Dashboard display suggestions

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

leafydragon

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
23
Location
Singapore
1. Don't really care for the growing trees indicator, especially if there is no explanation of what exactly it indicates. I don't think it represents the simple sum of regenerative braking energy right? (This is like the "leaf" icons in Toyota Prius.)

2. The big "bubble-style" instantaneous power display... I would prefer a simple pointer (or growing bar) on a graduated scale. (More similar to the "pie-style" energy monitor in the NAV multi-display.) With a smaller numeric display. (e.g. "23 kW") The big power display could also show the contribution from climate control and 12V accessories.
The present bubble-style power display isn't well labelled... A "recycle"-like symbol at the regen end, and "POWER" marked on the right side? I would suggest a bar that grows either side from the zero point, green when it grows left, and white when it grows right.

3. The remaining range meter... I understand the limitations of predicting range without knowing in advance the driving conditions, so I suggest the range number should be de-emphasized.
The main focus should be SOC (confounded by gradual loss of capacity) or maybe remaining kWh, or remaining percentage of 24 kWh.
And/or show a few different range figures based on last 1 km / last 10 km / last 100 km. (or make it user configurable).

existing:
EAEtu.jpg


my suggestion:
nw4JD.jpg
 
leafydragon said:
1. Don't really care for the growing trees indicator
I completely agree. I hope this can completely go away.

2. The big "bubble-style" instantaneous power display... I would prefer a simple pointer (or growing bar) on a graduated scale.
Again, I agree. The one useful piece of information that your example display is missing is the current regen and power limits (single vs. double bubbles in the current display). I think this could be accomplished by adding a yellow line at each of the limits to see what will be allowed.

3. The remaining range meter
I don't mind this too much. And even though the GOM might not accurate, I find it to be fairly consistent, which keeps it useful for me.
 
leafydragon said:
1. Don't really care for the growing trees indicator, especially if there is no explanation of what exactly it indicates.

I agree completely. Waste of dash space and I don't even understand what it is for, nor do I care. When I let people test drive my car they always ask me about that and it is irritating trying to explain.

2. The big "bubble-style" instantaneous power display... I would prefer a simple pointer (or growing bar) on a graduated scale. (More similar to the "pie-style" energy monitor in the NAV multi-display.) With a smaller numeric display. (e.g. "23 kW") The big power display could also show the contribution from climate control and 12V accessories.

I'm actually fine with the bubble meter and I prefer that over the instrumentation in our Volt where it has a little ball that moves forwards or backwards. However, I will agree that the information is ambiguous and it would be better if it was marked in kilowatts. Granted, you can see actual kilowatts in the information on the NAV screen in a circular graph. But I'd prefer the dash meter also be measured in kilowatts.

3. The remaining range meter... I understand the limitations of predicting range without knowing in advance the driving conditions, so I suggest the range number should be de-emphasized.
The main focus should be SOC (confounded by gradual loss of capacity) or maybe remaining kWh, or remaining percentage of 24 kWh.
And/or show a few different range figures based on last 1 km / last 10 km / last 100 km. (or make it user configurable).

I would also agree that it should be user-configurable between a state of charge number and miles remaining number. Actually, in my opinion, what would be better is to change the number on the battery guage to a state of charge only, with a percent sign after the number. Then on the little dot-matrix distplay in the center of the dash, have one of the screens available be "range." After all, I rarely even look at that screen. Most of the time it is just sitting there telling me how long it will take to recharge. Sometimes I'll put it on the screen that shows my average kilowatts/mile.
 
garsh said:
leafydragon said:
2. The big "bubble-style" instantaneous power display... I would prefer a simple pointer (or growing bar) on a graduated scale.
Again, I agree. The one useful piece of information that your example display is missing is the current regen and power limits (single vs. double bubbles in the current display). I think this could be accomplished by adding a yellow line at each of the limits to see what will be allowed.
I agree, I forgot about the power limiting indicators. Should be simple to add.

garsh said:
3. The remaining range meter
I don't mind this too much. And even though the GOM might not accurate, I find it to be fairly consistent, which keeps it useful for me.
I only realized after a 2 weeks that the Guess-O-meter wasn't going to learn from my driving history, or from the average kW/km figure in the center display. So the GOM is equivalent to a strictly unchanging look-up-table from SOC then?

adric22 said:
I would also agree that it should be user-configurable between a state of charge number and miles remaining number. Actually, in my opinion, what would be better is to change the number on the battery guage to a state of charge only, with a percent sign after the number. Then on the little dot-matrix distplay in the center of the dash, have one of the screens available be "range." After all, I rarely even look at that screen. Most of the time it is just sitting there telling me how long it will take to recharge. Sometimes I'll put it on the screen that shows my average kilowatts/mile.
I wouldn't mind this either.
How is "state-of-charge" defined, when considering the gradual permanent loss of capacity?
Would you prefer the battery bars to show the aging of the battery pack?

If an old battery pack can hold only 15kWh, and it is fully charged to hold 15kWh, do you want to see "100%"? or "63%"?
 
I like the double-bubbles, and the suggested (more continuous kW) display really doesn't add enough (IMHO), while it loses the "double" (ability) indicator. The only thing that bothers me about the bubbles is the "neutral" (zero) bubble. I always count it when counting the bubbles, when it really shouldn't be included, but since it's identical (visually while driving) to the others ...
 
the tree is representative of how efficiently you are driving and takes away the variances of traffic, elevation and speed and only shows "you" how "you" are doing.

now, if a personal critique of your driving is not your cup of tea that is easy to understand. considering the limited real estate this information currently holds; what would you rather see there?
 
The algorithms for the "trees" are obscure to the point of uselessness.

I like the bubbles. Good enough resolution for instantaneous power levels and easy to see while looking elsewhere. The double-lines are ok though not necessarily easy to discern for the farsighted. This and the fact that this is the first car I've had with nav maps, has shown me it's time for prescription eyewear :)

I'd really like to have graphs of 1-minute and 5-minute moving average power consumption on the console display.
 
Nubo said:
The algorithms for the "trees" are obscure to the point of uselessness.

I like the bubbles. Good enough resolution for instantaneous power levels and easy to see while looking elsewhere. The double-lines are ok though not necessarily easy to discern for the farsighted. This and the fact that this is the first car I've had with nav maps, has shown me it's time for prescription eyewear :)

I'd really like to have graphs of 1-minute and 5-minute moving average power consumption on the console display.

hmmm, so you accept that someone in AZ can get 7 miles per K when others cant get 4? well, actually that is not obscure. its a result of thousands of different variables that we must discuss which ends up to be a very confusing meandering and long thread.

what we should be discussing is the trees. this puts EVERYONE on a level playing field but then again, that is against our nature. we as a human species always looks to get a leg up on the competition.
 
I don't like the trees either - put a SOC in that space :) , but I do like the "bubbles" and overall I love the dash and nav touchscreen display because I find it very aesthetically pleasing, with the soft blue color. It seems to say to me "new technology, forward looking." From what I have seen of the Volt and FFE they don't come close to being as aesthetic. So I hope they don't make too many changes to it.
 
Nubo said:
The algorithms for the "trees" are obscure to the point of uselessness.
+1.
I get more trees coming home (uphill) than going to work (downhill).
I get twice as many trees when I get stuck in a traffic jam.

I think it's some comparison to a gas car being driven similarly, but I just don't care. I don't want to compare my car's emissions while driving it. I just want to know about efficiency.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Nubo said:
The algorithms for the "trees" are obscure to the point of uselessness.

I like the bubbles. Good enough resolution for instantaneous power levels and easy to see while looking elsewhere. The double-lines are ok though not necessarily easy to discern for the farsighted. This and the fact that this is the first car I've had with nav maps, has shown me it's time for prescription eyewear :)

I'd really like to have graphs of 1-minute and 5-minute moving average power consumption on the console display.

hmmm, so you accept that someone in AZ can get 7 miles per K when others cant get 4?

I don't quite understand that response. Sure I accept it. Both are possible.

well, actually that is not obscure. its a result of thousands of different variables that we must discuss which ends up to be a very confusing meandering and long thread.

A bridge too far, imho. Given a car with 21kWH of usable energy, and a well-defined efficiency metric already available (M/kWH), there's more than enough information and incentive for a LEAF driver to be efficient. What do we gain by trying to decipher the "trees"? What units of measurement do they represent? Efficiency? Some virtualized model of CO2 avoided vs. some theoretical car? How many of the thousands of variables can we be aware of at once and modify, and how can we possibly use virtual "trees" to predict the outcome of future manipulations of such a huge matrix?

what we should be discussing is the trees. this puts EVERYONE on a level playing field but then again, that is against our nature. we as a human species always looks to get a leg up on the competition.

I think maybe we are looking at this from two very different perspectives. To what form of competition are you referring?
 
Ok fine, let's get rid of the trees.

But what they do is suppose one drives 40 miles, averages 6M/K and gets 3 trees and someone else drives 40 miles and averages 4M/K but gets 4 trees?

Ah who cares! The trees are gone
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Ok fine, let's get rid of the trees.

But what they do is suppose one drives 40 miles, averages 6M/K and gets 3 trees and someone else drives 40 miles and averages 4M/K but gets 4 trees?

Ah who cares! The trees are gone

I can tell you feel strongly about something here but honestly I think I'm not understanding your point.

Can you explain it in a more straightforward way? How would you recommend a LEAF driver get the most benefit from the trees display in practical application? And how do you define that benefit?
 
No, because driving efficiency is just as meaningless without knowing precisely what goes in to calculating it.

DaveinOlyWA said:
If it had a dial gauge that ran from 1 to 100 and was labeled "driving efficiency" then I suppose that would be ok?
 
TomT said:
No, because driving efficiency is just as meaningless without knowing precisely what goes in to calculating it.

DaveinOlyWA said:
If it had a dial gauge that ran from 1 to 100 and was labeled "driving efficiency" then I suppose that would be ok?

The trees are a good idea and its a puzzle to figure out how to improve your score or "driving efficiency" without being critical of the way you drive. It gives instant feedback on how well you are doing and it seems to sense the onset of friction braking.
 
Actually, I have found them to be significantly disconnected from the real world... I also love that I can grow trees by going nowhere and just burning electrons... Hardly efficient...

Nekota said:
The trees are a good idea and its a puzzle to figure out how to improve your score or "driving efficiency" without being critical of the way you drive. It gives instant feedback on how well you are doing and it seems to sense the onset of friction braking.
 
TomT said:
Actually, I have found them to be significantly disconnected from the real world... I also love that I can grow trees by going nowhere and just burning electrons... Hardly efficient...

Nekota said:
The trees are a good idea and its a puzzle to figure out how to improve your score or "driving efficiency" without being critical of the way you drive. It gives instant feedback on how well you are doing and it seems to sense the onset of friction braking.

I tried your method of growing trees by going no where and it didn't work - I turned the car on and let it sit just like you said and no trees grew.
 
Nekota said:
The trees are a good idea and its a puzzle to figure out how to improve your score or "driving efficiency" without being critical of the way you drive. It gives instant feedback on how well you are doing and it seems to sense the onset of friction braking.

close, very close. it is critiquing the way you drive but eliminates most of the variables. the trees represent how efficiently you drive and

1) it does not penalize you if you live in San Francisco, Seattle or any other town that cant decide if its going uphill or downhill.

2) it does not benefit you if you live in a wide open flat area like Fl or AZ (if you think i am singling out specific members of this forum, then you are right)

3) it does not care if most of your driving is on the freeway, city streets or lazy back country roads.

and the reason why is it only measures how you manage the power in the car.

so its no longer "i can drive 120 miles on a charge" and that is better than one in Seattle who cant get more than 80 due to constant changes in elevation if that 120 mile person can not get more trees.

now, its obvious that without #'s attached, it simply will not be accepted. it is really a equation using your rate of acceleration, quantity of constant velocity, gentleness of braking, etc. and its not a perfect system but keep in mind; several other cars have the same thing. on the Ford Focus Electric its a single tree branch sprouting leaves and the more efficient you drive, the more leaves you get so Nissan is not the only company who thought this information would be valuable.

Ridiculing the GOM i can understand. we know how it works and the ideology is "questionable" and so its information is misleading. but the trees are really pretty straight forward and i can understand not liking the information the trees provide and wanting something else, but completely discounting the information as useless is surprising to me
 
The truth is that I have never looked at the trees. I have no idea how many I grow under various conditions or what that means about my driving. But I'm willing to be educated. Dave, it sounds like you are saying they provide some sort of a "goodness" measure. Yet I have the impression that they are related to how far you go. So can you give us some sort of goodness scale, like 10 miles/tree is average, 8 miles/tree is good, and 5 miles/tree is exceptional?

Come to think of it, it's probably true that at least 80% of my trips are under 5 miles. Maybe that's why I haven't paid any attention to trees - there hasn't been enough to pay attention to.

Ray
 
Back
Top