135 mile range LEAF? Where did this come from?

^ Funny you should mention trips to the airport, I'm in the same boat. Yeah, like I'm going to go rent a car for that. While the "60 miles is plenty" guys discount the requirement, the market has spoken loud and clear.

I'm rapidly approaching a time when I would not be willing to take my LEAF on a trip to the airport, and it's only a 45-mile round trip, for me. One more summer of battery degradation should do it.

No matter what the new-car range is, a 20%+ loss in capacity in a year and a half makes it a no-deal for me. Nissan needs to fix the degradation problem, first, then consider offering more battery capacity.

gatedad11 said:

I'd seriously "consider" it, if I could get the car's upgrades for a great price. Meaning, the "heat pump" heater, 6.6 on board charger, QC option, and such.

Click to expand...

Tesla has a 9.6 charger standard and dual chargers as an option (they call it 10KW and 20KW charger options).

If they double the battery size on the Leaf I don't think 6.6 is a fast enough charge to make it "lead... in EVs".

Andy Palmer said:

"We will not relinquish our lead in electric vehicles. Despite the naysayers, this is the era of electrification and electronics. It is inevitable, and Nissan is at its forefront. This is what powers Nissan. It is our momentum now, and it is our momentum for the future, and I pledge that Nissan will maintain its leadership in EVs."

Click to expand...

Looking at that quote I'd be thinking the charger has to be at least 10KW for a 48KW battery. To keep at the charge rate you have now on the Leaf with 6.6 for a 24KW you have to have a 13KW charger for 48KW. I'm sure availability of parts / design cost will affect the maximum charger they can spec but they have to at least get into double digits (>10KW) to have any semblance of leading the way.

Cramer's folks could have had a strategic leak from folks in the know... this would not be unheard of.

I hope it is right... Upgrade the charger... maybe the battery would be roughly the same size but better chem. I dunno... Love my LEAF...

Weatherman said:

One more summer of battery degradation should do it.

No matter what the new-car range is, a 20%+ loss in capacity in a year and a half makes it a no-deal for me. Nissan needs to fix the degradation problem, first, then consider offering more battery capacity.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the two are intertwined?

As an engineer having too small a battery means no margins for error, no spare capacity, no flexibility, extreme charge cycles.

Increase the battery capacity and you can increase the "hidden" or "locked" portion of the battery at both low state of charge and high state of charge and just doing that will fix a large amount of degradation issues.

If your 20% loss out of 24KW became 5% loss out of 48KW would you consider that fixed? I don't know the exact comparison but I expect the ratio is non linear on the actual capacity and the higher the capacity the more room you have to hide some from the user.

Take hard drives for example. When a drive is manufactured with millions of blocks they pick a fixed number less than that and report it to the PC. As blocks fail the drive remaps data and reports no change in capacity to the PC. Only a catastrophic failure will change the reported capacity. That isn't because they fixed a degradation issue, its because the capacity is so enormous that they have plenty of spare to hide from the user.

Why shouldn't a battery pack work the same way? Have a factory capacity (design minus buffer), an OEM capacity (Tesla or Nissan's number but also available over ODBII including some additional buffer), an end user capacity (as shown on the dash or MFD).

I suppose that is what GIDs/amp hours are about since every battery pack is slightly different but the point is if every battery has more capacity than what is shown to the user why should you care assuming you have enough usable range/capacity to make your trips?

dhanson865 said:

Weatherman said:

One more summer of battery degradation should do it.

No matter what the new-car range is, a 20%+ loss in capacity in a year and a half makes it a no-deal for me. Nissan needs to fix the degradation problem, first, then consider offering more battery capacity.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the two are intertwined?

Click to expand...

Bigger battery, same chemistry, will degrade as fast in the heat as a smaller one? I thought it was established, that heat beats cycle losses by wide margin?

klapauzius said:

Bigger battery, same chemistry, will degrade as fast in the heat as a smaller one? I thought it was established, that heat beats cycle losses by wide margin?

Click to expand...

That would be something of a turn-off for me. Though, on the flip side, it would take a heck of a lot longer to negatively impact me, based on continuing with the same commute I have now.

dhanson865 said:

I suppose that is what GIDs/amp hours are about since every battery pack is slightly different but the point is if every battery has more capacity than what is shown to the user why should you care assuming you have enough usable range/capacity to make your trips?

Click to expand...

What I don't like is having one of the most expensive, single components of the car reach end-of-life in about three years (give or take a few months). I don't like throw-away stuff, especially very expensive throw-away stuff.

dhanson865 said:

Looking at that quote I'd be thinking the charger has to be at least 10KW for a 48KW battery.

Click to expand...

Many areas have few public L2 charging stations capable of pumping out > 7.2kW. Sure, you can install whatever you want at home, but you don't need 17kW to recharge overnight.

I think there's a diminishing return for on-board L2 chargers > 7.2kW.

IMO the 6kw charger would be plenty; we could even get by with the 3.3kw. For most people this isn't about driving 135 miles every day.

The chademo sure would start to look a lot more interesting at that capacity level though. With a few more stations built out regional road trips could become reasonably practical instead of some sort of exercise in inconveniencing yourself.

klapauzius said:

dhanson865 said:

Weatherman said:

One more summer of battery degradation should do it.

No matter what the new-car range is, a 20%+ loss in capacity in a year and a half makes it a no-deal for me. Nissan needs to fix the degradation problem, first, then consider offering more battery capacity.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the two are intertwined?

Click to expand...

Bigger battery, same chemistry, will degrade as fast in the heat as a smaller one? I thought it was established, that heat beats cycle losses by wide margin?

Click to expand...

That is established for those in severe heat no babying of the battery will save them. Heat is the number 1 enemy.

It is also established that if you keep the battery perfectly at the same temperature at all times that depth of charge (time spent below and above certain state of charges) age the battery unrelated to heat.

so

1. Keep the battery as cool as possible (oops no active cooling on the Leaf you really can't control this and still drive the car*)
2. Avoid leaving the car fully charged (how high is too high is a valid question but the more time at or above level x equals y degradation)
3. Avoid fully depleting the battery (how low is too low is a valid question but the more time at or below level x equals y degradation)

*But the "I thought it was established" was based on the old battery chemistry with the old capacity and the old charging rates. Change each of these by any significant amount and you might find that the amount of degradation by heat and state of charge are both reduced.

Heat is the enemy but heat isn't just the temperature outside your car. Your battery gets hotter as it is charged. Your battery gets hotter as you drive (discharging the battery).

If you change the size of the battery pack you won't change the temperature outside the car but you will change the amount of heat** generated by charging at a certain rate and driving at a certain speed. If that extra heat is the straw that breaks the camels back having a larger pack might decrease degradation by a significant amount, if the battery chemistry is a poor fit for the ambient temps then the bigger battery just ages fast no matter how big or small the pack.

** technically the amount of heat is lowered by some amount and the rest is spread around a larger pack, giving a lower temperature with a similar amount of added heat.

Is a multivariate equation you can't take a rule of thumb from the 2011 leaf with chemistry A 24KW pack or a 2013 leaf with chemistry B/C 24KW pack and say that it applies the same to a Leaf of the future with chemistry D 48KW pack.

Heat will still be the number 1 enemy but we don't know how much of the country will be in the advanced degradation zone for a battery pack that doesn't exist yet. I'm just saying we should at least entertain the possibility that for a some portion of the country a larger battery pack could make degradation due to heat a non issue.

LTLFTcomposite said:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12554189/1/nissan-to-extend-electric-car-leadership-with-135-mile-leaf.html

Is this substantiated in any way? $4k price increase seems like a detail not just pulled from thin air.

Click to expand...

This story is a perfect example of someone "typing themself smart" as expounded by EVTV's Jack Rickard. Take half a dozen meaningless comments from executives of car companies that aren't producing anything even near the price/performance of LEAF, much less mythical 200 mile cars in that price range. Assume they're all true, and then type "what only makes sense" thereby.

Yes, all that vaporware is really giving Nissan and their REAL EV a run for their money. :roll:

LTLFTcomposite said:

IMO the 6kw charger would be plenty; we could even get by with the 3.3kw. For most people this isn't about driving 135 miles every day.

The chademo sure would start to look a lot more interesting at that capacity level though. With a few more stations built out regional road trips could become reasonably practical instead of some sort of exercise in inconveniencing yourself.

Click to expand...

Hah! Well put, sir!

Berlino said:

dhanson865 said:

Looking at that quote I'd be thinking the charger has to be at least 10KW for a 48KW battery.

Click to expand...

Many areas have few public L2 charging stations capable of pumping out > 7.2kW. Sure, you can install whatever you want at home, but you don't need 17kW to recharge overnight.

I think there's a diminishing return for on-board L2 chargers > 7.2kW.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I'd have to agree. Anyone know what percentage of EVSEs out in the wild can actually support more than 30-32A? I would think the Tesla or RAV4 folks would track this somewhere.

so what would people prefer?

a 50% increase in range for $3,000 or a 25% increase for nothing?

i take the latter as would the majority. most people are happy with the LEAFs range, degradation included.

yes, I know a handful (including me) who needs more range. right now, i am good. with careful driving and decent weather, i can approach 90 miles. more than good enough. but that will only last till the end of this coming Summer most likely. then it will be enough, then next year it will be a small compromise and the next year, yada yada.

so what i need is something that gets me to just enough in 5 years. so hence the 25 % increase.

what i do know is that most people I run into would rather see a cheaper LEAF. the S is essentially a masterstroke in marketing. it gathers a higher percentage of model sales than any other car.

look at a Focus. it comes in 4 trims. the next to highest trim is the most popular along with the mid trim accounting for 80 % of sales. the base model accounts for less than 25 % of the top trim line.

so the S trim popularity should tell Nissan something and it probably aint saying "lets jack up the price for more range"

DaveinOlyWA said:

most people are happy with the LEAFs range, degradation included.

Click to expand...

Perhaps those that live in the Pacific Northeast are happy with range, degradation included, but those of us in the rest of the country... not so much. That is actually the only significant thing that makes me unhappy about the Leaf.

DaveinOlyWA said:

a 50% increase in range for $3,000 or a 25% increase for nothing?

Click to expand...

Why not have it optional? BTW I would take the 100% increase for $5,000.

Range is the issue. Look at all the evse power adapters, need charging at work, cold weather issues, GOM complaints, lack of infrastructure complaints. Increased range solves these issues. I would guess more than half the discussion on the board is about range.

If range is an issue you should buy a prius. All the ugly, more range.

smkettner said:

DaveinOlyWA said:

a 50% increase in range for $3,000 or a 25% increase for nothing?

Click to expand...

Why not have it optional? BTW I would take the 100% increase for $5,000.

Range is the issue. Look at all the evse power adapters, need charging at work, cold weather issues, GOM complaints, lack of infrastructure complaints. Increased range solves these issues. I would guess more than half the discussion on the board is about range.

Click to expand...

I am curious if there was little to no battery degradation and the range was doubled you would not pay $10K more? I say that because if the purchase price for a Leaf was around $40K, and you had roughly $10k in rebates you would be getting an electric car with 200 mile range for $30K, and in my opinion the Leaf is a pretty nice car in ride, capacity, handling, features for that price point.

Might be interesting to put up a survey to see what people would be willing to pay for 25% more range, 50% more range or 100% more range. Whereas the cost is more or less linear I doubt the amount people are willing to pay is...