jbuntz
Posts: 128
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

Mon May 07, 2018 3:29 pm

iPlug wrote:
jbuntz wrote:I am curious what your stats were when you dropped 4th bar.

It should be back in this thread, probably around the month of March.

Found it, thx. Mine are now less than yours so hopefully my 4th drops soon.
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

Mon May 07, 2018 4:48 pm

jbuntz wrote:
iPlug wrote:
jbuntz wrote:I am curious what your stats were when you dropped 4th bar.

It should be back in this thread, probably around the month of March.

Found it, thx. Mine are now less than yours so hopefully my 4th drops soon.

This issue has just been discussed on our national radio here in New Zealand and there was a suggestion that the car instrumentation is a bit misleading and cars with some SOH loss (e.g. 10-20%) are still getting really good range. When there is higher capacity loss like you are experiencing do you believe your actual range (not just GOM) has dropped by roughly the amount of SOH loss?
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

WetEV
Posts: 2081
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

Tue May 08, 2018 8:09 am

dwl wrote:
jbuntz wrote:
iPlug wrote:It should be back in this thread, probably around the month of March.

Found it, thx. Mine are now less than yours so hopefully my 4th drops soon.

This issue has just been discussed on our national radio here in New Zealand and there was a suggestion that the car instrumentation is a bit misleading and cars with some SOH loss (e.g. 10-20%) are still getting really good range. When there is higher capacity loss like you are experiencing do you believe your actual range (not just GOM) has dropped by roughly the amount of SOH loss?


Gold standard test would be to get battery to known temperature and near VLBW, then measure energy needed to recharge. Compare with new car measurement at same temperature. Or a careful range test comparing a new car with an older one. Again, I suggest stopping at VLBW for both.
Last edited by WetEV on Tue May 08, 2018 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

SageBrush
Posts: 2486
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 May 08, 2018 8:33 am

WetEV wrote:Gold standard test would be to get battery to known temperature and near VLBW, then measure power needed to recharge. Compare with new car measurement at same temperature. Or a careful range test comparing a new car with an older one. Again, I suggest stopping at VLBW for both.

That would not tell you anything
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

jbuntz
Posts: 128
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

Tue May 08, 2018 10:23 am

dwl wrote:
jbuntz wrote:
iPlug wrote:It should be back in this thread, probably around the month of March.

Found it, thx. Mine are now less than yours so hopefully my 4th drops soon.

This issue has just been discussed on our national radio here in New Zealand and there was a suggestion that the car instrumentation is a bit misleading and cars with some SOH loss (e.g. 10-20%) are still getting really good range. When there is higher capacity loss like you are experiencing do you believe your actual range (not just GOM) has dropped by roughly the amount of SOH loss?

I think it is pretty close. I am at 67% SOH and I average about 4 mi per KWh. 70 miles is already into LBW. I believe LeafSpy that i have about 19 kWh at full charge.
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

WetEV
Posts: 2081
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

Tue May 08, 2018 10:26 am

SageBrush wrote:
WetEV wrote:Gold standard test would be to get battery to known temperature and near VLBW, then measure energy needed to recharge. Compare with new car measurement at same temperature. Or a careful range test comparing a new car with an older one. Again, I suggest stopping at VLBW for both.

That would not tell you anything
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

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

Tue May 08, 2018 10:17 pm

SageBrush wrote:
WetEV wrote:Gold standard test would be to get battery to known temperature and near VLBW, then measure power needed to recharge. Compare with new car measurement at same temperature. Or a careful range test comparing a new car with an older one. Again, I suggest stopping at VLBW for both.

That would not tell you anything

We have groups using different methods. We are trying discharge from 100% at constant current of C/3 with a Dynapack load (hub dynamometer) and measuring time down to at least VLBW or lower which when multiplied by nominal voltage gives kWh (to that SoC). Current is measured via a modified service disconnect plug to bring out a wire loop for minimal modification to the car.

Another approach is the charge method, starting from turtle, up to 100%, measuring kWh to car with EVSE and/or external check meter, and applying a correction for charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A. The charge method is easier to do and can even form a statement of health (by that method, noting temperature) for selling a used car. We know it isn't precise but could be adequate guide. This is important for the import industry here where up until now Leaf Spy has been used and accuracy is being questioned where there are 30kWh cars with 1 and 2 bars down being sold and some feel not much range has been lost.

A third approach has been run-out driving and good distances are claimed on reportedly degraded packs but it seems to me it could be subject to significant variability and some of these tests are at low speed. Hopefully over coming weeks we will get a better idea of the answers from each method and how well they relate to the Leaf Spy reported SoH.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

SageBrush
Posts: 2486
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

Wed May 09, 2018 12:52 am

dwl wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
WetEV wrote:Gold standard test would be to get battery to known temperature and near VLBW, then measure power needed to recharge. Compare with new car measurement at same temperature. Or a careful range test comparing a new car with an older one. Again, I suggest stopping at VLBW for both.

That would not tell you anything

We have groups using different methods. We are trying discharge from 100% at constant current of C/3 with a Dynapack load (hub dynamometer) and measuring time down to at least VLBW or lower which when multiplied by nominal voltage gives kWh (to that SoC). Current is measured via a modified service disconnect plug to bring out a wire loop for minimal modification to the car.

Another approach is the charge method, starting from turtle, up to 100%, measuring kWh to car with EVSE and/or external check meter, and applying a correction for charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A. The charge method is easier to do and can even form a statement of health (by that method, noting temperature) for selling a used car. We know it isn't precise but could be adequate guide. This is important for the import industry here where up until now Leaf Spy has been used and accuracy is being questioned where there are 30kWh cars with 1 and 2 bars down being sold and some feel not much range has been lost.

A third approach has been run-out driving and good distances are claimed on reportedly degraded packs but it seems to me it could be subject to significant variability and some of these tests are at low speed. Hopefully over coming weeks we will get a better idea of the answers from each method and how well they relate to the Leaf Spy reported SoH.

WetEV corrected his post.
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

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

Fri May 11, 2018 2:54 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:
LTLFTcomposite wrote:Pack replacement #1 of 4 is in process. Dealer confirmed capacity loss and new pack has been ordered. Supposed to be here in a week.

Six weeks later no new battery and nobody can tell us when it will arrive.
(New pack ordered around March 21st)

Now seven weeks and any sign of new battery ?
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

edatoakrun
Posts: 5218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

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

Fri May 11, 2018 4:34 pm

="dwl"
...We have groups using different methods. We are trying discharge from 100% at constant current of C/3 with a Dynapack load (hub dynamometer) and measuring time down to at least VLBW or lower which when multiplied by nominal voltage gives kWh (to that SoC). Current is measured via a modified service disconnect plug to bring out a wire loop for minimal modification to the car.

Another approach is the charge method, starting from turtle, up to 100%, measuring kWh to car with EVSE and/or external check meter, and applying a correction for charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A. The charge method is easier to do and can even form a statement of health (by that method, noting temperature) for selling a used car. We know it isn't precise but could be adequate guide. This is important for the import industry here where up until now Leaf Spy has been used and accuracy is being questioned where there are 30kWh cars with 1 and 2 bars down being sold and some feel not much range has been lost.

A third approach has been run-out driving and good distances are claimed on reportedly degraded packs but it seems to me it could be subject to significant variability and some of these tests are at low speed. Hopefully over coming weeks we will get a better idea of the answers from each method and how well they relate to the Leaf Spy reported SoH.

Good luck. No one on this thread has seemed very interested in measuring actual capacity loss, so I am looking forward to your results.

I own a 2011 LEAF with ~seven years use and ~60 k miles in a comparatively hot climate that has ~64% capacity remaining as indicated by the LBC, but has retained much higher actual capacity (I estimate 75% to 80% by using an external meter) and a somewhat higher percentage of its initial range in my predominantly low speed mountain driving.

In my experience range tests of capacity are very difficult to conduct accurately, and vehicle efficiency seems also to increase over time, and also varies greatly with tires and the level of tire wear.

No one on this forum (that I can recall) has ever had access to a dynamometer.

What is your source for, and definition of, "charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A."?

Here is my post from several months ago, to which none of the "30 kWh" pack owners ever replied:

="edatoakrun"

If you want to find actual capacity loss on a "30 kWh" LEAF, I'd suggest you test your pack the same way you would for a "24 kWh" pack, albeit with far fewer of the test parameters and variables known, and with only a single (?) "30 kWh" pack having been tested by a high-integrity source.

The EPA test of a 2016 "30 kWh" LEAF (strangely...) shows the same 31.7807 kWh from a 240 volt EVSE required to recharge after both the city (UDDS) and highway cycle tests.

This could correspond to a ~30 kWh (total) pack, that is ~90% accessible, and recharges at ~85% average efficiency over the entire accessible capacity.

Monitor the kWh your pack accepts (and/or the charge time, and voltage) after similar depletion from fully-charged (240 V) pack, after a similar single-event full (to stop) discharge.

Results should be expected to vary a great deal with pack and ambient temperatures, which I don't know for the EPA tests...

In "24 kWh" LEAF pack tests, there is significant variation in charge accepted even for the same pack, in identical tests.

This is evidently due to the LBCs inaccuracy in determining the upper and lower charge limits.

You should expect the same in the larger packs, so do not expect a single test to be determinative...
no condition is permanent

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”