Ok, excellent point on "normal" versus "abnormal" losses. Of course, in the interest of mass market simplicity, the message is, "a new car should go 84 miles in these conditions, according to Nissan, and 12-18 months later in Phoenix, these cars only went something far, far less. Actually, up to 30% less."Yanquetino wrote:Could be! I am as prone to error as anyone, no question.TonyWilliams wrote:You've got an number of factual errors in your review, and this is just wrong also.
Tell ya what, though, Tony: please include what, in fact, Nissan projects to be the normal capacity loss according to an odometer's mileage. I have merely taken my best guess by extrapolating from the admittedly limited parameters Nissan provides. If you have more accurate, reliable figures for expected range losses according to mileage, please post them alongside the actual ranges achieved in the test. Without knowing what Nissan considers normal capacity losses, it is impossible to substantiate abnormal losses —as the owners continue to assert via the news media.
I know I've said this about a million times, but the argument over the "84 mile car" ends when a car goes 84 miles. Each of you who have danced around that number are not telling me anything that I don't already know, and knew the very second I learned that neither 2012 would pull anything close to 100% stored wattHours.
So, I've asked, and I'll ask again; please stop generating pages of guessing. I'm not against guessing on things, and I've done plenty myself. But this one has been guessed to death, when a readily available answer is coming.
The many, many times I've made mistakes (and plenty on this range demonstration), I hope and think that I'm man enough to admit to the mistake and fix it. Through this thread, you'll see that I have done that. So, I'm not opposed to fixing this one.
The missing 84 mile car is a mistake. I'm to blame, due to my oversight. I will fix it. Until then, you'll just have to "trust me" on that. Sure, we can belly ache and pontificate until then, but why? I will get the number, and I know the number VERY well, as others like LEAFfan pointed out (and he also has mucho experience in this area, and believe me, we didn't always agree on the details).
Gosh, I think I'm merely responding to you in a "like" manner and by my measure, deserved manner. Eh, no biggie. I suspect you mean well. Thanks for not escalating issues further.Oh... and thanks, once again, for attacking and insulting the messenger when you do not like the message. Sorry to have to tell you this, Tony, but people skills are not exactly your forté.
Beyond the finger pointing, accusations, and other misc. BS in your piece, if you just got the basic numbers right, you have solid stuff there.