Results matching “LEAF”

Nissan has done a poor job of communicating state of charge to LEAF owners.

The first problem with this display is that you can't tell where you are with a simple glance. Quick: how many bars are there? Imagine if only some are lit up, how long does it take to count them? Once you have counted the bars, you have to divide by 12, or multiply by 8.3%. Like I want to do that while I'm driving! There's a nice number there, 93 miles, but the problem is that number varies wildly based on how you've been driving. Your state of charge might be 40% but the range estimate could be 12 miles if you just reached the top of 4,000-foot pass, or it might be 80 miles if you have been descending from that same pass. Likewise for just getting off of a stretch of 75 mph freeway versus getting onto the freeway after a stretch of 45 mph urban thoroughfare.

Drivers need to know what's in the battery unfiltered by a rating on their recent driving.

This isn't just my opinion, or the opinion of a few old school EV fanatics. I keep hearing from new LEAF owners who after a few weeks of driving realize that the estimated remaining miles on the LEAF dash is not useful. It's not that Nissan did it badly, or that it can be fixed by improving their software, it's not what EV drivers need.

Ford is coming out with the Ford Focus Electric this year and is apparently asking for opinions on what drivers want to see on the dashboard.

First off, Ford should be asking what gas car drivers want to see and putting that in their ads, but they should be asking what experienced EV drivers want to see and put that on the dash. Ford should start with dropping a line to the folks at Plug In America.

When I'm driving, I don't want to see animations or flashy graphics in my main field of view. I'm not watching a movie, I don't need special effects, and I definitely don't need running commentary on my driving. The LAST thing I want to see on the dash is any mention of gasoline. Did the Model T need a gauge showing how many bales of hay had been saved?

Please don't let some gas-driving marketing intern design the dash for an electric vehicle based on talking to other people who haven't owned an electric vehicle.

My wife and I have been driving electric for three years and have logged over 38,000 electric miles. We've done lots of local driving and enough road trips beyond our single charge range that we know what we need.

What I do want to see, in order of importance, is:

1. Speed, preferably numerical, very easy to read at a glance, the biggest number on the screen.
2. After speed, the single most important information an EV driver needs is the state of charge, SOC. This should be conveyed as remaining charge energy, in numerical resolution comparable to a mile's worth of driving, and not mangled by some unknown function of my recent driving and road conditions.
3. Instantaneous energy use. This should be graphical and clearly show whether I'm using or generating energy and how much, even when it's a small amount. Having a number would be nice, but not necessary.
   
4. Trip meter, preferably selectable from several. Having a trip meter that automatically resets after each full charge would be cool, but we still want user-controlled trip meters.
5. Estimated miles remaining based on recent driving is rarely useful, but it would probably be weird to not have it available. Most people think that will be useful until they get used to driving electric. Not having it would be a distracting omission for new owners. It can be on the dash, even on by default, but there should be a way to get rid of it, perhaps making it an alternate to an absolute remaining energy number.

The purpose of showing the state of charge isn't really about figuring out how far you can drive with the current charge. The answer to that question depends on too many factors to ever be a meaningful single number on the dash. Instead, the EV driver needs to answer two simple questions:

1) Do I have enough energy to make it to my destination?
2) If the answer to #1 is "maybe", how do I need to moderate my driving to make it?

Most of the time the answer to #1 is an unconditional "yes". An answer of "no" means it's time to find charging, a condition that should be rare if the car is being used for local driving as intended. If the answer to #1 is "maybe", then I need the best information possible to answer #2.

Note that an estimated range is always wrong when it matters because it assumes my driving style and road conditions are going to remain constant. It's basically telling me how I have been driving. I don't care about that. I need the information that will make it clear how I need to be driving for the rest of my trip.

For this reason, the choice of energy unit for the SOC display is critical. I want something more convenient than kWh, something that will not require doing math to interpret the number. If a vehicle has a certain stated nominal range, which corresponds to X Wh per mile (battery-to-wheel), then the ideal energy unit is X Wh. Tesla calls this an "ideal range mile." Call it whatever you like, but it's a very convenient unit of energy as it tells me how much is in the battery and gives me a range goal I can generally meet or even exceed if I need to.

If a car has a nominal range of 100 miles, then SOC percent corresponds to one mile of nominal driving. That's cool, but it doesn't generalize very well. When next year's model has a range of 140 miles, I don't want to have to multiply SOC percent by 1.4 to get nominal miles.

Showing SOC as kWh is even worse. Not only do I have to multiply by some goofy factor, it's a different factor for every car depending on weight and aerodynamics. Showing kWh used as part of a trip meter is awesome, and showing SOC in kWh has a certain appealing geek factor, but I don't want that to be my best-resolution SOC unit.

We'll all be better off if the car companies start showing SOC as nominal miles now.


On the Roadster, an "ideal range mile" is the amount of energy needed to drive one mile on the combined EPA driving cycle and corresponds to driving level highway at about 57 mph in moderate weather. Knowing this number and my miles to destination tells me how I need to drive to make it. This number slowly ticks down as I drive (occasionally ticking up on a long downhill drive), it doesn't fluctuate wildly as I go up and down shallow slopes and small hills. Nominal miles yields a much more reliable idea of remaining charge than an estimated-miles number can.

Having this number enables useful discussions about range and energy use among owners. If someone is planning a trip over the pass from Bellevue to Ellensburg, I can say that I've done that several times: traveling the ~100 miles over the 3,000-foot pass at 60 mph in moderate weather used 113 ideal miles and closer to the 70 mph speed limit used 119. It also makes planning for elevation possible. Every 1,000 feet of climbing uses up about 7 miles of nominal range, and going downhill gives about half of that back. Knowing that simple approximation makes it possible for a driver to plan a trip over a mountain pass just by knowing the required distance and elevation change. If other automakers use the appropriate nominal mile energy unit, these conversations will work across different makes and models, allowing drivers to share approximate energy expectations without a lot of goofy conversion math.

That probably sounds complicated. Just remember, electric vehicles are intended for local driving within their single-charge range. Most of the time the answer to the "do I have enough charge" is "yes, of course you do." It's only for the rare long trip that figuring things out is needed. Having good state of charge information available all the time will allow new drivers to develop experience and insight from their easy local driving that will make it possible for them to figure out which longer trips are practical. It's critical to widespread electric vehicle adoption that automakers get it right.

Cathy and I were invited to show our Tesla Roadster in the Eco-Center at the 2011 Portland International Auto Show. Tesla Motors didn't have the resources to participate, so we and Chad Schwitters agreed to show our cars and represent Plug In America in promoting electric vehicles.

Trading a gas pump for a plug is a wonderful thing. It's far more convenient, takes less of your time, and saves you from breathing toxic fumes and smelling like gas for hours after fueling. Charging is a different experience than pumping gas and understanding the subtleties takes time. I've been driving electric for over two years and I'm still learning. Potential EV owners might want to get a head start on the learning curve, and maybe save a bunch of money as a result.

Mostly, I'll relate how charging works for a Nissan Leaf, a four-door, five-passenger hatchback with a range of about 100 miles, but I'll also mention other plug-in vehicles. The Leaf is intended for typical daily driving, which for 78% of drivers in the US means 40 miles or less per day. Occasional longer trips are possible and understanding charging will help you evaluate whether an EV will suit your driving needs.

Level 1 Charging

Level 1 Charging - Standard House Outlet

Level 1 charging is the technical jargon for plugging your car into an ordinary household outlet. For a Leaf, this means about 4.5 miles of range per hour of charging, or about 22 hours for a full charge. Wow, does that sound terrible! But there's a problem with thinking this way: you'll rarely need to do a full charge from flat empty to full. If you drive 40 miles per day and charge overnight, you'll be back to full in 9 hours. When you're sleeping, it doesn't matter if it takes one hour or 9 hours to charge.

But what if you have to drive a lot one day, say 80 miles? Sure, it would take 18 hours to get a full charge, but with a 9-hour overnight charge, you'll be ready for your normal commute the next day. If you drive less than 40 miles per day or charge for more than 9 hours, you'll work back up to a full charge over the next few days.

If you need to drive 80 miles on consecutive days, you'll need an alternative. Maybe you'll drive your other car, that gas-burner you keep around for long trips, or if there's public EV charging in your area, you can charge away from home while you're parked to do your shopping or other errands.

Level 1 charging at work could also be a supplement for people driving over 40 miles per day, or even a substitute for those who can't charge at home (because they don't have a garage or fixed parking place, for example).

Since it's easy to get 40 miles of range charging overnight from 120V, Level 1 is perfectly suited for overnight charging of the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile all-electric range.

Although Level 1 charging is generally too slow for a road trip, it can be helpful as destination charging. Cathy and I drove 90 miles to San Juan Island, charged for a few days in a friend's garage when not cruising around the island, and left with a full charge. That was great, but I wouldn't want to have to wait for Level 1 charging in the middle of a travel segment.

Beyond range issues, Level 1 may not be suitable for primary charging in all cases. In extreme climates, more power may be required to maintain proper battery temperatures. In these cases, Level 2 charging may be more appropriate (see below).

DC Fast Charging

Blink DC Fast Charge Station photo by ECOtality

At the other end of the spectrum is DC Fast Charging, the fastest type of charging currently available. It provides up to 40 miles of range for every 10 minutes of charging. These stations are expensive (up to $100,000) and require more power than your house, so you'll never have one of these in your garage.

They are going to start appearing as public charging stations in the next year, beginning in the Leaf target areas. If there's one conveniently located near where you drive, you can get back up to 80% of a full charge while getting lunch or drinking a latte. Charging this fast makes it far more practical to drive beyond an EV's single-charge range in one day. It's still not going to make a one-day 800-mile drive practical, but a 200-mile drive with a couple of charging breaks can be quite doable.

Level 2 Charging

ChargePoint/Coulomb Level 2 Charging Station

Between the cheap Level 1 and expensive DC Fast Charging stations sits Level 2 charging. Level 2 supplies 240V, like what an electric dryer or oven uses. It goes through a box and a cord that improves safety by waiting to send power to the plug until it's plugged into an EV. Level 2 allows for a wide range of charging speeds, all the way up to 19.2 kilowatts (kW), or about 70 miles of range per hour of charging.

However, the charging stations being put in with federal grant money don't support the full range of Level 2 charging and max out at 6.6 kW or around 26 miles of range per hour of charging.

Both Level 1 and Level 2 charging stations simply deliver household electricity to the car. Electronics on board the car transform the wall power into the proper form to charge the battery. This bit of electronics built into the car also has a maximum power rating. The first model-year Leafs can only use 3.3 kW, about 12 miles of range per hour, or about 8 hours for a full charge from empty. The Chevy Volt's on-board charger is also limited to 3.3 kW, although its smaller battery pack gets full sooner.

Nissan recommends that you install a Level 2 charging station at home. That's a reasonable thing to do if you don't mind spending about $2,000, just consider it part of the cost of the car. Early buyers in the Leaf target markets may be able to get into The EV Project and get a free Level 2 charging station plus an allowance toward the install cost. Failing that, there's a 30% federal tax credit (up to $1,000) for installing EV charging, which can make it less expensive. Still, if you are planning to use your EV for a daily commute of 40 miles or less per day, you should at least consider using Level 1 charging at home. You can always add a Level 2 charging station later if you decide you need it.

There will soon be 20,000 public Level 2 charging stations (limited to 6.6 kW) installed mainly in the Leaf target areas. Even if you only have Level 1 charging in your garage, if you're in the early rollout areas, you should have access to convenient Level 2 charging available while your car is parked and you're doing something else. These charging stations will make it possible to drive 60 miles to a baseball game and pick up about 50 miles of range in 4 hours while you're having fun, thus easily driving over the single-charge range while always keeping a healthy reserve.

Charge Time and Battery Capacity

It's misleading that charging times are generally quoted as time for a full charge. While it does take about 22 hours (Level 1) or 8 hours (Level 2) to charge a Leaf from empty to full, you're not likely to do that often because  you will rarely arrive home with a fully depleted battery. It doesn't matter if you're driving a 40-mile Volt, a 100-mile Leaf or a 240-mile Tesla Roadster, if your commute is 40 miles, you'll only need about 9 hours (Level 1) or 3 hours (3.3 kW Level 2) to charge.

When we bought our Tesla Roadster, we got the high-power 16.8 kW Level 2 charging station, which can charge the car in 3.5 hours. After driving the car for a few months, I realized it's all but pointless to have such a big charging station in our garage. It's rare that I drive over 40 miles in a day. The 16.8 kW charging station can restore 40 miles in under 40 minutes. I want that charging speed when I'm making a long trip, not when I'm sleeping at home. In fact, I manually drop the power I pull from the charging station to about 7.5 kW because it's a little nicer to our electrical panel and the grid, and my typical overnight charge is still under 2 hours. Ignoring the fact that Tesla is still using the now-incompatible proprietary charging plug they picked before there was a chosen standard, most people buying a Tesla Roadster today would be well-served to buy a 6.6 kW charging station for home.

3 Roadsters Sharing the Charging Station at Burgerville

Level 2 Charging, Road Trips, and Charging Speed

Already, Ford has announced that the upcoming electric Ford Focus will support charging at 6.6 kW, and is making fun of the Leaf's 3.3 kW Level 2 charging limit. By the time Ford actually starts delivering the electric Focus, Nissan may have already upgraded the Leaf to 6.6 kW charging. I don't think it will be long before mainstream EVs are capable of even faster charging. The Tesla Roadster can charge at 16.8 kW, which combined with a larger battery pack makes 400-mile drives possible even without DC Fast Charging. Given that Level 2 charging costs 1/10 of what a DC Fast Charger does, I can imagine a lot of driving being supported by full Level 2 charging stations in areas that can't justify the investment in DC Fast Charging.

Personally, I'm disappointed we're spending so much money installing these 6.6 kW public charging stations rather than full-speed Level 2 chargers when most of the expense is usually just running the wires and buying the fancy box. A typical commercial Level 2 install runs around $10,000 for a charging station that's connected to a network and capable of billing the user. Cranking those charging stations up to the 19.2 kW limit would add a small incremental cost, perhaps 10%, and would allow for much faster charging. If you're a business owner installing a charging station and have to dig a trench and/or run conduit, even if it's just a for 6.6 kW unit, I strongly recommend planning for running 100A wire later without having to retrench or replace conduit so that upgrading to a 19.2 kW charging station will be much less expensive.

We are about to see a mass deployment of public level 2 SAE J1772 charging stations, over 14,000 from The EV Project alone. This compares to fewer than 100 public Tesla charging stations (240V/70A High Power Connectors, aka HPCs). Over the next 12 months, I expect that the availability of level 2 J1772 chargers will totally overwhelm all other charger types.

While most of these 240V chargers will be limited to 30A or 32A, J1772 chargers capable of supplying 240V/70A are available from Clipper Creek with many other vendors also working on charging stations.

Teaming up with a number of other Tesla owners and members of the broader EV community, Cathy and I have been looking into what would be required to bring J1772 charging support to the Roadster community.

The good news is that Tesla and J1772 use the same communications protocol to establish the connection and start/stop charging. This didn't happen by accident. Tesla Motors was involved early on in the development of the J1772 spec. But the Roadster was designed before the new J1772 committee even got going, so the Tesla charging protocol was designed based on the old J1772 specification which used the Avcon connectors and limited charging to 40 amps. Tesla extended this protocol up to 70 amps, and successfully lobbied the J1772 committee to adopt this extension. Cathy and I have confirmed that the SAE J1772 JAN2010 spec exactly matches the amp limit waveforms produced by the Tesla HPC at all amperage limits from 12A to 70A.

So, the Tesla Roadster uses the same communications protocol as J1772. (Except for the button on the HPC that can be used to start charging; I don't know how that works.) The only barrier to charging a Roadster from a J1772 station is the Tesla plug. We confirmed this by building a proof-of-concept adapter and using it to charge our Roadster at a Level 2 J1772 charging station in Olympia, WA, last Friday (Sept. 10, 2010).

We'd like to thank Dave Denhart, Rich Kaethler, Chad Schwitters, Martin Eberhard, and Dave Kois for helping us with this proof-of-concept project. Thanks also to Jim Blaisdell of Charge Northwest for helping us find a level 2 charging station and getting us a ChargePoint Network card overnight. Our crude adapter is not a robust solution. As you can see it's quite bulky (since we didn't want to cut the cable to a working Tesla plug) and isn't watertight enough for general outdoor use.

When the Roadster was entering production, there was no standard J1772 plug, so Tesla had to design their own. That was a necessary step, but now that the final standard uses a different plug, I think we need to find a real solution to this incompatibility. As I see it, there are at least 4 possible solutions:

1. An upgrade to switch both the Roadster and HPC to use J1772 connectors.
2. A compact adapter that converts J1772 to the Tesla connector.
3. A new pigtail for Tesla's universal mobile connector (UMC).
4. A new pigtail that requires purchasing a re-engineered UMC.

A new pig tail for the current UMC (solution 3) isn't very appealing as the UMC is limited to 40A, cutting us off from any 70A J1772 chargers, while also requiring us to stuff a large, heavy, awkward cable into our trunks just to charge at a station that is guaranteed to have a cable that will reach our charge port. It's also not nice for those of us who have already invested in a different mobile connector, like the original MC240 or the RFMC. Solution 4 is even worse than 3 as it shares all of the problems and it would require everyone to purchase a new mobile connector.

A compact adapter (solution 2) is better in that it could support the full 70A charging and also be quite compact, little more than a J1772 receptacle and a Tesla plug. It will still be quite expensive as it requires a Tesla plug. My guess is that it would cost at least $1,200 retail, based on what Tesla charges for the MC240 and UMC. It also has the downside of being an obvious target for malicious theft when the car is left charging unattended. Nissan Leaf owners won't have to leave an expensive, unsecured device dangling from their cars when charging, why should we?

Full conversion to J1772 (solution 1) sounds radical until you see a J1772 receptacle. It's very close to the size and shape of the inlet in the Tesla charge port. Once I saw that, it required zero imagination to picture a Tesla Roadster with a J1772 receptacle in place of the proprietary Tesla charge inlet.

The downside of solution 1 is that it would also require replacing the plug on our home chargers (HPC or mobile connector). This could be done by either replacing the cable, or by using the old Tesla inlet and a J1772 cable to make a Tesla-to-J1772 converter.

The retail cost of an ITT Canon UL-certified J1772 receptacle and cable pair rated for 75A is $825 from Current EV Tech. I don't know of anyone else selling these newly-available connectors, but I do expect it to be a competitive market much larger than just Roadster owners. Even adding in reasonable labor costs, it seems to me that converting a Roadster and HPC should be near or below the cost of a J1772-to-Tesla adapter.

I have been told that Tesla Motors is investigating ways to bring J1772 support to the Roadster which may include either a compact stand alone adapter (option 2) or a J1772 pig tail for the Tesla universal mobile connector (I'm not sure if this is option 3 or 4). They are early in the process and not promising anything at this point. From what I have heard, Tesla Motors is not interested in providing a full J1772 conversion (option 1) and hasn't even committed to supporting J1772 on the Model S.

It's possible the full J1772 conversion could be done even if Tesla Motors doesn't give us an official way to do it. I expect our group will continue exploring ideas in case we have to tackle the problem ourselves.

We are several months away from having a significant number of Level 2 J1772 chargers installed in metro areas targeted by The EV Project, and even further away in other areas of the US. There's plenty of time left for both Tesla Motors and the owner community to explore possible solutions, but I believe this will soon be an important issue for every Roadster owner who wants to be able to take advantage of the soon-to-be pervasive J1772 charging infrastructure to conveniently drive beyond the Roadster's single charge range.

In the all-electric Tesla Roadster, Tesla Motors has done an amazing job of designing and producing a car that shows the world how to build a great electric vehicle that is reliable and fun to drive, creating a driving experience that is far superior to that of a comparable gas-burning high end sports car.

Despite having Tesla's example, I'm concerned that Nissan is going to do a poor job with the Leaf. They've already made three missteps which I think need to be corrected before they start selling electric cars.

Overstating the Leaf's Range

Nissan has been saying the Leaf will have a 100-mile range, but they are basing this claim on the LA4 city driving cycle, not on a highway or combined cycle. Tesla says the Roadster's range is 244 miles, and that's a real number. If I drive 55 mph on level freeway, I get energy use consistent with that 244-mile range. From what Nissan has said, I suspect that going 55 mph on level freeway with no heat or A/C will yield somewhere around 80 miles. That's still an awesome range that will meet the needs of many drivers, but it's a disappointment that they entered the game by overstating their range with a number that requires driving even more conservatively than a steady 55 mph.

The vast majority of people who've had the opportunity to drive electric on a daily basis prefer it to driving gas. The only people I've heard of complaining about the electric driving experience are people who purchased an EV with inadequate range for their driving needs. The EV consumer has to take some responsibility to understand their real driving needs and the capability of the EV they are considering purchasing, but any automaker that does anything less than conveying a conservative and realistic picture of the car's capabilities is going to end up with a lot of unhappy customers and a public relations disaster.

Nissan: Get real range numbers out there now. Tesla Motor's detailed page on range information could be better by being far more visible on their site. Make sure the one or two numbers that are most visible to the public are representative of what consumers can realistically expect to get under conditions that are clearly stated. Beyond a simple number or two, also put lots of technical detail out there to satisfy the people who want all of the information and will be the early adopters that clear the path for the mainstream buyers.

Update: I arrived at the 80 mile figure by adding a generous 10% to the 70-mile range for 55 mph with A/C on as reported by Forbes. A MotorTrend article pointed out by mwalsh and evnow on the MyNissanLeaf forum after I published this post quotes Nissan Leaf chief engineer Hidetoshi Kadota as saying normal freeway driving at 60-70 mph without climate control yields a range of 105 miles. So maybe the Leaf's range is better than suggested by the negative Forbes article, but it's still the case that Nissan is not making any of this information available on their web site.

Not Fully Exploiting the Advantages of Driving Electric

Nissan is apparently making the Leaf drive like a gas car rather than fully exploiting the advantages of driving electric. Specifically, they are putting little or no regenerative braking on the accelerator pedal. Tesla does a beautiful job on this. As you press down on the accelerator pedal, the car accelerates more, just as you'd expect. As you let up on the pedal, you get to the point where the car is just coasting before the pedal is completely released. As you release more, the car starts using the motor as a generator to charge the battery, the more you release the stronger the effect. When the pedal is fully released, the regenerative braking becomes quite strong and will slow the car down almost to a stop. (This effect is stronger at slow speeds where you're likely to want to slow more quickly, and lighter at freeway speeds where you want a more gradual slowing to match traffic.) To slow the car more quickly or bring the car to a complete stop, you press the brake pedal to engage the car's friction brakes, just like driving on gas.

After getting used to driving a 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV, which puts only a little regenerative braking on the accelerator with more on the brake pedal, I was dubious of the Tesla scheme. (The Honda Insight and Toyota Prius are similar to the RAV4-EV in this regard.) After driving the Roadster for a few days, I found the Tesla scheme to be much better than the RAV4-EV. It has two big advantages over more closely emulating a gas-burner. For the sake of driving efficiency, I want to slow the car with regenerative braking as much as possible, every time you touch the friction brakes you are wasting energy by converting momentum into heat and brake wear. With the Tesla scheme, I know exactly when I switch from efficient regenerative braking to wasteful friction braking: when my foot moves from the accelerator to the brake pedal. Aside from helping me drive more efficiently, and reducing wear on the brake pads, the Tesla scheme is simply a better way to drive. I can control speeding up, maintaining speed and slowing down all with one pedal. With just a little bit of time behind the wheel, it quickly becomes a more natural and comfortable way to drive. This is especially nice when driving downhill, it's just so easy to control your speed, driving a gas car seems primitive. The only complaint I've ever heard from a Tesla owner about how this works is that they want more regenerative braking on the accelerator, enough to fully stop the car at a light. Personally, I think what Tesla has done is perfect: the mostly one-pedal driving is familiar enough that a first time driver won't have any problem driving the car, with a bit of practice it's a better experience, and the occasional use of the brake pedal keeps my brain-foot connection trained to use both pedals, reinforcing the old skills that puts your foot on the brake pedal instantly when required to slow or stop quickly.

Nissan: talk to some Roadster owners about the pedals. Drive a Roadster for a week or a month. It's important to get this right, it will give your owners a great driving experience sell a lot of cars.

Yielding to Unreasonable Demands for Artificial Traffic Noise

Nissan has yielded to the hysterical calls to add noise to electric vehicles. So far, Tesla Motors has resisted doing the same. All modern cars are quiet when driving slowly; the difference between a pure-electric car and a modern sedan is only audible in very quiet conditions. If quiet cars are a safety issue, then we should be looking at requiring all cars to make a minimum amount of noise at low speeds rather than singling out electrics and hybrids. There is no credible research to suggest that quiet cars are any more dangerous than other cars. Cars are only quiet at low speeds, when both drivers and pedestrians have enough time to react and avoid any problems.

Even if we make electric vehicles noisy at low speeds, they will still be inaudible in noisy environments. If anything, noisy cars that drown out the normal sounds of tires, fans, and pumps are more of a danger than quiet cars. So, if we're really worried about sound-related risks between automobiles and pedestrians, we should have strict laws for all cars that require minimum sound levels at low speeds, and prohibit sounds loud enough to drown out those minimum sound levels. But actually, that wouldn't help either. Just imagine what a parking garage would be like if all cars had to make a constant continuous sound, it would be like having a stadium full of vuvuzelas creating a cacophony that makes it impossible to discern any individual sound while training everyone to ignore the annoying buzz.

Instead of squandering an opportunity to have quieter cars, we should be taking real steps to improve safety for all pedestrians, bicyclists, and everyone else on the road. We should be studying the whole situation to find out if quiet is a real problem for pedestrians, considering all cars -- not just electric and hybrid -- and also the impact of natural or artificial traffic noise on quality of life. Does adding noise to all cars benefit anyone, or does it just crank up the level of background noise and make it harder to hear what's going on nearby? Does adding a constant warning noise to a car just train drivers to expect that pedestrians will automatically scatter out of their way?

I've been driving electric for two years and I have surprised exactly one pedestrian: a woman who was walking backwards into the driving lane of a parking lot while carrying on a conversation with someone across the lot. I stopped and waited for her to realize she was walking into an occupied traffic lane and she eventually saw us waiting for her. She was surprised, but I wasn't, and there was never any danger to anyone. She was clearly embarrassed by what she had been doing and tried to blame her reckless behavior on my quiet car. If I had been going fast enough that her foolishness could have created a dangerous situation, my car would have been making the same tire noise as any other car, which may or may not have been audible depending on the environment.

I'm quite sure that I don't need my neighbor's electric car waking me up at 5 am just because people are scared of unfamiliar technology. I propose that we solve a real problem, like driving while phoning or texting, before we rush into squashing a quiet car advantage in response to uninformed hysteria.

Nissan: Please give your drivers a manual way to alert pedestrians with something less obnoxious than a blast of the car horn. GM did this with the EV1 and owners loved it. Hold off on making a constant noise until there's enough research to show quiet cars are a danger and we have a validated way to improve the situation for all cars -- electric, hybrid, or gas-burning.

Edited July 5, 8:46 am: corrected technical error in description of Tesla's regen algorithm and clarified pedestrian surprise story.

Edited July 5, 3:20 pm: added update on more optimistic Leaf range numbers as reported by MotorTrend.

If you are interested in driving an electric vehicle, I'd like to tell you how to ensure that you'll have a great experience, or at least make sure you don't have a disappointing experience.

Here's the secret formula for EV success: make sure the range of the vehicle suits the driving you plan to do with it. I know that sounds pretty obvious and easy, but there are two big barriers to success: bad reporting in the media and obfuscation by the automakers. There's also a bit of complexity: just like gas mileage, you can't express EV range with a single number. I'll get that all straightened out from the perspective of someone who has been driving all electric for almost two years.

In addition to the general facts of driving electric, we recently got some more specific range numbers for the upcoming Nissan Leaf which I'd like to put into perspective for potential buyers.

Reporting the Obvious and Irrelevant

If you follow EV coverage in the press, you'll find a steady stream of articles from reporters who think they've discovered the flaw that will deflate all of the hype about EVs. Their basic premise is that EVs won't work because they take too long to charge and there's nowhere to charge them. These articles are either totally made up, or based on the bad experience of a single EV driver and don't represent the real experience of the majority of EV drivers who purchased a vehicle appropriate for their needs. My purpose here is to make sure you don't become the excuse for some lazy reporter to write yet another of these uninsightful articles.

Would a newspaper publish an article about a Ford Focus owner who was disappointed that he couldn't fit his wife and seven kids in the car? How about a Honda Civic owner who's mad her car isn't suited for towing an RV? A Hummer owner who's mad about how much it costs to drive a mile? Of course not, these would be laughably obvious mistakes made by the owner in choosing a car.

For the consumer properly informed on the benefits and limits of electric vehicles, it's equally obvious that buying an EV with a 75-mile range to do a daily 74-commute with no charging infrastructure isn't going to yield a happy driver. That's obvious and boring.

The real story is that there is no problem with range or lack of charging infrastructure if you can just charge at home to meet your driving needs, instead it's a real convenience not to have to fuel your car away from home. So let's see if you qualify...

The Rule

To be a happy EV owner today, you want to buy a car that has enough single-charge range to handle all of your daily driving with a reasonable buffer for typical errands without needing to charge anywhere other than your charger. (Your charger is probably installed at your home but might also be at your work location.)

The good news is that for most drivers, the required range is surprisingly low. A 2003 US Department of Transportation survey (PDF) found that 78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day. If you're in the 78%, and don't often have big exceptions to that daily commute distance, then an EV that gets at least 70 miles of range in your driving conditions will most likely make you one happy camper. (But keep reading to learn how to evaluate EV range.)

Starting this fall, we'll start to see a lot of chargers getting installed in a few metro areas in the US and other countries. As this happens, and EV ownership goes up, more and more charging will become available and convenient. As that happens, charging away from your home charger will become more dependable and the usable range of EVs will expand as a result. For example, if you can charge at home and at work, then the usable range of an EV is doubled because you only need to travel one way on a single charge (with a reasonable buffer).

Since there's going to be limited availability of affordable, practical, freeway-capable EVs in the near future (as in zero today, and a few thousand Nissan Leafs starting to trickle out starting in December of this year, then more from other automakers to follow), it's OK if the first few models of EVs don't work for you, they will work for millions of potential buyers. Wait for an EV that will be right for your driving needs.

The Win

After you've driven electric for a month, spending just a few seconds to plug in each night to start every day with a full charge, without ever having to stop at a gas station, you'll wonder how you ever tolerated the hassles of driving a gas burner.

In addition, the experience of driving electric is just better: you get instant acceleration without waiting for the engine to rev up and the transmission to shift, another nuisance of driving gas that you'll only notice when you get used to driving without it.

Bonus: no tailpipe emissions, low-to-zero emissions from electricity generation, and never having to worry about the price at the gas pump.

Evaluating EV Range

Just like gas mileage, EV range can't be expressed as a single number. Even the two EPA city and highway gas mileage numbers you see on vehicle stickers don't tell the whole story. This is such a big issue with gas cars, the caveat "your mileage may vary" has become part of our cultural vernacular.

Let's start by going over how gas mileage works. Those gas mileage numbers on the sticker in the window are determined by driving the car on two standard EPA driving profiles meant to simulate typical driving conditions, which have been recently revised to better represent actual driving conditions by including things like using air conditioning on part of the cycle.

Gas mileage depends on a number of factors, including passenger and cargo weight, HVAC use, start/stop frequency, road incline, rain/snow, and so forth, but the biggest factor is speed. At low speeds, gas mileage suffers because there's an overhead of running/idling an engine that burns fuel whether you're moving or not. Stop and go traffic is also bad news, because you invest energy in speeding up only to throw all it all away by converting your car's momentum into heat plus wear and tear on your brake pads. At higher speeds gas mileage suffers because wind resistance goes up rapidly with speed, so much so that it takes more energy per mile in a way that starts increasing dramatically at the low end of freeway speeds. Somewhere in the middle, at a moderate, steady speed, is where you get your maximum gas mileage.

Electric vehicles behave similarly, except they get punished less in stop and go traffic because, like hybrids, they can slow down with regenerative braking wherein the motor is driven by the drivetrain to act as a generator to put charge back into the batteries. This not only improves energy efficiency, but also reduces brake wear.

Given this complexity, how can an automaker tell you how your gas or electric car will perform under your driving conditions? Answer: they can't.

While you can argue that it's even more important to understand energy efficiency (in the form of single-charge range) for an electric vehicle, there's the ugly truth about burning gas that no one likes to talk about: it's no good for predicting long-term fuel costs. With a proliferation of gas stations everywhere, range isn't something you think about for a gas car. What you do think about is your pocketbook. Better mileage means cheaper stops at the gas station. While knowing your gas mileage might tell you what you'll be spending at the pump this month, it doesn't say anything about what you'll be paying next month or next year. Anything from a hurricane, to Wall Street speculators, to a political action by OPEC, to the whim of some oil nation tyrant can cause gas prices to double by barely nudging the precarious balance between world oil supply and demand. Electricity rates are far more stable, especially when it comes from renewable sources that aren't subject to the unpredictable economic forces that rule the world's fossil fuel energy market.

How can a potential buyer figure out if a given EV has the range required to convert from the hassles of driving gas to the joy of driving electric? Read on...

Case Study: the Range of a Tesla Roadster

For most people, buying a $109,000 two-seat sports car is totally out of the question, whether it's a gas-burning Ferrari or an all-electric Tesla Roadster. Being able to go from 0 to 60 mph in under four seconds isn't going to get the kids to school or bring home the groceries from Costco. But, as of this writing, Tesla Motors is the only automaker selling a production, freeway capable electric vehicle in the US. If you dig a little, their web site provides a wealth of information about driving electric that will be of help to any potential EV driver.

The best illustration I have found of the effect of speed on efficiency, and thus range, is this graph from Tesla Motors showing how the Roadster's range varies with speed, while holding other factors constant at favorable values (constant speed, no AC, no driving up a mountain, etc.).



The EPA range number for the Roadster is 244 miles. From the graph, you can see that you get that range driving at about 55 mph. If you have to pick one number to describe range for a Roadster encompassing city and highway driving, this is a pretty good choice, and it's a real number that I've personally verified as much as possible without actually driving the car until it stops. Likewise, the value of about 180 miles for 70 mph matches my real-world experience. Simon Hackett and co-driver Emilis Prelgauskas came close to the graph's 34 mph range number by driving 313 miles on a single charge in Australia last year. Perhaps someone will be patient enough to try out the 17 mph peak on the graph at over 400 miles of range, but that would be a very long drive!

I'd say Tesla did a good job here, picking a reasonable single number for stating range based on some combination of the EPA city and highway cycles. They also provide the graph showing the whole story, at least with respect to speed, although to find it you have to dig down into their blog entries to find the article with the graph and full explanation.

But there's a bit more to the story that requires more digging. The above range numbers are for using the entire battery charge from full to empty, something you really don't want to do on a regular basis because it's not good for the life of the battery pack. For normal daily driving, you don't need 244 miles of range, so Tesla provides a "standard" mode of charging that only uses the middle 80% of the battery pack. This will extend the life of the battery pack and still give you 200 miles of range at 55 mph, or about 160 miles at 70 mph. This is between four and five times what most of the drivers in the US need for their daily commute. For daily driving, the range of the Roadster is ridiculously high. Going on a road trip beyond the single charge range is doable, but it requires patience and planning. This situation will get a lot better as high-speed charging stations start to appear later this year.

The numbers also get worse in really hot weather. Last summer I drove from Portland to Seattle in 100-degree weather, about 180 miles. This trip is easy at 55, in fact even at 65 mph it's no problem. But this trip, with the HVAC system using energy to keep the battery pack cool, it took getting off the freeway and careful route planning to reduce both distance and speed to get home without having to stop for a partial charge.

The upshot: if you live in an extreme climate, with either a lot of sub-zero winter days or 100+ degree summer days, you'll want to add more buffer to your required EV range.

The last big issue is aging of the battery pack: as the battery pack ages, its capacity will decrease gradually over time, then drop more rapidly as the battery pack wears out. Our car is performing the same as it did when we got it one year and 9,000 miles ago. Other Roadster owners have crossed the 20,000 mile mark, and so far I haven't heard of anyone noticing a loss of range. Tesla's battery pack warranty is only 3 years or 36,000 miles, which is in line with other high performance sports cars, but is a bit underwhelming compared to their statements of expected battery life, seven years or 100,000 miles. Nissan says their battery pack should last 10 years, and because the Leaf is a much more mainstream vehicle I expect they will offer a much better battery warranty.

Still, if you're planning to drive your new EV for 5 to 10 years, it's not going to be smart to buy an electric car that's right on the edge of meeting your needs with its full factory-fresh range.

Our Electric Garage

In July of 2008, while we were waiting for Tesla to build the Roadster we reserved in 2006, we were fortunate enough to buy a rare 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV from its original owner in Berkeley, CA. If you've seen Who Killed the Electric Car, then you've know what a great electric driving experience the lucky few drivers had during the brief period where California required all of the automakers to find a way to reduce tailpipe emissions to zero.

When we got the RAV4-EV, we expected it would take care of about half of our driving. We were wrong by a wide margin: it took over 95% of our driving. The only time we burned gas was when we each had to be different places at the same time. Despite our EV enthusiasm, we were range anxiety victims and overestimated how much range our driving really required.

In our experience, the RAV4-EV gets about 100 miles per charge. Even staying out of the top 10% and bottom 20% of the battery pack means we can drive 70 miles per charge under our typical driving conditions, and can handle any driving conditions with enough range we don't generally have to think about it.

When our Roadster finally arrived nearly a year later, we were totally converted to the electric driving experience. Having a second electric car meant we didn't have to choose which of us got to drive the smooth, quiet car.

Our hope is that the Leaf will bring this sort of EV capability into the mainstream in an affordable, practical, safe vehicle.

Nissan Leaf Range Numbers

The first range number we heard for the Nissan Leaf was 100 miles using the EPA's LA4 drive cycle. Darryl Siry gets credit for being the first to point out that the LA4 drive cycle is a poor choice for describing EV range as it's a city driving cycle that's nicer to the range than the combined city/highway drive cycle that is used by Tesla. Siry also wrote a great piece on the issues with range numbers and the need for federal regulations on how they are reported which added perspective to my personal experience and helped inform my writing here.

On June 19th 2010, we got some more range numbers from Nissan via Forbes. To summarize:

• Cruising at 38 mph in 68-degree weather: 138 miles.
• Suburban traffic averaging 24 mph, 77 degrees: 105 miles.
• Urban highway, 55 mph, 95-degrees, A/C on: 70 miles.
• Winter city driving, 14 degrees, averaging 15 mph: 62 miles.
• Stop and go urban traffic averaging 6 mph, 86 degrees, A/C on: 47 miles.

The Forbes article is typical anti-EV fear mongering, the facts presented with pithy commentary but no critical analysis. Have you ever read an article on how your gas mileage drops in stop-and-go urban traffic during the heat of summer or the cold of winter and how much that's going to cost you when you're driving your gas-guzzling SUV? Of course not. But you do hear about how it will affect the range of an EV that isn't even on the roads yet. It's great to get more facts, but try to ignore the hand-wringing hysteria that makes it sound like the federal government is about to repossess all of the gas burners and force everyone to drive a Nissan Leaf.

The fact is, the Leaf doesn't have to meet the needs of every driver in the US. It just has to meet the needs of the few thousand people lucky enough to be able to buy one in the next year. Even that worst-case 47 miles is going to be good enough for millions of drivers now (remember that 78% of US drivers commute less than 40 miles per day) and good enough for even more drivers when there are convenient chargers at workplaces and malls.

Is the Leaf's Range Right for You?

I think the best way to figure out what range an EV needs to have to suit your needs is to monitor your driving. Just write down your odometer when you get home each night. From that, you can figure out how far you actually drive. Be sure to get not only your regular daily commute, but also some examples of exceptional days with extra appointments, shopping, detours, etc. If you have an additional vehicle that would supplement your EV, throw out any long drives that you would choose (in advance) to handle with that vehicle. Then add a buffer for the unexpected, and, if it applies, more buffer for the extreme driving conditions that reduce range.

People who haven't driven an EV will be tempted to always have half of the battery in reserve for surprises, but most experienced EV drivers are very comfortable driving down to 30% or even 20%. (With the Roadster where I get great feedback on the state of charge and know it won't hurt the battery, I have no problem driving down to 10%. With the RAV4-EV, which gives less precise info, we try to stay out of the bottom 20%.)

If you commute 70 or more miles per day in a city that regularly has horrible traffic, freezing cold or sweltering hot days, and isn't planning for charging infrastructure, then don't buy a Leaf to be your only car this year. Wait until the cars and the charging better suit your driving needs. There are more than enough of us to buy up every single Leaf Nissan can make in the next 12 months, so don't become fodder for another annoying article about how EVs are impractical because someone bought one that's not suited to their driving.

If the Leaf's range numbers do suit your driving needs and you want to get an early start driving electric, then sign up, right now. They are going to sell fast. But before you fully commit to a purchase, get the information you need to determine if the Leaf will meet your needs, and get that info directly from Nissan. Don't depend on a conversation with your local auto sales drone.

I'm glad we have learned more about the Leaf's range months before anyone will be committed to buying one. Next up I want to see a graph like Tesla gives for the Roadster range vs. speed under optimal driving conditions. I also want to know if the range numbers given are for using the full battery to its maximum range, or if they include allowance for the reserves at the top and bottom of the charge cycle needed to maximize battery life.

If the Leaf will meet your needs, you won't regret switching away from gas. The benefits of charging convenience and drivability are great motivators to be among the early adopters to buy one of the first mainstream factory electric vehicles.

Cathy and I are both puzzle nuts. We have two daily puzzle calendars to jump start our brains during breakfast. Cathy has a diverse taste in puzzles and is frequently working her way through a book of Japanese puzzles while I'm reading the newspaper at night. I'm not talking about Sudoku, she chews through puzzles like Kakuro and Hanji.

In addition to solving puzzles, she also likes to create puzzles, which is much harder and far more time-consuming than solving them. Quite often, I get a sequence of puzzles on my birthday each of which has an embedded clue to the next puzzle, eventually leading to my birthday gift.

This year we were extremely busy for the two weeks leading up to my birthday. We spent a week in Hawaii prepping our condo for a new rental agency, then spent the next week being EV groupies attending all of the Nissan Leaf events in Seattle, then on Saturday Cathy was the head judge at the Washington State FIRST LEGO League Championship. Anyway, we were busy and I was sure Cathy didn't have time to create any puzzles.

So, I was quite to surprised to find a puzzle sitting on the bar at breakfast. I like doing Marilyn vos Savant's Numbrix puzzles that accompany her column in Parade magazine, so Cathy created a jumbo size version. This is probably the only puzzle format for which I am more practiced at solving than Cathy, but she still managed to create a puzzle in that format, larger than normal, challenging for the type, and yet still solvable.

It was a good puzzle and I enjoyed solving it. If you want to try, download this PDF version. When I was done, I was amazed she had created such a nice puzzle and couldn't imagine when she had time. I wondered if it was the first clue of a treasure hunt, but I didn't want to assume it was and have her think I was disappointed to have just a single puzzle. I also couldn't imagine how solving a Numbrix could yield a clue to another puzzle. While all of this was running through my brain, she was giving me the look that says, "you're not done yet." Stop reading now if you want to try to find the clue to the next puzzle without a hint.

While I was solving the puzzle, I realized that sometimes when I work these puzzles, instead of writing in the numbers, I just draw the path through the sequence connecting the centers of the boxes in order. It actually occurred to me that might be interesting, but I couldn't imagine how that could yield a message. Cathy realized that by drawing lines in the manner I described, there are 7 letters that can be easily formed: CEHISUY plus maybe a couple of others like T and L that might work but leave odd shaped areas to be filled to complete rectangular blocks. If you solve the puzzle then draw the sequence line you'll see a word that told me where to look for the next puzzle.

If you'd like to try working this one on paper, download the PDF version. Four of the clues require a bit of inside knowledge, but it's probably doable anyway. Stop reading now if you want to try it without any hints, if you perhaps know the cars we drive, enjoy shows at the Village Theatre and were an applications programmer at Microsoft in the 1990s.

1 Down is a reference to the Hungarian naming convention used by some programmers at Microsoft where "max" means "one more than is allowed." This photo of one of our cars  will give you the answer to 4 and 6 Down. 25 Down is a reference to a line in Chasing Nicolette, but you can probably get it from the other clues without knowing the show.

For the month of November, I drove the Roadster 762.2 miles. That's mostly with just me in the car driving a variety of city and highway miles. I tend to drive enthusiastically most of the time, but the month also included a roundtrip drive to Longview, WA on cruise control at 55 mph.

During the month, I put about 247.8 kWh into the car from the wall (213.3 kWh metered from my garage plus approximately 34.5 kWh from an unmetered NEMA 14-50 outlet in Longview). That's 325.1 Wh/mi and includes charging losses, battery pack self discharge, heater, headlights, etc. That's my wall-to-wheel number and is based completely on things I can measure.

From July 25th to August 27th, I drove the Roadster 696 miles and pulled 234 kilowatt hours (kWh) from the grid, giving us 336 Wh/mi. That included some hot weather and four 1/4 mile runs at Pacific Raceways.

On individual charges, I see efficiency vary from 240 Wh/mi to over 400 Wh/mi, and obviously much higher for things like drag racing.

I charge consistently at 240V and 40A at home. In Longview it was 230V and 40A. Because of charging overhead, I assume I would get slightly better charging efficiency if I charged at home at 70A. So, my numbers are just that, my numbers. Another driver would get different numbers depending on driving, weather, road conditions, and charging habits.

The EPA estimates documented in the paperwork for our car say 260 Wh/mi city and 290 Wh/mi highway. I've seen information from early 2008 Roadsters that had the EPA numbers and 340 and 360 Wh/mi.

You may have heard Roadster owners talk about numbers well below my 330 Wh/mi numbers. These are most often the number reported by the car's info screen which are not wall-to-wheel numbers, and in fact are (as far as I know) not at all documented as to what that number means. I have figured out some things about the numbers reported by the car, which I'll now explain.

For the month of November, the Roadster's trip meter says that I used 207.9 kWh, and thus 272.8 Wh/mi. But what does that mean? Did I push 207.9 kWh into the motor, or is that net of energy pushed back into the pack from regenerative braking (regen)? Does it include energy used to run the accessories and/or running the coolant pump and fans during charging?

On the "Energy History" screen, the Roadster tells me my "net energy used" for the month was 233 kWh and that I got 26 kWh from regen. What does "net" mean? I would assume that "net" means "net of regen," i.e., power from battery pack minus power into battery pack from regen. Except, if I compare those numbers to what the trip meter says, I notice that 233 - 26 = 207, which is suspiciously close to the energy use number reported on the trip meter.

From that, I infer that the trip meter's number is net energy use from the battery pack (power drawn minus regen put back in), and thus the so-called "net energy" from the energy use screen is really the gross energy pulled from the battery pack including energy that went into the pack from both wall charging and regen charging.

Do these numbers include the energy spent on accessories? Is the difference between what I put in through charging (247.8 kWh) and the car's reported net energy use (207.9 kWh) just charging losses or does that also include accessory use? I have no idea.

The only number I can stand behind, and the only number I can compare with other electric vehicles, is the wall-to-wheel number. The efficiency number reported on various of the Roadster's info screens is useful for understanding how driving style and conditions affect efficiency and for predicting/optimizing range, but is seemingly useless in any other context.

I believe the same is true of any efficiency number for the Leaf given out by Nissan, or any other EV manufacturer or driver, unless that number is as clearly defined and directly measured as the wall-to-wheel number.

It used to be that the Tesla screen reported an energy number after each charge that was much lower that what was actually drawn from the wall. I suspect that was the energy that actually made it into the battery pack, but I never saw it defined by Tesla. More recent firmware versions are reporting a number that is close to the number I read from the wall meter (and averaging multiple consecutive readings together agrees to within 1% of the wall reading). This is a big step forward for drivers who want to monitor their actual wall-to-wheel energy use and efficiency, but don't want to go to the expense of installing a dedicated meter. It would be a real benefit to the Tesla community if Tesla would (a) define the number they currently report and (b) make the energy drawn from the wall across multiple charges easily available.

Regarding range on a single charge, my personal record is 192 miles driven with a passenger in 100+ degree weather starting with a bit less than a full charge and ending with 10 miles of range left. On the trip back from Longview in cool weather, I drove 136.9 miles using cruise control at 55 mph using 55% of the battery. To the extent that you can extrapolate that to the full battery, that figures out to about 249 miles of range. On the trip down to Longview earlier the same day, also using cruise control at 55 mph, it was raining and colder, so I had the wipers, headlights and heater on and used 65% of the battery pack, for an extrapolated range of 208 miles.

My car is a 2008 Tesla Roadster with firmware version "3.4.15 15" (upgraded from "3.4.13 15" on 11/15/2009).

Edited at 10:23 pm on 12/13 to correct typo in second paragraph.

Today, Cathy and I both got to drive the Nissan Leaf test vehicle, apparently a Nissan Versa outfitted with the Leaf's drivetrain. Coincidentally, last week we rented a Versa on vacation, so we were treated to a virtual side-by-side test of gas versus electric. They had a course laid out with cones in a parking lot, which I treated as a small autocross course. The test vehicle handled well and had good pick-up, better than the gas-burning Versa.



Most interesting was how quiet it was. The Roadster has a loud gearbox whine when accelerating, plus road and wind noise. The whine is much quieter than a gas engine doing similar acceleration, but it's not silent. The RAV4-EV has a comparable road noise level, maybe a few dB below the Roadster and minus the loud drivetrain whine. Both the Roadster and RAV4-EV are about 7 to 8 dB noisier than Cathy's parents' Honda Accord doing 60 mph on the same section of average freeway surface. (We measured all three vehicles with a Radio Shack sound level meter.) The Nissan test vehicle was very quiet from the inside, I think quieter than the Accord, but we didn't do any measurements. From the outside, you hear the same tire sound you hear from any decent modern sedan.

Before buying, I'd want to take it for a real test drive, get it up to speed on the freeway, etc. That said, based on our test drive today, I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is an early adopter, very interested in driving an all-electric family sedan, and whose driving habits could be met by the Leaf's range.

That assumes that Nissan doesn't bungle the whole thing by forcing buyers into some ludicrous over-priced battery lease.