Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[garygid]

Meters usually do not calculate, they display... and sometimes calculate.

The GID-Meter displays GIDs, Amps, and Volts.
It calculates Power in/out of the Pack, and GID%.

The next firmware version will display "SOC" as reported by the car.

NOTE: GIDs are NOT a perfect indicator of usable energy, but
they are the BEST indicator that we have available today.
They can be especially misleading, occasionally, at the low end.

The only other indicator of usable energy is not the Fuel-Bars, but
the time-to-charge estimates, which might be adjusted for reduced
Pack capacity.

 

[Deleted member 1622]

Tony --
I'm very impressed with all the time and effort you've put into this, and getting real data like this is valuable for the entire Leaf community. I believe that battery degradation in hot climates is real, but I'm not seeing that in your results.
I'm most puzzled by your choice of 84 miles as "demonstrated new car capacity." If I read all your charts correctly, you choose this important benchmark by taking the high end of Nissan's estimates for a 4.0 m/kwh drive.
Can you explain first why you would choose a number from Nissan even though every Leaf owner understands a week after owning the car that Nissan was inflating all published numbers on range? And if you agree with that assessment but still want to use the benchmark, why not use the most conservative number in the range (76) as your number? Or, for that matter, the more conservative 73 EPA estimate? After driving the car for a month, I realized that I just needed to set 70 miles (35 mile radius around my garage) as my reasonable expectation for range. By that measure, all the cars in your test manage to meet or exceed that level. In the end, your higher benchmark is 14 miles away from mine, but your conclusion is that these cars have significant battery loss, and my conclusion is that these cars are doing just fine.
Is 14 miles worth the argument? Is it worth a class-action lawsuit against the only company willing to invest in BEV's? Is it worth the avalanche of negative press that threatens to squelch all interest in EVs for the next couple decades? All over a few more highway miles per charge?
I am not a Nissan apologist -- I think they've completely bungled the marketing and customer relations for this car, and there's no excuse. There's no excuse for not having thermal management for the battery, either.
But none of that means your very well-designed road test proves anything, and by choosing a benchmark that conveniently gives you the results you expected (I.e that these cars don't live up to an imaginary 84-mile mark), I fear that you are helping those who want to see the Leaf consigned to the dustbin of history.
Josh

 

[mksE55]

Tony --
I'm very impressed with all the time and effort you've put into this, and getting real data like this is valuable for the entire Leaf community. I believe that battery degradation in hot climates is real, but I'm not seeing that in your results.
I'm most puzzled by your choice of 84 miles as "demonstrated new car capacity." If I read all your charts correctly, you choose this important benchmark by taking the high end of Nissan's estimates for a 4.0 m/kwh drive.
Can you explain first why you would choose a number from Nissan even though every Leaf owner understands a week after owning the car that Nissan was inflating all published numbers on range? And if you agree with that assessment but still want to use the benchmark, why not use the most conservative number in the range (76) as your number? Or, for that matter, the more conservative 73 EPA estimate? After driving the car for a month, I realized that I just needed to set 70 miles (35 mile radius around my garage) as my reasonable expectation for range. By that measure, all the cars in your test manage to meet or exceed that level. In the end, your higher benchmark is 14 miles away from mine, but your conclusion is that these cars have significant battery loss, and my conclusion is that these cars are doing just fine.
Is 14 miles worth the argument? Is it worth a class-action lawsuit against the only company willing to invest in BEV's? Is it worth the avalanche of negative press that threatens to squelch all interest in EVs for the next couple decades? All over a few more highway miles per charge?
I am not a Nissan apologist -- I think they've completely bungled the marketing and customer relations for this car, and there's no excuse. There's no excuse for not having thermal management for the battery, either.
But none of that means your very well-designed road test proves anything, and by choosing a benchmark that conveniently gives you the results you expected (I.e that these cars don't live up to an imaginary 84-mile mark), I fear that you are helping those who want to see the Leaf consigned to the dustbin of history.
Josh

Wake up and smell the coffee. , Nissan advertised 100miles. it was not until later , we got the 76-84 mile range. no statements about range with AC or Heater being degraded, no info on cold weather degradation to the battery. This whole car is about range. never stated the even EPA 73 miles was until turtle mode, Hence you will be walking the rest of the way home. NO info that maybe 15-20% of your miles were below the warning to recharge. and then not recommend to go below that level. they listed the range at 100% charge , then said , oh by the way if you want the battery to last only charge to 80%, (and what range does that give you). Dont get me started. the problems go on and on. Just in case you were not here in the beginning.

 

[edatoakrun]

There is a very strong odor emanating from this thread IMO, but its not of Coffee.

In fact, most of the LEAFs in the test would probably still match or come within 10% to 15% to the ranges Nissan "promised" in its promotional materials, the closest specific example being the 70 miles at 55 mph with AC range mentioned below:

At a Leaf preview event in Japan, Nissan provided some of the most detailed range numbers we've ever seen and, dependent upon your driving habits, you may either be thrilled to hear the true range or disgusted enough to grudgingly take your $99 deposit back and look elsewhere.

Applying the EPA's LA4 test cycle, also less commonly referred to as the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), Nissan came up with some real-world range numbers for the Leaf. Here's an overview of the range variations we can expect from the Leaf: Cruising at 38 miles per hour with ambient temps of 68 degrees, you could squeeze 138 miles out of the Leaf.
Averaging 24 mph in city traffic drops range to 105 miles, assuming air conditioning (A/C) is not in use on a 77-degree day.
In heavy stop-and-go traffic, averaging just 6 mph with temps of 86 degrees and A/C on, range drops to 47 miles.
At 55 mph on the highway in 95 degree temps and A/C on, expect range to be 70 miles.
Winter temps of 14 degrees with the heater on, will drop range to 62 miles in stop-and-go traffic, assuming an average speed of 15 mph.
There are an infinite numbers of variables which will effect your actual range, but these numbers give you a good idea of what to expect based on your own personal driving habits...

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14/nissan-pegs-leaf-range-between-47-and-138-miles-individual-resu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since TickTock posted his account of Nissan's expected capacity loss information, it now appears likely that one of the reasons for the large 76-84 mile variation in Nissan's 4m/kWh range estimates was the expected rapid reduction in LEAF available capacity over the first 6 months. It looks like Nissan may have never promised the "new" battery capacity to LEAF drivers, since it knew it would be disingenuous to base range claims that would be good for only a few months, as a baseline for battery capacity and driving range.

Unfortunately, some participants in this discussion, have not, IMO, displayed the same degree of integrity, in making their claims of LEAF capacity loss.

And they now (essentially) are complaining largely because that the greater-than-promised range of their LEAFs, did not last as long as they'd have liked.

Tony --
I'm very impressed with all the time and effort you've put into this, and getting real data like this is valuable for the entire Leaf community. I believe that battery degradation in hot climates is real, but I'm not seeing that in your results.
I'm most puzzled by your choice of 84 miles as "demonstrated new car capacity." If I read all your charts correctly, you choose this important benchmark by taking the high end of Nissan's estimates for a 4.0 m/kwh drive.
Can you explain first why you would choose a number from Nissan even though every Leaf owner understands a week after owning the car that Nissan was inflating all published numbers on range? And if you agree with that assessment but still want to use the benchmark, why not use the most conservative number in the range (76) as your number? Or, for that matter, the more conservative 73 EPA estimate? After driving the car for a month, I realized that I just needed to set 70 miles (35 mile radius around my garage) as my reasonable expectation for range. By that measure, all the cars in your test manage to meet or exceed that level. In the end, your higher benchmark is 14 miles away from mine, but your conclusion is that these cars have significant battery loss, and my conclusion is that these cars are doing just fine.
Is 14 miles worth the argument? Is it worth a class-action lawsuit against the only company willing to invest in BEV's? Is it worth the avalanche of negative press that threatens to squelch all interest in EVs for the next couple decades? All over a few more highway miles per charge?
I am not a Nissan apologist -- I think they've completely bungled the marketing and customer relations for this car, and there's no excuse. There's no excuse for not having thermal management for the battery, either.
But none of that means your very well-designed road test proves anything, and by choosing a benchmark that conveniently gives you the results you expected (I.e that these cars don't live up to an imaginary 84-mile mark), I fear that you are helping those who want to see the Leaf consigned to the dustbin of history.
Josh

Wake up and smell the coffee. , Nissan advertised 100miles. it was not until later , we got the 76-84 mile range. no statements about range with AC or Heater being degraded, no info on cold weather degradation to the battery. This whole car is about range. never stated the even EPA 73 miles was until turtle mode, Hence you will be walking the rest of the way home. NO info that maybe 15-20% of your miles were below the warning to recharge. and then not recommend to go below that level. they listed the range at 100% charge , then said , oh by the way if you want the battery to last only charge to 80%, (and what range does that give you). Dont get me started. the problems go on and on. Just in case you were not here in the beginning.

 

[wiltingleaf]

barsad22 & edatoakrun
I don't even normally respond to discussions like yours, but how do you explain this. This is after my battery is 100% fully charged. This is photo taken yesterday morning before I left to go to work. I don't care what "maximum range" they advertised. It definitely wasn't 44 miles. I should have just bought a souped up golf cart!! Tony, thank you again for your support of running the range test and I wish Nissan would do the same!!

 

[WetEV]

...making their claims of LEAF capacity loss.

The Tony Tempe Test result that I think is valuable is to correlate the milage and range to dead of the cars tested. This gives an expected life to 70% (normal EOL) of about 35,000 miles. Lots of warnings attached to this, this group is likely not average, is too small for good statistical value, etc. Nissan's statements are better, suggesting about 45,000 miles.

Edit: Added pointer to TickTock's post of his memory of Nissan's capacity plot with time. Also, 45,000 miles is a linear projection, which isn't a great assumption, but is easy to calculate and is probably fairly accurate.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&hilit=TickTock+expected+capacity+loss+nissan&start=3920#p230575" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is real capacity loss. It would be real news if there wasn't.

 

[edatoakrun]

barsad22 & edatoakrun
I don't even normally respond to discussions like yours, but how do you explain this. This is after my battery is 100% fully charged. This is photo taken yesterday morning before I left to go to work. I don't care what "maximum range" they advertised. It definitely wasn't 44 miles...

What the range test did show, is that bar loss is a very inaccurate indication of battery capacity and range.

Exactly when and how did you see "...44 miles" of range?

If you want to accurately determine how much your LEAF is under-performing what Nissan "promised", you will also need to accurately report your own car's ambient temperature exposure, as well as your driving and charging history, to adjust your current range for whatever your own history of use should have given you.

If you actually are experiencing "premature degradation" I expect Nissan will recognize this, and even accept some fairly large errors by LEAF owners in battery care, such as it already has for one of the two LEAFs it bought back, whose owners (IIRC) left it parked with"100" charged for a month in their garage in Phoenix over the summer of 2011.

 

[edatoakrun]

...making their claims of LEAF capacity loss.

The Tony Tempe Test result that I think is valuable is to correlate the milage and range to dead of the cars tested. This gives an expected life to 70% (normal EOL) of about 35,000 miles. Lots of warnings attached to this, this group is likely not average, is too small for good statistical value, etc. Nissan's statements are better, suggesting 45,000 miles.

There is real capacity loss. It would be real news if there wasn't.

Yes there is.

For every LEAF, from the day the battery modules come out of the factory.

The fact is, however, that the vast majority of the LEAFs in the US will probably still meet or come close to the ranges Nissan represented prior to sale. and all but one of 12 the test cars, most of which were selected because their drivers were convinced they had "premature battery degradation" seem like they would test to within ~15% of Nissan's range estimates.

In my case, after almost 13,000 miles after a series of range test from "near new" (including the ~113 miles last month) I am very pleased with my current range, as it is probably still greater than Nissan "promised" me before I leased, and later purchased.

The "gauge error" shown in the Phoenix test, however is a very big problem for me:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

Exactly when and how did you see "...44 miles" of range?

If you want to accurately determine how much your LEAF is under-performing what Nissan "promised", you will also need to accurately report your own car's ambient temperature exposure, as well as your driving and charging history, to adjust your current range for whatever your own history of use should have given you.

If you actually are experiencing "premature degradation" I expect Nissan will recognize this...

Ed, do you notice that you don't get much support for your views? That's not good or bad, as I appreciated constructive criticism, but you've missed some really big parts of the puzzle.

This car was in our test, and was also at Nissan's Casa Grande testing facility. Your thoughts are WAY off base. Next summer will be complete chaos, whether you want your hand stuck in the sand or not.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I am very pleased with my current range, as it is probably still greater than Nissan "promised" me before I leased, and later purchased.

The "gauge error" shown in the Phoenix test, however is a very big problem for me:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the difference between you and me in a nutshell; that word "I". Yes, you are pleased, therefore other people's problems just aren't a problem.

I don't think that way.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm most puzzled by your choice of 84 miles as "demonstrated new car capacity." If I read all your charts correctly, you choose this important benchmark by taking the high end of Nissan's estimates for a 4.0 m/kwh drive.

We chose 84 miles, because we determined last summer that the car, when new, would go 84 miles at 4.0 miles per kWh as displayed on the dash. Check out my range chart, and you'll see that my data for 3.9 miles/kWh shows 82 miles. Nissan didn't come out with their chart until December 2011, many months after we had published our chart (and the thread is there for you to read all the trial and tribulations). Many find it quite curious how miraculously similar that data is (based on 21kWh for a new battery).

So, when we didn't have a car that could actually do the 84 miles, including my car that did in fact drive 84 miles at 4.0 miles/kWh when it was new (just 4 months ago), I had to rely on "official" Nissan data. This issue comes up a lot, and I would save a lot of typing if I just had that 84 mile car.

Can you explain first why you would choose a number from Nissan even though every Leaf owner understands a week after owning the car that Nissan was inflating all published numbers on range?

That data isn't marketing numbers.... that's engineering data. Again, it matches our own independent testing from over a year ago. But, I can't say, "Go look at my range chart", but I can use the exact same data from Nissan.

And if you agree with that assessment but still want to use the benchmark, why not use the most conservative number in the range (76) as your number? Or, for that matter, the more conservative 73 EPA estimate?

73, or 76 miles, is not the range when the car is new, in those specific parameters that we used. 84 miles is the number, and honestly, I predict we would go over by a mile or two with 80F batteries and 2600 feet density altitude.

After driving the car for a month, I realized that I just needed to set 70 miles (35 mile radius around my garage) as my reasonable expectation for range. By that measure, all the cars in your test manage to meet or exceed that level.

You don't think it's a bit disingenuous that your off the cuff data equals our's? I'm not trying to convince you, because for a small number, no amount of convincing seems to matter. It has accomplished the job that was intended. The issue has gained awareness amongst the EV community and Nissan is taking action. They seem to think there is a problem, even if daily, we might hear how "all is normal". It's so normal, that 55 year old Mark Perry is "retiring" from his very well paid job at Nissan. There are and will be other shake ups. Cars are getting turned in to Nissan. An advisory board has been announced.

In the end, your higher benchmark is 14 miles away from mine, but your conclusion is that these cars have significant battery loss, and my conclusion is that these cars are doing just fine.

Congrats to you. I hope your car provides you with many years of dependable service.

Is 14 miles worth the argument? Is it worth a class-action lawsuit against the only company willing to invest in BEV's? Is it worth the avalanche of negative press that threatens to squelch all interest in EVs for the next couple decades? All over a few more highway miles per charge?

You would have to ask the folks who are suing. I am not participating in any lawsuit, and acknowledge that legal challenges won't likely result in any short term changes. Longer term, I hope that EV manufacturers have regulatory requirements that they can't just casually spew out 100 mile range, or tell an owner whose car only goes 59 miles that "all is normal".

I am not a Nissan apologist -- I think they've completely bungled the marketing and customer relations for this car, and there's no excuse. There's no excuse for not having thermal management for the battery, either.

Selling the car in Phoenix was seriously tempting fate. The entire automotive battery world knew this was risky, well before the LEAF was released. Elon Musk, chairman of Tesla Motors, called this battery "primitive" and he was worried its failure would impact all EV's.

But none of that means your very well-designed road test proves anything, and by choosing a benchmark that conveniently gives you the results you expected (I.e that these cars don't live up to an imaginary 84-mile mark), I fear that you are helping those who want to see the Leaf consigned to the dustbin of history.
Josh

Well, we just disagree on a few points. I didn't produce these cars, or sell them in environments that it is not well suited. 84 miles isn't imaginary, and the results of our demonstration speak for themselves. How you choose to accept that is up to you.

 

[DaveEV]

Some thoughts based on recent revelations:

It's no coincidence that Nissan's "new" range has nearly exactly a 10% range. TickTock's capacity degradation graph clearly shows that Nissan widely expects your typical LEAF to lose about 10% capacity (7-12%) after 1 year and who knows how many miles.

That explains Tony's loss of range that he's seen in both his cars - Nissan expected this. The extra heat and miles of the AZ cars explains their additional capacity loss.

If only Nissan had been up front and published this information (and more, really) ahead of time. It would have slowed sales in hot climates, but at least owners would have known what they were getting. It's really a clusterf*ck and it really blows my mind that Nissan executives thought they would get away with it.

@wiltingleaf Re: 44 GOM reading: The GOM is lying. Based on the recent range test, you can drive 66 miles + some unknown number of miles to turtle (72 mi is indicated later???) at 64 mi/hour indicated (don't know for sure since Blue744 wasn't driven to turtle). The test says it recorded 4.4 mi/kWh, so even at your indicated 4.0 mi/kWh in the picture, you should be good for 60 miles to VLBW. The 44 mi GOM estimate is an example of the "Broken gauge" that the other Nissan exec was referring to in Australia which has been causing you extra range anxiety. As Tony has said all along - do not rely on the GOM for accurate range estimates.

 

[edatoakrun]

I am very pleased with my current range, as it is probably still greater than Nissan "promised" me before I leased, and later purchased.

The "gauge error" shown in the Phoenix test, however is a very big problem for me:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the difference between you and me in a nutshell; that word "I". Yes, you are pleased, therefore other people's problems just aren't a problem.

I don't think that way.

Coming from someone who is currently using this forum to solicit thousands of dollars from other LEAF drivers for your rather nebulous "non-profit" proposal, your previous promotion of trinket and t shirt sales, and assorted cases of panhandling for "gas money", I don't take that criticism from you any more seriously than I do your many factual misrepresentation of LEAF capabilities.

I really don't know how you "think", but I can't say that I've ever seen much rationality, or much interest in accurately informing or assisting other LEAF drivers, as opposed to your own self-promotion, expressed in your comments on this forum.

I believe my comments on discussions of the LEAF driving experiences show the same personal interest that most of the participants on this forum should have, trying to get the best service out of their LEAFs, and what to do, for those few who have actually found their LEAFs deficient, in any way.

Since your comments have long since degenerated into the realm of FUD, I can't understand why anyone would still find them very useful.

I can only conclude that the old adage that "there's a sucker born every minute" still holds true.

 

[Yanquetino]

barsad22 & edatoakrun
I don't even normally respond to discussions like yours, but how do you explain this. This is after my battery is 100% fully charged. This is photo taken yesterday morning before I left to go to work. I don't care what "maximum range" they advertised. It definitely wasn't 44 miles. I should have just bought a souped up golf cart!! Tony, thank you again for your support of running the range test and I wish Nissan would do the same!!

I believe that there are several possible explanations for this display, depending upon additional factors unspecified here. As only one example, it is my understanding that the guess-o-meter merely makes its "best guess" of remaining range based on one's most recent driving pattern. It is also conceivable that, like Andy Palmer stated, the gauge is faulty, and thus not giving an accurate readout of either capacity and/or range.

I suppose, however, that for me the underlying explanation is found in the Disclosure Form that I had to sign to take delivery:

Gradual loss of battery capacity. Like all lithium ion batteries, the 2012 LEAF battery will experience a reduction in the amount of electricity or charge it can hold over time, resulting in a reduction in the vehicle's range. This is normal and expected. The rate of reduction cannot be assured, however, the battery is expected to maintain approximately 80% of its initial capacity after 5 years of normal operation and recommended care, but this is not guaranteed. This number may be higher or lower depending upon usage and care. Factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: exposure to very high ambient temperatures for extended periods of time, driving habits, vehicle usage, and charging habits (Quick Charging the vehicle more than once per day) [my boldface].

Did the form you signed not include this disclaimer? If not, can you post what your form said?

 

[TonyWilliams]

I am very pleased with my current range, as it is probably still greater than Nissan "promised" me before I leased, and later purchased.

The "gauge error" shown in the Phoenix test, however is a very big problem for me:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the difference between you and me in a nutshell; that word "I". Yes, you are pleased, therefore other people's problems just aren't a problem.

I don't think that way.

Coming from someone who is currently using this forum to solicit thousands of dollars from other LEAF drivers for your rather nebulous "non-profit" proposal, your previous promotion of trinket and t shirt sales, and assorted cases of panhandling for "gas money", I don't take that criticism from you any more seriously than I do your many factual misrepresentation of LEAF capabilities.

I really don't know how you "think", but I can't say that I've ever seen much rationality, or much interest in accurately informing or assisting other LEAF drivers, as opposed to your own self-promotion, expressed in your comments on this forum.

I believe my comments on discussions of the LEAF driving experiences show the same personal interest that most of the participants on this forum should have, trying to get the best service out of their LEAFs, and what to do, for those few who have actually found their LEAFs deficient, in any way.

Since your comments have long since degenerated into the realm of FUD, I can't understand why anyone would still find them very useful.

I can only conclude that the old adage that "there's a sucker born every minute" still holds true.

I take back my statement of your lack of attacks. Perhaps I can offer you a trinket or other "self-promotion" while I spew FUD? I sure hope I make enough money from trinkets, 'cuz I'm getting hungry over here in my cardboard shack down by the river. Help me, Ed, HELP!!! :lol:

Ed, you truly are a waste of time, and I'll officially denigrate you to "OrientExpress" class. :roll:

 

[TonyWilliams]

The 44 mi GOM estimate is an example of the "Broken gauge" that the other Nissan exec was referring to in Australia which has been causing you extra range anxiety. As Tony has said all along - do not rely on the GOM for accurate range estimates.

As we know from our testing, your car is in fact capable of far more than 44 miles. That certainly gets the attention of know-nothing media, but we all know better (well, there are distinct exceptions here!).

The GOM is broken, and has been from day 1. The capacity gauge is broken, also. And, the batteries are degrading.

 

[mksE55]

Down by the River, I love it. SNL. :lol:

 

[wiltingleaf]

The 44 mi GOM estimate is an example of the "Broken gauge" that the other Nissan exec was referring to in Australia which has been causing you extra range anxiety. As Tony has said all along - do not rely on the GOM for accurate range estimates.

As we know from our testing, your car is in fact capable of far more than 44 miles. That certainly gets the attention of know-nothing media, but we all know better (well, there are distinct exceptions here!).

The GOM is broken, and has been from day 1. The capacity gauge is broken, also. And, the batteries are degrading.

I completely agree. But my car got 67.3 miles with no A/C, 64mph, and ~80F ambient temp. These are not "normal" conditions for a car in AZ during the hot months. The speed limit on the freeway is 65mph "in town" & 75mph in less populated areas. I'm sorry, but if you sell a car in AZ and expect us not to use the A/C then I'm not sure why I would buy a car like that.

Again, I totally support Tony's effort and I want current AZ Leaf owners and possible future owners to understand the decision they are making. I researched this car for a long time before making the educated decision to buy the car because it would meet my needs for a long period of time.

I'm not trying to kill the EV movement and want to see this technology succeed. I have solar panels on my house and one of the main reasons I bought this car because it was the first "affordable" 100% EV that I could generate my own energy for.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm not trying to kill the EV movement and want to see this technology succeed. I have solar panels on my house and one of the main reasons I bought this car because it was the first "affordable" 100% EV that I could generate my own energy for.

Probably the single most used statement from those who are actually personally affected by degradation. I also have solar, installed two months after my LEAF arrived. We all want it to succeed, even the deniers and haters that frequent our forum.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Down by the River, I love it. SNL. :lol:

Yes, I wanted to use "a van down by the river", but that sounded too upscale for my audience, hence cardboard house. :mrgreen: