WetEV
Well-known member
5) up to 10% in first 12-18 months
30% loss at around 100k miles/8 years
30% loss at around 100k miles/8 years
Acceptable Battery Loss
- Thread starter DaveinOlyWA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
Stoaty said:
i am a bit confused by your response.
*you now know much more about the actual user details of the LEAF, so you would recommend it less (or against) to people in certain circumstances which I can see. semantics aside, i am assuming you will relay facts and help the potential customer decide if it works for them. this i get
*you state that "knowing what you know now" you would not have purchased the LEAF. are you having what you consider to be unacceptable loss? your signature does not seem to imply that (or maybe it is not updated)
the whole point of this thread was to gauge what exactly people were expecting when they made the purchase decision. what i wanted to keep out of the mix is the knowledge of others and their issues clouding your answers. its great to have concern for your fellow LEAFers but they played no part in your purchase decision (or at least not a significant part)
i guess all this would be much easier if we had some hard #'s on exactly what temps we need to avoid... but that is another thread (so lets not go there, already have many threads for that question)
palmermd
Well-known member
This thread should shed some light on what people were expecting before they purchased/leased. I browsed through hoping to read some comments from folks in Arizona, and unfortunately there was only a few comments from LeafFan on page 5. Most of the other posters were from CA and WA.
What is clear is that most people expected Nissan to warranty the pack if it fell to 70 percent within 5 years. Some even claimed that is what the warranty says. The warranty clearly states capacity is not covered, and Nissan's response so far has followed that interpretation.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1709&hilit=capacity+warranty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also interesting to note that 64% of the poll respondents said they would not even purchase the car unless there was a warranty. Wonder if that happened?
What is clear is that most people expected Nissan to warranty the pack if it fell to 70 percent within 5 years. Some even claimed that is what the warranty says. The warranty clearly states capacity is not covered, and Nissan's response so far has followed that interpretation.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1709&hilit=capacity+warranty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also interesting to note that 64% of the poll respondents said they would not even purchase the car unless there was a warranty. Wonder if that happened?
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
palmermd said:
i was one of the ones who said "no" and didnt. i leased
hill
Well-known member
Acceptable capcity loss turns on what kind of range you get - which in turn is based on how efficiently you drive. Since my commute iS only 19 miles - and I'm getting 5miles / kWh - acceptable capacity loss would be 45 percent. Below 45% - simply won't work for us. I'm hoping that's not for another 7yrs. The way I baby The leaf - anything less than 7 more years (to hit 45% capacity remaining) to reach that threshold would be unacceptable.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
hill said:
not the question here! if you lost 40% in a year and nothing for the next 7 years, that would be acceptable?
i have your same level of "expectation" that i can drive 50 miles for a looong time. (10-15 years i am hoping) but at the same time i want it to be a relatively predictable decline which is why i got the GID meter so i can have an idea of all that.
besides; commuting is only one reason you decided to buy. there are other reasons; some no doubt that are "further" away...
hill
Well-known member
I know - but God forbid anyone start another battery / capacity thread . . . . the whiners would go nuts - and so I was compelled to just glom onto one of the existing threads.DaveinOlyWA said:
:lol:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
ok Gary!! enough meandering... 4 or 5?? what will it be?
DaveinOlyWA said:
I will take 5. I anticipated that my capacity would drop more than most due to hot climate and long commute (deeper discharge than those with short commutes). It is too soon to tell just how bad the capacity loss for the PHX Leafs will be over the long term. We will know more by this time next year. I am glad I purchased my Leaf because I waited a long time to be able to buy an EV with enough range and highway speed to meet my needs. I am glad Nissan appears to be researching this issue and hope they will find a cost effective solution that will allow me to keep driving my Leaf for a long time.
Gerry
GaslessInSeattle
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,566
Acceptable to me:
For purchase, I expected the Leaf would lose no more than 20% capacity over 5 years in all markets it is sold... period. How it performs in all markets is of importance to me because it effects the resale value of my Leaf, regardless of how well it holds up for me. For Lease, I would expect little if any loss during the Lease period... people Lease because they are willing to pay a premium to have the problem free new car experience and be protected if major failures occured. I assumed on one hand that if I babied the battery, that surely it would do better and that if I worked it hard, it might do worse but that there was nothing I could do short of blatantly ignore warnings on the dash that would lead to a catastrophic failure that would not be covered under warranty. I assumed the lack of coverage of capacity under the warranty was primarily to give Nissan an out if there was abuse, but that surely if the range declined dramatically that they would take care of their early adopters who have taken substantial risk and made substantial investment to help cycle the technology along to a point where it is ready for full mass adoption. I assumed that any broad pattern that revealed a design flaw would result in a recall or other such remedy.
My expectations were bolstered by claims that Nissan had plowed $4 billion into battery research and design, tested extensively, specifically, in Phoenix AZ (recently told it is here: 7815 North White and Parker Road, Stanfield, AZ). I guess you can say that I took it on faith that Carlos and gang had really done their homework and that this car was ready for prime time. I never suspected that if a certain group of cars/owners started having serious trouble, that Nissan would abandon them and essentially claim that loss, no matter how drastic, would be considered "gradual" and therefore not covered under warranty.
We are just now beginning to see the slow gears of a very large machine react to a problem that to many of us has been going on for quite some time now. Some patience will be required on our parts now and only time will tell if their response will be adequate to retain the devoted yet fickle group of EV enthusiast as competitors begin rolling out alternatives, with battery temperature management systems in particular. IMHO, Nissan must act much more quickly than they are accustom to if they are to avert irreversible damage to the brand. At this point, to avert a panicked sell off, all owners need assurance that anyone with dramatic capacity loss is going to be made whole, barring profound abuse of the vehicle.
For purchase, I expected the Leaf would lose no more than 20% capacity over 5 years in all markets it is sold... period. How it performs in all markets is of importance to me because it effects the resale value of my Leaf, regardless of how well it holds up for me. For Lease, I would expect little if any loss during the Lease period... people Lease because they are willing to pay a premium to have the problem free new car experience and be protected if major failures occured. I assumed on one hand that if I babied the battery, that surely it would do better and that if I worked it hard, it might do worse but that there was nothing I could do short of blatantly ignore warnings on the dash that would lead to a catastrophic failure that would not be covered under warranty. I assumed the lack of coverage of capacity under the warranty was primarily to give Nissan an out if there was abuse, but that surely if the range declined dramatically that they would take care of their early adopters who have taken substantial risk and made substantial investment to help cycle the technology along to a point where it is ready for full mass adoption. I assumed that any broad pattern that revealed a design flaw would result in a recall or other such remedy.
My expectations were bolstered by claims that Nissan had plowed $4 billion into battery research and design, tested extensively, specifically, in Phoenix AZ (recently told it is here: 7815 North White and Parker Road, Stanfield, AZ). I guess you can say that I took it on faith that Carlos and gang had really done their homework and that this car was ready for prime time. I never suspected that if a certain group of cars/owners started having serious trouble, that Nissan would abandon them and essentially claim that loss, no matter how drastic, would be considered "gradual" and therefore not covered under warranty.
We are just now beginning to see the slow gears of a very large machine react to a problem that to many of us has been going on for quite some time now. Some patience will be required on our parts now and only time will tell if their response will be adequate to retain the devoted yet fickle group of EV enthusiast as competitors begin rolling out alternatives, with battery temperature management systems in particular. IMHO, Nissan must act much more quickly than they are accustom to if they are to avert irreversible damage to the brand. At this point, to avert a panicked sell off, all owners need assurance that anyone with dramatic capacity loss is going to be made whole, barring profound abuse of the vehicle.
Stoaty
Well-known member
While I agree with most of your post, I think the last sentence is a bit over the top. There might be a panicked sell off in Phoenix, but even there it is unlikely, since it appears that the market for used Leafs in Phoenix has pretty much dried up. I think owners in areas of the country that don't have the intense heat that some places in Arizona and Texas have will take a wait and see attitude, especially now that Nissan appears to be taking some steps to look into this problem and take it seriously. I do think they need to do something relatively quickly in order to prevent future sales from tanking as this problem becomes more widely known.GaslessInSeattle said:
They will get MY Leaf when they pry it from my cold dead hands. :twisted: For my needs and in my climate, the Leaf will probably be useful to me for a good 10 years without a battery replacement.
GaslessInSeattle
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,566
fair enough, maybe I should speak for myself. Over the many months that decline in capacity has slowly but surely been building for a variety of folks, I have started having "wondering eyes". Nissan's recent insistence that this was "normal" compelled me to put a refundable deposit on a Tesla S and get a chance to take one for a test drive. We are not sure if we will take delivery for the obvious reason of the substantial investment it requires but have plenty of time to see how things play out. I can say with certainty that how Nissan deals with this going forward will have a direct impact on whether we keep the Leaf or not. now that we are on the fence, we are poised to act quickly and sell ahead of the curve if it appears there is going to be a dramatic decline in value in our area, unfortunately it's an imperfect science and we will have to make a call at some point. One of the reason's we purchased instead of Leased, was to give us ultimate flexibility. Just because we live in one of the only cool places in the US right now, doesn't mean the market for the car is protected here. One of the local dealers just revealed that they have 40 Leaf's on the lot and are offering below MSRP for the first time.
The fact that they appear to be finally testing some of the AZ cars who have lost 2 or more bars goes a long way in relieving our edginess, at least for the time being.
The fact that they appear to be finally testing some of the AZ cars who have lost 2 or more bars goes a long way in relieving our edginess, at least for the time being.
Stoaty said:
What the previous two guys said...I would call it "battery longevity anxiety". After a period of complacency I'm watching my pack like a hawk now, looking for any GID losses beyond the ones I saw this spring. So far, fingers crossed, nothing to report -I'm still managing to hit above 90% / 253 Gids when the pack is nicely balanced. Moreover, it's not really impacting my range all that much, if at all. When I allow for a subdued drive to/from work, like the ones I was making when I first got the car (no more than 65mph and gentle acceleration to speed). I'm still hitting fuel bar consumption at more or less the same mileage, and ending my commute with more or less the same fuel remaining.
I guess Thursday would have been a good example of this, and you can see the numbers in my Google Doc here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnSYHt_rpvYydGlLZ3dOZ1dfTlFRS2JsTlo1V1ptVHc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
0 Miles 90.7% 255 Gids 394 Volts
30.5 Miles 61.5% 173 Gids 380.5 Volts
61 Miles 30.9% 87 Gids 369 Volts
The only variable on this drive is my speeds were actually held down quite severely by heavy traffic. However, I've noticed that my driving style doesn't do my any favors in stop-and-go, and I usually do as well (or should that be as poorly?) at 65mph.
I also ended the day at 34 miles remaining on the GOM. And while we know the GOM is nonsense, the best GOM reading I arrived home with last year was 36 miles, on day 10 of ownership. This was prior to having the Gidometer, so I can't tell you what Gids and percent SOC was. Similarly I arrived home with just shy of 4 full fuel bars remaining, having started using bar 8 at 58.8 miles. This also compares very well to the first days of ownership, when I was documenting such things.
Of course, this lack in range loss can probably be explained by having full access to regenerative braking much earlier in the morning drive. And maybe to a slight changes in my driving style that have helped my efficiency creep up a hair.
Bottom line is that I still love my LEAF and am proud to drive it. I wouldn't want to give it up, and hope that it continues to fully meet my transportation needs for many years to come. I still very much appreciate Nissan taking this very important step, and hope above all hopes that this particular issue has resolution that satisfies "hot state" owners and allows Nissan to move forward with the LEAF and it's siblings/successors unencumbered.
I guess Thursday would have been a good example of this, and you can see the numbers in my Google Doc here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnSYHt_rpvYydGlLZ3dOZ1dfTlFRS2JsTlo1V1ptVHc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
0 Miles 90.7% 255 Gids 394 Volts
30.5 Miles 61.5% 173 Gids 380.5 Volts
61 Miles 30.9% 87 Gids 369 Volts
The only variable on this drive is my speeds were actually held down quite severely by heavy traffic. However, I've noticed that my driving style doesn't do my any favors in stop-and-go, and I usually do as well (or should that be as poorly?) at 65mph.
I also ended the day at 34 miles remaining on the GOM. And while we know the GOM is nonsense, the best GOM reading I arrived home with last year was 36 miles, on day 10 of ownership. This was prior to having the Gidometer, so I can't tell you what Gids and percent SOC was. Similarly I arrived home with just shy of 4 full fuel bars remaining, having started using bar 8 at 58.8 miles. This also compares very well to the first days of ownership, when I was documenting such things.
Of course, this lack in range loss can probably be explained by having full access to regenerative braking much earlier in the morning drive. And maybe to a slight changes in my driving style that have helped my efficiency creep up a hair.
Bottom line is that I still love my LEAF and am proud to drive it. I wouldn't want to give it up, and hope that it continues to fully meet my transportation needs for many years to come. I still very much appreciate Nissan taking this very important step, and hope above all hopes that this particular issue has resolution that satisfies "hot state" owners and allows Nissan to move forward with the LEAF and it's siblings/successors unencumbered.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
mwalsh said:
i believe your charges are temperature adjusted based on your pack voltage and i expect you will gain some back in winter. i think we all need to start posting charge data including full charges only (i seriously doubt that 80% data will help)
i am guessing your average highs are only in the mid 80's with occasional forays into the 90's? i have never seen more than 393 volts on mine.
so wondering if you have data on voltage earlier in the year?
DaveinOlyWA said:
Always between 393 and 394 volts on a full charge.
edatoakrun
Well-known member
Thanks for posting your history of gid count AND Volts.
WOULD OTHERS WITH HOT-CLIMATE LEAFS SUFERING BATTERY CAPACITY BAR LOSS(ES) PLEASE DO THE SAME?
IMO, the consistency (or lack thereof) of the relationship of voltage to "100%" charge gid count, would give us clues as to whether bar disappearance is entirely a result of battery deterioration, or may also be reflective of BMS operation, or another (unknown) cause, of the cool season capacity increase TickTock reported last Winter.
Anyone have a theory on the "anomalous" high Voltage/low gid count events found on mwalsh's spreadsheet, other than that they were just erroneous gid counts?
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
mwalsh said:
according to your chart, you are at that voltage several times at SOC significantly below full charge? ~80% SOC and still at 393 volts? how can that be?
**edit** had to review my "limited" charging records. unfortunately i did not see the value of checking SOC verses pack voltage until recently. i usually manually charge to an SOC i feel will cover my next days activities which means i end up with SOCs ranging from 40 to 90%. on all my SOC's in the 80% range i am consistently seeing 389-390 volts.
**edit** i am thinking that maybe both our charts are suffering from "voltage float". in the morning i check first thing which in some cases can be immediately after an charging session to less than 100% or in other cases 2-6 hours after a 100% charging session or immediately after driving and getting home
so thinking that the voltage reading might adjust in some cases after the pack has sat a while if it was recently charged or discharged?
**edit** wondering if i should start another post? but anyway. i commited sin and started charging when SOC was near 80% (78.5) monitoring voltage. when SOC hit 85% i was at 390 v. then it went to 394 v at 272 GID (96.8) and finished at 394v and 280 GID. that was at 9:34. its now 11:15 and back at 393 v and still 280 GID.
so i guess i do get to 394...just have never seen it before.
leafkabob
Well-known member
To recap the question:
What capacity loss were you expecting when you made the purchase decision?
1) nothing in first year
2) nothing in first 18 months
3) nothing in first 2 years
4) up to 5% in first 12-18 months
5) up to 10% in first 12-18 months
Speaking as one Phoenix area purchaser:
I didn't expect to see any capacity loss in the first year, but I also didn't know much about batteries at the time I purchased. So an honest response to this poll would be #4, since I naively thought that if it was going to take 5 years to lose 20%, then the first year would be loss free or possibly up to 5% within 18 months.
But if the question was: At the time you made the purchase decsision what level of capacity loss would have been acceptable, I agree with Craig Martell's response. I would have been OK with 20% loss the first year, being fully assured that I would have 80% at the end of 5 years. But I wouldn't have expected it, and would have been quite unsettled had it happened.
I lost 15% capacity 12 months and 1 week after purchase. I would immediately stop whining, complaining or in any other way bringing attention to my Edge Case if I could be assured that I will still have 80% after 5 years.
And I don't need reminding that capacity is not warranted. But like it or not, the laws in this country do not allow a seller to make representations like those made by Mark Perry in order to promote and sell the car, and then later claim that buyers were not entitled to rely on those representations. Maybe if they had a disclosure at the time of purchase that said:
If you live in certain markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Palm Springs or other areas of the country where the daytime temperatures reach 110 and the overnight lows don't go below 80 for most of the summer, your car may experience battery capacity loss at a quicker and greater rate than other Leaf owners in other parts of the country.
then, I think they could more easily get around Perry's representations. But they didn't provide that disclosure and Phoenix area purchasers were misled.
edited for spelling
What capacity loss were you expecting when you made the purchase decision?
1) nothing in first year
2) nothing in first 18 months
3) nothing in first 2 years
4) up to 5% in first 12-18 months
5) up to 10% in first 12-18 months
Speaking as one Phoenix area purchaser:
I didn't expect to see any capacity loss in the first year, but I also didn't know much about batteries at the time I purchased. So an honest response to this poll would be #4, since I naively thought that if it was going to take 5 years to lose 20%, then the first year would be loss free or possibly up to 5% within 18 months.
But if the question was: At the time you made the purchase decsision what level of capacity loss would have been acceptable, I agree with Craig Martell's response. I would have been OK with 20% loss the first year, being fully assured that I would have 80% at the end of 5 years. But I wouldn't have expected it, and would have been quite unsettled had it happened.
I lost 15% capacity 12 months and 1 week after purchase. I would immediately stop whining, complaining or in any other way bringing attention to my Edge Case if I could be assured that I will still have 80% after 5 years.
And I don't need reminding that capacity is not warranted. But like it or not, the laws in this country do not allow a seller to make representations like those made by Mark Perry in order to promote and sell the car, and then later claim that buyers were not entitled to rely on those representations. Maybe if they had a disclosure at the time of purchase that said:
If you live in certain markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Palm Springs or other areas of the country where the daytime temperatures reach 110 and the overnight lows don't go below 80 for most of the summer, your car may experience battery capacity loss at a quicker and greater rate than other Leaf owners in other parts of the country.
then, I think they could more easily get around Perry's representations. But they didn't provide that disclosure and Phoenix area purchasers were misled.
edited for spelling
opossum
Well-known member
Wow. Ditto to *everything* leafkabob just said! Well, except that I didn't edit this minuscule post for spelling. :lol:
Kind of hard to draw any conclusions without knowing what efficiency you drove at (mi/kWh).mwalsh said:
Still good to see that you're getting the same range as before regardless and still getting home with ~3 bars after driving 60+ miles which is impressive as that would indicate that you should be able to get well over 80 miles driving the same way.
Is your car on the "new" or "old" bars? Kind of important when comparing bar counts at the low end...
