JPWhite said:
sub3marathonman said:
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."