ELROY
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:36 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2012
Leaf Number: 023406
Location: Camarillo, CA

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:24 am

Okay, so I finished off the day driving pretty darn conservatively. Always under the speed limit and letting cars pass me up. Usually one-two bubbles of acceleration, etc. For the whole day my cluster economy meter finished off reading an average of 4.3 miles per KWh

Start: 0 Miles Trip odometer
88 Miles Range
10 Bars
3:30 hrs of charging remaining

End: 44.5 Miles Trip odometer
22 Miles Range
2 Bars
18:00 hrs of charging remaining

So even with 66 Miles of estimated range reduction, I only traveled 44.5 miles.
Is this normal even when achieving 4.3 miles per KWh during this episode?
What do you have to do to achieve the 88 miles range it originally stated with the 10 bars...5 miles/KWh?

It almost seems as though the battery depletes faster than the computer estimates it will take.
The car has been charging for 4 hrs now, almost exactly. Charge time remaining has dropped by 6 hrs.(18hrs remaining-12hrs remaining now). It is at 5 bars. So it definitely charges faster than estimated time. Hope this isnt a sign of a weak battery. Some phone batteries, etc, will charge fast but hold capacity when they go bad.

Secondly, my Nav Screen economy history average since I owned the car is right at 4.0 miles per KWh. Wouldnt the start of the day calculation of the 88 miles range be based on this? And since I bettered it at 4.3 miles per KWh why would I be short by nearly 30% ?

User avatar
surfingslovak
Vendor
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:48 am

ELROY wrote:For the whole day my cluster economy meter finished off reading an average of 4.3 miles per KWh

Start: 0 Miles Trip odometer
88 Miles Range
10 Bars
3:30 hrs of charging remaining

End: 44.5 Miles Trip odometer
22 Miles Range
2 Bars
18:00 hrs of charging remaining
Good job. If you assume 11 Gids per hour on the charging display and an ideal value of 0.075 kWh usable energy per Gid, this implies about 12 kWh expended:

14.5 hr x 11 Gid/hr x 0.075 kWh/Gid = 11.96 kWh

Given 4.3 miles/kWh energy economy, this leads to 51.4 miles of range. Your total for the day was about 5 miles less than that. Not too bad for a rough estimate based on readouts from coarse gauges.
ELROY wrote: Is this normal even when achieving 4.3 miles per KWh during this episode?
Yes, appears to be.
ELROY wrote: What do you have to do to achieve the 88 miles range it originally stated with the 10 bars...5 miles/KWh?
Based on the data I gleaned from your posts, I would think 5.2 miles/kWh.
ELROY wrote: It almost seems as though the battery depletes faster than the computer estimates it will take.
Please don't put any faith into that "computer" and its estimates.
ELROY wrote: The car has been charging for 4 hrs now, almost exactly. Charge time remaining has dropped by 6 hrs.(18hrs remaining-12hrs remaining now). It is at 5 bars. So it definitely charges faster than estimated time. Hope this isnt a sign of a weak battery. Some phone batteries, etc, will charge fast but hold capacity when they go bad.
It should be fine, and in line with the performance we see in other cars. As mentioned earlier, that display does not do its primary task, predicting the time it will take to recharge the car, properly. This is only too typical of many gauges in the car.
ELROY wrote: Secondly, my Nav Screen economy history average since I owned the car is right at 4.0 miles per KWh. Wouldnt the start of the day calculation of the 88 miles range be based on this? And since I bettered it at 4.3 miles per KWh why would I be short by nearly 30% ?
The integration interval is 30 seconds, if memory serves, and the computer you mentioned above tries to extrapolate your range from that small data sample. An impossible task. The long-term energy economy does not matter, and you can even reset it, if you like.Image
Last edited by surfingslovak on Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
planet4ever
Posts: 4674
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:53 pm
Delivery Date: 02 May 2011
Leaf Number: 1537
Location: Morgan Hill, CA, south of San Jose

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:10 am

surfingslovak wrote:
ELROY wrote:Secondly, my Nav Screen economy history average since I owned the car is right at 4.0 miles per KWh. Wouldnt the start of the day calculation of the 88 miles range be based on this? And since I bettered it at 4.3 miles per KWh why would I be short by nearly 30% ?
The integration interval is 30 seconds, if memory serves, and the computer you mentioned above tries to extrapolate your range from that small data sample. An impossible task. The long-term energy economy does not matter, and you can even reset it, if you like.
Surfingslovak is right, though I hadn't heard the 30 seconds, and would have thought it longer. No matter how much you try to over-think it you are not going to get useful data out of GOM readings on a full battery. The only way it would ever have any meaning is if you drive the same route every day with the same traffic at the same time and the same speed in the same weather. And even that is totally out the window if you make a grocery run after you get home.

As we've told you repeatedly, FUGEDABOUDIT. Cover the GOM or train yourself not to look at it. You'll be happier and healthier if you do.

I will admit that the GOM can be helpful when you get down to two bars or less, if you keep in mind that it is quite pessimistic there, as opposed to its wild optimism on a full battery. Just remember that as a rational human being you will change your driving style to compensate when the battery is low. As an idiot computer it will slavishly assume you will keep driving exactly as you have been.

Ray
End of April 2013: Traded my 2011 SL for a 2013 S with charge pkg.

ELROY
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:36 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2012
Leaf Number: 023406
Location: Camarillo, CA

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:30 pm

Very interesting stuff. So from the start of charging last night at 8:30PM till 7AM this morning.,..a total of 10.5hrs:

Last night at start of charge:

22 miles range remaining
2 bars remaining
18:00hrs of charge required.


This morning 10.5 hrs later:
81 miles of range remaining
9 bars remaining
5:00hrs of charge required.

So basically in 10.5 hrs, the indicated required charge dropped 13hrs.
It is apparent the remaining range really is a joke.
81 miles of range...and with my 5-6 miles per bar, im realistically looking at 45-55 miles with the 9 bars. And thats with probably 4.3 miles/KWh. Amazing why Nissan would even want to put up such an optimistic number.

But I hear you...best to just reset the trip odometer after each charge, and figure your mileage roughly based on the bars and keeping an idea of your KWh efficiency.

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:59 pm

ELROY wrote:It is apparent the remaining range really is a joke.
81 miles of range...and with my 5-6 miles per bar, im realistically looking at 45-55 miles with the 9 bars. And thats with probably 4.3 miles/KWh. Amazing why Nissan would even want to put up such an optimistic number.
It's actually worse than that. Had you climbed a really big hill quickly just before you shut it down (with the heater at full blast), it might show some number far below 45-55 miles on the GOM.

ELROY
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:36 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2012
Leaf Number: 023406
Location: Camarillo, CA

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:28 am

TonyWilliams wrote:
ELROY wrote:It is apparent the remaining range really is a joke.
81 miles of range...and with my 5-6 miles per bar, im realistically looking at 45-55 miles with the 9 bars. And thats with probably 4.3 miles/KWh. Amazing why Nissan would even want to put up such an optimistic number.
It's actually worse than that. Had you climbed a really big hill quickly just before you shut it down (with the heater at full blast), it might show some number far below 45-55 miles on the GOM.
You know with the limited range...i think I will be charging to 100% capacity more often than not. Even though not recommended due to the harm it causes the battery. Has there ever been a poll on the percentage of people or percentage of times owners charge to 100%. And has it been established how much it really degrades the battery? Does Toyota also warn against charging to 100% in the RAV4?

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:21 am

ELROY wrote: Does Toyota also warn against charging to 100% in the RAV4?
They call it "extended range", and yes, they do; when you select a full charge, it actually says "damage" to the battery.

Of course, you're not damaging it, but merely slightly diminishing its life. Today, I did a full charge, which just completed, and now I'll be driving. The time spent at 100% is minimal, and there's no heat today, and if there was, the active battery thermal management would cool it down.

ELROY
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:36 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2012
Leaf Number: 023406
Location: Camarillo, CA

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:24 am

TonyWilliams wrote:
ELROY wrote: Does Toyota also warn against charging to 100% in the RAV4?
They call it "extended range", and yes, they do; when you select a full charge, it actually says "damage" to the battery.

Of course, you're not damaging it, but merely slightly diminishing its life. Today, I did a full charge, which just completed, and now I'll be driving. The time spent at 100% is minimal, and there's no heat today, and if there was, the active battery thermal management would cool it down.
Do you think there is more damage from letting the battery sit charged at 100% than just hitting 100% and the driving right away?

User avatar
ebill3
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 1:23 pm
Delivery Date: 15 Sep 2011
Leaf Number: 7964
Location: Puyallup WA

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:53 am

ELROY wrote: Do you think there is more damage from letting the battery sit charged at 100% than just hitting 100% and the driving right away?
I do. I prefer the term 'degradation', not damage.
All electric - red LEAF, green Tesla S. No ICE.

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: IS THIS NORMAL FOR A LEAF?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:24 am

ELROY wrote:Do you think there is more damage from letting the battery sit charged at 100% than just hitting 100% and the driving right away?
High state of charge and heat are prominent factors in battery life for this chemistry. The two together are fatal.

If you charge to 100%, don't leave it sitting that way all weekend, or over a 2 week vacation. And ABSOLUTLEY don't leave it at a 100% charge in hot ambient temps. Heck, don't leave it at any charge % in hot ambient temps :ugeek:

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”