User avatar
davewill
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, US

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:43 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.

Stupid how?

The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%. Why should the consumer be told a high range number that he can't achieve in normal use?

Nissan taking 80% away? Since it doesn't appear that charging to 80% helped much of anything, why should Nissan keep taking the hit of having to report a lower range value in their marketing for no purpose?
2014 Rav4 EV, Blizzard Pearl White
2011 LEAF SL w/QC, Blue Ocean, returned at end of lease

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13228
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:51 pm

davewill wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.

Stupid how?

The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%. Why should the consumer be told a high range number that he can't achieve in normal use?

Nissan taking 80% away? Since it doesn't appear that charging to 80% helped much of anything, why should Nissan keep taking the hit of having to report a lower range value in their marketing for no purpose?


So Nissan screwed up by not calling it "long life mode?"


that is even worse
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SageBrush
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:58 pm

davewill wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.

Stupid how?

The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%. Why should the consumer be told a high range number that he can't achieve in normal use?

I'll mention Tesla again, since their default charge is 90% if memory serves, and surely not 100%. Yet EPA lets them use the 100% range on the sticker.
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

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13228
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:00 pm

SageBrush wrote:
davewill wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.

Stupid how?

The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%. Why should the consumer be told a high range number that he can't achieve in normal use?

I'll mention Tesla again, since their default charge is 90% if memory serves, and surely not 100%. Yet EPA lets them use the 100% range on the sticker.


ooooh noooo!!! its not "90%" its "long life mode" which is completely different and acceptable under EPA Rules!.... apparently. :?
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SageBrush
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:03 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
davewill wrote:Stupid how?

The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%. Why should the consumer be told a high range number that he can't achieve in normal use?

I'll mention Tesla again, since their default charge is 90% if memory serves, and surely not 100%. Yet EPA lets them use the 100% range on the sticker.


ooooh noooo!!! its not "90%" its "long life mode" which is completely different and acceptable under EPA Rules!.... apparently. :?

No. IIRC 'long range' mode is 100%, default is 90% and other values do not have a special label. I still don't know if the LEAF story with the EPA is true and if so why, but we know for sure that Tesla was not forced to use a lower than 100% SoC range on the window sticker despite options and a default charge lower than 100%
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

SageBrush
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:09 pm

davewill wrote:The EPA lowering the range? That actually made sense given that the manufacturer was essentially saying that normally you should only charge to 80%.

Tesla sets the default to 90% and has stated in the manual that routine charging to 100% will add to degradation yet they report 100% charge range on the sticker.
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

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13228
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:16 pm

SageBrush wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I'll mention Tesla again, since their default charge is 90% if memory serves, and surely not 100%. Yet EPA lets them use the 100% range on the sticker.


ooooh noooo!!! its not "90%" its "long life mode" which is completely different and acceptable under EPA Rules!.... apparently. :?

No. IIRC 'long range' mode is 100%, default is 90% and other values do not have a special label. I still don't know if the LEAF story with the EPA is true and if so why, but we know for sure that Tesla was not forced to use a lower than 100% SoC range on the window sticker despite options and a default charge lower than 100%


fine, I will give you that but what's that got to do with my "long LIFE" mode statement?
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SageBrush
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:38 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
ooooh noooo!!! its not "90%" its "long life mode" which is completely different and acceptable under EPA Rules!.... apparently. :?

No. IIRC 'long range' mode is 100%, default is 90% and other values do not have a special label. I still don't know if the LEAF story with the EPA is true and if so why, but we know for sure that Tesla was not forced to use a lower than 100% SoC range on the window sticker despite options and a default charge lower than 100%


fine, I will give you that but what's that got to do with my "long LIFE" mode statement?

I posted the Tesla modes above. Any other modes, "apparent" to you or otherwise, are figments of your imagination.
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

BuckMkII
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:04 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:13 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:finish charging as close to your departure time as you can and don't charge to 100% if your one way destination does not drop you to 80% SOC or lower.

Don't charge at work on L2 AT ALL if you do not absolutely need it to make it home and even then, I would still recommend you stopping on the way home for a 15 min QC instead. Reasons are L2 is too slow and its simply a few hours at high SOC during the hottest part of the day.
This I have come to believe is THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF DEGRADATION for many of the people here.


How significant do you think this is at battery temps <70° F? I charged my 2013 to 93% this morning and had a post-charge temp of 60°. We are on a fairly early schedule some days, which happen to be the days we have the most after-work driving (roughly 11 kWh between leaving work and parking for the night, when lights and climate control are on for most of the trips). In summer, an 80% charge should finish the day above 30%, but maybe not in winter.

It's VERY convenient to jump on the L2 at work when we come in. All three were empty when I parked today. Utilization is pretty high later in the day. When I went back at 9:30 to unplug (two hour limit on use of those spaces), all were occupied, and I'll bet someone will be in the one I vacated pretty quickly. So, if I don't charge when I arrive, it's likely I would have to run down the stairs to the garage more than once in the early afternoon to find an opening. (Which, admittedly, would be less of an impact on my job than sneaking looks at the forum!)

The "cost" for me of charging at home is not so much the ten bucks or so per week, but the inconvenience. Our garage is too full of recreational equipment to put the car in, so the L1 has to be run out the cat door in the garage door to the car, deployed and put away every time it's used. Add the fun of doing this in the rain, and the few seconds needed to pull up to the L2 at work first thing in the morning looks really good. OTOH, that will seem less "worth it" if the car has 1 kWh more degradation in a few years. I am hoping to eke out driving this car well over five more years.
2013 SV no QC, built 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
bar 12 lost 8/21/17
on 8/23/18: AHr = 54.6; SOH = 83.5%; Hx = 78.2; ODO = 49,746

LeftieBiker
Posts: 9412
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2013
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:10 pm

Dave is treating his unsupported theories as fact. If it isn't hot, and especially if the pack is cool, don't worry about L-2 charging at work. We have no evidence that cool packs sitting at 100% for a few hours on a warm day do any harm.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”