The correlation between range and Gids in this test is ~80% (note: sample size too small). So yes, the values are probably not random, but that can't be completely excluded. There is also likely one or more other factors, the exact type of which is unknown. We see underestimated available range, but the odds that Gid count might overestimate available range are not negligible from the data in this test as the sample size isn't large enough. Testing a new Leaf that also has 280+ Gids would give a single point to determination of the "New Leaf Range", and ideally enough such tests would be run to get a sample size large enough to draw inferences that had statistical meaning. This test isn't large enough, and testing a single new Leaf also isn't large enough to be statistically meaningful.Stoaty wrote:I agree, they are not accurate. However, the values are not random. We see good evidence that there is a systematic bias that under reports the available range. Thus it is reasonable to infer that a Leaf with 100% Gids would have at least 100% of the "New Leaf Range". I can't state it any more plainly than that. Testing a Leaf with 281 Gids is the only way to prove this inference correct.WetEV wrote:I don't trust that "Gids" or capacity bars are accurate. Is there a reason to?
While we all acknowledge the N is small, please keep in mind the logistical challenges of running this test. Tony cannot be thanked enough. A lot of attention was also given to safety and picking up the turtled cars as fast as possible. While far from perfect lab conditions, it was an excellent sample of real world driving.WetEV wrote:Sorry, I'm an engineer. It is easy read too much out of too little data, and see things that don't hold up when more data arrives. It is important to get enough data, and to realize that the situation is often more complex than anyone might first think it is.
+1shrink wrote:While we all acknowledge the N is small, please keep in mind the logistical challenges of running this test. Tony cannot be thanked enough. A lot of attention was also given to safety and picking up the turtled cars as fast as possible. While far from perfect lab conditions, it was an excellent sample of real world driving.WetEV wrote:Sorry, I'm an engineer. It is easy read too much out of too little data, and see things that don't hold up when more data arrives. It is important to get enough data, and to realize that the situation is often more complex than anyone might first think it is.
Hmm... that raises all sorts of interesting questions.shrink wrote:That said, this small N was also double the N of Nissan's own Casa Grande 6.
You can all fly up to San Francisco Crissy Field on Sept 23 (it should be gorgeous with the Golden Gate in the background) and meet the decision makers yourself. They will be there for National Plug In Day.Volusiano wrote: we shouldn't expect that they will bother responding to the AZ Tempe test results at all, do we?
In my two range tests, I found that Gids at the low end (15-25%) had more energy than the middle.evnow wrote:As I have written in the past GID is not linear i.e. at the top & low end a GID has less energy than in the middle.
Thanks.shrink wrote:Oh and for all those wondering, my car was Blue 842, the 2012 with 2500 miles on it.
I drove White530 and per the dash, I got 4.0 miles/kWh.
Any San Francisco local owner(s) volunteering to attend and question Nissan execs about what they think of the Tempe, AZ test results?TonyWilliams wrote:You can all fly up to San Francisco Crissy Field on Sept 23 (it should be gorgeous with the Golden Gate in the background) and meet the decision makers yourself. They will be there for National Plug In Day.Volusiano wrote: we shouldn't expect that they will bother responding to the AZ Tempe test results at all, do we?
Andy Palmer and Mark Perry will be there, so you can ask them directly.