Home on the Range. Leaf Fanboys attack.

[BlueSL]

The level of discourse on this board is impressive, but the knee-jerk defense of the compromises contained in the Leaf are not -- because the inevitable result is an attack on the author of the opening post. This has happened twice in the past week or so. When its not an attack, its excuse making. Whatever the response, a little less of "the Kool Aid" would be a good thing around here.

The Leaf will not achieve anything like the market penetration it needs if its range is not increased. For instance, the SF Bay Area has a big chunk of water tossed into the middle of its geography. This makes San Jose about 40 miles from Oakland (all freeway) and San Francisco more like 45 miles from San Jose (all freeway). Santa Rosa is about 60 miles from San Francisco. Cars on those freeways move at a rapid pace. There are very few currently available charging stations (please do not say "go to a Nissan dealer" -- that is NOT convenient) and the current charge times are not viable for many businesspeople.

Stop attacking people who complain about the range of the car. Acknowledge what Tesla accepts as fact. Your battery should take you more than 80 miles at freeway speeds. Nissan should address this in v.2, just like the silly 50% L2 charging rate, and the bogus Nav updating process. The car will need to be better. It can be better. And better is what will allow the EV revolution to occur, not the group think displayed here.

 

[Randy]

My opinion is that Nissan made an economic choice in the design after much thought and study. They were looking for what they felt the "Sweet spot" was between battery cost and range, given what a majority of potential owners will use for their commute. Sure, a larger pack would physically fit in the car, but that would drive the price up. Many people on the Leaf facebook page already complain heavily about the $34K price of the V1 Leaf.

My commute is short enough that I'm glad they chose the cost/pack ratio they did. Otherwise I'd be paying more for a car and only charging it every few days. I do believe that the battery packs will get bigger and cheaper over time. Nissan told us at the design center event in San Diego last December that of the 14 cars that they were currently designing, 5 of those were electric cars. So it would seem that more choices are coming, and it makes sense for Nissan to offer a larger battery in some of them...

 

[Lopton]

] Your battery should take you more than 80 miles at freeway speeds.

I believe the EPA rated it at 73 miles.... Shouldn't that range be the range expected? Should you really trust someones marketing department over a test by an independent agency?

-Matt
PS: I agree, it is dumb to attack someone for posting their story, I really liked that friend1 posted what he did, thought it was a very fair story.

 

[Stoaty]

I have to disagree with your post. I didn't see anyone attacking someone who wanted a car with better range. We all want that, and when Nissan or anyone else can provide that at a reasonable cost, I am sure they will. The issue in the post you are referring to is an unreasonable expectation for range capabilities on the generation one Leaf. While one may fault Nissan for advertising 100 mile range (independently confirmed for the LA04 cycle), the EPA sticker clearly says 73 miles, and Nissan has provided a range of scenarios and the resulting mileage. I think they have been about as upfront as a manufacturer can be expected to be. The question being asked in the other thread is, "Why are you disappointed in the range, when it is exactly what all the available information indicates it should be?"

Now cars not restarting due a a faulty sensor or firmware regression IS something to be very concerned about :twisted:

 

[SanDust]

I don't think the limited range (and hopefully we can all accept the fact it's not 100 miles) is such a big deal in the roll out states. For some people yes but, for example, there are tons of people in the Bay Area who will find the range adequate, even after a few years. Not everyone of course but Nissan doesn't need to sell a Leaf to every singe household to be wildly successful. (Range where I am for freeway commutes is about 80 miles if you're careful. That's with a new battery of course but it should be adequate for at least a few years).

The bigger issue seems to be in the cold weather states. Start with truly cold weather and throw in some snow and ice and the range can drop to less than 45 miles. That's when the battery is new. Obviously not enough. FWIW this is exactly the conclusion that Motor Trend reached -- the Leaf just doesn't have enough range for states like MI.

Toyota may be able to address this issue with the bigger battery in the RAV4 (notice the bric bracs being thrown at Nissan with the comments "unlike some others we intend to under promise and over deliver") or you could do it like Volvo is doing with a separate heater (I realize that the idea of using fossil fuel in your vehicle is anathema to the politically correct on this board but it's workable and efficient and solves the problem). Until then the Leaf will and should be geographically limited. This is not a big deal. You have to start somewhere and there is plenty of opportunity in warmer weather states to sell a low cost EV with gas reaching $5/gallon.

Some people here have been crazily over optimistic about what the Leaf can deliver but between the flat batteries resulting from misleading range estimates and the non-starting issues hopefully more realism will be injected into the discussions. However, at the end of the day the Leaf, as the lowest priced EV the world has seen, is a great bargain, and that's quite a selling point you can't ignore. So yes the limited range is an issue but the price more than makes up for it, IMHO. IOW Nissan will sell a bazillion more Leafs at $28K after rebates than Tesla, with much better range, will sell Roadsters at $128K or Model S's at $78K.

Plus the Gen II Leaf should have a larger and better battery. I think Nissan has already said that in so many words.

 

[jlaw99]

I can't afford the Tesla, especially with the extended range option, but I can afford the Leaf. My commute is only 15 miles round trip so it will be a great commuter car for me. I wish the Leaf had a better range, leather seats and was a convertible; eventually there will be one of those available, but for the next few years the Leaf will do just fine. The range is what it is - you can complain about it, but there's really not much point in doing so - just wait a few years if you need something more - there are plenty of reservation holders who would like to get their hands on a new Leaf if you don't want one...

 

[edatoakrun]

The primary limiting factor in BEV range is currently the lack of recharging infrastructure, not battery capacity.

Batteries will always have far less energy density than petroleum fuels. The LEAF's 600 pound battery pack contains less energy than 6 pounds of gasoline.

Personally, I doubt BEV's will ever get the range we are accustomed to with gas vehicles. Would you rather have a BEV with twice the range that costs twice as much (and is significantly less efficient and has degraded performance) due to the half-ton battery pack?

The huge cost savings in fuel is one of the primary BEVEV advantages. If and when a DC charging infrastructure is developed, fuel cost savings will more than offset the inconvenience of the short range between charges, for most consumers.

 

[evnow]

Stop attacking people who complain about the range of the car. Acknowledge what Tesla accepts as fact. Your battery should take you more than 80 miles at freeway speeds.

There is no free lunch in the New Energy Economy. You want more range - prepare to pay more - upto $110K for the only car Tesla sells.

Anyone who complains about range after buying hasn't done enough homework. Nissan has published detailed information on range under various scenarios. EPA has a 73 mile range rating - and yet you want 80 miles at freeway ?

I suggest you change the trollish title.

 

[Herm]

Blue, do you think Nissan should offer more options on range?.. perhaps a Leaf Classic and a Leaf 200?

There will be compromises, higher weight and more expensive of course. What are the minimum speed limits in the hwys around the Bay area?.. where I am all the hwys have a minimum speed limit of 45 mph, but I drive at 55 anyways.

 

[healy100]

The level of discourse on this board is impressive, but the knee-jerk defense of the compromises contained in the Leaf are not -- because the inevitable result is an attack on the author of the opening post. This has happened twice in the past week or so. When its not an attack, its excuse making. Whatever the response, a little less of "the Kool Aid" would be a good thing around here.

The Leaf will not achieve anything like the market penetration it needs if its range is not increased. For instance, the SF Bay Area has a big chunk of water tossed into the middle of its geography. This makes San Jose about 40 miles from Oakland (all freeway) and San Francisco more like 45 miles from San Jose (all freeway). Santa Rosa is about 60 miles from San Francisco. Cars on those freeways move at a rapid pace. There are very few currently available charging stations (please do not say "go to a Nissan dealer" -- that is NOT convenient) and the current charge times are not viable for many businesspeople.

Stop attacking people who complain about the range of the car. Acknowledge what Tesla accepts as fact. Your battery should take you more than 80 miles at freeway speeds. Nissan should address this in v.2, just like the silly 50% L2 charging rate, and the bogus Nav updating process. The car will need to be better. It can be better. And better is what will allow the EV revolution to occur, not the group think displayed here.

It is absolutely imperative that battery costs be reduced by half and battery pack sizes be increased to at least 35 kwh. From what Ive been reading the analyst's predict that in 3 to 5 years this will indeed occur as battery production scales in and competition heats up prices will be cut in half. We early adopters will just have to deal with the current ranges until then.

 

[awallis]

It is hard to address people's disappointment in range because it is a multivariate problem from range, price, and performance to internet etiquette.

Please note that many responses in the instances you are talking about are nice, sort of, "we understand your feeling, but please consider..." This is not a fanboy attack but an attempt to discuss and inform. No one is contesting the fact: one person only went 66 miles. I knew that was one of the many range possibilities and I have never sat inside a Leaf.

Part of the issue in that instance is simply the way the person stated the problem, which is the same issue I have with this thread. "Leaf Fanboy's Attack"!!! Really? Is this really the overall trend? I haven't analyzed the thread because it doesn't really interest me, but all I can say is that there are responses in the thread that offer sympathy, compassion and heartfelt suggestions to the author.

Finally, folks, welcome to the internet, and welcome to the reality of any community. Here we are, we have knowledge, ignorance, bias, opinions, emotions. At any given time they are all manifesting themselves. So, while I really don't think there are that many attacks, I do think what **I feel** is your overstatement of an issue (rampaging hordes of menacing Leaf Fanboys) is a very useful reminder that we should try to keep things in perspective. Also, your reminder about civility is important because it is YOUR perspective, and we're lucky to have a group here where most folks feel free to "speak" openly. Let's keep it that way--so thank you for being part of that. Finally, I'm NOT a bastion of civility or anything, but please don't call me Hitler either.

 

[Jimmydreams]

The primary limiting factor in BEV range is currently the lack of recharging infrastructure, not battery capacity.

Winning post.

 

[Ready2plugin]

The primary limiting factor in BEV range is currently the lack of recharging infrastructure, not battery capacity.

Batteries will always have far less energy density than petroleum fuels. The LEAF's 600 pound battery pack contains less energy than 6 pounds of gasoline.

Personally, I doubt BEV's will ever get the range we are accustomed to with gas vehicles. Would you rather have a BEV with twice the range that costs twice as much (and is significantly less efficient and has degraded performance) due to the half-ton battery pack?

The huge cost savings in fuel is one of the primary BEVEV advantages. If and when a DC charging infrastructure is developed, fuel cost savings will more than offset the inconvenience of the short range between charges, for most consumers.

+1 - More infrastructure and faster charging should be the goal here. I have a car that can go easily 130 miles per hour.....yet I've probably max out at 90 over the 10 years that I've owned it. Would a 150 mile battery pack be better...sure, but if I could find a quick charger after I drive 75, I would never need the extra range. The primary goal for the LEAF is to be a commuter or city car, if we want it to be more than that we need to stand up and demand for increased charging abilities...at work, at the towns we live in and where we go to spend our hard earned money. The San Francisco Bay Area is a great example. I normally take BART to the city, but I would love to drive my LEAF, but because of lack of public L2 or L3s in the area, I cannot. I don't blame the LEAF for not having the ability to get me there and back on one charge, I knew when I bought it that it couldn't, I blame the city and the ex-mayor for making promises that so far is just talk to make the area the most EV friendly place in America....yea right. I try to remember that we are early in this process, but the more infrastructure that is visible to the public, the faster the EV revolution can take hold. Anyone that takes an objective look at what is happening to this country because of oil, the less people will be flaming EVs and start demanding we do something about it.

 

[DeaneG]

You aren't going to improve the Leaf's range without increasing its cost, just by being angry at Nissan for selling it.

 

[KeiJidosha]

There are very few currently available charging stations (please do not say "go to a Nissan dealer" -- that is NOT convenient)

The public infrastructure that Nissan was counting on to mitigate range issues is clearly lacking. ECOtality's slow launch has exacerbated the problem.

 

[TRONZ]

Nice troll title. DNFTT

And in fact, any "run out" OP's are about personal choices, responsibility and accountability.

 

[ENIAC]

The primary limiting factor in BEV range is currently the lack of recharging infrastructure, not battery capacity.

Winning post.

Yep, +1. If public quick charging was available, it would effectively double your 80% range. And it would do that by not adding any additional cost to the vehicle nor adding additional battery weight. Nissan and GM need to press harder for additional public charging.

Second point to the OP. I've noticed posters, of some of those threads you refer to, words their post or subject to simply provoke other members. In my experience if you poke someone, you'll likely get poked back. But that may be what they're looking for anyway. I've participated in message boards for decades and in my opinion MNL is genteel. At the other extreme, go over to hardforum.com and post a story about how your new iPad2 ran out of power and you are upset at Apple. This happened even though the iPad2 kept alarming you it was running low and you ignored it and you kept working. You kept passing up chances to charge the iPad2 throughout the day. The alarms kept coming and you kept working. At one point you couldn't figure out how to plug the charger in. Then end the post with how disappointed in the iPad2 and Apple you are. Also your child is having nightmares over the whole incident. The Hardforum members will dismantle you.

 

[TRONZ]

Ya those iPad2's are evil! Mine won't let me charge it up, makes me drive it around all over the place and then runs out of battery while my little girl is playing Doodle Jump. She is traumatized. These things should be banned and anyone that says otherwise is an evil Apple Fanboy.

 

[PaulScott]

Cars on those freeways move at a rapid pace.

You state this as though there is some rule that you have to drive the speed the crowd around you drives. Only the state's posted speed limit (upper and lower) are what you HAVE to obey, not that of the speed freaks driving like morons.

I've achieved 100 miles of range driving on freeways here in LA on two occasions. I kept my speed between 55-60 and even used the AC for a bit of the drive. It's possible. It's very safe. And it's efficient.

That said, more charging infrastructure is absolutely needed.

 

[garygid]

There are many drivers that go a MAXIMUM of 50 or 60 miles on almost all days. If EVs sell to even HALF of that group, we will be selling A LOT of EVs.

Charge-at-home use is limiting, and splattered public 8-hour charging will not change that usage pattern very much. Four-hour charging, at reasonable prices, would help somewhat, but still not change the fundamental "Neighborhood" nature of the EV's use.

Quick-Charge capailities, in the range of 10 to 30 minutes, can SERIOUSLY change the usage pattern ... if QC-Stations are plentiful enough, are well located, have good access, and are kept well-maintained.

A great QC network will REALLY breathe life into the EV usage patterns. Maybe not a lot of long-haul driving, but the 200-mile outing becomes easy to accomplish. That REALLY covers most of us pretty well.

A well-done spacing of the approximately 50 QC stations that the San Diego area SHOULD get ... will be wonderful to use, though their use will need to be reasonably priced, not 4x the price of gasoline!