Range Chart

[kmp647]

You have some amazing work in the range chart! But geez why couldnt Nissan just get it right from the start! or just do an update to make the GOM more accurate?

I have to think they are working on this... I have My Leaf due November 8th , but after driving a Volt yesterday and seeing the range meter nail the estimated range to within .5 miles (estimate was 38 miles and I drove 38.5 before the ICE kicked in)

we shouldnt need a chart, thats why we have computers in cars.

I have to hope Nissan offers an update and gets it right.

 

[QueenBee]

we shouldnt need a chart, thats why we have computers in cars.

I have to hope Nissan offers an update and gets it right.

One of the problems is Nissan can't predict the future. With the chart you are forecasting what your speed is going to be which is the main factor in determining range.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You have some amazing work in the range chart! But geez why couldnt Nissan just get it right from the start! or just do an update to make the GOM more accurate?.....

we shouldnt need a chart, thats why we have computers in cars.

Airlines spend a couple hundred million dollars for some of the most advanced computer navigation equipment in the world (and it comes with a big, shiny airplane).

Guess what? They all have charts. Every one of them. But, yes, the Volt team definitely humbled team LEAF on this volley.

Tony
Airline Transport Pilot

 

[edatoakrun]

IMO, the best "update" Nissan could make would be to simply use average miles/kWh since delivery, rather than average over the last few (?) miles, to estimate range remaining. This would be just as useful as SOC, since it should be a constant of that value.

We could then use common sense to adjust for planned speed, altitude, and climate control, to figure out whether we had sufficient range.

I notice the chart still shows 1,000 ft. /2000 ft. values for altitude adjustment. Does anyone still think that is correct?

 

[abasile]

I notice the chart still shows 1,000 ft. /2000 ft. values for altitude adjustment. Does anyone still think that is correct?

Yes, I still think one additional bar per 1000 ft. climbed is approximately correct, based on driving down/up CA-330 at least once/week. The downhill figure of 2000 ft. seems intended to be conservative, since the actual figure will vary greatly depending on the amount of regen, friction braking, coasting, etc.

 

[edatoakrun]

I notice the chart still shows 1,000 ft. /2000 ft. values for altitude adjustment. Does anyone still think that is correct?

Yes, I still think one additional bar per 1000 ft. climbed is approximately correct, based on driving down/up CA-330 at least once/week. The downhill figure of 2000 ft. seems intended to be conservative, since the actual figure will vary greatly depending on the amount of regen, friction braking, coasting, etc.

My concern is that the ratio of 1 to 2 seems to be way off, not the number, whether 1,000, 1,200, or 800 ft. per bar. Very few drives between charge points have ONLY ascents or descents, none that I have ever made.

I am still averaging about 80% total energy recovery from ascent/descent on highways, and this ratio doesn't seem to vary much, as long as I utilize regen as much as is reasonably practicable. Whether this is occurring at 800/1000 ft./bar, or at 1000/1250 ft./bar cannot be accurately calculated from my driving experience, and is not terribly relevant to most range estimations anyway. As I’ve said before, only drivers with SOC info, or metered Recharge opportunities, following two-way ascent/descent drives, could nail these number down.

But, my range on many drives I have made, would clearly have been impossible if this ratio, was anywhere near as low as 50%.

So to restate the question, anyone think it's only 50%?

 

[surfingslovak]

IMO, the best "update" Nissan could make would be to simply use average miles/kWh since delivery, rather than average over the last few (?) miles, to estimate range remaining. This would be just as useful as SOC, since it should be a constant of that value.

Yes, that would likely be better than the current approach. Another suggested route would be using the energy economy number established since last reset. This might accommodate two or more drivers of the vehicle as well. If you reset the m/kWh gauge and waited for it to settle, you would probably receive a better range estimate.

Another question is how accurately can Nissan determine the state of charge of the battery. From what I've seen, this is not a trivial thing to do and it's possible that their algorithm isn't the best one out there. The erratic range guesstimate could be a function of two things: misguided prediction of future driving patterns and inaccurate SOC algorithm.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I notice the chart still shows 1,000 ft. /2000 ft. values for altitude adjustment. Does anyone still think that is correct?

...The downhill figure of 2000 ft. seems intended to be conservative, since the actual figure will vary greatly depending on the amount of regen, friction braking, coasting, etc.

The range chart is based on just driving... Not hypermiling (coasting down hills, drafting trucks, etc). Obviously, things that affect range outside the parameters stated will result in different data.

I'd love to have hyper accurate regen data, and our best hope is YOU and your new SOC meter!!!!

 

[Stoaty]

Using my new SOC meter, I observed the change in SOC for my long downhill from the top of Sepulveda Pass to Wilshire and my condo. Distance about 7 miles total (have to measure it today), kept speed to about 50-55 MPH to get some regen. At top of Sepulveda Pass, reading was 106 gids, by the time I got off the freeway had increased to 110 gids, which it stayed at for the next 2 miles of gentle downhill until I got home. I had expected a bit more regen, but haven't really done calculations, so this may be about right.

PS Charged to 80% last 2 days, got 224 gids each time (79.7%).

 

[abasile]

I'd love to have hyper accurate regen data, and our best hope is YOU and your new SOC meter!!!!

I reported some initial regen data from the SOC meter here, but as I noted, my starting SOC was a tad too high and I consequently "lost" some regen. I'll probably try again in a few days (after the rain we're having). Maybe I'll even use the data logging port (a cable is on order from Amazon).

 

[edatoakrun]

"TonyWilliams"
The range chart is based on just driving... Not hypermiling (coasting down hills, drafting trucks, etc). Obviously, things that affect range outside the parameters stated will result in different data...

I don't "Hypermile".

I do not draft other vehicles.

I usually drive within 5 mph of the posted speed limit (more often under, but also sometimes over) on highways.

But I can't avoid "coasting" by which mean going down hill, maintaining my desired speed, with light throttle, or while accepting regen to my battery pack. How do you manage to do avoid doing the same...?

I am averaging 4.3 to 4.4 m/kWh, in 4000 miles since delivery,

And I do regularly seem to get about 80% of ascent energy, back on descent, in my "regular" driving style.

I have read several other driver's reports, of similar observations, also of much more than 50%, on this forum.

On what information or observation is the 1,000 ft./2,000 ft. adjustment for ascent/descent based?

I really think it is significantly understating typical ascent energy recovery, and could be misinforming potential LEAF owners who need to understand how ascent and descent affect range.

 

[edatoakrun]

I'd love to have hyper accurate regen data, and our best hope is YOU and your new SOC meter!!!!

I reported some initial regen data from the SOC meter here, but as I noted, my starting SOC was a tad too high and I consequently "lost" some regen. I'll probably try again in a few days (after the rain we're having). Maybe I'll even use the data logging port (a cable is on order from Amazon).

Try it.

Anyone else who has a SOC can drive a long "pure" descent, and replicate it in ascent at about the same speed, should also be able to get good info.

 

[DaveEV]

PS Charged to 80% last 2 days, got 224 gids each time (79.7%).

Would be good to note 224 gids on the range chart if this is what people are usually getting with 80% charges...

 

[Stoaty]

Would be good to note 224 gids on the range chart if this is what people are usually getting with 80% charges...

I don't think there is any standard. Different people get different values. I believe the chart shows 230 or 232.

 

[DaveEV]

Would be good to note 224 gids on the range chart if this is what people are usually getting with 80% charges...

I don't think there is any standard. Different people get different values. I believe the chart shows 230 or 232.

Hmm, I don't see 230 or 232 specifically - I did see in another thread that people were getting 82-83% on an 80% charge or ~231 gids.

 

[LEAFfan]

Hmm, I don't see 230 or 232 specifically - I did see in another thread that people were getting 82-83% on an 80% charge or ~231 gids.

I don't have the 'raw' numbers yet, but every time I charge to 80% I get an SOC of 77%. It has never gone higher than that. I believe that to be really close to what it actually is because I lose the 10th bar after just a few miles. If they are getting 82-83% then they must have a pretty full 10th bar. I've never gotten a full tenth bar just charging to 80%.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Would be good to note 224 gids on the range chart if this is what people are usually getting with 80% charges...

I don't think there is any standard. Different people get different values. I believe the chart shows 230 or 232.

Hmm, I don't see 230 or 232 specifically - I did see in another thread that people were getting 82-83% on an 80% charge or ~231 gids.

Unfortunately, we've had a 231 gid reading with a 100% charge with 12 fuel bars and 12 capacity bars!! So, the reality is that the gids are not rock solid on the fuel bars.

But, the Battery Warnings seem to be somewhat solid on the gids... 48 or 49, and 24 or 25 for LBW and VLB, respectively.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I believe that to be really close to what it actually is because I lose the 10th bar after just a few miles. If they are getting 82-83% then they must have a pretty full 10th bar. I've never gotten a full tenth bar just charging to 80%.

I get approximately half the expected miles for the 10th bar for an 80% charge. About the same.

Let's all remember what a gid is.... and that is, we don't know what it is. We don't know what parameters are programmed into to it, if any. We only know for sure that it closely approximates how much energy is in the battery, and is very useful for that, and mostly repeatable, but not even close to 100% repeatable.

But asking for, or expecting, some kind of surgical accuracy out of it, unfortunately is not in our grasp.

I predict that, in the upcoming years, we will have a gid reading of less than 200 for a 100% charge, and still show 12 capacity bars and charge bars.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Anyone else who has a SOC can drive a long "pure" descent, and replicate it in ascent at about the same speed, should also be able to get good info.

Of course!! I suspect that if rational parameters are maintained, we'll get some great data.

But, like the capacity debate, many were quite sure that there was 24kWh available in the battery, and the preponderance of data suggested otherwise.

Let's get that same data for regen.

 

[DaveEV]

Unfortunately, we've had a 231 gid reading with a 100% charge with 12 fuel bars and 12 capacity bars!! So, the reality is that the gids are not rock solid on the fuel bars.

Right - but did that charge seem more like a 10-bar charge or a 12-bar charge in terms of available range? It seems that Gids are a pretty accurate indicator of available range, certainly more accurate than bars when a "full" charge gets you 231 gids instead of close to 280. Look at TickTock's experience, for example...