Oils4AsphaultOnly
Gold Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:33 am

lorenfb wrote:
arnis wrote:BS. You don't need to have extensive analysis of banana yoghurt shelf life if you have that analysis for cherry yoghurt just to estimate
how long will it last in a fridge and how long next to keyboard and mouse :lol:
Definition of speculation is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." We have evidence that milk products spoil faster at room temperature compared to fridge. We have evidence that Leafy flavor spoils faster than Musky flavor.
There are joghurts that do not spoil, but our version definitely does spoil.
Suggesting keeping joghurts in the fridges is transparently sensible. Suggestion to charge to lower SOC also.
Flavor plays a role at the rate. Not on the direction of capacity slip.


You appear to have a limited ability to structure a rational analogy. Maybe try using a coherent thinking process if it's possible,
e.g. like you may have learned in a middle school logic class.

Surely you've done a full research on the effects of charging to 100% versus a lower value as it relates to degradation for the Leaf's battery,
and have corroborative data since you're so resolute. And how about a real controlled study as for charging to 90% versus 100% over time,
and not your guessing or someone's anecdotal "experience". Again, please fully quantify the degradation delta, i.e. additional loss
in SOH per year. Additionally, please reference and fully annotate your research sources and concussions specific to the Leaf's battery
as it relates to and supports "your theories". Furthermore, data relative to the Leaf's battery versus Tesla's battery is the concern
on this forum, either in tabular or graphical form would be ideal.


How about you stop preaching your sermon and respond to my figure 6 from the battery university? viewtopic.php?f=30&t=23606&start=520#p510669

That's a controlled study showing that cycling the battery from 100% SOC down to 50% is worse than cycling from 75% down to 25%. Instead of ignoring it, why don't you provide a fully detailed study backing your claim?
[2013 leaf traded for 2016 leaf S30:
build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
1 May 2017 - 7300 miles & 363 GIDs
6 Sep 2017 - 13k miles & 359 GIDs
26 Oct 2017 - 15.5k miles & 344 GIDs]

SageBrush
Posts: 1425
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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:59 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
arnis wrote:BS. You don't need to have extensive analysis of banana yoghurt shelf life if you have that analysis for cherry yoghurt just to estimate
how long will it last in a fridge and how long next to keyboard and mouse :lol:
Definition of speculation is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." We have evidence that milk products spoil faster at room temperature compared to fridge. We have evidence that Leafy flavor spoils faster than Musky flavor.
There are joghurts that do not spoil, but our version definitely does spoil.
Suggesting keeping joghurts in the fridges is transparently sensible. Suggestion to charge to lower SOC also.
Flavor plays a role at the rate. Not on the direction of capacity slip.


You appear to have a limited ability to structure a rational analogy. Maybe try using a coherent thinking process if it's possible,
e.g. like you may have learned in a middle school logic class.

Surely you've done a full research on the effects of charging to 100% versus a lower value as it relates to degradation for the Leaf's battery,
and have corroborative data since you're so resolute. And how about a real controlled study as for charging to 90% versus 100% over time,
and not your guessing or someone's anecdotal "experience". Again, please fully quantify the degradation delta, i.e. additional loss
in SOH per year. Additionally, please reference and fully annotate your research sources and concussions specific to the Leaf's battery
as it relates to and supports "your theories". Furthermore, data relative to the Leaf's battery versus Tesla's battery is the concern
on this forum, either in tabular or graphical form would be ideal.


How about you stop preaching your sermon and respond to my figure 6 from the battery university? viewtopic.php?f=30&t=23606&start=520#p510669

That's a controlled study showing that cycling the battery from 100% SOC down to 50% is worse than cycling from 75% down to 25%. Instead of ignoring it, why don't you provide a fully detailed study backing your claim?

Save your breath for another debate.

Lorenfb is going to tell you that the formulation in the Nissan battery is different and the results may not apply.
Thermodynamics says that unwanted chemical reactions are going to proceed at faster rates as the temperature and SoC increases so your data is qualitatively correct and applicable, but the nitty gritty details of how much are uncertain.

So you are both right, but for different reasons.
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

hyperionmark
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:46 am
Delivery Date: 31 Jan 2017
Location: Nebraska

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:45 am

Yet another thread ruined by people getting so worked up about being right. And we wonder why we have all sorts of issues in this country when even a thread about batteries has us insulting each other. Has to be a better way.

ironmanco
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:26 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Boulder, CO

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:11 am

hyperionmark wrote:Yet another thread ruined by people getting so worked up about being right. And we wonder why we have all sorts of issues in this country when even a thread about batteries has us insulting each other. Has to be a better way.


Another point to make here is that the biggest impact we can have on battery issues for the Leaf is to educate ourselves on best practices for charging, storage and driving. Unless we plan on joining the engineering team or filing suit against Nissan, it would seem that an extraordinary deep dive into the 30kWh battery would not be very beneficial. From a purely interest and educational aspect there may be some merit, but when it comes right down to it, I would imagine that the typical Leaf driver wants to know best practices for battery longevity. Granted, this is driven from the deeper understanding of how the battery operates, but using anecdotal, correlative and transitive data and experience seems like a great start rather than waiting for definitive data based on the death of a couple hundred thousand 30kWh batteries.
2016 Nissan Leaf SL Deep Blue Pearl
Mfg 12/15 Del 1/16 30 Oct 2017 34172 mi Ahr 67.69 SOH 85% Hx 78.55%
Charging: evseupgrade L2 charging 30A circuit @ 24A shared garage heater circuit (ask me)

BuckMkII
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:04 am
Location: Seattle

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:39 am

ironmanco wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:He's talking about multiple quick charges, combined with aggressive driving to pull power from the pack rapidly. One driver claims to have substantially improved his SOH by doing this.


Can someone point me to the exact details of the protocol - I'd consider trying it.

The poster on this called it "surge driving," IIRC, so you could try searching for that. Last thing I remember seeing, he reported something like "my numbers are in free-fall, and no amount of surge driving will bring them back," so it sounded like the "increase" in SOH was temporary, based on gaming the algorithm with a lot of high-throttle/high-regen cycling, and that eventually the calculation caught up with him and started to decline to the "true" SOH.
2013 SV no QC, manufactured July 2013
car grew up in San Jose CA, purchased 5/31/17 in Seattle
on 6/16/17: AHr = 56.4; SOH = 86%; Hx = 84.3; ODO = 39,250
on 9/29/17: AHr = 55.3; SOH = 84%; Hx = 81.6; ODO = 41,492
bar 12 lost 8/21/17

DaveinOlyWA
Gold Member
Posts: 12239
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:44 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
arnis wrote:BS. You don't need to have extensive analysis of banana yoghurt shelf life if you have that analysis for cherry yoghurt just to estimate
how long will it last in a fridge and how long next to keyboard and mouse :lol:
Definition of speculation is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." We have evidence that milk products spoil faster at room temperature compared to fridge. We have evidence that Leafy flavor spoils faster than Musky flavor.
There are joghurts that do not spoil, but our version definitely does spoil.
Suggesting keeping joghurts in the fridges is transparently sensible. Suggestion to charge to lower SOC also.
Flavor plays a role at the rate. Not on the direction of capacity slip.


You appear to have a limited ability to structure a rational analogy. Maybe try using a coherent thinking process if it's possible,
e.g. like you may have learned in a middle school logic class.

Surely you've done a full research on the effects of charging to 100% versus a lower value as it relates to degradation for the Leaf's battery,
and have corroborative data since you're so resolute. And how about a real controlled study as for charging to 90% versus 100% over time,
and not your guessing or someone's anecdotal "experience". Again, please fully quantify the degradation delta, i.e. additional loss
in SOH per year. Additionally, please reference and fully annotate your research sources and concussions specific to the Leaf's battery
as it relates to and supports "your theories". Furthermore, data relative to the Leaf's battery versus Tesla's battery is the concern
on this forum, either in tabular or graphical form would be ideal.


How about you stop preaching your sermon and respond to my figure 6 from the battery university? http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p510669

That's a controlled study showing that cycling the battery from 100% SOC down to 50% is worse than cycling from 75% down to 25%. Instead of ignoring it, why don't you provide a fully detailed study backing your claim?


all this would be easier if Battery U would create experiments based on their own observations.

A single degradation chart run at a single temperature range puts us exactly where we started from giving us info we already knew.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 (build 10/2016)"low water marks" 26,100.2 miles.363GID Ahr 79.55Hx95.35%kwh28.1QCs227,L2's 237
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lorenfb
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:54 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
How about you stop preaching your sermon and respond to my figure 6 from the battery university? viewtopic.php?f=30&t=23606&start=520#p510669

That's a controlled study showing that cycling the battery from 100% SOC down to 50% is worse than cycling from 75% down to 25%. Instead of ignoring it, why don't you provide a fully detailed study backing your claim?


From your reference:

Besides selecting the best-suited voltage thresholds for a given application, a regular Li-ion should not remain at the high-voltage ceiling of 4.20V/cell for an extended time. The Li-ion charger turns off the charge current and the battery voltage reverts to a more natural level. This is like relaxing the muscles after a strenuous exercise.


That's the generic basics. We really don't know the actual battery cell voltage characteristics in the Leaf's battery and how the BMS is
programmed to control/limit the cell charging voltage, and thereby avoiding potential degradation.

Li-ion with the traditional cathode materials of cobalt, nickel, manganese and aluminum typically charge to 4.20V/cell. The tolerance is +/–50mV/cell. Some nickel-based varieties charge to 4.10V/cell; high capacity Li-ion may go to 4.30V/cell and higher. Boosting the voltage increases capacity, but going beyond specification stresses the battery and compromises safety. Protection circuits built into the pack do not allow exceeding the set voltage.


As expected, the battery chemistry affects the cell voltage and where 100% SOC occurs, which implies that avoiding true 100% SOC
can be avoided by how the BMS is designed. So a BMS may report 100% SOC for a Li ion EV application, but actually not fully charging
the battery to what might be actual 100% SOC, thereby compromising a few miles of range but protecting the Li ion battery. It's likely
that this maybe the case for the Leaf. So without actual battery cell test data from the Leaf, and not applied generic data, it's speculation
to conclude anything meaningful about SOC charging for the Leaf and its effect on degradation.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Gold Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:46 am

lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
From your reference:

Besides selecting the best-suited voltage thresholds for a given application, a regular Li-ion should not remain at the high-voltage ceiling of 4.20V/cell for an extended time. The Li-ion charger turns off the charge current and the battery voltage reverts to a more natural level. This is like relaxing the muscles after a strenuous exercise.


That's the generic basics. We really don't know the actual battery cell voltage characteristics in the Leaf's battery and how the BMS is
programmed to control/limit the cell charging voltage
, and thereby avoiding potential degradation.

Li-ion with the traditional cathode materials of cobalt, nickel, manganese and aluminum typically charge to 4.20V/cell. The tolerance is +/–50mV/cell. Some nickel-based varieties charge to 4.10V/cell; high capacity Li-ion may go to 4.30V/cell and higher. Boosting the voltage increases capacity, but going beyond specification stresses the battery and compromises safety. Protection circuits built into the pack do not allow exceeding the set voltage.


As expected, the battery chemistry affects the cell voltage and where 100% SOC occurs, which implies that avoiding true 100% SOC
can be avoided by how the BMS is designed. So a BMS may report 100% SOC for a Li ion EV application, but actually not fully charging
the battery to what might be actual 100% SOC, thereby compromising a few miles of range but protecting the Li ion battery. It's likely
that this maybe the case for the Leaf. So without actual battery cell test data from the Leaf, and not applied generic data, it's speculation
to conclude anything meaningful about SOC charging for the Leaf and its effect on degradation.


That's not quite true.

At 363 GID's (when I still had it), the pack voltage read 395.13, which gives us a cell voltage of 4.116, At my most recently balanced full charge (348 GID's), the pack voltage read 395.44, giving a cell votage of 4.119.

So that's the max that the BMS is set to charge the cells to. That's pretty close to the voltage characteristics of the batteries used by battery university, making their data-set pretty applicable.

You once claimed to have data proving that a high SOC didn't affect battery life, but I don't recall seeing it. Would you mind pointing me to it?
[2013 leaf traded for 2016 leaf S30:
build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
1 May 2017 - 7300 miles & 363 GIDs
6 Sep 2017 - 13k miles & 359 GIDs
26 Oct 2017 - 15.5k miles & 344 GIDs]

lorenfb
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:31 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
At 363 GID's (when I still had it), the pack voltage read 395.13, which gives us a cell voltage of 4.116, At my most recently balanced full charge (348 GID's), the pack voltage read 395.44, giving a cell votage of 4.119.
So that's the max that the BMS is set to charge the cells to. That's pretty close to the voltage characteristics of the batteries used by battery university, making their data-set pretty applicable.


Right, but the Leaf's 100% SOC voltage still maybe below where the actual problematic charging voltage occurs resulting in significant
degradation, e.g. 10%.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You once claimed to have data proving that a high SOC didn't affect battery life, but I don't recall seeing it. Would you mind pointing me to it?


I've never stated nor implied that I had any actual data. I've always argued that actual Leaf battery cell characteristics/data were lacking to
conclude or recommend any optimum charging mode.

ironmanco
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:26 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Boulder, CO

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

Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:37 pm

lorenfb wrote:I've never stated nor implied that I had any actual data. I've always argued that actual Leaf battery cell characteristics/data were lacking to conclude or recommend any optimum charging mode.


Maybe not "optimum" but I think there is PLENTY of data and experience to recommend best practices for charging. Are we really shooting for the optimum or at least some basic methodology better than willly-nilly charging?

In other words, it is worth waiting around for complete and definitive testing that will guide us in an absolute approach to charging as compared to applying some general guidelines for charging based on what we currently know/understand?

Just because I don't know if something is completely and absolutely the right approach doesn't mean I won't at least try it. The most important part of that logic is if I apply some of these basic battery maint guidelines would actually be more detrimental vs. beneficial? if your answer to that is no, then I would think that they're worth following.

To extend this logic - just because I don't know the absolute impact of leading a sedentary lifestyle doesn't mean I wait around being sedentary until proven otherwise :-)
2016 Nissan Leaf SL Deep Blue Pearl
Mfg 12/15 Del 1/16 30 Oct 2017 34172 mi Ahr 67.69 SOH 85% Hx 78.55%
Charging: evseupgrade L2 charging 30A circuit @ 24A shared garage heater circuit (ask me)

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”