Range Chart

jlambeth said:

ECO claims to do a more aggressive job reclaiming power from the breaks, etc. Seems to be true, just try coasting down hill both ways.

Click to expand...

Yes, regen is more - but that can be achieved by a bit of braking as well.

jlambeth said:

evnow said:

oakwcj said:

how much extra range can be squeezed out of ECO mode?

Click to expand...

D & Eco don't matter that in - what matters to a certain extent is whether you are being careful with acceleration & braking. May be Eco mode helps there somewhat, personally I've not found any difference in m/kwh I get.

Click to expand...

ECO claims to do a more aggressive job reclaiming power from the breaks, etc. Seems to be true, just try coasting down hill both ways.

Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean more range.

• Stepping lightly on the brake pedal increases the regen, and can increase it to the same max in D or ECO.
• Going downhill you may actually end up with more range in D, because increasing your speed may be a more efficient way to store energy than using regen. But this is a hotly debated topic, since more speed also means more air resistance.

Ray

mogur said:

Actually, it is not, but I suggest you do whatever works best for YOU...

Click to expand...

+1...It's very easy to feather the pedal (for me), so I don't use full regen in ECO...I just time the lights and use what I need to slow a bit. And we don't have inclines where I live;the streets are mostly flat and easy to keep it in 'N' with the CC. Being in ECO helps me start out slower so I use only one-zero Power circles (depending if someone is behind me).

The quote of mine you referenced below has to do with range and the SOC chart so I'm not sure why you used it in this context... It had nothing top do with CC, D, ECO, inclines. or anything of that nature...

LEAFfan said:

mogur said:

Actually, it is not, but I suggest you do whatever works best for YOU...

Click to expand...

+1...It's very easy to feather the pedal (for me), so I don't use full regen in ECO...I just time the lights and use what I need to slow a bit. And we don't have inclines where I live;the streets are mostly flat and easy to keep it in 'N' with the CC. Being in ECO helps me start out slower so I use only one-zero Power circles (depending if someone is behind me).

Click to expand...

TonyWilliams said:

marccbr said:

Alright did some calculations and came up with the following; it takes roughly 36min per bar given you are charging at 3.3 kw and the pack is a 24 kw pack.

Click to expand...

But we only have about 21kw usable in the 24kw battery pack. So, 21kw divided by 13 fuel bars (12 you can see, and the final "no bar" fuel bar. So, about 1.65kw per actual fuel bar, and at 3.3kw recharging (assuming 100% efficient), so 1.65kw is half of 3.3kw, or about 30 minutes per fuel bar.

The other problem with the fuel bar equation, is that you don't really know where you are in reference to the current fuel bar. Is that fuel bar 100%, or 50%. Where are we starting from to add this fuel bar?

Click to expand...

Very true. For my calculations I will just assume that the current bar is just about empty.

And you reached this conclusion, how? I ran my down dead on purpose and put in a little over 26Kw (I have a TED5000 MTU on the circuit) to charge back to 100 percent. Considering the charger efficiency, this come out to darn close to 24Kw of usable capacity.

A number of other have come up with basically the same numbers as I did...

marccbr said:

But we only have about 21kw usable in the 24kw battery pack.

Click to expand...

mogur said:

And you reached this conclusion, how? I ran my down dead on purpose and put in a little over 26Kw (I have a TED5000 on the circuit) to charge back to 100 percent. Considering the charger efficiency, this come out to darn close to 24Kw of usable capacity.

A number of other have come up with basically the same numbers as I did...

marccbr said:

But we only have about 21kw usable in the 24kw battery pack.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There clearly is some debate over what that value is. I've charged mine many times from near zero, and only used 24.7kw max.

Don't know what to tell you. I'm sure someday we will have a definitive answer. But I don't believe that it's 24kw usable. That doesn't fit in with normal car marketing. Like the 100 miles bull.

For the purpose of the question, "how much L2 charging for one fuel bar", the answer is somewhere between 30 min (21kw) and 36 min (24kw).

My recent trips have actually gained milage range . Left the house with 70 arrived at the dealership 6 miles away with 71! In the lot swiched on Echo mode and it went to 75! Got mack home with a loss of only 4 miles round trip!

Again today went 7 miles for the cost f 2 on the highway.

Car range usually drops initially and can come back some when your moing - but more than you started with? So the range calculator definitely has issues.

My take is that battery temperature is the culprit - along with elevation changes. Dealership said the battery likes to be in the 70 degree range for optimum performance so as it goes from 64 degree ambient to 75 degree ambient the calculated range increases.

electricfuture said:

Car range usually drops initially and can come back some when your moving - but more than you started with? So the range calculator definitely has issues.

My take is that battery temperature is the culprit - along with elevation changes. Dealership said the battery likes to be in the 70 degree range for optimum performance so as it goes from 64 degree ambient to 75 degree ambient the calculated range increases.

Click to expand...

Elevation changes, yes, but far more important than battery temperature is speed. Just as an example, say you were driving 65 on the freeway yesterday. Today you are driving 35 through town. When you wake up the computer this morning, it assumes you will be driving 65 today, and estimates you will get 70 miles. But then it sees you driving 35, and at that rate you could get 105 miles. However, at first your history is mostly at 65 and a bit 35. As you continue driving an ever-increasing percentage will be at 35, and the computer's total estimate will start climbing toward 105, except that at the same time it is being reduced by what you have already driven. Given speed differences it is not an "issue" that the range estimate would rise.

The "issue" the calculator has is that it only knows how fast you have been driving, not how fast you will be driving for the rest of the day. That, however, is a killer issue, since in most cases you don't even know yourself how fast you will be driving. Because of that, the whole concept is bonkers and can produce only nonsense results.

Ignore the guesstimator, watch the bars. How many times do we have to say that?

Ray

electricfuture said:

So the (car) range calculator definitely has issues.

Click to expand...

But we already know that !!! :idea:

Which is why we count fuel bars (until we all have homebuilt State of Charge meters)

The CarWings data is also bad for miles/KW data and miles driven.

The iPhone range is probably the craziest of all:

Thanks Ray. That explains my milage increase as I was not driving at highway speeds that day but was the day before. OK I get it I'll watch the bars. Do you know how far back the memory in the calculator goes? Is it on a calendar day or milage?

electricfuture said:

...Do you know how far back the memory in the calculator goes? Is it on a calendar day or milage?

Click to expand...

There was one recent post that had a Nissan rep claim it goes back 30 miles (km?), but it doesn't take much time watching the guessometer's volatility to see that even if that's so, it must give the more recent history more weight.

18 miles according to a Nissan rep but many of us dispute that, feeling it is more like the last 5 miles... It may be a sliding algorithm where the recent miles have more weight than the older miles...

electricfuture said:

Thanks Ray. That explains my milage increase as I was not driving at highway speeds that day but was the day before. OK I get it I'll watch the bars. Do you know how far back the memory in the calculator goes? Is it on a calendar day or milage?

Click to expand...

This is amazing. I need to print this out & keep it in the car somewhere.

I need to make an amendment to some of my data, and I will edit the first post to reflect this.

The data from Battery Warning to Very Low to Turtle should reflect the following:

I think it would be helpful to add mi / kWh to go with the estimated speed - then one would know the minimum mi / kWh the dash should read to travel a certain distance.

These numbers should line up with your existing columns:

135 miles - 6.4 mi / kWh
108 miles - 5.2 mi / kWh
96 miles - 4.6 mi / kWh
81 miles - 3.9 mi / kWh
68 miles - 3.3 mi / kWh

drees said:

I think it would be helpful to add mi / kWh to go with the estimated speed - then one would know the minimum mi / kWh the dash should read to travel a certain distance.
These numbers should line up with your existing columns:
135 miles - 6.4 mi / kWh
108 miles - 5.2 mi / kWh
96 miles - 4.6 mi / kWh
81 miles - 3.9 mi / kWh
68 miles - 3.3 mi / kWh

Click to expand...

What number did you X by? I thought it was supposed to be 21 at 100% charge and 17 at 80%.

drees said:

135 miles - 6.4 mi / kWh
108 miles - 5.2 mi / kWh
96 miles - 4.6 mi / kWh
81 miles - 3.9 mi / kWh
68 miles - 3.3 mi / kWh

Click to expand...

That was suggested earlier, and some other folks have done just that to their own versions of this chart. But, I specifically did not because, first and foremost, I wanted to keep it simple.

A speed equals a range. Nothing more, nothing less. 6/60... 5/70... 7/50... simple memory guidelines that correspond with the chart (except, in version 2, I cut the 12th bar in half) and require virtually no math.

Plus, we don't officially know that the battery has 21-22 kW*h of usage, but I think we're gosh darn close to pinning that one on the wall !!!

Maybe version 3 will have the data you suggest.

The new version of the chart could be somewhat misleading especially to newcomers who don't know that "very low battery" equates with the disappearance of the first bar, with the result being that they'd run out sooner than expected. May I suggest adding a row for "0 bars", and then separate the three rows for battery warnings with a blank row - just like you did in the first version of the table.

Also, have you determined what is the most efficient speed? Is it indeed 38 mph? Or maybe something slower?

Look back a few pages in this thread and you'll find some charts that incorporate that info, if you like...

drees said:

I think it would be helpful to add mi / kWh to go with the estimated speed - then one would know the minimum mi / kWh the dash should read to travel a certain distance.

These numbers should line up with your existing columns:

135 miles - 6.4 mi / kWh
108 miles - 5.2 mi / kWh
96 miles - 4.6 mi / kWh
81 miles - 3.9 mi / kWh
68 miles - 3.3 mi / kWh

Click to expand...