You might want to edit that out now, to save embarrassment later.
2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses
- Thread starter cwerdna
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
You might want to edit that out now, to save embarrassment later.
WetEV
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
There is one caused by a problem in the cabin, perhaps a 12V short. Traction battery not involved.
There is also a house fire that caught a LEAF on fire. Was parked outside, wasn't charging.
Also at least two LEAFs caught in forest fires.
Any others?
Any fair comparison would require you to also factor in how many ICE cars catch fire each year as well.. This argument gets trotted out regularly by Tesla Haters. Any car can catch fire but electrics are at least an order of magnitude safer than an ICE. And did you account for crashworthiness and passenger protection or are you just worried about burning to death?blimpy said:Any comparison with Tesla.. has to take into account how many of them BURN.
Search the internet, and you cannot find a picture of a leaf which has caught on fire
Factor that into your battery degradation comparison..!
The fact remains that Leaf battery packs degrade rapidly. They degrade the fastest of any mass produced car. This is not a good thing.
WetEV
Well-known member
johnlocke said:Any fair comparison would require you to also factor in how many ICE cars catch fire each year as well.. This argument gets trotted out regularly by Tesla Haters. Any car can catch fire but electrics are at least an order of magnitude safer than an ICE. And did you account for crashworthiness and passenger protection or are you just worried about burning to death?blimpy said:Any comparison with Tesla.. has to take into account how many of them BURN.
Search the internet, and you cannot find a picture of a leaf which has caught on fire
Factor that into your battery degradation comparison..!
The fact remains that Leaf battery packs degrade rapidly. They degrade the fastest of any mass produced car. This is not a good thing.
And Tesla's catch fire a lot more than LEAFs do.
I'm hardly a Tesla Hater, but get tired of Tesla Trolls running down the LEAF.
There are three BEVs with enough volume to matter and a long enough history to evaluate degradation. One of them is much lower cost. It also has the highest rate of degradation. Therefore it degrades the fastest of any mass produced car. And you can buy three of them for the average cost of high end. Or four, after Federal tax incentives. Maybe even five in states with high tax incentives.
If you have $100k or more to spend on an electric car, the LEAF was not a good choice. I get that. I didn't, and I've done quite well with my LEAF.
Since you won't answer my question, i'll answer it for you. There were 3 leaf's that I could find reports of fires of. There were 14 reports of Teslas that caught on fire since 2013. All but three of those occurred after severe crashes (most due to loss of control at high speed). in comparision, there were 170000 ICE fires in 2015 alone! For 2007-2013 the average was 150,000 fires per year. It was noted that fires in a Tesla are normally caused by penetration of or major damage to the battery pack which causes a short. They start slowly compared to a ICE fire but are difficult to put out due to the short circuits caused by damaged batteries.WetEV said:johnlocke said:Any fair comparison would require you to also factor in how many ICE cars catch fire each year as well.. This argument gets trotted out regularly by Tesla Haters. Any car can catch fire but electrics are at least an order of magnitude safer than an ICE. And did you account for crashworthiness and passenger protection or are you just worried about burning to death?blimpy said:Any comparison with Tesla.. has to take into account how many of them BURN.
Search the internet, and you cannot find a picture of a leaf which has caught on fire
Factor that into your battery degradation comparison..!
The fact remains that Leaf battery packs degrade rapidly. They degrade the fastest of any mass produced car. This is not a good thing.
And Tesla's catch fire a lot more than LEAFs do.
I'm hardly a Tesla Hater, but get tired of Tesla Trolls running down the LEAF.
There are three BEVs with enough volume to matter and a long enough history to evaluate degradation. One of them is much lower cost. It also has the highest rate of degradation. Therefore it degrades the fastest of any mass produced car. And you can buy three of them for the average cost of high end. Or four, after Federal tax incentives. Maybe even five in states with high tax incentives.
If you have $100k or more to spend on an electric car, the LEAF was not a good choice. I get that. I didn't, and I've done quite well with my LEAF.
A Model 3 costs $45K to $55K depending on the options. If you subtract out the tax incentives from the price of the Leaf, you might be able to buy 2 leafs for the price of a Model 3 assuming that you couldn't qualify for any tax breaks on it. Comparing a Leaf to a S or X is disingenuous at best.
I like my Leaf a lot but I'm not blind to it's problems or the way Nissan has treated Leaf owners. My next car will be an electric but I expect to to have a dozen choices by the next time I shop. Tesla is in the lead right now only because Nissan and GM haven't anything that can compete with the Model 3. I'm looking forward to other manufacturer's efforts.
goldbrick
Well-known member
blimpy said:
I'm in about the same boat but without the hills to worry about. I imagine you could refuse the update but I would guess if push came to shove that Nissan would refuse a battery warranty replacement if you don't have it, but who knows?
I got the battery update done and my SOH went up a few percent (from 95 to 97.5). Otherwise, no difference at all and I don't fret about the battery since I bought the car since it requires no maintenance or worry. I did just have to refill the washer fluid. Took me a minute to figure out how to pop the hood and find the fill spout. And this was after over a year of ownership :mrgreen:
WetEV
Well-known member
johnlocke said:
When we want to look at cars with enough history to determine battery life, we are looking at the LEAF, the Model S/X and ? Not the Model 3, yet, not a long enough history.
Of course, there are different versions of batteries for all of these. And I've seen complaints about some of the versions of Tesla battery packs degradation. And yes, the target markets are rather different.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/90-battery-pack-degradation.103845/
johnlocke said:
I also look forward to having multiple choices. When I bought my first LEAF in 2012, there were only four choices in Washington State: LEAF, Model S which you couldn't get unless you had per-ordered in 2011, got one of first to be delivered and had a whole lot more money and still would wait two months, and two tiny volume cars. When I replaced it in 2014 after getting hit while stopped, the choices weren't much different.
A for "how Nissan has treated Leaf owners", consider that the LEAF is targeting lower budget commuters and Tesla is targeting luxury performance. You don't get first class service when traveling coach. "Comparing a Leaf to a S or X is disingenuous at best. " Exactly.
WetEV
Well-known member
johnlocke said:
That's the likely 12V problem that caused a fire in the LEAF cabin, the two LEAFs that were caught in forest fires, and one that burned because it was parked beside a house that burned. There was also an aftermarket range extender fire. I suspect that list is short, likely more have been burned in forest fires than two but that's all I could find.
Do you know of any LEAF fires that might have started in the battery? Compare with 14 Tesla battery fires.
Notice I'm not comparing Tesla with ICE fires. I'm comparing LEAF and Tesla.
My point is that fires in Teslas are nearly non-existent. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning. 14 in 5 years compared to 170,000 a year for ICE. Using fires is a red herring. You would be better off arguing that the high speeds and rapid acceleration attainable with a Tesla are inherently dangerous and ought to be limited for user safety.WetEV said:
The model 3 battery is an evolution of the S and X battery. We have every reason to believe it will do as well if not better. So far the batteries for the Leaf show major degradation for both the 24 KWH and 30 KWH in warm climates and the 40 KWH seems to be following the same path.WetEV said:
If the dealer is asking $40K MSRP for a car, it does not fall into the "coach" category. That's a luxury car price and I should expect similar service to what BMW or Mercedes offer. You can argue that It doesn't cost that much once the State and Federal incentives are applied but the dealer still got $40K for the car. The fact that government is willing to provide incentives for me to buy doesn't change the manufacturer's profit or the dealer's. Why should I not expect better service on an expensive car? MSRP on a Model 3 LR and a Leaf SV aren't very far apart and the appointments on the Model 3 make up for the difference in price.
I think the normalized rate of LEAF fires has been less than Tesla, but not by much and both are way under the ICE rate.
Which brings up an interesting point: if fire is the over-riding concern for somebody other than FUDsters , they had best take into the account the fire risk of the ICE driving they do compared to Tesla owners who replace those ICE miles with Tesla miles.
Let's see:
ICE risk: 170 * 10^3 vehicle fires / 113 * 10^6 registered USA vehicles = 1500 fires per million vehicles per year
Tesla risk: under* 13 fires per 200k registered vehicles over 5 years = less than 65 fires per million Tesla vehicles per year. Closer to 20 fires per million Tesla vehicles per year in 2017/2018
--> ICE fire risk is in the range of 23x - 75x that of a Tesla
Conclusion: Anything over ~ 300 miles a year in an ICE by a LEAF owner that could have been covered with a Tesla makes the LEAF ownership an avoidable fire hazard.
* Since the fires occurred over 5 years
Which brings up an interesting point: if fire is the over-riding concern for somebody other than FUDsters , they had best take into the account the fire risk of the ICE driving they do compared to Tesla owners who replace those ICE miles with Tesla miles.
Let's see:
ICE risk: 170 * 10^3 vehicle fires / 113 * 10^6 registered USA vehicles = 1500 fires per million vehicles per year
Tesla risk: under* 13 fires per 200k registered vehicles over 5 years = less than 65 fires per million Tesla vehicles per year. Closer to 20 fires per million Tesla vehicles per year in 2017/2018
--> ICE fire risk is in the range of 23x - 75x that of a Tesla
Conclusion: Anything over ~ 300 miles a year in an ICE by a LEAF owner that could have been covered with a Tesla makes the LEAF ownership an avoidable fire hazard.
* Since the fires occurred over 5 years
WetEV
Well-known member
johnlocke said:
The 24kWh battery was at least 3 versions, one of which is fairly good.
The 30kWh battery seems to have had a BMS capacity reporting issue, not a real battery capacity issue. Or "LBC", same as BMS:
https://flipthefleet.org/2018/30-kwh-nissan-leaf-firmware-update-to-correct-capacity-reporting/
The 40kWh battery? The test of time takes time.
johnlocke said:
It seems to me that MSRP doesn't have much to do with dealer or manufacturer's profit. Actual selling prices seem more useful. LEAFs don't usually sell for MSRP. And for my view, TCO is far more important. And the LEAF has a below average TCO.
(Edit. Sentence fragment deleted)
WetEV
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Math error. Total Tesla vehicles is 200k, but most have not been on the road for anything close to 5 years. Also the risk probably varies with age of the car.
24 KWH batteries come in a least 3 versions, one of which can generally exceed the manufacturer warranty (60K mi.). For the 30KWH battery, the latest firmware update seems to fix the warranty issue for Nissan. Nobody has reported any actual increase in range that I know of (and I have asked the question on the forum). The question of what was actually fixed is quite up in the air right now. If the firmware actually fixes a miscalculated SOH then the 30KWH battery will be on par with the 24 KWH ones which still won't be that good. It might push the failure range out to 6 years and 75K mi.WetEV said:
If MSRP isn't relevant, then how about average selling price before incentives? Oh yeah, remember to add in depreciation when you calculate that TCO. You still haven't answered why I should accept shoddy service practices for a car that before incentives costs as much as a 3 series BMW or a Mercedes GLA?
WetEV said:
No math error, although I originally used 13 fires over 5 years instead of the 14 known. The Tesla fleet in the US is over 200k cars. If the average age of the fleet was one year, the fire risk would be 5*14 fires per year per million vehicles.
Per Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Production_and_sales
I calculate the average fleet age at 1.85 years or a fire risk of 70/1.85 = 38 fires per million Tesla per year.
Over the past 6 months the risk has been about 20 fires per million Tesla per year.
So as I said, ICE risk of fire is about 50x that of a Tesla.
----
As someone who apparently thinks this issue is important, tell us: do you own ICE in your household, and how many miles a year are they driven on average since you acquired a LEAF ?
Tesla averages 1 fire per 100 million miles driven. ICE's average 1 fire per 20 million miles driven. Source: Business Insider.WetEV said:
Most of those Tesla fires were the result of high speed crashes which destroyed the car in the process. There have no deaths attributed to Tesla's catching on fire. 750 people die each year from ICE fires.
This reference
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/companies/electric-car-fire-risk/index.html
says 40 Tesla fires have been reported,
which works out to 5 fires per billion miles traveled
Compared to 55 fires per billion miles traveled by ICE
If we take the fire risk of a LEAF to be zero (which it is not,) then a LEAF owning household is taking on avoidable fire risk if more than ~ 9% of their total vehicle miles is by ICE rather than an EV that can replace the ICE --- for now, that mostly means Tesla
Since I can only think of two people who own a LEAF as their only vehicle, the advice to practically everybody to buy a LEAF instead of Tesla to reduce fire risk is grossly misinformed.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/companies/electric-car-fire-risk/index.html
says 40 Tesla fires have been reported,
which works out to 5 fires per billion miles traveled
Compared to 55 fires per billion miles traveled by ICE
If we take the fire risk of a LEAF to be zero (which it is not,) then a LEAF owning household is taking on avoidable fire risk if more than ~ 9% of their total vehicle miles is by ICE rather than an EV that can replace the ICE --- for now, that mostly means Tesla
Since I can only think of two people who own a LEAF as their only vehicle, the advice to practically everybody to buy a LEAF instead of Tesla to reduce fire risk is grossly misinformed.
WetEV
Well-known member
johnlocke said:
Ah, good. And the second version is the one I have, has an SOH of 89% as of today, and 43,861 miles. I don't think I'll have any problem exceeding 100k miles and 10 years. In a favorable climate, of course.
johnlocke said:
Actually you might actually want to actually read the actual test report...
https://flipthefleet.org/2018/30-kwh-nissan-leaf-firmware-update-to-correct-capacity-reporting/
With the warranty at 8 years or 100,000 miles, you then predict that almost all of the 30kWh batteries will be replaced under warranty even with the firmware update. So do explain how this "seems to fix the warranty issue"?
johnlocke said:
Depreciation? Haven't owned the car for 10 years, so I have not yet a clue. No one has owned a LEAF long enough, yet. Assume zero value in 10 years, and I'm likely still below average TCO, assuming that repairs and maintenance stay realistic.
WetEV
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Your later statement says 11x.
SageBrush said:
Yes, about 2000 miles/year, and not because of the LEAF's range. The LEAF does most all the longer trips.
One calc is using vehicle registrations and was aware of 13 fires; the other calc uses miles driven and is aware of 40 fires.WetEV said:
Your 2000 ICE miles have a fire risk equal to 22,000 Tesla miles using the more conservative stat.
Since your household driving is ~ 9k miles a year, you have increased your fire risk 2.44x compared to owning a Tesla and ditching the ICE.
You too get a Darwin award, AND a booby award for trolling that LEAF ownership reduces vehicle fire risk compared to Tesla ownership.
---
As an aside, this year my household has driven 25k miles. 5k miles are LEAF amenable and 20k miles are not.
If I had been so foolish as to follow your troll FUD and own a 24 kWh LEAF and an ICE my fire risk would have been 11x higher than our current exposure.
