Had the P3227 reprogram done today: interesting results.

[TickTock]

Did you notice any difference in range during that period? I can see the Gid numbers being wrong, perhaps, but I can't equate how this ties in (or not) with the range increase I now appear to have...

It took a month for my gid count to get back to the pre-reset state.

Hard to say. Too much noise in my data. If you look for it you can convince yourself it did increase, but if you look for it's absence you can convince yourself of the opposite.
Mine was reset during the gap shortly after 7/1/2012 below. There is a group of higher than average range values immediately following, but not higher than the highest before the reset. To get this data, I added the number of miles actually driven each day (typically ~50-60) and added what was remaining on the GOM so lots of noise but the general trend can be established.

 

[TomT]

We'll just have to be happy, for the moment at least, with a definite maybe...

Hard to say. Too much noise in my data. If you look for it you can convince yourself it did increase, but if you look for it's absence you can convince yourself of the opposite.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Did you notice any difference in range during that period? I can see the Gid numbers being wrong, perhaps, but I can't equate how this ties in (or not) with the range increase I now appear to have...

anyone somewhat "miffed" that it would appear Nissan may have known this for a while and was a bit slow in getting a fix?

No, I am going to wait and see how this shakes out over time before deciding if I should be "miffed" or not. I would need to see a lot more evidence stretching over a number of months before I am convinced.

well, we dont know the details so i could be way off base but Phoenicians that had their car looked at and the "adjustment" made (which could have been completely experimental last Fall or even a completely different ideology) and it took a week tells me that Nissan has the best coders in the World or they already had a heads up to this adjustment? so we "fast" forward to 9 months later? and those same coders were what??? on vacation not allowing the fix to be put out until "just before" the start of "degradation" season?

in all fairness, maybe the adjustment made to Tick Tock's car??? (or the one who gained a bunch of bars at least temporarily and "could" have gained range as well but not verified) was a discovery by serendipity that needed to be further researched before being created as a standard fix?

then again, maybe i have been playing too much Clue lately

 

[surfingslovak]

then again, maybe i have been playing too much Clue lately

Yes, it would appear so ;-)

 

[dhanson865]

anyone somewhat "miffed" that it would appear Nissan may have known this for a while and was a bit slow in getting a fix?

No, I am going to wait and see how this shakes out over time before deciding if I should be "miffed" or not. I would need to see a lot more evidence stretching over a number of months before I am convinced.

well, we dont know the details so i could be way off base but Phoenicians that had their car looked at and the "adjustment" made (which could have been completely experimental last Fall or even a completely different ideology) and it took a week tells me that Nissan has the best coders in the World or they already had a heads up to this adjustment? so we "fast" forward to 9 months later? and those same coders were what??? on vacation not allowing the fix to be put out until "just before" the start of "degradation" season?

in all fairness, maybe the adjustment made to Tick Tock's car??? (or the one who gained a bunch of bars at least temporarily and "could" have gained range as well but not verified) was a discovery by serendipity that needed to be further researched before being created as a standard fix?

I would say the change wasn't fully QAed and they were willing to apply it to Tick Tock's car because they pretty much knew that battery was going to be replaced no matter what.

The key is they wouldn't want to apply an untested fix to cars that still had 12 bars. It opens up the possibility of having to replace packs they wouldn't otherwise have to replace if there is a bug in the new software that prematurely aged an otherwise healthy pack.

The good news is they tested it for a while (maybe even using paying customers cars as the beta testers) and have deemed it an improvement enough to give it to all Leafs going forward. Considering the cost of all these battery replacements I'd say its a very positive sign that they are not only willing to push the update to older cars without issue but even went so far as to require the update for all Leafs.

 

[surfingslovak]

The key is they wouldn't want to apply an untested fix to cars that still had 12 bars. It opens up the possibility of having to replace packs they wouldn't otherwise have to replace if there is a bug in the new software that prematurely aged an otherwise healthy pack.

While anything is possible, I personally don't believe that the same software update, which is now being released, was ready last fall. I think it's more likely that some aspects of the fix were tested: such as resetting the battery controller. It's also nearly certain that a data download was made from all cars while they were in Casa Grande, in addition to having their battery packs tested. Another thing to keep in mind is that some of these vehicles were repurchased by Nissan late last year, and they were available for further testing. The good news is that this software update might contain a fairly comprehensive fix for the issues reported last year. That said, we cannot be sure and the announcement was pretty light on the details. I would be a bit more careful about the timeline, automotive development often involves subcontractors and has longer timelines than what we are accustomed to in mobile development or on the web.

 

[dhanson865]

The key is they wouldn't want to apply an untested fix to cars that still had 12 bars. It opens up the possibility of having to replace packs they wouldn't otherwise have to replace if there is a bug in the new software that prematurely aged an otherwise healthy pack.

While anything is possible, I personally don't believe that the same software update, which is now being released, was ready last fall. I think it's more likely that some aspects of the fix were tested: such as resetting the battery controller. It's also nearly certain that a data download was made from all cars while they were in Casa Grande, in addition to having their battery packs tested. Another thing to keep in mind is that some of these vehicles were repurchased by Nissan late last year, and they were available for further testing. The good news is that this software update might contain a fairly comprehensive fix for the issues reported last year. That said, we cannot be sure and the announcement was pretty light on the details. I would be a bit more careful about the timeline, automotive development often involves subcontractors and has longer timelines than what we are accustomed to in mobile development or on the web.

I'm just saying that so much as a one byte change in code wouldn't be pushed to all cars without thorough multi-month testing. Given that why wouldn't we assume the fix as applied now was developed months ago and code was frozen for testing?

Doesn't really matter to me if months ago = a month in last year or a month early in this year, either way it was several months ago and anyone miffed/upset that they didn't release it faster would be ignorant of the risk of making a change like that without proper testing.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The key is they wouldn't want to apply an untested fix to cars that still had 12 bars. It opens up the possibility of having to replace packs they wouldn't otherwise have to replace if there is a bug in the new software that prematurely aged an otherwise healthy pack.

While anything is possible, I personally don't believe that the same software update, which is now being released, was ready last fall. I think it's more likely that some aspects of the fix were tested: such as resetting the battery controller. It's also nearly certain that a data download was made from all cars while they were in Casa Grande, in addition to having their battery packs tested. Another thing to keep in mind is that some of these vehicles were repurchased by Nissan late last year, and they were available for further testing. The good news is that this software update might contain a fairly comprehensive fix for the issues reported last year. That said, we cannot be sure and the announcement was pretty light on the details. I would be a bit more careful about the timeline, automotive development often involves subcontractors and has longer timelines than what we are accustomed to in mobile development or on the web.

+1 on that and is really indicative of the Japanese Culture in that they typically are close-mouthed about changes until they are ready and in a sense its good that they took the extra time to make sure it worked well for all the cars including ones that have yet to degrade significantly

 

[LEAFer]

At the dealer now. I am posting the data gathered in an old thread of mine ... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10653&start=28" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[davewill]

Did you notice any difference in range during that period? I can see the Gid numbers being wrong, perhaps, but I can't equate how this ties in (or not) with the range increase I now appear to have...

My understanding is that Gids are calculated by measuring power into and out of the battery. Assuming that the fix/reset actually returned some blocked off battery storage to use, it would make sense that the system would count more Gids. My thinking is that its the LBC that's being fixed. That's why it's being reset, and since it controls the capacity bars, why some people are seeing more bars, at least temporarily. I remember Phil saying it could take a month for the LBC to "learn" the battery after being reset. Of course, by then, summer temps could have degraded things still further, so we may never sort out what exactly was done.

 

[TomT]

Well, Sunday I was again at 238 Gids... And to make it even weirder, my 11th capacity bar has once again returned! Anyway, after another drive of my testing route Sunday, I am now fairly confident that I have picked up, at least for the moment, about 4 miles in range... Less than 18 Gids would be expected to provide but a real increase nonetheless. This morning, my 80% charge showed 202 Gids, an improvement of about 12 Gids from pre-update...

My understanding is that Gids are calculated by measuring power into and out of the battery. Assuming that the fix/reset actually returned some blocked off battery storage to use, it would make sense that the system would count more Gids.

 

[Rauv]

Someone please help me catch up here...Same battery, different gauge tweeked by Nissan to report less battery loss and possibly use more of the battery's hidden capacity on either or both ends?

 

[TomT]

Bottom line: No one yet knows, or if the system will eventually relearn and be back where it was before the update...

Someone please help me catch up here...Same battery, different gauge tweeked by Nissan to report less battery loss and possibly use more of the battery's hidden capacity on either or both ends?

 

[davewill]

Someone please help me catch up here...Same battery, different gauge tweeked by Nissan to report less battery loss and possibly use more of the battery's hidden capacity on either or both ends?

Could be... Or it could be that the battery controller was erroneously limiting the battery because it thought there was more degradation that there really was... Or this increase is just temporary and due to the battery controller being reset. There is no real change to the battery available and it's just the cap bars that are different... Or ???

I hope this becomes clearer, but it may not.

 

[TickTock]

Resetting the BMS (which seems to be the procedure for this update) does temporary increase the bars and gid count until the BMS settles in. What's not clear is if the new update "unlocked" any additional capacity/range. Seems doubtful to me but all we have is speculation and anecdotal observations right now.

 

[mwalsh]

Resetting the BMS (which seems to be the procedure for this update) does temporary increase the bars and gid count until the BMS settles in. What's not clear is if the new update "unlocked" any additional capacity/range. Seems doubtful to me but all we have is speculation and anecdotal observations right now.

Actually, if you remember, I saw quite the opposite for a brand new battery controller and management system reset.

 

[TomT]

I'm thinking that the BMS has a "standard" base line and then learns the difference over time (somewhat like the ECM on an ICE does)... So, it may depend on whether or not you were above or below the baseline with what it had previously learned when the upgrade was done as to whether or not you gain or loose...

Resetting the BMS (which seems to be the procedure for this update) does temporary increase the bars and gid count until the BMS settles in. What's not clear is if the new update "unlocked" any additional capacity/range. Seems doubtful to me but all we have is speculation and anecdotal observations right now.

Actually, if you remember, I saw quite the opposite for a brand new battery controller and management system reset.

 

[toasty]

when was this software reprogram upgrade first offered?

and for the record its called "(P3227, REPROG NTB13-O61I0"?

 

[Nubo]

Resetting the BMS (which seems to be the procedure for this update) does temporary increase the bars and gid count until the BMS settles in. What's not clear is if the new update "unlocked" any additional capacity/range. Seems doubtful to me but all we have is speculation and anecdotal observations right now.

I think there was some speculation last year that the estimate of capacity might be suffering accumulated inaccuracy over time due to temperature-influenced drift of the hall-effect sensors...

 

[TomT]

The mailing officially goes out on June 21 but it has been available on the system since June 1 according to my service manager.

when was this software reprogram upgrade first offered?