DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13141
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:06 am

jbuntz wrote:
dwl wrote:An interesting post on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan.leaf.owners.group/permalink/1982145841856247/. He was down two bars and a Nissan dealer did "Recall PC630 LEAF 30KW BATTERY, NTB18 NISSAN RECALL PROGRAMMED HV BATTERY AS PER RECALL.". Now back to 12 bars. While it could be a simple reset it sounds like more.

Looks like NTB18039. Anyone have access to the full text of the bulletin?


The SW update fixes errors the BMS had calculating true capacity of the pack. This "could" lead to the pack preventing access to capacity that is good to use.

I suspect the change will also lower the SOC knee on QCs and might even add some temperature control as well. This would REALLY suck for people who are not seeing any major degradation...
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 8743 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 111.39 Ahr , SOH 96.49, Hx 114.98
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

eatsleafsandshoots
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:23 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:40 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
eatsleafsandshoots wrote:2017 S - 24k miles
SOH - 97 percent
Hx - 89 percent
AHr - 77.1

This is looking pretty good right? I think it lends credence to the theory that some 17s have good packs.


Did you just get your BMS "fixed"? There's a running discussion that this might just be a " reset", and that the BMS will relearn the actual capacity over time. So let us know if it changes quickly?


Nope, I haven't seen a dealer since I bought this thing and don't intend to, except riiiight before the warranty is up to fix a creaky-when-cold axle. I'm taking your reaction as a sign that my numbers are surprisingly good?

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13141
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:43 am

eatsleafsandshoots wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
eatsleafsandshoots wrote:2017 S - 24k miles
SOH - 97 percent
Hx - 89 percent
AHr - 77.1

This is looking pretty good right? I think it lends credence to the theory that some 17s have good packs.


Did you just get your BMS "fixed"? There's a running discussion that this might just be a " reset", and that the BMS will relearn the actual capacity over time. So let us know if it changes quickly?


Nope, I haven't seen a dealer since I bought this thing and don't intend to, except riiiight before the warranty is up to fix a creaky-when-cold axle. I'm taking your reaction as a sign that my numbers are surprisingly good?


I am not so sure those numbers are in the wonderful category. Ahr is down over 6%. How often do you take readings?
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 8743 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 111.39 Ahr , SOH 96.49, Hx 114.98
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

eatsleafsandshoots
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:23 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:53 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
eatsleafsandshoots wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Did you just get your BMS "fixed"? There's a running discussion that this might just be a " reset", and that the BMS will relearn the actual capacity over time. So let us know if it changes quickly?


Nope, I haven't seen a dealer since I bought this thing and don't intend to, except riiiight before the warranty is up to fix a creaky-when-cold axle. I'm taking your reaction as a sign that my numbers are surprisingly good?


I am not so sure those numbers are in the wonderful category. Ahr is down over 6%. How often do you take readings?


That's the first time I've ever taken a reading. I'm very happy with the observed capacity, I can drive 100+ real miles that are largely on the freeway, with A/C, including lots of trips into the high foothills of Colorado where I live.

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13141
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:00 am

eatsleafsandshoots wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
eatsleafsandshoots wrote:
Nope, I haven't seen a dealer since I bought this thing and don't intend to, except riiiight before the warranty is up to fix a creaky-when-cold axle. I'm taking your reaction as a sign that my numbers are surprisingly good?


I am not so sure those numbers are in the wonderful category. Ahr is down over 6%. How often do you take readings?


That's the first time I've ever taken a reading. I'm very happy with the observed capacity, I can drive 100+ real miles that are largely on the freeway, with A/C, including lots of trips into the high foothills of Colorado where I live.


Ahh ok. That makes sense. The only real way to tell is you have to take several readings like at least 5-10 preferably daily at the same time to get a good picture. All the numbers bounce around a bit so this is only way to really tell where each number "really" is or at least what neighborhood they reside.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 8743 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 111.39 Ahr , SOH 96.49, Hx 114.98
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jbuntz
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:41 am
Delivery Date: 17 Dec 2016
Leaf Number: 303765
Location: New Braunfels, TX

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:32 am

Currently my stats are 50.44 Ah 63.46 SOH 60.59 Hx 21622 Odo 230Gid 4 bars down. Appmt for Tuesday to get tested for replacement.

I did a test yesterday drove 77 miles to 6 GIDs. 70 miles were at 70 mph and the rest at less than 30. LeafSpy reported 17660 Wh used .5kWh remains. I then charged to 100%. EVSE total input was 25 kWh. Input was at 6737 Watts. LeafSpy displays 5874 to battery 200 Aux.

At 90% charger efficiency that would add about 22.5 kWh. LeafSpy at 100% charge reports 17.8 kWh Remain.

There will be some loss between battery input and charge but this seems excessive. Maybe this is the bms reprogramming fix?

I also noticed that the car displayed 3.5 mi/kWh avg where LeafSpy showed 4.4 over the 77 mile trip. Or 22.65 vs 17.5 kWh used.

So what do you think the true capacity is and what are they going to tell me Tuesday?
Mfg 11/15 Del 12/16 TX 2016 SL 30kWh,
Date Bar MI GID Ahr SOH
05/17 12 05175 324 70.75 89
08/17 11 09245 282 61.68 77
10/17 10 12000 260 57.22 71
01/18 09 15329 244 53.72 68
06/20 08 21716 230 50.41 63
06/27 11 22047 296 66.01 83 Aftr Updt

SageBrush
Posts: 2694
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:16 am

jbuntz wrote:Currently my stats are 50.44 Ah 63.46 SOH 60.59 Hx 21622 Odo 230Gid 4 bars down. Appmt for Tuesday to get tested for replacement.

I did a test yesterday drove 77 miles to 6 GIDs. 70 miles were at 70 mph and the rest at less than 30. LeafSpy reported 17660 Wh used .5kWh remains. I then charged to 100%. EVSE total input was 25 kWh. Input was at 6737 Watts. LeafSpy displays 5874 to battery 200 Aux.

At 90% charger efficiency that would add about 22.5 kWh. LeafSpy at 100% charge reports 17.8 kWh Remain.

There will be some loss between battery input and charge but this seems excessive. Maybe this is the bms reprogramming fix?

I also noticed that the car displayed 3.5 mi/kWh avg where LeafSpy showed 4.4 over the 77 mile trip. Or 22.65 vs 17.5 kWh used.

So what do you think the true capacity is and what are they going to tell me Tuesday?

Interesting !
A trip miles/kWh would have also been informative.

There is quite a bit of variation in charging efficiency so don't read a lot into one test. I think the *average* charging loss at L2 is 13% so if full battery charging over multiple tests averaged out to 25 kWh from the meter then battery capacity = 21.75 which would be about 21.75/28 = 77.6% of new.
I expect Nissan to apply the patch and tell you to return when you hit 8 bars capacity. Presuming the patch causes a reset, I'd expect the battery to settle down to 11 bars, but probably 10 bars by end of summer.

All told, this is one (for now) fuzzy data point that says that Nissan is telling a part truth: the capacity bars reported are indeed lower than actual, but the degradation is still bad.
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

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 30 kWh Battery data

Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:47 pm

jbuntz wrote:Currently my stats are 50.44 Ah 63.46 SOH 60.59 Hx 21622 Odo 230Gid 4 bars down. Appmt for Tuesday to get tested for replacement.

I did a test yesterday drove 77 miles to 6 GIDs. 70 miles were at 70 mph and the rest at less than 30. LeafSpy reported 17660 Wh used .5kWh remains...

You're on the right track, but first thing, throw out all the LBC ("LeafSpy reported") data.

jbuntz wrote:I then charged to 100%. EVSE total input was 25 kWh. Input was at 6737 Watts...
At 90% charger efficiency that would add about 22.5 kWh...

But It is unlikely your discharge/recharge efficiency was anywhere near 90%.

Nissan's EPA submission for your pack reports:

Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 31.7807

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_ ... 671&flag=1

Which is consistent with a ~30 kWh total pack, with 90% (27 kWh) available, and discharge/recharge efficiency of 85%.

jbuntz wrote:I also noticed that the car displayed 3.5 mi/kWh avg...

First, use mapping software to find your odometer error in your CW/NC miles driven reports to correct the mi in 3.5 mi/kWh.

Then, use your expected discharge/recharge efficiency to correct the kWh used error, as reported by CW/NC in 3.5 mi/kWh.

If your 30 "kWh" LEAF has the same error in kWH use reported on the Dash/NaV screen and CW/NC as do 2011 LEAFs, then you could calculate capacity loss from this consistent error, without having to do full discharge/charge tests.

My 2011's LBC currently reports ~36% capacity loss, but the kWh use report error is close to a consistent 12%, meaning each nominal kWH reported on my dash/nav screen and CW/NC, actually contains ~1,120 WH, and my available pack capacity is now ~24 % below spec.

However, the 3.5 mi/kWh. you report (you're sure that was for the entire 77 miles, and only those miles? From the from dash or Nav screen?) suggests the kWh used, as reported by CW/NC was about 22 kWh (77/3.5) ~88% of the 25 kWh accepted on the recharge, close to the expected expected discharge/recharge efficiency and not nearly the ~20% error (see below) that seems to be shown by your 25 kWh recharge report.

jbuntz wrote:So what do you think the true capacity is and what are they going to tell me Tuesday?

I have no idea what Nissan will tell you, but since your pack apparently accepted almost 79% of its specified capacity (25/31.7807) after a less-than-complete discharge, I think with further observation you would probably find that your pack still has between 75% and 85% of its specified capacity, as opposed to the ~63% your LBC is reporting.

The big variable you did not mention is battery temperatures during the previous charge, the discharge, and the recharge. The warmer the pack, the higher the available capacity, and also the higher the efficiency of the charge and discharge cycles.

Unfortunately (and unlike for the "24 kWh" packs) we have virtually no temperature data reported for the "30 kWH" packs.
no condition is permanent

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 30 kWh Battery data

Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:22 pm

Reply to comment on one of the several redundant threads on this topic, below:

Re: Long Term Reliability of the 30kWh Battery Pack

johnlocke wrote:
edatoakrun wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
The bars will not change. They are simply a representation of the state of the car. They are NOT to be considered as digital representations of anything ...

Yes, and the same can be said for the grossly inaccurate LBC estimates of battery capacity, which are used to inform the bar displays.

Unfortunately, most "30 kWh" pack LEAF owners seem to have been just as willing to make fools of themselves, as most "24 kWh" pack owners have over the years, when they took LBC data seriously as accurate data on pack capacity.

So, with is campaign, Nissan will now change the LBC readings on "30 kWh" packs, allegedly to make them less inaccurate, just like it claimed it was trying to do for our "24 kWh" LEAFs.

That effort was a failure, as the higher-capacity LBC readings soon drifted back to ~the same level of extreme inaccuracy, as confirmed by recharge and range tests on my LEAF and others' at the time.

But, maybe this time it will be different?

If any of you "30 kWh" pack owners want to find out, I suggest you try to learn what you have neglected to learn to date, how to monitor your pack capacity accurately, using objective methods, and entirely ignoring the garbage data from your LBC, and that you do so before you accept Nissans "corrective" campaign.

Your strategy is flawed. No matter how you measure the battery capacity, you are limited to Nissan's information as to the state of the battery. Even you run the battery to "turtle" and carefully measure the power used to recharge, you are limited to Nissan's evaluation of both turtle and 100% charged...

viewtopic.php?p=530305#p530305

Correct, only in that Nissan's instrumentation is not very accurate, and you can expect significant variations between individual charges in the percentage of total capacity available, between any two of the LBC charge level indicators.

But apparently largely inconsequential.

All AVTA testing seems to have shown that the ~90% average ratio of available/total capacity remained constant in "24kWh" packs, and this remained the case even after the Phoenix torture test caused 25% to 30% actual losses of battery capacity.

Perhaps the 30 kWh pack reset campaign (unlike that for the" 24 kWh" packs) will result in a change in actual available capacity from accurate averaged recharge or range test reports.

But I can't help noticing Nissan doesn't seem to be claiming that that is the case...
no condition is permanent

jbuntz
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:41 am
Delivery Date: 17 Dec 2016
Leaf Number: 303765
Location: New Braunfels, TX

Re: 2016 30 kWh Battery data

Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:48 pm

edatoakrun wrote:
jbuntz wrote:Currently my stats are 50.44 Ah 63.46 SOH 60.59 Hx 21622 Odo 230Gid 4 bars down. Appmt for Tuesday to get tested for replacement.

I did a test yesterday drove 77 miles to 6 GIDs. 70 miles were at 70 mph and the rest at less than 30. LeafSpy reported 17660 Wh used .5kWh remains...

You're on the right track, but first thing, throw out all the LBC ("LeafSpy reported") data.

jbuntz wrote:I then charged to 100%. EVSE total input was 25 kWh. Input was at 6737 Watts...
At 90% charger efficiency that would add about 22.5 kWh...

But It is unlikely your discharge/recharge efficiency was anywhere near 90%.

Nissan's EPA submission for your pack reports:

Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 31.7807

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_ ... 671&flag=1

Which is consistent with a ~30 kWh total pack, with 90% (27 kWh) available, and discharge/recharge efficiency of 85%.

jbuntz wrote:I also noticed that the car displayed 3.5 mi/kWh avg...

First, use mapping software to find your odometer error in your CW/NC miles driven reports to correct the mi in 3.5 mi/kWh.

Funny but carwings is reporting zeros for the 17th....

Then, use your expected discharge/recharge efficiency to correct the kWh used error, as reported by CW/NC in 3.5 mi/kWh.

If your 30 "kWh" LEAF has the same error in kWH use reported on the Dash/NaV screen and CW/NC as do 2011 LEAFs, then you could calculate capacity loss from this consistent error, without having to do full discharge/charge tests.

My 2011's LBC currently reports ~36% capacity loss, but the kWh use report error is close to a consistent 12%, meaning each nominal kWH reported on my dash/nav screen and CW/NC, actually contains ~1,120 WH, and my available pack capacity is now ~24 % below spec.

However, the 3.5 mi/kWh. you report (you're sure that was for the entire 77 miles, and only those miles? From the from dash or Nav screen?) suggests the kWh used, as reported by CW/NC was about 22 kWh (77/3.5) ~88% of the 25 kWh accepted on the recharge, close to the expected expected discharge/recharge efficiency and not nearly the ~20% error (see below) that seems to be shown by your 25 kWh recharge report.

jbuntz wrote:So what do you think the true capacity is and what are they going to tell me Tuesday?

I have no idea what Nissan will tell you, but since your pack apparently accepted almost 79% of its specified capacity (25/31.7807) after a less-than-complete discharge, I think with further observation you would probably find that your pack still has between 75% and 85% of its specified capacity, as opposed to the ~63% your LBC is reporting.

One big problem is my power meter only reads whole kWh so it could have been 24.6 - 25.5 so 77-80% of rated capacity.

The big variable you did not mention is battery temperatures during the previous charge, the discharge, and the recharge. The warmer the pack, the higher the available capacity, and also the higher the efficiency of the charge and discharge cycles.

The battery was at ~105F at the end of the trip.

Unfortunately (and unlike for the "24 kWh" packs) we have virtually no temperature data reported for the "30 kWH" packs.


Thanks for the detailed response!
Mfg 11/15 Del 12/16 TX 2016 SL 30kWh,
Date Bar MI GID Ahr SOH
05/17 12 05175 324 70.75 89
08/17 11 09245 282 61.68 77
10/17 10 12000 260 57.22 71
01/18 09 15329 244 53.72 68
06/20 08 21716 230 50.41 63
06/27 11 22047 296 66.01 83 Aftr Updt

Return to “LEAF CANBus”