Cutting it close too often. Merry Xmas !

[TonyWilliams]

Even for the slowest 50 mph trip, it was determined through Carwings that the average was only 3.1 miles/kWh, not 4.8 . So, what I am saying is that the other factors - the uphill and the heater - trump the speed in terms of energy consumption with the Leaf.

Well, they don't trump, but merely reduce economy from the benchmarks. If you started and ended at about the same SF Bay Area elevation and drove 50mph with the heater off, you would have gotten an economy of about 4.8 without the heater. For instance, going up to Livermore and back won't kill the economy like the heater will.

There are far too many bits in this report for me to get a good handle on exactly what went on. If your 50mph portion of the trip were up hill, obviously that would account for 3.1 (plus the heater).

I don't use CarWings, nor are my suggestions in any way based on CarWings or the GOM. Honestly, we can figure these things out quite closely with good data (not from the GOM or CarWings), and have been doing it for some time.

The Range Chart has all the fundamental data that will affect range in a LEAF.

 

[madbrain]

When it's in the single digits here my heater uses around 3kw to maintain the cabin on auto. San Jose isn't that cold so you should use less. The difference between the 4.8 you should have seen and the 3.1 you saw indicates a very high heater draw. Is it so hilly that the hills explain away the difference? Or perhaps your heat is on max because of the defog instead of auto?

For example my commute is 60-65 mph and 3kw heater and I average 3.1m/kwh.

Well, it gets into the single digits in San Jose - in Celsius that is, which is how my dash is configured to show the temp .
Yes apparently the heat goes to max as soon as defogger is on. That is a major issue as it really shouldn't need to be.

The uphill is a major issue for sure. I have discussed it in other threads before.

 

[madbrain]

If you started and ended at about the same SF Bay Area elevation and drove 50mph with the heater off, you would have gotten an economy of about 4.8 without the heater.

That is simply not true - starting and ending at the same elevation really doesn't predict much. The extra amount of energy used to go uphill is much more than what's comparatively saved or regenerated when going downhill.
It's the amount of uphill that matters. I could most likely go downhill 0.5 mile from my house and back up about 15 times at 20mph speed with no heat, I will completely deplete my Leaf battery.
The only reason I have not tried it yet is because my L2 is still not installed and it would take too long to replenish just for this exercise. I need a more reliable electrician, sigh. But it is the holidays, hopefully it will be done soon after the new year.

Or I may do it a couple times from full charge and put my Kill-a-watt on the EVSE ...

For instance, going up to Livermore and back won't kill the economy like the heater will.

I don't think I would dare going there in my Leaf. Depending on the route it could be an 80 mile roundtrip from my place to the city center. Forget hills and heat, this is just beyond the Leaf's range.

There are far too many bits in this report for me to get a good handle on exactly what went on. If your 50mph portion of the trip were up hill, obviously that would account for 3.1 (plus the heater).

Too many bits ? Am I to understand that I have provided too much information and confused you ?
No, the 50 mph portion was not uphill, mostly flat freeway. CA-87 and I280/680.

I don't use CarWings, nor are my suggestions in any way based on CarWings or the GOM. Honestly, we can figure these things out quite closely with good data (not from the GOM or CarWings), and have been doing it for some time.

Agree with you on the GOM since it's based on predictive future driving conditions such as speed, use of heat, and elevation, which is impossible to do.
However, I don't have anything more reliable than Carwings to record actual energy consumption. I always try to top off the car either at work or at home.
The Nissan EVSE charger doesn't give me any info about the amount of recharged energy, nor does the Avcon charger at the office.
The data from the car, ie. Carwings, is the best I have.

The Range Chart has all the fundamental data that will affect range in a LEAF.

No, it simply does not. Speed and initial state of battery are the only factors considered in that chart.

Just one example - that one 4.1 miles roundtrip from home to the grocery and back at a peak speed of 35 mph had a 2.3 miles/kWh average on carwings. Starting and ending elevation was exactly the same.

According to your chart, with a speed of 35 mph, I should have gotten 6.3 miles/kWh. Carwings may not have 100% accuracy, but it's definitely not off by a factor of 3 .

For most of that roundtrip, the speed was actually well below 35mph. Your chart doesn't even go below 35mph. But if it did, it would predict even higher miles/kWh than 6.3 .

The difference between 2.3 and 6.3 miles/kWh is huge. I believe this difference is explained by the combination of hills and heat.

Unfortunately, your chart also does not account for the heater and defogger being on. And other factors like acceleration also play a factor. In residential areas the number of stop/red lights will play a factor too.

I'm not saying your chart is not useful - I am grateful for the data collected.

But no simple 2-dimensional table can fit all situations.

Unfortunately, uphill is part of half my trips. And in the winter, heat is part of 2/3 of them. And since these factors appear to account for 70% of the energy usage in some of my trips, it makes your chart less than useful to me.

It would take a more complex algorithm than a 2D table to get a more accurate estimate of the energy usage based on all these other factors.

 

[Nubo]

Just one example - that one 4.1 miles roundtrip from home to the grocery and back at a peak speed of 35 mph had a 2.3 miles/kWh average on carwings. Starting and ending elevation was exactly the same.

According to your chart, with a speed of 35 mph, I should have gotten 6.3 miles/kWh.

With short trips, you will experience a disproportionate effect from heater usage. Warming up a cold car can use a lot more energy than maintaining a set temperature on a longer trip.

First the heater element has to heat up the fluid reservoir, then the cold cabin, then the cold-soaked materials in the cabin. Then you park after your short trip and that heat energy in the reservoir, cabin, and materials is bled away while the car sits, and has to be replenished again on the short trip back.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

Thanks for posting! I think I would have picked the Prius for this trip. Hopefully you will get L2 charging at your home soon! You will also be able to preheat quicker at L2, which will help you start out warm and fuzzy! We have hills in Kentucky, and much colder temps. We made a 68 mile rt on the interstate a couple weeks ago (ironically to pick up a fuel card at a Pilot truck stop for a gift) and ended up with VLBW about a mile from the house. Nothing like zooming down the interstate to sap that battery Have you checked tire pressure? It will drop a little in cold temps. Owning a Prius, I'm guessing you have mastered what my wife calls "playing the game", you know, drive the car like you are riding a bike. Coast when you can, use the brakes lightly and other tricks to squeeze more MPG out of the Prius. Same tricks get you further down the road in the Leaf. This isn't really necessary when you have 12 bars and need to drive 10 miles, but if you have 10 bars and need to go 50, time to think about how & where you drive. I know that holding up traffic in California by driving in "range extending" mode runs the risk of upsetting other folks on the road. Risking running out of juice at 2am in a large city, that takes guts! Cudos to your employer for allowing you to plug in at work.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If you started and ended at about the same SF Bay Area elevation and drove 50mph with the heater off, you would have gotten an economy of about 4.8 without the heater.

That is simply not true - starting and ending at the same elevation really doesn't predict much. The extra amount of energy used to go uphill is much more than what's comparatively saved or regenerated when going downhill.

I'm not comparing a drive to Lake Tahoe elevations after cresting a 12,000 feet Colorado summit. I'm making a comparison to an elevation change between Livermore and San Jose (as a typical Bay Area drive that YOU might make in your LEAF). Livermore airport is 400 feet elevation, San Jose airport is near sea level. That drive, round trip in EITHER direction won't appreciably change the economy compared to what a heater can do.
.
You are correct in your assertion; more power is used going up hill than gained going down hill (which is also in the range chart). But, your application is skewed. The difference in economy of driving 50mph on a perfectly level road and the same road trip distance at 50 mph from San Jose to Livermore is negligible compared to what the heater can do. (clearly you dispute that). There just aren't any high elevation mountain passes to get to Livermore, and not enough elevation changes for big impacts.

Yes, if you started from San Jose with a reset economy dash gauge, you might get 4.4miles/kWh at 50mph with the heater off. Then, on the return, once again resetting the economy meter, you might get 5.0 miles/kWh. On level ground at 50mph it would have been 4.8 miles/kWh, while the equidistant average of your SJC-LVK jaunt is 4.6 miles/kWh. The difference in economy between the two is about 4% (between a level road at 50mph with no heater compared to the same parameters on a round trip of SJC-LVK-SJC). Hopefully, this makes sense.

The difference in economy using the heater, however, is potentially HUGE in comparison. Since I don't know how many kWh your burned heating the cabin, it's not unusual for a 30% loss of economy. The loss of economy going to LVK is tiny in comparison to a level road.

It's the amount of uphill that matters.

Hence my example to Livermore. Given your examples with exceptional short (half mile) tests would be difficult. I don't drive in half mile spurts, or plan that way. That data would have no meaningful use to me, or the average driver.

For instance, going up to Livermore and back won't kill the economy like the heater will.

I don't think I would dare going there in my Leaf. Depending on the route it could be an 80 mile roundtrip from my place to the city center. Forget hills and heat, this is just beyond the Leaf's range.

Well, again, you may dispute this, but having done many trips in a LEAF well over 80 miles, yes, the LEAF physically can do it. Thats in the range chart, too. If its not comfortable for you, obviously don't do it. You would have to be able to accurately calculate the energy in the battery, and forecast the consumption. The tools are out there for you to do this.

The available energy is most easily calculated with a Gidmeter. You may not have that, but there are other ways. Predominately, the amount of charge (by counting the crude delineation 12 fuel bars or referencing the Low Battery or Very Low Battery warnings), the amount of degradation, and the losses from cold temperatures on the battery will determine your available kWh's. All this assumes an otherwise proper working battery.

Economy is nothing more than the reading from the dash since its last reset. If you want accurate information for a particular trip, you need to reset the economy gauge first. The economy data will reflect the heater use, also.

Then, total range is nothing more than:

Available kWh * Economy Miles/kWh = Range in miles

The Range Chart has all the fundamental data that will affect range in a LEAF.

No, it simply does not. Speed and initial state of battery are the only factors considered in that chart.

I don't think you are actually looking at the same chart that I'm referring to. If you only looked at speed and full bars as the whole chart, yes, you would have difficulty with accurate predictions. There are Apple and Android apps that use the range chart for their base data that may be easier for you to understand all the parameters. They can import routes, elevations and mileage from Google, as well as ambient temperatures.

Just one example - that one 4.1 miles roundtrip from home to the grocery and back at a peak speed of 35 mph had a 2.3 miles/kWh average on carwings. Starting and ending elevation was exactly the same.

Problem number one. The base chart data is not "peak" speed. It is steady speed (XX mph EXACTLY -or- X.X miles/kWh) at defined parameters. If you are not at that speed in those parameters, then you must use the economy * available kWh to determine range. It's really not that hard. The speed will only match the economy in the prescribed parameters (level, dry, heater off, no wind, windows up, etc).

Again, the chart is SPECIFICALLY notated that it does NOT use CarWings or GOM data. Certainly, you're welcome to use any data you want, but I guarantee that there won't be accurate information when you are doing exactly what is stated not to do.

According to your chart, with a speed of 35 mph, I should have gotten 6.3 miles/kWh. Carwings may not have 100% accuracy, but it's definitely not off by a factor of 3

Hopefully, the above clears this up.

For most of that roundtrip, the speed was actually well below 35mph. Your chart doesn't even go below 35mph. But if it did, it would predict even higher miles/kWh than 6.3 .

If you looked at the chart, you would see that it economy increases all the way to about 12mph. Nobody is driving the car with economy above 6, so making the chart speeds lower would be foolish.

The difference between 2.3 and 6.3 miles/kWh is huge. I believe this difference is explained by the combination of hills and heat.

I hope I'm helping you understand why, but I sense you are just finding reasons why the range chart is wrong.

Unfortunately, your chart also does not account for the heater and defogger being on. And other factors like acceleration also play a factor. In residential areas the number of stop/red lights will play a factor too.

Yes, heater is the NUMBER TWO killer of range, right behind speed. I cannot accurately determine how many kWh's that you might use. Only you can. There is a note to help you determine that (in the range chart).

It would take a more complex algorithm than a 2D table to get a more accurate estimate of the energy usage based on all these other factors.

Every major factor to range of the LEAF is represented on the chart. That includes elevation, ambient heat, elevation (to consider density altitude), heater power consumption, wind, uphill / downhill, etc. Things that are impossible to define with an absolute like snow, rain, etc are mentioned, but not defined. Those last issues can also have gigantic impacts on range, but again, impossible to absolutely define.

 

[planet4ever]

I'm making a comparison to an elevation change between Livermore and San Jose (as a typical Bay Area drive that YOU might make in your LEAF). Livermore airport is 400 feet elevation, San Jose airport is near sea level. That drive, round trip in EITHER direction won't appreciably change the economy compared to what a heater can do.

Actually, Tony, it not quite as simple as you make it sound. madbrain hasn't told us exactly where he lives, nor do I think he should, but he has said he has a steep hill to get up to his house. Just as a possible case (almost certainly not true), let's say he lives in that subdivision up Suncrest Avenue on the east side of San Jose. Perhaps he might be near the end of Perie Lane. I asked Google Earth to map me a route from there to Livermore, and show me an elevation chart. Here it is:

Not quite the 400 foot elevation change you were thinking of, is it? (In case Bay Area folks are wondering, the first big hump is the infamous Sunol grade, but Google routed me by 84, not 580, which explains the second hump. It's much shorter that way, and definitely the correct choice for the LEAF.) However, I will say in your defense, Tony, that even with all of those elevation changes the heater use will still be a very important factor. It may not dominate completely, but it is important enough that even though the route Google chose is only 59 miles round trip, I would be willing to make it in the summer but not in the winter.

Ray

 

[madbrain]

Nubo,

Just one example - that one 4.1 miles roundtrip from home to the grocery and back at a peak speed of 35 mph had a 2.3 miles/kWh average on carwings. Starting and ending elevation was exactly the same.

According to your chart, with a speed of 35 mph, I should have gotten 6.3 miles/kWh.

With short trips, you will experience a disproportionate effect from heater usage. Warming up a cold car can use a lot more energy than maintaining a set temperature on a longer trip.

First the heater element has to heat up the fluid reservoir, then the cold cabin, then the cold-soaked materials in the cabin. Then you park after your short trip and that heat energy in the reservoir, cabin, and materials is bled away while the car sits, and has to be replenished again on the short trip back.

Right, that makes sense. The car wasn't really cold when leaving since it was parked in the garage at home. But it did cool down in the open parking lot at Safeway during the 20 minutes or so that we were in the store.

 

[madbrain]

Thanks for posting! I think I would have picked the Prius for this trip.

Right - so would I, if I had known ahead of time we were going to a movie.

Hopefully you will get L2 charging at your home soon!

Definitely hope so too.

Have you checked tire pressure? It will drop a little in cold temps.

I have not checked it, no. The car is 2 months old. This may be time to check it now.

Owning a Prius, I'm guessing you have mastered what my wife calls "playing the game", you know, drive the car like you are riding a bike. Coast when you can, use the brakes lightly and other tricks to squeeze more MPG out of the Prius. Same tricks get you further down the road in the Leaf.

Yes, in fact my first car ever was a 2001 Prius. I know all the tricks about coasting and downhill and brake usage with the Prius.

When I moved to the hilly area 2 years ago with the 26 mile daily commute that includes 18 miles of freeway, I ended getting higher average MPG with my 2007 Prius than I did previously in my 8 mile commute on flat city streets. And that was driving mostly 70-75 mph on the freeway, not 65 that I drive with the Leaf now. The Prius average mileage really wasn't affected that much by the last half mile stretch. My Prius always got better mileage on freeways than city streets somehow, quite contrary to what the EPA says.

Unfortunately, it just seems to me that all these tricks just don't work with my Leaf.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm making a comparison to an elevation change between Livermore and San Jose (as a typical Bay Area drive that YOU might make in your LEAF). Livermore airport is 400 feet elevation, San Jose airport is near sea level. That drive, round trip in EITHER direction won't appreciably change the economy compared to what a heater can do.

Actually, Tony, it not quite as simple as you make it...
Not quite the 400 foot elevation change you were thinking of, is it?
Ray

Ray, I lived in Fremont for 10 years. I'm quite knowledgeable about Bay Area topography, and yes, it's not flat to Livermore. It's also not a major impact on round trip economy as I suggested earlier.

 

[madbrain]

I'm not comparing a drive to Lake Tahoe elevations after cresting a 12,000 feet Colorado summit. I'm making a comparison to an elevation change between Livermore and San Jose (as a typical Bay Area drive that YOU might make in your LEAF). Livermore airport is 400 feet elevation, San Jose airport is near sea level. That drive, round trip in EITHER direction won't appreciably change the economy compared to what a heater can do.

Again, the net elevation difference between 2 points is not what matters. The total amount of uphill is what matters.

You are correct in your assertion; more power is used going up hill than gained going down hill (which is also in the range chart).

The elevation is not accounted for in the chart. It's accounted for in a footnote. That is not the same thing.
I believe it's not accounted for accurately, also.

But, your application is skewed. The difference in economy of driving 50mph on a perfectly level road and the same road trip distance at 50 mph from San Jose to Livermore is negligible compared to what the heater can do. (clearly you dispute that).

Yes, I dispute it.

Yes, if you started from San Jose with a reset economy dash gauge, you might get 4.4miles/kWh at 50mph with the heater off. Then, on the return, once again resetting the economy meter, you might get 5.0 miles/kWh. On level ground at 50mph it would have been 4.8 miles/kWh, while the equidistant average of your SJC-LVK jaunt is 4.6 miles/kWh. The difference in economy between the two is about 4% (between a level road at 50mph with no heater compared to the same parameters on a round trip of SJC-LVK-SJC). Hopefully, this makes sense.

I haven't been resetting the trip meters lately, I just look at Carwings daily. As far as I know, it's the same data that the car records.
I seldom have any days above 4 miles/kWh even though I have not been exceeding 65 mph the entire month.

The difference in economy using the heater, however, is potentially HUGE in comparison. Since I don't know how many kWh your burned heating the cabin, it's not unusual for a 30% loss of economy. The loss of economy going to LVK is tiny in comparison to a level road.

I can't tell either how much of the energy was spent between heater and other things. I can only see the aggregate.

Hence my example to Livermore. Given your examples with exceptional short (half mile) tests would be difficult. I don't drive in half mile spurts, or plan that way. That data would have no meaningful use to me, or the average driver.

I agree, to the average driver it wouldn't. But to the person who does that drive every day, sometimes multiple times a day, that has a huge impact.

I think you will agree however that not many trips are constant speed on flat roads without stopping. Most trips are composed of multiple segments, some of different speeds, some flat, some not.
The range chart can only apply to one individual segment. My problem is that when some segments average 2.3 mph like in my case, it really throws the average, and those small segments cannot be ignored, lest one wants to be stranded.

The available energy is most easily calculated with a Gidmeter. You may not have that, but there are other ways. Predominately, the amount of charge (by counting the crude as the fuel bars or referencing the Low Battery or Very Low Battery warnings), the amount of degradation, and the losses from cold temperatures on the battery will determine your available kWh's. all this assumes an otherwise proper working battery.

I have relying mainly on fuel bars to figure out how much energy I have left. Though I know the first fuel bar may not be a "full" bar due to potential degradation.

Then, total range is nothing more than:
Available kWh * Economy Miles/kWh = Range in miles

Nowhere does the elevation, heater, acceleration, appear in this simplistic formula.

I don't think you are actually looking at the same chart that I'm referring to. If you only looked at speed and full bars as the whole chart, yes, you would have difficulty with accurate predictions.

I see the footnotes, but the parameters other than speed and fuel bars are not in the chart itself.

There are Apple and Android apps that use the range chart for their base data that may be easier for you to understand all the parameters. They can import routes, elevations and mileage from Google, as well as ambient temperatures.

Yes, I would be very interested in this, in particular to run it on those routes I drove.

Just one example - that one 4.1 miles roundtrip from home to the grocery and back at a peak speed of 35 mph had a 2.3 miles/kWh average on carwings. Starting and ending elevation was exactly the same.

Problem number one. The base chart data is not "peak" speed. It is steady speed (XX mph EXACTLY -or- X.X miles/kWh) at defined parameters. If you are not at that speed in those parameters, then you must use the economy * available kWh to determine range. It's really not that hard. The speed will only match the economy in the prescribed parameters (level, dry, heater off, no wind, windows up, etc).

What I am saying is that your chart is not predicting the actual economy. It's predicting 6.3 miles/kWh (or better) but actual is 2.3 miles/kWh.
Your chart only takes speed into account to calculate the economy, and nothing else.

Again, the chart is SPECIFICALLY notated that it does NOT use CarWings or GOM data. Certainly, you're welcome to use any data you want, but I guarantee that there won't be accurate information when you are doing exactly what is stated not to do.

What makes you think Carwings is reporting improper economy ?
GOM I understand as it's a predictive number about future driving.
But Carwings records data on actual driving. So why would it be inaccurate ?

According to your chart, with a speed of 35 mph, I should have gotten 6.3 miles/kWh. Carwings may not have 100% accuracy, but it's definitely not off by a factor of 3

Hopefully, the above clears this up.

Not really.

For most of that roundtrip, the speed was actually well below 35mph. Your chart doesn't even go below 35mph. But if it did, it would predict even higher miles/kWh than 6.3 .

If you looked at the chart, you would see that it economy increases all the way to about 12mph. Nobody is driving the car with economy above 6, so making the chart speeds lower would be foolish.

I am looking at the chart but I don't see 12mph anywhere in it.

The difference between 2.3 and 6.3 miles/kWh is huge. I believe this difference is explained by the combination of hills and heat.

I hope I'm helping you understand why, but I sense you are just finding reasons why the range chart is wrong.

I am not finding reasons the range chart is wrong. It's probably right for what it tries to figure out. I am only saying the chart doesn't take enough parameters into account to predict the actual economy for most of the driving I do.

Yes, heater is the NUMBER TWO killer of range, right behind speed. I cannot accurately determine how many kWh's that you might use. Only you can. There is a note to help you determine that (in the range chart).

Yes, I have seen the note, but it's hard to subtract fractional fuel bars on short trips. And I can assure you I am seeing impact of entire fuel bars for the heater.
Just last saturday I had a 17 mile trip with the heater and uphill that took 5 entire fuel bars from full charge. There was only 8 miles of freeway, and not once did I exceed 65mph on it.
How do you explain that ?

That was driving from Fry's electronics on East Arques in sunnyvale where I fully charged on L2 with my Avcon adapter, then taking 101 S to 87 S to downtown San Jose to drop off a friend, then driving home on city streets - Santa Clara St to Alum Rock ave, and a little uphill from there.

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
I haven't followed this thread in detail but the lack of granularity of the fuel bars is why people have gidmeters or use a try to use a proxy for it like http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=7079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Not sure if you're using the latter...

 

[madbrain]

I'm making a comparison to an elevation change between Livermore and San Jose (as a typical Bay Area drive that YOU might make in your LEAF). Livermore airport is 400 feet elevation, San Jose airport is near sea level. That drive, round trip in EITHER direction won't appreciably change the economy compared to what a heater can do.

Actually, Tony, it not quite as simple as you make it sound. madbrain hasn't told us exactly where he lives, nor do I think he should, but he has said he has a steep hill to get up to his house. Just as a possible case (almost certainly not true), let's say he lives in that subdivision up Suncrest Avenue on the east side of San Jose. Perhaps he might be near the end of Perie Lane. I asked Google Earth to map me a route from there to Livermore, and show me an elevation chart. Here it is:

Not quite the 400 foot elevation change you were thinking of, is it? (In case Bay Area folks are wondering, the first big hump is the infamous Sunol grade, but Google routed me by 84, not 580, which explains the second hump. It's much shorter that way, and definitely the correct choice for the LEAF.) However, I will say in your defense, Tony, that even with all of those elevation changes the heater use will still be a very important factor. It may not dominate completely, but it is important enough that even though the route Google chose is only 59 miles round trip, I would be willing to make it in the summer but not in the winter.

Ray

Thanks, Ray !

I don't have google earth so I can't get that chart. The closest freeway to my location is 680, exit Alum Rock ave. But I'm about 3 miles east from there, in the east SJ hills. There is about 600 ft of elevation from the freeway exit to my home, most of it in the last half mile.

When I use google maps from my home, the shortest one way trip is 32 miles using 680 N.
Next is 680 and 880 at 36 miles.
Next is 680 and 580 at 40 miles.
Google maps isn't giving me the elevation differentials or totals.

I don't think I would be comfortable taking any of those routes in winter time. Maybe the shortest route in summer time.
I will say however that I have never had reason to stop in Livermore in 16 years living in the bay area, though, so if I don't go to Livermore, it won't just be because of the Leaf's range.

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
Google Earth is a free download: http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[madbrain]

Tony,

Ray, I lived in Fremont for 10 years. I'm quite knowledgeable about Bay Area topography, and yes, it's not flat to Livermore. It's also not a major impact on round trip economy as I suggested earlier.

Have you driven the Leaf in the Bay Area ?

 

[surfingslovak]

It's hilly in and around San Diego too, but the climate is likely a bit more temperate (in both directions). Sounds like in your case, the availability of a reliable quick charger in South Bay would help?

 

[madbrain]

It's hilly in and around San Diego too, but the climate is likely a bit more temperate (in both directions). Sounds like in your case, the availability of a reliable quick charger in South Bay would help?

Well, there isn't any public charger, even L2 or L1, let alone DC, within about 5 miles of my home. So anything would be an improvement. I think the closest public L2 are in downtown SJ by city hall and I have never used them yet.

I doubt there will be a DC charger in a convenient location. Having some public DC or L2 east of 680/Alum Rock would help tremendously.
There is also only one gas station right at that exit and nothing else after, so the refueling situation is not just EV related.

 

[surfingslovak]

There is a station the at the Reid-Hillview Airport. Might want to check it out, could be handy in an emergency.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony,

Ray, I lived in Fremont for 10 years. I'm quite knowledgeable about Bay Area topography, and yes, it's not flat to Livermore. It's also not a major impact on round trip economy as I suggested earlier.

Have you driven the Leaf in the Bay Area ?

Yes, i did drive my LEAF there in June this year. I also have driven over 100 miles per charge, up steep hills (over 5000 feet is 50 miles from my house). I also drove it 1800 miles from Mexico to Canada over various terrain, and drove 375 miles in one day. 36,000 total LEAF miles and driven to turtle over 20 times.

If you're implying that my San Diego LEAF driving couldn't possibly give me insight to your driving, I disagree.

Your chart only takes speed into account to calculate the economy, and nothing else.

I skimmed this comment and your other comments to my last post to you, and honestly, I don't think I can help you further.

Best wishes with your LEAF.

 

[madbrain]

There is a station the at the Reid-Hillview Airport. Might want to check it out, could be handy in an emergency.

Yes, I am aware of it. That is 4.1 miles from the house. The reviews on plugshare say that it is designated for airport employees only.

Usually I drive home from Alum Rock Ave. Getting to this station would involve a few extra miles of southbound driving to get to it. It would be flat driving, though. I will check it out.