How should Nissan respond to dropping capacity?

[RegGuheert]

One of the studies I ran across that ran calendar life tests at 5C and 35C along with SOC at 4.2V and 4.0V showed much bigger differences due to storage temp rather than SOC. Of course, not the same lithium chemistry as the LEAF's cells, but interesting none-the-less. Would also be interesting to see data for temperatures in the 20-30C range as well.

Calendar life performance of pouch lithium-ion cells

Kind of interesting that these particular cells capacity rate of degradation increases with time instead of decreasing as Nissan claims their cells do.

Obviously lithium batteries can be made more heat tolerant with chemistry changes than these particular cells (look at what A123 is claiming with their next gen batteries due out next year), but until someone gets some AESC cells and runs their own tests all we can do is speculate.

I've been thinking about this and I must say that if Nissan IS coming out with a better battery for 2013 LEAFs built in TN, then that is something they ABSOLUTELY will not be able to discuss right now. If they did, they could freeze sales on their 2012 LEAFs and their dealers would be incredibly upset about it.

If that is what is happening, it would explain a lot, particularly their silence and staying the course. One thing is for sure, those types of disclosures are tightly controlled by marketing and early announcements or leaks are often not tolerated.

 

[shrink]

I named no names, no apology necessary from me.

You did mention one name, actually.

But being mislead or not provided with enough information...? No, I do not feel that is the case.

I disagree. I don't see how a reasonable person would interpret the information in the disclosure statement to mean a 15-20% loss could occur in the first 9-14 months.

 

[TNleaf]

I named no names, no apology necessary from me.

You did mention one name, actually.

But being mislead or not provided with enough information...? No, I do not feel that is the case.

I disagree. I don't see how a reasonable person would interpret the information in the disclosure statement to mean a 15-20% loss could occur in the first 9-14 months.

Even when record high temperatures and highs were set over the course of weeks in that region? That's pretty much how they spelled out accelerated degradation in their wording too ("caused, for example, by exposure to very high ambient temperatures") If so, not much else to do than agree to disagree. We must have different definitions of reasonable too.

We can agree on the following though:

Without a capacity warranty and no other statements of concern for the affected owners, I see no indication that Nissan plans to take any action.

 

[Stoaty]

Even when record highs temperatures and highs were set over the course of weeks in that region?

Yes, because that is to be expected due to the many years of science behind climate change. We know it is hot in Arizona, and that it is going to get hotter. A number of the best climate scientists have been suggesting that record setting heat is very likely in the near future. If the Leaf in its current configuration can't stand that heat, then Nissan should either not sell it in those regions, or put very explicit warnings about what "normal" battery capacity loss is in those regions. If the customer is fully informed and chooses to purchase anyway, that's fine.

Nissan Leaf - "the first car to fall victim to climate change"

 

[Herm]

Nissan Leaf - "the first car to fall victim to climate change"

Oh God!.. just what we need, please post that in the marketing thread.

 

[smkettner]

I thought someone posted from the literature that LEAF should stay inside about -10F to 120F.
Would seem like 55F would be near ideal and for those that have hot days you are near the high end extreme.
Is it that unreasonable to expect less performance when running near the extreme?

Even last summer I worried about mine as temps touched 95 for only a few days.
With so many 100+ days in AZ I cannot imagine how the loss of capacity is completely unexpected.

 

[GRA]

I have to disagree with those posters who claim that Nissan put adequate information in their manual and various papers purchasers had to sign, that would allow even a technically-oriented person to make a reasonable decision. Nissan has put as little hard information as possible in their documentation. Hell, they could have put all sorts of info regarding battery charging, temperature performance, degradation etc. in their manuals, but didn't. Either they chose not to, or they didn't know it in the first place and have left it up to their customers to be guinea pigs.

For instance, Tony Williams essentially sacrificed the battery in his 2011 Leaf by running it repeatedly to turtle mode to give us an effective range chart; Nissan could (and should) have done this and put it in the owner's manual. Sure, it would have led fewer people to buy the car, but it would also mean that fewer people would become dissatisfied owners when they discovered the range under their real-world conditions was nowhere near what the EPA let alone Nissan claimed.

Similarly, customers are having to piece together battery degradation info and variations between different chemistries in an entirely ad hoc manner, when Nissan undoubtedly has better info and should have provided it so that their potential customers could make an informed choice.

I used to sell AE systems. If a customer wanted to buy amorphous silicon modules, there was a statement in the catalog that they could be expected to degrade as much as 15-20% in the first year, with the degradation then slowing to essentially the same long-term rate as crystalline modules. I also informed the customer of this fact verbally, as well as any other performance variations that would affect their decisions.

Contrast that with Nissan's approach to discussing similar first-year high-temperature battery degradation in their manual (which they claim is to be expected i.e. they knew about it), filled with weasel-worded vagueness inserted by their lawyers to give them plausible deniability. Nowhere is this sort of loss explicitly described, the only hard number given is 80% in 5 years, with everything else left as vague as possible.

Shame on them. Regardless of whether or not Nissan's lawyers have given them enough cover that they could win any class-action suit brought by owners, if they persist in their current ostrich behavior they will suffer a reputation hit that will extend far beyond the Leaf; anyone remember what happened to Firestone re the Explorer?

Five years ago, who could have imagined that GM would do a better job of standing behind their product than a major Japanese car company? And GM was standing up for a product where there really wasn't a technical or operational issue, just politically-based bashing that caused a perception issue.

The Leaf battery hot-weather degradation, regardless of whether or not Nissan perceives this to be a technical issue (if they'd fully informed their customers beforehand, I'd agree that it wouldn't be), is definitely both an operational and perception issue. Based on my prior experience with batteries in AE (although they weren't Li-ion), I was hesitant to recommend a Leaf to people in hot climates. Since the information in this thread has snowballed, there is no way in hell I would recommend buying a Leaf to anyone living in the desert areas of California, most of Az. other than the Flagstaff area, parts of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, etc.

Based on what I have learned about various Li-ion chemistries subsequent to the start of this thread, I would only recommend a BEV with ATMS, daytime shaded parking, and an electrical connection to run the ATMS for areas like Phoenix, preferably a LiFePo4 battery as that is apparently the most tolerant to high temps among current Li-ion chemistries; it also has slower degradation.

[Edited to correct typos and add a little clarification]

 

[thankyouOB]

I sympathize with folks in AZ about this.
But TNleaf has a point and it is valid.

It is ALWAYS a risk to buy a new model car of any kind.

I had never done it before I bought the Leaf. I had always waited until the remake of the car model I was interested in was in at least the second year of its introduction.

Buying the Leaf was a calculated decision that took account of needing it, wanting it, and wanting to take advantage of the incentives while they lasted. We are talking more than 10k in my case, and up to 15k if I count the almost free charger. Regardless, it was a gamble and I knew it.

No one can be taken seriously who claims that they thought there was NO RISK in being among the first to buy into the roll out of a mass-produced EV by Nissan. By reading the literature, I knew that SoCal was an ideal place for the Leaf because of temperate climate. But I still felt there was a risk factor to it. I can't imagine -- knowing the information that was out there, in the manual and included on this website and the Leaf site -- that I would have bought the car during the beta test and rebate and tax-credit period, if I lived in the desert or a snow state.

You can complain and you can ask Nissan to stand behind it, and you can say Nissan should have been clearer about it, but we all took a real risk.

As I said during individual interviews at the last focus group I attended about three months ago in LA at the Edison HQ: "I am really happy with the Leaf. I took a risk and I am glad I am not looking back on that decision and saying, 'I was a chump.' "

That said, Nissan has a real issue that it needs to fix. We will find out over the next months and few years, if the issue is technical or PR.

 

[Stoaty]

No one can be taken seriously who claims that they thought there was NO RISK in being among the first to buy into the roll out of a mass-produced EV by Nissan.

The thing is here that we signed up for the unknown risks, and trusted Nissan to disclose the known problems. From the information we have at present, it appears that owning a Leaf in Phoenix does not put you at risk for accelerated battery capacity loss, it pretty much guarantees it, and that Nissan apparently knew it. I think the post by Guy is outstanding in clarity and very even-handed and describes a proper path Nissan could have followed, but didn't.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Before the car was even sold anywhere and at the beginning of this forum I warned people repeatedly that the car would not get 100 miles before any official tests and also that the car would have capacity issues and many people would be complaining. I also warned people about the warranty and some decided to ignore it thinking "Nissan would do the right thing". I read the warranty before buying the car and knew exactly what to expect and I had no issue with it because my expectations were low and I live in a cool climate. At the same time I know batteries will have issues in extreme conditions. When I read "24 hours in 120 temp" that was a clear indicator of trouble for AZ. Did that not concern any buyers that 24 hours in a temp like that could damage the pack? I suppose if it said 24 hours at 160 degrees I would not be as concerned.

I had the same 12V battery in my truck for 7 years and it only died because it went dead from non-use after a year of LEAF driving. Now what does everyone think the life expectancy of 12V batteries is in Phoenix compared to elsewhere? This is not new information and many things age faster in high temps. On the bright side you have far more sun and less rust. My truck is rusting to the point it looks like it was in the ocean, even the alloy wheels, it looks worse then a Hawaii car. Cars in AZ can sit and have shinny chrome for 50 years. My one-year old replacement bumper is rusted like crazy. It is a bummer and the heat can age things quickly and temp swings can also stress materials.

 

[Herm]

Hell, they could have put all sorts of info regarding battery charging, temperature performance, degradation etc. in their manuals, but didn't. Either they chose not to, or they didn't know it in the first place and have left it up to their customers to be guinea pigs.

Good post Guy, I'm an optimist so I will choose #2, they did not know..

IIRC the "80% in 5 years" was not initially disclosed when the car was released in 2010, I think it came much later.

Now what does everyone think the life expectancy of 12V batteries is in Phoenix compared to elsewhere?

about 2 years, from some AAA studies I was privy to. Some of the higher quality OEM batteries will do better, to 3-4 years.

 

[RegGuheert]

IIRC the "80% in 5 years" was not initially disclosed when the car was released in 2010, I think it came much later.

It was in the original manual on page EV-3.

 

[Volusiano]

No one can be taken seriously who claims that they thought there was NO RISK in being among the first to buy into the roll out of a mass-produced EV by Nissan.

The thing is here that we signed up for the unknown risks, and trusted Nissan to disclose the known problems. From the information we have at present, it appears that owning a Leaf in Phoenix does not put you at risk for accelerated battery capacity loss, it pretty much guarantees it, and that Nissan apparently knew it. I think the post by Guy is outstanding in clarity and very even-handed and describes a proper path Nissan could have followed, but didn't.

+1.

Of course anybody and everybody who bought the Leaf last year took a risk. Even people who consider a Leaf this year would still be taking a risk.

But the difference is that people took CALCULATED risks in good faith based on the information put forth by Nissan. But Nissan in turn didn't put forth enough good faith back to the people by disclosing relevant information at the point of sale so people can calculate their risks properly.

Had Nissan responded by saying "Oh, we didn't know either, otherwise we would have warned you.", then it'd be different. But instead, what I was told by the Nissan service rep was "Yep, we know about it and it's normal to lose 1 bar in the first year, but then the loss will taper off". Holy cow, if Nissan knew about the 1 bar loss the first year, WHY DIDN'T THEY DISCLOSE IT AT THE POINT OF SALE? People in AZ would have recalculated their risks VERY DIFFERENTLY, and I bet you nobody would have stuck their neck out and RISKED buying a Leaf if they were told that.

On the other hand, another Nissan source chimed in and dismissed it as an anomaly, 5 out of 20000. So what they're implying is that it shouldn't be a norm even for the cars sold in Phoenix. Just like they implied by selecting AZ as a Tier1 state that it's not any more risky to buy Leafs in AZ as opposed to other Tier1 states.

So which is true? Is it an anomaly? Or is it concealed/undisclosed risk?

 

[thankyouOB]

Honestly, is this the first time you bought a car?
Yes, there are those who cant wait and they buy the new roll out of a car; and many, many times that new model has some pretty bad kinks that get fixed.

I know that and you know it, too.

Now, if you want to talk legal liability in terms of disclosure or PR liability in terms of a hit to their reputation, that is a different issue. I see many are discussing the first and most are discussing the last.
But please, stop telling me that you trusted Nissan; you relied on Nissan, as if that absolves you for being gullible or a poor consumer or that it wasnt a gamble.
They are a car company, for goodness sake.

No one can say there wasnt an obvious gamble in buying the first mass-produced EV to come out in the last decade.
that is just silly.

none of this should be read as anti-consumer.
People should always be able to hold corporations liable for the products they sell on the marketplace.
Without government regulation and lawsuits every car would still be just like the Corvair or the Pinto.
But dont tell me that you should not have viewed purchase of a new mass-produced technology as a gamble or should not have known there is a gamble to buying it, regardless of what Nissan said.
Companies always lie to you when they sell you stuff.

 

[shrink]

But please, stop telling me that you trusted Nissan; you relied on Nissan, as if that absolves you for being gullible or a poor consumer or that it wasnt a gamble.

Well, that's a really nice. Call fellow EV buyers in AZ gullible and poor consumers. Great way to support the cause. We appreciate it. I just joined the AZ 11 bar club about 20 minutes ago:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&p=207594#p207594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy to criticize when your car is not affected. There is no explicit indication in the Disclosure Form that 15% loss could occur within 10-1/2 months, even considering statements about accelerated loss in high ambient temperatures. If they are calling this "normal" and "gradual" then a definition of high ambient temperatures needs to be given, as does the range of "accelerated loss." A disclaimer that in warm climates up to 15% loss can occur in the first year is necessary and was not provided. Stoaty mentioned if they consider this "normal" buyers have a right to know and if it occurs, and if they accept that risk, it is on the buyer. We did not know this could occur and are now left in retrospect to debate and parse intentionally vague wording.

However, I'm sure calling us "gullible" will surely continue helping the EV movement. Caveat emptor. We gambled and lost.

Thanks for the support. Hope you continue to enjoy your car in CA because the LEAF surely has a bright future.

 

[Stoaty]

No one can say there wasnt an obvious gamble in buying the first mass-produced EV to come out in the last decade. that is just silly.

I have already critiqued this line of reasoning, as have others. We disagree here; that doesn't make one persons opinion silly. The fact is that a substantial percentage of the posters here (some of Nissan's most loyal supporters) strongly suspect that Nissan knew and did not disclose critical information about the degree of susceptibility to heat of the battery pack. That is a problem for Nissan.

 

[thankyouOB]

No one can say there wasnt an obvious gamble in buying the first mass-produced EV to come out in the last decade. that is just silly.

I have already critiqued this line of reasoning, as have others. We disagree here; that doesn't make one persons opinion silly. The fact is that a substantial percentage of the posters here (some of Nissan's most loyal supporters) strongly suspect that Nissan knew and did not disclose critical information about the degree of susceptibility to heat of the battery pack. That is a problem for Nissan.

to quote you:
Nissan knew and did not disclose critical information about the degree of susceptibility to heat of the battery pack.
this may very well be true. if it is, you can find it through discovery and you will have a class-action winner.
I dont disagree that it is possible and perhaps even probable.
but i stand on previous statement about buying the first-run of anything: it is a gamble. I took it. you took it. we are all still taking it.
some feel they have already lost the gamble.
and yes, Nissan has a PR problem and we can expect a story -- in auto journals or some mainstream papers with auto writers -- based on what is on this forum in a week, maybe two, at most.

----

Most importantly, I am not saying my view is popular. I am saying that we all knew it was a gamble.
I am not saying Nissan shared what it knew. I dont know. I do know that as a corporation, it is highly likely that they may not have shared what they knew.
go after them, even if it hurts resale value for those of us in CA and hurts the EV movement or the short run. It will be better in the long run.
meanwhile, I am going back to the craps table because I am already 23k in the whole and i need to try to recoup some of that by driving on electricity instead of gasoline.

 

[Stoaty]

Nissan knew and did not disclose critical information about the degree of susceptibility to heat of the battery pack.
this may very well be true. if it is, you can find it through discovery and you will have a class-action winner.
I dont disagree that it is possible and perhaps even probable.

I am not suggesting that a class action suit is advisable or winnable. The court of public opinion will deliver swifter and surer justice. This is a PR problem for Nissan, not a legal problem.

 

[klapauzius]

Independently of how Nissan responds now, if capacity loss at this rate continues, it will become
very clear a year from now, whether the LEAF is completely useless in hot climates.
An linear extrapolation of 15% per year means that just 3 years from now most LEAFs in Phoenix will have 50% capacity
at which point you would probably have to replace the pack.
I think at this point they would have to do something, or this will turn into a PR nightmare.

I strongly disagree with the position that people were aware of the risk. I think
the marketing and information put out there by Nissan lead everyone to believe that decline would be gradual....i.e 80% in 5 years i.e. 5% per year.
Aside from all legal speak (which is mostly totally disconnected from reality), 15% change in ANY system is NOT gradual, ever.

I am curious if there is any research backing up claims that the degradation would slow down down over time (and not accelerate, as seems
to be the case for other battery chemistries)?
Anyway, I guess we will know a year from now...

 

[EVDRIVER]

I heard this eve that Nissan will be issuing "bar" stickers to AZ LEAF owners, these removable stickers will go over the capacity display and add an additional bar. This is of course a temp fix until owners can get the capacity meter reset back to full. This will solve the issue and all owners that get the sticker in the mail will also be advised to put their tires to 100 PSI to even things out.

I'm glad this is finally resolved!