July 16 Survey Email

[Nubo]

I think Nissan is wondering (and rightly so) how the batteries will last when in the hands of your average, everyday driver.

Asking first adopters of this kind of technology what they can live with, at least to me, is very different then trying to determine what the warranty needs to be to get the car in the hands of the "average, everyday driver". Nissan is clearly trying to ramp up the production of the vehicle to be a common, everyday car for the average commuter - they clearly are marketing to this segment and not to just the enthusiast segment.

Because of that - I would think that the average buyer would look for Nissan to at least match the Prius California battery warranty - 10 years or 150,000 miles. That is certainly what I am looking for.

To think about spending $37k on a car (car, tax, title, license - forget the tax break as it will only be in place for very early buyers) that might end up being drivable for only 40-50 miles in real world situations (varied weather and roads) and then may lose more then 25% of that range within just a couple of years - it's a no brainer to pass on it. People need a car to get them where they are going every trip - not just when the weather is perfect and the roads are flat. Most folks don't have the luxury of spending this type of coin for a fair weather only car.

What's the point of talking about how little maintenance the car will need because it has no engine, no transmission, etc. etc. etc. when you have to spend $10-$15k on new batteries after only 5 years. I'm not interested buying such a vehicle. I'm glad this car is better for the environment - but in order to convince the average person to buy it - it has to be better for their environment. The average person is not going to increase their transportation budget by 50% just for the inconvenience of buying a car that only goes around the block a few times. I bought a 2010 Prius and expect to drive it for at least 10 years and expect to not incur any significant maintenance costs over that time period. Between the low cost of the Prius, and the savings in gas, and the strong warranty - I expect that car to be good for my bottom line as well as the environments. If Nissan can convince me the same is true of the Leaf, I will be that too. If, on the other hand, the Leaf costs more to run then a Prius, or another hybrid or ICE, I'm out.

If Nissan wants to truly make this an everyday car for the average person - they need to really step up to the plate on the warranty. To cover their bases - if this means increasing the number of batteries in the car at time of sale to be sure a minimum range is still there after 1, 5, 8, 10 years - so be it. Selling a car that may barely be enough to get the job done on day one under ideal conditions, and then degrading from there isn't going to get Nissan where they want to be. Selling a car that over-delivers for those willing to drive it nicely will certainly help. So far, we have no indications that the Leaf will over-deliver. Some of the allure of the Prius is reading how person after person is able to get 55, 60, 65, and better MPG with the car - heck I've even bettered those numbers so it can't be too hard to do. This encourages everyone to to try to drive it a manner that it exceeds it's advertisement. With the Prius - even if you just get in and drive - it's pretty hard to not get the EPA mileage rating (unless of course you are my wife). If Nissan wants the Leaf to be a success - the average Joe needs to be able to get in and regularly achieve 100 miles to a charge - and enthusiasts need to be able to get significantly more then that. If only the hardcore EV'ers can get 100 miles to a charge, and the batteries degrade quickly, the car will be a miserable failure.

Certainly you should expect to be able to do things to kill the mileage and the battery life - but those activities should be outside the general operating curve of the car for the average person. If Nissan has some way to measure that type of driving and take it into account in the warranty - great. (How they do that, I don't know).

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. Range needs to be at least 100 miles under normal - not ideal - driving conditions, and the range can't degrade more then 10% over 10 years. If that means that more batteries need to be added to insure the average person will be getting 90 miles on a charge after 10 years, then that is what is needed.

I do agree the car needs to meet the specs they have advertised, and hopefully exceed them. But I think some of your expectations may be unjustified/unrealistic. The Prius cells live a much easier life than an EV. I don't have the actual figures but I've read the state of charge of those batteries is kept within extremely conservative limits; maybe between 40% and 70% state of charge. That's fantastic for battery life, and suitable for a Hybrid. But not very realistic for a battery-powered car to only utilize 30% of the battery capacity. BEV requires more compromise in this area. What you're asking for really isn't in the cards with the current state of the art, as I understand it. Heck, 10/150,000 warranty is a bit much even for gas-powered drivetrains, and those have been undergoing refinements and worldwide R&D for over 100 years. Let's see what Nissan decides upon.

 

[efusco]

Unless you want another EV1, a car built to fail to prove that 'people don't want them'...

Where in the world did you come up with that? The EV1 was built to succeed. Which management did not want it to do. It was so wildly successful the only way GM could hide that was to confiscate and crush every (almost) one of them!

But built to fail? No way.

Let me clarify...the engineers and builders certainly built a fine vehicle in the EV1 (from reports, not personal experience), but GM wanted it to fail, IMO. I don't believe they wanted nor saw a future in EVs but felt they must comply by law.

 

[efusco]

Hey, guys, STOP! Let's not get sidetracked on another EV-1 war. efusco's comment may have been unfortunate, but it was one phrase in a long post. There are a lot of things I could disagree with in that post, but I'm going to focus here:

The car MUST succeed as far as sales and customer satisfaction. You can't withstand it being a flop.

OK, I'll bet most of us agree on that.

Thus, you have to match the 8/100k warranty on the battery and key components (inverter, motor).

Whoa! That conclusion does not follow from the predicate. There are many aspects to sales and customer satisfaction.

ITEM: Nissan has been in frequent communication with potential customers, and is leading them step by step to commitment. GM doesn't even have an official wait list, and refuses to give any credence to the many who signed up on an unofficial list. They send a generic advertising blurb every three or four weeks to people who gave them an email address.

ITEM: Nissan has been specific about prices, and they are surprisingly reasonable. GM just occasionally says "under 40K" which is much higher and an extremely frustrating sales tactic.

ITEM: Nissan has put together a sales program that virtually guarantees everyone will be able to purchase a Leaf at MSRP, despite heavy demand. GM has turned this over to its dealers, who are highly motivated to set prices far above MSRP.

ITEM: Nissan has been upfront about variations in range, giving a wide variety of real-life scenarios. GM just keeps waving its arms and saying "40 miles".

ITEM: We have just learned the the Volt won't meet the CARB AT-PZEV requirements, which even the plug-in Prius is expected to satisfy. That means GM has cut customers off from rebates in California and some other states. Leaf customers, of course, will have no problem qualifying for such rebates.

Last fall I was a gung-ho Volt advocate. Thanks in good part to Nissan's focus on sales and customer satisfaction, and GM's lack of such focus, I am now committed to the Leaf.

No, I see no reason at all that Nissan needs to match GM's battery warranty in the name of customer satisfaction. I actually think it is somewhat commendable that Nissan is concerned about its own financial viability. I want them to be around in ten years to maintain my Leaf.

You and I are not the issue...Joe public...those who do not study this subject or frequent forums or watch movies and read books about the subject are not the ones who'll demand the 8/100k. They'll see the numbers, compare range, compare cost, worry about that laptop or cell phone who's battery died after 2-3 years and make their decisions..right or wrong, that's how it's gonna happen.

The Prius is a case in point--I still hear, regularly, from people who want to know if I've replaced the battery yet. They've heard it'll cost $5000 or something. They hear it dies at 100k miles. The Prius--a car celebrating 10 years of sales in the USA this year.

Stop thinking about you and me and other forum frequenters...we're sold. We know what we're getting into, what the risks and benefits are. We've watched "Who killed the electric car"...but range anxiety is real. People want a car they can drive as far as they want whenever they want. Many have no idea how far they really drive day to day, week to week and if a 70 mile residual capacity is enough. They'll want assurances that Nissan will stand behind the battery and the car and make things right for them if they're going to take the gamble to buy something so new and different.

 

[efusco]

I think Nissan is wondering (and rightly so) how the batteries will last when in the hands of your average, everyday driver.

Asking first adopters of this kind of technology what they can live with, at least to me, is very different then trying to determine what the warranty needs to be to get the car in the hands of the "average, everyday driver". Nissan is clearly trying to ramp up the production of the vehicle to be a common, everyday car for the average commuter - they clearly are marketing to this segment and not to just the enthusiast segment.

Because of that - I would think that the average buyer would look for Nissan to at least match the Prius California battery warranty - 10 years or 150,000 miles. That is certainly what I am looking for.

To think about spending $37k on a car (car, tax, title, license - forget the tax break as it will only be in place for very early buyers) that might end up being drivable for only 40-50 miles in real world situations (varied weather and roads) and then may lose more then 25% of that range within just a couple of years - it's a no brainer to pass on it. People need a car to get them where they are going every trip - not just when the weather is perfect and the roads are flat. Most folks don't have the luxury of spending this type of coin for a fair weather only car.

What's the point of talking about how little maintenance the car will need because it has no engine, no transmission, etc. etc. etc. when you have to spend $10-$15k on new batteries after only 5 years. I'm not interested buying such a vehicle. I'm glad this car is better for the environment - but in order to convince the average person to buy it - it has to be better for their environment. The average person is not going to increase their transportation budget by 50% just for the inconvenience of buying a car that only goes around the block a few times. I bought a 2010 Prius and expect to drive it for at least 10 years and expect to not incur any significant maintenance costs over that time period. Between the low cost of the Prius, and the savings in gas, and the strong warranty - I expect that car to be good for my bottom line as well as the environments. If Nissan can convince me the same is true of the Leaf, I will be that too. If, on the other hand, the Leaf costs more to run then a Prius, or another hybrid or ICE, I'm out.

If Nissan wants to truly make this an everyday car for the average person - they need to really step up to the plate on the warranty. To cover their bases - if this means increasing the number of batteries in the car at time of sale to be sure a minimum range is still there after 1, 5, 8, 10 years - so be it. Selling a car that may barely be enough to get the job done on day one under ideal conditions, and then degrading from there isn't going to get Nissan where they want to be. Selling a car that over-delivers for those willing to drive it nicely will certainly help. So far, we have no indications that the Leaf will over-deliver. Some of the allure of the Prius is reading how person after person is able to get 55, 60, 65, and better MPG with the car - heck I've even bettered those numbers so it can't be too hard to do. This encourages everyone to to try to drive it a manner that it exceeds it's advertisement. With the Prius - even if you just get in and drive - it's pretty hard to not get the EPA mileage rating (unless of course you are my wife). If Nissan wants the Leaf to be a success - the average Joe needs to be able to get in and regularly achieve 100 miles to a charge - and enthusiasts need to be able to get significantly more then that. If only the hardcore EV'ers can get 100 miles to a charge, and the batteries degrade quickly, the car will be a miserable failure.

Certainly you should expect to be able to do things to kill the mileage and the battery life - but those activities should be outside the general operating curve of the car for the average person. If Nissan has some way to measure that type of driving and take it into account in the warranty - great. (How they do that, I don't know).

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. Range needs to be at least 100 miles under normal - not ideal - driving conditions, and the range can't degrade more then 10% over 10 years. If that means that more batteries need to be added to insure the average person will be getting 90 miles on a charge after 10 years, then that is what is needed.

I do agree the car needs to meet the specs they have advertised, and hopefully exceed them. But I think some of your expectations may be unjustified/unrealistic. The Prius cells live a much easier life than an EV. I don't have the actual figures but I've read the state of charge of those batteries is kept within extremely conservative limits; maybe between 40% and 70% state of charge. That's fantastic for battery life, and suitable for a Hybrid. But not very realistic for a battery-powered car to only utilize 30% of the battery capacity. BEV requires more compromise in this area. What you're asking for really isn't in the cards with the current state of the art, as I understand it. Heck, 10/150,000 warranty is a bit much even for gas-powered drivetrains, and those have been undergoing refinements and worldwide R&D for over 100 years. Let's see what Nissan decides upon.

It's 40-80% on the Prius SOC.
But as I point out above, whether it's impractical or not, I think the general public is going to demand a good, long term, warranty on the battery.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles.

I still think there should be some phase-out of the warranty based on time and/or miles. Is it logical to say that a customer whose battery fails at 149,000 miles should get a brand new $10k battery for free, while a customer who has it fail at 150,001 miles gets nothing?

If the battery fails the warranty cost structure should make some accounting of the use the customer got before it failed.

 

[garygid]

When a battery pack "fails", it will (most often) not be all, or even many, cells that "fail". Typically, one cell that drops to 60% capacity can make the whole series string that it is in perform like the whole string has dropped to 60% capacity. But, just one cell (or possibly module) will need replacing.

Note: The LEAF's battery pack MIGHT be configured as two "independent" strings.

So, under warranty, one will (almost) never get a "whole new battery pack", but just occasional "new" (or "sufficiently-strong") replacement cells.

Currently, we believe that there are 48 modules, of 4 cells each, for a total of 192 cells.

 

[garygid]

Warranty vs. Battery Use:

The driver using only 50% of the "real" capacity could have much longer cell life if the cell was only charged to 80% and never went below 30% of "real" SOC.

Trying to give the car the capability of a longer range means using more of the cell's capacity, charging to over (approx.) 95% of the "real" capacity ... and permitting driving to continue down to something like 5%.

So, increasing the "offered" range (even if it is never used) for a given battery requires making a tradeoff of reducing "lifetime" (from the wider charge/discharge limits).

So, range impacts lifetime, which impacts the warranty costs, and thus warranty terms.

Note that a short-range driver, IF they could LOWER the upper cell-use (charge-to) limit, would be likely to enjoy an increased battery lifetime. But, so far, we have not heard of such a Long, Medium, Short Range setting for the User.

 

[LEAFer]

IMHO:
A] Battery Warranty: Pro-ration
Yes, battery replacement should be pro-rated after x years/y miles. Note, however, that Nissan did not anywhere indicate whether there is some sort of pro-ration going on. I don't think pro-ration should start at time 0/0 miles. So what should x/y be ? How about 5/60 ? That sounds reasonable. Next question: how much will a new battery cost ? Answer: not able (or willing) to give a $ figure. Alternative: pay for an extension beyond 5/60. The cost of the extension is known up front, and the owner can decide. The extension (and its cost) should be offered at time 0/0, but available until 3/36 (which also happens to match the end of the lease when you might decide to buy the car). Note that, in a sense, the cost you pay up front not only gives you peace of mind, but in essence it is also an estimate of the "pro-rata shara" you would have to pay if the battery "fails", but as an actuarially calculated insurance factor. The cost of the warranty extension thus takes into account the failure rate (as predicted by Nissan based on their confidence). Cost of the extension: I would be comfortable with 10% of the cost of the car ($3,300 as commented before). And I have until the end of the third year or 36k miles to decide. If the battery "fails" during the extension period between 5/60 and 8/100 I get a new battery -- I already "paid for it" -- and it is covered by a new warranty as if in a new car. (Note I have not yet defined "fail" for this purpose; that could be % capacity reduction related, as discussed before.)

B] Battery preservation: (see Gary's idea)
Tesla, by default-for-dummies, discharges and charges between 10%-90% (for 195 mile range, not the standard 244). The user can control and choose to charge/discharge 100%-0%, but only thru some specific menu choices each time the car is powered on. Nissan should offer such an option by default, plus even more functionality allowing (us geeks (and low-use milers) interested in preserving the life of the battery) to adjust the top%/bottom% range as a prefered profile (without reverting back to a 90%/10% default at each power-up).

For those of us confident we know how to treat the battery for long life, the two above options are combined ... to avoid the expense of the extension.

 

[evnow]

I'd propose a simpler option.

Nissan should establish a energy capacity chart at any given age of the battery (# of months / # of miles). They need to repair the battery to that or better condition during the warranty period. They hinted at this by asking what would trigger our warranty request in terms of % decline on capacity.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

There's nothing wrong with the owner having a little skin in the game, particularly if there are certain behaviors that will extend or shorten the life of the battery and that can be communicated to the customer without too much complexity.

I'm thinking the warranty should be "full replacement" maybe for no more than three years, and after that point pro-rated based on a 10 year life span. So if it needs to be replaced after 4 years, it's $4k assuming the cost is $10k. In effect when you buy the car (or a replacement battery for that matter) you are buying 10 years of battery service.

One way or another the batteries, including some failure rate, have to be paid for. Nissan can't lose money on them and sustain the business, and I would argue the US taxpayer shouldn't be expected to foot the bill indefinitely either.

 

[AndyH]

You and I are not the issue...Joe public...those who do not study this subject or frequent forums or watch movies and read books about the subject are not the ones who'll demand the 8/100k. They'll see the numbers, compare range, compare cost, worry about that laptop or cell phone who's battery died after 2-3 years and make their decisions..right or wrong, that's how it's gonna happen.

The Prius is a case in point--I still hear, regularly, from people who want to know if I've replaced the battery yet. They've heard it'll cost $5000 or something. They hear it dies at 100k miles. The Prius--a car celebrating 10 years of sales in the USA this year.

Stop thinking about you and me and other forum frequenters...we're sold. We know what we're getting into, what the risks and benefits are. We've watched "Who killed the electric car"...but range anxiety is real. People want a car they can drive as far as they want whenever they want. Many have no idea how far they really drive day to day, week to week and if a 70 mile residual capacity is enough. They'll want assurances that Nissan will stand behind the battery and the car and make things right for them if they're going to take the gamble to buy something so new and different.

The problem is that the Joe Public fears are based on rumor and urban legend and not fact. They'll eventually understand once they are aware of more batteries on the road with more than 100,000 miles on them. In the mean time, their 'erroneous truth' is strong for them.

I don't think that Nissan can 'warranty' themselves into Joe's heart - because he'll still fear the ugly battery death in spite of the warranty and he'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy one way or another.

We can't force the public to dump their beliefs and wholeheartedly accept EVs. Any attempt to force or convince will just strengthen their fears. The best we can do is to completely ignore Joe Public. Don't prod, don't push buttons. Just lead by example.

 

[AndyH]

We might be surprised at what Joe Public things about EVs!

The Electrification Coalition conducted a poll of likely voters in May-June 2010.

http://projectgetready.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Electrification-Poll-Long-PPT.pdf

 

[garygid]

Remember, it is quite likely that your battery pack will usually be "repaired".
Very rarely, if ever, would the whole battery pack be totally replaced.

Repair is replacing a "weak" cell (or a module that contains a weak cell).

 

[Nubo]

Warranty vs. Battery Use:

The driver using only 50% of the "real" capacity could have much longer cell life if the cell was only charged to 80% and never went below 30% of "real" SOC.

Trying to give the car the capability of a longer range means using more of the cell's capacity, charging to over (approx.) 95% of the "real" capacity ... and permitting driving to continue down to something like 5%.

So, increasing the "offered" range (even if it is never used) for a given battery requires making a tradeoff of reducing "lifetime" (from the wider charge/discharge limits).

So, range impacts lifetime, which impacts the warranty costs, and thus warranty terms.

Note that a short-range driver, IF they could LOWER the upper cell-use (charge-to) limit, would be likely to enjoy an increased battery lifetime. But, so far, we have not heard of such a Long, Medium, Short Range setting for the User.

But we do have control of timed charging. With a bit of care, one should be able to use that to approximate the desired state of charge.

 

[AndyH]

Warranty vs. Battery Use:

The driver using only 50% of the "real" capacity could have much longer cell life if the cell was only charged to 80% and never went below 30% of "real" SOC.

Trying to give the car the capability of a longer range means using more of the cell's capacity, charging to over (approx.) 95% of the "real" capacity ... and permitting driving to continue down to something like 5%.

So, increasing the "offered" range (even if it is never used) for a given battery requires making a tradeoff of reducing "lifetime" (from the wider charge/discharge limits).

So, range impacts lifetime, which impacts the warranty costs, and thus warranty terms.

Note that a short-range driver, IF they could LOWER the upper cell-use (charge-to) limit, would be likely to enjoy an increased battery lifetime. But, so far, we have not heard of such a Long, Medium, Short Range setting for the User.

There's ample evidence across the lithium world that there is no or very, very little negative effect of using 70-80% of the cells ULTIMATE capacity. Ultimate is important here.

Simply limiting the top 10% and bottom 10% is enough to move from 0-500 cycles to more than 2000 cycles - that's FULL cycles.

If one has a 100 mile range on the capacity available to them, and they drive 25 miles a day, that's a full cycle every four days - not every time we recharge.

Nissan (Perry) in video interviews and in-person at events has stated that we'll (the driver/owner) will only have access to the 'middle' 80% state of charge - that should be 80% of ULTIMATE cell capacity.

We shouldn't have to get anal about stopping the charge 30 minutes before the pack's 'full' (that's USER full - 80% of ultimate full) or cutting our drive short.

I work with folks that switch from lead-acid to lithium. They're used to a religious process of only using the top 50% of their charge, and charging the pack immediately on returning home. This is necessary to get full life from a lead pack. This process is so deeply ingrained that it's very difficult to break them free when they move to lithium. Let's not 'learn' artificial limits that do not serve us, only so that we can un-learn them later.

I'm not making this up - I import lithium cells from the manufacturer and have spent plenty of time with the company's engineers before taking the cells on. This is not 'internet knowledge', guessing, or hypothesizing.

Andy

 

[garygid]

Still, even if a person has never had a cell "go bad" in their vehicle's battery pack, ...

the manufacturer is making a tradeoff between their desire to offer more range and their "need" to provide longer battery life in their product.

While the manufacturer might just worry about getting the battery past the warranty period, we might want to optimize use and charging for a much longer battery life.

If we always charge to less than the usable "full", the vehicle might not "properly" go through its cell-balancing ... so partial charging might be a very poor choice.

 

[IndyLeaf]

It is very interesting reading this post. Lots of good info and views. I got the survey in Indiana. It looks like folks are mostly split on their views based on leasing (short term use) and buying (wanting long term use). I have been a Honda owner most my life, and when I buy a car I expect to get nearly 300,000 miles out if it and to keep it for nearly 10 years. It does not matter if the car is gas or an EV- I believe most drivers want reliability, dependability, and affordability... Nissan should reflect their confidence in their product by offering a long enough warranty.

 

[evnow]

We might be surprised at what Joe Public things about EVs!

The Electrification Coalition conducted a poll of likely voters in May-June 2010.

http://projectgetready.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Electrification-Poll-Long-PPT.pdf

I had not seen this before.

Ofcourse the survey doesn't ask any hard questions or force people to make hard choices.

Reminds me of an "article" in onion ...

Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/

"With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation," APTA director Howard Collier said. "Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that."

 

[Gavin]

Andy...

If one has a 100 mile range on the capacity available to them, and they drive 25 miles a day, that's a full cycle every four days - not every time we recharge.

Nissan (Perry) in video interviews and in-person at events has stated that we'll (the driver/owner) will only have access to the 'middle' 80% state of charge - that should be 80% of ULTIMATE cell capacity.

We shouldn't have to get anal about stopping the charge 30 minutes before the pack's 'full' (that's USER full - 80% of ultimate full) or cutting our drive short.

This raises a question I've had for a while now...

I know everybody's driving commute and style etc etc will vary....and each person will have to find the solution of charging that best fits their needs...

But let me ask a specific scenario:

Driving to work is less than 10 miles each way (about 6 miles)...maybe a quick grocery trip or dining out...So make it an even 20 miles a day. I have the ability to charge at home and at work.

Should I:

1) Plug the car in every chance I get...Home and work. Basically keeping the battery charged above 80% at all times.

2) Only plug the car in every 4 or 5 days...Basically running the battery to near empty, then recharging overnight and then driving 80 miles before recharging again .

3) A happy medium. Maybe charge every other night.

Gavin

 

[garygid]

It would seem that there would be no need to plug in at work, unless the e's (electrons, edies, or kWh) are free! Then, there might be no need to charge at home.

Dropping to 40% SOC and recharging once every 3 days (or 2 to 4 as needed) is probably better than charging to "full" twice (or even once) a day.