Below, in my opinion, is an accurate short summary of the test results, and significant conclusions, based on the partial release of test data:
After selecting LEAFs nationwide, whose drivers believed them to have some of the largest range losses, a recent range test in Phoenix showed less than the range loss as had been expected, by relying on what the test showed were inaccurate capacity bars displays, and "gid" counts.
One outlier on the low side got only 59.3 miles. The unknown conditions experienced by this LEAF during over 29,000 miles of use, make it impossible to determine if any factor or factors of use contributed to this car's relative under-performance.
While the other eleven of the twelve did all have close to the highway range (and many, even more) that Nissan had estimated for new LEAFs in its promotional materials, many, but not all, seemed to show a significant reduction from the higher "new" LEAF range, as estimated by another source, Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a.
There was large variability between the LEAFs individual ranges, of between 66.1 and 79.6 miles. Inadequate test protocols could only seem to explain a small part of the large range disparities, between all twelve cars.
We can now conclude, in all likelihood, that many or all LEAFs have a a significant flaw or flaws in their energy use reports, that make it difficult to determine with great precision what capacity or range loss has been experienced by any LEAF, either from new, or from an assumed standard range.
Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.
However, all data indicating accuracy or inaccuracy of all m/kWh reports from the test LEAFs, has so far been withheld, by the promoter of the range test.
Ed, we already know your opinion. Please give it a rest.
No, I don't think I will.
I wrote that summary above because of the deficiencies of Tony’s own effort. But I would appreciate your future comments, and those of any others, related to the accuracy of the summary that I posted above. My intent was to post a short and accurate summary of the most significant findings from the data reported from the range test. I’m sure it can be improved. I may have left out more important conclusions, made errors, in presentation or emphasis, and I could even have facts wrong. If so, I hope these errors will be pointed out, to me, so that they can be corrected.
Any substantive comment, of course requires you to review the data and much longer summary written by Tony, and posted on page one of this thread, and review that for accuracy. I think you will find it is significantly flawed, both in data presentation, and in the conclusions made. I wrote the alternate summary because of the significant deficiencies of Tony’s own effort, and my belief that all present and future LEAF drivers deserve an accurate presentation of the test results. Those who participated in the test, giving much effort , and some incurring significant expense and damage to their Leafs, even more so.
Much of the most important data (IMO) apparently was not collected during the test. Other data, which Tony has previously characterized as “bad”, is still being withheld by Tony, but is trickling out in the comments of others, or selectively released by Tony, as in the m/kWh results from one LEAF in his own comment, below.
I hope other test participants will also continue to post more of the “bad’ data, as well as continue to correct the factual data errors in Tony’s comments.
There is actually much more to write about many other interesting aspects of the test results, as some of the comments of others have shown.
I’m sure I will have a few more points to make myself, if no one else does first, (hopefully) after more complete data from the test becomes available.
TonyWilliams wrote: drees wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:Yes, we already know that an 84 mile car is missing from the data...
I'm not quite sure why there's fixation on a "84 miles" when the gauges in the car can't be relied upon. To assume that a new car should have gotten 84 miles on the range test would mean that you'd have to assume that the cars accurately reported 4.0 mi/kWh (which you've said we can't) and that 84 miles is typical for a new car (which Nissan has not claimed - they have only claimed a range of 76-84 miles is typical at an efficiency of 4.0 mi/kWh).
84 miles for a new car is probable. "Black782" would have banged that out 2-3 months ago, and did PLENTY of times on my BC2BC trip. I used Nissan's data of 84 miles because I didn't have a car in the test that did it. Like I've said several times now, if Nissan wants challenge that, I will be more than happy to find one or more new cars right here in SoCal to bang out 84 miles.
My car did show exactly 4.0 miles/kWh on the outbound leg, and 3.8 inbound (I reset at the halfway point, like I've outlined previously to determine wind effects). If you look at the wind chart for 0251Z, the wind was reported from the east at 6 knots. The inbound leg was east (except the last 6 miles that is north/south.
So, again (I've said this several times), my car's data hit the predictions very well. My average economy was 3.9, and this matched all the expectations before I ever turned the car on that morning. The only unexpected surprise was not having 100% available to start. But it did in the very recent past.
So, to Nissan 76-84 mile thing. Sure, they can argue all kinds of BS, but I went 76, so I guess that meets the normal range. But, sure, and also matched my economy by 0.1 miles/kWh. But, if you don't think a car will go 84 miles, then you are not believing Nissan's own data.
A new LEAF will do it, and Nissan publishes that it can do 84 at that 4 mile economy, which is the economy that my car did (within 0.1.. the center Nav screen would shown 4.0).