Durandal said:
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
Simply, Nissan's idea that a good battery in a car doesn't need TMS is as yet an unproven theory. They tried to apply it and found that, at least for now, their implementation did in fact need a TMS. Since they didn't have one, they ended up with barely used cars suffering huge range reductions.
My personal belief is that when we perfect internal combustion engines they will generate so little heat we won't even need a radiator on the car or any sort of coolant system. I'm so convinced of this that I am going to deploy to the public a car that doesn't have one. If I'm wrong a bunch of engines will burn up, but I will never give up ground in my argument and I will keep refusing to put radiators in the cars. The worst thing about this all is that while Nissan used thousands of beta testers in the public who eventually proved that unfortunately the cars did need a TMS, Nissan was very slow to do anything about it. Some may find value in reading about the range degradation of Teslas. I've read of 100k cars that suffer a couple percent reduction in maximum range. How many Leafs are doing this with their supposedly superior tech that doesn't need a TMS?
Thank you! The rabid defending of no battery TMS in the Leaf by some people on here is completely illogical. Makes me think of young earthers.
OK. Please indicate how much range loss you're willing to accept on the Gen 1 Leaf's (24/30kWh) with TMS,
e.g. min 10%, actually 15 - 20%. Surely you have Nissan battery engineering data, range loss data, cost analysis',
and Leaf marketing data to corroborate your viewpoint? Remember, when utilizing a TMS function to maintain
a relatively stable battery temperature, the TMS needs to consume energy all the time the vehicle is operational
and during some times when it's not, i.e. the battery has a large thermal mass.
Waiting, and please no anecdotal data or guesses.