|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 17, 2016 0:41:06 GMT 11
OK this doesn't remotely compare to driving across the state, but on Sunday I'm planning to take to family down the coast to visit a friend in Thirroul, which is about a 135km round trip from Sydney's inner west. That will easily be the longest drive we have ever taken in the Leaf. It is also a trip that involves climbing to 400m before going back down to sea level. I've used the Leaf Route planner to estimate how much charging I will need to do at the destination (my friend's garage). Depending on route and speed, the Route Planner says I will use somewhere between 6 and 8 bars getting there, and between 7 and 9 bars to get back. I will charge to 100% before leaving, but I've lost a bar, so my 11 bars will pessimistically be 3 bars at the destination. So I will need to add at least 6 bars of charge while I'm there to feel confident of returning and maybe 8 to not sweat. That will take around 4-5 hours using the portable EVSE? So should I feel confident or should I take the gas guzzler?  |
|
|
|
Post by jake on May 17, 2016 10:33:45 GMT 11
You should be fine as long as you don't drive too fast. I got 112k out of a single charge a few days ago but that was driving through suburbia over 3.5 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by jake on May 17, 2016 10:36:37 GMT 11
Also, I would do a full charge for the trip back as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on May 17, 2016 11:35:37 GMT 11
At one bar down your Leaf will have about 18KWh at 100%. Down to 1 KWh, at an easy 5km/KWh you have a range of 85km. 3 bars may seem low but it represents about 8KWh or about 7x5km still available.
Drive conservatively and steadily at a modest speed, enjoy your travel as an adventure, and you will do it easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feng on May 17, 2016 11:37:49 GMT 11
If it helps, I've carefully driven from Bexley to Bulli and back on a full charge and I'm already down two bars. I forgot how much I had left when I got back but I think I could have made it to Wollongong and back at the time. If you're short around Bexley you're welcome to drop in for a charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffthewalker on May 17, 2016 12:38:51 GMT 11
OK this doesn't remotely compare to driving across the state, but on Sunday I'm planning to take to family down the coast to visit a friend in Thirroul, which is about a 135km round trip from Sydney's inner west. That will easily be the longest drive we have ever taken in the Leaf. It is also a trip that involves climbing to 400m before going back down to sea level. So should I feel confident or should I take the gas guzzler? :-/ The climb is the biggest problem that I can see. I have been pushing the envelop on my trek and even 100m change in elevation puts me into 'range anxiety' mode. I recently drove out of Adelaide to Murray Bridge, a distance of about 80klms. I pushed in a full charge (17.7kWh) from the fast charger at Mitsubishi and climbed out of Adelaide to Stirling less that 20km away. But the rise was 450 meters. I had to sit on a L2 charger for 3 hours (thanks to the Organic Cafe) to replenish the tank with enough to get to Murray Bridge. I don't know if the trip planner considers the difference in elevation. Regen is nice, but you are still better off by a large percentage doing a level distance than doing the same distance going up and down. I still have 12 bars but a full charge is consistently only 18kWh (51Ah) according to LEAF Spy. This worries me as I have only had my LEAF for 8 months and 15,000 klms and 18kWh is a far cry from 24kWh (I do understand that 24 is "salesman speak", but...). If I travel at over 70 k/h I struggle to cover 100klms. The image attached is the dash display from this morning's drive. 104.7klms driven, 22klms left in the tank (click on the image to enlarge to see the numbers clearly). But, the big number is the 0.11kWh/km. This is for this morning's travel only and is pretty well impossible to achieve. I am practicing for some long stretches ahead:-). Wouldn't it be nice to have a 24kWh battery. 24kWh divided by 0.11kWh/km=218km. Ok, maybe that was 0.119kWh/km. So 24kWh divided by 0.12kWh/km=200km. Nice work if you can get it. But it doesn't work out like this at all. If I had driven to empty (and assuming same conditions) I would have traveled a total of 104.7 + 22 = 127km. Based on a full tank of 18kWh then 18kWh divided by 0.11kWh/km=163km. Or 18kWh divided by .12kWh/km=150km. But I didn't even get any where near this as I only got 127km. I can understand the GOM not getting it right because "It is hard to make predictions, specially about the future". But at the end of a drive I would like to think that the numbers "add up". It is still the best car I have ever owned or driven:-):-).  |
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 17, 2016 13:59:21 GMT 11
Also, I would do a full charge for the trip back as well. I'll plug in when I get there, turn the timer off, and let it charge until we leave. We'll be visiting for 5 to 6 hours. At one bar down your Leaf will have about 18KWh at 100%. Down to 1 KWh, at an easy 5km/KWh you have a range of 85km. 3 bars may seem low but it represents about 8KWh or about 7x5km still available. Drive conservatively and steadily at a modest speed, enjoy your travel as an adventure, and you will do it easily. That certainly sounds comfortable, 0.2 kWh/km is pretty hungry driving, hopefully we can do better than that. We'll go the "slow" route via Stanwell Park and Sea Cliff Bridge to enjoy the scenery  If it helps, I've carefully driven from Bexley to Bulli and back on a full charge and I'm already down two bars. I forgot how much I had left when I got back but I think I could have made it to Wollongong and back at the time. If you're short around Bexley you're welcome to drop in for a charge. Thanks for the offer Feng, if we need it we'll drop by According to the Route Planner, the first charger that I would get to in southern Sydney on the way back is the Holiday Inn at Mascot, which surprises me. I would have thought there'd be other further south but it appears not. If I can make it that far, even at LBW, I should be able to get home. The climb is the biggest problem that I can see. I have been pushing the envelop on my trek and even 100m change in elevation puts me into 'range anxiety' mode. I recently drove out of Adelaide to Murray Bridge, a distance of about 80klms. I pushed in a full charge (17.7kWh) from the fast charger at Mitsubishi and climbed out of Adelaide to Stirling less that 20km away. But the rise was 450 meters. I had to sit on a L2 charger for 3 hours (thanks to the Organic Cafe) to replenish the tank with enough to get to Murray Bridge. I don't know if the trip planner considers the difference in elevation. Regen is nice, but you are still better off by a large percentage doing a level distance than doing the same distance going up and down. OK that makes me a bit nervous. The Route Planner does take elevation of the route into account, which is why it shows using more bars getting back than getting there. Leaving Sydney, the rise to 400m is relatively gentle over a distance of about 30km, before diving down the escarpment to Stanwell Park. Coming back is a lot worse, the rise up the escarpment is only over a few km. So it's not surprising that the return trip would use more power - a steep rise to the same elevation is going to be more inefficient than a gentle rise. I don't plan to drive too fast, except when going down the escarpment to max out the regen |
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on May 17, 2016 14:07:14 GMT 11
Using the portable EVSE usually takes less time for a full charge than the LEAF predicts. if you are going to be there 5 or 6 hours I would expect you too be fully charged before you start your return journey. I use the portable EVSE all the time, I have nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffthewalker on May 17, 2016 18:32:58 GMT 11
I don't plan to drive too fast, except when going down the escarpment to max out the regen :) Ahh. But regen (by basic physics) will recover height potential equally; less inefficiencies. So, theoretically, the potential energy recoverable is set by the difference in height. But, the faster the worser because of air resistance and, I think, some moving resistances are better slower (but that is only a gut feeling). Pardon the suspect English, I do that sometimes for the pure fun of it:-). I have tried to get my head around (theoretically) coming down at a fixed speed over the same height change but different gradient. The (near) extreme cases as I think about them are 10deg and 80deg gradients (or whatever the maximum gradient wherein [say] 60k/h could be held with the maximum regen [40kW?]). Sheesh. It is even hard to get my head around defining the problem:-). I suppose that after the descent down the steep hill, you would have to figure in a flat section to make up the total, across the road, distance. |
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on May 17, 2016 18:49:45 GMT 11
I just let my LEAF set it's own speed going down a steep hill, unless it gets so fast I feel uncomfortable, and then , of course, the braking creates even more regeneration.
|
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 17, 2016 23:50:49 GMT 11
Thanks everyone for your tips and suggestions. I will record all the pertinent data on the trip and report back next week!
|
|
|
|
Post by jake on May 18, 2016 0:11:15 GMT 11
Good luck and have fun
|
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on May 18, 2016 17:34:07 GMT 11
To evangelist and all you travellers out there, don't do what I have been doing. Don't know what made me think of it, in this age of gunk-in-a-can, but I have neglected my spare wheel for18 months; so I have just found the tyre pressure to be 20psi instead of 60psi.
Duh...
|
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 18, 2016 22:31:50 GMT 11
I have neglected my spare wheel for18 months; so I have just found the tyre pressure to be 20psi instead of 60psi. Great callout Hieronymous - I better check it before we leave! |
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 23, 2016 0:26:59 GMT 11
Back from Thirroul - the trip was easy peasy, not even close to raising a 'range anxiety' sweat. What was I worried about?  . While this doesn't compare with Jeff's transcontinental expedition, some might find the stats interesting: Charged to 100% overnight, GOM showed 144km on Eco (we've lost a bar). The trip down along the scenic route (Princes Highway and Lawrence Hargrave Drive, avoiding the motorway) took 90 minutes for 66km (avg speed 44 km/h) which considering the slowish drive out through the suburbs and the twisty road down to Stanwell Park was not bad going. Highest speed on the open road was about 95 km/h. We used 7 bars getting there - 12 bars down to 5 - and scored 3.8 eco-trees which is the most we've ever clocked. The 5km trip down the escarpment from Stanwell Tops to the beach (about a 400m drop) was 3-4 dots regen coasting and 5 when braking, the GOM increased from 59 to 77 km. At arrival the GOM was down to 65km, so for a 66km trip the GOM reckoned 79km range used up. I gave our friends a short spin in the Leaf, they were very impressed, and would consider an EV if they were a bit cheaper and they didn't have such long commute everyday with no charger at the destination. We stayed with our friends for 7 hours in the end, it look less than 4 hours to fully recharge using the portable EVSE and the mini Amphibian 10A to 15A adaptor. The trip back was a bit quicker (84 minutes) and also chewed up 7 bars. The climb up the escarpment was a lot of fun and chewed up 2 bars in little over 5 minutes. GOM decreased from 131 to 83 km! On the highway back into Sydney we felt a bit braver and drove up to 105 km/h. Back home, the GOM read 55km, GOM reducing 90km for the 66km trip. Eco trees 3.4 so less efficient than the trip down. So we definitely would not have had enough range to do the trip without a recharge, but only by about 2 bars. With a battery still at 12 bars it would be possible but tight. So the experience has given us much more confidence about the capability of the Leaf, and less concern about climbing huge hills (on a round trip at least!). |
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on May 28, 2016 23:55:32 GMT 11
The stats for this trip are in from Carwings:
Trip down: Efficiency = 121 Wh/km, regen rate = 35.0%, net power used = 7.8 kWh
Trip back: Efficiency = 124 Wh/km, regen rate = 32.2%, net power used = 8.0 kWh
|
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on May 29, 2016 7:56:13 GMT 11
So, assuming 18 KWh (less 1 KWh buffer), at that rate, in those conditions, for that sort of trip, your Leaf has a range of 138 km (17x8.1) - it's the stop/start driving conditions in town that kill range, so your trip shows what steady, smooth driving can achieve. Great result!
|
|
|
|
Post by jake on Jan 6, 2017 9:21:26 GMT 11
I drove from Wattle Glen to Safety Beach a few days ago (93km) mostly freeway. The trip planner said I needed 11 bars. Started off with a full charge and 1 passenger. Travelled on the speed limit (100k) as indicated by the car, so actually slower. Arrived with 1 bar left. The kind man at the resort let me plug into a standard power point to charge for the return journey. Unfortunately the circuit was shared with other things including the kettle to make his tea and so when I returned to go home the car had only 8 bars, because the power had been going on and off. I was on a tight schedule so with 10km short on the GOM I set off. I went 5 to 10 Kmh slower and amazingly made it home just. I found a big truck to draught behind for some of the way. That technique seemed to work. Speed makes a hell of a difference in your range capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feng on Jan 6, 2017 9:38:49 GMT 11
I found a big truck to draught behind for some of the way. That technique seemed to work. Speed makes a hell of a difference in your range capacity. I used to follow container trucks on the motorway and now my bumper is peppered with paint chips. I don't know if it's because it's a replacement bumper with inferior aftermarket paint or if I just never noticed it before the accident. I wouldn't recommend draughting unless you really have to, for the sake of your paint (and safety, of course!). Lucky you pulled off the trip! |
|
|
|
Post by jake on Jan 7, 2017 0:30:21 GMT 11
I found a big truck to draught behind for some of the way. That technique seemed to work. Speed makes a hell of a difference in your range capacity. I used to follow container trucks on the motorway and now my bumper is peppered with paint chips. I don't know if it's because it's a replacement bumper with inferior aftermarket paint or if I just never noticed it before the accident. I wouldn't recommend draughting unless you really have to, for the sake of your paint (and safety, of course!). Lucky you pulled off the trip! I stayed a nice safe distance away, and I don't think the truck would be able to out brake me so I think it was ok. I was a bit desperate to get home in a reasonable time. |
|
|
|
Post by 4wardthinking on Jan 7, 2017 11:08:05 GMT 11
It's the magic 55mph being best for economy factor coming in.
The distance the LEAF can travel surprises one, but the energy for speed trade-off is the biggest factor to consider.
The car can clear 200km if speed is factored in, and quite possibly greater distances.
The US 55mph limit is now showing its reason d'etre.
|
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Jan 7, 2017 22:12:14 GMT 11
It's the magic 55mph being best for economy factor coming in. The US 55mph limit is now showing its reason d'etre. Hmm... I don't buy that. The drag coefficient of the car is the main factor. The better the Cd, the faster you can go without significant range penalty. And it's a continuum rather than falling off a cliff. For example, Tesla Model S (P100D) loses 90km of range if average speed increases from 70 to 80 km/h (from 819 to 729 km), but loses only 56 km range from 110 to 120 km/h (508 to 452 km). So a consistent 11% range loss for each 10 km/h increase in average speed. The Leaf Cd is not nearly as good, so it doesn't perform as well as speed increases. |
|
|
|
Post by hieronymous on Jan 8, 2017 11:58:13 GMT 11
It's the magic 55mph being best for economy factor coming in. The US 55mph limit is now showing its reason d'etre. Hmm... I don't buy that. The drag coefficient of the car is the main factor. The better the Cd, the faster you can go without significant range penalty. And it's a continuum rather than falling off a cliff. For example, Tesla Model S (P100D) loses 90km of range if average speed increases from 70 to 80 km/h (from 819 to 729 km), but loses only 56 km range from 110 to 120 km/h (508 to 452 km). So a consistent 11% range loss for each 10 km/h increase in average speed. The Leaf Cd is not nearly as good, so it doesn't perform as well as speed increases. In the classroom, doubling the speed requires four times the kinetic energy. The Cd results in an additional penalty. In practice, your Tesla example has 729 km of range at 80kph, but only 452 km at 120kph. The USA 55mph limit, if observed, will, by far, have the greater impact on economy/range for both Leaf and Tesla. |
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Jan 8, 2017 17:19:59 GMT 11
In the classroom, doubling the speed requires four times the kinetic energy. The Cd results in an additional penalty. In practice, your Tesla example has 729 km of range at 80kph, but only 452 km at 120kph. The USA 55mph limit, if observed, will, by far, have the greater impact on economy/range for both Leaf and Tesla. Yes, that is true to get you to that speed, but once you are at a given cruising speed, the Cd will dictate how much energy it will take to keep you there (along with rolling resistance from tyres and other friction related factors). In space where Cd=0 and friction is zero, you can travel at your cruising speed forever using no additional energy So yes, travelling at 55 mph will give you better range than travelling at a higher speed, but the energy required to accelerate to a higher speed is much less than the energy required to keep you at that speed for the remainder of your battery charge (which is what the Tesla numbers show). |
|
|
|
Post by 4wardthinking on Jan 9, 2017 22:05:22 GMT 11
In the classroom, doubling the speed requires four times the kinetic energy. The Cd results in an additional penalty. In practice, your Tesla example has 729 km of range at 80kph, but only 452 km at 120kph. The USA 55mph limit, if observed, will, by far, have the greater impact on economy/range for both Leaf and Tesla. Yes, that is true to get you to that speed, but once you are at a given cruising speed, the Cd will dictate how much energy it will take to keep you there (along with rolling resistance from tyres and other friction related factors). In space where Cd=0 and friction is zero, you can travel at your cruising speed forever using no additional energy So yes, travelling at 55 mph will give you better range than travelling at a higher speed, but the energy required to accelerate to a higher speed is much less than the energy required to keep you at that speed for the remainder of your battery charge (which is what the Tesla numbers show). And if one read the statement, is exactly what was said. One can be more subjective by taking into account air density, road surface, type tread, etc,etc. But the point still stands that the American 55mph(another 12% to km/mph conversion means it's over 80kmh. The blanket 55 was brought in for good reason, it's beneficial to all vehicles for numerous reasons. It's a given that the energy required to move a body from rest to a velocity is important, but only a part of the issue. The way one implies, is that's all that's required, in which case, is there a difference in hard acceleration, or steady slow acceleration. I'm guessing most in this did A level and above physics, applied & pure mathematics. The aim was to simplify, which is one of the reasons the 55 was applied. It was easy to understand, administer and of course keep to. Now if one was to begin differentiation, then D/y over D/x becomes a case of many external factors to consider. In fact there are many that use the accelerate hard & cruise method to maintain good economy, which directly correlates to power(energy at the wheels or torque) required. In fact it has been well accepted that hard acceleration does reduce power requirement over all. Kinetic energy has a unique effect, albeit salient, it's the theoretical energy a body 'has' once! It is not at rest, and can only be realized when reversing the scenario. Ke will become close to constant, as the weight and velocity stay To then place the unknown mass into the equation gets complex, as velocity increases, and forces it's way through the air surrounding it, the air begins to absorb energy as it moves from close to rest. Then the air trapped as its forced under the car increases in density, even more energy, but it then escapes at the sides & rear to reduce the lreducing pressure at the back. This air has mass, and is being moved by the cars power. Sadly it is not homogeneous. Then Ke must be varying. Cd is just as its defined. Co-efficient of drag. It has little meaning when it comes to the "energy needed to 'maintain velocity, it's a point to say how effective the vehicle is at defeating the above. But that has to be a constant. Indeed, it is easily proven that a building brick can have a better Cd than a TESLA. It's all about the massive quantity of variables. Cd is an indicator, and most, if not all the Cd tests are done at 55mph, they have the largest market. Btw, this only extends to vehicles, not F1 etc. Easy. I say once more 55mph(us 2000yards/mile). It has been well proven. Why the turmoil?. |
|
|
|
Post by 4wardthinking on Jan 9, 2017 22:12:38 GMT 11
By the way, this is a LEAF forum.
I won't pay $260k plus for one, when the LEAF, ZOE etc are excellent at doing what they do.
For that kind of money, I'd get a GT-R, and have Doc Nismo play with it, and still buy a few new EV's.
Want low Cd, then accelerate a brick to 765mph, and the energy it needs to stay there will reduce!.
Only fooling around here, but it's nice to stay LEAF. As a percentage, it'll loose far less money over 8 years!. The competition is already poised to demonstrate this.
|
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Jan 10, 2017 18:57:52 GMT 11
By the way, this is a LEAF forum. I won't pay $260k plus for one. Yeah, fair enough, but you did raise Tesla and if I see an argument with factual errors in it, I feel obliged to correct them. The base Tesla Model 3 will cost around $50-$55k in Australia (depending on the exchange rate at the time), and I will be buying one. |
|
|
|
Post by 4wardthinking on Jan 11, 2017 9:14:12 GMT 11
I'm not so sure the basic version of the rest of the world TESLA would be that price to be honest.
Remember the cost of a Volt hit the shores at just under $20k, then the greed set in, and changed it all.
People may find that the $1k "deposit" could be a little of an investment, rather than a definitive item.
I did consider the idea, but other manufacturers appeared more appealing, and putting my hand up for a car that had absolutely no final price was money gambled. I only gamble if I have money to throw away.
I bid you good luck all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4wardthinking on Jan 11, 2017 9:16:30 GMT 11
I'm not so sure the basic version of the rest of the world TESLA would be that price to be honest. Remember the cost of a Volt hit the shores at just under $20k, then the greed set in, and changed it all. People may find that the $1k "deposit" could be a little of an investment, rather than a definitive item. I did consider the idea, but other manufacturers appeared more appealing, and putting my hand up for a car that had absolutely no final price was money gambled. I only gamble if I have money to throw away. I bid you good luck all the same. A 'base' vehicle worries me. I'm happy to import my P90 or ZOE, and the cars would be less base than this I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by EVangelist on Oct 23, 2018 23:41:11 GMT 11
I've been meaning to post this for a while but only recently downloaded the Carwings stats. We had another trip from inner Sydney to Thirroul and back earlier this year and I wanted to compare it with the one in 2016. Table below. Main difference is loss of a bar since 2016 and the GOM on full charge is barely 120 km compared to 145 km 2 years prior. However the trip was done with no real anxiety - over 30km left on the GOM. From Stanwell Park into Thirroul it was a massive traffic crawl - we racked up 4.8 Eco trees it was so slow, the most we've ever notched.
The nice thing about this trip was the car was recharged while we were there purely on solar power after we arrived, and topped up the next morning before we left. Zero emissions!!
| May 2016 | Apr 2018 | | Battery Bars | 11 | 10 |
| Trip Out | Trip Back | Trip Out | Trip Back | | Charge at start (bars) | 12
| 12 | 12
| 12
| GOM at start (km, Eco)
| 144
| 145
| 120
| 116
| | GOM at end (km, Eco) | 65
| 55
| 33
| 38
| | Charge at end (bars) | 5
| 5
| 3
| 3
| | Max speed (km/h) | 95
| 105
| 100
| 95
| | Eco Trees | 3.8
| 3.4
| 4.8
| 3.4
| Actual distance (km)
| 64.5
| 64.5
| 63.3
| 64.7
| | Efficiency (Wh/km) | 121
| 124
| 122
| 130
| | Regeneration Rate (%) | 35.0%
| 32.2%
| 35.3%
| 31.7%
| | Net power used (kWh) | 7.8
| 8.0
| 7.7
| 8.4
|
The stats are otherwise pretty similar.
|
|
. While this doesn't compare with Jeff's transcontinental expedition, some might find the stats interesting: