Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[downeykp]

my conclusion at this point is that TMS is a must practically everywhere. Even for a moderate climate like the Pacific Northwest the winters get cold, robbing range and there are hot spots in the summer time leading to worry and avoidance... having to constantly calculate range and adjust habits with the vacillation of season and geography is just to tedious for mass market adoption, IMHO. TMS helps create more of a constant on which to develop an enjoyable rhythm of use.

Exactly, there is too much time worrying if its going to be too hot or too cold. EVs will never be accepted by the masses if they have to do too much thinking. Most people just want to get in and drive.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Really looking forward to Winter #3 and how well it manages the Centrailia commute. with QC available, range reduction requiring a charge will not eliminate that option but could make it an expensive one if a daily charge is needed not to mention the time to do it. As mentioned before, 10 minutes is more than enough to get back to Olympia but its still a total of 15 minutes to detour and after a 10 hour shift, the desire to add that 15 minutes will not be strong for her

 

[TEG]

Just a semi-random picture from today:

I was charged to about 90% and still see all 12 bars, and estimates over 100 miles.

I typically charge nightly to 80% off of 120V, and drive ~60 miles per day at 70MPH Freeway commute.
Also, I tend to not use eco mode, and accelerate hard off the line for those who are wondering if high speeds or quick acceleration harm the battery.

I am of the opinion that 120V to 80% is good / fine, freeway is OK, but high ambient temps are what is the real problem.
(I live in an area with very mild climate...)

 

[Joeviocoe]

I have updated the Dynamic Spreadsheet/Map.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai4b2-v971MwdERhVWx1aW9hNExTRGMtek5VSzd0NWc
or
http://tinyurl.com/Leaf-BadBatteryMap

I feel a bit stupid, I did not realize that Leaf owners would be duplicated in each chart if they lost more than one bar. This actually works better because folks with more bars lost will have a larger representation on the map. I just needed to compensate for this when I calculate how many Leafs are affected.

The only thing I still have a problem with is this:
If the Location is not in a proper "City, State" format, there is a chance that Google will misinterpret it's location. This is true for a couple of locations.
Can someone please edit the wiki:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss
... to have a standard format for the locations? Pretty please.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I have updated the Dynamic Spreadsheet/Map.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai4b2-v971MwdERhVWx1aW9hNExTRGMtek5VSzd0NWc
or
http://tinyurl.com/Leaf-BadBatteryMap

I feel a bit stupid, I did not realize that Leaf owners would be duplicated in each chart if they lost more than one bar. This actually works better because folks with more bars lost will have a larger representation on the map. I just needed to compensate for this when I calculate how many Leafs are affected.

The only thing I still have a problem with is this:
If the Location is not in a proper "City, State" format, there is a chance that Google will misinterpret it's location. This is true for a couple of locations.
Can someone please edit the wiki:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss
... to have a standard format for the locations? Pretty please.

now we do have a few in OK that are seeing range loss. they may not have lost a bar yet but i know who felt it necessary to drastically alter his driving habits to compensate

 

[Joeviocoe]

I have updated the Dynamic Spreadsheet/Map.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai4b2-v971MwdERhVWx1aW9hNExTRGMtek5VSzd0NWc
or
http://tinyurl.com/Leaf-BadBatteryMap

I feel a bit stupid, I did not realize that Leaf owners would be duplicated in each chart if they lost more than one bar. This actually works better because folks with more bars lost will have a larger representation on the map. I just needed to compensate for this when I calculate how many Leafs are affected.

The only thing I still have a problem with is this:
If the Location is not in a proper "City, State" format, there is a chance that Google will misinterpret it's location. This is true for a couple of locations.
Can someone please edit the wiki:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss
... to have a standard format for the locations? Pretty please.

now we do have a few in OK that are seeing range loss. they may not have lost a bar yet but i know who felt it necessary to drastically alter his driving habits to compensate

Thanks... but I am only dynamically analyzing data directly from this forum's wiki page that has been collecting data from users based on actual bar loss only. So it would not be very scientific to include folks who are experiencing perceived range loss without some metric for verification. Either way, I am not selecting who is or isn't included in the data set.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... is very anecdotal and many accounts lack detail. But it does allow for the best sample of the situation. And I thank those who contribute to it.

Opinion:
It would be more accurate if everyone, who either has lost a capacity bar or is perceiving range loss,... would take the Leaf to a Dyno and run the car on the EPA drive cycle test, to see exactly how much of the range loss is true. Gauges (GID or on the instrument cluster) can be faulty, and so can the perception of the driver. "Butt dynos" are very inaccurate, and the placebo effect is very prominent for mileage claims. It works both ways, many people have cognitive dissonance and don't want to believe that range is diminishing because they don't want to feel like they've made a bad decision. And thus, will subconsciously alter behavior to get MORE miles (and thus won't display any range loss). Conversely, folks who expect a loss of capacity, might suffer from a hypochondria of increased range loss.
A dyno is a great way to confirm or deny any singular claim that may fall outside the trend (such as OK). I am sure Nissan can test the pack directly, and that might be accurate enough too.
/end opinion

 

[surfingslovak]

Opinion:
It would be more accurate if everyone, who either has lost a capacity bar or is perceiving range loss,... would take the Leaf to a Dyno and run the car on the EPA drive cycle test, to see exactly how much of the range loss is true. Gauges (GID or on the instrument cluster) can be faulty, and so can the perception of the driver. "Butt dynos" are very inaccurate, and the placebo effect is very prominent for mileage claims.

Joe, agree with you in general. The objections against accuracy of real-world range tests are valid. On that note, I would like to remind everyone that the results obtained in the test organized by Tony were quite good for the vehicles with known battery health information from Case Grande.

Organizing dynos and staging EPA cycle tests will likely be beyond the means and capabilities of most owners. Based on the work done by TickTock, drees, and some others, I would instead suggest driving the car to turtle, and measuring the amount of energy it will subsequently accept when charging it back up to 100% on level 2. AFAIK the EPA test determined that the Leaf will take 24.5 kWh from the wall, and this is what the MPGe ratings are based on. There were some objections to the accuracy of this approach, but in my own experience it has proven to be quite consistent, and more reliable than a simple Gid reading. I would typically confirm the results by a range test as well, and I'm fairly confident that this approach will work.

Although this test requires some effort, it should be easier to execute than an EPA cycle on a dyno. Once LeafScan is available, we should be able to get the battery state of health reading from the CAN bus.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

too bad we cant get something better than an "iceberg" chart. i may not see a lost bar for another 3 years. its like the oil pressure light on older cars. by the time it lit up, it was already too late. why have the light there at all?

it is too bad we have limited options on monitoring degradation from day one

 

[Stoaty]

I would instead suggest driving the car to turtle, and measure the amount of energy it will subsequently accept when charging it back up to 100% on level 2. AFAIK the EPA test determined that the Leaf will take 24.5 kWh from the wall, and this is what the MPGe ratings are based on.

How are those of us with AV EVSE (not on its own meter) going to do this? I don't have a way to get the kwh from the wall on L2 that I know of.

 

[mwalsh]

How are those of us with AV EVSE (not on its own meter) going to do this? I don't have a way to get the kwh from the wall on L2 that I know of.

Easy, though not terribly convenient - charge on a public Chargepoint.

 

[DaveEV]

How are those of us with AV EVSE (not on its own meter) going to do this? I don't have a way to get the kwh from the wall on L2 that I know of.

Get a meter from EKM metering (they even sponsored the site for a while) or get a TED. Personally, I think the EKM meter will be more reliable as it should be calibrated out of the box, while the TED typically needs some calibration to really get accurate. I don't recall what the Blink uses internally (there's pics of it somewhere) but it looked similar to the EKM meter...

 

[surfingslovak]

How are those of us with AV EVSE (not on its own meter) going to do this? I don't have a way to get the kwh from the wall on L2 that I know of.

Easy, though not terribly convenient - charge on a public Chargepoint.

Yes, that's exactly what I ended up doing. It helps if the ChargePoint station is close to your home or workplace. Another thing to note, I don't think that running the car down to turtle couple of times a year will be a big problem. I would be gentle on the accelerator below the very low battery warning. Tony is the leader in the number of turtle events, and I might be close second. More than ten, but less than twenty. Honestly, I lost count. My battery ended up having an average loss of capacity/range for my climate after 15 months of ownership. The only potential problem would be the number of turtle events recorded in the battery log. If you were concerned about that, you could stop the test at six or seven Gids, and limp to the station to recharge. This won't count as a turtle event, and will not show up in the log. The difference in wall energy will be on the order of 0.1 kWh, which is negligible.

 

[Joeviocoe]

Opinion:
It would be more accurate if everyone, who either has lost a capacity bar or is perceiving range loss,... would take the Leaf to a Dyno and run the car on the EPA drive cycle test, to see exactly how much of the range loss is true. Gauges (GID or on the instrument cluster) can be faulty, and so can the perception of the driver. "Butt dynos" are very inaccurate, and the placebo effect is very prominent for mileage claims.

Joe, agree with you in general. The objections against accuracy of real-world range tests are valid. On that note, I would like to remind everyone that the results obtained in the test organized by Tony were quite good for the vehicles with known battery health information from Case Grande.

Organizing dynos and staging EPA cycle tests will likely be beyond the means and capabilities of most owners. Based on the work done by TickTock, drees, and some others, I would instead suggest driving the car to turtle, and measuring the amount of energy it will subsequently accept when charging it back up to 100% on level 2. AFAIK the EPA test determined that the Leaf will take 24.5 kWh from the wall, and this is what the MPGe ratings are based on. There were some objections to the accuracy of this approach, but in my own experience it has proven to be quite consistent, and more reliable than a simple Gid reading. I would typically confirm the results by a range test as well, and I'm fairly confident that this approach will work.

Although this test requires some effort, it should be easier to execute than an EPA cycle on a dyno. Once LeafScan is available, we should be able to get the battery state of health reading from the CAN bus.

That is a good idea, I know that practicality is important if we're to get a lot of people to do it, so we can get a large enough sample for analysis. That method may work for getting consistent results (precision), but accuracy is another animal all together.

I have only read a bit of what Tony has organized. Pretty thorough in my opinion. But if Nissan is to take notice, and to get something admissible to a court, nothing beats a good EPA test... since that is how you were promised your range in the first place right?

Has anyone ever tried to ask Nissan to pay for official retesting of their Leaf on a Dyno running the EPA 5 cycle test???
This is where I show my ignorance of this thread... does Nissan allow you to see their battery testing method when you bring your car in to check the battery after losing a bar??

Thanks.

 

[planet4ever]

How are those of us with AV EVSE (not on its own meter) going to do this? I don't have a way to get the kwh from the wall on L2 that I know of.

Easy, though not terribly convenient - charge on a public Chargepoint.

Yes, that's exactly what I ended up doing. It helps if the ChargePoint station is close to your home or workplace.

Now there's an understatement for you. The nearest one for me is 20 miles from anywhere I want to be (including home). I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea of sitting in my car for seven hours watching the bars creep up slowly.

By the way, my breaker box is maxed out, so I can't use a TED, but you convinced me: I just now ordered an EKM 25IDS.

Ray

 

[ALLWATZ]

O.K. after losing my second capacity bar a couple of days ago, I am now seeing the 80% timer charge only go to 9 soc bars (dash says it is 100%, no time left to charge). After replugging in and charging to 100% on override, I then get the 12 SOC bars. I only have 2 questions.
First is why? I thought that this was the pattern before losing a capacity bar, not after? Which leads to my next question.
Second, how long before my 3rd bar goes? Looking at Wiki, seems the rate is anywhere betweem .5 months (NOCH8H18) and 2.25 (Azdre/Opposum). All of the 3rd bar losses however, seemed to have taken place in the summer months and with cars that have a lot more miles than mine (10900). Although we are still in the 90's, a loss in 2 more months (average time for 3rd bar loss) will put us in the mild temperatures. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

In the immortal words of Linda Richman (aka Mike Myers on SNL), "discuss amoungst yourselves, topic Nissan Battery Warranty. It's neither a warranty nor does it really cover the battery. I'm so verklempt"

 

[TomT]

Interesting as I started to see only 9 bars regularly with an 80% charge before my first bar went away. It was about 3 months after losing the first bar that I lost the second bar (which occurred about a week ago). That 3 months also spanned the hottest part of summer here.

Today was a good display of my capacity loss. I have a route I regularly drive at 62MPH that requires a 100% charge and usually gets me home about 5 miles before LBW. I always drive it on a Sunday and it is a freeway route with no traffic that I drive on cruise control so it is a very constant and repeatable route. The amount of battery I have left when I get home has been slowly dropping and today for the first time I hit VLBW just as I got home. I know I soon will no longer be able to make it without slowing down or stopping for a charge...

O.K. after losing my second capacity bar a couple of days ago, I am now seeing the 80% timer charge only go to 9 soc bars (dash says it is 100%, no time left to charge). After replugging in and charging to 100% on override, I then get the 12 SOC bars. I only have 2 questions.
First is why? I thought that this was the pattern before losing a capacity bar, not after? Which leads to my next question.
Second, how long before my 3rd bar goes? Looking at Wiki, seems the rate is anywhere betweem .5 months (NOCH8H18) and 2.25 (Azdre/Opposum).

 

[spooka]

Just a semi-random picture from today:

I was charged to about 90% and still see all 12 bars, and estimates over 100 miles.

I typically charge nightly to 80% off of 120V, and drive ~60 miles per day at 70MPH Freeway commute.
Also, I tend to not use eco mode, and accelerate hard off the line for those who are wondering if high speeds or quick acceleration harm the battery.

I am of the opinion that 120V to 80% is good / fine, freeway is OK, but high ambient temps are what is the real problem.
(I live in an area with very mild climate...)

Can't tell you how glad I am for you and how happy I'd have been with my LEAF if that were my situation. I am at the same mileage but down 2 bars. My GOM starts off around 72 when I charge to 100% here in Phoenix. Your photo couldn't explain the issue more clearly. Thanks for the post.

 

[spooka]

does Nissan allow you to see their battery testing method when you bring your car in to check the battery after losing a bar??

They want to test my car and won't tell me anything about what data they will download or how they will run the test and I have requested the info. If an owner wants to sell in the future, how can a buyer evaluate the car if there's not a way to get detailed battery info? In AZ, it is buyer beware for a car resale but in other states with consumer protections, this is another story entirely. Nissan needs to address the info that they will provide to consumers on battery status for many reasons.

 

[jspearman]

Meeting on Wednesday with a technician named Frank Gibford at ABC Nissan here in Phoenix. This is being coordinated out of Tennessee, so I hope this is the beginning of a solution, not someone repeating the corporate narrative. They've already said they are potentially replacing cells, so I'm wondering if they will ask for a non-disclosure agreement in exchance.

 

[leafkabob]

Meeting on Wednesday with a technician named Frank Gibford at ABC Nissan here in Phoenix. This is being coordinated out of Tennessee, so I hope this is the beginning of a solution, not someone repeating the corporate narrative. They've already said they are potentially replacing cells, so I'm wondering if they will ask for a non-disclosure agreement in exchance.

I got the call from Nissan about 30 minutes ago. Set up my appointment with a leaf tech specialist for Wednesday the 18th.

I'd like to be a "glass half full" kind of guy, but my inner cynic tells me this is just a gesture to show us that "Nissan cares." Otherwise, it would be bad form to deny any resolution without even looking at the car and declaring all is Normal (TM).