User avatar
DaveEV
Forum Supporter
Posts: 6236
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: LEAF advisory group

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:47 pm

Nice summary, Reg!
RegGuheert wrote:- The changes to the 2013 battery module chemistry were mainly intended to reduce cost. (There has been some mention of improvements in thermal capabilities, but the battery experts did not confirm that. They indicated there may be small changes in battery characteristics, but weight and cost were the two major changes.)
- The 2013 battery modules are compatible with the 2012/2012 LEAFs.
This is interesting - does this mean that in replacing a single module, say for warranty purposes or other service, Nissan recommended procedure will be to use a '13 module as a replacement for a '11/12 module?

Swapping out all the modules in a '11/12 LEAF for '13 modules would save 30 kg - not bad! That's over a pound saved per module.

darelldd
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:52 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jan 2015
Location: Nor. Cal
Contact: Website

Re: A favor from LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:42 am

OrientExpress wrote:If you guys are at the Nissan Yokohama headquarters today, can you snap a picture of the QC stations that are there at the entrance to the Nissan Gallery? When I was there last month, I forgot to get a shot of them.

Thanks! Sounds like you are having a great time.
It looked like we all took that shot this morning, so here should be several options from which to choose...when we all get them up. fascinating to me is that every day we have seen multiple cars being fast charged at multiple locations. Something we jut don't see in the US!
Darell, the EVnut >http://evnut.com<
Email me: Domain is gmail.com. Name is darelldd@. Really. I hate PM.
2011 while SL with Chademo... new to me in 2015.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:29 pm

RegGuheert wrote:As you can see, DavinOlyWA, darelldd and me are here along with evchels. Also here are Kataphn, Don, and sullyfahs. There are also a few guys from Europe, but some do not have aliases here and I do not know the others' aliases. (I am also not sure if Don and sullyfahs are aliases for the right people. I will correct that if I got them wrong.
O.K. Don was the wrong alias. It should be DEFrancis2. One of the guys from Europe is electronit, one is not on this forum and the third would like to remain anonymous (I think!). He can post here if he wants. Again, I think it's a great group of people.

We had another incredible day. Yesterday morning we met with quite a few members of the ZeroEmission team at Nissan and had a very detailed and frank discussion about LEAF marketing including many, many issues.

I took a couple of pretty decent photos of that session, but I must apologize because it seems I have an SD card problem and I do not have any pictures from this trip. :( Did I mention I am the world's worst photographer? I submit this as evidence...
RegGuheert wrote:We may hear more in today's meetings, but, as Dave said, we likely cannot say anything about some of what we will see/hear today.
As mentioned, we cannot talk about much of what we saw yesterday. Please do not PM us asking for us to reveal these things, as we are honor-bound to keep them secret. I will only say the following things, the first being under approval and the second is my opinion:
- Andy Palmer reiterated what he said in Phoenix about Nissan not wanting to use liquid to cool the batteries. They simply do not think that is a solution which suits their design objectives. (FWIW, I agree with him on this, as I have stated here many times.)
- Everyone working on the LEAF within Nissan ALWAYS quotes LA4 cycle results when they discuss vehicle range. It is not just marketing and sales doing this, but everyone. Their entire culture seems to be built around this concept that the LA4 range of the vehicles is THE range of the vehicles. Most (all?) of the members of the advisory board found this somewhat disturbing. My personal feeling is that it does not bode well for us to get any changes in how they communicate the capabilities of the car outside of Nissan, but we'll see. I think this needs to be a point for further discussion with them going forward. Would anyone else like to propose a different range for them to use in discussions? Perhaps the EPA five-cycle range test result?
RegGuheert wrote:
TEG wrote:For the 2013, I wonder if it is possible to get the black cloth seats in with the "all options" SL package?
From the looks of things they want you to have leather if you get the top of the line audio system and 17" wheels. Maybe this is a USA only marketing thing that Nissan Japan HQ doesn't follow closely, but I do represent a small contingent that don't like being forced in to leather seating to get other options.
Like you, I also prefer cloth to leather, but I think all of that is set in stone for 2013.
While I did not ask this direct question, it was pretty much confirmed that things are set in stone for 2013.
RegGuheert wrote:
TEG wrote:I hope Nissan continues to work on R&D for charge station finding built into the car. Someday it would be great if the Nav could show you which nearby charging stations were _available_, in other words it would be updated to mark which stations were already being used by someone else at the time. Also, it would be great if they had better pictures / directions to the charging stations. They could look at sites like http://www.plugshare.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, http://www.recargo.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, https://na.chargepoint.com/index.php/charge_point" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, etc. for ideas.
We may meet people in this area today. We will give them your feedback.
We gave this feedback to the person in Nissan who is responsible for this issue and it was recorded, so your input was definitely heard.
RegGuheert wrote:
TEG wrote:Also, you folks might want to inquire about high speed charging interoperability with other systems.
Will a LEAF ever charge at a Tesla Supercharger or SAE Combo-plug station? I don't know if Nissan has even considered making adapters for these. I am guessing not, but it seems worth asking just in case.
We discussed this some on Tuesday night and Nissan is clearly frustrated by the whole SAE combo plug issue. In any case I can ask if they plan to offer any interoperability options in the future.
I did bring this up. Nissan's view is that they need to do whatever is necessary to enable growth in the EV movement in general, not just for their own products. They see these various charger options as a barrier to adoption and they are trying to figure out the best way forward, but there seem to be no simple answers here. They did not rule out making adapters available to LEAF owners.
Last edited by RegGuheert on Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

cwerdna
Posts: 9680
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:33 pm

RegGuheert wrote: - Everyone working on the LEAF within Nissan ALWAYS quotes LA4 cycle results when they discuss vehicle range. It is not just marketing and sales doing this, but everyone. Their entire culture seems to be built around this concept that the LA4 range of the vehicles is THE range of the vehicles. Most (all?) of the members of the advisory board found this somewhat disturbing. My personal feeling is that it does not bode well for us to get any changes in how they communicate the capabilities of the car outside of Nissan, but we'll see. I think this needs to be a point for further discussion with them going forward. Would anyone else like to propose a different range for them to use in discussions? Perhaps the EPA five-cycle range test result?
Well, I did create a poll re: '12 Leaf range (since we don't know the '13 Leaf's EPA range yet). See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11322" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; again reported hearing 100 mile range at the Philadelphia auto show. :(

'19 Bolt Premier
'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:36 pm

cwerdna wrote:Well, I did create a poll re: '12 Leaf range (since we don't know the '13 Leaf's EPA range yet). See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11322" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; again reported hearing 100 mile range at the Philadelphia auto show. :(
Yes, that is very appropriate for this topic! There was a lot of discussion, but no obvious conclusion. What do you think they should do?
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

cwerdna
Posts: 9680
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:48 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
cwerdna wrote:Well, I did create a poll re: '12 Leaf range (since we don't know the '13 Leaf's EPA range yet). See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11322" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; again reported hearing 100 mile range at the Philadelphia auto show. :(
Yes, that is very appropriate for this topic! There was a lot of discussion, but no obvious conclusion. What do you think they should do?
Well, the overwhelming answer to the poll was 73 miles, the EPA range. From http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, that was from the 2 cycle-test.

If I Google for nissan leaf 73 miles epa, the first hit I get leads to http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and has the text:
Nissan LEAF®: 100% electric car. The Nissan LEAF® has a range of up to 73 miles on a single change. Learn more about the range, and use the range ...
But, I don't see those words verbatim, on that page. It seems to come from the META tag on the page:
<meta name="description" content="Nissan LEAF&reg;: 100% electric car. The Nissan LEAF&reg; has a range of up to 73 miles on a single change. Learn more about the range, and use the range calculator to find out how far your drive."/>

'19 Bolt Premier
'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
Nubo
Posts: 5360
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Delivery Date: 31 Oct 2014
Location: Vallejo, CA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:06 pm

RegGuheert wrote: - Everyone working on the LEAF within Nissan ALWAYS quotes LA4 cycle results when they discuss vehicle range. It is not just marketing and sales doing this, but everyone. Their entire culture seems to be built around this concept that the LA4 range of the vehicles is THE range of the vehicles. Most (all?) of the members of the advisory board found this somewhat disturbing. My personal feeling is that it does not bode well for us to get any changes in how they communicate the capabilities of the car outside of Nissan, but we'll see. I think this needs to be a point for further discussion with them going forward. Would anyone else like to propose a different range for them to use in discussions?
For US market, I think EPA ratings are the only yardstick that will let consumers honestly gauge range vs. their needs, and compare to other vehicles.

In the US, "real world range" basically means range when freeway driving at 10-15 mph above the speed limit. I can only guess what the Japanese think of this! :| EPA doesn't give that, and I wouldn't expect Nissan to of course. But at least EPA gives a level basis of comparison.

The rationale for LA-4 that I remember, was because EPA had not quantified a test leading up to the LEAF launch. That rationale is gone. I know it's probably hard to let go of that 100 mile value, but LA-4 doesn't help the US consumer. Maybe it's close to the Japan model, but nowhere close to the market standard here. And what is the consumer to make of it when the EPA number on the sticker is nowhere near what the nice lady told them at the Tour? Worse than being unhelpful, it will immediately create mistrust.
I noticed you're still working with polymers.

Bicster
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:18 am
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2015
Location: Houston, TX

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:11 pm

The Japan model is even crazier than LA-4. Maybe it works for them.

I wish someone on this board was literate in Japanese and could tell us what's happening on the JDM Leaf forums.
Reserved on April 20, 2010 - Never purchased

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:12 pm

Just to reiterate a few things. This trip was not designed to be a fact fjnding trip over an intro to each other and an jnside look at the Nissan decision making process. There are a lot of.bb people involved within Nissan whomust come together (frequently by teleconference) to make decisions with their partners and vendors. Jt is a monumental task.

Now, some of you will be disappointed in what we have or dont have to say but this trip begins thedialogue. We are by no means done, we have just begun so keep your questions in mind because the process of seeking the answers is not done
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: LEAF advisory group

Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:13 pm

Nubo wrote:The rationale for LA-4 that I remember, was because EPA had not quantified a test leading up to the LEAF launch. That rationale is gone. I know it's probably hard to let go of that 100 mile value, but LA-4 doesn't help the US consumer. Maybe it's close to the Japan model, but nowhere close to the market standard here.
I do not think the range number is nearly as critical to the Japanese customers as it is to American customers. The reason is that many of the LEAFs in Japan are right around Yokohama and they have access to a bunch of quick chargers. If the battery gets low, no big deal! Simply plug in for a few minutes and continue to your destination.

Where I live, I do not expect to have that option for quite some time.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “General / Main Owners Forum”