Why the LEAF Gen 2 and not the 220 miles Tesla Model 3?

[lorenfb]

It's interesting that LG Chemistry is that far ahead of other vendors in terms of NMC cathode materials. I wonder if LG Chem's Chemistry will also have better or worse calendar and/or cycle life. According to the chart in this article, NMC 811 is less stable than NMC 622. The PushEvs article hints that the 60 kWh LEAF may include a TMS:

The longer range version 2019 Nissan Leaf’s battery pack will probably be slightly bigger, not only to have its capacity increased to 60 kWh, but also to have space for a TMS (Thermal Management System).

Right. When battery capacities reach about 60 kWh and their chemistries become less stable, the use of TMS becomes
more practical and necessary, e.g. in the Teslas. Given the thermal mass of an EV's battery, using TMS is a 'costly'
(overall EV efficiency) add-on.

 

[IssacZachary]

It's interesting that LG Chemistry is that far ahead of other vendors in terms of NMC cathode materials. I wonder if LG Chem's Chemistry will also have better or worse calendar and/or cycle life. According to the chart in this article, NMC 811 is less stable than NMC 622. The PushEvs article hints that the 60 kWh LEAF may include a TMS:

The longer range version 2019 Nissan Leaf’s battery pack will probably be slightly bigger, not only to have its capacity increased to 60 kWh, but also to have space for a TMS (Thermal Management System).

Right. When battery capacities reach about 60 kWh and their chemistries become less stable, the use of TMS becomes
more practical and necessary, e.g. in the Teslas. Given the thermal mass of an EV's battery, using TMS is a 'costly'
(overall EV efficiency) add-on.

How do you know this? Many denser battery technologies are affected less by heat out even exhibit greatly reduced internal resistance as well as much better longevity.

I'm not saying that TMS is a bad thing. But I'm glad there's a company trying to perfect non-TMS batteries. I foresee future batteries not needing TMS. Ultracapacitors that have nearly zero internal resistance, aren't affected at all by temperatures between -50*F and 180*, have zero degradation and that hold as much as a lead acid battery already exist. Now we just need them to pack even more energy density and for production to rise and prices come down.

 

[internalaudit]

The 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ will have at least 225 miles (362 km) EPA range thanks to NCM 811 battery cells to be made by LG Chem.

Seems that in Canada, I was told EV leases are mostly 6% per annum except for that one time SmartforTwo 0% lease rates a few years back.

Even on MyTesla, they show 2% 8-year financing but they don't indicate the lease rates, so maybe they are in the 5% and up. I didn't bother with the math and tried to outsource it.

I think Nissan will have to offer competitive lease rates on the Leaf as many people like me don't want to get stuck owning a lemon but are willing to buy out the car at lease end if everything goes well. Tesla will want to have people finance the cars as it doesn't want to get stuck with too many cars and leasing is probably less profitable on its books.

I've always financed our vehicles when purchased new and haven't sold any of them since they still drive fine and are not high maintenance.

 

[GRA]

Concerns about carrying a bike must be from people who have never used a bike rack like this:

Once I got that on my vehicles (I always keep one vehicle with a hitch) I just look with pity on people who carry bikes in any other way. It's by leagues the best way to carry a bike. I know the model 3 will have a trailer hitch available. <snip>

There are also those of us who opted not to install a hitch because we rarely carry more than one bike, and it seems silly to haul around the weight of the hitch all the time, or have to store the rack. There's also a drag hit with a bike on the rack, albeit not as much as on a roof rack. I have a friend with a hitch rack, and pretty much whenever we need to carry multiple bikes we take his 4Runner, as the gas mileage is about the same as my Forester with roof rack and bikes. If I didn't have that option and needed to carry lots of bikes all the time, a hitch rack would be the best choice - saves having to lift the bikes to/from the roof as well. OTOH, I'd still need the roof rack for kayaks (and occasionally skis. Just one or two pair goes inside the car; they also stay cleaner on the roof than they do on a hitch rack), so the roof rack is essential, while the hitch rack would be a nice to have.

 

[lorenfb]

It's interesting that LG Chemistry is that far ahead of other vendors in terms of NMC cathode materials. I wonder if LG Chem's Chemistry will also have better or worse calendar and/or cycle life. According to the chart in this article, NMC 811 is less stable than NMC 622. The PushEvs article hints that the 60 kWh LEAF may include a TMS:

Right. When battery capacities reach about 60 kWh and their chemistries become less stable, the use of TMS becomes
more practical and necessary, e.g. in the Teslas. Given the thermal mass of an EV's battery, using TMS is a 'costly'
(overall EV efficiency) add-on.

How do you know this? Many denser battery technologies are affected less by heat out even exhibit greatly reduced internal resistance as well as much better longevity.

I'm not saying that TMS is a bad thing. But I'm glad there's a company trying to perfect non-TMS batteries. I foresee future batteries not needing TMS. Ultracapacitors that have nearly zero internal resistance, aren't affected at all by temperatures between -50*F and 180*, have zero degradation and that hold as much as a lead acid battery already exist. Now we just need them to pack even more energy density and for production to rise and prices come down.

Hey, you obviously need to read again what was posted, i.e. I'm not a proponent of TMS and especially when
battery capacity is limited!

When battery capacities reach about 60 kWh and their chemistries become less stable, the use of TMS becomes
more practical and necessary

By the way, please calculate what size in farads and at what voltage your "Ultracapacitor" needs to be charged to
for about 60kWh (216MJ) of energy. Start with; 216 MJ = 1/2 C * V^2. And if you obviously need to charge to above 2KV,
please reference the switching semiconductor device you'll use in the motor controller. Doubt we'll see your
"UltraCapacitor" in a BEV before ICEVs are prohibited.

 

[GRA]

The Model 3 will require care getting a bike past the trunk lid without scratching anything, but after that it's got a flat load floor which allows a bike to be slid in right up to the front seat backs, with what appears to be more than enough length to not need to remove a wheel. To assist sliding I normally put some flattened cardboard boxes down on the floor and folded seat backs, smooth side up. From the MT review:

The prototype’s trunk opening was criticized as too small; now it’s yawning. And at 15 cubic feet, with a very low lift-over and 60/40 folding rear seats, it looks hungry for a surfboard or a bike. Franz* assures me of this; he’s a cyclist.

*Von Holzhausen, the designer.

I don't doubt that certain bikes can fit in the Model 3's trunk. I do doubt that it is anywhere near as easy to load/unload as my Leaf. The fact that it is not level doesn't matter at all. The bike slides over the rear seats, and the front wheel slots between the rear and front seats. Easy in / easy out.

We're way OT, but If I understand you correctly you wheel the bike in front end first, standing up? I've always had to load my bike rear end first on its side (chain side up), with the front wheel turned as necessary to make it fit. My frames have been too tall to stand up in anything other than a van or really big SUV (I learned it could also do so in a Honda Element, which is really a microvan), short of dropping or removing both the seat and extension/bars to get it in, and maybe not even then depending on the car.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

The Model 3 will require care getting a bike past the trunk lid without scratching anything, but after that it's got a flat load floor which allows a bike to be slid in right up to the front seat backs, with what appears to be more than enough length to not need to remove a wheel. To assist sliding I normally put some flattened cardboard boxes down on the floor and folded seat backs, smooth side up. From the MT review:
*Von Holzhausen, the designer.

I don't doubt that certain bikes can fit in the Model 3's trunk. I do doubt that it is anywhere near as easy to load/unload as my Leaf. The fact that it is not level doesn't matter at all. The bike slides over the rear seats, and the front wheel slots between the rear and front seats. Easy in / easy out.

We're way OT, but If I understand you correctly you wheel the bike in front end first, standing up? I've always had to load my bike rear end first on its side (chain side up), with the front wheel turned as necessary to make it fit. My frames have been too tall to stand up in anything other than a van or really big SUV (I learned it could also do so in a Honda Element, which is really a microvan), short of dropping or removing both the seat and extension/bars to get it in, and maybe not even then depending on the car.

We are not really that OT, since this is 100% relevant to "why the Leaf and not the Model 3"

I lay my bike on its side (chain side up), and feed it into the Leaf front wheel first. Then I turn the handlebars so as to turn the front wheel vertical, behind the front seat, in what would normally be the rear passenger's foot well. The handle bars end up horizontal, between the front seats. Once you do it a few times, it's easy to do in one swift motion. I used to do it in a Civic hatchback as well. The Leaf is longer (the Civic was a 2-door), which makes the bike fit more easily.

 

[dgpcolorado]

... Just one or two pair goes inside the car; they also stay cleaner on the roof than they do on a hitch rack), so the roof rack is essential, while the hitch rack would be a nice to have.

The reason I would never, ever, use a roof bike rack is that I know full well that one day I would drive into the garage with my bike on the roof of the car! (YMMV)

Inside the car I use an old bedspread to protect the car and catch the dirt that my mountain bike collects from riding in muddy, snowy conditions.

 

[GRA]

... Just one or two pair goes inside the car; they also stay cleaner on the roof than they do on a hitch rack), so the roof rack is essential, while the hitch rack would be a nice to have.

The reason I would never, ever, use a roof bike rack is that I know full well that one day I would drive into the garage with my bike on the roof of the car! (YMMV)

Inside the car I use an old bedspread to protect the car and catch the dirt that my mountain bike collects from riding in muddy, snowy conditions.

I hear you, and that thought's always at the back of my mind. I haven't needed to use my roof bike mounts in quite awhile, and don't have a garage where I am now, although there's always public ones to worry about. Kayaks are much harder to forget about, as they stick out front and rear and are tied down ditto, so the front tie down and usually the bow are always in sight while driving.

 

[GRA]

We're way OT, but If I understand you correctly you wheel the bike in front end first, standing up? I've always had to load my bike rear end first on its side (chain side up), with the front wheel turned as necessary to make it fit. My frames have been too tall to stand up in anything other than a van or really big SUV (I learned it could also do so in a Honda Element, which is really a microvan), short of dropping or removing both the seat and extension/bars to get it in, and maybe not even then depending on the car.

We are not really that OT, since this is 100% relevant to "why the Leaf and not the Model 3"

I lay my bike on its side (chain side up), and feed it into the Leaf front wheel first. Then I turn the handlebars so as to turn the front wheel vertical, behind the front seat, in what would normally be the rear passenger's foot well. The handle bars end up horizontal, between the front seats. Once you do it a few times, it's easy to do in one swift motion. I used to do it in a Civic hatchback as well. The Leaf is longer (the Civic was a 2-door), which makes the bike fit more easily.

Gotcha, I just do it opposite end first, as I've got the same cargo floor height at the rear as in the front so don't need to drop the tire between the seats, and I find it easier to avoid scratching anything with the pedals or bars that way. I think it's easier to take out quickly as the bars are behind the shock towers, so can't catch on anything while I'm pulling it out, but YMMV.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

It's interesting that LG Chemistry is that far ahead of other vendors in terms of NMC cathode materials. I wonder if LG Chem's Chemistry will also have better or worse calendar and/or cycle life. According to the chart in this article, NMC 811 is less stable than NMC 622. The PushEvs article hints that the 60 kWh LEAF may include a TMS:

The longer range version 2019 Nissan Leaf’s battery pack will probably be slightly bigger, not only to have its capacity increased to 60 kWh, but also to have space for a TMS (Thermal Management System).

Right. When battery capacities reach about 60 kWh and their chemistries become less stable, the use of TMS becomes
more practical and necessary, e.g. in the Teslas. Given the thermal mass of an EV's battery, using TMS is a 'costly'
(overall EV efficiency) add-on.

TMS is already necessary in the Leaf. Evidence: Fact that the existing Leafs have had terrible battery degradation. In fact, Nissan is an industry leader in its EVs losing range among the major brands.

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

 

[SageBrush]

I have read that the Renault Zoe (which *I think* uses the same battery as the LEAF) is sold in Europe as a car purchase and a battery rental. The owners pay about 10 Euro cents per mile for the battery rental and can have it replaced when it reaches a threshold degradation of 75%. I am not particularly aware of European car prices but my general impression is that the Zoe car is sold for about the same price as other cars in its class.

The Zoe is the most widely popular EV in Europe so far as I know, implying that Renault makes money and the people like the car. I'm not suggesting that the Zoe would be successful in the US, but rather that this instance of the Nissan/Renault approach to EV battery appears to work. I imagine it required a combination of high petrol prices, urban driving patterns, and a mild climate. It also gives some idea of the actual battery costs for this type of architecture over time.

https://www.renault.co.uk/renault-finance/battery-hire.html

Addendum: The Zoe has an air-cooled TMS

 

[Durandal]

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

 

[SageBrush]

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

Self-interest is more likely, e.g. gambling in the stock market that Tesla stock would drop.

 

[lorenfb]

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

OK. Please indicate how much range loss you're willing to accept on the Gen 1 Leaf's (24/30kWh) with TMS,
e.g. min 10%, actually 15 - 20%. Surely you have Nissan battery engineering data, range loss data, cost analysis',
and Leaf marketing data to corroborate your viewpoint? Remember, when utilizing a TMS function to maintain
a relatively stable battery temperature, the TMS needs to consume energy all the time the vehicle is operational
and during some times when it's not, i.e. the battery has a large thermal mass.

Waiting, and please no anecdotal data or guesses.

 

[Zythryn]

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

OK. Please indicate how much range loss you're willing to accept on the Gen 1 Leaf's (24/30kWh) with TMS,
e.g. min 10%, actually 15 - 20%. Surely you have Nissan battery engineering data, range loss data, cost analysis',
and Leaf marketing data to corroborate your viewpoint? Remember, when utilizing a TMS function to maintain
a relatively stable battery temperature, the TMS needs to consume energy all the time the vehicle is operational
and during some times when it's not, i.e. the battery has a large thermal mass.

Waiting, and please no anecdotal data or guesses.

So you are happy to make blind speculation, but others can't make educated guesses?
Or do you have some data to back up your speculations?

 

[edatoakrun]

A major benefit of owning a LEAF, obviously, is it's record or reliability.

Unlike TSLA owners, relatively few LEAF owners have reported this, happening to them:

Tesla Model X breakdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wanr0LThvkM

If after five years of production, TSLA has been unable to provide reliable performance from the S/X platform, which it has sold at prices exceeding $100k on average, what do you expect from the 3, an all-new design, using an entirely new drive-train, that TSLA claims it will sell for only about half that much?

So if you don't want to be on a first name basis with you local flatbed drivers...

For those of you wanting to claim benefits for ATM in a BEV (beyond reducing the fire hazard unique to TSLA packs) there is a thread for that:

Battery temp management for new leaf

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24433&start=70

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.

My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

OK. Please indicate how much range loss you're willing to accept on the Gen 1 Leaf's (24/30kWh) with TMS,
e.g. min 10%, actually 15 - 20%. Surely you have Nissan battery engineering data, range loss data, cost analysis',
and Leaf marketing data to corroborate your viewpoint? Remember, when utilizing a TMS function to maintain
a relatively stable battery temperature, the TMS needs to consume energy all the time the vehicle is operational
and during some times when it's not, i.e. the battery has a large thermal mass.

Waiting, and please no anecdotal data or guesses.

With all due respect I can tell from your response that engaging with you is a rabbit hole that will never end.

If you have spent any time on the forums you can tell that many people have suffered precipitous drops in range in their batteries, in some cases losing bars within the first year when the Leaf first came out. I don't have access to internal data from Nissan and neither do you. I'm satisfied reading the forums and gleaning from various posts and polls that the Leaf has had a substantial problem with this issue. If you came to another conclusion, so be it. I share this view with many on the forums.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

Because I can't help myself, I thought I'd look into this more.

Here is a nicely detailed write up from a guy with a 2015 Leaf. The 2015 Leaf has a supposedly better heat-resistant battery than the early models. In two years and 14k miles he has a 10% range reduction. http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4464&cHash=92313192ff5b7949bd2086ad0bbfc94d

He says "This isn’t out of line with what others have seen.".

As for Tesla, a big matrix here shows that the average model s has projected loss of 23 miles over 100k (10%), with an actual loss reported of just under 6% @ 66k combining all results.
https://www.teslacentral.com/worried-about-tesla-battery-degradation-its-23-miles-every-100000-driven

The tesla data is more reliable because it's a large pool of drivers.

I don't know if relative geography of leaf and tesla is the same, but I imagine it's similar.

One of the teslas after 60k miles had a range reduction from 265 to 264. Anybody think any leaf can do that? The worst, and this was a significant outlier, had a 10% reduction after 54k miles.

 

[lorenfb]

Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.

OK. Please indicate how much range loss you're willing to accept on the Gen 1 Leaf's (24/30kWh) with TMS,
e.g. min 10%, actually 15 - 20%. Surely you have Nissan battery engineering data, range loss data, cost analysis',
and Leaf marketing data to corroborate your viewpoint? Remember, when utilizing a TMS function to maintain
a relatively stable battery temperature, the TMS needs to consume energy all the time the vehicle is operational
and during some times when it's not, i.e. the battery has a large thermal mass.

Waiting, and please no anecdotal data or guesses.

So you are happy to make blind speculation, but others can't make educated guesses?

There're two "educated guesses" we all can agree on;
1. TMS will consume energy.
2. Additional energy consumption will reduce range.

Or do you have some data to back up your speculations?

No, nor does anyone else! So to conjecture that Nissan should have added TMS to the Gen 1 without
having all the facts/data is naive. And even with hindsight, Nissan's decision may have been the same.