Stoaty's Guide to Energy Efficient Driving of the Leaf

[JPWhite]

That's strange. Mine always goes into the 'neutral' bubble UNLESS there's a slight upgrade. It's relatively flat here, and it probably isn't there. Looking at the street, you can't really see the upgrade so when it leaves the neutral bubble, then I know.

At low speeds one can get away with one bubble in CC. Try getting just one bubble at 60mph.
I find the energy info screen more informative than the bubbles anyway, this reveals that there is no such thing as a 'neutral bubble', it really is a low power bubble.

[Stoaty]

This gets you 1.11 kWh + 1.75 kWh up and 1.11 kWh - 1.4 kWh down which would leave you enough regen energy (0.29 kWh) to drive 1.3 miles before you used it all up. Pretty close to your observed 1.5 miles if you ask me!

So in fact - your observations match up pretty much exactly with expectations!

I see you are just looking at it from a different viewpoint. Glad our observations match.

[TickTock]

But a 1000 ft climb will use 1 kWh / 1 bar. And a 1000 ft descent will "gain" you 0.8 kWh / 0.8 bar.

Should be a bit higher then this. I get 1.26KWh/1000ft just in the potential energy (not counting losses). I've been trying to come to terms with why it takes me 1.3kW more energy to come home from work than to get there (250ft total drop). Only been logging this for a couple of weeks but it is pretty consistent. Should be half this by my calc. Surely there isn't 50% in losses battery to road.

[DaveEV]

But a 1000 ft climb will use 1 kWh / 1 bar. And a 1000 ft descent will "gain" you 0.8 kWh / 0.8 bar.

Should be a bit higher then this. I get 1.26KWh/1000ft just in the potential energy (not counting losses). I've been trying to come to terms with why it takes me 1.3kW more energy to come home from work than to get there (250ft total drop). Only been logging this for a couple of weeks but it is pretty consistent. Should be half this by my calc. Surely there isn't 50% in losses battery to road.

Those were just my hypothetical numbers used to show logic behind the calculations. Later I used more realistic numbers.

Back to your situation - perhaps there's a wind difference involved as well?

[TickTock]

But a 1000 ft climb will use 1 kWh / 1 bar. And a 1000 ft descent will "gain" you 0.8 kWh / 0.8 bar.

Should be a bit higher then this. I get 1.26KWh/1000ft just in the potential energy (not counting losses). I've been trying to come to terms with why it takes me 1.3kW more energy to come home from work than to get there (250ft total drop). Only been logging this for a couple of weeks but it is pretty consistent. Should be half this by my calc. Surely there isn't 50% in losses battery to road.

Those were just my hypothetical numbers used to show logic behind the calculations. Later I used more realistic numbers.

Back to your situation - perhaps there's a wind difference involved as well?

I see now - read too fast. Actually, I think the AC use should explain the ~600W delta from ideal. It is definitely a lot hotter when I'm coming home than in the morning. I'll keep loggin and see if it holds up as we transition into winter. Use of heat in the morning may flip things the other way. Maybe this'll motivate me to build my own canbus reader so I can accumulate and log just the traction kwh consumption.

[davewill]

... That's strange. Mine always goes into the 'neutral' bubble UNLESS there's a slight upgrade. It's relatively flat here, and it probably isn't there. Looking at the street, you can't really see the upgrade so when it leaves the neutral bubble, then I know.

Flat! What's that? Yep, there's nothing flat about San Diego, no matter which direction you drive.

[camasleaf]

Today is the first time I used the defogging of the windshield. It works pretty fast, but climate control went up to about 1.5 kW. (D mode)

Just wondering if it is worth the effort of doing defogging as much as possible during regen? This way the energy does not have to go to battery and then to climate control .

Hey, maybe one can gain a few extra hundred yards by doing this.

[JPWhite]

Today is the first time I used the defogging of the windshield. It works pretty fast, but climate control went up to about 1.5 kW. (D mode)

Just wondering if it is worth the effort of doing defogging as much as possible during regen? This way the energy does not have to go to battery and then to climate control .

Hey, maybe one can gain a few extra hundred yards by doing this.

From a safety standpoint I'd say you always want to keep the windshield clear *before* you need to slow down or brake. The infinitesimal increase in range is not worth the increased risk of hitting the car in front or a small child or deer wandering into the street.

Just saying.

[DaveinOlyWA]

I just roll down the windows but tour increases drag as well do either watt its a trade off.
The key thing to remember is that this only is a concern when you are using a highly efficient vehicle

[Yodrak]

Coming late to the thread, but I pretty much agree with your approach. One exception (or maybe it should be broken down into two):
- I drive the speed limit on highways, whatever it is, up to 65 mph. If other drivers want to get pissed off at me because I obey the law that's their problem, not mine. (Observation - nothing pisses off a pissed-off driver like receiving a smile and a wave or thumbs-up in return for their bird. I love it!)
- When the highway is 3 or 4 lanes, which is generally in heavy traffic areas in and around cities with frequent on-off ramps, I drive in the 2nd lane to avoid the on-off merging that goes on in the right lane.

For those like me who want to conserve as much energy as possible I offer my recipe--tested over 2,000 miles--for getting the highest Mile per KWh from the Leaf. ...

Not me - I'm money obsessed. Complementary obsessions in this case, though.

Any other eco-obsessive drivers out there?