User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:41 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 5734
Location: Hendersonville TN
Contact: Website WLM Yahoo Messenger AOL

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:15 am

goldbrick wrote: I'm not a litigious person but if you come in 12 hours after the warranty period expires with a missing 4th bar you will be denied a new battery since it is out of the warranty period.


Nissan evaluate each warranty request on a case by case basis. There is history of them granting warranty replacements out of warranty, or at least making monetary concessions. Feedback regarding you as a customer from your dealer is one of the factors they take into consideration when evaluating out of warranty requests. It's not one size fits all.

Legally they have the deck stacked in their favor. Customer relations may be willing to act above their legal minimum response.
--
JP White
http://jpwhitenissanleaf.com
Blue SL-e, Res 4/22/10, Ord 3/29/11, Del 7/30/11
110,000 Miles.
Lost 5 Capacity bars
7/18/13 (29,206), 8/25/14 (51,728), 7/12/15 (71.108), 5/12/16 (88,362), 10/17/16 (96,532)
New Battery 12/3/16 (98,956)

dwl
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:06 pm
Delivery Date: 08 Jan 2016
Leaf Number: 112097
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:48 am

lorenfb wrote:So we find that the two key battery parameters (Ahrs/relative battery conductance) have degraded more so on the 30kWh Leaf than other Leafs. This has resulted in potentially higher warranty claims for Nissan, but only the parameter (Ahrs/bars) defined in Nissan's warranty document is modified, thereby reducing its potential near term liabilities. We find, though, the these batteries still exhibit a higher rate of degradation than other Leafs based on Hx.

Hx is an interesting parameter as the relationship with SoH has been different on 4 bar losers compared to the 24kWh packs. For @waikalua the Hx may have been close to pre-update SoH and note the update has given 11 not 12 bars so may now be around 80% - please share if actual values available.

I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

jbuntz
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:41 am
Delivery Date: 17 Dec 2016
Leaf Number: 303765
Location: New Braunfels, TX

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:37 pm

Plotting the Hx over the last 30 days shows it dropping just as fast as before if not more. On 27 June 60.53 and today it is 59.52

On the 24s is the Hx typically a lower value than SOH? My SOH is 82.55
Mfg 11/15 Del 12/16 TX 2016 SL 30kWh,
Date Bar MI GID Ahr SOH
05/17 12 05175 324 70.75 89
08/17 11 09245 282 61.68 77
10/17 10 12000 260 57.22 71
01/18 09 15329 244 53.72 68
06/20 08 21716 230 50.41 63
06/27 11 22047 296 66.01 83 Aftr Updt

jbuntz
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:41 am
Delivery Date: 17 Dec 2016
Leaf Number: 303765
Location: New Braunfels, TX

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:09 pm

dwl wrote:
lorenfb wrote:So we find that the two key battery parameters (Ahrs/relative battery conductance) have degraded more so on the 30kWh Leaf than other Leafs. This has resulted in potentially higher warranty claims for Nissan, but only the parameter (Ahrs/bars) defined in Nissan's warranty document is modified, thereby reducing its potential near term liabilities. We find, though, the these batteries still exhibit a higher rate of degradation than other Leafs based on Hx.

Hx is an interesting parameter as the relationship with SoH has been different on 4 bar losers compared to the 24kWh packs. For @waikalua the Hx may have been close to pre-update SoH and note the update has given 11 not 12 bars so may now be around 80% - please share if actual values available.

I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
The Hx does not change with the update.
Mfg 11/15 Del 12/16 TX 2016 SL 30kWh,
Date Bar MI GID Ahr SOH
05/17 12 05175 324 70.75 89
08/17 11 09245 282 61.68 77
10/17 10 12000 260 57.22 71
01/18 09 15329 244 53.72 68
06/20 08 21716 230 50.41 63
06/27 11 22047 296 66.01 83 Aftr Updt

dwl
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:06 pm
Delivery Date: 08 Jan 2016
Leaf Number: 112097
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:03 am

jbuntz wrote:
dwl wrote:I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
The Hx does not change with the update.

Exactly, but the SoH does change with the update and we now have a new ratio appearing which should be more accurate. While in the past there has been a strong focus on SoH it may be that Hx is a more stable indicator of battery health.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

johnlocke
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Dec 2015
Leaf Number: 300582

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:29 pm

We know that the software update changes the value for SOH but not for Hx. Has anyone actually seen an increase in range? If the change in SOH is real there should be a noticeable increase in range, either more miles to VLB or a higher percentage of capacity left after going a fixed distance ( say your usual commute). If there's no change then we're back to Nissan's Smoke and Mirrors tricks again. Since I had my battery changed at the same time as they did the software fix I'm not in a position to answer the question.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

User avatar
jlv
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:08 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2014
Leaf Number: 424487
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:17 am

waikalua wrote:I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
'13 SL+Prem (mfg 12/13, leased 4/14, bought 5/17) 32K miTesla S 75D (3/17) 22K mi
Model 3 reservation (invited to order 1/18)

SageBrush
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:24 am

jlv wrote:
waikalua wrote:I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!

Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.

Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.

This is why I suggest correcting a range test by consumption rate*. I don't really know if the consumption meter is accurate -- just better than ignoring it completely.

* range / rate = amount (in kWh)
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

WetEV
Posts: 2090
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:50 am

SageBrush wrote:
jlv wrote:
waikalua wrote:I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!

Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.

Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.


Which is why a range test to VLBW with multiple cars on the same day over the same course is so interesting. Set the cruise control to reduce the driver variation, and have a second person in each car to verify speed with GPS, record the distance and otherwise keep the test safe.

Would be very nice for a 8 bar pre-update car and a new car to be included.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

specialgreen
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Mar 2017
Location: Minnesota

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:28 am

WetEV wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
jlv wrote:Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.

Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.



It looks like Dynomometer/tuning rental rates are about $125/hour for 2-wheel drive:

http://www.enhancedstreetperformance.co ... ng-pricing

You may be able to fully charge a 30kw Leaf, put it on a Dyno, and run it down to turtle in under 1 hour (produce 50 hp per the dyno, then engage cruise control). Then take it to Nissan for the update, drive it around for a week or a month to let the BMS values settle, then repeat the dyno run. Total cost should be about $250, which could be crowd-funded on Kickstarter.

You may be able to get free dyno time in exchange for publicity, if you have an EV news website "cover" the story.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”