TonyWilliams
Well-known member
The remaining energy at turtle cut-off is about 0.5 kWh, not 3.
Weatherman said:Just a little tidbit from this study:
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/53817.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"...fade rates are some 25% to 30% lower when battery operation is restricted to 80% SOCmax versus allowing full utilization up to 100% SOCmax. The just-in-time charging scenario V, however, shows little sensitivity to SOCmax as that scenario keeps the average SOC low regardless of SOCmax limit (Table 2). The result points to a tangible benefit to battery life by delaying the beginning of charge until several hours before the next driving trip. In practice, it will be difficult to realize the full benefits of just-in-time charging without good knowledge of when the next driving trip will occur."
vegastar said:Below 10C the charge could go all the way up to 4.2V with little effect on the battery life, but could somehow compensate for reduced capacity at low temperatures and heater energy consumption.
Weatherman said:Joeviocoe said:what are your expectations in Florida for next year, in those same terms? (xx% 1.x - FL 2013)
Thanks.
I wouldn't expect any Florida LEAF to survive past the 20,000 mile mark without losing one bar, or we can, pretty much, throw the Arrhenius equation out the window as a predictive factor. For the typical 12,000 mile/year early adopter that means the first bar will fall next spring.
Even with "normal" temperatures, a t^(1/2) degradation rate suggests a 16% loss at the three year or 36,000 mile mark (to reach 20% at 5 years). For any Florida LEAF to reach 3.75 years without losing a bar would be really extraordinary.
ALLWATZ said:Agreed, but if Nissan were to do this they, would have to stop advertising their vaulted 73 mile range as this would be affected by only an 80% charge. I'm not entirely sure this wouldn't also affect the EPA posting as that should be tied to the amount of charge too.
Joeviocoe said:Weatherman said:I wouldn't expect any Florida LEAF to survive past the 20,000 mile mark without losing one bar, or we can, pretty much, throw the Arrhenius equation out the window as a predictive factor. For the typical 12,000 mile/year early adopter that means the first bar will fall next spring.
Thanks. So we'll see how it plays out.... I'll be watching Florida closely. Like Bush v. Gore, close.
What is the average SOC (Gids or number of fuel bars) for you Leaf?DesertDenizen said:I do just in time charging, never exceed 80%, never QC, always in Eco, don't exceed 45 mph, never below two SOC bars. I lost my first capacity bar at 6,881 miles.
DesertDenizen said:I do just in time charging, never exceed 80%, never QC, always in Eco, don't exceed 45 mph, never below two SOC bars. I lost my first capacity bar at 6,881 miles.
Have you performed a range test or a turtle to 100% from-the-wall energy measurement? Either method (or preferably both) appear to give a much more accurate indicator of actual battery capacity since we already know that the capacity bars appear to be pessimistic compared to what the service manual says.DesertDenizen said:I do just in time charging, never exceed 80%, never QC, always in Eco, don't exceed 45 mph, never below two SOC bars. I lost my first capacity bar at 6,881 miles.
Weatherman said:I think the point may be that, if you have a very good idea of when and how much you'll be driving the car, you can maintain a low SOC (say around 30%) most of the time, and there's a benefit in doing so. A few hours before you are ready to leave you charge the battery, but only up to the amount you'll need. So, for a 15 mile trip, you might charge it up to 50%. Or, for a 30 mile trip, you might charge up to 65%
Looks like the stonewalling is still going on. Disappointing to see this, after it looked hopeful. Nissan has yet to restore my faith that they will take care of the early adopters in hot areas when they knew there would be accelerated battery capacity loss. I'm not sure what the point is for having a global advisory board when Nissan doesn't do the right thing on a major issue like this.jspearman said:Was just contacted by an arbitrator at Nissan to review the results of the testing they did on Wednesday. As you can imagine, all is normal, it's new technology, etc. They want to keep an eye on things and for me to bring it in again down the road. I told her I'm not happy with that answer and that I would be interested in a 2-year lease, but no longer want to be an owner, that by the time our car is 3 years old it will no longer be useful in Phoenix for anything but the shortest drives. I told her I knew the owners who took lemon law protection and didn't want to take them, or myself, down that road, so we'll see what happens.
Indeed, they just keep digging. I'm just about at the point where I conclude that everything they've said so far is all window-dressing, and they aren't going to change their behavior. Sad, but at least there are a fair number of options from other companies now.Stoaty said:Looks like the stonewalling is still going on. Disappointing to see this, after it looked hopeful. Nissan has yet to restore my faith that they will take care of the early adopters in hot areas when they knew there would be accelerated battery capacity loss. I'm not sure what the point is for having a global advisory board when Nissan doesn't do the right thing on a major issue like this.jspearman said:Was just contacted by an arbitrator at Nissan to review the results of the testing they did on Wednesday. As you can imagine, all is normal, it's new technology, etc. They want to keep an eye on things and for me to bring it in again down the road. I told her I'm not happy with that answer and that I would be interested in a 2-year lease, but no longer want to be an owner, that by the time our car is 3 years old it will no longer be useful in Phoenix for anything but the shortest drives. I told her I knew the owners who took lemon law protection and didn't want to take them, or myself, down that road, so we'll see what happens.
Stoaty said:Looks like the stonewalling is still going on. Disappointing to see this, after it looked hopeful. Nissan has yet to restore my faith that they will take care of the early adopters in hot areas when they knew there would be accelerated battery capacity loss. I'm not sure what the point is for having a global advisory board when Nissan doesn't do the right thing on a major issue like this.jspearman said:Was just contacted by an arbitrator at Nissan to review the results of the testing they did on Wednesday. As you can imagine, all is normal, it's new technology, etc. They want to keep an eye on things and for me to bring it in again down the road. I told her I'm not happy with that answer and that I would be interested in a 2-year lease, but no longer want to be an owner, that by the time our car is 3 years old it will no longer be useful in Phoenix for anything but the shortest drives. I told her I knew the owners who took lemon law protection and didn't want to take them, or myself, down that road, so we'll see what happens.
jspearman said:She said she would get back to me next week, but wasn't sure what she could do. I find it confusing, since she is the arbitrator working for Nissan and should know immediately what's on the table...
jspearman said:Was just contacted by an arbitrator at Nissan to review the results of the testing they did on Wednesday. As you can imagine, all is normal, it's new technology, etc. They want to keep an eye on things and for me to bring it in again down the road. I told her I'm not happy with that answer and that I would be interested in a 2-year lease, but no longer want to be an owner, that by the time our car is 3 years old it will no longer be useful in Phoenix for anything but the shortest drives. I told her I knew the owners who took lemon law protection and didn't want to take them, or myself, down that road, so we'll see what happens.
I didn't expect it be easy, but I sort of hoped it would be.
Enter your email address to join: