Proposed New Sale EV Window Sticker Disclosures

[TonyWilliams]

THE EV COMMUNITY NEEDS REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERTISED RANGE EXPECTATIONS AND SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON HOW LOCAL CLIMATE, TIME, AND HEATER / AIR CONDITIONER AFFECTS RANGE THROUGH 5 YEARS... ON THE CAR'S WINDOW LIKE THE MONRONEY STICKER.

Please use this thread to discuss.

 

[cdub]

yes because we need to scare more people

 

[TomT]

You are going to need four windows for all that...

THE EV COMMUNITY NEEDS REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERTISED RANGE EXPECTATIONS AND SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON HOW LOCAL CLIMATE, TIME, AND HEATER / AIR CONDITIONER AFFECTS RANGE THROUGH 5 YEARS... ON THE CAR'S WINDOW LIKE THE MONRONEY STICKER.

 

[TonyWilliams]

yes because we need to scare more people

Does the MONRONEY sticker scare you?

Does the EPA data scare you?

Will telling people what their car will do in honest, practical terms scare you? It scares me that it is not provided until we have big blow ups of unhappy customers who are just now finding out what Nissan has known all along.

 

[Stoaty]

yes because we need to scare more people

If they are scared by that information, they shouldn't buy the Leaf. With the information we now have with the release of the Nissan Arizona mileage assumptions, I would still buy my Leaf. For my climate and my driving pattern, it will still work out fine. However, I bet a very large number of people in Arizona would not have purchased (or perhaps even leased) the Leaf--and that would have been a very good thing for Nissan. They wouldn't be in the jam they are in now.

PS I still plan to limit my commute to the San Fernando Valley to days when the predicted high is no more than 95 degrees. I will have to take the ICE vehicle to work for about 4 weeks per year, but that should help protect my investment.

 

[September]

It could scare some people in some climates, but in others that could reduce anxiety. The more information the better, and it would benefit everyone.

 

[garygid]

There should be some relatively easy way to measure the
Battery Pack capacity before buying a new or used EV.

Since a real determination requires considerable measurement
and the analysis of each cell, both charged and discharged,
it is not easy to do, even with access to all the cells.

Blindly taking the EV's estimate of the capacity is also
problematic, since the vehicle manufacturer might not
want all the "dirty laundry" out for the public to see.

By observing the LEAF for almost 2 years, we have made
a few useful connections between the data that we can
observe and the car's performance. However, when we
learn to read the cell-pair data (at least Voltage), we
should be able to do a much better analysis.

It is unlikely that any amount of stickering will answer
this very simple question: "How big is the tank, today?"

 

[ydnas7]

It is unlikely that any amount of stickering will answer
this very simple question: "How big is the tank, today?"

Once envia style cathodes start to be used, even some really basic fundamentals about how to treat Li ion batteries will stop being valid. And the very simple question: "How big is the tank, today?" becomes even more subjective.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012030639&recNum=265&maxRec=6992&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=%28lithium+AND+ion+AND+battery%29+and+electrode&tab=PCTDescription" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[EVDRIVER]

These issues wil be short lived.

 

[ericsf]

These issues wil be short lived.

+1
For the range, the EPA fuel economy numbers have the same problem. Depending on how you drive you won't get the X MPG and everybody knows that (except some people who sued Honda about this and lost). For EVs the range variation is just more sensitive to the driving style. IMO, "Your mileage may vary" is common sense.

For the battery longevity, I agree that the climate issues should go away as manufacturers learn from mistakes and better design for all conditions where they sell the car. Nissan tried that and missed. If they can't do it economically then we'll see options like "hot weather" package so that only people who need it pay for it.

 

[TonyWilliams]

These issues wil be short lived.

For the battery longevity, I agree that the climate issues should go away as manufacturers learn from mistakes and better design for all conditions where they sell the car. Nissan tried that and missed. If they can't do it economically then we'll see options like "hot weather" package so that only people who need it pay for it.

Short lived or not, don't you think there should be some awareness for consumers, much like the EPA or Monroney data?

Sure, if in 5 or 10 years, the batteries are so rock solid that this becomes moot, it will die off like anything else not of much use.

For now, I don't expect my mother, or grandmother, or daughter, or non-technically inclined folks to "get" all this with that magic of "common sense." It's neither common information, nor does make intuitive sense from folks used to a gasoline world for the past 100 years.

 

[ydnas7]

It took the good intention of air quality regulation to stifle the development of very low pollution fueled vehicles like CNG or reduced pollution LPG.

More specifically it was the requirement of the EPA Certification process that kills the viability of converting dirtier petrol powered and diesel vehicles to cleaner LPG or CNG. So only the countries without such regulation have widely available LPG or CNG networks (Argentina, Pakistan, Thailand etc), the developed countries with LPG vehicles (Korea, Australia) did so because their market was developed before the EPA equivalents made the process too difficult.

While EVs and their battery technology is still young, regulation to demonstrate battery longevity is exactly what would slow down the development of EVs. The EVs industry needs more options on the table, not less. And it is exactly the time, cost and uncertainty of regulation that slows down deployment. The EV industry needs options like the Envia battery tech, but the time and certainly to comply with regulation would kill it outside of more controlled situations like PHEV 40 or battery lease EVs.

 

[opossum]

I hear your message and definitely don't want to see anything stifle the expansion of cleaner technologies. Unfortunately, anything less than full disclosure is going to lead to much bigger messes than this one when the folks outside the EV enthusiast community - folks like the ones Tony mentioned - start buying in large numbers. Nissan stole a huge share of the EV-wise enthusiast market right away, yet still screwed it up. I can't imagine how big of a mess it would be with a higher volume EV with an equally atrocious flaw or lack of disclosure regarding its performance!

 

[opossum]

I guess my expectation would be from this point forward for auto makers to declare some basic expectations... car care expectations and the corresponding battery behavior/life expectations. It may not necessarily have to come down as regulations and life testing requirements. I don't know about Nissan, but most of the car makers are going to understand their technologies before they offer them to the public. Most of the technologies spend years on the road before the public gets them. So laying down some basic expectations shouldn't be hard. The hardest part is going to be pulling together the data to prove/disprove owner liability when an EV falls short of those expectations.

 

[mazdaboi]

LOL, this would be interesting to see for 1. But when you take this into another context, Diesel Trucks EPA estimates are blank. Then look at some 4cyl SUV's their ranges say 17cty 27hwy but in small text says ranges could be from 10-25 cty and 25-35hwy mpg. Thats disceiving as well.

I would push to educate the salespeople and dealers more to disclose typical use (with Heat/AC, hwy driving) vs the conservative adopter who will drive the car within its respected limitations.

But hey the other end of the spectrum...People like the truth, maybe that information will help.

 

[ALLWATZ]

These issues wil be short lived.

For the battery longevity, I agree that the climate issues should go away as manufacturers learn from mistakes and better design for all conditions where they sell the car. Nissan tried that and missed. If they can't do it economically then we'll see options like "hot weather" package so that only people who need it pay for it.

Short lived or not, don't you think there should be some awareness for consumers, much like the EPA or Monroney data?

Sure, if in 5 or 10 years, the batteries are so rock solid that this becomes moot, it will die off like anything else not of much use.

For now, I don't expect my mother, or grandmother, or daughter, or non-technically inclined folks to "get" all this with that magic of "common sense." It's neither common information, nor does make intuitive sense from folks used to a gasoline world for the past 100 years.

Manufaturers already have a "Harsh weather" or Heavy use" kind of maintenance schedules as compaired to regular maintenance schedules. There is no reason to believe that they could not have such an informational window sticker for battery expectations in extreme climate areas for consumers to make a more informed desicion.

 

[AndyH]

Manufaturers already have a "Harsh weather" or Heavy use" kind of maintenance schedules as compaired to regular maintenance schedules. There is no reason to believe that they could not have such an informational window sticker for battery expectations in extreme climate areas for consumers to make a more informed desicion.

Most (more than 2/3rds of drivers) are actually in the 'severe service' realm of vehicle operation. Additionally, the fuel economy estimates already account for high-speed driving and air conditioning use. We don't need to further pad the numbers for factors already included in the labels.

 

[WetEV]

Most (more than 2/3rds of drivers) are actually in the 'severe service' realm of vehicle operation. Additionally, the fuel economy estimates already account for high-speed driving and air conditioning use. We don't need to further pad the numbers for factors already included in the labels.

Severe service for a ICE isn't the same as severe service for a BEV.

Short drives in ICEs at low speeds don't allow for the oil to get hot enough to drive out unburned gasoline and assorted combustion products including water.

Short drives in BEVs at low speeds are ideal.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Most (more than 2/3rds of drivers) are actually in the 'severe service' realm of vehicle operation. Additionally, the fuel economy estimates already account for high-speed driving and air conditioning use. We don't need to further pad the numbers for factors already included in the labels.

Severe service for a ICE isn't the same as severe service for a BEV.

Short drives in ICEs at low speeds don't allow for the oil to get hot enough to drive out unburned gasoline and assorted combustion products including water.

Short drives in BEVs at low speeds are ideal.

Driving an ICE in cold temperature has a similar effect while driving a BEV in high temperatures has proven disastrous on the battery.

It's a different mindset. One that is definitely not properly communicated. When I signed the paperwork, most of the information was in there, although vaguely so. Yet most people don't read the fine print. Would this be different if it were fine print plastered on the window? Somehow I have my doubts.

 

[Zythryn]

THE EV COMMUNITY NEEDS REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERTISED RANGE EXPECTATIONS AND SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON HOW LOCAL CLIMATE, TIME, AND HEATER / AIR CONDITIONER AFFECTS RANGE THROUGH 5 YEARS... ON THE CAR'S WINDOW LIKE THE MONRONEY STICKER.

Please use this thread to discuss.

I think part of the problem would be developing a standard for all manufacturers. Different chemistries, battery management systems, heck even software controlled charging rates can affect battery longevity and capacity.

Customer education is critical. However, I don't see it happening through a label such as this. I think it needs to be done on a per manufacturer, and per model basis.