I don't think you folks are likely to get very far if you continue to try to interpret kWh use by starting with gibberish from your LBCs.
To repeat, I have been tracking my available battery capacity for over four years, both the energy use side, through range tests normalized by time and both ambient and battery temperature, and recharge capacity,
without allowing the LBC data to contaminate the process.
I'd suggest you all try to do the same, and I'd welcome any substantive criticism of my own methods.
drees :
...So let's look at my most recent LBW to 100% charge data... I probably lost...a total of 23% loss of capacity...
Are you are positing that the LBC capacity loss report is intended to reflect only that fraction of the available kWh, from a 100% charge to LBW?
Well, maybe so, and maybe Nissan engineers had a reason they wanted less of the bottom of the pack utilized as the battery ages.
If using my pack below the rising LBW is problematic for battery life, I will certainly find out in the next few years, as I will need to use that charge, more and more.
FYI, it looks like my loss of available actual kWh from "100%" to LBW averages ~21%, from , 12.9 kWh/16.3 kWh =~79%., on my usual test route.
Since the LBC does not represent a fixed percentage of capacity, but varies over different routes with different ascent decent profiles(and probably also with battery temperature) I'd probably get a different average if I regularly tested my pack on a different route.
My LBC now reports ~75%.
I believe the % of my pack's capacity from LBW to turtle (never gone past that) has probably increased by ~11.5%, from ~4.7 kWh when delivered, to ~5.2 kWh presently.
So, I believe my total average available capacity from "100%" charge to turtle has decreased from ~21 kWh to ~18.1 kWh, or between 13% and 14% since delivery, following 16 Amp ~240 V charges, ending at ~80 F battery temperatures.
Again, this is calculated on my regular test route, though it appears I would have been able to use ~18.5 kWh if I had driven past Corning and all the way to turtle last week, with a ~25 F warmer battery, and ~7,000 ft. less ascent and descent, than on my usual test route.
drees:
...As an end user all we have to go off are what the car tells us. And if the car tells us we have lost 23% between 100% and LBW - why should we have to assume otherwise? Nissan had multiple chances to fix the car to do the right thing...
IMO Nissan has treated LEAF owners with something just short of contempt, as if we are all childish simpletons who will believe whatever the capacity bars or LBC data show, as interpreted only by the bizarrely limited explanation in the capacity warrantee, that four bars lost represents ~30% of capacity loss.
Of what capacity?
Total?
Or if "30%" is of available capacity, from "100%" to where...LBW, VLBW, turtle or dead?
But (assuming Nissan is no more forthcoming in the future) there's no reason we have to act like helpless victims, curtailing our driving just because the LBWs and VLBWs come earlier during trips.
I intend to continue driving my LEAF on the OE battery until I find an alternative pack, or another BEV, that works better for me.
And I really don't give a damn when I get the LBWs and VLBWs, as long as I know that My LEAF has the range I need for my trip.