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

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.
dgpcolorado said:
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
GRA said:
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.
But then a BEV is the wrong tool for the job. Even a 85kWh Tesla. That's a non-argument.

I recently did a cross-european drive, including right through Germany and Austria. In Germany, I aimed, and for the most part achieved, 100 mph. In Austria I stuck to the 80 mph limit. Actual achieved average speed in Germany, over several hours; 60mph, and in Austria; 56mph. Gee. Big deal.

I did a 500 mile run to Hamburg once, several years ago. Target speed was 140mph, typically ~120mph achieved due to 'sluggish' 100 mph traffic. Actual door to door speed was ~73mph. About the fastest real average speed I've seen.

But, just to keep on topic, just because you have to stick to a slow speed to achieve a range doesn't mean you can't achieve the range! I dare say we could hammer a Leaf and be braking and accelerating hard, and get the mileage down to 30. But would you then expect someone to quote the 'worst' figure?
 
donald said:
dgpcolorado said:
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
GRA said:
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.
But then a BEV is the wrong tool for the job. Even a 85kWh Tesla. That's a non-argument.
Actually, an 85kWh Tesla would work just fine, given Superchargers in the right areas. Even a 60kWh Tesla would work, with a bit more inconvenience. Which is one reason why I monitor the location of QCs and make recommendations for them in appropriate locations (like Lee Vining and Jamestown for this trip). But it's true that at the moment none of the sub-$40k BEVs would work. We'll have to wait for the Gen III Tesla, or use the closest equivalent now, the Volt (one of which I saw in Lee Vining while we were getting gas).

donald said:
I recently did a cross-european drive, including right through Germany and Austria. In Germany, I aimed, and for the most part achieved, 100 mph. In Austria I stuck to the 80 mph limit. Actual achieved average speed in Germany, over several hours; 60mph, and in Austria; 56mph. Gee. Big deal.

I did a 500 mile run to Hamburg once, several years ago. Target speed was 140mph, typically ~120mph achieved due to 'sluggish' 100 mph traffic. Actual door to door speed was ~73mph. About the fastest real average speed I've seen.
You should try driving across Nevada on U.S. 50 (aka 'The Loneliest Road in America') some time. Meeting a car an hour isn't unusual at night. Most of the big rural western states are similar, if not that extreme. They don't have German speed limits, but they don't have German traffic either. 85 mph for ca. 400 miles across Nevada on Interstate 80 (75 mph speed limit) is pretty common; BTDT.

donald said:
But, just to keep on topic, just because you have to stick to a slow speed to achieve a range doesn't mean you can't achieve the range! I dare say we could hammer a Leaf and be braking and accelerating hard, and get the mileage down to 30. But would you then expect someone to quote the 'worst' figure?
I expect people to quote a realistic figure, one that the average person is actually likely to use. One of the members here has the record for longest un-recharged range in a LEAF, at 188 miles IIRR. But he averaged around 18 mph to do it, in Phoenix, no accessories, hot day etc. This has absolutely zero to do with how normal people drive their car.
 
GRA said:
Actually, an 85kWh Tesla would work just fine, given Superchargers in the right areas. Even a 60kWh Tesla would work, with a bit more inconvenience.
..providing not too many people actually have them.

The problem with EVs is that you need to sell 10,000s of them to get economies of scale and promote improved and developing technologies to bring the price down. But once you have 10,000s of vehicles all running down the same 500 mile route, all needing a charge, that'll be 1,000s of vehicles all needing a charge at the same time.

En-route charging is a short term solution whilst the actual number of BEVs is low. But if the future of BEVs is, say, as high as a 10% penetration then there will simply be too many vehicles to recharge on major routes and EV drivers would be foolhardy to set out on a return route greater than their vehicle range.


GRA said:
I expect people to quote a realistic figure, one that the average person is actually likely to use. One of the members here has the record for longest un-recharged range in a LEAF, at 188 miles IIRR. But he averaged around 18 mph to do it, in Phoenix, no accessories, hot day etc. This has absolutely zero to do with how normal people drive their car.
You have to be consistent here - either you expect the range YOU want quoted, or you would be happy with an achievable range in reasonable circumstances.

In this case, I would agree that a claim of 120 mile range is egging it on a bit too far, but a 100 mile claim would not be unreasonable.

If you wanna go further in an BEV, drive at 55. Other traffic drives at that speed, so what's unreasonable about it?

If you don't wanna go slower but still demand the quoted ranges, don't drive a BEV!

You just seem to be moaning that the fuel supplies of the world are drying up stopping you from looning it down the highway at breakneck speeds. Awww.. diddums. Remember the 55 limit in the US came in largely as a response to oil supply concerns, which in turn was down to US folks insisting on their right to bumble around in 10 mpg monstrosities. I think in those days they came up with equally disconnected logic, saying they would refuse to drive smaller cars with smaller engines. That sounds as logical as your argument, saying they would refuse to drive slower.

So don't be surprised if lower speed limits kick in again, whilst speed merchants like you want to peg it down the highways at speeds that increase the physical end environmental dangers to everyone else with the only tangible outcome is that you're doubling your fuel consumption.

You should carry on only thinking only of yourself and the essential requirement you have to feel like you are driving fast. What would your life be about, if you could not burn down the highways zooming past slower traffic? That's really important, because other people's safety, security of energy supplies, efficient use of dwindling resources, all of this is insignificant compared with your need to feel like your not driving too slow.
 
donald said:
If you wanna go further in an BEV, drive at 55. Other traffic drives at that speed, so what's unreasonable about it?
...
. Remember the 55 limit in the US came in largely as a response to oil supply concerns, which in turn was down to US folks insisting on their right to bumble around in 10 mpg monstrosities.
The 55 mph national speed limit went away long ago.

Re: the bolded part, really?!?!? It's certainly not the case here in Nor Cal and even less so in So Cal. See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=324135#p324135" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=301714#p301714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Down in So Cal (was last there a year ago), I was doing 70+ mph in a 55 mph zone in the middle lanes and people were still zooming by me.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/speeding-texas-85-mph-highway-opens/story?id=17549839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; talks about an 85 mph limit in a part of Texas. It also says
Texas already has 80 mph limits on some highways, 75 mph on others, yet the speeds are a sedate 55 to 65 mph on through cities and towns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; discusses state speed limits.
 
donald said:
En-route charging is a short term solution whilst the actual number of BEVs is low. But if the future of BEVs is, say, as high as a 10% penetration then there will simply be too many vehicles to recharge on major routes and EV drivers would be foolhardy to set out on a return route greater than their vehicle range.
Thank you for that astute observation. While charging congestion is becoming a reality in California, I would add that most vehicles do not have the same starting point and destination. Also, by the time BEVs have 10% market share, battery technology will have improved. There are reportedly efforts underway to design a lithium-air chemistry for vehicles with 500 miles of range. Blasphemy, I say.

donald said:
In this case, I would agree that a claim of 120 mile range is egging it on a bit too far, but a 100 mile claim would not be unreasonable.

If you wanna go further in an BEV, drive at 55. Other traffic drives at that speed, so what's unreasonable about it?

If you don't wanna go slower but still demand the quoted ranges, don't drive a BEV!
That has to be an all-time classic.
 
cwerdna said:
Re: the bolded part, really?!?!? It's certainly not the case here in Nor Cal and even less so in So Cal. See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=324135#p324135" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=301714#p301714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

'Other traffic', not 'all traffic'. Seeing as trucks have high load tyres only rated to max 60 mph, how fast do they drive?

I'm saying that driving at 18 mph would clearly be unreasonable on a highway AND would certainly sap your arrival time. But driving at 55 is entirely reasonable and a range quoted accordingly is therefore reasonable. You would expect a quoted range to be a reasonably achievable range, not the worst possible. What help is it to quote a range of '30 miles if you drive like a lunatic'!?

It's like arguing that you wouldn't buy an ICE because the EPA figures don't accurately represent the mileage you'd get driving at 80.
 
donald said:
In what way? (I can't tell if your #sarc button was engaged!)
Donald, most of the points you brought up have been discussed here at some length before. I think most of the regulars get it. Tony even went as far as creating the 100-mile club to demonstrate just how reasonable the 100-mile claim on a single charge was. I trust that you are a member? What pushed the argument over the edge, in my opinion, was the "don't drive a BEV" statement. I don't even know what to respond to that.
 
donald said:
It's like arguing that you wouldn't buy an ICE because the EPA figures don't accurately represent the mileage you'd get driving at 80.
They don't, esp. since the (outdated) EPA highway test has an average speed of ~48 mph. At least the EPA has fudged the figures down long ago (early 80s, IIRC) and then added 3 more cycles (starting w/MY 08) to calculate the numbers, which aren't based on actual fuel consumption anyway (see http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/67235-car-driver-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

That said, Consumer Reports does their highway tests at a steady 65 mph (per last page of http://web.archive.org/web/20060401000000*/http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and their highway numbers often or usually exceed the EPA highway rating. See http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm?loginMethod=auto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/best-worst-fuel-economy/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, then lookup your favorite ICEVs at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbsSelect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Here are some EPA ratings for some Toyotas, for example: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33324&id=33331&id=33315&id=33372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

At 65 mph on level terrain, the Leaf will not go 100 miles on a charge.

BTW, on most highways I drive on, there are very few large trucks and I believe part of it is that they're not allowed on some of them. The rest that weren't big rigs certainly go faster than 55 or 60 mph. I remember a moving van of a shipper I used mentioned he couldn't go on certain hghways.
 
surfingslovak said:
What pushed the argument over the edge, in my opinion, was the "don't drive a BEV" statement. I don't even know what to respond to that.

Sorry. To clarify, it was directed specifically at GRA who appears to be pouting that BEVs are no use because he won't get the range the manufacturers claim at his desired max-velocity burn down the highway. (And apologies to him if that is not the intent of his posts, but it certainly sounds like it.)

My comments here were not, at all, intended to be directed at those who, as you say, are already well aware of the issued - that is to say, folks who already use EVs. Apologies that this comment could be misread out of context with GRA's apparent position. I was merely repeating what is known, for GRA's benefit.
 
donald said:
Sorry. To clarify, it was directed specifically at GRA who appears to be pouting that BEVs are no use because he won't get the range the manufacturers claim at his desired max-velocity burn down the highway. (And apologies to him if that is not the intent of his posts, but it certainly sounds like it.)
Thank you for clarifying! My statement was done in the context of helping usher EV adoption. Thankfully, there are many new EV drivers minted every day. Based on my own experience and what I have learned and observed in communities such as this one, it's important to set the right expectations upfront, and approach common problems and barriers to adoption with a pragmatic mindset.
 
surfingslovak said:
it's important to set the right expectations upfront, and approach common problems and barriers to adoption with a pragmatic mindset.
I couldn't agree more.

I'm disheartened by manufacturers/vendors who (as per the case in this thread) raise, themselves, the issues they think people are concerned about and then promptly try to white-wash it.

People have, and express, genuine concerns about the limitations of EVs, but rather than put those issues into the context of the benefits that EVs can bring as an alternative, they seem hell-bent on trying to make EVs sound as 'ICEy' as they possibly can, as if to avoid offending anyone that insists on only having what they have always had - GRA being a prime example. I don't think his sorts of arguments are ever going to be satisfied, at least not for several years, and it's a fool's errand to attempt to persuade him on the basis of mileage claims.

I think VMs should focus on the differences of EVs versus ICEs, rather than try to argue that they are almost the same, and in this way open some people's eyes to alternative possibilities. EVs are just not a mass-market product yet, but that doesn't mean they can't be sold in larger numbers making the economics of production look much better for the future.
 
donald said:
surfingslovak said:
What pushed the argument over the edge, in my opinion, was the "don't drive a BEV" statement. I don't even know what to respond to that.

Sorry. To clarify, it was directed specifically at GRA who appears to be pouting that BEVs are no use because he won't get the range the manufacturers claim at his desired max-velocity burn down the highway. (And apologies to him if that is not the intent of his posts, but it certainly sounds like it.)

My comments here were not, at all, intended to be directed at those who, as you say, are already well aware of the issued - that is to say, folks who already use EVs. Apologies that this comment could be misread out of context with GRA's apparent position. I was merely repeating what is known, for GRA's benefit.
Since I've been posting here for quite a while most people already know my position, but to repeat it for _your_ benefit, BEVs will only reach _mass_ adoption when they have acceptable ranges the way the average motorist actually drives, i.e. without making all the compromises early adopters/extreme greens are willing to make. That means you don't have to drive slower than the flow of traffic, you don't have to put up with not using the HVAC, and you don't have to take side roads instead of using the freeway. No pouting involved, just an acknowledgement of the facts.

Most drivers aren't motivated by environmental ideology, they're motivated by their pocketbook and convenience. For mass adoption, the range of BEVs needs to increase to the point where the typical driver doesn't even have to think about the fact that they're driving a BEV instead of an ICE, except that they plug it in at night when they get home. And this has to be at an affordable price.

If you go over to the MyRAV4EV forum, you won't see complaints about the car's inadequate range in daily use, unlike the case here. Per Tony William's tests the RAV4EV will go 142 miles @ 65 mph in ideal conditions when new, which implies a real world range of about 100 miles when making reasonable allowances for reserve, HVAC use, winds etc. and some degradation. Even at 70% of original capacity, the car will still go 70 miles or so with a reasonable reserve, where the LEAF is down in the totally inadequate 30-40 mile range depending on the temperature. Thus, about 150 miles EPA when new seems to be the necessary range to handle 95% or more or commutes/errands, and that's what's needed for mass adoption in the U.S. But it can't be in a $50k car, $30k or less is what's needed.

So much for daily drivers. Trip cars need considerably more range, ultimately at least four hours plus a reserve at whatever the freeway speed limit is (at a minimum; given the way most people actually drive in large parts of the U.S., five or ten mph over the limit is more realistic), with allowances for HVAC use, degradation etc. Not even the Tesla S-85 comes close to that yet (although FCEVs do), but we'll see steady improvement in batteries that will eventually allow it, or else FCEVs will take over the road trips, or we´ll use HEVs/PHEVs/diesels for those. But the Tesla S _does_ have enough range for the majority of weekend trips now, especially given an SC or two en-route. Obviously, they're far too expensive to ever be mass market, but Gen III won't be if Tesla can hit their price point.
 
GRA said:
most people already know my position, but to repeat it for _your_ benefit, BEVs will only reach _mass_ adoption when they have acceptable ranges the way the average motorist actually drives, i.e. without making all the compromises early adopters/extreme greens are willing to make.
Did you not even to bother reading to the end of my last post?

donald said:
I think VMs should focus on the differences of EVs versus ICEs, rather than try to argue that they are almost the same, and in this way open some people's eyes to alternative possibilities. EVs are just not a mass-market product yet, but that doesn't mean they can't be sold in larger numbers making the economics of production look much better for the future.
A bit of bold-ing, in case you haven't got your thick glasses nearby. You sound like you want to disagree with something, but are struggling because you don't have an original point to make.

I might not have read all the threads on this forum, but nothing I have read so far, nor anything I have put, has argued the opposite to your suggestion that EVs won't reach a mass market without competing on range and price. ... so what? What are you trying to then argue, consequent to this amazing piece of genius-deduction?

Generally, the mass market follows what it thinks the rest of the mass market wants. That's why it is a 'mass-market' - because it has the widest appeal. Like sheep following each other. They all chant the same mantra; 'say after me; I am an individual because I have a big fast car which makes me free'. Feel free to tag along with the other sheep. No-one's stopping you. I'm just struggling to understand why you are posting on an EV forum?
 
donald said:
GRA said:
most people already know my position, but to repeat it for _your_ benefit, BEVs will only reach _mass_ adoption when they have acceptable ranges the way the average motorist actually drives, i.e. without making all the compromises early adopters/extreme greens are willing to make.
Did you not even to bother reading to the end of my last post?

donald said:
I think VMs should focus on the differences of EVs versus ICEs, rather than try to argue that they are almost the same, and in this way open some people's eyes to alternative possibilities. EVs are just not a mass-market product yet, but that doesn't mean they can't be sold in larger numbers making the economics of production look much better for the future.
A bit of bold-ing, in case you haven't got your thick glasses nearby. You sound like you want to disagree with something, but are struggling because you don't have an original point to make.

I might not have read all the threads on this forum, but nothing I have read so far, nor anything I have put, has argued the opposite to your suggestion that EVs won't reach a mass market without competing on range and price. ... so what? What are you trying to then argue, consequent to this amazing piece of genius-deduction?

Generally, the mass market follows what it thinks the rest of the mass market wants. That's why it is a 'mass-market' - because it has the widest appeal. Like sheep following each other. They all chant the same mantra; 'say after me; I am an individual because I have a big fast car which makes me free'. Feel free to tag along with the other sheep. No-one's stopping you. I'm just struggling to understand why you are posting on an EV forum?
You were the one disagreeing with my earlier post re the necessary ranges required for real-world use, so I was replying to that. As to why I post on an EV forum, that too has been covered at length in the past. I'm a fan of them but don't want to see their current capabilities oversold, with the inevitable backlash which then ensues. I've seen that happen with solar in the '80s and '90s, with BEVs (1990s edition), with FCEVs (2000s edition), and so on. My sig states my attitude towards adoption of new tech, having been through it myself with off-grid PV in the early nineties. Nissan has been reaping the (negative) rewards of overhype and overpromising for the past year or two, and I'd prefer that other EV companies don't follow them, lest they nearly kill BEVs AGAIN.
 
GRA said:
You were the one disagreeing with my earlier post re the necessary ranges required for real-world use, so I was replying to that.
You're setting up your own windmills there. I don't see any such disagreement. You seem so keen to want to argue about something, you're imagining your own arguments now.

In any case, driving to work is a real-world use of a vehicle. I have no problem driving to work in my EV. It directly replaces a diesel car which has clocked up 80,000 commuting miles in the last 8 years and I have no reason to doubt this could do the same, and with a fuel saving of 75%, lower road tax, lower insurance (funnily enough) and expected-to-be lower maintenance. That's pretty 'real-world'.

Oh, yeah - it's also a much more sublime, cosseting driving experience too, and I get to work better prepared and back home less tired. I guess you get to work in a sweaty buzz of adrenalin from your high-speed antics, and then promptly droop from the stress.

Your 'real-world' may consist of racing every other car down the longest highway you can find, like some demented dog on heat. I don't live in that world.
 
donald said:
Your 'real-world' may consist of racing every other car down the longest highway you can find, like some demented dog on heat. I don't live in that world.

where do you live?
your ID dont say.
 
thankyouOB said:
donald said:
Your 'real-world' may consist of racing every other car down the longest highway you can find, like some demented dog on heat. I don't live in that world.

where do you live?
your ID dont say.
donald said:
Click to open
 
Donald, can you update your location info via User Control Panel (near top) > Profile (left side)? That way, we don't need to ask in future posts/threads or do sleuthing to deduce it.

We seem to be getting off topic. My OP is my original intent as NOBODY at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; thought 100 miles is the range that Nissan reps should tell people the range of the '12 Leaf is. Presumably, those folks have never owned nor leased a BEV before.

From TonyWilliams' range tests, it doesn't seem like the '13 Leaf has any more range than the '12, so by extension, 100 miles also seems like a bad number to tell people.

Underestimating typical US highway driving speeds, discussing truck speed limits, etc. really should be discussed in another topic.
 
Back
Top