Range- 100 mile versus 200 mile

[EVDRIVER]

Funny, at my house we DON'T plug in every night to put less stress on the batteries.

If I only drive 7 - 10 miles in a day, I don't bother to plug in unless I expect a lot of driving the next day.

Fewer charge cycles, and it doesn't hurt at all to leave the batteries at 65-70%.

Plus I normally charge to 80% instead of 100%.

I've got 2100 miles on the odometer now.... However, if I had a 200 mile range version available, I would probably buy it. It would open up a few more trips a year for me. It probably would not make sense economically, but it might allow me to ditch one ICE car that I keep on hand for longer trips.

Technically speaking you are not getting fewer charge cycles, only charging with less frequency as charge cycles are cumulative.

 

[Smidge204]

I'm surprised that Nissan choose to go with a 5 passenger car as their first EV; I'd think that the best way to get large numbers of batteries out there and get the price down would be via inexpensive 2-passenger (or 2+2) city/commuter cars like the Smart or (more likely) the Scion iQ/Think City. $10-15,000 is the price range I think it will take.

Don't forget that the Think City costs more than the leaf - even the planned mass-production price - so making a car that small does not automatically mean cheaper. It just means less car. Think Global, the company that made the Think City, has filed for bankruptcy four times since they were founded in 1991. Chalk it up to managerial ineptness if you want, but to me that says their product just can't compete.

=Smidge=

 

[GRA]

I'm surprised that Nissan choose to go with a 5 passenger car as their first EV; I'd think that the best way to get large numbers of batteries out there and get the price down would be via inexpensive 2-passenger (or 2+2) city/commuter cars like the Smart or (more likely) the Scion iQ/Think City. $10-15,000 is the price range I think it will take.

Don't forget that the Think City costs more than the leaf - even the planned mass-production price - so making a car that small does not automatically mean cheaper. It just means less car. Think Global, the company that made the Think City, has filed for bankruptcy four times since they were founded in 1991. Chalk it up to managerial ineptness if you want, but to me that says their product just can't compete.

=Smidge=

Managerial ineptness, problems of scale and lack of capital, too early to the market, who knows. I rented an earlier generation Think City for a week back in 1998 or '99, when Think was considering importing them and had some available for demo. It was definitely not ready for primetime, having numerous deficiencies _as a city car_, which I wrote up into a report and submitted when I turned it in - it really was a glorified golf cart at the time. The newer ones seem to be more civilized, not that I've seen one in the flesh. But I think you'd agree that if Nissan built a 2 place or 2+2 city car, it would be less expensive than the Leaf. And the Smart EV, while undoubtedly more expensive than the gas version, _should_ be a lot less than a Leaf; the battery will apparently be about 17.6 kWh.

Smart may have the same lack of scale problem that Think apparently suffers from. The problem with the Smart is that the basic gas version, from every review I've read, isn't a very good car, so the EV is likely to be a poor car that happens to be electric. And the few 2nd gen versions they've got on the road now for demo have a ridiculous monthly lease price - $2,500 down + $599/month for 48 months! Or, you could lease a Leaf for 36 months for much less. Not a tough call.

I guess we'll have to see what the Scion iQ or the Chevy Spark goes for once the public can buy or lease one.

BTW, the November Consumer Reports has their test of the Leaf, and it's generally quite positive. It also has an update to their test of the Volt (October), which says that they've now got enough reliability data (Much Better Than Average) to recommend it.

 

[GRA]

Good for you. But I suspect the typical market demographic has more use for a 2nd car for commuting/errands than they do for a family urban car. Apparently the average Leaf buyer is 45-55, with either an environmental or techie background.

You are describing a limited niche market, and the reason 2 seaters have always failed in the US.. for electric cars to be massively successful they have to be low cost, with perhaps a 2 year payback, and be able to carry 4-5 passengers. These are the minimum requirements for success... Electric cars are already saddled with the low range problem, no need to pile on more issues on top.

I'm not sure what the range requirements are, but we will know in a few years.

Of course it's a niche market; BEVs are a niche market at the moment. The quickest way for EVs (actually their batteries) to be low cost is to produce as many as possible. Currently, BEVs are best suited given their range limits to urban and commuting use, so that's their primary sphere of action. Only multi-car families will choose to have one of them a BEV, unless they never go out of town (or are willing to rent whenever they do). Small cars will be cheaper than larger ones. For urban types they're also far easier to find parking for.

Electric cars have failed for a variety of reasons, the primary one being lack of range and/or infrastructure. Aside from technological (limited range, slow charge, limited life) and human factors (battery maintenance and use) there have also been social factors; When both gas and electric cars were available (and only the rich could afford them), the electric came to be seen as an upper-class ladies' city car, because it was a lot cleaner and quieter than gas cars, and you didn't need to get down in the mud/snow and crank a starting handle (and possibly suffer a broken arm in the process if the engine kicked back) to get it going. Men considered touring macho, and were willing to put up with the hassles to get higher performance and range. So Ford and even Edison drove gas cars, but their wives drove electrics.

Once Kettering perfected the electric self-starter (and the ignition/generator/lighting/battery system integrated with it) for gas cars and Ford brought costs down by mass production, much of the remaining ease of use advantages of the EV disappeared, and it was seen as a car for dowager aunts. The masses could only afford one car, and the one thing that 100+ years of selling cars teaches is that if you're restricted to a single car you'll choose based not on its average use, but its extreme use.

 

[Leon]

I NEED more range. Occasionally. Infrastructure will solve that issue. I would have bought a Tesla S instead of a Leaf if it was currently available. I don't even have any interest in a smaller EV. My leaf rocks. Thanks Nissan. 6000 miles and counting.

 

[Herm]

I NEED more range. Occasionally. Infrastructure will solve that issue.

I wonder if someone will offer an extender pack, a quick check with Enginer:

http://www.enginer.us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they have an 8kWh kit for $5500, that would give you an extra 32 miles or so.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I NEED more range. Occasionally. Infrastructure will solve that issue.

I wonder if someone will offer an extender pack

There's an experienced company here in San Diego working on a kit right now.

 

[Desertstraw]

The problem is perception not reality. It makes no sense for me to keep my old Prius for occasional long trips. It would be far cheaper to rent a car for them rather than the high fixed costs of any vehicle. Nevertheless, I still keep it.

The most important thing to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles is chargers along main highways. Electric vehicle owners know that they are superior to ICE's in every other respect.

 

[GRA]

The problem is perception not reality. It makes no sense for me to keep my old Prius for occasional long trips. It would be far cheaper to rent a car for them rather than the high fixed costs of any vehicle. Nevertheless, I still keep it.

The most important thing to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles is chargers along main highways. Electric vehicle owners know that they are superior to ICE's in every other respect.

Unfortunately, until you can charge a battery in 5 minutes or less without killing it in short order, even quick charging is too time-inefficient for trips longer than 1 or maybe 2 enroute charges. A member of the general motoring public would get damned irritated by having to stop every 50 miles to do a 30 minute L3 charge if they wanted to drive their Leaf to Los Angeles from the Bay Area. Until then, only greater onboard range and/or battery exchange, plus a price comparable to ICE, will make the pure EV really practical to replace the ICE as an all-around car. Now, could an EV with range like the '320' mile Tesla S work for me? Sure, when they can sell me one for 1/3 to 1/2 what they charge for the Tesla, and I'd still need to charge enroute to get to the east side of the Sierra.

Just to get a Leaf from my place in Hayward to Lake Tahoe would take a minimum or 3 and maybe 4 L3 charges enroute. EV enthusiasts may be willing to put up with that on a regular basis, but I'm not willing to turn a 3 hour trip into a minimum 4.5-5 hour trip (and that assumes that I'll never have to wait to use a charger, and that it will be working), drive much slower than the traffic flow, and do without HVAC use when conditions call for it.

But, if someone were to build a good EV city car and sell it for $5,000, they'd be everywhere. That's not going to happen, but $10,000-$15,000 should be doable once they get into mass production, in line with current inexpensive ICEs like the Versa.

 

[LEAFfan]

A member of the general motoring public would get damned irritated by having to stop every 50 miles to do a 30 minute L3 charge if they wanted to drive their Leaf to Los Angeles from the Bay Area.

You're exaggerating. You won't have to wait 30 minutes for an 80% QC. That's ONLY if it's empty. I plan on driving at least 80 miles @ 60mph (around 1 1/2 hours) and would need to take a break anyway. In about 15-20 mins., I'll be on my way again. It sounds great to me!

 

[GRA]

A member of the general motoring public would get damned irritated by having to stop every 50 miles to do a 30 minute L3 charge if they wanted to drive their Leaf to Los Angeles from the Bay Area.

You're exaggerating. You won't have to wait 30 minutes for an 80% QC. That's ONLY if it's empty. I plan on driving at least 80 miles @ 60mph (around 1 1/2 hours) and would need to take a break anyway. In about 15-20 mins., I'll be on my way again. It sounds great to me!

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Cruising down I-5 at 70 mph (and being overtaken by all the people doing 85) with a brand-new battery, Tony Williams' chart shows a 68 mile range in ideal conditons for the Leaf. 80% of 68 (and that assumes you're willing to run with no reserve at all) is 54.4 miles. Throw in just a few real-world variables and 45-50 miles at freeway speeds is probably a good average, even if you slow down to 65 (and good luck to you), for a max range of 75 miles, or 65 with a 10 mile reserve - I can easily come up with combinations of likely conditions that will drop the guaranteed range down into the low 30s.

So LA is ~400 miles - 60 miles initial (Altamont pass is 1,009 feet, so knock 65 down to 60) = 340 miles, divided by 50 miles = is ~ 7 x 30-minute charges enroute or 3.5 hours on top of the driving time, with no allowance for climbing the Grapevine, HVAC use, winds, lights, battery degradation, temps and so on.

Fortunately it doesn't matter that much, because people like me who have a need to take such trips on a regular basis will keep their ICEs or hybrids, or buy themselves plug-in hybrids. I may like the thought of a BEV, but as a solo car owner who only uses that car for out-of-town trips, many of them from sea level up to the mountains and often in winter, a PHEV is the only reasonable option for me for the moment. Once battery prices come down and/or the technology and infrastructure improve, a BEV may be practical as a sole car for me. And the sooner I can put a "NOPEC" bumper sticker on my car and flip the bird to the OPEC despot of the month, the happier I'll be.

 

[johnr]

Personally, a 150 mile range would make me happy. The Leaf's current "100 mile" range means 50 miles one way when there's no charging at the destination. A lot of the places I like to go in the mountains nearby are about 60 miles away, putting them just out of reach - and there's no electricity up there. A 150 mile range would open up a lot more destinations to me. For daily commuting, of course, the Leaf's range is plenty for me.

 

[LEAFfan]

A member of the general motoring public would get damned irritated by having to stop every 50 miles to do a 30 minute L3 charge if they wanted to drive their Leaf to Los Angeles from the Bay Area.

You're exaggerating. You won't have to wait 30 minutes for an 80% QC. That's ONLY if it's empty. I plan on driving at least 80 miles @ 60mph (around 1 1/2 hours) and would need to take a break anyway. In about 15-20 mins., I'll be on my way again. It sounds great to me!

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Cruising down I-5 at 70 mph (and being overtaken by all the people doing 85) with a brand-new battery, Tony Williams' chart shows a 68 mile range in ideal conditons for the Leaf.

Oh, you're probably right with all those other conditions and only an 80% charge from the QC. His chart is for 100% charging which you would only have to start.

 

[GRA]

Personally, a 150 mile range would make me happy. The Leaf's current "100 mile" range means 50 miles one way when there's no charging at the destination. A lot of the places I like to go in the mountains nearby are about 60 miles away, putting them just out of reach - and there's no electricity up there. A 150 mile range would open up a lot more destinations to me. For daily commuting, of course, the Leaf's range is plenty for me.

It would certainly be a lot more useful to me too - my minimum useful range is 110 miles (100 plus 10 mile reserve) at freeway speeds, because I go to Monterey for the weekend regularly and that's just under 100 miles from my place. And I'd like to be able to drive over to Point Reyes and back for a day's hiking or biking; depending on where I go that's 57-77 miles one way, about half on the freeway. And 150 miles would mean I could get to Yosemite or Tahoe on two L3 (or even L2) charges enroute (lots of climbing), although to make L2 charges reasonably useful for enroute charging Nissan needs to upgrade their charger to 6.6 kW or more. Otherwise, the Focus EV will have a significant practical range advantage until L3 chargers become widely available.

Of course, until they get chargers in convenient locations it's somewhat of a moot point, but we should all be lobbying for those. For starters I'm encouraging CSAA to install L2s (and free L1s for employees) at their offices along major routes to and at weekend destinations ca. 230 miles or less distance from major urban areas - Hwys 80, 50, 88, 4, 12, 152, 99, 101, 120, 140, 41, etc. For the S.F. Bay Area, we want to be able to get to say Fort Bragg, Napa Valley, Monterey/Carmel/Big Sur, Sacramento, Tahoe and Yosemite, and have somewhere to charge when we get there. And we need to lobby the National Park Service and the California State Park System to install L2 chargers in the parks, although given the current financial and political climate that's problematic.

 

[planet4ever]

You're exaggerating. You won't have to wait 30 minutes for an 80% QC. That's ONLY if it's empty. I plan on driving at least 80 miles @ 60mph (around 1 1/2 hours) and would need to take a break anyway. In about 15-20 mins., I'll be on my way again. It sounds great to me!

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Cruising down I-5 at 70 mph (and being overtaken by all the people doing 85) with a brand-new battery, Tony Williams' chart shows a 68 mile range in ideal conditons for the Leaf.

Oh, you're probably right with all those other conditions and only an 80% charge from the QC. His chart is for 100% charging which you would only have to start.

You're both exaggerating. But based on the limited reports we have seen, you are not going to average much more than 30 kW from the QC. That means in your 15-20 minutes, LEAFfan, you will only get 8-10 kWh. In order to drive 80 miles on 8-10 kWh you will have to get 8 to 10 m/kWh. I don't think even you can do that at 60 mph.

By the way, the 30 minute QC that Nissan claims is not from empty to 80%; it's from the first low battery warning (17% according to Tony's chart) to 80%. That's 62% of (probably) 21 kWh in half an hour or about 13 kWh. That works out to an average rate of only 26 kW, even less than I assumed just above.

Ray

 

[GRA]

You're both exaggerating. But based on the limited reports we have seen, you are not going to average much more than 30 kW from the QC. That means in your 15-20 minutes, LEAFfan, you will only get 8-10 kWh. In order to drive 80 miles on 8-10 kWh you will have to get 8 to 10 m/kWh. I don't think even you can do that at 60 mph.

By the way, the 30 minute QC that Nissan claims is not from empty to 80%; it's from the first low battery warning (17% according to Tony's chart) to 80%. That's 62% of (probably) 21 kWh in half an hour or about 13 kWh. That works out to an average rate of only 26 kW, even less than I assumed just above.

Ray

I'm curious - how am I exaggerating? That's the way the numbers run, based on Tony's chart. Or my understanding of it, at least.

 

[TonyWilliams]

By the way, the 30 minute QC that Nissan claims is not from empty to 80%; it's from the first low battery warning (17% according to Tony's chart) to 80%. That's 62% of (probably) 21 kWh in half an hour or about 13 kWh. That works out to an average rate of only 26 kW, even less than I assumed just above.

There's going to be losses, so the rate will be higher than 26kW. But, I think the rest is correct.