Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[JPWhite]

And not written or a formal contract but Andy Palmer reiterates his earlier set expectations of 80% after 5 years and 70% after 10 years.

http://www.torquenews.com/1075/nissans-andy-palmer-explains-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-chelsea-sexton

Not just Palmer. Mark Perry indicated to expect 70-80% remaining after 10 years in an official scripted Nissan video.

https://youtu.be/DShtvd5jJHQ?t=41s

 

[sub3marathonman]

While not a formal written contract I would consider this to be written, though we know it to be a complete lie, unless you consider approximately 7 percentage points lower to be approximately 70%.

It also depends on whether or not the LBC is underestimating capacity of the pack or not. It could very well be under reporting capacity.

In fact, if you look at TickTock's well kept data, at the point he lost his 4th bar, the most recent data point had 16.88 kWh from the wall to recharge from turtle. That comes to 24.1 kWh which is about what you'd expect to pull from the wall to recharge a new LEAF. It may be slightly lower since I recall some other data points around 25 kWh, so I don't think it's off by too much. I sure wish that were the case, though. I suppose if missed warranty and really wanted to fight them on it, it's probably your best bet.

TickTock's LeafLog

I may not be reading TickTock's data right, but on 1/2/2014 it states the third bar was lost, with 72.5 in the 3rd Bar column, which I'm assuming means that it was 72.5% remaining capacity calculated at that time. Then, the fourth bar was lost on 6/27/2014, with 66.25 in the 4th Bar column. I'll admit that I don't know how TickTock came up with those numbers.

I thought it was fairly accepted that the fourth bar would be dropping with between 66% to even as low as 62%, but I'm not sure about the values and hopefully somebody who knows will be able to put the exact values.

I also haven't kept up with the revised estimates, but I thought long ago it was Bar 1 = 15%, Bar 2 on is 7.5%, so 22.5% for 2nd bar loss, 30% for 3rd bar loss, and 37.5% for 4th bar loss, 62.5% remaining capacity, which seems to correlate with the generated data. I didn't see the 16.88 kWh from the wall to recharge, but if you subtract the loss for charger inefficiencies, it seems to come out again fairly close to 64% to 66% remaining capacity.

It seems that is what QueenBee was pointing out, somewhat similar to the Seinfeld episode when Elaine's back was destroyed by the daybed there in Florida, and she says there's three more days and Jerry says well today's almost over if it's past 9 a.m. and we're leaving on Sunday, so it's a half day tops, and if you subtract showers it's like 20 minutes and it'll go by like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Gh98uYNmI

It is fairly upsetting that Nissan has been allowed by the court to essentially scam everybody in the Settlement by stating that 8 bars (64% to 66%) is "approximately 70%," as the percentage value should have been what was used to determine warranty qualification. I'm a bit more upset really at myself because at the time I thought it would be absolutely unacceptable to just rely on Nissan generated capacity bars for a warranty decision, and was going to write an objection but didn't have time to do it, plus I thought there are thousands of other people out there who must see this, plus the lawyers and especially the judge. In math, 69.5 is "approximately" 70, and 69.49 is "approximately" 69, not 70. How was it allowed?

 

[TimLee]

... How was it allowed?

Incompetence.

Also caused by the two plaintiffs only looking for quick fix for their situation with mostly disregard for a large portion of the class.

And then the incompetent attornies who had a professional responsibility to represent the whole class completely failed to do their job.

Does the legal profession never try to disbar incompetent attornies :?:

 

[Valdemar]

I had to make a stop at a dealer today and chatted with a service guy. He said they are busy doing warranty replacements, currently have 3 cars in line waiting for new packs. So the statement that more people will miss the warranty than otherwise is open to debate I think, at least in places where heat-related degradation has been an issue.

 

[TimLee]

I had to make a stop at a dealer today and chatted with a service guy. He said they are busy doing warranty replacements, currently have 3 cars in line waiting for new packs. So the statement that more people will miss the warranty than otherwise is open to debate I think, at least in places where heat-related degradation has been an issue.

But you missed it :?:
Karl missed it :?:

Only 25% of people in CA might end up qualifying and the dealer still could be fairly busy doing replacements.

A very large % of 2011 LEAFs went to CA.

 

[Valdemar]

I had to make a stop at a dealer today and chatted with a service guy. He said they are busy doing warranty replacements, currently have 3 cars in line waiting for new packs. So the statement that more people will miss the warranty than otherwise is open to debate I think, at least in places where heat-related degradation has been an issue.

But you missed it :?:
Karl missed it :?:

Not enough data to draw any conclusions. People driving 20k+ miles a year are hardly a majority. Everyone with 12k/year or less will likely qualify, in SoCal or hotter anyway.

 

[JPWhite]

It is fairly upsetting that Nissan has been allowed by the court to essentially scam everybody in the Settlement by stating that 8 bars (64% to 66%) is "approximately 70%," as the percentage value should have been what was used to determine warranty qualification. I'm a bit more upset really at myself because at the time I thought it would be absolutely unacceptable to just rely on Nissan generated capacity bars for a warranty decision, and was going to write an objection but didn't have time to do it, plus I thought there are thousands of other people out there who must see this, plus the lawyers and especially the judge. In math, 69.5 is "approximately" 70, and 69.49 is "approximately" 69, not 70. How was it allowed?

Lithium-Ion traction batteries are generally accepted as reaching end of life at 70% of original capacity. I'm not aware of a law that says that the exact % of 70% is what all manufacturers have to work to.

Nissan did some things right.
1. They actually included a capacity gauge on the dash of their EV. Not aware of another manufacturer to do so.
2. They use the gauge which is accessible to the owner as a indicator of capacity and therefore indicative of warranty eligibility.

Given that they were faced with choosing between 3 bars or 4 bars both of which are 'close' to 70% they chose to err in their own favor and not in favor of their customers. IMHO that was a mistake, but I don't think its illegal, fraudulent or 'funny math'. There is no law that says they have to round to 70% or even select 70% as the warrantable capacity. Nissan chose 4 capacity bars and avoided % altogether.

Should the Plaintiff attorneys have fought harder for 3 bars instead of 4? Probably.

 

[JPWhite]

I had to make a stop at a dealer today and chatted with a service guy. He said they are busy doing warranty replacements, currently have 3 cars in line waiting for new packs. So the statement that more people will miss the warranty than otherwise is open to debate I think, at least in places where heat-related degradation has been an issue.

You make a good point. Many are assuming that Nissan will apply the warranty by the minimum allowed by the legal settlement.

In the same way that Nissan are replacing with new packs and not the legal minimum 9 bar pack; Nissan may also chose to replace packs (at their discretion) that are technically outside of the capacity warranty but still under the original labor and materials warranty or an extended factory warranty.

I asked for a quote for a new battery last year when I got the car serviced, knowing that it'd be tough to make it through this winter with a 3 bar loser. (And it has been tough let me tell you). I got no quote. Instead they told me to return when the car had lost 4 bars as I have an extended warranty to 100,000 miles. Figuring the dealer just didn't know what they were talking about I pointed out the capacity warranty ran out at 60,000 miles. They reiterated I should come back when the car loses its fourth capacity bar.

So either the dealer is truly mistaken (I'd guess this is most likely), or corporate simply advised the dealer to encourage their customer to wait until the battery was worn out. Either they plan to quietly 'discover' an internal battery fault when I return with the 4 bar loser (i.e. exceed the legal minimum of the capacity warranty by replacing the battery for free) or maybe they'd prefer I wait in case the battery truly fails in the interim or the car is totaled/sold (ie kicking the can down the road).

I'll know soon enough. I expect the fourth bar to go out mid summer this year before I reach 100,000 miles.

 

[Valdemar]

I had to make a stop at a dealer today and chatted with a service guy. He said they are busy doing warranty replacements, currently have 3 cars in line waiting for new packs. So the statement that more people will miss the warranty than otherwise is open to debate I think, at least in places where heat-related degradation has been an issue.

You make a good point. Many are assuming that Nissan will apply the warranty by the minimum allowed by the legal settlement.

In the same way that Nissan are replacing with new packs and not the legal minimum 9 bar pack; Nissan may also chose to replace packs (at their discretion) that are technically outside of the capacity warranty but still under the original labor and materials warranty or an extended factory warranty.
...

So far, except for some anecdotal evidence in borderline cases, Nissan has been pretty strict with enforcing the warranty limits through the usual channels. I suspect the most they will offer is some leniency while protecting their ground when challenged through BBB or small claims courts.

So either the dealer is truly mistaken (I'd guess this is most likely)

This. Or more precisely their hands are tied until you drop 4 bars.

 

[Reddy]

So either the dealer is truly mistaken (I'd guess this is most likely), or corporate simply advised the dealer to encourage their customer to wait until the battery was worn out. Either they plan to quietly 'discover' an internal battery fault when I return with the 4 bar loser (i.e. exceed the legal minimum of the capacity warranty by replacing the battery for free) or maybe they'd prefer I wait in case the battery truly fails in the interim or the car is totaled/sold (ie kicking the can down the road).

I'll know soon enough. I expect the fourth bar to go out mid summer this year before I reach 100,000 miles.

Interesting. Keep us apprised. I've opted out and won't lose my 3rd bar by the 5 yr mark, probably not until 6 yr and about 40 Kmi. I would love to receive a new battery for free, but I'm not betting on it. I certainly won't need one for years but would accept one anytime after 2020 or so.

 

[sub3marathonman]

It is fairly upsetting that Nissan has been allowed by the court to essentially scam everybody in the Settlement by stating that 8 bars (64% to 66%) is "approximately 70%," as the percentage value should have been what was used to determine warranty qualification.

In math, 69.5 is "approximately" 70, and 69.49 is "approximately" 69, not 70. How was it allowed?

Lithium-Ion traction batteries are generally accepted as reaching end of life at 70% of original capacity. I'm not aware of a law that says that the exact % of 70% is what all manufacturers have to work to.

Nissan did some things right.
1. They actually included a capacity gauge on the dash of their EV. Not aware of another manufacturer to do so.
2. They use the gauge which is accessible to the owner as a indicator of capacity and therefore indicative of warranty eligibility.

Given that they were faced with choosing between 3 bars or 4 bars both of which are 'close' to 70% they chose to err in their own favor and not in favor of their customers. IMHO that was a mistake, but I don't think its illegal, fraudulent or 'funny math'. There is no law that says they have to round to 70% or even select 70% as the warrantable capacity. Nissan chose 4 capacity bars and avoided % altogether.

Should the Plaintiff attorneys have fought harder for 3 bars instead of 4? Probably.

The "approximately 70%" figure is not my pulling a number out of a hat, or "what all manufacturers have to work to," it is what is stated as being the basis, for the Klee v. Nissan settlement. As such, it is also "the law" now that the settlement has been validated by the court that for warranty claims, 8 capacity bars (or less) must be visible, which was represented in the settlement as "approximately 70%," and as such validation from the court has allowed, it is clearly not "illegal." However, the moment that the 9th capacity bar disappears is, as I understand it from the data here, somewhere between 66% and 63% remaining capacity. Is that "close" to 70%? I guess that depends on your definition of "close." Is there one LEAF anywhere that lost the 9th capacity bar at 70% or greater remaining capacity? Because "approximately" is supposed to work the other way too, with rounding down.

Once again, in math, rounding can be done to the nearest place of your choosing, with the resulting greater margin of error. So to round to "approximately 70" you'd have to be (from hundredths to ones place) at 69.95, 69.5, 65. The question is how accurate, as in how many significant digits, can the capacity remaining be calculated to? I think remaining capacity can be measured accurately, and thus "rounding" from 63% to claim "almost 70%" remaining capacity is, in my opinion, "funny" or fuzzy math, and, thus deceptive.

Now, it really wasn't "given that they were faced with choosing," with they referring to Nissan, but as a court case it was supposed to be a fair settlement, and was supposed to be based on facts. And that, as is accurate, "Nissan chose 4 capacity bars and avoided % altogether" is the basis for my claim that the settlement ended up being a scam, a legal travesty, and a decision that will unfairly deprive a significant number of LEAF owners of a warranty claim that they would rightfully, according to the language that was worked out for the settlement ("approximately 70%"), be entitled to. As a reduction to the absurd, it obviously is allowed, according to the settlement, for Nissan to change how capacity bars are measured (think P3227 required update), but even take it further and make 51% remaining capacity as "approximately 70%" as no language states any precise percentage.

And yes, I would also agree that "Nissan did some things right," but as right for Nissan. The people didn't need the capacity bars Nissan chose to display to understand that they couldn't go as far when they'd be walking home for the last 6 or 7 miles, there were huge debates if the supplied data from the LEAF was even accurate or a gauge problem. Just as you don't need a temperature gauge to determine that the thermostat for your ICE vehicle is stuck shut and the car is overheating when steam is spewing out the radiator. Is it magnanimous of Nissan to include the capacity bars as an indication of warranty eligibility? That depends on your definition of "magnanimous."

 

[sub3marathonman]

You make a good point. Many are assuming that Nissan will apply the warranty by the minimum allowed by the legal settlement.

In the same way that Nissan are replacing with new packs and not the legal minimum 9 bar pack; Nissan may also chose to replace packs (at their discretion) that are technically outside of the capacity warranty but still under the original labor and materials warranty or an extended factory warranty.

Ummm, when Nissan tells a guy to hit the road because he came in at 60,003, or three miles in excess of the warranty period, I'd be thinking that Nissan is going to strictly apply the warranty by the minimum allowed by the legal settlement. (Note: I didn't follow this story, so at some point something may have been worked out.)

Nissan is currently going beyond the minimum settlement requirement by replacing packs with new packs, and not restoring to the legal minimum 9 bar packs, for those non-original owners of the 2011 and 2012 LEAFs, but for original owners, and it is mentioned in the settlement that early adopters should be receiving this additional benefit, Nissan is required to replace with a new battery pack of the most up to date chemistry available at the time of pack replacement.

A bit of irony, thinking about it, but Nissan says, at 0.005% over the mileage threshold that the warranty is over, it isn't still "approximately 60,000 miles," yet for the battery, a factor of 1000 times as much is accepted as "approximately" and once again, in Nissan's favor.

 

[Valdemar]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

 

[Evoforce]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

You are the first one that I have heard getting it so far. I wish I could get a couple.

 

[Valdemar]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

You are the first one that I have heard getting it so far. I wish I could get a couple.

This card is meh but better than nothing. I would have preferred the $50 beer money instead, but you can't choose if EZCharge is available in your area.

 

[smkettner]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

You are the first one that I have heard getting it so far. I wish I could get a couple.

Got mine today. Sorry the LEAF is already gone

Also stated Nissan would install a 2015 battery to restore capacity rather than repair to nine bars.

Too little too late for me. We really all deserve the 2016 100 mile battery regardless of capacity loss. False marketing from the start. All went in the shredder along with Nissan's reputation.

 

[mwalsh]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

You are the first one that I have heard getting it so far. I wish I could get a couple.

Got mine today. Sorry the LEAF is already gone .

Send "No Longer an Owner" part of form and EZ CHARGE card back and get $50 check instead.

For me (I got mine today too)...transfer car to wife; send card and "No Longer an Owner" form back; get check; buy beer? I'm still working on the original $25 I put on my Chargepoint card 5 years ago, so I'm sure as hell unlikely to use $50 in just 90 days!

Edit: Never mind...just read the fine print some more...you would have had to not be an owner back in July of last year.

 

[TomT]

I got it today too... The only problem is that I no longer have the car and they won't give you the 50 bucks instead unless you disposed of the car before July of 2015! I sent it in anyway and we'll see what happens... It is also only valid for QC... What a scam!

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

 

[DaveEV]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

This is great, got my application today, too. I have 87 days until my LEAF turns 5 years old. I wonder what I should do with that card with just a couple AHr to go until 8 bars... Unfortunately, even if I really hammer the car it's really unlikely that I'd lose enough capacity to trigger warranty at this point. What really irks me is that this card is otherwise next to useless for me as I rarely use public charging, anyway.

 

[Evoforce]

Just received the 90-day "free charging" EZCharge card in the mail. Must be activated by 6/13/16.

This is great, got my application today, too. I have 87 days until my LEAF turns 5 years old. I wonder what I should do with that card with just a couple AHr to go until 8 bars... Unfortunately, even if I really hammer the car it's really unlikely that I'd lose enough capacity to trigger warranty at this point. What really irks me is that this card is otherwise next to useless for me as I rarely use public charging, anyway.

Anyone who would like to send me their card, I would appreciate it, and gladly use it. Just P.M. me.