Page 135 of 163

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

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:15 am
by JPWhite
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.

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

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:48 am
by dwl
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.

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

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:37 pm
by jbuntz
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

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

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:09 pm
by jbuntz
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.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:03 am
by dwl
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:29 pm
by johnlocke
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:17 am
by jlv
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:24 am
by SageBrush
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)

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

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:50 am
by WetEV
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.

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

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:28 am
by specialgreen
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.