BMW, Mazda Keen To Meet With Tesla About Charging Technology

PC Magazine reports that following Elon Musk's announcement that Tesla would be freeing for other electric car makers to use the various patents that the company has amassed, at least two companies — Mazda and BMW — are said to be interested in meeting with Tesla, for a very good reason: According to undisclosed sources speaking to the Financial Times, both Nissan and BMW would be interested in working with Tesla to craft up some universal vehicle charging standards. To quote unnamed official: "It is obviously clear that everyone would benefit if there was a far more simple way for everyone to charge their cars."

Comments

nissan or mazda?

[Mishotaki]

i'm confused.... is it Nissan or Mazda that is interested?

Re:nissan or mazda?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Probably confused as Nissan have their own EV, the Leaf. I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan jump on the bandwagon too and gobble up that fast-charging / battery tech ASAP; It would make the Leaf a usable compact car. Current 8 hour charge cycle and ~90 mile range on a good day is pretty limiting, especially for £25k for the base model.

Re:nissan or mazda?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Nissan doesn't have problems with charge times (at least, no more than Tesla). The base model takes 8 hours to charge from empty, but they offer a 4 hour charge option (that runs off the same Level 2 charging stations) and a Quick Charge option that gets an 80% charge in 30 minutes. Pretty similar to Tesla.

Re:nissan or mazda?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fast-charge thing was added to the leaf in the 3rd model year.
BTW, that's pretty amazing all on its own, nissan has been selling electric cars for nearly 4 years now.

Re:nissan or mazda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Negative. Fast charging (CHADEMO) was in the Nissan Leaf since the very first model (2011 if i remember OK).

And BTW, the charging on Tesla models is more than twice faster than the Nissan's simply because battery packs on any Tesla is at least twice as big ( 24khw Nissan vs 60/85Kwh on the Model S).

So, no, the problem is not with the technology itself, but the the limited 24 kwh or less batteriy packs offered by other manufacturers of electrical vehicles. The bigger the battery is, the longer it will take you, the longer it will last in year, the faster it will be able to recharge.

Some maths:

24kwh pack at 2C charging =~ 50kw charging capability (CHADEMO).
85kwh pack at LESS THAN 2C charging =~ more than 100kw charging capability (Tesla own's).

Yo see, Tesla's approach is even more conservative

Re:nissan or mazda?

[drinkypoo]

Probably confused as Nissan have their own EV, the Leaf.

You mean like how Mazda has its own EV, the i-MiEV?

Re: nissan or mazda?

[red_dragon]

The i-MIEV is made by Mitsubishi.

Re: nissan or mazda?

[drinkypoo]

The i-MIEV is made by Mitsubishi.

Whoops. Massive brain flatulence. Just shows what posting before caffeination can do to you.

Mazda does have an EV though, the Demio. It's only sold as a hybrid in most markets, and sometimes labeled the Mazda 2. At least it's got a rotary, so it's not lugging a heavy powerplant around.

Re:nissan or mazda?

[milkmage]

charge time might be the same, but Tesla owns RANGE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official range for the Model S Performance model equipped with an 85 kWh battery pack is 265 miles (426 km)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
The US Environmental Protection Agency official range for the 2013 model year Leaf is 121 km (75 mi) and rated the Leaf's combined fuel economy at 115 miles per US gallon gasoline equivalent (2.0 L/100 km).

yeah, a Tesla also costs 4x more than the Leaf, but if others get onboard and develop a standard... guess what - that cost goes down

Musk is a smart guy

Re:nissan or mazda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that 80% of 85 miles is a far cry from 80% of 265 miles.

A local Nissan salescritter mentioned to me last week that Nissan will be offering
a range-extender battery, to boost the Leaf's range to 150 miles.

In that case, it makes sense that Nissan might be interested in a more powerful
Level 3 charging system.

Sunny Guy

Re:nissan or mazda?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Not according to Nissan's website. The base S model has a 3.6 kW charger. You can add a charge package for $1250 that upgrades it to a 6.6 kW charger and adds a Quick Charge port, but the base model doesn't support 6.6 kW charging or a Quick Charge port by default (similarly, the mid-level SV model comes with a 6.6 kW charger, but requires an add-on package to get Quick Charge). Might be hard to find a completely base S model without the charge package, but Nissan claims it's an option.

Re:nissan or mazda?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

I agree that a good shared standard might allow for efficient production of batteries by removing the market fragmentation that dissuades people from starting up "gigafactories".

That said, Tesla hasn't demonstrated a superior battery technology. The 2013 Leaf's range was rated lower than it really should have been. It offered a "Long life" charging setting, where it would stop charging at 80% instead of 100% to extend battery life. The EPA decided to base the estimated range on a 90% charge to split the difference between the two options, because the 80% charge was "recommended". Tesla allows you to stop charging at any 10% increment between 50% and 100%, but because lower charges aren't "recommended" the EPA assigned a range based on a 100% charge.

Factoring that in, at 100% charge, the 2013 Leaf should have a range of ~84-85 miles. Assuming 84, on a 24 kWh battery pack, that's 3.5 mi/kWh. The Tesla gets ~3.1 mi/kWh. The Tesla is heavier thanks to all those extra batteries, which is a big part of the difference; I suspect that if you made a Tesla with a 24 kWh pack, it would have similar efficiency to the Leaf. Battery tech is hard to improve; Tesla and Nissan are using the same basic tech.

TL;DR: Stacking more batteries is hardly a demonstration of superior technology.

It's Nissan

[Anonymous Coward]

For everybody who's confused by the title like me, it's Nissan (not Mazda) in TFA.

I wonder why no american companies are interested in cooperating?

Re:It's Nissan

[N1AK]

Because under the socialist Obama administration

Thank god that free market, not socialist at all Germany is interested then *rolls eyes* Fuck me some of you Obama haters are retarded.

Re:It's Nissan

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Never mind that, here in the USSA, despite the cries of "Double Taxation!" and "Highest Tax Rates Evar! Death Taxes!!!", if a decent size multinational is paying an effective tax rate higher than the guy who scrubs out their toilets at night, they probably just need to fire their accountants.

Re:It's Nissan

[Rei]

The real problem is that they didn't standardize on high-power charging in the beginning. We got the SAE J1772 standard, but it tops out at 80 amps / 240V. Europe's a mess as it stands, with a bunch of competing connectors implementing IEC 62196-1, and again, no solid fast charging standard. This leaves everyone to have to pick and choose their own high-power coupler. It's idiotic, they should have standardized from the beginning, it's obvious that it's going to be a necessity for mainstreaming EVs. 20 minutes to charge your car while you take a lunch stop, fine. 3 hours to charge your car while you take a lunch stop, Not Fine(TM). Until you get fast charging standardized and available, the majority of consumers will continually hold that up as their excuse as to why they can't buy an EV (there's often some big holes in that logic, but that's neither here nor there).

There are a couple other possibilities for mainstreaming other than fast charging, but I don't see them around the corner. One is to have a whole day's worth of driving - or most of a day's worth (enough that if you charge during your meal / rest breaks, it's a full day) - on a single charge. In such a case, the upper end of J1772 is enough for all but very high consumption vehicles to charge you to full while you sleep, so you can drive another full day immediately after. But that requires multi-hundred kilowatt hour packs which would weight 1-2 tons and cost $50-100k with today's tech. It'll happen eventually, batteries double in energy density every 8 years or so (price drops happen too but they're more irregular and harder to predict) - but we're not to the point yet where this would be a viable option. The other option is making available self-steering genset trailers, like the AC Propulsion Long Ranger. It seems such an obvious stopgap - you've got a generator when you need it but don't have to drag it around when you don't, you could buy them, rent them, share them, etc. Your car uses gasoline on those occasional long trips but otherwise is pure electric with none of the problems of PHEVs. Unfortunately no major automakers are pursuing this approach (I'm not really sure why, the Long Ranger got good reviews). As it stands, the majority of manufacturers are pursuing some form of fast charging, but as mentioned, the standards situation is a mess right now. :

And then there's the issue of how fast charging changes incentives. As it stands, utilities *love* EVs because it lets them sell more power for rather little added infrastructure cost, they're largely stable nighttime loads. But once you start getting to 480V multi-hundred-amp daytime fast charges, it's just the opposite, that's horrible for them. It's possible to make them become once again something desirable for utilities by including a battery buffer inside the charger (trickle charges when not fast charging a car, then burst discharges), but I'm not aware of any fast chargers that come like that by default.

The other option is to accept that disadvantage of allowing fast charging EVs in exchange for having EVs smart grid integrated, so that all the cars left plugged in during the day charge when demand is low and stop charging or even reverse flow during those brief peaks. It's possible to incentivize EV owners as well - let them pick at what time their car needs to be fully charged, whether they want to allow reverse flow, etc. The more flexible they are about timing, the more their car can wait to buy power when it's cheapest, and they could get a rebate on reverse flow power sold at higher prices during peaks. Such a system would work well, leaving owners with the ability to choose the balance between speed and price (even potentially to earn a net profit on their car if they're flexible enough), and it'd leave utilities with a nice smooth generation/demand balance, much better than today. Unfortunately, neither the grid nor current EVs are to that point.

Re:It's Nissan

[Overzeetop]

Never mind that, here in the USSA, despite the cries of "Double Taxation!" and "Highest Tax Rates Evar! Death Taxes!!!", if a decent size multinational is paying taxes, they probably just need to fire their accountants.

FTFY

Re:It's Nissan

[Ol Olsoc]

Mostly because GM, Ford, and Chrysler are ran by some of the dumbest people on the planet. Which means we will get a standard that the European and Asian cars use along with tesla, and then something completely different from Ford, GM and Chrysler. Causing an even larger fall of domestic car buying with the executives having press conferences asking, "WE have no idea why people are not buying our cars"

I remember the lots full of Escalades and other huge SUV's no one wanted a few years ago.

At the same time that the big three have no idea what people want to buy, that incompatibility will hurt.

But to their way of thinking, interface standardization is a socialist construct. Much better to invent a non-standard "freedom connector" that if you are lucky, you will dominate the market, and others will have to pay you royalties to use.

Coupled with a non-trivial segment who wants to see electric vehicles fail, and their starting to sound silly sycophants, it is amazing that we don't have politicians trying to ban all EV's on patriotic grounds.

As preposterous as that sounds, consider that "Heartbeat of America" (tm) Chevrolet were touting patriotism as a hallmark of their big trucks, and the present day efforts to ban Tesla sales in certain, states. There is enough money in the hands of people who would benefit at EV's failure to set the stage for some entertaining shenannagins.

Re:It's Nissan

[Rei]

Also, there's the issue of economics. A high power fast charger, say, 400kW, costs on the order of $100k and is the size of 1-2 soda machines. If you're only servicing 1-2 EVs a month, you're never going to pay for it. If we assume a 25 year lifetime and, after factoring in the time value to money assume that it needs to pay for itself plus, oh, let's say $50k of maintenance, during 15 years, then it needs to average $10k a year, or $28 per day, or $1.14 per hour. Since the charger provides 400kWh/h, then that'd be a surcharge of 0.3 cents per kilowatt hour at a 100% capacity factor, an amount that'd pretty much disappear under the 20 cents or so per kWh the power company would want to charge for being able to deliver such high powers at an irregular interval (you could reduce the rate by installing a battery buffer, but then you've got to pay for the buffer).

So, if the charger was always in use, its cost and maintenance would be vanishingly small. On the other hand, if it was in use 1% of the time, the costs for buying / maintaining the charger would run you 30 cents per kWh, significantly more than the cost of electricity itself, and bringing up the net total to more expensive than even gasoline per mile. Realistically, then, you need to get 3-5% utilization on your fast chargers for them to be economical.

400kWh is equivalent to about 1600 miles for a Prius-like electric car. 4% utilization of that means you need to average charging up 64 electric miles per hour. Meaning that you need one electric car that will need to stop at your station traveling down your route every hour. If we assume that you pick a spot where 1 in 3 EVs on the route will need to stop at your particular charger (you can't space them too far apart or people won't feel comfortable risking it, and not everyone is driving super-long distances), then you need 3 EVs going down your route per hour. You need to cover the whole interstate highway system, so the limiting factor will be the less densely trafficked areas. However, you don't need to cover every road that densely, just the busiest ones in a given region. Some whole regions don't beat more than a dozen or so vehicles per hour, so let's set 15 vehicles per hour as our threshold to reach everywhere. This means that you need 20% of them to be EVs to meet the 3 EVs per hour requirement. If we assume that gasoline vehicles are twice as likely to be driven on long distances out in the boonies as fast-charged EVs, this number rises to 40% of vehicles needing to be EVs. America has 250 million vehicles, so to reach that percentage threshold, that means 100 million EVs total. So that's the critical EV penetration needed to economically justify fast charging stations that would let you drive to every part of the US.

Now, of course, that's to drive *everywhere*. There are long stretches, long enough that EVs would need to charge, that receive tens of thousands of vehicles. At 1.5k vehicles an hour, the US needs only 1M EVs on the roads (if equally distributed) to justify a fast charging network in these areas. Areas with that kind of traffic are rather limited, however. The vast majority of the US could be reached by 150 vehicles per hour roads. This requires a total EVs on the roads of 10M.

US consumers buy a total of about 16 million vehicles per year.

One can change the operating assumptions to get different results. If you let chargers be more sparse, then a higher percentage of drivers will charge at a given charging station, increasing its utilization (the downside is EV drivers would be less likely to drive there). One could argue that EVs will be less than half as likely to be driven long distances as gas cars even with fast charging, which will almost certainly be true in the beginning, although the inverse will probably be true in the future. And of course one could argue over what sort of costs drivers would accept as tolerable or the exact pricing of power, chargers, maintenance, etc. For example, one could probably argue that while most people wouldn't toler

Re:It's Nissan

[CohibaVancouver]

Because under the socialist Obama administration, there's no point to innovating and trying to increase your company's profits: the taxman is going to take it all.

Because under a Republican administration, there's no point to innovating and trying to increase your company's profits:

With infrastructure crumbling, education failing and the middle class fading the environment that fosters capitalist success is fading away. Better to start up in a country like Germany that creates an environment where it's worthwhile trying to innovate.

Re:It's Nissan

[Rei]

You made a claim, I made a counter, you made a remark that your claim still stands without presenting evidence. I'm asking you to present evidence.

In what way is a charger's battery pack the same as a vehicle battery pack? It's not even *remotely* close to the same use case. Weight is irrelevant for fixed installations so cost per watt hour is dramatically lower, pack size can be dramatically larger given the use case, which decreases cycling rate, the overall cycling behavior is totally different, the associated non-battery hardware on the charger is far more expensive, changing the ratio of battery cost per unit associated hardware, and there's only one format of battery needed per charger (verses a minimum of dozens for vehicles), with no need for stock, no need for consumer battery acceptance, and no mechanical swap of a massive structural component of a vehicle's body.

So please, explain to me how these situations are even remotely similar? In the vehicle you've got crash-safe, body-integrated, high-energy-density lithium ions with a discharge time of 1-3 hours, attached to 10-40k of associated hardware. In a charger you've got something like lead-acids stacked on a shelf, with a total discharge time of 20-30 minutes (in 10 minute or so bursts), doing so for only maybe 4% of the day, attached to 100k-ish of hardware, and with the battery cost being compensated for by lower electricity rates.

If you think these are the same situation, by all means, I'm all ears.

Re:It's Nissan

[Nemyst]

If the Fiat EV is any indication, the American motor companies only want to make an EV to prove that the tech is doomed to fail so they can get the govt off their backs. Collaborating on creating a viable standard for charging or increasing battery capacity would go against that.

BMW already met with Tesla

[brunes69]

Musk announced this days ago during a briefing call. BMW and Tesla are already talking. They were just at the plant on Wednesday.

Re:Now we are arriving at critical mass

[K. S. Kyosuke]

if your battery goes flat a few miles from a charging station all you need is a state trooper

Hah, finally an ethical use case for tasers!

Standardization is critical

[l2718]

For wide adoption there needs to be a full market around electric vehicles: opportunities to build charging stations, sell home charging equipment and so on. Gas stations are possible since practically all cars use the same fuel, but also because they have very similar intake openings so that the pump can stop by itself.

Tesla by itself is too small to set standards, so this is good news. It also shows how disclaim in patents helps: the benefit from a greater and more active market exceeds the payoffs from discouraging competition.

Re:Standardization is critical

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Prepare to be burned as a heretic. Everyone knows that patents CAUSE innovation by forcing inventors to do the same mundane tasks differently. Plus, they help keep attorneys employed, which is vitally important. Disclaiming or sharing patent rights that you've already acquired is socialism, which is the ultimate evil.

Re:Standardization is critical

[Kagato]

Patents aren't nearly as bad when the holders of said patents actually make things. Most of the time the end result is cross-licensing agreements. Things went down the tubes when Lawyers figured out they could buy some vague patents and PO Box in East Texas.

Re:Now we are arriving at critical mass

[ShanghaiBill]

... a small swappable ultracapacitor so that if your battery goes flat a few miles from a charging station ...

The best super capacitors have an energy density two thousand times less than gasoline. A small portable battery or flywheel would make far more sense.

Thanks for straightening that out!

[Two99Point80]

Now I'll be sure to remember how impractical my LEAF is as I drive to a morning meeting, then the mall for some mallwalking, then the free charging station near the gym for half a "tank" while I work out, then... Silly me, driving 2300+ around-town miles over the past three months for a total fuel cost of $9 (because one of my city's free charging stations is inside a parking deck) without ONCE realizing how impractical it was! :-)

Re:Thanks for straightening that out!

[Rei]

9200 miles per year isn't that much below the US average. Just because you drive freakishly much doesn't change that.

Re:Thanks for straightening that out!

[Rei]

How about a year from now when you get 50% of your battery life?

Or what about two years from now, when unicorns ridden by fire-breathing kittens come down and stomp your leaf into the star-glitter on which they feed? I mean, while we're discussing grossly implausible scenarios here...

The LEAF has issues with this.. google it.

Given that the battery has a five year warranty, no, it does not.

What about the cost to get the charging station installed?

$1818, installed, if you want a home charger. Or you can use non-home charging, just like gasoline cars use non-home filling.

What if you have a business meeting or training out of town?

What do you do with your mustang when you need to move, say, a washing machine? Wait a minute, do you work around deficiencies in your car's capabilities with alternative solutions because you appreciate the advantages your Mustang provides? Wow, you don't say!

Re:Thanks for straightening that out!

[Rei]

It depends. Charging stations can be loss leaders. If you put a low power Level-1 (120V/20A) charging station in front of your store, you pay about 30 cents per hour that a person is charging there. To keep a person in a particular shopping district at a cost of only 30 cents per hour can make very good sense to a city or business; even Level 2 charging (240V/15-80A -> $0.60-$3.20/h) can potentially pay for itself as a loss leader, depending on the situation. And that's just ignoring the reason most chargers were installed in the CARB era: good publicity. And not just from EV drivers who tend to do business with stores that install chargers even if they don't need to use them, just as a thank-you; it earns green cred from the general public. It's the same as a business giving money to support local youth organizations, or sending gift baskets to the troops, or whatever - you spend money to gain additional customers thanks to good publicity.

That's the cynical view. The less cynical view is that a lot of the business owners and towns who install them actually *do* want to encourage EVs.

Re:Now we are arriving at critical mass

[sjwt]

Gasoline gives you 12,200 Wh/kg
University of California's currntly running a SC @ 39.3 Wh/kg So thats 310 times less, the gap keeps closeing.
  Worryed about the extra weight? Why not make your supercapacitor part of the load bearing structure of the car

Re:Mazda - yes please!

[Overzeetop]

Except the waste of scrapping the engine and transmission (or having a poorly matched transmission) along with the inability to effeciently and safely mount the batteries and the complete lace of efficiencies of scale for doing a one-off project?

If you have enough time and money you can do anything that doesn't violate physics.

Re:Generalizing your situation

[Rei]

Leaf isn't designed to be a car for everyone. But it is a car that fits the usage patterns for a huge number of households, vastly more than its market penetration. For example, a large chunk of US households are multi-vehicle households, where one is used primarily as an in-town/commuting vehicle. Why, exactly, isn't a car like the Leaf appropriate for that?

*No* car suits all needs. A vehicle that can be used to carry a load of gravel isn't going to be an ideal daily commuter. A car that's comfortable as a daily commuter might not be so comfortable on long trips with the kids. None of the above is probably great for the track. And that track car will suck off-road. And on and on. The fact that tradeoffs exist is why vehicles on the market are so widely varied. I don't get how you don't see that a vehicle like the Leaf fills a very common role in this diverse spectrum. No, it's not some universal, ideal all purpose vehicle. But there is no such thing as a universal, ideal all purpose vehicle. It, like all vehicles, is for its niche, and its niche alone. And despite how you want to portray it, it's not even that small of a niche, it's an extremely common one.

Re:Mazda - yes please!

[Rei]

It's true. It's a ton of work to do a conversion, and what you generally get is a sucky EV. You didn't even mention the climate control issue. It's sad what people put into home EV conversions in terms of time and parts and how little money they get out of them if they ever try to sell them.

EVs are best designed from the ground up. They're really remarkably different in terms of their demands from gasoline cars. You have disadvantages like the additional bulk/mass from the battery pack(s) and the greater need for streamlining due to the range limitations. You also have a number of advantages such as much greater freedom on where to position things in the vehicle (motors are very small, you can put the inverter almost anywhere, you can put the batteries pretty much anywhere you want, etc). So you no longer need that bulbous front end, but it's more important that you have a long, shallow taper in the back. But you don't have to worry as much about rollover because you can keep the battery weight low. The lack of a need for a geared transmission saves you space and gives you greater flexibility in drivetrain structure, but introduces its own issues, like the need for a parking pawl (or at least good handbrake!) because the car always acts like it's "in neutral" when there's no power. And of course there's the aforementioned thermal management issue - important to keep the batteries cool (the faster you want to charge, the more of an issue it is), important to spare energy on climate control, and you have some but not a ton of waste heat from the battery pack, motor, and inverter. So what solutions do you do? There's a lot of creativity that goes into designing a good thermal management system. I think the EV1's was really ahead of its time, with effective heat scrounging and reuse, a reversible heat pump for both heating and cooling, and then they made up for the limited heating power of a heat pump in cold weather by adding an additional resistive heating element as needed, and then put the whole system on computer control so you can preheat or cool the cabin before you get into the car, while it's still on mains power.

Why people buy cars

[sjbe]

But it is a car that fits the usage patterns for a huge number of households, vastly more than its market penetration.

Consider why that is. People don't buy a car based on what might fit their typical usage 90% of the time. They buy a car that will fit what they think they need/want 99.9% of the time. And most of us who own cars do on occasion drive farther than the range of the Leaf. You also are making the mistake of thinking that car purchases are rational. The number one selling vehicle of any type in the US is the Ford F150 pickup. You think they sell that many based on a rational needs analysis? The majority of SUVs and pickups that are marketed for their "off road" capability are never taken off the pavement. Ever.

For example, a large chunk of US households are multi-vehicle households, where one is used primarily as an in-town/commuting vehicle. Why, exactly, isn't a car like the Leaf appropriate for that?

Because for less money I can get a much larger and more capable car for local driving that doesn't have such limited range, cargo capacity and is a lot more fun to drive. Fuel efficiency is nowhere near the top of the list of requirements for most car purchases. Some people care a lot but most do not worry about it much. Furthermore the Leaf is a compact car with limited range trying to sell in the US market which STRONGLY favors big cars without range limits. Honestly I'm impressed they've sold as many as they have given the range limit.

A vehicle that can be used to carry a load of gravel isn't going to be an ideal daily commuter.

I drive a pickup daily. Could I get a more fuel efficient car better optimized for commuting? Sure. But I do more than just commute. I genuinely need the pickup bed with some regularity (at least once a week) and I have the budget for one car. I'm going to pick the one that fits the largest number of my needs, not one that is optimized for commuting over everything else. Don't get me wrong, I'd buy an electric car in a heartbeat if there was one available that fit my needs and budget. But I'm not about to drop tens of thousands of dollars on second a car I don't actually need with severely limited range, slow refueling, limited cargo capacity and that isn't particularly fun to drive. (yes I've driven a Leaf) The cost/benefit analysis for most of us isn't going to favor the Leaf. Too many tradeoffs.

Citation for that "50% capacity loss in one year"?

[Two99Point80]

There is a very active LEAF owners' group at mynissanleaf.com and folks have developed a battery-aging model based on formal tests and lots of user data. No one has reported anything like what you posit. How about some proof of that data?