DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
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!
Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs
- Thread starter azdre
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
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!
davewill
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
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.
Err. .... why ?DaveinOlyWA said:
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.
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.davewill said:
And a big YES to the rest of your post.
davewill
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
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.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
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...
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
LOL who knows. Its still one of stupidest excuses I have ever seen in any thing.
DaveinOlyWA said:
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.
essaunders
Well-known member
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...
davewill
Well-known member
Stupid how?DaveinOlyWA said:
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?
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
davewill said:
So Nissan screwed up by not calling it "long life mode?"
that is even worse
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
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%DaveinOlyWA said:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
fine, I will give you that but what's that got to do with my "long LIFE" mode statement?
DaveinOlyWA said:
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.
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.
Similar threads
