Results matching “Tesla Roadster”

Our EV experience started in July, 2008, when we bought one of the few RAV4-EVs that was saved from the crusher. A year later, we took delivery of a Tesla Roadster. For the past three years, we've been committed to drive, test, measure, show, demo, hack, and explain our cars and what they represent to anyone willing to listen.

We have driven the RAV4-EV over 20,000 miles and the Roadster over 18,000. The only maintenance we've had to pay for has been replacing tires and a 12V accessory battery. Since we don't have to take our cars in for oil changes every three months, we have to fill the wiper fluid ourselves.

Sometimes I wonder if the Roadster has lost some acceleration over the past two years, it just doesn't seem that crazy fast to me anymore. Yet when I take someone for a demo ride and they gasp/yell/squeal/swear when I do the 0-60 demo, I realize the car hasn't changed, I've just gotten used to what it can do.

I've broken 100 mph on a quarter-mile drag race track so many times it's boring. I've been in the passenger seat with a real race car driver showing me what the car can do on an autocross track, and then giving me pointers while I drove the same course.

The RAV4-EV is less flashy than the Roadster, but it can haul five adults and a fair amount of cargo. Even with 64,000 miles it's still getting over 100 miles of range per charge, about the same as when it was new. It gets a little less range in the winter, but it still surprises me how little we need to drive beyond its range. Cathy laughs at me when I worry we need to take the Roadster for some lengthy drive, but when I check the distance it turns out to be half of what the RAV4-EV can do on a single charge.

Cathy and I have done enough distance driving in the Roadster that it's old-hat now. With a few strategic Tesla charging stations scattered around, plus maps of places to find alternative charging, planning charging stops is now an opportunity to explore somewhere new that in the old days we would have just driven past. We had a delightful lunch at a scary-looking tavern in Artic, WA, that had the same sort of local regulars you'd expect to see in an episode of Cheers. We have a new favorite burger joint, Burgerville, which means something for two vegetarians. We have made friends in Portland, Ellensburg, Coeur d'Alene, and Vancouver, B.C., and at Puget Sound Energy and the Wild Horse wind farm.


We have talked ourselves hoarse at many car shows (both official and impromptu) and I can't even guess how many people we've had the pleasure of talking to about driving electric. Long ago, I lost count of how many times we've helped a reporter write a more informed article about EVs.

With all we've done and as many people as we've personally reached, it's humbling to know many people in the community who have been doing even more of the same thing, some for decades.

We've made many friends from the Roadster and RAV4-EV owner communities and the broader EV community; too many amazing people to even try to enumerate.

What a wonderful experience it's been to AMP IT UP!

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.

Cathy and I, with help from Dave Denhart and many others in the Tesla and broader EV communities, have converted our 2008 Roadster and Tesla High Power Wall Connector to use the new industry standard J1772 inlet and plug. This will allow us to charge without an adapter at the tens of thousands of Level 2 charging stations that will be installed in the US by the end of 2011.

What we have is functional and completely reversible, but not ideal; we view this as a version 0.9 conversion. As there are very few J1772 charging stations currently installed, and the numbers probably won't take off until late spring or early summer, we have time to develop a better solution before it actually becomes compelling for Tesla owners to convert in significant numbers. I'm sure Tesla Motors could do a much better job of creating an integrated solution and I would prefer that to having the owner community develop a conversion solution.

We've hear rumors that Tesla is developing an adapter, but are still waiting for official word on what, if any, J1772 solution they will provide. While an adapter would give us a way to charge, we have heard from many owners who would prefer to convert their vehicles and charging equipment to the industry standard rather than leave an expensive adapter vulnerable to theft while charging.

Our effort started last summer when Cathy and I began working with Dave to figure out what it would take to build an adapter that would let a Tesla Roadster charge from the Level 2 J1772 charging stations. We discovered that SAE adopted Tesla's extension to the older J1772 communications standard, so a simple pass-through connector that converts Tesla's charge inlet to the J1772 inlet will allow charging to occur, although there is an issue, which is explained below.

Once we understood the protocol, Cathy and I built and tested a pass-through adapter. When I let the Tesla owner community know about our adapter in mid-September, I wasn't surprised to hear that lots of owners were thinking about those thousands of chargers, but I was surprised how nearly all who expressed an opinion agreed with us that the right way to do this was just to convert the Roadster to use the J1772 inlet. From what I'm hearing from new and prospective owners, it seems to me that many potential Roadster customers are put off by the Tesla plug and this is probably already becoming a barrier to sales.

In the absence of any word from Tesla Motors about a J1772 upgrade path, we've been slowly working toward doing a conversion ourselves. A few weeks ago, we finally obtained an ITT Canon 75A UL-approved inlet and plug pair from Clipper Creek. The plug cord is intended as a replacement cable for Clipper Creek's model CS-100, and carries the same power and signal wires as the TS-70 aka Tesla's High Power Wall Connector (HPWC, formerly the HPC). Clipper Creek also sells a holster for the J1772 plug that can be used to replace the holster for the Tesla plug.

With the necessary hardware in hand, we starting tackling the engineering challenges in getting the inlet mounted inside the Roadster's charge port: there's limited space to work with and the Roadster wasn't designed with the shape of the J1772 plug in mind, so getting the plug and cord to clear the body is tricky. It took a bunch of measuring, brainstorming, numerous experiments, a couple of laser-cut bracket prototypes, some Dremel work on the inlet cup, and then an adapter designed in CAD and printed on a 3D printer to get something functional.

This is what the back of the upgraded inlet port looks like. The blue piece is the mounting plate Cathy designed in CAD and we fabricated on a RepRap 3D printer at Metrix Create:Space.

Here's the work in progress just before installing the J1772 inlet and putting it all back together:

Here's the inlet mounted in the Roadster's charge port:

The ITT Canon cord plugged into the Roadster's charge port:


Charging from our HPWC, now converted to J1772.

The top of the inlet tilts back to angle the J1772 cord up. This works pretty well for the ITT Canon cord with enough clearance at the top of the port that it's easy to slide the plug in and engage the lock, easier than plugging in the Tesla connector in fact. The rubber strain relief on the cord barely rests on the body, plus our Roadster has the paint guard protection there, so I'm not worried about that minor contact damaging the paint.

It's not quite as nice with the plug and cord used by the ChargePoint Coulomb chargers, but I think it's OK for use on the occasional road trip.

In addition to the cable clearance issue, there's another concern with our v0.9 conversion strategy that has to do with the largest difference between the Tesla and J1772 communication protocols.

The Tesla plug uses four contacts: two for power, one for ground and one for the pilot signal. The pilot signal is a low-voltage communications protocol that allows the charging equipment to tell the car the maximum amperage supported and allows the car to ask for the power to be turned on and off. The pilot signal is not connected to the car until the plug is connected and the locking switch is engaged. This switch plays a second role: if the driver tries to remove the plug in the middle of a charge, sliding the switch back interrupts the pilot signal which tells the car to stop charging. This happens very quickly so that the driver cannot get the plug untwisted and removed to break the electrical contacts while current is still flowing. It's important to prevent this because doing so can cause arcing, which would damage the contacts.

Instead of interrupting the pilot signal, J1772 uses a fifth wire for this purpose. Like the Tesla plug, the locking mechanism on the J1772 plug makes the proximity connection, so that when the driver wants to remove the plug and slides the lock it interrupts the proximity connection, thus telling a J1772 car to stop charging immediately (within a tenth of a second). Unfortunately, the locking switch on the J1772 plug doesn't interrupt the pilot signal.

With our v0.9 conversion (or a simple pass-through adapter), the driver can unlock the J1772 plug without the car knowing, and then pull the plug while power is flowing. Cathy and I need to make sure we don't do that. To solve this issue, we need to design a circuit that watches the proximity pin and interrupts the pilot signal when the J1772 plug is unlocked. I don't expect this to be difficult, but we haven't done it yet.

We have already made some improvements in the design. This is version 3 of Cathy's inlet mounting plate design, which we plan to print for our next revision:

In addition to the improved mounting plate, our next steps are:

1) Hope that Tesla Motors provides an official conversion solution before it matters to most owners, thus saving us the remaining steps.

2) Design a circuit to monitor the proximity pin and disconnect the pilot signal when the J1772 plug is unlocked.

3) Test with other J1772 plugs and possibly work on a better solution for cable clearance over the body panel.

4) The 2010 and later Roadsters have the inlet cable assembly connecting to the PEM in a different location. There may also be other differences. We haven't looked into it yet and don't know if it will be more or less difficult to convert than the 2008 Roadsters.

5) Before recommending an unofficial conversion to other owners, we'll need to find out how this will impact our warranty. Tesla Motors has been cooperative with our efforts: they sold our group an inlet cable assembly so that we could do the conversion reversibly. We hope they will continue to be supportive rather than forcing us to wait until our warranties expire before being able to effortlessly access standard J1772 public charging stations.

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.

The Tesla Roadster offers a wide variety of charging options, from 120V/12A up to 240V/70A. Charging at higher voltage and current charges faster, but most of the time charging speed isn't an issue. If you drive a typical commute and charge at night, even the lowest power will get the car fully charged overnight. At least with the early Roadster firmware, charging at 120V was pretty inefficient because of the fixed charger overhead, but what about charging at 240V at various amperage limts? My theory was that charging at higher current is more efficient because you spend less time paying the charging overhead, but another owner challenged that assumption with the theory that higher current is less efficient because it generates more heat and thus increases the amount of energy spent keeping the battery pack cool.

Another aspect of charging is that for any given current setting, the Roadster will charge steadily at that current until it gets near the top of the charge, at which point it will start to taper off. This reduces your charge rate near the top of the pack. This aspect of charging isn't documented in the owners manual.

If I don't care about charging time, what's the best amperage for energy efficient charging? If I'm on a road trip and want to squeeze the most range out of time spent at a charging stop, how should I space my stops and how long should I charge at each one? I've collected enough data to shed some light on these questions.

Methodology

I performed a series of charges at various current levels from relatively low battery states up to a full standard mode charge. For each charge, I collected time, voltage and amperage once per minute, and state of charge once every 10 minutes. From that, I can compute energy used during every segment of the charge and the total energy used.

To track our energy use for driving, we have a dedicated electric meter for each of our EVs. To validate my energy calculations, I verified that the total energy calculated per charge matches the value computed from the meter readings.

All charging was done overnight in cool weather with a 2008 Roadster. The 16A charge was done with firmware version "3.5.17 15", all other runs were done with firmware version "3.4.17 15". The 16A charge stopped at a lower state of charge (96%, 188 IM) than I normally see (98%, 193 IM). I don't know if this is due to the lower current limit, the new firmware, or a one-time fluke.

Charge Rate	Wh per Std %	Wh per Ideal Mile
120V - 12A	807	414
120V - 16A	723	371
240V - 16A	589	306
240V - 24A	544	282
240V - 32A	527	274
240V - 40A	512	266
240V - 48A	524	272
240V - 70A	516	268

Charge Rate	Ideal Miles per Hour	Current Tapering Begins At:
		Std %	Std IM	Range %	Range IM
120V - 12A	3.3
120V - 16A	5.1
240V - 16A	13	93	179	82	205
240V - 24A	20	94	180	82	205
240V - 32A	28	93	178	82	207
240V - 40A	36	93	178	81	204
240V - 48A	42	91	174	80	201
240V - 70A	61	84	161	75	188

Let's assume I want to get the most range for time spent charging, and don't need to charge all the way to the top. From the above table we see that if I'm charging at 48A or lower, I can expect to see the charging rate start to taper off at around 80% or a bit over 200 ideal miles (range mode). If I'm lucky enough to be charging at 70A on the road, my charge rate will start dropping around 75% or 188 ideal miles. I'll keep charging above 40A until I hit that 80%/200IM mark, so if my next charging stop is only 40A, I may as well keep charging to that point.

I'm sure there's some variation from car to car, and the pack and ambient temperatures will change charging behavior, so don't plan your trip to depend on these exact values, but this is at least a rough guide.

Charging Profile Graphs

Let's start by looking at how the state of charge varies over time using different current limits at 240V. All charges are standard mode all the way up and normalized so that all the charge sessions are shown from the same starting point, around 36%.

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.

On March 17, six Seattle-area Tesla owners joined the Evergreen Lotus Car Club for a track day at Pacific Grand Prix, the new smaller track next to Pacific Raceways in Kent, WA. The folks at Pacific Grand Prix were excited to have a bunch of Tesla show up. We were treated to unseasonably nice weather, clear and sunny except for a brief hail storm.

Trevor Cobb of the ELCC did a wonderful job of organizing the event and we really appreciate his invitation to the Tesla cousins.


The track is 30 feet wide and 0.8 miles long. It's used for go cart rentals as well as track days for full size cars. As you can see from their web page, the track is all about turns with just a couple of short straightaways, so the speeds are kept under control. There were no timers on the track, so it was all about learning the track and improving your own driving. I did some autocrossing in the mid-90's, so this was somewhat familiar territory, although less forgiving of big mistakes. (The day went fine, the only notable off-course driving was a Lotus driver who sprayed dirt all over the track with no harm done to car or driver.)

A couple of months ago, the Pacific Grand Prix folks attended a Seattle Electric Vehicle Association meeting to let the community know they are supportive of EVs. At that meeting, Daniel Davids, long-time local EV advocate and now president of Plug-in America, offered up some tips to the group from his extensive track-driving experience. So, when I got the email from Trevor inviting the local Tesla owners to join in on their track day, I offered to Daniel that we could split the driving if he'd give me some pointers. He accepted.

We arrived at the track at 8:00 am, drivers meeting at 8:30 and the first group hit the track at 9:00. The second group was the six Roadsters. We got 15 minutes of driving, then about an hour wait between runs.

I took the first run and Dan talked me through it, helping me to improve on each lap. Between runs Trevor offered up some helpful tips also. On the second run, Dan showed me what a Roadster can do with a skilled driver behind the wheel. It was a little frightening at first, then I could see that he knew what he was doing and that I was in a for a real treat. Dan just swept through the turn combos where I was struggling with the steering wheel. He made everything look smooth and easy, except for figuring out how the passenger is supposed to hang on through all of that lateral acceleration without a steering wheel to grip. After seeing it done well, my run in round 3 was greatly improved.

Depending on the driver, each run was consuming between 3 and 7 ideal miles per driven mile. On my first tentative run, I used 21 ideal miles in 7.5 actual miles. Rich, an accomplished track/autocross driver, used 36 ideal on that same run. Dan managed to burn 35 ideal miles on the second run, even though he exited the track after only 5.2 miles.

It was also fun to compare the recent energy use screens between me and Dan. Here's mine after the third run:


You can see I averaged 761 Wh/mi over the last five miles after the cool down lap and exit from the track. In normal driving, the average is more like 260 Wh/mi, with occasional green spikes for acceleration, but here it's solid green with dips for occasionally getting off the pedal. Doing the math from the trip meter says I used 841 Wh/mi for that run. Now, here's Dan's graph from the second run:


There is no letting off the pedal for Dan, at least not for long enough to show up on the graph, and the graph is pegged at 999 Wh/mi. Doing the math from the trip meters says Dan averaged 1,423 wH/mi on that run.

There was supposed to be 240V charging at the track, but there was a problem with that circuit, so we searched out all of the 120V outlets around the track and charged as much as we could. Even with that little charging, I had plenty of charge for the 25 miles home when I had to leave around 3:00, I could have easily stayed for the last run. Others who had a longer drive were charge constrained and had to leave early. The track folks are very open to getting better charging installed, so future events should be easy for everyone.