the battery at various rates depending on speed and how hard you need to brake.  You need to have the "regular" brakes on the car available if you need to braking that exceeds the system's ability to feed power back into the battery.  And, you need to be able to manage all this with an accelerator and a brake pedal and have is feel like driving a "regular" car.

The really good news is the cars manage all this for us sophisticated software and provide it whether we go "new school" and use "one pedal driving" or "old school" and step on the accelerator and brake pedal. 

 If your trips involve a lot of braking, you will save a lot with regenerative braking.  If it's a long stretch on freeway, not very much.  More later....

Going up (and down) hills

Hills also require energy to get up.  It takes roughly 20 lbs of force to equalize the force of gravity pulling a one ton mass back down a 1% grade (a 1:100 slope, or one foot up for every 100 feet forward).    However, any route that takes you back to where you started from, eventually, has the same amount of uphill and downhill elevation change so, you would net out zero extra energy from hills. 

However... if you have to apply the brakes to hold speed on the downgrades, you are burning off more energy as heat.

Hilly, local roads with lower speeds and grades above 2% will allow some regenerative braking.  Long, interstate trips with grades generally below 2% provide little.  There is rarely enough downhill pull to exceed the aero and rolling resistance.  






The negative power is available for regenerative braking.  A car without it burns it all off as heat - and has to worry about overheating the brakes or using "engine braking".  

Any route where downhill braking occurs, the EV has an additional advantage over ICE cars.  But, we'll ignore that in the simulated trips - later.

Propulsion

This is really simple for an EV and really complicated for an ICE car.  

The EV has a battery connected to a power supply, connected to a motor or two, that drive the wheels through a conventional differential, shafts and joints.  The performance of this equipment is very high efficiency and varies almost none regardless of speed.  There is just a bit of loss in the battery, wiring, motor and drive train.  It's in the range of 95%.

Gasoline engine drivetrains are more complicated. The problem is matching the output of the engine to the demand for propulsion.  Cars need to go fast and slow, accelerate hard or slowly, climb hills and idle at a stop.  The ICE car has an engine that is a heat engine, constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, whose performance and efficiency vary greatly with speed and throttle setting and requires a variable speed transmission to be able to power the car at all speeds and conditions - starting - cruising - uphill - fast - slow.  The efficiency of the engine typically varies from 15% up to 30% depending on RPM and throttle position.

Part of the reason the low efficiency is so low is a fundamental part of a gasoline engine - the throttle.  You control the power of the engine by adjusting how much air you let into it. When the throttle is mostly closed, the engine gets little air.  Open, the engine gets a lot of air.  The engine always has to have the exact, right mixture of air and fuel for combustion to occur.

The side effect of having a throttle, is the engine has to "suck" the air past the restriction of the throttle.  This wastes a lot of energy.  It's called pumping loss.  Manufacturers have tried hard to minimize this by installing transmissions with more gears - up to 10 speeds - or even CVTs - with infinite "speeds"  so they can keep the throttle as open as possible at relatively low HP cruising speeds.  They also have started using smaller displacement engines with turbochargers and direct injection to further reduce "pumping losses".

Even so, the very low power demands of lower speed "city" driving have very low efficiency, while highway driving with it's higher power demand,  is somewhat more efficient.


This is an engine map of a 2008 Toyota Camry.  The x axis is the engine speed in RPM.  The y axis is torque, which is a good proxy for throttle position (higher = more open).  The curved lines with the scale on the RH side, are power (in KW - one KW = 0.746 HP)  The rings in the middle are engine efficiency (in percent)

The red circle is typical urban driving.  Orange, suburban, Green, highway.  

You can see urban driving in the 10-15% range.  Suburban in the 15-20% range and highway in the 20-27% range.

The Tuscon we're using for comparison has a turbocharged, direct injection engine and does a bit better than this Camry.  But, the principles remain the same. 


Putting it all together - Some simulated trips.  

I created these trips by piecing together moving segments with stops in between each.  I assumed steady speed for each segment and zero time to get up to that speed.

For the Ioniq 5:




These assume that all acceleration energy is recouped as regen braking and the whole distance is covered at the speed limit.   Terrain is level.   Energy is in KW. 


This shows dramatically the effect of regenerative braking.

Without regen braking, the economy is right around 3, plus or minus a bit. In urban driving, it's almost double with regen.  On highway trips, it has almost no effect - there is very little braking energy to recover relative to the miles and miles of aerodynamic drag to overcome.

Now, for the Tuscon.








This shows exactly what many of us are familiar with.  Best mileage on the highway.  Worst in local driving.  Really fast highway driving starts lowering fuel economy.  But, the overall effect is a rather flat curve.  The difference between suburban driving and highway driving is minimal.  

The two big factors driving this curve are:

Lack of regenerative braking. - lowers urban and suburban driving as so much energy get wasted by braking.

Low gasoline engine energy efficiency at lower speeds despite the best engineering to match engine performance to driving conditions with multi-speed transmissions.

Conclusion

EVs beat ICE cars primarily because they are efficient with the stored energy in the battery.  Nearly all the energy stored on board  is used to move the vehicle versus only 15-30% for an ICE car.  Secondarily, the availability of regenerative braking drastically improves economy in local driving.

The weight and aerodynamic differences have little impact on overall economy.

Bonus Info! 

Range and Charging 

If you start talking about EVs, the first question that always pops up is about range. 

People driving ICE cars are used to filling their tank and driving until near empty and then buying more.  There wasn't much to think about.  Gas stations are everywhere, have virtually the same price, and all cars fill in a matter of minutes regardless of make or model.  Range and price don't depend very much on where you fill your tank or where you are driving.

EVs are different. The cars are all different and have widely different fast charging rates.  Energy economy can vary a great deal with the type of trip.  The chargers are different by type and even within type.  The cost for a KW-hr of juice can vary widely between charger brands and time of day.  And, the battery's charge rate can slow a great deal as it approaches "full".  

So, charging requires more planning and thought and knowing your range becomes more critical. 

Let's zoom in.  My Ioniq 5 EV has a 77.4 KW battery and is about 95% efficient getting the juice from the battery to the wheels.  

Here's what the economy looks like at steady speed.



Steady 30 mph, 5.5  mi/KW-hr, steady 60 mph 3.5 mi/KW-hr.  That's a really wide range. 

What range would that 77.4 KW-hr battery give me at various speeds?


400 miles at 25 mph.  200 miles at 75 mph.  A really big range. 

This shows the problem the engineers have in estimating the range to display on the dashboard.  They have no idea how fast you are going to go, they only know how fast you've been going.  Using recent history to estimate is the best they can do.  So, if you've been doing a lot of local driving at 40 mph, it might show 350 miles range for a full battery.  If start going a steady 80 mph, you're actual range is only 190 or so.  

My car will often tell me I have 240 miles range with an 80% charge after I've been suburban driving.  But, I know, if I jump on the interstate and start driving in the high 70's, I only have about 170 miles range.  

Fortunately, having an AC charger at home means not having to worry too much about range.  My practice is any day where I'm going more than a few miles from home, I'll charge up to 80%.  There's no advantage to not letting it get low before you charge.  You're not saving a trip to the gas station!  If I'm heading on a long trip, I'll charge it to 100% the night before.

How does one navigate charging on a road trip?  The key is planning tools.  They are basically navigation systems that will plan your charging stops.  They allow you to filter for the charging station types and brands, your tolerance for how low you care to let your charge get, and what features you need at the stop, like food or restroom.  

The planning will estimate based on the route and roads you'll be travelling, adjusting for your energy  economy.  It will tell you what it expects your state of charge to be on arrival and the minimum you should plan to charge to.  

Tesla has the best route planning tool.  Hyundai and Kia's keep getting better.  A Better Route Planner (ABRP) is an app you can run from your phone and actually have it connect to your car so it knows your state of charge in real time.  

Some tips and best practices for road trips:

For lowest cost on trips, charge to 100% using your home charger before your leave.

Stay at hotels that have free level two chargers and charge to 100% overnight.

Don't plan on charging over 80% at fast DC chargers on your route.  Charging slows down a lot after 80%.

Don't worry too much if you have to use a 150 KW charger instead of a 350+ KW.  The difference in charging time is small.  

Plan your rest stops around charging.  Most times your "bio-break" won't be much shorter than the charging time.

Remember that two fast DC charging sessions from 50 to 80% take the same time as one from 20 - 80% and one charging session from 20 to 80% is shorter than going from 60 to 100%.

If your car came with free charging at some fast DC charging, make sure you filter your route planning tool to take advantage of it.  Fast DC chargers generally are expensive comparted to home chargers, costing the same or more than it would to fuel and ICE car.  


Engine map.  reason for transmissions.  migration to many "speeds"  CVT.  Pumping losses clobber efficicency - engine braking.


References:

2008 Camry 

22 HP for 60 mph  about 2200 RPM




The thermal efficiency map for the I4 engine from a 2008 era Camry (derived from the I4 engine used in Ricardo baseline simulation for a standard car) (AKI 93 fuel)

Rolling resistance

Where:

    cR     =     coefficient of rolling resistance
    cD      =     drag coefficient
    m      =     mass of vehicle [kg]
    A      =     frontal surface area [m2]
    g       =     9.8 m/s
    r       =     density of are, 1.2 kg/m3 @STP

 A typical value for the coefficient of rolling resistance is 0.015. The drag coefficient for cars varies, a value of 0.3 is commonly used.

grade resistance 20#/ton

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/drag-equation#what-is-the-equation-for-drag-force

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php


Thursday, September 26, 2024

Owning an EV - Road Trip!

50 years ago, I graduated High School in South Jersey.  50 years!  ...not possible. 

Anyway, my class reunion was in Atlantic City and I decided to take the Ioniq 5.  I was really interested in what a road trip using fast DC charging would look like.  I had ridden with my sister in her Tesla Y from South Jersey to Buffalo and back and had gotten a good taste of Tesla Superchargers. But, for the CCS world (most all non-Teslae), would it be as easy?

Sheetz in Stephens City, VA



Short answer - yes. 

Here's the long answer.  

The trip is 780 miles total.  I split it into two days, roughly 500 miles on the first day and 230 on the second.  Actual dwell is from my Google Maps data.  Charging time is from charger data that is kept on the charger app on my phone. 

I only used Electrify America chargers because the Hyundai comes with two years of free EA juice.

Here's the data on the trip up.



So, that's 8 stops for a total of 2:44 dwell.  Comparing it to a trip in 2021 in our old Audi Q5, we had six stops for a total of 1:08.  The EV "cost" about 1:30 over the ICE car in this case.  Note that this is LESS than the 1:56 "plugged in" time because a good chunk of that was unattended - getting food, restroom, etc. 

Also, charging at the hotel avoided a trip to "fill up" as the battery charged while the car was parked. 

The trip back.





Sheetz in Wytheville, VA

That's 7 stops for a total of 1:38.  Comparing it to an Audi Q5 trip in 2021 with 5 stops for 1:07, the EV "cost" about 30 minutes. Being familiar with the whole charging routine and never having to wait for a charger helped a lot.  The reason the return trip had fewer KWhrs at fast DC chargers is that I arrived in NJ with about 80% battery, but arrived back home with only 20%.  Having a charger at home makes things easy.

The Hyundai route planner is actually pretty good.  Just pick you destination in the Navigate screen, allow it to include EV chargers, and it'll pick a route and plan the charging stops.  


Done?  Not quite.  Those stops might not be at the charger brand you prefer - i.e. "free" Electrify America - and they might not be soon enough for a "bio-break".  

EA charger at Walmart in Cordele, GA currently has 4 of 4 chargers available


No problem.  First, filter on the charger type you want from the EV screen settings prior to having the navigation system plan the route.  Then, you can see the first charging stop.  Pressing "more" brings up a list.  By selecting "route", the list will populate with all the chargers in route order.  




You can choose one and add it to your route.  The route will replan from there.  I used this feature in lieu of the Rest Stop tab on the maps screen to plan my next stop. 

It worked very well. 

Some other features.  You can see in real time, the number of chargers at the location and how many are available.  This seemed to be very accurate and it did not show "broken" chargers as available.  It doesn't do any en-route prediction like Tesla, because it has no idea how many non-Hyundais might have the charger in their route.  You can get a good idea of how popular your next charger is by watching the available charger number and planning around it with an earlier or later stop.

Other notes.  

I would only charge beyond 80% under two conditions.  Nobody waiting and it would be tactically helpful to my driving.  It's generally not worth it as the charging speed tapers off rapidly after 80%.  At 90% the rate is down to 40-50 KWs.  

With  free charging, I saved over $200 in fuel on this trip.  But, if I'd have had to pay the going EA rate of 56 cents per KWhr, it would have cost me about $200.  EA is on the expensive side, and some of the other networks are much cheaper - something to explore when my two years of free EA is up.

My driving was very much off-peak, yet I had to wait for a charger a couple of times. Hyundai isn't the only car company giving two years free at EA.  I imagine this will get easier as the "free" EA plans expire and the Tesla Supercharger network opens up.  (First quarter 2025 for Hyundai.)  There is a lot of chatter about "broken" chargers.  I found that about half of the locations had one charger down or some part of it not working exactly right.  This is better than I expected - you often see gas stations with some number of pumps down...

The Hyundai and Kia claim is "10 to 80% in 18 minutes" (or 3.9% /minute) ... I came close once at 3.75%/minute. Generally, I managed about 2.7%/min on 350 KW chargers.  How much did that matter?  Not a bit.  I generally plugged in, went to the rest room, came back and was done or only had a few minutes to go.  Hardly enough time to check my text messages!  I really didn't much care if I plugged into a 150 or 350KW charger.

There is a charging time trade off.  If you trip requires X minutes of charging, It really doesn't matter much if you do it infrequently at long intervals or more frequently at shorter intervals.  Twice for 10 minutes is the same as once for 20 minutes.  The difference is the time it takes to exit the highway and get to the charger.  Fortunately,  all the chargers I visited were almost immediately off a highway exit - no more than half a mile.  The winning solution is to time your meal and bio-stops with charging stops.

The need for speed.  

There is a lot of chatter about not driving as fast with an EV because it clobbers the range.  Two facts.  One, speed clobbers ICE car mileage just as badly.  Aerodynamic drag is the cause and the air doesn't care what's driving the car.  The reason is seems so bad in an EV is the EV's regen braking makes non-highway driving so much more efficient.  I typically get about 3.5 miles per KWhr in suburban driving.  I got 2.8 miles per HWhr at 77 mph on the highway.  I'm not slowing down.  My need for breaks exceeds the car's range.

What's next? Eventually, I'll have to investigate actual, paid fast DC charging, but for now, I'm totally satisfied with Electrify America.

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Biking the Erie Canal

A few things are true. 

1. After doing the GAP trail two years ago, I really, really wanted to do another bike tour. 

2. New York has nearly completed a trail along the entire length of the Erie Canal. 

3. Canals are water level things, so canal trails should be easy pedaling. 

 So, I hunted an Erie Canal tour to do. By the time I got busy looking, a whole bunch of supported tours were sold out! However, I found Senior Cycling still had space for theirs, so I signed up! ...and got my sister to come along.

This trip started at Niagara Falls and ended in Palmyra NY, about 25 miles east of Rochester.  There were five days of pedaling.  Three along the canal, and two out-and-backs to Lake Ontario.

Here we go!

For starters, this is a tour that's fully supported by two guides from the area who led us some days and swept up after us on every day.  There were 13 riders in the group, about half came with their own E-bikes and the other half rented gravel bikes from the tour operator.  Surprisingly, the E-bike riders did not ride as fast as the rest of us...

Day Zero.  We arrived at Niagara Falls and there was a group dinner at a nice restaurant a block from the falls.

US falls

Tesla girl and Tesla himself!


Jane and I took a peek at the falls after dinner.

Day one was a ride along the Niagara River down to Lake Ontario.  36 miles or so for the round trip.  Most of this was on a trail, but some was via some town streets.  They led us down, but let us return at our own pace.

The first stop on the day's ride

The Senior Cyclists

Mist from the falls

Canadian Falls

Maid of the Mist heading in

US falls in foreground, Canadian in background

Similar view in 1959 - I was 3!



Trail along Niagara River

Whirlpool

Lunch at the Lake

We pedaled back through Youngstown and stopped for ice cream.  Some War of 1812 action occurred here.



Really good frozen custard!

Dinner was on our own.  We went to Niagara Falls branch of Anchor Bar (of Buffalo).  These guys invented Buffalo Wings. We has some.  They were good.


Day two.  About 34 miles. Tonawanda to Medina (pronounced Med-eye-nah.  Really.)

They loaded the bikes up on the trailer and carted us out to Tonawanda to start riding the canal trail.  The first few miles were not promising.  The trail was mostly paved but bumpy and walled in from the canal by vegetation.  Not much to look at.  Lots of work picking your path along the trail.  Things got much better as we approached Lockport as the trail was fairly new, had a good views of the canals and was easy to ride. 

Lunch was on our own at Lockport and we spent some time view the locks and learning canal history.

1912 - current canal locks on the right.  1862 version of "flight of five" locks on the left

What an original circa 1825 canal boat looked like.

The original five locks were required to get canal up the Niagara Escarpment.  There were originally two sets. One set was replaced in the 1912 modernization (locks on the right)

Statues of 19th century lock keepers from a photograph.

Current canal is used by pleasure boats, primarily.

Here's the short history of the canal.  The original canal was four feet deep and forty feet wide and was so successful, it quickly became clogged with traffic and very hard to maintain.  By 1862, the canal was widened to 70 feet and made seven feet deep and remained a successful freight corridor..  By 1900, the canal was obsolete, having been eclipsed by the railroads.  But, in the early 20th century, the canal was completely rebuilt to accommodate large, motor propelled barges large enough to compete with railroads for freight.  It was now 120 feet wide and 12 feet deep.  This is the canal that exists today, although all the freight traffic dried up after 1960 as the St. Lawrence Seaway opened.  It's primary use is recreational boating.

The "tow path" the trail is on, is actually just the berm of the canal.

Typical canal path east of Lockport


1912 modernization included standard lift bridges over the canal.  Most still remain.


Lodgings in Medina


Day three  Medina to Rochester.  About 48 miles.

Some scenes of Medina.  A sizable town between Niagara Falls and Rochester.  




Medina is in apple country

Building at left is 1860's Opera House

At one point, the canal goes over a road.



Lift bridge in raised position



Arriving lunch spot Jane in the lead.  Me following.

Another lift bridge en route to Rochester

One the way to Rochester, after lunch, we stopped for ice cream in Spencerport. It was good that we stopped as it gave time for a thunderstorm to slide by us to the east without having to get out our raincoats.

Stopping for a look at where the canal crosses the Genesee River

Canal straight ahead.  River flows right to left.



Day Four - Rochester to Lake Ontario and back via Genesee River.  About 28 miles

Breakfast each day was a bit of an adventure.  The tour leaders seemed to favor greasy-spoon diners. No shortage of calories for pedaling!  (I worry about diners with "good food signs.  "Great food" is a bridge too far!)

Rochester from the Genesee River

Heading into the city

Stopping for a look at Interstate bridge

Group shot.  Show-off in tree.

Rose garden in park along route

Genesee River  still has lake boat service.  Cement being unloaded.

Beautiful causeway across a marsh on the Genesee


At Ontario Beach Park

View from the jetty

On the way back, a view of the Lower Falls on the Genesee

...and the Upper Falls in Rochester, proper

Downtown Rochester along the river



Group dinner was in old Lehigh Valley train station, now a Dinosaur Barbeque.

Art Deco do-dad on building

Day Five - Rochester to Palmyra.  A half day.  About 26 miles.

Leaving Rochester, the trail was paved and easy riding
Breakfast was in nice restaurant in Fairport.  Less than 10 miles from our start.  This is the view from the outdoor seating.  Old grain elevator on the canal converted to lofts.



Railfan platform and Conrail caboose in Fairport.  Worth a quick look!

The day ended with lunch in Palmyra.  Old canal and stone arch road bridge.

New locks at Palmyra

Restored standard canal bridge from 1860 canal modernization


Cast iron design was state of the art, then.


Then, it was back to Niagara Fall in the van. It was a really good trip.  Well run.  Good accommodations.  Would I do a Senior Cycling trip again?  Qualified "yes."  For contiguous trips where all lodging is right adjacent to the trail, you don't really need full time, on site leaders and support - just someone to tote your luggage and give you a ride back to start.  But, where there is ferrying to and from trail segments and lodging, these guys do a good job.  I can recommend!

The Erie Canal trail is generally a wonderful thing!  I really want to try another segment.  Maybe some day trips on the east end?