CNN Money stupidity

[malloryk]

and you guys are right, the est. miles are irrelevant and not a good indicator of actual range. What is relevant is the number of bars you have left. My dealer told this to me when I picked up the car, "ignore the number of miles because it changes so much, watch the bars instead."

 

[SkiTundra]

and you guys are right, the est. miles are irrelevant and not a good indicator of actual range. What is relevant is the number of bars you have left. My dealer told this to me when I picked up the car, "ignore the number of miles because it changes so much, watch the bars instead."

What you as a driver needs to know though IS how many more miles. Bars are meaningless unless you can convert them to miles in your head. Do I have enough to make it another 7 miles to my massage appointment and back home again? Fuel remaining was OK in the ICE world of 300 miles per tank, but a bit more dicey with a 60 or 70 mile range per tank.

 

[palmermd]

and you guys are right, the est. miles are irrelevant and not a good indicator of actual range. What is relevant is the number of bars you have left. My dealer told this to me when I picked up the car, "ignore the number of miles because it changes so much, watch the bars instead."

What you as a driver needs to know though IS how many more miles. Bars are meaningless unless you can convert them to miles in your head. Do I have enough to make it another 7 miles to my massage appointment and back home again? Fuel remaining was OK in the ICE world of 300 miles per tank, but a bit more dicey with a 60 or 70 mile range per tank.

ok then just use 6 miles per bar. EPA mixed use says 72 miles/charge and there are 12 bars. If you drive with a bit of a heavy foot or need lots of heat or air then use 5 miles per bar (60miles range). Either of these would be far better than the wildly jumping estimate that is currently displayed. If drivers were told to expect 6 miles per bar when the picked it up and then figured out that they could drive easy and get 10 miles per bar that would make them happy. It seems right now the display tracks your last two minutes of driving and gives an estimate. That estimate swings too fast. It is nice information to have, but it should be a secondary number for range and the primary should be far more steady. For example if I have 6 bars or 50% SOC my range should display 36 miles, and then there should be a swiging bargraph that shows my current consumption and whether I'm doing better than that estimate or worse. The drivers goal to maximize range would be to keep the bargraph above the estimate so you can extend the range. By doing so you will only lose a mile each 1.25-1.5 miles (or whatever depending on how your driving). This is only one way, there are hundreds of ways to display this information, but what we have right now is nonsense. Reporters are running with this nonsense and sensationalizing it. We should ask that Nissan make an update to improve the display, but in the meantime we should educate the drivers on how to use the SOC meter that is already there (as course as it is). The simple starting point would be to use 5-6 miles per bar.

 

[charlie1300]

This is the stupidest article about an electric car I've seen.

Fundamental criteria for buying or leasing an EV : You have the ability to charge it on a daily basis.

Fundamental premise of the author's story line: I'm going to drive it for three days and I have no ability to charge it.

So the result is predetermined. Plus the story says nothing about the Leaf as a car; handling, features, comfort, looks, ETC.
It's just manufactured range anxiety: ooh, I'm worried about running out of charge, ooh, my charge is getting low, ooh, my charge is almost gone! If this was an actual EV owner, he would have charged up three times over the weekend and would have never once been even close to running out of electrons.

My ICE car has a range of 350 miles on a tank of gas, per the maker. If I decided to fill up and drive it 350 miles without stopping at a gas station and write about it, would anyone find that interesting or informative? Listen to me express my anxiety about running out of gas as I drive past numerous gas stations? Really.

 

[Herm]

This message just the way it is should be posted at the top of the forum as a sticky..

and you guys are right, the est. miles are irrelevant and not a good indicator of actual range. What is relevant is the number of bars you have left. My dealer told this to me when I picked up the car, "ignore the number of miles because it changes so much, watch the bars instead."

What you as a driver needs to know though IS how many more miles. Bars are meaningless unless you can convert them to miles in your head. Do I have enough to make it another 7 miles to my massage appointment and back home again? Fuel remaining was OK in the ICE world of 300 miles per tank, but a bit more dicey with a 60 or 70 mile range per tank.

ok then just use 6 miles per bar. EPA mixed use says 72 miles/charge and there are 12 bars. If you drive with a bit of a heavy foot or need lots of heat or air then use 5 miles per bar (60miles range). Either of these would be far better than the wildly jumping estimate that is currently displayed. If drivers were told to expect 6 miles per bar when the picked it up and then figured out that they could drive easy and get 10 miles per bar that would make them happy. It seems right now the display tracks your last two minutes of driving and gives an estimate. That estimate swings too fast. It is nice information to have, but it should be a secondary number for range and the primary should be far more steady. For example if I have 6 bars or 50% SOC my range should display 36 miles, and then there should be a swiging bargraph that shows my current consumption and whether I'm doing better than that estimate or worse. The drivers goal to maximize range would be to keep the bargraph above the estimate so you can extend the range. By doing so you will only lose a mile each 1.25-1.5 miles (or whatever depending on how your driving). This is only one way, there are hundreds of ways to display this information, but what we have right now is nonsense. Reporters are running with this nonsense and sensationalizing it. We should ask that Nissan make an update to improve the display, but in the meantime we should educate the drivers on how to use the SOC meter that is already there (as course as it is). The simple starting point would be to use 5-6 miles per bar.

 

[planet4ever]

i have no doubts that the writer did not lie. but what did he conveniently fail to mention?

it takes only a glance at the gauge to determine whether the car was charged to 100% or 80%. in an article that discusses the terror of running out of motive power, i find it more than a bit strange that the gauge indicating charge was never mentioned once

What is obvious to you as a long time EV owner and someone who has had nearly three months experience driving the LEAF is not going to be at all obvious to a person who slips behind the wheel for the very first time. What the writer saw was a one big number and a bunch of bars surrounding it with with only vague pictorial hints as to what they represented. Frankly, the first time I saw a picture of the display I was convinced that the outer ring of bars, with the "gas" pump next to them and the bottom two bars red, had to be the "fuel" level. In fact it was weeks before it dawned on me that was not correct.

Obviously the writer would have realized within the first twenty miles of driving that the capacity bars were not dropping off, and the state of charge bars were. But by that time it would be too late to recall what he started out with.

Ray

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

sorry if i sound a bit stubborn, but there is nothing anyone can say to mitigate how i feel about the article. the writer is supposed to be a trained observer. they put in what their editor directs them to put in. i am sure he noticed the gauge. he simply omitted it or it was edited out.

 

[thankyouOB]

I blame the writer and Nissan for not giving him so training about the car.

at least, they could have a disclaimer that the driver ignored all instuctions.

 

[ggodman]

:evil: I'm sorry this was a complete failure on Nissan's part, perhaps the "Journalist" is biased/deluded/foolish but what the hell was Nissan thinking? As Homer would say, D'oh!

 

[WWBD]

I have had a LEAF since January. The mileage remaining display is a complete joke, as others have noted. Sometimes it's worse than a joke, because it can cause you to get stranded (or come VERY close, in my case). Nissan needs to fix it. PalmerMD's suggestion is very good, but even just having the computer give me a reading based on 5miles/bar would be better than the constantly fluctuating number.

 

[adric22]

I have to agree about the miles-remaining indicator.

What would be better is if the miles indicator was based completely on state-of-charge and not on user driving habbits. That means if I drive for 70 miles and it still shows 50% state of charge, then it should show 50 miles remaining and consider myself lucky. If I drive 20 miles and it shows 50% remaining, then it should still show 50 miles.

I must admit, so far I've been looking at the mileage remaining estimate as my "fuel gauge" and not at the state-of-charge. I really should retrain myself to ignore the first and rely on the second.

 

[palmermd]

I have to agree about the miles-remaining indicator.

What would be better is if the miles indicator was based completely on state-of-charge and not on user driving habbits. That means if I drive for 70 miles and it still shows 50% state of charge, then it should show 50 miles remaining and consider myself lucky. If I drive 20 miles and it shows 50% remaining, then it should still show 50 miles.

I must admit, so far I've been looking at the mileage remaining estimate as my "fuel gauge" and not at the state-of-charge. I really should retrain myself to ignore the first and rely on the second.

The only issue with that is that for most people 50% SOC is closer to 35 miles than 50 miles. That is a big difference. I'd rather Nissan have the miles remiaining be based on SOC and the display the estimate based on the EPA mixed number of 72 miles per charge. If you are driving efficiently then you'll lose a mile estimate every 1.x miles, and if you are driving inefficiently then you'll loose a mile every 0.x miles. (I hope that makes sense). Like I said earlier, with the current display resolution of 12 bars, that would be about 6 miles/bar based on EPA, and 5 miles/bar if you drive a little more aggressive or have the A/C or heat running. Now if they would only give us a little better resolution on the SOC we can really get a better handle on range. 5-6 miles is a long way with no change in the display. You think you have 15 miles and then the bar disapears and wow, you just lost 5 miles. (Still not a great way to estimate, but probably still better than the calculated range estimate).

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

This very discussion along with others here gives a new area of respect to Nissan engineers who no doubt, went thru the exact same discussion we are having.

I have known enough math/phsics/engineers types to know that what makes sense to them does not always make sense to others....

But in saying all that to imply. That the big miles remaining indicator should give one license to ignore all other sources of information is ludricous.

Maybe I should run my Leaf dead to somehow gain some understanding because I simply just don't it!!

Its like ignoring hour sideview mirrors because your rearview mirror is bigger!!

Either way this thread is giving me a headache and it definitely ain't from thinking. Too hard

 

[SanDust]

As evidenced by the fact that he couldn't figure out how to plug a car to a 120V outlet, obviously the guy is not a genius. On the other hand, Nissan has set itself up for failure with the constant harping on a range of "100 miles". Saying the EPA estimate is 73 miles is perfectly accurate but beside the point. The review of the Volt talks about the EPA estimate of 35 miles. The review of the Leaf talks about 100 miles not the EPA estimate of 73 miles. Why the difference? Cause Nissan has beaten the 100 mile drum for a year and that's what people are remembering. You can't make the 100 mile claim at every event and use it on the web applet about range and then say that people are stupid if they believe it rather than the EPA figure.

Some of us have been saying that it was dangerous to promise a 100 mile range that many might not get since over-promising can come back to bite you in the butt, and this seems to be happening. Obviously here but also with the reporter for Reuters who ran out of gas going 75 miles to the beach. It's not too late for Nissan to change the message.

You'd also think they could spend a little time talking to reviewers before they got the car. Ten minutes would have helped clear up some misunderstandings.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Nissan did nothing wrong. the only ones setting themselves up for failure is us when we take this much energy to try to defend the writer or determine the article validity.

the only thing i really got out of the article was a commentary on the DTE gauge.

Ok, so we like already know that that gauge should only be used as a reference IN CONJUNCTION with ALL other information the Leaf provides us.

Like any other "debate" style article, balance is not part of the article. neither is common sense or practicality.

there are sooo many parallel examples this article follows and every single one of them is just as ridiculous.

You NAV a route and are driving down the road and you come up on a red light, but the NAV says nothing about stopping....what do you do?

You are in a parking lot heading out for home. there is a lady with a shopping cart and two young children but they are not crossing in a marked crosswalk. they are directly in your path...what do you do?

ok, these scenarios are utter nonsense, right?? lets take another one.

you are assigned to write an article on an EV. you are directed to find out what is wrong with it. You are also directed to not charge it. You get the car, you were told its fully charged, but the gauge clearly indicates the top two bars have already been depleted... What do you do? charge it? nope. that would be counter to the article. ask the tech who dropped it off for clarification? nope that would be counter to the article... trust the gauge? ya, ok

 

[adric22]

As far as Nissan advertising 100 miles.. Well, lets look at some experience from hybrids. One of the most common and most irritating problems a toyota dealership has to deal with is customers bringing in their Prius saying that it isn't getting the advertised fuel economy. In many cases the customer is seeing 5 to 10 mpg less than advertised. so they assume something is wrong with the car. The technician will take the car out on the streets and drive it around for about 10 miles and generally it will come back with the correct fuel economy. Then they have to explain that there is nothing wrong with the car, rather with the driver. Customers generally don't like to hear that.

THe truth is that more than likely they never got the correct fuel economy on their last car either, but since it didn't have a gauge displaying the information, they never realized it. That is most likely why manufacturers have been hesitant to show that information to the driver. hiding it saves them service calls.

In the case of the Leaf, I think as long as the dealership properly explains the range issue, there will be few problems. For example, I had to sign this paper showing a list of expected driving ranges at different speeds and conditions. I think it will be hard for somebody to come back and say "this car isn't getting the range I was promised" when the dealer can produce a signed document showing the customer understood that before taking delivery.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Then they have to explain that there is nothing wrong with the car, rather with the driver. Customers generally don't like to hear that...


...THe truth is that more than likely they never got the correct fuel economy on their last car either, but since it didn't have a gauge displaying the information, they never realized it. That is most likely why manufacturers have been hesitant to show that information to the driver. hiding it saves them service calls.

LOL, u nailed it!!

but then again we already knew that reality sucks!! or at least our reality sucks. why else would "reality" TV (which is hardly real for anyone i know) is so popular?

 

[SkiTundra]

As evidenced by the fact that he couldn't figure out how to plug a car to a 120V outlet, obviously the guy is not a genius.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, in his Volt article he apparently had problems with fuses blowing when he tried to charge. He very likely lives in an older building, many of which have old wiring and often 8 amp circuits.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

For others, his lack of charging ability is a non-issue. He knew he would be unable to charge at home, he stated that. He planned a test of the vehicle based on driving less than 80 total miles over the weekend which, based on Nissan's own PR, should have been very doable. In other words, he devised a review that fit within the manufacturers advertised parameters and it failed. Now, this DOES NOT mean that the Leaf is a bad vehicle nor unfit for anyone to drive. Even a 50 mile range (assuming it can do that in the winter) will work for me, and its 70 or so mile range in warmer weather works for many others. The car does not live up to Nissan's PR though. Nissan (and fanboys) need to tone down the rhetoric and provide accurate information on what the car can and cannot do (and pessimistically at that) and, IMO, Nissan needs to be more up front with the range after several years of life on on the batteries.

 

[Ready2plugin]

Oh No! The reviewer at Consumer Reports went to the same driving school as the person at CNN.....Someone needs to tell these people to not use the estimated range display or Nissan needs to put some duck tape over it!

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/04/nissan-leaf-commuting-and-justified-range-anxiety.html

 

[tps]

I had to sign this paper showing a list of expected driving ranges at different speeds and conditions.

I bet the reporter never saw that paper. Hertz certainly did not show that paper to me before they rented the LEAF to me for an afternoon of driving. But, I also did not plan a drive that would push the LEAF's range. On my 47.2 mile (acording to the odometer) trip, it range indicator said 96 miles when I pulled out of the parking space, 50 miles when I got to the destination (after 21 miles of driving) and 47 miles when I got back to the parking space 47.2 miles later. So overall, it's estimate (96-47= 49 miles) was really close, but I was surprised when the range dropped by 2 miles for every mile I drove on the way out. My daily commute, with errands, is usually less than 40 miles round trip, so the LEAF will be perfect for me when I am allowed to buy it.

I guess there's some value to what these reporters are saying because they're showing people examples of what doesn't work. But it is also good if a reporter shows what type of situation in which the car works well. With the current charging infrastructure, the car really does need to be charged at home at night. It pretty much won't work out, end of story, if you can't plan to charge at home. Maybe he could have come up with a more creative way to point that out...