Range- 100 mile versus 200 mile

We've got 1700 miles on the Leaf so far. Not a lot to be offering advice, but enough to have developed a pattern. The range anxiety lasted about three days. The car is perfect for our city driving. Rather than not having enough range, we have too much.
We normally end the day with between 93 and 73 miles. We could not plug in for three days if we wanted, but we charge every night because we think it's better for the batteries. Our concern is that if we never fully discharge the batteries, is this shortening their life? Also, if we can't use 100 miles, how would we ever use 200 miles? Plus, we'd be paying alot of money for something we'd never use. Of course, this is not everyone's situation. Some people need a 200 mile range. Therefore, we suggest that Nissan consider offering an option of a shorter range and a longer range in future vehicles. That is, in the urge to develop a longer range vehicle, don't assume it's for everybody or that the current range is insufficient. We intend to buy another one in the future and would like to keep the costs down by not buying more battery than we need. Keep the current range and offer a longer range option for those who need it.

Funny, at my house we DON'T plug in every night to put less stress on the batteries.

If I only drive 7 - 10 miles in a day, I don't bother to plug in unless I expect a lot of driving the next day.

Fewer charge cycles, and it doesn't hurt at all to leave the batteries at 65-70%.

Plus I normally charge to 80% instead of 100%.

I've got 2100 miles on the odometer now.... However, if I had a 200 mile range version available, I would probably buy it. It would open up a few more trips a year for me. It probably would not make sense economically, but it might allow me to ditch one ICE car that I keep on hand for longer trips.

My two rules are:

1. Plug it in if I'm down to 6 bars or less.
2. Charge to 100% (regardless of bars left) only if I think I might be driving more than 50 miles the next day.

I average about 25 miles/day and end up plugging it in about 2/3 of the time. However, my wife and I did have some range anxiety a week ago when we took the LEAF to visit our grandkids 90 miles away. If I had a chance at a 50% larger battery I think I might take it.

Ray

I think it would be great to have 80, 160 & 240 mile range options. I would probably opt for the 160 with that choice.

And yes if you are always above 73 range upon return you should consider 80% charge and/or charging every two or three days. These are not lead acid batteries that need 100% charge to avoid sulfation. LEAF battery perfers somewhere in the 30% to 80% range of charge for long life.

I have been surprised as well to find that an even shorter range car would cover the in city stuff, especially with a charging network in place. A faster rate of charge would reduce our total battery capacity needs. A 40-50 mile battery in a two seater, especially with QC and say a 6.6w charger would probably do it once we have the option of pairing it with a 300 mile EV-station wagon or ideally a medium size SUV like the highlander. For now the hundred mile range let's us avoid using our hybrid most of the time... If they were both EV we would probably use them both more equally and the LEAF's range might turn out to be overkill.

G

pdxleaf said:

We've got 1700 miles on the Leaf so far. Not a lot to be offering advice, but enough to have developed a pattern. The range anxiety lasted about three days. The car is perfect for our city driving. Rather than not having enough range, we have too much.
We normally end the day with between 93 and 73 miles. We could not plug in for three days if we wanted, but we charge every night because we think it's better for the batteries. Our concern is that if we never fully discharge the batteries, is this shortening their life? Also, if we can't use 100 miles, how would we ever use 200 miles? Plus, we'd be paying alot of money for something we'd never use. Of course, this is not everyone's situation. Some people need a 200 mile range. Therefore, we suggest that Nissan consider offering an option of a shorter range and a longer range in future vehicles. That is, in the urge to develop a longer range vehicle, don't assume it's for everybody or that the current range is insufficient. We intend to buy another one in the future and would like to keep the costs down by not buying more battery than we need. Keep the current range and offer a longer range option for those who need it.

Click to expand...

The owners manual says clearly that you want to avoid recharging if the batt is not below 80%. I'd definitely program the car for 80% "long life" mode in your shoes. Then you continue freely charging every night.

planet4ever said:

My two rules are:

1. Plug it in if I'm down to 6 bars or less.
2. Charge to 100% (regardless of bars left) only if I think I might be driving more than 50 miles the next day.

Click to expand...

Very similar to me. Key is that 99% of the time I'm charging to 80%. Much better for efficiency overall as well since you get maximum regen from the start. Not having maximum regen for me can really hurt efficiency for me especially as I live on a small hill. And others have noted that since the charge rate slows down near the end when charging to 100% that also seems to lead to less efficiency.

Personally, I would love to have enough capacity to drive 115 miles at 65 mph with the A/C on in moderate temperatures. Of course - that would mean another 50% battery capacity - about 36 kWh rather than 24. Since I make that trip so infrequently - I would settle for another 20-25% range which would let me go closer 90+ miles at highway speeds without worry.

Edit: Of course as garygid also says - a couple well placed QC stations would also make a world of a difference - In most of my scenarios which I might want a larger pack 5-15 minute QC would solve the problem and avoid lugging around another 25-50% more battery 98% of the time when I don't need it.

I love the idea of a consumer being able to pick and choose the battery that best meets their requirements. Why pay for more range than you really need?

Does anyone know how much power would be needed to charge a 200 mile battery in say 8 or 10 hours and will normal home wiring support this? My guess is it wouldn't take much more than running an electric range, so I would think it possible.

LKK said:

I love the idea of a consumer being able to pick and choose the battery that best meets their requirements. Why pay for more range than you really need?

Does anyone know how much power would be needed to charge a 200 mile battery in say 8 or 10 hours and will normal home wiring support this? My guess is it wouldn't take much more than running an electric range, so I would think it possible.

Click to expand...

I think it's doable. I was also thinking an adjustable charger would be really nice, something that allowed the user to choose between slow and fast charging, optimizing battery life when there is plenty of time but also allowing for occasional fast charging in a pinch.
g

LKK said:

Does anyone know how much power would be needed to charge a 200 mile battery in say 8 or 10 hours and will normal home wiring support this? My guess is it wouldn't take much more than running an electric range, so I would think it possible.

Click to expand...

Sure, no sweat. Just update the charger in the car from 3.3 kW to 6.6 kW, and use any of the standard 30A charging docks and you've got it. If you have a wall mounted EVSE then it's almost sure to be on a 40A circuit, and that is all you would need. Well, not counting the really big ticket item, the 50+ kWh battery in the car! (More weight means it has to be more than twice as big.)

Ray

Tesla roasters have all sorts of faster charging rates than we have. I almost want to say there is a "fast" charge mode around 90 amps @ 240, but i am not entirely sure.

I really don't think an extended range battery is in the best interest of Nissan. There is room for a larger pack (I believe it can physically hold more without too much complication), but I do not think folks will like the price at this point.

Check out the Tesla S:

$50k base price for "160 miles"
+$10k for 230 mile option
+20k for 300 mile option

Can you imagine putting a $20k option on a heavily modded $37k Nissan Versa? Not to mention how much of a pig the thing would be afterwards. Just the thought of it makes me want to put down for a Tesla S reservation.

drees said:

planet4ever said:

My two rules are:

1. Plug it in if I'm down to 6 bars or less.
2. Charge to 100% (regardless of bars left) only if I think I might be driving more than 50 miles the next day.

Click to expand...

Very similar to me. Key is that 99% of the time I'm charging to 80%. Much better for efficiency overall as well since you get maximum regen from the start. Not having maximum regen for me can really hurt efficiency for me especially as I live on a small hill. And others have noted that since the charge rate slows down near the end when charging to 100% that also seems to lead to less efficiency.

Personally, I would love to have enough capacity to drive 115 miles at 65 mph with the A/C on in moderate temperatures. Of course - that would mean another 50% battery capacity - about 36 kWh rather than 24. Since I make that trip so infrequently - I would settle for another 20-25% range which would let me go closer 90+ miles at highway speeds without worry.

Edit: Of course as garygid also says - a couple well placed QC stations would also make a world of a difference - In most of my scenarios which I might want a larger pack 5-15 minute QC would solve the problem and avoid lugging around another 25-50% more battery 98% of the time when I don't need it.

Click to expand...

Having no need for a city or commute car (walking/bicycling takes care of those for me), I think it's time for the EV companies to stop quoting ideal ranges with new batteries. Here's how I would spec my personal range requirements:

(T) Threshold = minimum requirement (O) Objective = What to shoot for

Battery at 80% of original battery capacity, to allow for aging:

Interim:
(T) 110 miles (100 + 10 reserve) @ 60 mph, lights/audio on, 32 - 95 deg. F (0-35C), HVAC/Defrosters used to maintain a minimum cabin temp of 65 and a maximum of 75 deg. F, with 450 lb. payload (driver/pax/luggage), <1,000 foot climb, Price $35,000. Example trips: Hayward-Monterey via 880/101/156/1. Hayward-Sacramento via 80 or 580-205-5.

(O) 165 miles (150 + 15 res.) @ 75 mph (or 5 mph > speed limit), lights/audio on, HVAC/Defrosters, 23-114 deg. F (-5 to +45C) at Max. VGW, cabin temp maintained at 70 deg., 4,000 ft climb. (no range credit for descents), Price $25,000. Example trips: Hayward to Tahoe City/Kings Beach or Stateline via I-80 and/or 50, or Lee Vining via 580/205/99/120, with one* L3 charge enroute in the Roseville-Auburn-Colfax, El Dorado Hills-Placerville-Pollock Pines, or Manteca-Oakdale-Crane Flat areas, respectively. Or, with battery exchange, no more than two enroute for the same trips.

*A second, short L3 charge at Crane Flat is acceptable for the Lee Vining trip (max. el. 9,945 ft. at Tioga Pass).


Ultimate:

(T) 265 miles (240 miles + 25 mile reserve) @ speed limit +5 mph, lights/audio on, temp 14-122 deg. F (-10 to +50C) HVAC/defrosters maintain cabin temp at 70 deg. F., 450 lb. payload, 7,500 ft. climb (no range credit for descents), AWD, Price $30,000. Example trip: Hayward to Tahoe or Lee Vining* non-stop (or one battery exchange). *For Lee Vining a short L3 charge enroute is acceptable.

(O) 500 mi (470 + 30 mi. res.) freeway range @ speed limit + 5 mph (Max 75), lights/audio on, temp 0-131 deg. F (-18 to + 55C), HVAC/Defrosters maintain cabin at any set temp between 65-75 deg. F), max. GVW, 7,500 ft. climb, AWD, Price $25,000. Example trips: San Francisco/San Jose to Bishop non-stop via Tioga Pass. S.F. - L.A. non-stop via I-5.

I think in the long run, different battery options based on range needed would be available. I also think you would not have to select one option up front and be stuck with it for the rest of your car's life.

I think the easiest model is to keep the battery equation out of the car purchase altogether. You'd buy the car, but you'd lease the battery. This makes the car fully affordable and comparable to or possibly even lower then ICE car prices. Then you can select the battery range option you want to rent, and if you change your mind later, you can simply swap the battery out at the dealer and rent a different one with a different range.

Then over time, the concept of battery swapping stations will be more popular, and you can simply go to one of these stations and automatically swap a smaller battery for a larger one if you need to go on longer trips. Then swap back to a smaller battery after your long trip.

This makes the issue with battery longevity becomes a moot point, too, because you don't own the battery. Bad batteries will be recycled and replaced with good batteries by the manufacturer and the cost of this is factored into the cost of doing business overall. You don't need to worry about 80% or 100% charge anymore either, because with different range options available, all batteries can just be capped at 80% charge automatically by the manufacturer for longevity. If the current battery range option is too short for you, just move to the next range option, instead of worrying about going from 80% to 100% charge.

The battery leasing model is already being offered by Renault in Europe (Sweden)? for some of their cars. The battery swapping model is already being implemented in Sweden and Israel by Better Place. It's too advanced a concept for the US right now because the US is not as committed as Sweden or Israel to EVs to justify the infrastructure cost. But eventually I'm confident the idea will find adoption in the US once there are enough EVs in America for this model to make sense. You guys are already talking about the idea of having different battery range options here in this post, aren't you?

Battery leasing is very desirable, here is my reasoning:

1. Choice, you lease as much battery as you want.. you can buy "miles" like in the Project Better Place system.
2. lower cost: manufacturers can afford to use much cheaper cells.. since they dont have to meet the 8-10 years requirements of a personally owned battery pack
3. you will always have the latest tech battery, no worries about charging the battery to 100% and damaging it
4. it opens up the possibility of battery swap systems.. even the temporary lease of a 300 mile pack for the weekend
5. dealers and quick swap stations can use the standby battery packs to provide grid stabilization to the local utility, another revenue stream and allows full utilization of an expensive item.. thus lowering the cost
6. it opens up a used battery market in 3 year old fully depreciated batteries.. to purchase for your home grid or perhaps for your low range Leaf
7. it encourages the development of standardized modular packs, imagine a Ford F150 conversion with two "Leaf Form Factor" standard aftermarket packs
8. removing the cost of the battery out of the purchase decision would speed up electric adoption, it may become the lowest cost car you can buy.. yet it remains eternally new.

LKK said:

I love the idea of a consumer being able to pick and choose the battery that best meets their requirements. Why pay for more range than you really need?

Does anyone know how much power would be needed to charge a 200 mile battery in say 8 or 10 hours and will normal home wiring support this? My guess is it wouldn't take much more than running an electric range, so I would think it possible.

Click to expand...

Take 200 mile range in 8 hours. Use 3.3 miles/kWh which is 70 mph constant speed on the highway. Many people will do better than 3.3 mi/kWh, some will use a little more energy. Range-Speed-Bars Thumb Rule Table These numbers are a bit conservative - shorter charging time, higher energy consumption per mile. Some people with low speed commutes and good driving techniques are achieving 5+ mi/kWh.

200 miles / 3.3 miles/kWh = 61 kWh energy to travel 200 miles.

61 kWh / 8 hours = 7.6 kW
7.6 kW / 220V = 35 A at 220V
(for 10 hour charge: 6.1 kW = 28 A at 220V)

Again using 3.9 mi/kWh - 60 mph constant speed:
200 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 51 kWh energy to travel 200 miles.
51 kWh / 8 hours = 6.4 kW
6.4 kW / 220V = 29 A at 220V
(for 10 hour charge: 5.4 kW = 25 A at 220V)

These calculations do not account for charger or battery charging efficiency, so that would add around 15% to either the time or power level, but it's close enough...

A standard 6.6 kW charger would do just fine with a 9 or 10 hour charging window. You can think of a 6.6 kW charger as charging at a rate of about 25 LEAF miles/hour of charging. The 2014 LEAF is coming standard with a 6.6 kW charger based on current knowledge. The 200 mile battery pack is another question, though with some deployment of Quick Charge stations in late 2011, 2012, 2013 we'll get more utility out of our current 100 LEAF miles pack.

Volusiano said:

I think in the long run, different battery options based on range needed would be available. I also think you would not have to select one option up front and be stuck with it for the rest of your car's life.

I think the easiest model is to keep the battery equation out of the car purchase altogether. You'd buy the car, but you'd lease the battery. This makes the car fully affordable and comparable to or possibly even lower then ICE car prices. Then you can select the battery range option you want to rent, and if you change your mind later, you can simply swap the battery out at the dealer and rent a different one with a different range.

Then over time, the concept of battery swapping stations will be more popular, and you can simply go to one of these stations and automatically swap a smaller battery for a larger one if you need to go on longer trips. Then swap back to a smaller battery after your long trip.

This makes the issue with battery longevity becomes a moot point, too, because you don't own the battery. Bad batteries will be recycled and replaced with good batteries by the manufacturer and the cost of this is factored into the cost of doing business overall. You don't need to worry about 80% or 100% charge anymore either, because with different range options available, all batteries can just be capped at 80% charge automatically by the manufacturer for longevity. If the current battery range option is too short for you, just move to the next range option, instead of worrying about going from 80% to 100% charge.

The battery leasing model is already being offered by Renault in Europe (Sweden)? for some of their cars. The battery swapping model is already being implemented in Sweden and Israel by Better Place. It's too advanced a concept for the US right now because the US is not as committed as Sweden or Israel to EVs to justify the infrastructure cost. But eventually I'm confident the idea will find adoption in the US once there are enough EVs in America for this model to make sense. You guys are already talking about the idea of having different battery range options here in this post, aren't you?

Click to expand...

I agree that battery leasing and exchange is extremely desirable, but both that and charging stations require expensive infrastructure investments (and design standardization for exchange), so I expect it will be 15-20 years before we get the kind of ubiquity that gas stations have. I think there's about a 5 year window for battery prices to drop enough that BEVs will sell for the same as ICEs, because if they can only be sold through incentives the market's unsustainable. As it is, Hybrids have never taken more than 3% of the market, and now that incentives and perks like single-occupancy HOV-lane use have disappeared they're below 2%.

I'm surprised that Nissan choose to go with a 5 passenger car as their first EV; I'd think that the best way to get large numbers of batteries out there and get the price down would be via inexpensive 2-passenger (or 2+2) city/commuter cars like the Smart or (more likely) the Scion iQ/Think City. $10-15,000 is the price range I think it will take.

GRA said:

I'm surprised that Nissan choose to go with a 5 passenger car as their first EV; I'd think that the best way to get large numbers of batteries out there and get the price down would be via inexpensive 2-passenger (or 2+2) city/commuter cars like the Smart or (more likely) the Scion iQ/Think City. $10-15,000 is the price range I think it will take.

Click to expand...

Thankfully for me, they didn't. I don't want a tiny car. I'd prefer one a bit bigger.

TonyWilliams said:

GRA said:

I'm surprised that Nissan choose to go with a 5 passenger car as their first EV; I'd think that the best way to get large numbers of batteries out there and get the price down would be via inexpensive 2-passenger (or 2+2) city/commuter cars like the Smart or (more likely) the Scion iQ/Think City. $10-15,000 is the price range I think it will take.

Click to expand...

Thankfully for me, they didn't. I don't want a tiny car. I'd prefer one a bit bigger.

Click to expand...

Good for you. But I suspect the typical market demographic has more use for a 2nd car for commuting/errands than they do for a family urban car. Apparently the average Leaf buyer is 45-55, with either an environmental or techie background. They'd need to skew a fair bit younger to need to haul kids around frequently to school/sports practice and what have you. If they're regularly hauling friends around town, the Leaf may be just the ticket.

I'm glad to see that Car2Go plans to put 300 Smart EDs in rental service; I suspect that will introduce more people to EVs quicker than any other method (and be the best use of them).

Off topic, a friend of mine spotted and photographed what I believe is one of the Smart EV pre-production vehicles in Monterey about a month or so ago. It was black and silver and sporting BMW badges ('000'), but comparing it to photos of the basic Smart it appeared to be identical. Fortunately, it appears that they realized that they'd need more accel and a higher top speed for the 3rd-gen. production vehicle. 40 hp, 23+ sec. 0-60 and 63 mph top speed just doesn't cut it for a commuter car that will probably have to merge and cruise on freeways. 71 hp, 13 sec. 0-60 and 75 mph is more like it. Now all they need to do is change the designation from Smart 'ED' to something else, because otherwise people will be calling it the 'Viagra'! :roll:

The size of the LEAF is perfect for us. We have two younger children, and it is our main family car. For our day-to-day use, the current range is more than enough. We just need some QCs for longer trips. For us, using QC would be more economical than a larger battery pack.

GRA said:

Good for you. But I suspect the typical market demographic has more use for a 2nd car for commuting/errands than they do for a family urban car. Apparently the average Leaf buyer is 45-55, with either an environmental or techie background.

Click to expand...

You are describing a limited niche market, and the reason 2 seaters have always failed in the US.. for electric cars to be massively successful they have to be low cost, with perhaps a 2 year payback, and be able to carry 4-5 passengers. These are the minimum requirements for success... Electric cars are already saddled with the low range problem, no need to pile on more issues on top.

I'm not sure what the range requirements are, but we will know in a few years.