LEAF advisory group

[mwalsh]

This argument about defective or not defective according to where you live is bogus. Either way the battery was poorly designed and was advertised as something it is not.
As an owner of a 2011 and living in the PNW, I do not have much of the problems of many in warmer climates. Like an idiot, I drank the Kool aid and bought what Nissan was selling. Instead of leasing I bought with the goal of keeping the car a long time. Boy was that a mistake! I am retiring with wife and car in 2015 and moving to house on the Big Island of Hawaii were electricity is free because of PV system. That has always been the plan. So now my non-defective PNW battery will be exposed to sub-tropical temperatures. So is the battery not defective here?
The point is, Nissan screwed up and put a vehicle on the road that was not ready for prime time. They need to make this mistake better for all of us who believed what they were advertising and selling.

I find the idea of those who are happy enough with the battery as it is being left out of the equation to be somewhat reasonable. Clearly, in your move to HI you're an outlier. But if those in the PNW are indeed at 80% capacity at 8 years and 70% at 10 years, just as Nissan said they should expect...well, I find that all well and good. Though I realize there are some up there who may take exception with that other than yourself.

 

[walterbays]

To extend a proper capacity warranty matching their design intent and stated expectations, would probably cost them around $1 billion.

They wouldn't necessarily have to replace all the batteries with new ones. In locations like California and Tennessee with temperate climate and some public charging infrastructure they could provide about the same benefit to drivers by improving and subsidizing the charging infrastructure. For someone driving the U.S. average 30 miles per day it doesn't matter on an average day if his battery has degraded to 80% capacity reducing range to 49 miles on an 80% charge. The problem of course is variability of driving distance and the days you need more than 49 miles of range. A new battery would restore your car's advertised functionality 365 days per year. Improved infrastructure could restore functionality just on those non-average days when its degraded range fell short.

I've been playing with a driving simulator to explore the interplay of car characteristics, driver requirements and preferences, and location characteristics. I started with assumptions about my area. SDG&E experimental overnight EV charging rate. Average 30 miles per day 11,000 miles per year. Blink, Chargepoint, Nissan, evGo, and EVoasis combine for overall 75% availability of L2 and 50% availability of QC, and an average session price of $7.50. In the model "availability" means available to charge for a given trip: not broken, not in use, not ICEd, not closed for the night, salesman hasn't wandered off with the only key fob; and it's either at your destination, within walking distance, or reasonably close to your route; and your schedule and available amenities nearby permit you to wait for the required charging time. Else on that day your EV fails to meet your needs and you must Just-Drive-The-Prius.

With a new 2011 charging to 100% each night I get 3.6 days per year the car fails to meet needs, 1 QC per month, $15.54/month charging at home, $7.82/month charging in public, $23.36/month total, 2.59 cents per mile.

But wait! Charging routinely to 100% will degrade the battery faster. So charge to 80% instead, even though that means you're more likely to need expensive public charging and more likely to need to Just-Drive-The-Prius. Note this neglects the fact that often you know ahead of time that the next day will be a busy one and so you can charge to 100%. With this change I get 7.6 days per year it fails to meet needs, 2.3 QC per month, $31.00/month total, 3.47 cents per mile.

That's with a new battery. Lets substitute a battery degraded to 80% capacity. Now the car fails 13.6 days per year, with 3.6 QC per month, $39.38/month total cost, 4.55 cents per mile. So in order to provide relief from the effects of the degraded battery we would need to cut the failure days roughly in half while reducing monthly charging cost by $8.

One way Nissan could do this would be if the overall QC availability were raised from 50% to 75% with the average QC price lowered to $4.00. That gives 7.6 failed days per year and a monthly total cost of $31.41. Another way to do it would be if they could raise the overall L2 availability from 75% to 90% and cut the average QC price from $7.50 to $4.75. Then failed days per year would be 7.6 and total monthly cost would be $31.09.

It wouldn't be simple to improve the charging infrastructure, as the troubles of Ecotality and evGo show. Nissan isn't even having great success getting their own dealers to accept QC stations and to let people use them, let alone keep them available 24x7. There are however many things they could attempt, like increased incentives and requirements for dealers, site agreements with retail chains, site agreements with city governments, equity investment in charging networks like Car Charging Group and EVoasis, gift cards for free charging sessions at various charging networks, etc.

I suspect that the cost of mitigating the effects of battery degradation through infrastructure would be less than the cost of providing new batteries. If overall QC availability is 50% with 11 stations in the region then probably adding 4-5 more stations would raise availability to at least 75%. If each station costs $50k and there are 2,000 Leafs then the cost per car is $125. Throw in an $8 QC gift card per month for 2 years and you're up to $317 per car, still at least an order of magnitude less than replacing the battery.

Maybe the best way to mitigate the battery degradation would be to replace batteries for a small percentage of cars in the worst shape, and then use those batteries at QC stations to buffer power consumption and reduce utility demand charges which could greatly lower charging fees while increasing charging station profit. Which would lead to higher usage and more profit, which would lead to more stations, which would lead to higher availability, etc. Of course the technical and business obstacles to doing that would be formidable, perhaps insurmountable.

 

[mwalsh]

it is obvious that many here will miss the warranty limits by what?? 10,000 miles? 20,000 miles??

so there has to be a middle ground here. this is my hope. After all, should I be penalized because my car "only" went 117,982 miles instead of 150,000?

Indeed (if this is what you're getting at...it's kinda hard to tell), an arbitrary cutoff, either time or mileage based, is one of my biggest objections to the warranty as it stands. It's clear that many are not going to get the serviceable life expected from the pack. But we've also hypothesized that many will miss the warranty cut-off by either a few hundred miles or a few weeks.

And then there is my personal notion that we are looking at a defect in materials and "workmanship" when it comes to these packs (and, yes, I'm including the engineering of the product as "workmanship"). We already have a warranty for that, and it's 8 years/100,000 miles. That's the warranty these packs should be covered under. End of story.

 

[TimLee]

Do you really think 100% of the existing batteries need to be replaced to keep the customer happy?

No. $1 billion is probably the conservatively high side of what Nissan should potentially spend to keep the customer happy.
It is unlikely that they would ever replace 100% of the 100,000 "defective" LEAF batteries no matter how generous they were with the warranty they offer to FIX the problem. I think the most generous would be to their original statements of an average of 70% capacity at 10 years (i.e. 120,000 miles at 12,000 miles per year). Since no manufacturer warrants for the average, I think the best that could be expected of them is a true 70% capacity, 8 years, 96,000 (or maybe 100,000 mile) warranty.

A big part of their problem is that they are providing LEAFs to markedly different climates.
The existing LEAF battery is probably completely acceptable in Norway, Canada, and a significant portion of the Pacific Northwest. They will likely meet their design intent in those markets.

But to offer a warranty that met their original statements and design intent about capacity degradation would cost them 2 or 3 or 4 battery replacements in Phoenix. And 2 or 3 in parts of south Florida and hotter portions of southern California. Their effort to provide a one design fits all and one warranty fits all is not too bad for the people in the hot areas. Part of why the two class action plaintiffs in southern CA and in AZ and their attorneys thought it was an acceptable FIX. But it leaves the people in the average climate areas with nothing, and a grossly deficient vehicle that does not come close to what Nissan was designing and said was likely. Lithium manganese battery technology is not a one size fits all proposition in a passively cooled battery design.

 

[mwalsh]

They wouldn't necessarily have to replace all the batteries with new ones. In locations like California and Tennessee with temperate climate and some public charging infrastructure they could provide about the same benefit to drivers by improving and subsidizing the charging infrastructure.

I'm not interested in that. I bought my car with the notion that I wouldn't have the inconvenience of needing to find mid-point charging during my workday and that is how I would like to continue. Of course, I was expecting that I'd have to do that eventually. But I figured it would be at least 5 years, based on my own estimates; 5 years based on the waiver we signed at purchase; and possibly as high as 8 years based on Nissan's statements.

But also, by the time I'd reached 5 years (or 8 years), I was expecting to be able to buy a new pack anyway. Or modify my charging behavior. But that was going to be MY choice, not something I was forced into! And I think that's the thing I'm the most pissed about!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

This argument about defective or not defective according to where you live is bogus. Either way the battery was poorly designed and was advertised as something it is not.
As an owner of a 2011 and living in the PNW, I do not have much of the problems of many in warmer climates. Like an idiot, I drank the Kool aid and bought what Nissan was selling. Instead of leasing I bought with the goal of keeping the car a long time. Boy was that a mistake! I am retiring with wife and car in 2015 and moving to house on the Big Island of Hawaii were electricity is free because of PV system. That has always been the plan. So now my non-defective PNW battery will be exposed to sub-tropical temperatures. So is the battery not defective here?
The point is, Nissan screwed up and put a vehicle on the road that was not ready for prime time. They need to make this mistake better for all of us who believed what they were advertising and selling.

I find the idea of those who are happy enough with the battery as it is being left out of the equation to be somewhat reasonable. Clearly, in your move to HI you're an outlier. But if those in the PNW are indeed at 80% capacity at 8 years and 70% at 10 years, just as Nissan said they should expect...well, I find that all well and good. Though I realize there are some up there who may take exception with that other than yourself.

but this eliminates the people who normally get much more out of their car than others. Look at Steve Marsh. he drove on OEM tires for 80,000 miles!! that is 160% of its rated range! that is because the tires did what they were supposed to do.

now, just because he went beyond the warranty limit in mileage DOES NOT mean the batteries did what they were supposed to do because they did not. They had faster degradation caused by a known phenomena; heat.

now if you get a car and it does not perform to your EPA rating; this is a combination of unknowns (where you live, climate, terrain, etc) and knowns (you speed most of the time... doesnt matter what others do, it is what YOU do so its a choice you made)

but the climate is a known entity as is degradation but on any stated performance for longevity there is always the Bell curve. Allowing people on the left side of the curve to get consideration for a replacement and not allowing the right side to get a replacement is wrong... we both suffer from the same issue.

but there has to be reasonability. Nissan is fully within its legal rights to do nothing. dole out the batteries under the strict letter of the warranty we all signed when we got the car but that is not reasonable just as getting a free battery is not reasonable for Steve the day before he hits 100,000 miles is either.

a compromise is the only real thing here.

FYI; it was 80% at 5 years and I expect to hit that in 3½ years and wont qualify for nothing under the current status quo

 

[TimLee]

Maybe the best way to mitigate the battery degradation would be to replace batteries for a small percentage of cars in the worst shape, and then use those batteries at QC stations to buffer power consumption and reduce utility demand charges which could greatly lower charging fees while increasing charging station profit. Which would lead to higher usage and more profit, which would lead to more stations, which would lead to higher availability, etc. Of course the technical and business obstacles to doing that would be formidable, perhaps insurmountable.

A very thoughtful idea. I'm afraid you may be correct though, "the technical and business obstacles to doing that would be formidable, perhaps insurmountable".

 

[mwalsh]

FYI; it was 80% at 5 years and I expect to hit that in 3½ years and wont qualify for nothing under the current status quo

You signed a waiver indicating 80% at 5 years. But Nissan was mouthing off about 80% at 8 years plenty before any of us had cars!

 

[Nubo]

So far Nissan has produced around 80,000 LEAFs, and by the time they start producing a LEAF sometime in 2014 that has a battery that may be closer to their original design intent, they will likely have produced around 100,000 LEAFs that basically have a defective battery.
To really FIX that would require offering a warranty that matched their original design intent and stated expectations on capacity degradation.
But that would be costly. Although we don't know the cost of the battery, you used $333 per kWh in your recent survey on options for increased kWH future LEAFs. I think that is unrealistically low, and the $500 per kWh that Volkswagen stated is closer to correct. But even if the battery is only $400 per kWh, Nissan will have produced around 100,000 LEAF with basically a defective battery.
To extend a proper capacity warranty matching their design intent and stated expectations, would probably cost them around $1 billion.

Keep in mind many of those LEAFs are leased. So, Nissan is getting those batteries back. In effect they're already facing a cost burden, through lower resale value and consumer reticence that would build as a result. They basically have to remedy the situation to keep their whole project moving forward otherwise they can write off the $2 billion already spent as well. By upgrading the batteries on older LEAFs they recoup some of the cost of the new packs through higher resale and avoid tarnishing the car's reputation. Or, they could dick around replacing weak modules with less-weak used modules, Let customers experience 40% degradation and then keep their cars in a twilight state, etc. etc.. Half-assery doesn't sound very cost-effective to me.

 

[mwalsh]

Half-assery doesn't sound very cost-effective to me.

Nor me either. They need to play their "A" game going forward. And so far, they haven't even suited up (actually, I don't think they've even reached the stadium)!

 

[JPWhite]

I suspect that the cost of mitigating the effects of battery degradation through infrastructure would be less than the cost of providing new batteries.

I like this idea. An identical level of battery degradation affects drivers differently depending on their driving habits and climate. Beefing up the infrastructure (especially in the areas most affected by premature degradation) not only helps affected drivers now, but helps most EV owners now and into the future. It will also be a win for Nissan helping to spur demand for their product. It could easily turn into a win-win situation.

The promised dealer rollout of QC's has been insipid. Presumably the deal isn't all that attractive the the dealers, I know of only 1 dealer in Tennessee that has received a QC, and they are in Nissan's backyard in Franklin TN. Nissan should underwrite the program more aggressively to make dealers bite. Many UK dealers have a QC unit. I know the commercial arrangement between dealers and manufacturers is different here, but there has to be a way.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

FYI; it was 80% at 5 years and I expect to hit that in 3½ years and wont qualify for nothing under the current status quo

You signed a waiver indicating 80% at 5 years. But Nissan was mouthing off about 80% at 8 years plenty before any of us had cars!

i will have to reread that because i dont remember anything but the 8 year workmanship thingy.

but does this address "defective" workmanship and what is the time line here? someone brought up another point that recalls with no limits are safety related and not subject to time or mileage considerations and if that is the case, then the batteries would not qualify for such an open ended clause

 

[mwalsh]

i will have to reread that because i dont remember anything but the 8 year workmanship thingy.

but does this address "defective" workmanship and what is the time line here? someone brought up another point that recalls with no limits are safety related and not subject to time or mileage considerations and if that is the case, then the batteries would not qualify for such an open ended clause

I think you're confusing two issues, Dave. Or at least you're confusing me with co-mingling two issues.

Issue 1) Nissan indicated that we should expect 80% capacity remaining in 8 years (or 10 years, depending on which quotes you find). Search the Internets for "leaf capacity remaining after 8 years" (no quotation marks) with a date range of 1/1/2010 and 1/1/2011.

Issue 2) The standard battery materials and workmanship warranty of 8 years/100,000 miles.

 

[TimLee]

U say it is correct to opt out of the class action? I read lots here and missed that one. If you have the thread handy point me to it pls.

Sorry you missed it JP, but it is easy to miss things on MNL. I spotted something yesterday in a reference that somebody posted about Ecotality going out of business and the new company taking over maintenance of the Blink units that was 1 1/2 months old.
The first post I saw was this back on July 17, 2013:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13633#p310869" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tony Williams then created a survey on September 18, 2013 and a lot of discussion moved to his survey link:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14378#p326483" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I suspect that the cost of mitigating the effects of battery degradation through infrastructure would be less than the cost of providing new batteries.

I like this idea. An identical level of battery degradation affects drivers differently depending on their driving habits and climate. Beefing up the infrastructure (especially in the areas most affected by premature degradation) not only helps affected drivers now, but helps most EV owners now and into the future. It will also be a win for Nissan helping to spur demand for their product. It could easily turn into a win-win situation.

The promised dealer rollout of QC's has been insipid. Presumably the deal isn't all that attractive the the dealers, I know of only 1 dealer in Tennessee that has received a QC, and they are in Nissan's backyard in Franklin TN. Nissan should underwrite the program more aggressively to make dealers bite. Many UK dealers have a QC unit. I know the commercial arrangement between dealers and manufacturers is different here, but there has to be a way.

dealer rollout has really picked up in certain areas so have to say Nissan's plan is somewhat on track and its now easy to see why a roadmap was not published in advance. I fear that the "pilot" areas like yours and mine are all but done in that area.

as far as public charging to help with degradation? i am for that but more for future owners than as a band aid for reduced range. public charging is fine but is a major hit on one's personal time which needs to be looked at.

one of the things we thought would be good was wi-fi at charging stations which can maximize the time spent there. for my job, this is something I have to seek out on the road all the time anyway so it would very much be killing two birds with one stone.

also; keep in mind, right now public charging is mostly an inconvenience but it does not have to be. They can become "destinations" by providing services that make one want to be there making charging a bonus.

sound far fetched? well, that is what I would have said 20 years ago about drinking coffee...

 

[TomT]

Maybe the problem is that I hate coffee! :lol:

sound far fetched? well, that is what I would have said 20 years ago about drinking coffee...

 

[TimLee]

sound far fetched? well, that is what I would have said 20 years ago about drinking coffee...

You didn't see Starbucks coming Dave :?:
I didn't see Google coming either when Leo LaPorte talked about it more than 15 years ago on ScreenSavers either
I think the convenience stores, book stores, cafes, restaurants are failing to see the benefit of providing free or low cost charging.
Murphy Express in Chattanooga sees it. If they could just get the free Eaton DCQC repaired in a timely manner. :? :? :?

 

[walterbays]

as far as public charging to help with degradation? i am for that but more for future owners than as a band aid for reduced range. public charging is fine but is a major hit on one's personal time which needs to be looked at.

I certainly agree with you and mwalsh that public charging cannot completely mitigate prematurely degraded batteries for this reason. However I think that Nissan is more likely to spend $300/car on infrastructure than $12,000/car on new batteries if both provide similar outcomes, except for our time.

one of the things we thought would be good was wi-fi at charging stations which can maximize the time spent there. for my job, this is something I have to seek out on the road all the time anyway so it would very much be killing two birds with one stone.

also; keep in mind, right now public charging is mostly an inconvenience but it does not have to be. They can become "destinations" by providing services that make one want to be there making charging a bonus.

I agree. Of three QC locations here, one would seem the best because it's at a major shopping mall with myriad attractions. But I'd rank that one lowest because a QC doesn't take enough time for you to go in a store and shop, so you're sitting at the car. Better is the location in a university parking lot with nothing to do around it, but which is reached by free Wifi, and which you can get into and out of more quickly without the mall traffic. Best are locations at hotels which have Wifi, comfortable lounges, coffee, soda, snacks, and restrooms, and which are located near the freeway for convenient access.

To make public charging more acceptable to me I bought a prepaid bandwidth Mifi device since I have a limited data cell phone plan. Now I'm not at the mercy of charging station hosts for whether or not my charging time is productive or entertaining. I still don't charge all that much in public though, and have found the Mifi to be valuable much more often at other times, so I'm not at the mercy of all the other undependable Wifi hosts in the world.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

as far as public charging to help with degradation? i am for that but more for future owners than as a band aid for reduced range. public charging is fine but is a major hit on one's personal time which needs to be looked at.

I certainly agree with you and mwalsh that public charging cannot completely mitigate prematurely degraded batteries for this reason. However I think that Nissan is more likely to spend $300/car on infrastructure than $12,000/car on new batteries if both provide similar outcomes, except for our time.

one of the things we thought would be good was wi-fi at charging stations which can maximize the time spent there. for my job, this is something I have to seek out on the road all the time anyway so it would very much be killing two birds with one stone.

also; keep in mind, right now public charging is mostly an inconvenience but it does not have to be. They can become "destinations" by providing services that make one want to be there making charging a bonus.

I agree. Of three QC locations here, one would seem the best because it's at a major shopping mall with myriad attractions. But I'd rank that one lowest because a QC doesn't take enough time for you to go in a store and shop, so you're sitting at the car. Better is the location in a university parking lot with nothing to do around it, but which is reached by free Wifi, and which you can get into and out of more quickly without the mall traffic. Best are locations at hotels which have Wifi, comfortable lounges, coffee, soda, snacks, and restrooms, and which are located near the freeway for convenient access.

To make public charging more acceptable to me I bought a prepaid bandwidth Mifi device since I have a limited data cell phone plan. Now I'm not at the mercy of charging station hosts for whether or not my charging time is productive or entertaining. I still don't charge all that much in public though, and have found the Mifi to be valuable much more often at other times, so I'm not at the mercy of all the other undependable Wifi hosts in the world.

Mi-fi's are cool and maintained one for 5 years (but had employee discount so not sooo bad...) before wi-fi became as prevalent as it is now. mine also had much larger allowance (5 GB) which was not a hard allowance. you could (and i was...) be disconnected for extreme use which at the time restricted use to a single device, did not allow video streaming, or other high bandwidth apps.

when you exceeded the 5 GB bandwidth (which was not stated in TOS) you were warned and if you did it 3X in a year or two months in a row; you received another warning with the next event (within 6 months) resulting in immediate termination.

i violated it by not paying attention to my i tunes catalog with basically duplicated itself on my laptop. so I ended up with less than 5 GB of free space and a cancelled account (but no ETFs...) which was ok at the time since I had moved to where wi-fi was doable. before I lived in condo's that was converted hospital and the concrete walls ensured that wi fi systems had an effective range of about 20 feet...

 

[Stoaty]

1) More QC won't help those that bought the SV model (me) and wouldn't help me anyway as I don't plan to stop in the middle of a 50 mile drive to charge. As long as I can drive 50 miles with an 800 foot elevation gain on a charge, the Leaf will work fine for me. However, at this point I am guessing that might be problematic at around 5 years, rather than the estimated 10 years based on Nissan's PR claims

2) The battery is in no way defective, the problem is that claims were made for the battery that simply aren't true (100 miles range, 70% capacity at 10 years with no mention of the effects of climate or mileage). Nissan hid the relevant information from us, it only came out later. That is the basis for action, not a claim of defect.

3) I would favor a coupon to get a new heat resistant battery at a reduced price, say $5,000. By the time the range becomes problematic for me I will have gotten a substantial amount of use out of my Leaf. It isn't reasonable or fair to expect that Nissan will give me a new heat resistant battery for free outside the warranty period.