Battery Replacement Program Details

[evnow]

You get what you pay for, a lesson you clearly have never learned.

Value <> snob.

If the tables were turned, and you had bought the leaf instead of leased, I would bet all of my worldly possessions that you would be here whining the loudest. Nuff said.

You are wrong, as usual.

 

[evnow]

You're doing it again.

Go back and read qwk's post - you will know he has been trolling the Leaf forum for a long time. BTW, you have a pm.

 

[thankyouOB]

Yes, written in a hurry, so I didn't look for a better term. Does "Returned to Nissan without compensation" work better for you?

I'm fairly sure the salvage value has been considered when rent charges were calculated.

you sound like you are just sticking your fingers in your ears through this entire thread.
surely, all the disappointeds cant just be disregarded as unworthy, nettlesome louts.

 

[thankyouOB]

When I buy a rebuilt carburetor, and collect the "core charge", I don't accuse the parts store of "stealing" my old carb. It's all part of the cost structure. The residual value of the worn out component factors into a better price for the replacement.

How much do you pay a month for that rebuilt carburetor ?

good point, KJD.

and nubo, you completely ignore the bait-and-switch aspect of the original sale, wherein nissan never disclosed that batteries (and who knows what other particular EV parts - perhaps the charger, the harness system, the software, the motor) would not be for sale in the future.

also, what is the core value of the returned battery in this offer? there is none.

 

[thankyouOB]

After some thought, this may be exactly the kind of thing they are trying to avoid. Use of their "intellectual property" in "unauthorized" forms. Sailboats, dune buggys, converting other cars, use of individual modules, etc...

The only way they could have completely avoided secondary uses would have been to never sell the car with the battery, only lease the battery.
There are already some people using LEAF batteries from salvaged wrecked LEAFs in secondary uses such as plug in conversions / range extenders on other hybrid plug in vehicles. Was mentioned in one of the other battery threads.
The rental program will limit the amount of secondary uses, but not eliminate it entirely.
But selling replacement batteries could also limit secondary uses as long as it requires the trade-in of an existing LEAF battery.
I really don't think Nissan or the other OEMs with electric vehicles want to get into the business of selling the battery directly, as many people would jump on it for electric conversions or other secondary uses.
But they could sell them with requirement of trade-in of a LEAF battery and help minimize secondary uses.
The rental program does probably reduce the secondary uses though, because once you enter the rental program they get the battery back. Even if you total the vehicle. The only ones they won't get back are the ones where the vehicle is no longer in use before the person enters the rental program.
If they really wanted to eliminate secondary uses, they should have thought of that when they sold the LEAF with a battery and put it into the contract that you had to return the battery at whatever point the vehicle was no longer in service. Might have complicated sales contracts, but it could have been done. Kind of like a perpetual deed restriction on a piece of property you buy.
But forcing it on people after you've sold the vehicle through only offering a rental program is a bad idea and bad faith.
I think selling the battery, with required LEAF battery trade-in, and a perpetual lien that the replacement battery has to be returned to Nissan at the point the vehicle is no longer in use would sit better with people than only offering the battery rental program.

if any of this secondary-market avoidance is what is going on or some other foundational issue about batteries value or tax status, perhaps nissan would be advised to let its PR folks explain better what is going on here and why?
a little transparency and less obfuscation, delay, misdirection and generally poor communication would improve things quite a bit.

 

[thankyouOB]

Yes. they are stealing my battery.

How is it stealing if you have to do this willingly - knowing the terms & conditions ?

that is exactly the point you are ignoring: no one knew the terms.
no one buying a LEAF before june 20th was told the terms of battery replacement.
if fact, we were told that the battery would degrade, and that it would need to be replaced f we wanted to restore range, which was not warranted.

 

[klapauzius]

Yes, written in a hurry, so I didn't look for a better term. Does "Returned to Nissan without compensation" work better for you?

I'm fairly sure the salvage value has been considered when rent charges were calculated.

you sound like you are just sticking your fingers in your ears through this entire thread.
surely, all the disappointeds cant just be disregarded as unworthy, nettlesome louts.

+1

 

[GRA]

Yes, written in a hurry, so I didn't look for a better term. Does "Returned to Nissan without compensation" work better for you?

I'm fairly sure the salvage value has been considered when rent charges were calculated.

We have no evidence of that, and judging by the battery price vs. monthly rental for the Smart, Nissan isn't doing so. I've previously pointed out that Nissan should be charging about $110/month for an ab initio battery rental (i.e. you don't have to buy a battery first) to 80% capacity, scaled relative to the Smart's battery pack, and unlike the LEAF the Smart's pack includes a liquid-cooled TMS.

 

[WetEV]

I'm not sure where 70% came from, although it's often used for lithium-ion packs used in autos. Perhaps the knee of the degradation curve is there for Li-ion. The problem with 70% for automotive use, though, is that we're limited by mass and volume as well as cost; the first two rarely apply in stationary applications. 'Affordable' BEVs currently have too little range for the majority of people if they're only warranteed to 70% of capacity. Thus, suggesting that 80% is needed is based not on the battery directly, but on long-term utility to the customer, the majority of whom would find the currently available range @ 70% too limiting, especially when allowances are made for less than ideal conditions.

There are statistics on how far the daily drives of people vary. Would you refer to these, and explain why a majority would see a difference between the 70% range and the 80% range?

There are a sizable minority of people that rarely drive more than 10 miles in a day. This minority could drive an old Leaf with 50% batteries, charge to 80% and never hit LBW. Some Leafs might live to fairly old ages. Assuming they stay reliable, why replace batteries if you don't need the extra range?

The problem is limited range combined with the need to use a greater percentage of remaining capacity, which increases the degradation rate. For example, for a car driven daily as a commuter, IMO your commute should be doable with a charge to 80% and with no need to go below LBW regardless of conditions, except in an emergency. When your battery falls below 80% of original capacity the latter will no longer be possible (assuming you were near the limit at 80%) forcing you to go past LBW routinely, hastening degradation.

This is true regardless of what limit you pick.

Range of the Leaf is has been oversold, however that doesn't change the economics of a BEV. Yes, your points are correct in that degradation will speed up as the cycle deepens. But that would be true regardless of what EOL is targeted.

80% EOL will cost twice for batteries as much as 70% EOL. Unless, of course, 10% of the loss is hidden to the driver/owner. As batteries are a major cost of buying and operating a BEV, the total cost of ownership will be much higher for 80% EOL.

 

[aarond12]

There are a sizable minority of people that rarely drive more than 10 miles in a day. This minority could drive an old Leaf with 50% batteries, charge to 80% and never hit LBW. Some Leafs might live to fairly old ages. Assuming they stay reliable, why replace batteries if you don't need the extra range?

That's what I'm betting on. My daily commute is less than 20 miles. After my i-MiEV's lease is up in January 2015, I'll be scouting for an older LEAF. Even with 25% battery capacity, it might be enough for my daily commute.

 

[Nubo]

When I buy a rebuilt carburetor, and collect the "core charge", I don't accuse the parts store of "stealing" my old carb. It's all part of the cost structure. The residual value of the worn out component factors into a better price for the replacement.

How much do you pay a month for that rebuilt carburetor ?

good point, KJD.

and nubo, you completely ignore the bait-and-switch aspect of the original sale, wherein nissan never disclosed that batteries (and who knows what other particular EV parts - perhaps the charger, the harness system, the software, the motor) would not be for sale in the future.

also, what is the core value of the returned battery in this offer? there is none.

I'm not ignoring it. I agree that failure to provide a conditions-free replacement option is a problem but I still don't equate it with stealing. It's an exchange of value. Lopsided for some, I agree.

Imo, the core value is reflected in the terms. I.e., $100/mo instead of $140/mo, as an illustration.

I think we agree more than disagree other than on the term "stealing". It's a bit too strong for me as I'm not quite sure whether their actions so far are deliberately unethical or simply clumsy and inconsiderate.

 

[thankyouOB]

yes, stealing is a term designed to dramatize the situation, and it is still apt.

anyone who bought the car should be righteously angry about NOW being told that major parts cannot be simply bought and replaced.
buying a LEAF is now like indentured servitude. remember when folks who lacked money had their passage to the US paid by others and then they became their servants till the money was paid off?
I buy a LEAF and two years down the road, they tell me that i have to lease a major component if I want to keep the car functional for 5-10 more years; the life cycle of ALL my cars.
will I hear next that I have to lease the charger or electric motor if it needs replacing?

is that major announcement coming in 2014?

 

[GRA]

I'm not sure where 70% came from, although it's often used for lithium-ion packs used in autos. Perhaps the knee of the degradation curve is there for Li-ion. The problem with 70% for automotive use, though, is that we're limited by mass and volume as well as cost; the first two rarely apply in stationary applications. 'Affordable' BEVs currently have too little range for the majority of people if they're only warranteed to 70% of capacity. Thus, suggesting that 80% is needed is based not on the battery directly, but on long-term utility to the customer, the majority of whom would find the currently available range @ 70% too limiting, especially when allowances are made for less than ideal conditions.

There are statistics on how far the daily drives of people vary. Would you refer to these, and explain why a majority would see a difference between the 70% range and the 80% range?

There are a sizable minority of people that rarely drive more than 10 miles in a day. This minority could drive an old Leaf with 50% batteries, charge to 80% and never hit LBW. Some Leafs might live to fairly old ages. Assuming they stay reliable, why replace batteries if you don't need the extra range?

Obviously, there are people for whom the range at 70% remaining is adequate, but judging by the fact that the single most requested improvement of Leaf owners is more range, it's still a major problem, especially for anyone commuting in a major metropolitan area (i.e., a lot of freeway driving). To be sure, my remarks are probably conditioned by living in the Bay Area, which ranks #1 in the country for mega-commuters, i.e. 50 miles or more one-way. But the typical metropolitan area is at least 25 miles in diameter, so 40 miles (or less) of reliable year-round range just doesn't cut it when you make allowances for weather and emergencies.

The problem is limited range combined with the need to use a greater percentage of remaining capacity, which increases the degradation rate. For example, for a car driven daily as a commuter, IMO your commute should be doable with a charge to 80% and with no need to go below LBW regardless of conditions, except in an emergency. When your battery falls below 80% of original capacity the latter will no longer be possible (assuming you were near the limit at 80%) forcing you to go past LBW routinely, hastening degradation.

This is true regardless of what limit you pick.

Range of the Leaf is has been oversold, however that doesn't change the economics of a BEV. Yes, your points are correct in that degradation will speed up as the cycle deepens. But that would be true regardless of what EOL is targeted.

80% EOL will cost twice for batteries as much as 70% EOL. Unless, of course, 10% of the loss is hidden to the driver/owner. As batteries are a major cost of buying and operating a BEV, the total cost of ownership will be much higher for 80% EOL.

As I said, once BEV ranges increase substantially, replacement @ 70% may be fine for many people, if that's where the knee of the degradation curve is. And some people will be fine with considerably less, which is why I'm all for offering a variety of rental plans with varying costs based on the level of degradation at replacement. If you're fine with 50% degradation, why pay for replacement with more? But in that case it would probably be cheaper for you to buy a battery, or else rent a smaller one from the start.

IMO, in the long run GM's approach with the Volt is the right one for the mass market: prevent the owner from charging or discharging the battery in any way that will speed up degradation, hide capacity at the outset, and let all remaining range be usable. Most drivers aren't techie early adopters, and can't be expected to monitor and baby their batteries the way many here are. The car needs to prevent them from damaging the battery through ignorance or inattention by limiting the SoC range to say 80%-20% (or getting a better battery chemistry), but that will require more range than most people can now afford.

 

[GRA]

There are a sizable minority of people that rarely drive more than 10 miles in a day. This minority could drive an old Leaf with 50% batteries, charge to 80% and never hit LBW. Some Leafs might live to fairly old ages. Assuming they stay reliable, why replace batteries if you don't need the extra range?

That's what I'm betting on. My daily commute is less than 20 miles. After my i-MiEV's lease is up in January 2015, I'll be scouting for an older LEAF. Even with 25% battery capacity, it might be enough for my daily commute.

Without knowing your commute route, local weather conditions or how safe it might be, with a commute that short I'd say you would be a candidate for an e-bike or scooter rather than a car. Far cheaper than a Leaf, and if your commute is on city streets it's probably faster as well. I know during the height of the commute I can _walk_ faster than traffic is advancing on a major arterial through my city, and my bike is 3 or 4 times faster.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Obviously, there are people for whom the range at 70% remaining is adequate, but judging by the fact that the single most requested improvement of Leaf owners is more range, it's still a major problem, especially for anyone commuting in a major metropolitan area (i.e., a lot of freeway driving). To be sure, my remarks are probably conditioned by living in the Bay Area, which ranks #1 in the country for mega-commuters, i.e. 50 miles or more one-way. But the typical metropolitan area is at least 25 miles in diameter, so 40 miles (or less) of reliable year-round range just doesn't cut it when you make allowances for weather and emergencies.

There could be some selection bias going on there. Those who find the range adequate aren't going to post about the range being too limited. The ones who complain about inadequate range are the road warriors and they are likely to be the minority. Others are trying to fit a single-car-household peg in a short-range-commuter-car hole and that misses the point completely. If the national statistics are valid about the average driver going less than forty miles a day and 60% of households having more than one car, there is an enormous market for the LEAF with its current range. The ones who complain the most are those for whom the short range isn't a good fit.

Believe it or not, not everyone lives in sprawling metro areas such as the Bay Area, LA, or Dallas/Fort Worth. And some of those who do live in such a place have a commute that is well within the range of the LEAF and have another car for the occasional trips to the other side of the sprawl.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

There could be some selection bias going on there. Those who find the range adequate aren't going to post about the range being too limited. The ones who complain about inadequate range are the road warriors and they are likely to be the minority. Others are trying to fit a single-car-household peg in a short-range-commuter-car hole and that misses the point completely. If the national statistics are valid about the average driver going less than forty miles a day and 60% of households having more than one car, there is an enormous market for the LEAF with its current range. The ones who complain the most are those for whom the short range isn't a good fit.

Believe it or not, not everyone lives in sprawling metro areas such as the Bay Area, LA, or Dallas/Fort Worth. And some of those who do live in such a place have a commute that is well within the range of the LEAF and have another car for the occasional trips to the other side of the sprawl.

There is a sizable market for a vehicle with the Leaf's range. However, the issue isn't just having sufficient range to do a commute. A significant part of the issue is having sufficient range so that you don't have to constantly worry or keep track of how far you've gone and are planning to go. Having a range that matches or slightly exceeds your intended travel distance is not comforting. No one drives around with 2 gallons of gas in their tank. Thats as much as is typically left when the low fuel light goes on. Its also very unforgiving if you calculate your range wrong. Recharging isnt readily available nor quick.

Elon has said a 200 mile range is required for mass adoption. He's probably right regardless of the typical commute.
I hope the next rev of the Leaf improves on range.

 

[smkettner]

Commute is easy. It is the errands at lunch then more in the evening. Weekends can be a real challenge.

We were promised 100 miles. We end up with 80 as new and 70% of that in a few years for a whopping 50 miles or half what we expected. You might say it is a poor fit but the outfit has shrunk dramatically.

Charging costs during the day are mostly higher than gasoline. So while we can go further the real benefit is still limited to those first 50 miles.

 

[cwerdna]

Commute is easy. It is the errands at lunch then more in the evening. Weekends can be a real challenge.

We were promised 100 miles. We end up with 80 as new and 70% of that in a few years for a whopping 50 miles or half what we expected. You might say it is a poor fit but the outfit has shrunk dramatically.

The worst part is that some folks (dealers, auto show reps, etc.) are still claiming "100 miles". See post I linked to at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13264" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

A Nissan UK exec went camera on ~6/21/13 stating the range the Leaf has now improved to 200 km (124 miles). :roll: See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=304180#p304180" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[davidcary]

There is certainly a lot on angst in this thread but some of that is typical range complaints as some have mentioned. I live in a fairly large market for the Leaf - mild climate, low electricity costs, most commutes less than 20 miles, lots of tech companies.

I've done 3500 miles in 4 months or so. 15% warning twice - both within a mile of home. I charge to 80% most of the time.

My electric costs during the day are still far less than gasoline and honestly everywhere outside of most of CA, electricity is cheaper than gas. But take Palo Alto - I believe the daytime rate is still less than gas.

$100 a month is a perfectly reasonable battery cost. Expecting anything less was a bit optimistic. I personally never expected a battery cost of less that $10k and I expect a 8 year life (in my area) - right about $100 a month. As far as the old battery, sure it has a use but the market isn't there yet. The work to house and harvest it will be a hobby for a lot of people for a long time. Someday, when there are 100,000 of old batteries available, there may be a market willing to pay $4000 for a 70% battery but that is far enough away that it may never happen (if batteries change too quickly).

As far as resale. Assume I want to sell my 7 year old Leaf with a 70% battery. I suspect someone will buy it for $7k and be ok with the range. In 2 years time, they need more range, so they start paying $100 a month. When you get to this part of a vehicle's life, the lack of ICE maintenance really helps. It helps to the tune of $50 a month. The gas savings is a bit more than $50 a month so you are still coming out ahead.

When the car is 10 years old, on the lease plan, it might transact for $3k. Sure a comparable ICE might be worth $5k but how different is that? Amortized over 10 years, that is $200 a year excess depreciation. Does anyone really think a 10 year old car is going to be worth $10k? If 2 years earlier, you plunked down $10k for a battery, it might be but you would still be better off with a lease. In my model, if you started the lease at 7 years, it would be pretty equal. But I bet it would be easier to sell the $3k car.

Now all of this assumes, no improved battery tech, no aftermarket, no battery purchase option ever, no decrease in battery cost. A lot of really negative assumptions.

Someone mentioned what is really needed is battery add-ons. I think that is very true for some people. The people who can't live at 70% would really be well served by 10 and 20% add ons. If these could be made for reasonable prices, you can keep a lot of people with their original batteries for several extra years. Maybe you can lease these extra packs. So get down to 75% which you can't tolerate - start paying $20 on the lease (for a 10% add on). When you get below 65%, you start paying $100 (returning the add on). The possibilities are endless.

 

[JPWhite]

A significant part of the issue is having sufficient range so that you don't have to constantly worry or keep track of how far you've gone and are planning to go. Having a range that matches or slightly exceeds your intended travel distance is not comforting.

I agree and to compound things the LEAF's shortish range is made worse by the amount of fuel it keeps in reserve below the last bar visible on the fuel gauge. I have found using the LEAF Battery app from Turbo3 to be both reassuring and liberating. With no bars on the fuel gauge one can still have 25% SOC left in the battery. As the battery degrades a higher percentage of charge is 'lost' to the reserve. Running the car down to the last bar does not do harm to the battery as I had concerns around, since its above 20% SOC. Utilizing more of this available charge I can see now that a 100 mile range when new isn't as much of a stretch as I had thought. The 80 mile range when new I observed as an owner is partly because I was ignoring 20% of its potential charge/range and then reserving a little extra for comforts sake.

I'm commuting 58 miles return each day on about 62% SOC and my battery is at least 12% degraded. 100 Mile claim when new isn't outlandish, but for the reasons we observe, we need more range for the average consumer to even show a casual interest in adopting an EV.