User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11480
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:48 am

SanDust wrote:
evnow wrote:Turns out they used fudged range to calculate kwh/100 miles, for eg.
I've tried to explain this to you several times. Think about it. If you're trying to determine how many kWh you're putting into the battery it doesn't matter what the kWh/100 mile figure is. The EPA drains the battery. Then it charges the battery and measures how much power has delivered from the wall. It's just simple counting and it's all that matters. The range and the kWh/100 miles only comes into play because you're trying to find how many kWh are in one charge.
It is not that you have failed to explain - you have failed to understand. See Andy's post above too.

They have not disclosed "unadjusted" kwh used to charge the vehicle back. If you think they have disclosed that - show me where it is and exactly what it is.

ps : You do know we are no longer in the 101 class ;-)
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to 5/25/2018
Model 3 : 5/10/2018 to ?

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11480
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:54 am

DarkStar wrote:
AndyH wrote:But then the EPA discounts 30% of the MEASURED range as an adjustment factor to arrive at the 'window sticker' number.
So the EPA got over 100 miles on a charge?
Yes. Here are the unadjusted figures EPA got, that I posted.
So, considering 30% adjustment, the unadjusted range is

City : 110 miles.
Hwy : 95.7 miles.

All this with 3,700 lb (i.e. they have loaded Leaf with quite a bit of luggage).
I've not read the full test document. Does anyone know how dynamometer test simulates for air and road resistance ?
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to 5/25/2018
Model 3 : 5/10/2018 to ?

Smidge204
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:42 pm

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:43 pm

evnow wrote:I've not read the full test document. Does anyone know how dynamometer test simulates for air and road resistance ?
Short answer: yes, it does simulate those effects. My only question is if the dynamometer the EPA uses for the testing is a driven or passive type... though it may not come into play if they just drive it until dead. A driven type would permit regenerative braking whereas a passive type would only absorb and dissipate energy put out by the wheels.

=Smidge=

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:51 pm

evnow wrote:I've not read the full test document. Does anyone know how dynamometer test simulates for air and road resistance ?
The 'how to conduct a test' document explains in gory details. Everything is modeled and verified with real-world driving to validate the model. They can adjust the model to simulate wind and hills, but I don't know that they do.
DarkStar wrote:So the EPA got over 100 miles on a charge?
The evaluation process includes input from the manufacturer and the Government agency. Here are the numbers Nissan reported to the EPA in their application - Normal and Eco mode:

Image
Smidge204 wrote:Short answer: yes, it does simulate those effects. My only question is if the dynamometer the EPA uses for the testing is a driven or passive type...
Part of the test setup is to run the dyno for 15 minutes to warm it up before strapping the car on - that sounds active to me. (This Doc - page 9 paragraph 6.1.4) The LA4/UDDS and US06 include stops so there's opportunity for regen - and range does improve in ECO mode...

Smidge204
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:42 pm

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:04 am

AndyH wrote:Here are the numbers Nissan reported to the EPA in their application - Normal and Eco mode:
Interesting that Eco mode seems to have very little impact on range in that test. +1.8% City and +2.3% highway? Meh. I really want to believe there is something being missed that makes ECO mode more worthwhile...
=Smidge=

User avatar
LEAFer
Posts: 2647
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:10 am
Delivery Date: 19 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 000215
Location: Sacramento Area

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:40 am

Smidge204 wrote:
AndyH wrote:Here are the numbers Nissan reported to the EPA in their application - Normal and Eco mode:
Interesting that Eco mode seems to have very little impact on range in that test. +1.8% City and +2.3% highway? Meh. I really want to believe there is something being missed that makes ECO mode more worthwhile...
=Smidge=
I have NOT spent time reading the referenced info ... but ... is it a simulation or a real drive with "feet-on-the-peddles" ? If simulation ... that would explain the poor "improvements" gained from ECO.
2011 Silver SL+QC [Mfg: 11/2010] 36mo/15k LEASE
06Jun2013 Status [28.5 months][34,173 miles][11 bars]
Lost CapacityBar 6/6/13 @34,173 miles while in LEAF Battery Monitor: 83.41%, 71.4F (avg); cool overnight;

User avatar
DaveEV
Forum Supporter
Posts: 6239
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:54 pm

Smidge204 wrote:
AndyH wrote:Here are the numbers Nissan reported to the EPA in their application - Normal and Eco mode:
Interesting that Eco mode seems to have very little impact on range in that test. +1.8% City and +2.3% highway? Meh. I really want to believe there is something being missed that makes ECO mode more worthwhile...
Eco mode is really just a drivers aid. A well trained driver should be able to achieve Eco results in regular drive mode.

Only difference would be if HVAC is running - I believe Eco mode will reduce power draw from HVAC...

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:11 pm

drees wrote:Eco mode is really just a drivers aid. A well trained driver should be able to achieve Eco results in regular drive mode.

Only difference would be if HVAC is running - I believe Eco mode will reduce power draw from HVAC...
It appears that in addition to throttling the HVAC the regen rate increases in ECO mode. Hard to do that from the accelerator pedal regardless of driver experience. ;)

User avatar
DaveEV
Forum Supporter
Posts: 6239
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:29 pm

AndyH wrote:It appears that in addition to throttling the HVAC the regen rate increases in ECO mode. Hard to do that from the accelerator pedal regardless of driver experience. ;)
Right - but I believe you can get the same effect by lightly pressing the brake pedal as the brake pedal is essentially a dummy pedal which blends regen/friction brakes depending on operating conditions - like the Prius.

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Response to EPA FOIA Request

Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:31 pm

drees wrote:
AndyH wrote:It appears that in addition to throttling the HVAC the regen rate increases in ECO mode. Hard to do that from the accelerator pedal regardless of driver experience. ;)
Right - but I believe you can get the same effect by lightly pressing the brake pedal as the brake pedal is essentially a dummy pedal which blends regen/friction brakes depending on operating conditions - like the Prius.
I don't know. The Leaf service manual shows a standard mechanical connection between the pedal and master cylinder. It also shows the computerized mixing of regen and friction (with both regen and power brake boost adjusting on the fly with inputs from ABS and traction control). On paper braking seems like a fluid mix. I look forward to feeling it 'for real' to see if that brake spot exists.

Return to “News & Main LEAF Discussion”