The 62kWh Battery Topic
- Thread starter Daklein
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
danrjones
Well-known member
webeleafowners said:SageBrush said:Then your 30 kWh LEAF went about 1/3 as far as your Model 3.webeleafowners said:
Does your Model 3 have 3x the battery size ?
No idea. I have read that an AWD 3 is somewhere around 75 KWH but not sure if the source Is accurate.
My point is that EPA numbers are easy to achieve where we live as a result of driving conditions. We haven’t been in a Real range testing situation with the 3 as we tend to stop at least once every 3 hours for a pee or eat break and we always supercharge it’s Chademo charge when we do. But from what I can tell in the conditions we normally drive in achieving EPA numbers with the model 3 or the leaf would be pretty easy.
I find it interesting you all are talking about achieving MORE range than EPA advertised when my experience has always been a LOT less. When I am in town I don't really care, as I'll never even have to worry about range. Even with my 2018 leaf, it has range for days in a small town. But as soon as I leave town, its not nearly enough range, and I seem to get a lot less range that EPA advertised. I'm sure its a combination of LESS than ideal conditions. It is either very hot or cold here. Lots of terrain. Highways that are 70mph. Etc. I've never range tested to complete empty but my experiments have pointed to around 110 miles on my 2018. I know right now my AC usage lowers the efficiency. My car said 122f when I got in it yesterday after work, so AC is on absolute full. The real outside temp dropped to 116 by the time i got home, still toasty.
Anyway, I'm that type of person who needs more range. And then even more. My rule of thumb has been to take EPA number and multiply it by 66% to get the "REAL" highway range, and then multiply that by 80% for buffer on each end.
Are your tires at 40-42psi? I always use the A/C when I drive in Summer, and it only cuts the range by 2-4 miles.
DougWantsALeaf
Well-known member
I know this gets geeky, but I would suggest running Leaf spy when running your AC. I find I can still be comfortable with the AC temp setting (Both SV+ and S+) at higher than normal and significantly reduce power draw.
When you are up for new tires, look for narrower tires. I don't know what aspect contributes most to the S+ having much better range, but the S+ does have 205 width tires vs. 215 on the SV+. And certainly run the tires at 42-44 PSI.
at 118, your air density must be pretty thin, so imagine you must be getting pretty reasonable efficiency...unless its just the rubber on the tires melting onto the pavement. That would create some serious drag.
When you are up for new tires, look for narrower tires. I don't know what aspect contributes most to the S+ having much better range, but the S+ does have 205 width tires vs. 215 on the SV+. And certainly run the tires at 42-44 PSI.
at 118, your air density must be pretty thin, so imagine you must be getting pretty reasonable efficiency...unless its just the rubber on the tires melting onto the pavement. That would create some serious drag.
danrjones
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
They are all at 40.
I've noticed running the AC on the same morning commute cuts my efficiency from around 5.5 miles per KWh to as low as 3.5.
Same exact drive except the AC. But the drive is short, so it could be the AC takes a lot of power to get running and by then I'm at work.
danrjones
Well-known member
danrjones said:
I'm reading that and I'm not sure I am making myself real clear.
In the morning I'll drive my 3 miles to work and not use the AC because the car has been sitting in the dark, sun is not up. I'll usually get right around 5.5 miles per kWh.
Sometimes I'll go home for lunch. On my way from lunch back to work - same exact trip as the AM, I usually get around 3.5 miles per kWh. The only real difference is now the car has been in the sun all day and I'm blasting the AC. I figure the AC probably draws additional startup power and my commute is very short.
But honestly this really doesn't matter anyway, as for my everyday driving and commute in town, the car has way more range than i need.
The range problem is the moment I want to leave town. That's when my EPA x 66% x 80% rule of thumb would matter.
Bingodanrjones said:
It is not 'to get running' though, it is removal of retained heat in the interior's car mass.
If you get in the habit of
facing the car towards towards the sun,
putting up a sun screen,
and cracking your windows for ventilation
The time the AC plugging away at maximum power will be markedly reduced.
My Tesla is parked outside in this way at home and the AC power throttles down to a low maintenance output after ~ 1 mile. And all my summer driving in the city on errands works out to about 5 miles a kWh with AC set to 68 F.
danrjones
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
My car DID have its windows both down about 3 inches, facing away from the sun, and was still 122f when I got in it yesterday PM!
Its just DAM hot here this time of year. I am kicking myself for not going down to Death Valley Sunday for the record.
GRA
Well-known member
jlv said:
Not cwerdna, but IEVS:
https://insideevs.com/news/439601/water-holding-model-y-owner-bad-ownership/
If I had problems like that on a car costing half as much I'd be furious. At Tesla prices I'd be burning down the factory, the headquarters or both :x
You've got to wonder how long the general car-buying public, as opposed to the cult members, will put up with this crap, once there's a fair amount of competition.
DougWantsALeaf
Well-known member
it looks like Norway has already learned that lesson.
DougWantsALeaf
Well-known member
Board
I was looking at a Rockpals 300wh power station and a couple 100 w foldable solar panels.
Question is whether I will pop the fuse on the station if plugging my L1/L2 cable into the station or can I control the draw so that I could charge the car (admittedly 1 - 1.2 miles) and trickle solar charge (as you can solar charge and draw at the same time) into the RockPals power ststion at the same time.
https://www.rockpals.com/products/rockpals-300w-portable-power-station
I was looking at a Rockpals 300wh power station and a couple 100 w foldable solar panels.
Question is whether I will pop the fuse on the station if plugging my L1/L2 cable into the station or can I control the draw so that I could charge the car (admittedly 1 - 1.2 miles) and trickle solar charge (as you can solar charge and draw at the same time) into the RockPals power ststion at the same time.
https://www.rockpals.com/products/rockpals-300w-portable-power-station
DougWantsALeaf said:
The minimum current for L1/L2 charging is 6 amperes so the minimum charging power in accordance with the SAE J1772 standard is 6A*120V=720W. The 300W inverter will shutdown if you try to draw 720W (assuming you have an adjustable 120V EVSE) or 14,400W with the 120V Nissan EVSE. Also, the battery in the power station would be depleted almost immediately.
To get back on topic for the 62 kWh battery, I saw 9 temperature segments (bars) on the display this afternoon. Temperature was at 8 segments this morning after overnight L2 charging. I saw 114 F on the ambient temperature display today.
DougWantsALeaf
Well-known member
does your car ever see even 6 bars during this time of year?
jlsoaz
Well-known member
SageBrush said:jlsoaz said:
I mis-read your posts to say that Nissan should have tried to corner the 'environmental, financial' conservative crowd. You think they should have built for the Infinity crowd. Look at this graph from Bloomberg NEF
Let's help Nissan build an Infiniti EV circa 2010:
250 mile range, 3 miles per kWh: 80 kWh
-- Manufacturer pack cost: $90k
ICE level amenities and cost in 2010: I'll guess $30k
Inter-city travel: Not possible, or at 40 kW CHAdeMO until it rapid-gates
Battery degradation: ~ 30% in 5 years
So now we are at $120k manufacturer cost for a car that has limited utility and is a ghost of itself in 3 years. That is an upgrade cycle of every 3 years or so, and depreciation of somewhere in the range of $30k a year... presuming Nissan sold at the marginal cost of production. No profit, and no attempt to recoup R&D.
Call me naive, but I'm not surprised that Nissan did not take your advice.
A couple of preliminaries:
- I have started this thread where at some point I hope to carry on more of this sort of branch-off topic discussion.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=588828
some comments on Nissan EV Strategy
- Were you going to remove the straw men points, as the moderator requested? Maybe that has been done. If only you had just made your points without quite as much semi-messed-up summaries of others' thinking or the general looking-for-a-fight approach. I think there was some harm to what I regard as an important topic in its way (and I think you may also) but I think we can rescue some of that discussion now, so here is my try:
-------------------
With that said my response is:
On consideration, there is a point to be made that the middle ground that Nissan took circa 2009-2012 had its merits, and one could make the argument for it (perhaps moreso in Japan), but, with respect to the US market, those short-range batteries did not, in my opinion, strike exactly the right chord. I would have preferred to have seen some more open-minded thinking to a 40 or 50 kWh battery option, earlier on, with everything that would have accompanied such a path such as:
a) a transition to acknowledging that once you get into the expense of that size battery for that time period, then you are looking at a $50k vehicle, and as long as you're going to do that, why not let Infniti have a go?
b) more open-mindedness to battery type revisions and innovations.
Overall, my impression of Ghosn from the movie, and Nissan from general reading of industry tea leaves around that time is that they were not quite as head-in-the-sand as some other companies with respect to the coming electric vehicle revolution, but they also were not quite as awakened as they may have thought. They seemed to have what, in my view, were some flaws in their thinking, and as time passed, unfortunately, they kind of affirmed this for me. Examples:
- The idea of Infiniti doing a BEV came not only from me and others but from Nissan and Infiniti. An example of discussion of the back and forth:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093578_infiniti-le-electric-luxury-sedan-to-be-built-after-all-with-higher-range
- years later Ghosn said something about how the company really had to put that many vehicles on the road before it could understand that the sweet spot for EVs was really around 300 km range (or some such). While I couldn't begrudge him that he was underscoring the commitment that Nissan had made, I thought his point was awful. Tesla understood this, or something like it, without putting hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road. So did others. I remember speaking to a colleague a decade or so ago and he mentioned roughly the same range before US consumers would be interested. He was right.
I think there is a broader point to be made. In my view, especially when I saw "Revenge of the electric car", I took Nissan to be partway there, in having some of the correct attitude and thinking, but not fully there. If they were going to be a company to tackle "The Innovator's Dilemma" or something like it, then I thought they were going to have to rest on their laurels a bit less when they made some nice innovation in EVs, and realize that the tidal wave coming at the automotive industry was not just about the tech, but about the overall of thinking, attitude, and general embracing of being smarter about anticipating customers' wants and needs and not just "waiting to be told".
Anyway, to get to some numbers as you have been striving to do, I think you have over-reached a bit in your framing of things, but at the same time thinking through the numbers does make me realize that when it comes to the 2000-2010 strategizing time period, I'm not entirely sure what I think the automakers could have or should have done. That is, for generations to come, when a business school professor assigns the work to the class and says "Ok, it's 2005 (say), you kind of see this coming, but you manage one of the world's largest incumbent industry participants and need to come out profitable on the other end. What's your solution?"
So, I'm not sure Nissan's answer to this with the 24 kWh Leaf starting in December 2010 can clearly be given a failing mark (though I have to admit it's far enough away from what I would have thought that I'm just not sure). I can say with somewhat greater confidence in any event that by the time 2011-2013 era hit, they should have been hard at work on a longer-range BEV, at least in the 40-60 kWh range, and had an answer ready (or even ahead of time) to the Model S. I'm not sure it was necessary to go after the $100k sedan market (maybe just the $60k sedan market?), but then again, I might be wrong.
On the numbers you try to provide, I don't think it's necessary to suppose 80 kWh in 2010. Tesla only had about 50 kWh in 2008, right? and they came out with 40/60/85 in 2012. Yes, I know the 40 was really unlockable to 60, but the more important lesson to take was that American consumers, in that segment, cared so little for it, and so appreciated the high marginal utility (if I am not misusing the term here, which I may be) of extra kWh from 40-60) that they just said, basically "uh, no thanks". They also said "no thanks" to the 42 kWh Toyota/Tesla RAV4 EV, but there were various possible additional reasons for that clouding the discussion, including the high price for the range, the lack of DC fast charging, Toyota's obvious lack of desire to sell the product, etc.
Note also at some point Nissan was reported as researching a 48 kWh (2x24) BEV of some sort, back in those early days)
So, I think if we look at why I cringe so much when I think back to the approach that Infiniti took to decision-making around 2012-2014, as to a longer-range more-luxurious BEV for American consumers, it includes somewhat different thinking from you about the costs and margins. A 60 kWh Nissan BEV could have been built without losing massive amounts of money per sale around the early 2010s if Nissan had been as urgent about continued battery research as Tesla apparently is, and if they had been open-minded to some of the approach that Tesla took (though some of the hardest part for me here is that I sort of can see some rationale with staying away from some of Tesla's "less to lose" approach to safety and such).
This is not to say that the thinking is entirely different. I t think it would have been hard or impossible to make immediate profits per vehicle in those days, but they needed (IMO) also to have the vision (and the courage of their convictions, since they already did have at least some of this vision, to their credit) to understand that they were turning away some customers, and turning off other customers to some extent, and failing to satisfy what they must have known was a potential demand in the market, and that this can have long-term damaging impacts. These are matters of judgment, nuance and degree (how many people loved their Leafs versus how many turned off, for example), and maybe other points of view will sway me on some of this over the years.
Few people who spend $100k on a car (or even a measly $50k) are inclined to spend an hour at a charger for every hour they drive. Without a supercharging network the only solution for a Nissan is to fit the car with a large battery. Moreover, Nissan has never approached Tesla in highway speed Wh/mile efficiency. Put those two things together and an 80 kWh pack for Nissan is on the puny side.jlsoaz said:
Before you say that Tesla sold to exactly those people early on, I agree. But you have to keep in mind that you are talking about 100s to a few thousand customers. Very quickly, Tesla transitioned to 250+ mile range cars. A larger pool of customers requires a much more ICE like experience. And that early pool chose Tesla for reasons that had nothing to do with the car. Nissan never stood a chance with that early, early, early demographic.
The Tesla approach in the early days was "spend $100k for an ICE replacement."
The Nissan approach in the early days was "spend $25k for an around town commuter."
Both approaches work for me because my family is happy with 1.5 cars: one full-fledged ICE replacement in the Tesla, and a hobbled but cheap Nissan. People who try to shoe-horn the LEAF into full fledged ICE replacement duties flood this forum with disappointment, rationalizing their choices and blaming Nissan. <<shrug>>
Last point: I read your monologues as saying the following: Nissan should have built a general purpose EV at prices middle America could afford and taken whatever losses came along with the decision for as long as it takes. I doubt the Nissan shareholders agree with you, and fwiw even Tesla never took that tack. Their cars have (to my knowledge, anyway; and certainly from the Model S) always had a marginal gross profit. That does not make the company profitable; it just means that scale improves their situation.
You might also want to count the car companies that had a JB Straubel and Elon Musk equivalents in senior positions. I can think of only one. I have little doubt that similar conversations like this one are happening across the globe asking why space company [xyz] is not acting like SpaceX. The short answer is because they are not SpaceX. Part of the Musk magic is that he builds brain trusts in his companies. I would not go so far as to say that he has cornered the world's brains, but I have no doubt that his companies are simply a lot smarter than his competitors. It lets his companies do things that others simply cannot.
SageBrush said:
And that would have been the correct answer to the hypothetical business school question relating to Nissan's BEV strategy in 2010.
A present day Nissan BEV business strategy analysis, as it relates to an upscale BEV, e.g. Infiniti/Ariya, would again indicate the same outcome,
another potential Nissan loss leader! Nissan should have hired a few summer interns last year from the many MBA programs to help
with its strategic planning on future BEV models.
SageBrush said:
Sorry, should've have been more explicit. Now with the latest Nissan strategy (Infiniti/Ariya), both shareholders and MBA interns would agree
that Nissan's latest strategy will result in continued Nissan losses. Luckily, Nissan previously (prior to 2010) had a competent strategic marking department, as they DID "build a general purpose EV at prices middle America could afford". An Infiniti/Ariya will not be at a desirable price point, but a loss leader.
It's naive to infer that Nissan could have been successive with a Tesla vehicle marketing strategy, e.g. Infiniti/Ariya, in 2010 or now!
Maybe a chance now that Nissan is moving to CCS and a battery with TMS. I agree with you that the probability of success is low competing against $40k Tesla cars with 300 mile range, but it was zilch if they carried on with CHAdeMO and no TMS simply because that restricts the car to glorified commuter status.lorenfb said:
It's curious to see people here talk about Tesla as the visionary elephant in the room. Quite the change in a few short years. I suppose a $2,000 stock price will do that.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Has anyone tried a front splitter in a Gen 2 for lower drag?- Latest: FinnishCoffee
