DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
No kidding! I guess "hot" means 80??
abasile said:(I also think the jury is still out on the question of whether the rate of loss slows over time.)
smkettner said:It may slow if you were to drive less in proportion to the capacity loss.
The really big unknown is what does capacity decline rate do after you've lost 30% capacity, or 4 bars 33.75% capacity?smkettner said:It may slow if you were to drive less in proportion to the capacity loss.
But we don't drive less. We go to 100% more and charge any time we can regardless of heat just to drive as we did from the start.
In effect the battery get used harder and harder as it ages.
That depends. If you are talking about the 5 year/60K warranty, and you were within a few months of the end of that, they might even give you a 9 bar battery. If you are talking about the $100/month deal, I would expect you to get 11 or 12 bars for the reason you state.tokenride said:I don't think they would replace batteries under nine bars with batteries that have 10 or 11 bars. That would mean more time and money spent under warranty claims. It was just a buffer statement.
surfingslovak said:Come on you guys, this is precisely why we started working on an aging model last year, and why Stoaty has put so much effort into it.
In fact, some measurements of Li-ion calendar losses indicate that higher temperatures result in drastically faster capacity loss (with a different shape!) than at lower temperatures:surfingslovak said:It almost looks like there was a change to the composition of the battery due to high heat in those locales, which could account for some additional loss of capacity.
Of course, the normal disclaimers apply: This measurement is for a different battery chemistry than that used in the LEAF and the operating regime is very different, so the conclusions may not apply to the LEAF.The capacity fade at high temperatures demonstrates a two-regime fading pattern. The fading mechanisms in the first regime are mostly Li+ loss and impedance rise, similar as those at low temperatures. The capacity fade in the second regime could be dominated by the severe loss of active carbon.
You're right on the money. So, don't grieve and welcome to the one-tooth-missing club.vegastar said:Lost my first capacity bar today at 35631 miles.
TomT said:I guess you missed the sarcasm....
RegGuheert said:Note the following about the above graph:
- There is NO leveling off of calendar capacity loss. Even at the lowest temperatures it is slightly faster than linear.
- The capacity loss curve has a clear "cliff", EVEN AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.
What's funny is that I didn't think this warranty could ever possibly apply to our car. But someone at Nissan recently CHANGED the in-service date for our demo LEAF from about six months before we purchased the car to a couple of weeks AFTER we purchased the car. I called them to get them to change it back, since it was clearly a mistake and they insisted that the new date was the best one to use. I said, "Great! Change the start date on my extended warranty while you're at it!". Their answer: "O.K." :shock: Anyway, we haven't yet received the new pamphlet on the extended warranty with the new date shown, but hopefully it will come soon. The whole episode was a bit surreal.surfingslovak said:Right! The good news is that the new capacity warranty has it covered. So stop worrying, will 'ya?
Why would you want it moved back? Sounds beneficial to you to have it listed as late as possible.RegGuheert said:What's funny is that I didn't think this warranty could ever possibly apply to our car. But someone at Nissan recently CHANGED the in-service date for our demo LEAF from about six months before we purchased the car to a couple of weeks AFTER we purchased the car. I called them to get them to change it back, since it was clearly a mistake and they insisted that the new date was the best one to use.
The main reason I wanted it moved back was that a six-month shift in the in-service date for our LEAF makes it impossible to maintain the battery warranties, which require the battery inspection reports to be at 12-month intervals plus-or-minus 3 months. With a six-month shift following the first inspection, then there was no inspection within the 9-month to 15-month window for the first inspection.dm33 said:Why would you want it moved back? Sounds beneficial to you to have it listed as late as possible.
I have gone from worrying about loss of range, then worry about battery price, to worrying about the $100/mo replacement, to worrying if I will get a battery warranty adjustment.surfingslovak said:Right! The good news is that the new capacity warranty has it covered. So stop worrying, will 'ya?
Exactly. The problem is that when we had our battery report done on 29 Sep 2012, our in-service date on the form was 29 Sep 2011. But this September when I tried to schedule the battery report, they told me that I cannot do it until I am in the annual window. They gave me a printout which shows the in-service date is now 29 Mar 2012. In other words, either the first annual battery report will not be within the window or the second one will not be. Both cannot hit the window if the in-service date moved by six months.tivollix said:Required inspection date should be based on the in-service date. You may check with with Nissan. But it would be difficult and unfair to require another way.
Just my luck that I am at about the same degradation level, 11%, but at 21 months of driving the car I don't figure to hit the magic 66.25% warranty level until ~63 months! Oh well, when first offered I never thought I'd be anywhere close to qualifying for the battery capacity warranty.RegGuheert said:Anyway, to make a long story longer, with the recent measurement of about 11% degradation coming about 1.5 years into the newly-adjusted warranty period, combined with superlinear calendar degradations, perhaps, just perhaps, we will get an improved battery just before the end of the warranty expires. Who knows?
Enter your email address to join: