JPWhite
Well-known member
TonyWilliams said:
Wow. So you think Toyota will drop the Rav4EV again?
That sux. :?
Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs
- Thread starter azdre
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Wow. So you think Toyota will drop the Rav4EV again?
That sux. :?
cwerdna
Well-known member
Not only is it bad for the big battery, leaving the car plugged in for a long time can also cause the 12 volt to go flat. :roll: See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=280747#p280747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.amelsayed said:
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
JPWhite said:
They "dropped" it before the first one was produced. The Rav4 EV, like all the six Very Large Manufacturers (VLM) in California must produce a quota of Zero Emission Vehicles. For the phase III, which includes model years 2012-2014, Toyota contracted Tesla to build 2600 drivetrains to be put in 2012 Rav4 bodies. All three years of production will be exactly the same car, with no options but floor mats and a few colors. The Rav4 oil burner is a completely new design car for 2013, which obviously the Rav4 EV does not, nor will not share.
Why did Toyota build the Rav4 EV?
If they do build another EV for California compliance, it won't be a 2012 Rav4 body. But, like I said, they are going hydrogen for 2015... the state is throwing too many dollars at hydrogen infrastructure for them not to.
dvlax40
Well-known member
TonyWilliams said:
so do you think electric is DOA, or do you think we will reach a medium of electric short haul cars (100-300 mile range) and hydrogen long haul vehicles (300-700 mile range)?
Didn't know better.[/quote]
Not only is it bad for the big battery, leaving the car plugged in for a long time can also cause the 12 volt to go flat. :roll: See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=280747#p280747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.[/quote]
Copy! But wouldn't solar panel be topping the 12V anyway?
Warning: :!: I know the post below this line is lengthy but it is irrelevant to most users so don't feel compelled to keep reading if you have other things to do.
I really only researched MNL forum while waiting to get it. Once I had the LEAF I just used it as much as its limitations allowed but didn't keep up with the reading. My logic was I need to use its HOV advantage before too many EVs on the road cause it to be revoked. Initially I tried the 80% charge but then it would not have the inter-city reach. Also tried less frequent recharging than daily, but it proved to be too complex to be practical. Once I settled on and accepted daily 100% charging as routine, I could see the proverbial writing on the wall as far as battery health is concerned. Then, accepting that most likely I will also end up as a high mileage user with an out of warranty vehicle that is good for only local errands but not inter-city use at some point (my inter-city use requires a 10 miles drive to work then an additional 54 miles to go to San Francisco at highway speed). Hopefully I can squeeze one or two more inter-city years out of it especially as QCs become more prevalent.
With the new Nissan 5 years or 60,000 miles warranty no less than 9 Capacity Bars pledge my hope is if it drops to 8 CBs before 60,000 miles then Nissan helps with rehabilitating the battery. if not, I have to see what technology is available then to climb out of the Battery Capacity hole which by then should be affecting many hot-climate vehicles newer than mine.
ANY ENGINEERS who can start a business to make an add-on energy make-up battery that would fit in the trunk, hook up into the LEAF innards, and add enough capacity to compensate for lost portion (even if lead acid, NiMH, or whatever) would be doing great service to LEAF EV community and making a good $$$ venture. Just shoot only for the 30-40 lost miles and it is ok to have a separate charger for the add-on pack. It is also ok to have to park the LEAF, turn it off, and handle a few (3-4) switches that add the additional range energy into the main traction battery in 10-15 minutes or so before resuming the rest of the trip.
Not only is it bad for the big battery, leaving the car plugged in for a long time can also cause the 12 volt to go flat. :roll: See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=280747#p280747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.[/quote]
Copy! But wouldn't solar panel be topping the 12V anyway?
Warning: :!: I know the post below this line is lengthy but it is irrelevant to most users so don't feel compelled to keep reading if you have other things to do.
I really only researched MNL forum while waiting to get it. Once I had the LEAF I just used it as much as its limitations allowed but didn't keep up with the reading. My logic was I need to use its HOV advantage before too many EVs on the road cause it to be revoked. Initially I tried the 80% charge but then it would not have the inter-city reach. Also tried less frequent recharging than daily, but it proved to be too complex to be practical. Once I settled on and accepted daily 100% charging as routine, I could see the proverbial writing on the wall as far as battery health is concerned. Then, accepting that most likely I will also end up as a high mileage user with an out of warranty vehicle that is good for only local errands but not inter-city use at some point (my inter-city use requires a 10 miles drive to work then an additional 54 miles to go to San Francisco at highway speed). Hopefully I can squeeze one or two more inter-city years out of it especially as QCs become more prevalent.
With the new Nissan 5 years or 60,000 miles warranty no less than 9 Capacity Bars pledge my hope is if it drops to 8 CBs before 60,000 miles then Nissan helps with rehabilitating the battery. if not, I have to see what technology is available then to climb out of the Battery Capacity hole which by then should be affecting many hot-climate vehicles newer than mine.
ANY ENGINEERS who can start a business to make an add-on energy make-up battery that would fit in the trunk, hook up into the LEAF innards, and add enough capacity to compensate for lost portion (even if lead acid, NiMH, or whatever) would be doing great service to LEAF EV community and making a good $$$ venture. Just shoot only for the 30-40 lost miles and it is ok to have a separate charger for the add-on pack. It is also ok to have to park the LEAF, turn it off, and handle a few (3-4) switches that add the additional range energy into the main traction battery in 10-15 minutes or so before resuming the rest of the trip.
vrwl
Well-known member
dvlax40 said:I did notice LEAFer has driven more then the nissan "quoted" 7500 miles per year :roll: . as such I would expect to see an increase in battery consumption, but it seems pretty crappy nissan picks and chooses what numbers to quote whenever it suits them...
hopefully the RAV4EV is the sign of things to come and will bring down the cost of Tesla's battery system
I'm pretty sure I'll lose a capacity bar before I ever hit 7500 miles.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
dvlax40 said:
I think hydrogen is dead on arrival without many, many millions in subsidizes per refueling station.
JPWhite
Well-known member
TonyWilliams said:
The oil companies love this model, is so similar to the gasoline model. Everyone will be required to make frequent trips to the 'refueling' station in order to be able to drive. If they make it 'just like gassing up a car' people will be very familiar with that model as well as consumers and will flock to it. The Oil companies will be sure to make consumers aware of all the limitations of BEV's.
As the enlightened we know we can fuel at home on electric and visit gas stations to get a lottery ticket or a loaf of bread once in a blue moon. We may remain the odd ball minority.
Our local Kroger installed a new gas station this year. I inquired about EV Quick Charging, no they have no plans for that, but are happy to spend a cool million on a new gas station. The millions will come from the unenlightened drivers to build the hydrogen stations. Won't matter if the Hydrogen is expensive, people will consider there is no other choice but to pay.
Stoaty
Well-known member
I think hydrogen will still probably be DOA even with those subsidies. Once we get a 200 mile EV for under $40,000 that we can refuel every night very cheaply not many people will be interested in hydrogen.TonyWilliams said:
JPWhite
Well-known member
Stoaty said:
Here's hoping.
It might take a company like Tesla and its GenIII vehicle to get BEV's any sort of recognition.
Stoaty said:
Very much agreed. Hydrogen has powerful lobbyists right now, and is getting some money for infrastructure. But the automaker's promise to have the Fuel Cell cars ready by 2015, is dependent on the Energy company's ability to have an "Infrastructure of sufficient Density" which I don't think the Oil/Gas companies can build, even with the current subsidies.
http://www.h2carblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Letter-of-Understanding.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .... this is their promise.. and why everybody is saying 2015.
They need lots more money, and they just formed a brand new Hydrogen lobbyist group, H2USA too.
They have until 2015 to really make it happen. And they have BEVs that are getting better, going farther, and recharging faster every year... to compete with by 2015. BEVs have a big head start.
Not to mention PHEVs like the Volt. They render FCVs obsolete. They have the ability to cheap to own electric during 90% of the time, and have the most complete and fully established infrastructure when a driver must go somewhere very far.
Yes, Hydrogen is DOA.
JPWhite
Well-known member
Joeviocoe said:
Not sure what it's worth, but I'll take your Kingdom. I just did a forum search for user taylorsf* and came up with posts from TaylorSFGuy. :lol: :mrgreen:
JPWhite
Well-known member
Did I blink? Must have done.
I see there is a forum member gk1 on the Wiki who is reported as having lost the 4th capacity bar in May this year. I presume this is the only MNL forum member that still owns their LEAF with this level of degradation. This would be a good test of Nissan's willingness to make good on their 5yr/60,000 mile capacity promise.
Anyone know of the status? Sorry if I missed the discussion already, point me to it if I did.
I see there is a forum member gk1 on the Wiki who is reported as having lost the 4th capacity bar in May this year. I presume this is the only MNL forum member that still owns their LEAF with this level of degradation. This would be a good test of Nissan's willingness to make good on their 5yr/60,000 mile capacity promise.
Anyone know of the status? Sorry if I missed the discussion already, point me to it if I did.
JPWhite said:
When I did a search for TaylorSFOGuy some time ago, I got nothin'. I know better now, of course.
dvlax40
Well-known member
vrwl said:
i would have to agree.... after seing the battery in my leaf was 107 when i left work today (112 high) i have little doubt a bar will be gone in a year.
also. was doing some preliminary testing on the way home. i am absolutely shock at 107 degrees what a minimal role high speed discharge played in battery temps (less then 1 degree rise). Either the battery was thermally soaked or there really is little stress when high speed discharges
shrink
Well-known member
dvlax40 said:
As eloquently stated by Mr. Whalen over at the Volt Forums:
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5243-Volt-thermal-management-system-temperature-band" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
*(2): The Leaf has a reasonable TMS within the limited scope of what it is designed to do -- which is just to dissipate operationally-generated heat. With the way the battery cell form-factor and packaging, as well as the layout of the battery compartment and materials used, are all designed, it should do that quite well. However the Leaf’s passive TMS can only dissipate and shed operationally-generated heat down to the environmental temperature. The lack of an active TMS means that it cannot reduce battery temps below the environmental temperature, which in a hot climate combined with 50-60C solar loading, may well be up in the 40-50C range during the daytime.
dvlax40
Well-known member
it just boggles my mind, even the cell balancing was good. it was such a solid test other then ambiant temps... which makes me wonder, why dont they just change the chemistry to be more heat resistant. im sure we would gladly pay whatever more that would cost?
im guessing liability at this point if they admit defeat
im guessing liability at this point if they admit defeat
TomT
Well-known member
No, I'm guessing the technology is just not there yet or there are too many other trade-offs... TMS is really the only proper way to go at this juncture.
dvlax40 said:
Similar threads
