DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13635
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 1:31 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:It looks like Dave is just going to ignore the 80% charge option, because it ruins his theory...


the 80% option was an incredibly stupid idea in an 80 mile EV. no two ways about it. In a 107 EV? sure its doable but a 150 mile EV that should be the default charge setting!
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
davewill
Posts: 5014
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, US

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:36 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:It looks like Dave is just going to ignore the 80% charge option, because it ruins his theory...


Nissan eliminated the 80% charge option because it was artificially lowering the EPA range numbers that were being reported. It had nothing to do with whether it was better for the battery or not. I have my doubts about Dave's theory because I believe that most of the Phoenix people with 2011/12 cars were using the 80% mode, at least early on, as you are, and it doesn't seem to help much if at all. I think that the factor is simply time spent at high temperature with charge level being a minor factor at best.
2014 Rav4 EV, Blizzard Pearl White
2011 LEAF SL w/QC, Blue Ocean, returned at end of lease

SageBrush
Posts: 3458
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 1:40 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:It looks like Dave is just going to ignore the 80% charge option, because it ruins his theory...


the 80% option was an incredibly stupid idea in an 80 mile EV.

Err. .... why ?

Not that your answer matters, in the sense that its availability and use by some owners like myself puts your assumptions to the test. After all, if 80 percenters are seeing accelerated degradation then it seems fair to say that battery cooking at 100% is not required.
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
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

SageBrush
Posts: 3458
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 1:42 pm

davewill wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:It looks like Dave is just going to ignore the 80% charge option, because it ruins his theory...


Nissan eliminated the 80% charge option because it was artificially lowering the EPA range numbers that were being reported.

I've read the same, yet Tesla as one example has no problem letting users set lower than 100% SoC charging limits and does not suffer any EPA insult. So far as I know, Tesla even sets the default charge to less than 100% SoC; users are able to choose something less or more.

And a big YES to the rest of your 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
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
davewill
Posts: 5014
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, US

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:08 pm

SageBrush wrote:I've read the same, yet Tesla as one example has no problem letting users set lower than 100% SoC charging limits and does not suffer any EPA insult. So far as I know, Tesla even sets the default charge to less than 100% SoC; users are able to choose something less or more.

And a big YES to the rest of your post.


Tesla avoided the problem by allowing the user to set the percentage. Cars like the LEAF that had two settings had to report the average range between the lower and higher settings. My RAV4EV is the same way with an a range in normal mode of 93 and extended charge range of 113. The EPA range is reported at 103.

Unfortunately, Nissan didn't do the same thing Tesla did.
2014 Rav4 EV, Blizzard Pearl White
2011 LEAF SL w/QC, Blue Ocean, returned at end of lease

SageBrush
Posts: 3458
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 2:19 pm

davewill wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I've read the same, yet Tesla as one example has no problem letting users set lower than 100% SoC charging limits and does not suffer any EPA insult. So far as I know, Tesla even sets the default charge to less than 100% SoC; users are able to choose something less or more.

And a big YES to the rest of your post.


Tesla avoided the problem by allowing the user to set the percentage. Cars like the LEAF that had two settings had to report the average range between the lower and higher settings. My RAV4EV is the same way with an a range in normal mode of 93 and extended charge range of 113. The EPA range is reported at 103.

Unfortunately, Nissan didn't do the same thing Tesla did.

Does that mean that Nissan could have avoided the EPA problem by giving users ... three SoC options to choose from ?
Last edited by SageBrush on Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13635
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 2:20 pm

SageBrush wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:It looks like Dave is just going to ignore the 80% charge option, because it ruins his theory...


the 80% option was an incredibly stupid idea in an 80 mile EV.

Err. .... why ?

Not that your answer matters, in the sense that its availability and use by some owners like myself puts your assumptions to the test. After all, if 80 percenters are seeing accelerated degradation then it seems fair to say that battery cooking at 100% is not required.


range was already limited so make it more limited? It simply didn't make sense. We also have to realize that very low SOC is detrimental as well so the 80% range now has us at what? 55-60 usable? and that is only if we wanted to go past VLBW...
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13635
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 2:21 pm

SageBrush wrote:
davewill wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I've read the same, yet Tesla as one example has no problem letting users set lower than 100% SoC charging limits and does not suffer any EPA insult. So far as I know, Tesla even sets the default charge to less than 100% SoC; users are able to choose something less or more.

And a big YES to the rest of your post.


Tesla avoided the problem by allowing the user to set the percentage. Cars like the LEAF that had two settings had to report the average range between the lower and higher settings. My RAV4EV is the same way with an a range in normal mode of 93 and extended charge range of 113. The EPA range is reported at 103.

Unfortunately, Nissan didn't do the same thing Tesla did.

Does that mean that Nissan could have avoided the EPA problem by giving users ... three SoC options to choose from ?


LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SageBrush
Posts: 3458
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 2:25 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
the 80% option was an incredibly stupid idea in an 80 mile EV.

Err. .... why ?

Not that your answer matters, in the sense that its availability and use by some owners like myself puts your assumptions to the test. After all, if 80 percenters are seeing accelerated degradation then it seems fair to say that battery cooking at 100% is not required.


range was already limited so make it more limited? It simply didn't make sense. We also have to realize that very low SOC is detrimental as well so the 80% range now has us at what? 55-60 usable? and that is only if we wanted to go past VLBW...


My family typically uses the 80% charge limit , and we do not go below 30% SoC in our daily driving. 100% charging is used for the occasional long trip. The average work commute in the US is 40 miles. This all makes sense to me.

As I said though, it is apparent that people DID and DO use the 80% limit as a routine charging routine so their battery degradation data is available. Here is my anecdote for you:
Average battery temperature through my 10 months of ownership: 63F
Outside in the summer, garaged in the winter
LBC events: two
SoC below 10% events: 0
Charging to 100%: under 10 events, remainder to 80%. Recharges when SoC reaches ~ 30%, usually twice a week
Charging starts at 5am, typical first daily use of car at 7-9 AM. L2 charging at 6 kW
Parking on sunny asphalt events: 0
Parking at home: in shade
Battery temp events of 8+ bars: 0
Battery temp events of 7 bars: 3, while driving

I think it is fair to say that the car has an easy life, and yet
Degradation: ~ 1 Ahr a month through the summer months

There is one benign explanation outstanding that I have not excluded: it may be that the real battery capacity of my LEAF was disguised by my purchase in January and it became apparent this summer. Next summer by the latest will tell the tale for sure, but if this scenario is true I should see my Ahr and SOH improve during the winter and then fall back again in the summer.
Last edited by SageBrush on Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:15 pm, edited 9 times in total.
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
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

essaunders
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:20 am
Delivery Date: 20 Jan 2012
Location: southern NH

Re: Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:30 pm

I just got through a week of 100% charges (needed to make daily 'longer' trips) and I really noticed the lack of regen going down the approx. 1mile hill from my house. So, count me glad to have the 80% option...

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”