this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
168 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

63134 readers
3531 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

  • Nissan's pride and denial hindered merger talks, sources say
  • Honda pushed Nissan for deeper cuts to jobs, factory capacity, sources say
  • Nissan unwilling to consider factory closures, sources say
  • Honda's proposal to make Nissan a subsidiary caused tensions, sources say
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Disagree, they are exactly the type of EV we should be building: inexpensive, enough range for around town, pretty dependable. The first couple model years had crappy range, but the later ones were fine.

What Nissan needed was to expand the EV product line. Ideas:

  • make the Leaf cheaper - 150 mile range, look into cheaper chemistries; should be the cheapest EV on the road; prize prioritize reliability and cost
  • make a sports car that you want to drive - this is your flagship - prioritize speed and style
  • make something in between the two (fast, but also practical) - what most people will get; compete directly with Model 3

Don't compete on range at all, that's R&D you don't want to deal with. Just make great cars for urban and suburban use.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They weren't dependable is the problem. There were a lot of problems with early deterioration of the battery, supposedly from not having very good temperature control on the battery pack.

Sure, and battery deterioration is largely only a problem if you don't have much range to begin with. They put larger batteries in after a year or two, which largely solved the problem for the intended use case: around town car.

But that's also why I mentioned reliability and price should be the focus. They're not going to be leading R&D on better battery range, so they might as well focus on a niche.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though. Sure I probably don't need that capacity more than maybe once every year but what about when I do need it?

How am I supposed to be able to drive halfway across the country to see my family every Christmas if my car only has 150 miles of range and it takes 4 hours to fully recharge. That's going to turn a 3-hour road trip into 10 hours if we have to stop and wait for it to recharge. My problem with the leaf was that it had hardly any range at all so that problem was massively exacerbated.

It's great in a multi-car household where the other car is something with a bit more range but as you're only vehicle you better hope that no family emergency crop up.

To be clear I would have the same issues with an ICE only had 150 miles of range but in some ways that would be better because it "recharges" faster.

Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though.

Hence why I focused on vehicle classes more common as a second car. We have two cars, and one never goes further than 100 miles in a given day.

That's the niche EVs should focus on, especially while battery tech makes >400 mile range impractical. I think Nissan (or any car company) could do quite well focusing on the second car market.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Except the chevy volt is cheaper and has a longer range. Nissan has also done nothing with battery tech or chemistry. That's all been being advanced by Samsung, toyota and panasonic. There's nothing the leaf has to offer on a technology front, and there's no reason to buy one today. Even a decade ago it was a poor choice for 95% of the US market.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, which is why I said they should've focused on price and reliability. They're not going to lead on battery tech, so they should experiment with things like sodium ion batteries, which are much cheaper, have less fire risk, and they don't need the range anyway for a commuter/around town car.

Find a niche and fill it.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sodium ion is a dead end for ev. Heavy and not even remotely close to energy dense enough. It never will be.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I thought it was something like 75% as energy dense? If you're targeting a commuter with a max needed range of 150 miles, it seems more than sufficient.

It's not going to solve the range anxiety problem, but it's inexpensive, which is perfect for a cheap, around-town second car, which is precisely what the Leaf should be.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Usability wise for energy storage by weight, it's more like 150wh compared to 250. They also don't handle moving around as well, which is bad for vehicles. Then because sodium is a larger ion, they're also always going to take up more space. So heavier and bigger makes them even less power efficient to move a vehicle and means heavier suspension and more tire wear.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think those tradeoffs are fine assuming a huge cost difference. I'm under the impression that sodium ion batteries cost something like 1/3 of a lithium ion battery. And since the battery is most of the cost of a car, a commuter could be very cost competitive.

I don't know about cold weather efficiency, but honestly, most of that 150 mile range is to account for winter range drop. A commuter only really needs about 75 miles usable range year round.

People would put up with a lot for an attractive price.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Charging is a huge hassle in a big city where everyone lives in apartments but 75 miles a day would be enough. People living out of big cities where they can charge at home often have to travel over 75 miles a day.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is assuming you can plug in at home or at work. My commute is 25 miles each way, which is about as far as I'd consider going, and I can charge at home, so it would totally work for me and the people stuck in traffic with me.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course, then you're also stuck needing to have two vehicles, because unlike someone who lives in New York city and may go a decade without leaving, you likely make a trip or have to got to a few places that would ad up to over 150 miles fairly often. Often enough that you'd need a vehicle for it.

We're going to have two vehicles regardless, and that's pretty common for families and couples. The average cars per household is around 2, and above that in many states.

The Leaf wouldn't be targeting single vehicle households, but family units where one is a dedicated commuter and the other is a family car.