Nissan planning on 300+ miles range Leaf ?

[dhanson865]

Tesla has stated that other automakers are welcome to use their supercharger network, provided the automaker produces cars that can charge at the full rate, and pays their share of the supercharger network costs.

GSP

Keep in mind the Leaf in question will have a higher capacity battery and thus will be allowing a higher charge rate.

No matter the size of the battery the supercharger/chademo will always be charging at a similar max proportional rate.

If the top limit for the 24 kWh battery is 40KW then the 2018 Leaf will probably be doing 80KW chademo / supercharging

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why would using less current be an issue?

The car and the supercharger communicate over that connection. They can negotiate an acceptable charge rate that meets the restriction of the chademo connector quality.

With the smaller battery pack the Leaf wouldn't be there any longer than a Model S even if the rate is limited.

That's not the issue. It's the lower utilization. When traveling between superchargers you have to travel x amount of miles, and charge x amount of miles to reach the next supercharger. Thus even though the battery pack may be smaller on the Leaf, the amount of miles you have to charge doesn't really change, and a lower power charge will still mean the network is not being utilized in an optimal rate (you charge longer for the same trip).

Plus a Leaf 2.0 will have similar battery capacity as a Model 3. If it charges slower (because of the CHAdeMO limit) than a Model 3 and there is a Model 3 owner waiting, the Model 3 owner won't be happy about that. Obviously keeping Tesla owners happy take first priority over helping competitors.

I don't see a CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter happening. It makes it easier for much slower charging cars like the Leaf 1.0 to use the supercharger network, and that would not be acceptable to a lot of Tesla owners.

 

[dhanson865]

Plus a Leaf 2.0 will have similar battery capacity as a Model 3. If it charges slower (because of the CHAdeMO limit) than a Model 3 and there is a Model 3 owner waiting, the Model 3 owner won't be happy about that. Obviously keeping Tesla owners happy take first priority over helping competitors.

If a chademo/tesla adapter is limited to 80KW and the Tesla Model 3 does 120KW it'll only make a difference of 5 - 10 minutes. Yeah it'll be slower at the beginning but both cars will taper down to below 80KW at higher SOC. Unless you just don't believe that a chademo/Tesla adapter will do 80KW, it really isn't enough of a difference to keep them from opting into the network so long as they pay.

How much longer will it take if a Model X or Model S comes out with a 100+ kWh pack and the user decides to charge to full? [sarcasm on, Tesla can't do that because the Model S 60/85 owners won't be happy about that. [sarcasm off

We already have

Some can charge at 90 KW (85 KWh A battery pack, near 1.06C charge rate)
some can charge at 105 KW (60 KWh with older battery pack, 1.75C charge rate)
some can charge at 111 KW (60 KWh with newer battery pack, 1.85C charge rate)
some can charge at 120 KW (85 KWh B or D battery pack, near 1.41C charge rate)

Is it that big of a change to add a 80KW max to that table? I don't think it is.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If a chademo/tesla adapter is limited to 80KW and the Tesla Model 3 does 120KW it'll only make a difference of 5 - 10 minutes. Yeah it'll be slower at the beginning but both cars will taper down to below 80KW at higher SOC. Unless you just don't believe that a chademo/Tesla adapter will do 80KW, it really isn't enough of a difference to keep them from opting into the network so long as they pay.

How much longer will it take if a Model X or Model S comes out with a 100+ kWh pack and the user decides to charge to full? [sarcasm on, Tesla can't do that because the Model S 60/85 owners won't be happy about that. [sarcasm off

We already have

Some can charge at 90 KW (85 KWh A battery pack, near 1.06C charge rate)
some can charge at 105 KW (60 KWh with older battery pack, 1.75C charge rate)
some can charge at 111 KW (60 KWh with newer battery pack, 1.85C charge rate)
some can charge at 120 KW (85 KWh B or D battery pack, near 1.41C charge rate)

Is it that big of a change to add a 80KW max to that table? I don't think it is.

While a 100kWh car can choose to sit there to charge their car, when going on a trip they will be unlikely to do that (esp. with the new system Elon just pushed out that does the calculations for you), and whatever sitting they do at one station will be offset by the reduced charging at the next station (or even skipping a stop completely). For example, while a Leaf 1.0 may sit the same 30 minutes as a Model S to charge the same percentage, it only replenishes about 65miles vs 170 miles, so it'll need 2-3 sessions to travel the same trip. Thus what matters is the mph and kW charge rate, not the battery pack size.

I see this talk about a smaller battery somehow "solving" the issue, similar to how some PiP owners say their car is "better" because it takes "less time" to charge than an EV or a longer range PHEV like the Volt, with them completely missing the fact that they go far less miles on that charge.

And there are other issues with that idea:
1) The adapter will allow any CHAdeMO car (including Leaf 1.0 or a Leaf 2.0 with only 50kW charging ability) to charge at superchargers, so Tesla will need to build software in the superchargers to detect low power cars and prevent them from charging.
2) Money/engineering resources has to be spent to develop such a cable with will only benefit non-Tesla cars.

I don't see Tesla doing that for a standard that will only lower the lowest common denominator for the network. Adding an additional port is not that big a commitment to make (ideally switching to the supercharger standard completely and ditching CHAdeMO is probably what Tesla would want in order to grow their standard). If Nissan can't even do that, that is not a really strong showing of support.

All this talk brought up a technical problem that I suddenly remembered. CHAdeMO requires an isolated ground via an isolation transformer. Both CCS and the superchargers don't require that and thus the chargers don't have that. So while a CHAdeMO charger can easily be converted to support CCS and supercharger cars, the other way around doesn't work without adding an isolation transformer and other hardware changes to support that. I remember this being an issue for companies building multi-standard chargers. So that adds a third technical reason against such an adapter.

 

[TexasEV]

Cars without a big enough battery wouldn't even make it from one supercharger to the next. You can be sure that Tesla wouldn't allow another car to use the supercharger network primarily for local charging!

 

[dhanson865]

While a 100kWh car can choose to sit there to charge their car, when going on a trip they will be unlikely to do that (esp. with the new system Elon just pushed out that does the calculations for you), and whatever sitting they do at one station will be offset by the reduced charging at the next station (or even skipping a stop completely). For example, while a Leaf 1.0 may sit the same 30 minutes as a Model S to charge the same percentage, it only replenishes about 65miles vs 170 miles, so it'll need 2-3 sessions to travel the same trip. Thus what matters is the mph and kW charge rate, not the battery pack size.

I see this talk about a smaller battery somehow "solving" the issue, similar to how some PiP owners say their car is "better" because it takes "less time" to charge than an EV or a longer range PHEV like the Volt, with them completely missing the fact that they go far less miles on that charge.

And there are other issues with that idea:
1) The adapter will allow any CHAdeMO car (including Leaf 1.0 or a Leaf 2.0 with only 50kW charging ability) to charge at superchargers, so Tesla will need to build software in the superchargers to detect low power cars and prevent them from charging.
2) Money/engineering resources has to be spent to develop such a cable with will only benefit non-Tesla cars.

I don't see Tesla doing that for a standard that will only lower the lowest common denominator for the network. Adding an additional port is not that big a commitment to make (ideally switching to the supercharger standard completely and ditching CHAdeMO is probably what Tesla would want in order to grow their standard). If Nissan can't even do that, that is not a really strong showing of support.

All this talk brought up a technical problem that I suddenly remembered. CHAdeMO requires an isolated ground via an isolation transformer. Both CCS and the superchargers don't require that and thus the chargers don't have that. So while a CHAdeMO charger can easily be converted to support CCS and supercharger cars, the other way around doesn't work without adding an isolation transformer and other hardware changes to support that. I remember this being an issue for companies building multi-standard chargers. So that adds a third technical reason against such an adapter.

You keep moving the goal posts back to the low capacity cars.

I'm talking about Nissan leaf 2 with a proper battery that is competing vs Telsa Model 3. I'm not expecting Leaf 1 with a 24 kWh battery to sit at a supercharger. I discussed it as an example of how quick it can charge but I don't expect a 24 kWh car to ever get the adapter.

Whatever range leaf 2.0 has and whatever range Tesla Model 3 has they both could be designed to be supercharger friendly and Nissan could pony up the money to join the supercharger network in the future. We don't need to retrofit the supercharger network for existing EVs.

1. No the adapter won't let any chademo car charge because the supercharger talks to the car and authorizes the session based on the VIN of the car. Leafspy app on my phone shows me the VIN over the OBDII port, I'm sure they can send that out the chademo port as well.

2. Nissan would have to foot that bill and pay Tesla do that for them. It'd be a definite cost. Tesla isn't going to do it for free. But Tesla has said repeatedly they'll accept other cars into the network if the manufacturer is willing to pay.

3. The only way to avoid an adapter for the Leaf is to have the leaf have 3 ports instead of 2 and I suppose they could redesign the nose slightly and do so since the Tesla connector is small. I'm just thinking Nissan would find it cheaper/easier to pay Tesla for the adapter and network rights than to add a port on the car and pay the network rights.


If what you say about isolated ground is correct they'll have to go to

4. Put a Tesla inlet on the Leaf 2.0 and pay Tesla for the Tesla to chademo adapters they already have (and for access to the network). It keeps the number of ports on the car down at 2 if they want to keep the J1772 separate or they can just go Tesla style completely and do an adapter for J1772 as well. They'll still have to charge slower than a Tesla because of the lack of active cooling for the battery pack but it'd solve the connector issue by standardizing on all the connector/adapter choices Tesla made.

Tesla would go for it, Musk has said so in the past. I'm just not sure that Nissan would go for it. In fact I'm pretty sure they won't do it within the next few years even though they should do it on the 2017 Leaf. Just because its the right thing to do doesn't mean Nissan will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You keep moving the goal posts back to the low capacity cars.

I'm talking about Nissan leaf 2 with a proper battery that is competing vs Telsa Model 3. I'm not expecting Leaf 1 with a 24 kWh battery to sit at a supercharger. I discussed it as an example of how quick it can charge but I don't expect a 24 kWh car to ever get the adapter.

Whatever range leaf 2.0 has and whatever range Tesla Model 3 has they both could be designed to be supercharger friendly and Nissan could pony up the money to join the supercharger network in the future. We don't need to retrofit the supercharger network for existing EVs.

I discuss the Leaf 1.0 because it was mentioned as justification for why lower power doesn't matter and also because it is relevant to my point about identifying cars on the network.

1. No the adapter won't let any chademo car charge because the supercharger talks to the car and authorizes the session based on the VIN of the car. Leafspy app on my phone shows me the VIN over the OBDII port, I'm sure they can send that out the chademo port as well.

From the research I have done on CCS vs CHAdeMO, CHAdeMO does not have an extra channel available to pass through data like a VIN. The CAN bus for CHAdeMO is completely independent from the one for the OBDII port, so what happens there is not applicable. CCS, however has been designed to pass through additional data (intended to handle subscriptions and payment).

2. Nissan would have to foot that bill and pay Tesla do that for them. It'd be a definite cost. Tesla isn't going to do it for free. But Tesla has said repeatedly they'll accept other cars into the network if the manufacturer is willing to pay.

Although Tesla can certainly charge Nissan for it, the engineering resources it will take is a big issue (look how long the CHAdeMO adapter was delayed). Will they be willing to do that for a adapter that will only benefit non-Tesla cars is my question.

3. The only way to avoid an adapter for the Leaf is to have the leaf have 3 ports instead of 2 and I suppose they could redesign the nose slightly and do so since the Tesla connector is small. I'm just thinking Nissan would find it cheaper/easier to pay Tesla for the adapter and network rights than to add a port on the car and pay the network rights.

If what you say about isolated ground is correct they'll have to go to

4. Put a Tesla inlet on the Leaf 2.0 and pay Tesla for the Tesla to chademo adapters they already have (and for access to the network). It keeps the number of ports on the car down at 2 if they want to keep the J1772 separate or they can just go Tesla style completely and do an adapter for J1772 as well. They'll still have to charge slower than a Tesla because of the lack of active cooling for the battery pack but it'd solve the connector issue by standardizing on all the connector/adapter choices Tesla made.

Tesla would go for it, Musk has said so in the past. I'm just not sure that Nissan would go for it. In fact I'm pretty sure they won't do it within the next few years even though they should do it on the 2017 Leaf. Just because its the right thing to do doesn't mean Nissan will.

In any case where they go with a supercharger port, it'll be trivial for Tesla to require them to allow 90kW charging minimum. I think the Leaf 2.0, if it truly is a double sized battery as Ghosn is saying, should easily handle 90kW charging.

 

[dhanson865]

In any case where they go with a supercharger port, it'll be trivial for Tesla to require them to allow 90kW charging minimum. I think the Leaf 2.0, if it truly is a double sized battery as Ghosn is saying, should easily handle 90kW charging.

I think we are on the same page for the overall issues with Nissan joining the Tesla network.

As to supercharging at max rate with no active cooling loop and questionable battery chemistry for heat tolerance? No thanks I'd rather see them throttle the supercharging rate a little than to deal with battery degradation ala Arizona 2011 Leafs.

I could see Leaf 2.0 allowing 90 KW charging in cases where the battery pack starts out at 70F or less but they'd have to throttle it as soon as the battery hit 80F because they don't know if the user is going to charge to 100% or not and the Leaf battery pack takes hours to dissipate heat.

Of course I'm assuming they keep the passive cooling strategy in effect in Leaf 2.0 and don't join the crowd of other EVs that have active cooling for the battery pack.

 

[David99]

There is absolutely no way any other car manufacturer will join the Tesla charging network. Not going to happen. The Superchargers have large Tesla signs all over. No other manufacturer in their right mind would send their own customers to a competitor's facility and pay for it. It has nothing to do with technical challenges or money. That's just not good for business.

The average cost to develop a new car is in the billion $ range. The entire Supercharging network in the US costs aprox $30 million to build. If any of the big car manufacturers want, they can spend that kind of money easily. The cost of setting up their own charging network is nothing for the big players. We really need to stop thinking Tesla has something special here that no one else could build. We can debate why no one else has build a similar network so far. Many reasons. Regardless, there is absolutely no chance that any other car manufacturer will send their customers to the competition for charging.

 

[scottf200]

Imagine Tesla traveler pulling up to a SuperCharger station and sitting in a queue while a Nissan LEAF charges. That's not going to go over and Tesla's phone would be ringing. I'd make that call.

 

[richkae]

There is absolutely no way any other car manufacturer will join the Tesla charging network. Not going to happen. The Superchargers have large Tesla signs all over. No other manufacturer in their right mind would send their own customers to a competitor's facility and pay for it. It has nothing to do with technical challenges or money. That's just not good for business.

The average cost to develop a new car is in the billion $ range. The entire Supercharging network in the US costs aprox $30 million to build. If any of the big car manufacturers want, they can spend that kind of money easily. The cost of setting up their own charging network is nothing for the big players. We really need to stop thinking Tesla has something special here that no one else could build. We can debate why no one else has build a similar network so far. Many reasons. Regardless, there is absolutely no chance that any other car manufacturer will send their customers to the competition for charging.

I agree on all counts.
Suppose Nissan put up an equal amount of money and doubled the supercharger network, and they rebranded all the signage to say Tesla+Nissan ( changing signs is cheap ).
Do you think either would be willing to do that? ( I think the business and technical problems are separate and equally interesting )

To answer my own question - I still think there is a fundamental flaw with "free forever" and that the system will break down as the cars go downscale, span many classes, and multiply. I think the potential partners will disagree on that aspect and make it very hard to coexist.

 

[Canuck]

The average cost to develop a new car is in the billion $ range. The entire Supercharging network in the US costs aprox $30 million to build. If any of the big car manufacturers want, they can spend that kind of money easily. The cost of setting up their own charging network is nothing for the big players. We really need to stop thinking Tesla has something special here that no one else could build. We can debate why no one else has build a similar network so far. Many reasons. Regardless, there is absolutely no chance that any other car manufacturer will send their customers to the competition for charging.

You are really missing the point since other car manufacturers don't even have long range EV vehicles, so your argument is flawed right there. You say money is not an issue. Isn't that obvious? The issue is that no other electric vehicle can use a Supercharger network unless you make them about 85 miles apart (and that's being generous). Who is going to stop every 85 miles on a road trip?

So to say that "Tesla has nothing special here" completely misses the mark. In reality, Tesla has something hugely special -- it's called the desire to build long range EV's and a Supercharger network when no one else will even build a long range EV (except for the photoshopped long range Leaf -- in reality the Leaf will only be getting a modest increase in range). So what Tesla has is extremely special in my opinion. Despite what you claim is "nothing for the big players" the sad fact is that the big car makers will not do this, even if they had all the money in the world, because of their backward thinking 'horse and buggy' mentality. I'm glad to see GM is building the Bolt but they're a very, very long way from any SC network of their own. Let's start by getting other long range EV's on the road. Then you can tell us Tesla has nothing special with their SC network. By that time, good luck building anything near as complete as what Tesla will have for many years.

Sure sounds special to me.

 

[David99]

Look I bought my Tesla because it's the only EV that enables longer trips. So I'm with you. My point about nothing special is that it's not something the big players couldn't do on their own if they wanted to. It's not something no one else could do. It's not something that requires a crazy amount of money. My point was that none of the other big car manufacturers see the Supercharger network as something special that they would consider joining. I'm not trying to say the SC network isn't something special for us owners. It certainly is the only real and reliable way to make some road trips. But it's not something that would be hard to do for the big players.

 

[mattmass]

Look I bought my Tesla because it's the only EV that enables longer trips. So I'm with you. My point about nothing special is that it's not something the big players couldn't do on their own if they wanted to. It's not something no one else could do. It's not something that requires a crazy amount of money. My point was that none of the other big car manufacturers see the Supercharger network as something special that they would consider joining. I'm not trying to say the SC network isn't something special for us owners. It certainly is the only real and reliable way to make some road trips. But it's not something that would be hard to do for the big players.

I understand exactly what you are saying here, and I think you have a point for sure. What I keep thinking, though, is that until another company actually does build out a real charging network, that is strong evidence it actually is harder than it seems. Perhaps Nissan thinks they are doing that with CHAdeMO stations at dealerships?

But, I also agree that it's unlikely we'll see another make of car charging at Superchargers. Still can't decide if that's a good or bad thing for EV drivers in the long-run.

 

[dhanson865]

change signs to say Tesla+Nissan ( changing signs is cheap ).
Do you think either would be willing to do that? ( I think the business and technical problems are separate and equally interesting )

They could make the sign say

T - Supercharger

with the T being the Tesla logo instead of just a boring uppercase T. Once you have 2 or 3 companies on board and the money is there to roll out a major expansion of the network Tesla doesn't need as much advertising and you don't want to have to change the sign again when the next car company joins the network.

Play down the company name on the stall but keep the advertising on web touting Tesla's supercharging network. You know every article mentioning the 2nd or 3rd joining would mention Tesla in it.

 

[Electroman]

Nissan rolling out a 250 mile EV - highly likely

Nissan's long range EV being less expense than Tesla's Model 3 - highly likely

Nissan's long range EV in production before Tesla's Model 3 - possible (50%)

Nissan coming out with a practical solution for long distance (inter-city) travel - highly unlikely (10%). They don't have the vision and commitment to fund such an infrastructure

Nissan partnering with Tesla for Supercharger access - Nope. Don't even waste time talking about it. Their egos will kill them.

 

[WarpedOne]

Nissan may come out with a 250mile leaf before TM3, but will it produce it in +100k units per anum?
100k * 55kWh = 5,5GWh batteries.

 

[techmaven]

Nissan rolling out a 250 mile EV - highly likely

Nissan's long range EV being less expense than Tesla's Model 3 - highly likely

Nissan's long range EV in production before Tesla's Model 3 - possible (50%)

Nissan coming out with a practical solution for long distance (inter-city) travel - highly unlikely (10%). They don't have the vision and commitment to fund such an infrastructure

Nissan partnering with Tesla for Supercharger access - Nope. Don't even waste time talking about it. Their egos will kill them.

Just to frame this a bit more, I think Nissan rolling out a 160-180 mile EPA range BEV is very likely as a 2018 model year, shipping sometime in 2017 or early 2018. The driving force for this range amount is the ZEV Type III classification that requires 200+ miles of UDDS range, which translates to about 160 miles of EPA range.

The upcoming NMC v2 chemistry expected to be shipped by LG and therefore by GM, Nissan, VW/Audi and others is expected to have 220-230 Wh/kg specific energy, which is lower than the specific energy of the cells in the 2012 Model S. However, various manufacturers may opt to continue to forgo liquid thermal management with their newer NMC v2 chemistry, but I think that will limit their winter performance significantly. We will have to see if it causes higher thermal damage in the summer.

It is not clear it will have a COGS lower than a Model 3, as Nissan's likely cost of batteries is very high relative to Tesla's cost. Nissan may choose to price it competitively using regulatory credits like ZEV in their accounting to make up the difference.

I think all of the EV makers originally wanted a common DC charging standard. Note that the existing CHAdeMO and CCS Combo connector standards are limited to 200 amps, leaving them as SAE DC Level 2 DC charging. As they increase their battery pack sizes, they will need to get redesigned connectors through standards bodies in order to charge at 100 kW or higher. It isn't clear that any new revision will be backwards compatible with the existing standards. In other words, it there is a significant likelihood that any future Level 3 DC charging standard will obsolete existing CHAdeMO and CCS EVSE's deployed in the field. It is not clear to me why they have not yet moved to Level 3 and are dragging their feet, as every monetary unit spent on the these first generation DC EVSE's has a very short useful lifespan.

Tesla's connector is a Level 3 connector that supports 330 amps. It is therefore the only Level 3 DC charging network in the U.S. and Canada. It will be interesting of Tesla will promote the Tesla connector as a future SAE CCS standard.

In any case, if the Leaf v2 ends up shipping with significantly under 200 miles of EPA 5 cycle range, it is likely that it cannot really utilize the Tesla Supercharger network anyways because it can't reliably make the 120-140 mile jumps between nodes. Tesla certainly wouldn't want a vehicle that requires 100% range charges to even have the possibility of making the jump in the winter and with a bit of battery degradation, as they will then clog up the Superchargers.

 

[dhanson865]

Nissan may come out with a 250mile leaf before TM3, but will it produce it in +100k units per anum?
100k * 55kWh = 5,5GWh batteries.

View attachment 85711

where is that graphic from? Who and when?

I had guessed in febuary with numbers similar but a different mix. Quote from Elon Musk: . Which is most likely to occur?

total back of the napkin no big logic:

Tesla Model S/Model X/Model 3 deliveries:
2015 - 50,000 / 15,000 / 0,000
2016 - 60,000 / 20,000 / 0,000
2017 - 70,000 / 25,000 / 25,000 (new cars trickling off the line end of year)
2018 - 75,000 / 27,000 / 100,000 (pushing to expand production, insane months of backlog of orders)
2019 - 80,000 / 30,000 / 250,000 (production of main factory full, 2nd factory tooling up, 3rd factory under construction
2020 - 85,000 / 35,000 / 420,000 (production at two factories solid, 3rd factory tooling up/getting out a few cars that year)

as to Nissan yes, they will make larger amounts. I expect the Leaf to ramp up in sales, just not as quick as Tesla. I expect Tesla to take the lead in EVs eventually. It will take some time to overtake due to the current deficit of about 100,000 cars.

Here is a sales comparison of best selling cars worldwide, according to HybridCars.com:

1. Nissan LEAF – around 177,000
2. Chevrolet Volt (Holden Volt, Opel Ampera, Vauxhall Ampera) – around 93,000
3. Tesla Model S – around 73,000
4. Toyota Prius PHV – around 71,000
5. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV – over 60,000
6. Mitsubishi i-MiEV (with other MiEVs and Peugeot iOn, Citroen C-Zero) – around 50,000

 

[MichFin]

If a car can't charge in about 30 minutes for each 150-200 mile leg it becomes useless as a long range vehicle. You can't expect people to drive 120 miles (2 hours) and wait 1 hour. It's just not practical.

I have a feeling that's why there has been no investment in a super charger network.