cwerdna
Well-known member
+100MrIanB said:Guys, this is not a political forum, it is about the Nissan Leaf.
Please stay on topic for everyone's sake.
+100MrIanB said:Guys, this is not a political forum, it is about the Nissan Leaf.
Please stay on topic for everyone's sake.
You make a very good point. However, in fact it would be the EV drivers who subsidize the ICE drivers. Take the billions in subsidies to the oil companies, then add a good portion of the budget for the Department of Defense which is devoted to keeping the oil flowing, and, viola, you have the reason why all of us hard working EV drivers are tired of giving people like you free cheap oil. I think the estimates are that if you take out the subsidies gas would cost $10/gallon.theaveng said:No the real question is: Why am I being forced to fund refueling stations along I-5? Gas stations are privately-owned. The electric stations should be as well.
...
I don't expect taxpayers to give me free gasoline in my insight just because it has a battery in it, and nor should I have to fund their joyride in the Nissan "dying battery" vehicle. I'm tired of busting my butt to earn money & then have it used to give other people free or cheap stuff.
SanDust said:I think surfingslovak would make a fabulous advisory board member. Tony Williams of course would as well, though he may be a little too hot for Nissan to handle.
The DoD subsidizes the military corporations (Lockheed, Northrop, etc) and politicians ego ("I fought a war and won... vote for me"). Not oil companies. I'm curious what subsidies you think oil companies receive? i.e. What direct cash payments do they get?SanDust said:You make a very good point. However, in fact it would be the EV drivers who subsidize the ICE drivers. Take the billions in subsidies to the oil companies
SanDust said:You make a very good point. However, in fact it would be the EV drivers who subsidize the ICE drivers. Take the billions in subsidies to the oil companies, then add a good portion of the budget for the Department of Defense which is devoted to keeping the oil flowing, and, viola, you have the reason why all of us hard working EV drivers are tired of giving people like you free cheap oil. I think the estimates are that if you take out the subsidies gas would cost $10/gallon.theaveng said:No the real question is: Why am I being forced to fund refueling stations along I-5? Gas stations are privately-owned. The electric stations should be as well.
...
I don't expect taxpayers to give me free gasoline in my insight just because it has a battery in it, and nor should I have to fund their joyride in the Nissan "dying battery" vehicle. I'm tired of busting my butt to earn money & then have it used to give other people free or cheap stuff.
If you want to burn it you can at least pay for it!
gsleaf said:Agreed. I second that notion as well. Phil is amazing. He is exactly the type of person you would want on the advisory board.
Yanquetino said:Chelsea: I would like to enthusiastically nominate to serve on your advisory board... Phil Sadow, aka "Ingineer," the talented visionary who has enhanced so many of our Leafs with his 240V cordset upgrade, his control-your-heater modification, and hopefully someday his turbo "long ranger” trailer.
His intelligence, knowledge, and skills are unassailable, his commitment to the Leaf in particular and the EV movement in general is unwaivering, and... he is a genuinely thoughtful, helpful, friendly, open person.
I'm sure others will second my motion without hesitation.
vrwl said:So basically, if you aren't one of the seven identified owners, you're screwed. No acknowledgement of other owners with problems in TX, CA, FL and no proposed ensured satisfaction for anyone OTHER than the seven referenced owners. That's really unacceptable.
ILETRIC said:There really should be no capacity losses in temperate climates after 10,000 or so miles.
I have been advocating it for a while now. I have 26,500 miles in 15 months ownership and NO LOSS of bars or range. How did I do it?
I NEVER CHARGE 80%
The battery needs to be "stretched" to maintain its physical space. If you consistenly charge to 80% you are "shrinking" the battery and it loses its capacity as a result. This is unscientific, but I have the Leaf to prove it, folks.
thankyouOB said:The key precept in crisis communication and crisis management is get out in front of the problem.
GM did that when they offered their buy-back program.
Nissan is offering talk and vague promises of action.
We are still waiting for them to get out in front of the problem.
This is not a solution, as so many here point out.
I am concerned about resale, about availability of a upgrade or replacement battery in 5-8 years.
(This is all said by someone who has a car with 16k miles after 17 months of ownership and negligible deterioration of battery. I own and live in the optimum coastal CA climate and commute at most 12 miles from the coast.)
theaveng said:No the real question is: Why am I being forced to fund refueling stations along I-5? Gas stations are privately-owned. The electric stations should be as well.
The advisory group idea was actually not conceived to address the battery capacity issue, though since it was talked about in Carla's letter I understand why it would seem that way. I am also clearly interested in that discussion and seeing it resolved, but these are separate efforts. Because it will take a little time to get the advisory group together, I really hope it doesn't have to specifically address the capacity issue - at least in the sense of it still being an acute customer service concern. I realize the technical discussion and long-term approach will be ongoing, and it should.
Agreed. Perhaps we can get those OT posts in question moved to another thread? They have nothing to do w/the "open letter".EVDRIVER said:Everyone- we are getting many complaints of the off topic nature of this thread. Please stay on topic or post in another thread.
I highly doubt your assertions are correct based on everything I've read about li-ion batteries (e.g. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false and battery care recommendations from Toyota, Nissan and Tesla, along w/options they provide.ILETRIC said:There really should be no capacity losses in temperate climates after 10,000 or so miles.
I have been advocating it for a while now. I have 26,500 miles in 15 months ownership and NO LOSS of bars or range. How did I do it?
I NEVER CHARGE 80%
The battery needs to be "stretched" to maintain its physical space. If you consistenly charge to 80% you are "shrinking" the battery and it loses its capacity as a result. This is unscientific, but I have the Leaf to prove it, folks.
In regards to ambient temperature, please consider that the term "coastal microclimate" might not always mean the same thing. Depending on the latitude, the amount of solar loading can vary. Likewise, perhaps we can agree that the mild San Diego can have a slightly higher effective annual ambient temperature when compared to some places on the San Francisco Peninsula. The number of reported capacity bar losses in SoCal versus the SF Bay Area would seem to confirm this.ILETRIC said:@cwerdna: Read my missive.
I said, It should not be happening in temperate climates, but it is. And most of those who lose capacity say, "I always charge to 80%" as this is supposed to prevent the battery capacity loss. I have seen it written too many times in this blog. They are "nice" to their batteries. To what end? They lost a bar.
Enter your email address to join: