Volusiano said:
drees said:
Looking at the
EV Project data, it's scary how many people are charging between 9pm-12am (leaving 8 hours storage at "full")
I don't blame people for wanting to plug in right away after they get home and charge to 80% between 9pm-12am. They want their car to be ready at full 80% capacity as soon as possible to serve them whenever needed.
I can see the psychology behind this - but at least personally in over a year of LEAF ownership - there has been zero cases where I've needed to go out again after getting home. And even if I did (and I suspect the vast majority of other LEAF owners as well), I have another car should I need the range.
I do think that a multi-stage charge setting could be beneficial - something where you can program something like this:
1. Charge at least to 30% regardless of time (to maintain some reserve for emergencies).
2. Charge to 70% during super-off-peak hours (to minimize charging cost).
3. Top off battery by set time (to minimize time spent at high SOC).
Probably too complex for the typical owner (would also need to offer an "easy" mode), but I can guarantee you that people would use that feature if available once educated on the benefits.
Volusiano said:
After all, Nissan never said anything about doing that being bad for the battery. All Nissan recommends is 80% charge and you can't blame people for doing things Nissan never said is bad for the battery.
Nissan specifically stated that one shouldn't charge again until SOC is below 80% and that one should let the pack cool before charging. It is too bad that they didn't also say that delaying charge until closer to expected departure time can also be very beneficial. But still - what about the 50%+ EV project owners in AZ charging to 100%?
Volusiano said:
I, for one, would not have become an early adopter if Nissan has disclosed all this stuff about waiting for the battery to cool down before charging, or that 80% charge stored all night long is bad, etc. There's a balance before too many charging requirements becomes a nuisance and not worth using. After all, people buy the car to serve them, not the other way around.
This was all disclosed before one received their car. But perhaps not quite as prominent as it should have been.
KJD said:
I seriously doubt Nissan withheld any information on purpose. It appears their testing for AZ was flawed. Lets see if they can find the problem and fix it. This will not be fixed overnight, it will take some time.
Something definitely going on... I really can't imagine that Nissan would sell a car where the typical car is expected to lose 20-30% capacity in 2-3 years instead of the 5-10 years that they have claimed.
DaveinOlyWA said:
we need waaaay more information about this chart. originally i was happy to see it, but now i realize it is causing more grief than it is worth.
i do not think the temperatures on this graph can be correlated to the LEAF pack.
It can be correlated, (all lithium chemistries are affected similarly to temperature, just in different degrees) but it should only be used as a relative measure of how temperature and SOC can accelerate degradation.
LEAFfan said:
pchilds said:
First 100% charge with my new LeafCan meter, 89% GID 250, not a big surprise. Will my Leaf be the second California Leaf to lose a bar?
You have about 9% more to lose before you lose your first bar.
Yep, still quite a ways before you lose a bar. I suspect that after 1 year in southern california, GID readings of 250-260 is fairly typical. I really need to get a GID meter, but my seat-of-the-pants estimate based on other data puts it in that ballpark.