jake14mw
Well-known member
I'm skeptical.
https://insideevs.com/nissan-issues-software-fix-for-2016-17-leaf-battery-reporting-issues/
https://insideevs.com/nissan-issues-software-fix-for-2016-17-leaf-battery-reporting-issues/
jake14mw said:I agree with what you are saying, it makes sense that the new battery couldn't be THAT bad. The thing that surprises me though, is that it would take them this long to fix something like that. How long has it been since it was reported?
The interesting part will be to see how much of an effect the software fix has on range and degredation.
OrientExpress said:Debugging, developing a solution, and testing take a long time for a conservative company like Nissan. The issue was first reported last fall, and while the fix was being finalized, Nissan honored the battery degradation warranty and replaced quite a few 30 kWh batteries that all turned out to be just fine. It appears that the majority of 16-17 LEAFs that were presenting the accelerated degradation actually didn't have any degradation at all. It was all just bad math.
OrientExpress said:Well this issue is certainly more subtle than the braking issue. But I would disagree with your ranking. The Tesla braking performance was a life-threatening one, this issue was just false range degradation.
bmw said:I By the way, the readings on my Leaf instrument panel and LeafSpy agree on miles/kWh.
In any case, I hope that the 30kWh battery is actually not so bad and the software will fix the problem.
Based on what ?OrientExpress said:the 2016-2017 traction batteries have shown themselves to be very durable and having good heat tolerance,
Oh, I see.OrientExpress said:Based on reality.
That's because both the car and LEAFspy are relying on the calculated data that the BMC is providing, but that calculated data is not correct. The SW update corrects that with a correct calculations.
the 2016-2017 traction batteries have shown themselves to be very durable and having good heat tolerance, but that has been masked by the bad calculated data that the BMC is providing.
OrientExpress said:I have found that in the majority of cases the way the car is operated and maintained by the driver has a much larger influence on the cars performance than the actual design of the hardware.
Nubo said:OrientExpress said:I have found that in the majority of cases the way the car is operated and maintained by the driver has a much larger influence on the cars performance than the actual design of the hardware.
Can you elaborate? What mainenance items affect battery performance?
Please do not confuse him with facts.LeftieBiker said:That's because both the car and LEAFspy are relying on the calculated data that the BMC is providing, but that calculated data is not correct. The SW update corrects that with a correct calculations.
the 2016-2017 traction batteries have shown themselves to be very durable and having good heat tolerance, but that has been masked by the bad calculated data that the BMC is providing.
So then why has actual range been affected just as if the batteries were degrading rapidly? Are you saying that these cars have plenty of range left when the VLBW appears - say another 30+ miles?
OrientExpress said:Nubo said:OrientExpress said:I have found that in the majority of cases the way the car is operated and maintained by the driver has a much larger influence on the cars performance than the actual design of the hardware.
Can you elaborate? What mainenance items affect battery performance?
I'm speaking generically for all automobiles. For BEVs how the car is operated tends to be the most important factor.
LeftieBiker said:So then why has actual range been affected just as if the batteries were degrading rapidly? Are you saying that these cars have plenty of range left when the VLBW appears - say another 30+ miles?
Enter your email address to join: