Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[cwerdna]

^^^
Interesting presentation. I wasn't aware of it. However, it was created by Nissan and not NHTSA. And, the title is "EV / HEV Safety".

I'm just annoyed that a relatively new user, starting from his first post (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&p=219262#p219262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false is telling people to submit non-safety complaints to a safety organization on a safety complaint form. And he keeps doing it. Yet, (AFAIK) he hasn't provided proof that it really is the proper place and method.

I'm for people posting and discussing correct information. It annoys me when people post misinformation (not just here on MNL). So far, it seems like it's not correct.

I'd also rather have people spend the time they have to submit their complaints to the proper bodies than to miss or not cover one because they spent doing it to the wrong place.

 

[Herm]

If the battery shuts down on the highway it will lock up the transmission into park, you wont be able to push it to the side of the road.. IIRC from what someone mentioned in the forum.

Where in the world did you come up with that? UH--someone mentioned it on the Forum, so it's gospel? :roll:

Yes, exactly.. they mentioned the car locked up and could not be pushed off.. thats enough to make it a safety hazard when you try to strecth the turtle. In any case, there is no harm in reporting it to the NHTSA and they can motivate Nissan to make changes in a hurry.

 

[ALLWATZ]

This still doesn't change the fact that NHTSA doesn't seem like the proper place to file non-safety complaints. If you provided evidence on their site that it is and that the safety complaint form is the proper place to do it...

This presentation is on the NHTSA website:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/pdf/ev/Nissan_Presentation-Bob_Yakushi.pptx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slide 12:

Slide 19:

I don't understand why you're so caught up on this either. It takes less than 5 minutes to file a compliant. If NHTSA does not consider it a relevant matter, then so be it. No harm, no foul. What do you gain from discouraging people?

However, the NHTSA clearly has an interest in the issue.

Thank you for posting this and agreeing with me, I did see this on the website (as anyone here could if they (cwerdna) would bother to check it out). As is evident by cwerdna's last post, quite the apology by the way, cwerdna will not accept anyone's viewpoint, no matter the evidence.

 

[SanDust]

I'm assuming that Nissan has something in place that shuts down the car when that happens.

I'm expecting you will just lose power circles. I think I could lose quite a few power circles before I would deem the LEAF undriveable.

Do we know that we would lose power circles in the same way we lose capacity bars? Internal resistance is closely related to capacity and ultimately it's the lack of power that will signal the Leaf battery is EOL.

 

[palmermd]

I don't understand why you're so caught up on this either. It takes less than 5 minutes to file a compliant. If NHTSA does not consider it a relevant matter, then so be it. No harm, no foul. What do you gain from discouraging people?

However, the NHTSA clearly has an interest in the issue.

Thank you for posting this and agreeing with me, I did see this on the website (as anyone here could if they (cwerdna) would bother to check it out). As is evident by cwerdna's last post, quite the apology by the way, cwerdna will not accept anyone's viewpoint, no matter the evidence.

I'm not discouraging anyone from filing wherever they want to, but I'd like to note that both of the items posted earlier were clearly safety related. A car stalling in the middle of the road at random times, and battery fire are both safety issues. The slides from Nissan were showing how their design is safe from a thermal runaway event known in other lithium ion batteries (remember the cell phone and laptop fires). The slides are showing that their batteries are thermally stable in the presence of high heat, and will not go into a "thermal runaway" where the battery begins to compound the problem and then feed itself until it eventually starts on fire. This has nothing to do with the battery capacity.

 

[ALLWATZ]

I don't understand why you're so caught up on this either. It takes less than 5 minutes to file a compliant. If NHTSA does not consider it a relevant matter, then so be it. No harm, no foul. What do you gain from discouraging people?

However, the NHTSA clearly has an interest in the issue.

Thank you for posting this and agreeing with me, I did see this on the website (as anyone here could if they (cwerdna) would bother to check it out). As is evident by cwerdna's last post, quite the apology by the way, cwerdna will not accept anyone's viewpoint, no matter the evidence.

I'm not discouraging anyone from filing wherever they want to, but I'd like to note that both of the items posted earlier were clearly safety related. A car stalling in the middle of the road at random times, and battery fire are both safety issues. The slides from Nissan were showing how their design is safe from a thermal runaway event known in other lithium ion batteries (remember the cell phone and laptop fires). The slides are showing that their batteries are thermally stable in the presence of high heat, and will not go into a "thermal runaway" where the battery begins to compound the problem and then feed itself until it eventually starts on fire. This has nothing to do with the battery capacity.

Not sure you can make that last statement as we don't know if it did or not. The original post, http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9379" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, the person had the car for only 1 and 1/2 months and must have bought it used as it had over 6000 miles. He did not say, nor may he even know how many capacity bars he has and as we know from other people who have posted, used Leafs have missing bars. This poster only made a few posts and hasn't posted on the MNL since. He probably only joined to get advice (which incidently came from cwerdna). One can only assume that he is either driving his car along without further incident or, has dumped it and we will no longer hear from him.

 

[palmermd]

This has nothing to do with the battery capacity.

Not sure you can make that last statement as we don't know if it did or not. The original post, http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9379,..." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

My statement has nothing to do with that post. To clarify my statement : The PowerPoint slides have nothing to do with battery capacity...they are related to battery safety and thermal runaway.

 

[Gonewild]

ya, having to pay for a QC daily would be tough especially if you have solar to burn at home. there is another thread that asked what Nissan should do about the people affected by range loss, i suggested they install a QC network (would need like what? 3-4 for Phoenix) and allow free access to all LEAF owners who had the degraded vehicles.

i am guessing the actual station could make that determination and not bill them. any LEAF could charge but ones not seeing degradation would pay the normal rate

We have 4 QC now. But I would like 20 QC's

Gonewild: Why would you want 20 QC's if you no longer drive a LEAF?? :? :?

WELL, I plan to buy a electric car in the future and would like to see chargers installed for everyone.

I give the car back in the morning.

 

[TomT]

The battery is not going to suddenly shut down due to a loss of capacity. Thus, it is a completely different and unrelated scenario.

And by the way, the one time I did run the car all the way down on purpose as an experiment when it was new, it did not automatically lock the transmission and I could still roll it... I could also still apply and release the parking brake...

Unlike the Pinto, I have a hard time qualifying this as a safety defect... That is why I have not filed a complaint with them.

If the battery shuts down on the highway it will lock up the transmission into park, you wont be able to push it to the side of the road.. IIRC from what someone mentioned in the forum.

 

[ALLWATZ]

I don't understand why you're so caught up on this either. It takes less than 5 minutes to file a compliant. If NHTSA does not consider it a relevant matter, then so be it. No harm, no foul. What do you gain from discouraging people?

However, the NHTSA clearly has an interest in the issue.

Thank you for posting this and agreeing with me, I did see this on the website (as anyone here could if they (cwerdna) would bother to check it out). As is evident by cwerdna's last post, quite the apology by the way, cwerdna will not accept anyone's viewpoint, no matter the evidence.

I'm not discouraging anyone from filing wherever they want to, but I'd like to note that both of the items posted earlier were clearly safety related. A car stalling in the middle of the road at random times, and battery fire are both safety issues. The slides from Nissan were showing how their design is safe from a thermal runaway event known in other lithium ion batteries (remember the cell phone and laptop fires). The slides are showing that their batteries are thermally stable in the presence of high heat, and will not go into a "thermal runaway" where the battery begins to compound the problem and then feed itself until it eventually starts on fire. This has nothing to do with the battery capacity.

This should settle everything. Just got off of the phone with NHTSA 1-888-327-4236 and was told by Jackie that anyone can indeed file a complaint for, in NHTSA's words, "any defective component on a vehicle" (log # for phone conversation 473499). I asked her if this meant only safety items and she responded no, any issue, period. She stated also that an investigation would depend on the number of similar compalints reported. I should hope this would end the endless debate, but I'm sure posters like cwerdna will never be convinced. As I have said in response to cwerdna before, there are those that do and those that talk.

 

[cwerdna]

Thank you for posting this and agreeing with me, I did see this on the website (as anyone here could if they (cwerdna) would bother to check it out). As is evident by cwerdna's last post, quite the apology by the way, cwerdna will not accept anyone's viewpoint, no matter the evidence.

I'm not discouraging anyone from filing wherever they want to, but I'd like to note that both of the items posted earlier were clearly safety related. A car stalling in the middle of the road at random times, and battery fire are both safety issues. The slides from Nissan were showing how their design is safe from a thermal runaway event known in other lithium ion batteries (remember the cell phone and laptop fires). The slides are showing that their batteries are thermally stable in the presence of high heat, and will not go into a "thermal runaway" where the battery begins to compound the problem and then feed itself until it eventually starts on fire. This has nothing to do with the battery capacity.

This should settle everything. Just got off of the phone with NHTSA 1-888-327-4236 and was told by Jackie that anyone can indeed file a complaint for, in NHTSA's words, "any defective component on a vehicle" (log # for phone conversation 473499). I asked her if this meant only safety items and she responded no, any issue, period. She stated also that an investigation would depend on the number of similar compalints reported. I should hope this would end the endless debate, but I'm sure posters like cwerdna will never be convinced. As I have said in response to cwerdna before, there are those that do and those that talk.

That's very interesting. Assuming the rep wasn't mistakened, then NHTSA ought to update their web site to reflect this.

If they do and they really want and encourage non-safety complaints, that could have the very interesting side effect of completely overwhelming their database and staff w/all sorts of non-safety complaints (e.g. rattles, paint problems, AC stopped working, heater stopped working, squeaks, etc.) They already get enough non-actionable data, poor/bad reports, ones caused by user error instead of a defect, etc. If they got this other huge set, that could cause real safety defects reports to be lost in the noise and/or backlog...

Maybe if the pendulum swings to far, they may explicitly add something to the effect of "stop! We don't want to hear about your non-safety related defect complaints!"

As as side note, yesterday I found http://www.denenapoints.com/faqs/how-does-the-u-s-government-investigate-a-vehicle-defect.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (from a law firm):

How does the U.S. government investigate a vehicle defect?
A: The U.S. NHTSA is the government agency charged with ensuring vehicle safety and investigating complaints regarding vehicle safety defects. Our Pearland vehicle defect lawyers note that the NHTSA does not concern itself with defects that don't relate to safety. The agency will not order a recall for cosmetic defects or other non-safety related problems.

 

[Stoaty]

I thought the reports of capacity bar loss were slowing a bit, but discovered that Vicki added a couple of 3 bar losers from Phoenix (reported by opossum, who is seeking more detail). The latest stats from the Wiki:

"Even though there have been 61 documented cases of battery capacity loss of one or more bars (as of 8/24/2012), only 35 capacity loss cases have been reported to Nissan to our knowledge. The geographic breakdown of these cases is: Arizona - 39, Texas - 13, California - 9. The breakdown by number of capacity bars lost is: one bar - 33, two bars - 21, three bars - 7."

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[bigfoot]

I have had my LEAF for 6 months, drive 85 miles a day, charge twice a day (over night and late morning).
I charge to 80% about 70% of the time, 100% the rest of the time.
Temperature bars have always been at 6 and 7.
The LEAF is kept in the garage.

I hit 10000 miles the first week of August and soon after that I lost 1 capacity bar (around 10500 miles).

Previous to the lost bar I did notice that it appeared to charge to 90% instead 80%.

Had my battery checkup today and all is good (5 stars on everything except charging at high level received 4 stars).

My service adviser instructed me to call Nissan and get on the list.
He also said he is expecting an update from Nissan from the data they got from the LEAF`s tested in Casa Grande.

 

[vrwl]

I have had my LEAF for 6 months, drive 85 miles a day, charge twice a day (over night and late morning).
I charge to 80% about 70% of the time, 100% the rest of the time.
Temperature bars have always been at 6 and 7.
The LEAF is kept in the garage.

I hit 10000 miles the first week of August and soon after that I lost 1 capacity bar (around 10500 miles).

Previous to the lost bar I did notice that it appeared to charge to 90% instead 80%.

Had my battery checkup today and all is good (5 stars on everything except charging at high level received 4 stars).

My service adviser instructed me to call Nissan and get on the list.
He also said he is expecting an update from Nissan from the data they got from the LEAF`s tested in Casa Grande.

Bigfoot, sorry to hear about your bar loss. What area of the country are you in?

 

[Stoaty]

My service adviser instructed me to call Nissan and get on the list.
He also said he is expecting an update from Nissan from the data they got from the LEAF`s tested in Casa Grande.

Added to Wiki. To complete your entry, we need:

Location - City, State
Case number from Nissan
Date reported to Nissan
Month/year of manufacture

Thanks. Sorry to hear about your bar loss. Six months is very fast.

 

[Soviet]

I regret to inform you that approximately 3 weeks or so ago, I got in the car & noticed a capacity loss of a single bar, the very first bar.

We charge at 100% most of the time in San Antonio, Texas. 60-mile round-trip commute and this summer has been MUCH hotter than normal, even for Texas. The capacity bar loss occurred at 16,100 miles & at 12.5 months of ownership.

Actual performance has appeared to be exactly the same, we haven't noticed anything.

'tis sad. But we still love the car!

 

[Stoaty]

I regret to inform you that approximately 3 weeks or so ago, I got in the car & noticed a capacity loss of a single bar, the very first bar.

We charge at 100% most of the time in San Antonio, Texas. 60-mile round-trip commute and this summer has been MUCH hotter than normal, even for Texas. The capacity bar loss occurred at 16,100 miles & at 12.5 months of ownership.

Wiki updated, thanks.

To complete your entry in the Wiki, we still need:

--last 5 digits of VIN
--case number for report to Nissan
--date of report to Nissan
--date of manufacture

Thanks.

 

[leafwing]

'tis sad. But we still love the car!

Sorry for the loss. I have tried very hard to not love the car after the capacity bar loss, but I couldn't. We all love the car.

 

[mikesri]

Hi everyone.
We've been following this thread for a while wondering when the dreaded lost bar will strike... About
3 to 4 weeks ago I noticed that the SOC indication was only achieving 9 of 10 bars for an 80%
target. Finally two weeks ago we lost our first capacity bar. We're really disappointed and concerned as this relates to a 15% loss already and if the rate of capacity loss doesn't slow, the car will become unusable for all but the lightest duty trips. We bought our SL with 10 miles on it in Sept last year and noted 11k miles when we lost our bar on August 11. We never installed the L2 charger since we were planning on changing houses and the L1 was adequate for our needs. We have always used the charge timer to begin charging at 9PM on weekdays and allowed charging to 80% anytime of the day on weekends when electricity cost is lower. Our charging habits are as follows:

Location: Phoenix, AZ
100% - Maybe 10 to 20 times.
80% - Approx 300 times
QC - Approx 5 times
L2 - Approx 20 times
L1 - Approx all remaining charges.

VIN: 08857
Manufacture Date: 8/xx/11
Lost 1 bar Date: 8/11/12 @ 11000 miles.

The car has always been parked outside as I don't have room in the garage and is probably better to charge outside at night because it would treat the battery better. By the way, if anyone remembers, there is a thread started by phxsmiley which talks about a co-worker who had not lost a bar and primarily uses L1 charging... this is that car! We will be reporting this to Nissan tomorrow and get their "official" response and have the incident properly logged.

Our range has been noticeably diminished from new and continues to degrade. Other than this capacity loss problem, we really love this car. We use it for all our errands, transporting kids, commuting to work and some short jogs. It definitely has taken a lot of miles off our other vehicle (an odyssey van) and saves money on gas. If, however, we have to replace the battery every other year for the car remain useful, then it was not what was advertised. I would hate see the entire model line labeled as a "lemon", but if this were an ICE that needed a new engine every couple of years of standard use, then the name would fit. Would that make it a Lemon Leaf? I guess time will tell...

 

[vrwl]

.... By the way, if anyone remembers, there is a thread started by phxsmiley which talks about a co-worker who had not lost a bar and primarily uses L1 charging... this is that car! We will be reporting this to Nissan tomorrow and get their "official" response and have the incident properly logged.

Darn!!! I was REALLY hoping the L1 charging might make a difference in the longevity of the battery capacity since I do L1 charging here at home too. Sorry to hear about your lost bar.