Shaming of dealers, reps, etc. saying Leaf's range is 100 mi

[cwerdna]

Ok, not a dealer, but even worse (IMHO). I saw this last night on Bloomberg TV: a Nissan Europe exec stated that the Leaf's range "now is up to 200 kilometers". That's 124 miles!

Skip to ~2:20 of http://www.bloomberg.com/video/nissan-u ... 4OdeQ.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see/hear for yourself.

Sigh... I'll bet that 124 miles is on some inflated test cycle. If Nissan really thinks the Leaf is a "100 mile" car, thinking it's a "124 mile" car is even worse. Let's make that exec try to drive a Leaf 124 miles on a single charge on a highway.

[vrwl]

it's not so much dealers making claims that aren't true, they are not too well informed and are presenting the numbers that they see on the stickers.

I don't think any of the stickers state the range of the Leaf is 100 miles.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=11574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows a 75 mile range. Even if they were to use that, they should mention some caveats.

LOL! But look at that sticker! The 116 is in big huge font, and the 75 is in much smaller font. You really have to LOOK at it to see the real EPA value.

[Foible]

I'd put the standard even higher, a minimum of 100 miles @ the Interstate speed limit in any state (at least 75, with 80 preferred), from 100%-LBW with at least 10% (10 mile minimum) range reserve, in any temp between 0-40C (32-104 deg. F), free use of HVAC, and with the battery at 70% (EoL), but that requires over 200 miles of EPA range. Realistically, the only car that can do that now is the Tesla S-85, with the S-60 marginal towards the end of battery life or in edge conditions. For the 2nd gen affordable BEVs, we'll probably have to settle for 1 hour at a minimum of 65 mph, conditions as above. Even that will require at least 125 miles EPA. Boosting the requirement to make it 1 hour from 80%-LBW, as would be the case with a QC, pushes the required range well over 150 miles EPA

I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.

[GRA]

I'd put the standard even higher, a minimum of 100 miles @ the Interstate speed limit in any state (at least 75, with 80 preferred), from 100%-LBW with at least 10% (10 mile minimum) range reserve, in any temp between 0-40C (32-104 deg. F), free use of HVAC, and with the battery at 70% (EoL), but that requires over 200 miles of EPA range. Realistically, the only car that can do that now is the Tesla S-85, with the S-60 marginal towards the end of battery life or in edge conditions. For the 2nd gen affordable BEVs, we'll probably have to settle for 1 hour at a minimum of 65 mph, conditions as above. Even that will require at least 125 miles EPA. Boosting the requirement to make it 1 hour from 80%-LBW, as would be the case with a QC, pushes the required range well over 150 miles EPA

I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.

In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip. I wasted quite enough of my life doing that in the '70s, '80s and '90s until the universal 55 limit was repealed. Not that most people actually drive (or drove) 55, but it did limit our speed far below what the freeway was designed for, even using 1950s technology cars. And then there's the extra safety issues when towing a trailer. So thanks, but I'll pass. The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra. Tesla is demonstrating this, it's just a matter of getting battery costs down enough that the average car buyer can afford that kind of BEV range. In the meantime there are PHEVs, HEVs and turbo diesels.

[UkrainianKozak]

Argh...
That's an american way of thinking... Bigger, heavier, throw a bunch of money at it
Here's what they are started to do in Europe:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681234/take ... the-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would be much better option IMHO... no stopping, no extra weight for bigger battery, no trailers, no stopping to swap batteries... Pure unlimited electrical driving pleasure

I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.

In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip. I wasted quite enough of my life doing that in the '70s, '80s and '90s until the universal 55 limit was repealed. Not that most people actually drive (or drove) 55, but it did limit our speed far below what the freeway was designed for, even using 1950s technology cars. And then there's the extra safety issues when towing a trailer. So thanks, but I'll pass. The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra. Tesla is demonstrating this, it's just a matter of getting battery costs down enough that the average car buyer can afford that kind of BEV range. In the meantime there are PHEVs, HEVs and turbo diesels.

[donald]

The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra.

You're right, but the problem is that until they can get economies of scale and improve battery tech and manufacture, then the price stays high, and while no-one is buying the things it will stay like that. Chicken-and-egg.

In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip.

It's a rational comment, but at the end of the day you don't need to drive at 55 all the time, just when you know you need to do a long trip because you recognise the limitations of your vehicle. If you don't recognise the limitations, then don't bother getting a sub-100 mile EV!

If you were in an ICE that typically uses a gallon every 30 miles, and you had a gallon left and you had to get 35 miles, would you say, 'ah! I will not bother, because I hate the idea of driving slowly to save energy, so I'll walk instead'. Or would you bemoan not having bought a 40 mpg vehicle when you had the chance?

I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.

[dgpcolorado]

I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.

A valid point. Another EV variation, that gets occasional mention here, is in choosing to drive more slowly to make a destination or doing an interim charge to be able to drive more quickly. Just slowing down and skipping a charge makes for a quicker trip.

Driving more slowly can mean a significantly longer travel time on long trips, however. When driving 500 to 700 miles in a day the difference between 55 mph and 75 mph (the speed limit on freeways in most states around here) can be significant. I compromise by driving 65 rather than 75 to save on gas, and listen to audio books to make the time melt away. I find that 55 takes too long for safe driving with one driver, due to fatigue.

But for LEAF-range trips of an hour or so, driving more slowly makes little difference in time and quite a bit of difference in mileage efficiency and range.

[thankyouOB]

i never take a trip in my LEAF around LA where going 75 sted of 60 means i save more than 10 minutes. In the city or on city freeways, the 75 mph avg speed is theory not fact.
slowing down for a drive under 75 miles really doesnt matter that much.

[Berlino]

I find that 55 takes too long for safe driving with one driver, due to fatigue.

Perhaps, but accidents at 65 or 75 mph reckon to be more deadly than ones at 55 mph. You also have more reaction time to avoid accidents at slower speeds.

Back to the topic: VW's range claims for their newly announced EV's appear out of line.

[GRA]

The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra.

You're right, but the problem is that until they can get economies of scale and improve battery tech and manufacture, then the price stays high, and while no-one is buying the things it will stay like that. Chicken-and-egg.

We're well on our way to overcoming the chicken and egg stage; Tesla is showing the way, and for everyone else who finds them suitable, at the moment there are commuter BEVs.

In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip.

It's a rational comment, but at the end of the day you don't need to drive at 55 all the time, just when you know you need to do a long trip because you recognise the limitations of your vehicle. If you don't recognise the limitations, then don't bother getting a sub-100 mile EV!

It's because I recognize that they don't suit my needs that I don't have a BEV currently.

If you were in an ICE that typically uses a gallon every 30 miles, and you had a gallon left and you had to get 35 miles, would you say, 'ah! I will not bother, because I hate the idea of driving slowly to save energy, so I'll walk instead'. Or would you bemoan not having bought a 40 mpg vehicle when you had the chance?

Neither. I wouldn't let it get that low because I maintain a reserve; besides, I know there's a gas station every 10-30 miles that will allow me to refuel in a maximum of 5 minutes. Had this happen once this weekend in fact, when owing to the long detour via Hwy 108 to avoid the Rim Fire, we bought just enough gas to get us back from the east side of the Sierra to the west (gas being $4.90-$5.00/gallon in Lee Vining and Bridgeport on the east side, versus $3.68/gal. in Oakdale on the west). It was a five hour drive (versus the normal four hours via Hwy 120) as it was; I had no interest in making it six hours, after spending most of the day climbing and descending Mt. Conness.

I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.

Since my driving only involves out of town trips (rarely less than 100 miles one-way, and this past weekend 500+ RT, much of it mountainous and often at night or early in the morning when there's no traffic), I'm well aware of the time differences between 55 and a higher speed on longer trips. When I'm tired and trying to get home, the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive far slower than the roads allow me to do safely. That's not what I, or a majority of people who drive, have cars for. We have them because they provide the quickest, most convenient and most flexible way of getting ourselves, our passengers and our stuff around at a price we can afford, not because they're the most energy-efficient means of travel. I ride my bike for that (including my commute), and for local trips make use of transit beyond bike range, or mix the two. If you're willing to drive slower than the flow and accept the couple of extra minutes a day in your commute, good for you, but most people aren't so willing, and you're not going to convince them.