Calculating usable battery capacity using Carwings...

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RegGuheert said:
Do you use your GPS to estimate changes in altitude, or is it too inaccurate in the Z direction? If not GPS, what do you use? We have a mountain about 12 miles away that is maybe 500 to 1000 feet high

I find the GPS data under INFO "where am I" and "GPS" quite accurate on the multitude of times I've checked the data against known elevation.

Obviously, you'll want to make sure that you have more than just three satellites for the highest accuracy.

Did you leave a zero off the "mountain" elevations?
 
there is a droid app "get altitude" allows you to compare readings verses the car. it uses your location but will also allow you to check altitude by simply touching an area on the map. its a free app
 
RegGuheert said:
edatoakrun said:
Every day I begin my driving my car from a 100% charge, with a 40-something estimate from my owner's page, and 50-something from the GOM, as a result of the about 2000 ft of ascent (and about 500 ft of descent) in the last 7 miles to my home.

Seven miles, and miles and the same descent later, the GOM reads 100 to 110 miles, depending on temp, driving style, etc.
O.K. It sounds like you do this practically every day! Would you mind recording the exact conditions tonight and tomorrow morning and posting them here?

Tonight: Bars remaining before shutdown, GOM and efficiency number from main dashboard.
Tomorrow morning: Predicted range from home page BEFORE starting your car.

TIA!
To illustrate how useful Carwings is, to those who remain proudly ignorant, and also to show the limits of the GOM, I plan to repeat the the test run below, on the route I mentioned earlier, at different inital charge states.

I'm planning on 3 tests, with “80%” by timer, 100% charge, and the optimum for my purposes, the approximate charge given by 30 minutes of L2, following a 80% timer charge, which is shown as”92%” on the owners site, and 11 bars on the dash display. Those are the test results are shown in the table below.

When I first got my LEAF, I quickly discovered that, for my most common trip, the one I describe earlier in this thread, I would get almost the same energy recovery from the proximately 2,000 ft. of descent, about 1500 net, by charging to a point beyond 80%. This was long before CW had become both accurate and reliable. My “test” was to simply stop after the large initial descent, about 1400 ft. net in the first 7 miles, and touch the discs, following charging to different levels. 100% charge = Ouch!, 80% warm disks, and 90%, just a bit warmer.

I generally charged only to 80%, but when winter came, with a little shorter range, my 8-9 bar “commute” often began to take 10 or 11 bars, so, on rainy days or when I had more errands planned, I got into the habit of starting charging before I left home, just to have more detour options, on the 50-60 mile trip.

I think CW will give me a much better understanding of the optimum charge level, and the larger question, the ratio of descent/ascent energy recovery, than the disc brake heat test, I did a year ago.

So, on the 30th, I charged to 80% by timer, then added 30 minutes of 16 amp L2. Temp was in the low 40’s F while charging, and in the low 50’s while driving. No heater use, no rain. The cars temp bar display started at four, and the fifth one came on just before the conclusion of trip # 4, below. I stopped at the 10-mile from-my–home point, at the beginning and end of this trip, to rest the CW trip report, as shown below on trips 1 and 5. As you can see, I made two stops in town, separated by trip #3.

I plan to repeat it at 80% charge, and 100%, and will post the results.

All reports below are from Carwings, except the GOM numbers, which I have added , for your amusement.

Mar/30

Total kWh use: consum. Regen distance Energy Econ GOM-47 miles at start-up

Trip 1: 0.4kWh 1.1kWh 0.7kWh 9.8miles 24.8miles/kWh 104 miles shown at end

Trip 2: 3.1kWh 3.6kWh 0.6kWh 14.9miles 4.8miles/kWh

Trip 3: 0.1kWh 0.1kWh 0.0kWh 0.4miles 4.4miles/kWh

Trip 4: 3.2kWh 3.8kWh 0.7kWh 15.2miles 4.8miles/kWh 34 miles shown at end

Trip 5: 4.2kWh 4.3kWh 0.1kWh 9.8miles 2.3miles/kWh 7 miles shown at end

Distance measured by Carwings total: 50.1 miles (2.5% constant under-reported)

Distance measured by odometer total: 51.4 miles
 
edatoakrun said:
To illustrate how useful Carwings is, to those who remain proudly ignorant, and also to show the limits of the GOM, I plan to repeat the the test run below, on the route I mentioned earlier, at different inial charge states.

"Useful" now, and not accurate. Clever. :shock:

Did you factor in the mileage discrepancies, or must the reader?

Edit: I see you made a note at the bottom.
 
TonyWilliams said:
edatoakrun said:
To illustrate how useful Carwings is, to those who remain proudly ignorant, and also to show the limits of the GOM, I plan to repeat the the test run below, on the route I mentioned earlier, at different inial charge states.

"Useful" now, and not accurate. Clever. :shock:

Did you factor in the mileage discrepancies, or must the reader?

Edit: I see you made a note at the bottom.

Keep looking Tony, you might learn something.

Moved to new topic here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8437" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
RegGuheert said:
I have checked the firmware version against the Update Instructions. I have seen that some of my firmware versions are lower than those provided by others here, but I am up to at least the update levels.
There is no way for a user to check the firmware version in the VCM. The only thing users can check are the Windows CE stuff in the head unit. All those version listings are ONLY for the head unit, not for the other critical systems in the car, such as the VCM and LBC (Battery ECU).

-Phil
 
edatoakrun said:
To illustrate how useful Carwings is, to those who remain proudly ignorant, and also to show the limits of the GOM, I plan to repeat the the test run below, on the route I mentioned earlier, at different inital charge states.

I'm planning on 3 tests, with “80%” by timer, 100% charge, and the optimum for my purposes, the approximate charge given by 30 minutes of L2, following a 80% timer charge, which is shown as”92%” on the owners site, and 11 bars on the dash display.
FYI, a "full" charge is typically around 94-95% SoC, while an 80% charge is actually to 80% SoC. My last "full" charge stopped at just over 94% SoC which was 278 "Gids" or 22240 watt-hours. Also keep in mind, the battery contactor opens at around 2% SoC, so you only get about 92% usable per full charge. I've calculated that 100% SoC (if you could reach it) would be 23512 watt-hours. (on my car anyway) Knowing the top ~5% (1176wH) and the bottom ~2% (470wH) can't really be used, that leaves 21866wH actual usable from "full" to turtle, and 18340wH usable from 80% to turtle. Since there is a significantly wide variation from one "full" charge to the next, it's not an accurate test to charge to full and expect repeatable results. It would be more accurate to charge to 80%.

-Phil
 
For those of us without the March 2012 firmware update,
CW is probably still not very useful.

After the update, if it still cannot get the mileage correct,
why bother to re-investigate if they handle Regen Energy correctly?

Regen Energy (RE) into the Pack is greater than RE "recovered" for use.

So, if the LEAF reports RE to CW as energy into the Pack,
and CW still uses it as if it is recovered (usable) energy,
then the CW calculations are still wrong.
 
garygid said:
For those of us without the March 2012 firmware update,
CW is probably still not very useful...

All results I posted are constant since my August 2011 update. I haven't had the March update, which (apparently) only effects GOM performance, with no effect on CW. See other thread, please.
 
Ingineer said:
Since there is a significantly wide variation from one "full" charge to the next, it's not an accurate test to charge to full and expect repeatable results. It would be more accurate to charge to 80%. Phil

Excellent point, assuming 80% has the same Gid value. Otherwise, are we exactly duplicatingnthenissues at 100%?
 
Ingineer said:
RegGuheert said:
I have checked the firmware version against the Update Instructions. I have seen that some of my firmware versions are lower than those provided by others here, but I am up to at least the update levels.
There is no way for a user to check the firmware version in the VCM. The only thing users can check are the Windows CE stuff in the head unit. All those version listings are ONLY for the head unit, not for the other critical systems in the car, such as the VCM and LBC (Battery ECU).

-Phil
Thanks, Phil! I've been meaning to post back on this thread to say that I'm not so sure about whether or not our LEAF is really updated or not. I was thinking of NTB11-041a when I wrote that reply. That service bulletin tells what TCU software version you should be seeing: 3NA0000626

But it does seem that the TCU version number was changed to 3NA0000627 on many LEAFs during the volumtary device campaigns P1273 and P1274 (covered by NTB12-014 and NTB12-015). As you say, there is no mention of this in these two service bulletins, so I cannot make any positive statements based on the information I have. FWIW, our TCU Software version is 3NA0000626.

I have already accused my dealer of not performing P1274 when I purchased the vehicle since it still had the old Owner's Manual in it when they delivered it. But they printed a document showing me that "P12740" was done on March 1, 2012 along with the new manual, saying they had forgotten to put it into the car.

So is my TCU version enough evidence for me to go back and say that P1274 was not done correctly, or not? Even if it is, there STILL is no mention of that in the service campaign bulletin and Nissan has already paid for the work to be done on the car, so I don't think there is any way to affect a change at this point.

What does everyone think? Is the TCU Software version of 3NA0000626 a TRUE indicator that P1274 was NOT done on our LEAF? If so, what, if anything can I possibly do about it?

Thoughts?
 
TonyWilliams said:
Ingineer said:
Since there is a significantly wide variation from one "full" charge to the next, it's not an accurate test to charge to full and expect repeatable results. It would be more accurate to charge to 80%. Phil

Excellent point, assuming 80% has the same Gid value. Otherwise, are we exactly duplicatingnthenissues at 100%?
80% is not based on watt-hours (Gids), rather it's based on SoC. If you take a car, such as TickTocks, with less overall capacity, Expect the Gids value to be lower at an 80% charge. Also keep in mind, that the difference between an 80% charge and "full" is only about 14-15% more.

-Phil
 
Back
Top