planet4ever
Well-known member
Segway supports CHAdeMO?hill said:But if I can segway back to Chademo, and GM/SAE's involvement,
Oh, wait, I guess you meant "segue". :lol:
Ray
Segway supports CHAdeMO?hill said:But if I can segway back to Chademo, and GM/SAE's involvement,
hill said:I agree Scott - and imo feel both Mitsu and Nissan quickly grasped that the more EV's they sell (CHEEP ones, so they can sell in higher volumes) ... the more guzzlers they can continue to sell, without having to face CAFE penalties, as Mercedes often does, due to low corporate fuel economy. So, who knows - some of Mitsu/Nissan's motive may be gutsy ... but some of it may be that EV sales have a dirty benefit, in that more expensive technology doesn't have to be invented and installed in higher volume / lower mileage vehicles just to get CAFE mileage up above 30mpg.scottf200 said:Certainly Nissan and Mitsubishi make most of their profit from oil/gas based vehicles. Let's not kid ourselves.
Let me be perfectly clear. I admire Nissan's guts in all this.
You're right that the Volt doesn't need fast chargers, but, given that you can't get people to install DC chargers when you're giving them away, GM probably has at least a 20 year window until it needs to worry about them. All its EREVs and BEVs will no doubt have fast chargers before then.edatoakrun said:GM, which has invested most heavily in the plug-in hybrid model, which will likely be obsolete once the fast-charge network is available, arguably has the greatest incentive to block DC charging, to try to sell as may Volts as it can and recover it's investment before BEV fast charging closes it's market "window".
SanDust said:I'm just saying what the current map looked like. No chargers north of Solana Beach (I'm assuming that would be at the train station?) in San Diego County. The map didn't show any chargers in south Orange County either, though that may have been because this area is outside San Diego.TonyWilliams said:How about this map:
I'm assuming that you were there since your flyer was on my windshield. Did you see something else?
I think that's right. I added screen shots of a few of Andy's slides to the San Diego Leaf Lovers facebook group.TonyWilliams said:I didn't stay through the entire talk by Andy, so I didn't get the updated information from Ecotality. I believe I heard him say that there might be one QC in San Diego county in November.
SanDust said:...there is no point in dragging all that extra mass around for the few trips a year when you'd need it...
Aren't there some Leaf owners who don't need to drive a "100" miles. The could probably get some higher efficencies with a smaller battery.edatoakrun said:Good line. Why don't you post it where it belongs...over on the Chevy Volt thread?SanDust said:...there is no point in dragging all that extra mass around for the few trips a year when you'd need it...
Model S comes equipped with the 160-mile range battery pack. The 230-mile range option is priced at about $10,000 more than the base and the 300-mile option at about $20,000 more than the base.
scottf200 said:Aren't there some Leaf owners who don't need to drive a "100" miles. The could probably get some higher efficencies with a smaller battery.
Lot of CA folks it seems as Leaf owners but are there other places where the daily drives are short where they don't need the range like long CA commutes.
...
Published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Omnibus Household Survey, or OmniStats data, were based on a household survey of 1000 randomly selected households asked about their driving habits in the previous one month (done in 2003).
The entire report can be read here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I completely agree that fast chargers would make people more comfortable. However, what we now know is that even if you give fast chargers away very few entities are willing to install them, and we can surmise that when the government money goes away at the end of this year so will any real chance of getting a meaningful number of fast chargers installed. The result is that EVs will have to roll out without fast charges and that, as more EVs appear, then we'll start seeing the organic growth of fast chargers. This is the way Utah ended up with more NG fueling stations and there isn't any reason to think the same process can't work with EVs and public charging stations.DaveinOlyWA said:what we have is perception. its the perception that 80 miles is not enough for the average person. that perception takes 75% of the people out of the current EV market. in reality; more than 60% of households could do it EASILY
scottf200 said:Let me be perfectly clear. I admire Nissan's guts in all this.
TonyWilliams said:hill said:Has anyone here suggested it to SCE ? Might be worth considering. In any event . . . I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If we could get a bunch of us Leafers here to clunk down some dough, we could work with a regular ol' filling station in San Clemente to push through an L3.
The utilities in California are prohibited from being in the auto charger business. That's what SDGE is petitioning the CPUC to change now, for "underutilized" areas, which will be everywhere.
So, are you cool with this proposal?
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SAN DIEGO
If you’ve noticed a lack of ChaDeMo quick DC chargers in San Diego, and California in general, you’re not the only one. For Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev owners with the ChaDeMo port, it appears likely that there may be very few ChaDeMo chargers installed here in the near future.
A group of us are in the exploratory stages . . . . . . . . . . snip . . . . . . . .
We’d love your input.
DaveinOlyWA said:but i have to go back to my original intention and that is this announcement has little to do with future product development. its only FUD to slow Nissan and Mitsubishi down
Because SAE developed the AC L1/L2 standards in a timely manner.scottf200 said:DaveinOlyWA said:but i have to go back to my original intention and that is this announcement has little to do with future product development. its only FUD to slow Nissan and Mitsubishi down
Using that logic So why is the J1772 L2 standard such a great idea and the LEAF put it on their that car? Isn't that one good for the consumers who buy other BEV/PHEV/etc cars today and in the next several years. Why didn't they just make up another standard? ...
thankyouOB said:more precisely, will the Leaf be unable to use the SAE universal charger on either QC or L2 at public stations?
You make some good points though not completely accurate, and I'd like to suggest a different outside perspective: Asia. Nissan and Mitsubishi did not go "ahead of a standard". They used a standard which had been developed in Japan by a group of 5 companies (four manufacturers + TEPCo) and approved there as a standard. Why (from an Asian perspective) should a proposed American-sponsored standard be taken as seriously for long term planning as an existing Japanese standard?scottf200 said:[It is just a timing thing and Nissan and Misubishi were ahead of a standard and they went with what they had. Your perspective is way skewed because you are in the forest and you own a LEAF. That is very obvious from others reading on the "outside" and these 7 manufacturers who are planning for the next decade or so and not the next few months or even year. Think decade not year.
Honestly I'm not trying to "rip" you I'm just trying to get you to see it from an outside perspective and timeframe. Peace out.
Enter your email address to join: