Forbes Takes Issue with the Leaf

[smkettner]

Forbes is a little late in the game to find a new angle to bash the LEAF.

What does that say about the rest of the company :lol:
Anyone need two year old financial news ??

 

[davewill]

... L3 charging is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe most people are willing to wait 30 minutes to go 100, 200 or even 300 miles. ...

30 minutes to go 300 miles would mean 5 minutes to go another 50. Add that to the savings over gasoline, the convenience of having a "full tank" every morning, and demonstrably lower maintenance and I think most people could see the benefits. It still all hinges on improvements to quick charging and range as you pointed out.

 

[Stoaty]

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I highly respect Paul and what he is doing. However, the definition of conflict of interest is pretty straightforward:

"A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest."

Note the word "potential"--it doesn't mean that the person's impartiality actually is undermined, only that the potential exists. The potential is inherent in the situation. While conflict of interest may be considered to have a negative connotation, that is because in many cases people in this situation do have there impartiality undermined or completely thrown out the window.

 

[PaulScott]

"A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest."

Note the word "potential"--it doesn't mean that the person's impartiality actually is undermined, only that the potential exists. The potential is inherent in the situation. While conflict of interest may be considered to have a negative connotation, that is because in many cases people in this situation do have there impartiality undermined or completely thrown out the window.[/quote]

That's fine, but if you're going to throw that term out, then it seems fair that everyone who comments on this forum should use their real name and state their business. You all know I'm selling the LEAF, but do we know what you do? No. Do we even know who you are? No.

For all I know, the people who make snide remarks about me (and there have been a few) are salesmen working for Fontana Nissan. Maybe they are trying to drive business away from me to their dealership. I don't know. But when terms like "conflict of interest" are used, it's usually meant to cast aspersions on one's character and that's when I get my hackles up. Especially when these words are used by someone not willing to identify himself.

 

[thankyouOB]

This isn't a conflict of interest in the negative sense where a benefit is gained by concealment. It is a well-identified interest.
There is no element of corruption or deception.

 

[Herm]

All media is full of lies.
In every news article in which I was very familiar, the media got it wrong or edited out the important parts to consider. So do they get it right when I don't know much about the subject? I doubt it.

I have noticed that too and come to the same conclusion.

 

[Fabio]

There are intentional lies, told with the deliberate intention to misinform the readers, lies told to conform to a precise editorial directive, and lies told because of ignorance on a given topic (combined with laziness to check facts, which is a trait shared by all my friends in media).
Not all lies are the same, but when "the usual suspects" keep repeating the same lies, as if they were given marching orders, chances are they are actually given marching orders.

I wish the US had the same "truth in media" laws as Canada, but that would mean that "the usual suspects" would not have anything to say all day long, and that would get pretty boring....

All media is full of lies.
In every news article in which I was very familiar, the media got it wrong or edited out the important parts to consider. So do they get it right when I don't know much about the subject? I doubt it.

 

[electricfuture]

The lies have just begun – wait until the mainstream auto industry and aftermarket figures it out – then you are really going to see lies from every media angle. Consider that if we move to electric cars (which we will and must do) they have basically 2 moving parts a spinning electric motor which are extremely reliable for decades if not abused and a single gear transmission. Now look under the hood of your ICE and here is a partial list of who gets hurt big time as we move to EVs:
1. Auto mechanics
2. Engine part suppliers (pistons, rings, injectors, pugs, condensers, etc.)
3. Transmission part suppliers and rebuilders
4. Electrical parts suppliers (still needed but greatly simplified and will be far more reliable)
5. Muffler manufacturers/installers
6. Oil companies (gasoline and motor oil/transmission oil changes)
7. Gas stations
8. Air/oil filter suppliers
9. Oil/Lube stations
10. Smog testing stations
11. NASCAR
Did I miss some? Probably. So that leaves only suspension systems and tire suppliers without risk.
Hold on to your EV – you haven’t seen anything yet!

 

[LEAFfan]

And I get something in the 70-100 mile range on a full charge.

And I get between 90-110 miles on an 80% charge depending if I used A/C. Today, no A/C, and drove 110 miles (6.5m/kW h/zero bars) on an 80% charge w/o impeding any traffic.

 

[TonyWilliams]

And I get between 90-110 miles on an 80% charge depending if I used A/C. Today, no A/C, and drove 110 miles (6.5m/kW h/zero bars) on an 80% charge w/o impeding any traffic.

But, my point is that neither your economy, nor Mr. Scott's, is typical of the masses driving a LEAF. The EPA data is probably closest to reality for the vast cross section of drivers.

My best range so far is about 100 miles (drove 94 miles at 4.8m/kWh). Yes, I can frequently get much higher efficiency on shorter legs, but averaged over a full tank of fuel, that's my best.

 

[TomT]

+1!

And I get between 90-110 miles on an 80% charge depending if I used A/C. Today, no A/C, and drove 110 miles (6.5m/kW h/zero bars) on an 80% charge w/o impeding any traffic.

But, my point is that neither your economy, nor Mr. Scott's, is typical of the masses driving a LEAF. The EPA data is probably closest to reality for the vast cross section of drivers.

 

[rainnw]

Wow, I must be doing the impossible...every day. I wonder where all these invisible miles are coming from? My smugness?

 

[aqn]

And I get between 90-110 miles on an 80% charge depending if I used A/C. Today, no A/C, and drove 110 miles (6.5m/kW h/zero bars) on an 80% charge w/o impeding any traffic.

Phoenix, AZ has an elevation range of 102 feet, 1058-1160 ft.

Wow, I must be doing the impossible...every day. I wonder where all these invisible miles are coming from? My smugness?

Seattle has an elevation range of 497 feet.
Austin has an elevation range of 1038 feet.
Of course, these elevation figures probably only count elevations within the city's limits.

Elevation changes has got to be one of the contributing factors in observed range.
Central Texas' Hill Country surrounds Austin and is probably responsible for my low energy economy and range, in addition to the ambient temperature.

I would claim that comparing range and energy economy figures of different people (different driving styles) in different locales is much akin to believing the Guess-O-Meter.