rcm4453
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:35 pm
Leaf Number: 304133
Location: Wayzata, MN

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:07 pm

JPWhite wrote:
rcm4453 wrote:
That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?


After reprogramming the BMS it will be reset and will show all 12 bars. It will settle quickly down to the real capacity within a few weeks of driving as the BMS determines the batteries characteristics. This is normal after a BMS reprogram and not fancy finger-work by Nissan.


Ok so after the BMS settles it's still going to show the battery has more capacity than what it had before doing the update. Which translates to the consumer having to wait longer for a battery replacement. Otherwise Nissan wouldn't bother doing this update in the first place.

So you go to the dealer with 4 bars dropped and instead of getting a new battery they do this update. Then you have to wait a couple weeks for BMS to settle. Now it's showing you're only down 2 or 3 bars. So much for getting your new battery, how is this a good thing for the consumer?

User avatar
OrientExpress
Forum Supporter
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2331
Location: San Jose, Ca

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:29 pm

goldbrick wrote:
OrientExpress wrote:It's great news that the BMS reprogramming fix has finally hit the streets. Nissan has been testing this fix since last year when it was first observed. In some cases they are still replacing the entire pack, but now most cars presenting with the phantom accelerated capacity loss can be fixed.


Do you have any data to support the 'phantom' part of the accelerated capacity loss?

My 2017S is supposedly down to SOH of 92% or so but I still regularly go > 100 miles on a 90% charge but I live at 5400 ft elevation and my dash shows my efficiency at 4.5 mi/kWh so maybe that's expected. I suppose it's possible that the 30kWh BMS has faulty firmware but this is the first I've heard of it.


This fix has been in the works since last fall. I would suggest that if you have not had this recall fix done to your 16-17 LEAF, that you have it done. Keep in mind this is classified as a recall not a TSB. I would imagine that at some point owners/lessors of all 2016/17 cars will receive an official recall notice in the mail.

While the fix was being tested, cars that presented with accelerated degradation had their batteries replaced as that was the best way to provide customer satisfaction, but the reality was that there wasn't anything wrong with any of the cells in the battery, it was just how the SW was interpreting their health. This recall fixes that faulty interpretation of the battery health, and should be applied to all 2016-17 cars even those that have had their traction battery replaced.

And no, this is not at all like when the BMS was reset on earlier cars.
2018 LEAF SL
Gun Metalic
Delivery April 10 2018

Prior LEAF:
2014 LEAF SV
Ocean Blue
Delivery May 23 2014
50,000+ miles - all 12 bars - Same range as new - No warranty issues ever!

User avatar
OrientExpress
Forum Supporter
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2331
Location: San Jose, Ca

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:40 pm

rcm4453 wrote:That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?


The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.
2018 LEAF SL
Gun Metalic
Delivery April 10 2018

Prior LEAF:
2014 LEAF SV
Ocean Blue
Delivery May 23 2014
50,000+ miles - all 12 bars - Same range as new - No warranty issues ever!

User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1778
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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:51 pm

rcm4453 wrote:
So you go to the dealer with 4 bars dropped and instead of getting a new battery they do this update. Then you have to wait a couple weeks for BMS to settle. Now it's showing you're only down 2 or 3 bars. So much for getting your new battery, how is this a good thing for the consumer?


I have a 2011 LEAF and there was a similar BMS update made available (and applied) shortly after the retroactive warranty was announced.

One could interpret this as a way for Nissan to kick the can down the road. Alternatively we can give them the benefit of the doubt and understand the update is to correct BMS bugs and issues that may either falsely report a weak battery or even worse cause such degradation to occur due to mismanagement of the pack. (Why Nissan is still dealing with poor BMS firmware over 8 years after the original LEAF came to market is worthy of discussion all by itself).

In much the same way when you call for tech support on tech products, a common action is to upgrade firmware to a recent firmware and see if the problem persists prior to taking additional corrective actions. Nissan's approach is similar.

If a battery is truly degraded and we are wiling to trust Nissan to report the capacity bars honestly, then yes this is a inconvenience for a customer with a degraded battery having to wait the time it takes for the new firmware to re-calibrate and show a 4 bar loser. I do not interpret this as a way to avoid their responsibilities or mask true degradation. Nissan are slow to act, which I believe is why customers can and do get frustrated with them.
--
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)

WetEV
Posts: 2263
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 Jun 13, 2018 12:52 pm

OrientExpress wrote:The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.


I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.
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

User avatar
OrientExpress
Forum Supporter
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2331
Location: San Jose, Ca

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:58 pm

WetEV wrote:I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.


I don't see any way of lay individuals validating what Nissan has done. There is absolutely no way of interpreting how the fix is accomplished or how it is working given that Nissan does not provide access to its IP.
2018 LEAF SL
Gun Metalic
Delivery April 10 2018

Prior LEAF:
2014 LEAF SV
Ocean Blue
Delivery May 23 2014
50,000+ miles - all 12 bars - Same range as new - No warranty issues ever!

goldbrick
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:33 pm
Delivery Date: 01 Aug 2017
Leaf Number: 311806
Location: Colorado front range

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:09 pm

I'd volunteer but I just checked my car and LS says it is at 94.25% SOH. So my SOH just went up a bit. Did I pick up a few % points due to the warmer weather?

In any case, I'm probably not a good candidate to use since the loss of capacity range will be small and so any errors magnified. LS also said my efficiency was 4.0 mi/kWh so that makes me quite happy as my full range would extrapolate to about 120 mi on a full charge, assuming the %charge display on the dash and the odometer are linear and accurate respectively.

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:21 pm

JPWhite wrote:I have a 2011 LEAF and there was a similar BMS update made available (and applied) shortly after the retroactive warranty was announced...

Which only temporarily corrected part of the over-report of capacity loss common on 2011-12 LEAFs.

WetEV wrote:...I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.

Odd that no one has suggested that previously...

OrientExpress wrote:...There is absolutely no way of interpreting how the fix is accomplished or how it is working given that Nissan does not provide access to its IP.

Which is why there is no reason to expect Nissan has actually managed to produce accurate available or total pack capacity measurements from the LBC, on any LEAF, for any year, pre-update of post-update, for the original "24 kW" packs (or the comically designated lizards, canaries, etc which followed) or the "30 kWh" and "40 kWH" packs.

The real mystery is why tens of thousands of posts on this forum have been devoted to moronic recitations of gid values and capacity bar losses, when there has never been the slightest evidence that either actually provided consistent accurate data on battery capacity.
no condition is permanent

rcm4453
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:35 pm
Leaf Number: 304133
Location: Wayzata, MN

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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:23 pm

OrientExpress wrote:
rcm4453 wrote:That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?


The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.


Well I'm down 2 bars on my 2016 and I know for sure there's been capacity loss. I get far less range then what I got when car was new in the exact same driving conditions, same driving style and same routes driven. Had I not lost any range then what you're claiming would be true.

johnlocke
Posts: 278
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

Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:32 pm

I can assure you that my battery loss was not a "Phantom Loss". My range decreased from 90 miles at VLBW to 65 miles at VLBW and 53 miles at LBW. LBW went from 13% to 21% over the course of 30 months. This was a real loss of range. Nissan has monkeyed around with the values of the capacity bars to confuse and disarm consumers. The first bar doesn't disappear until the battery is down by 20%. With 12 bars available the first bar ought to vanish at 92% of original capacity. Four bars down is actually 62% of original capacity. Nissan won't even define what a four bar loss actually is and uses confusing language ("more than a three bar loss") in the owners manual. Nissan might as well have put a simple warning light "Change the Battery" instead of a misleading gauge and just been upfront about it.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”