LEAF advisory group

[walterbays]

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.

No, but I'll be stopping in the middle of a 100 mile drive for refreshment anyway and won't mind extending the stop to half an hour to give the car some refreshment as well.

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.

Did they know and hide it or did they not know? That's what discovery in the class action lawsuit would have determined, had the plaintiffs attorneys been competent and acting in the interest of the class.

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.

I'm still expecting that by the time I've got to have a new battery Nissan will offer one that is heat resistant and possibly also higher capacity, and then they will finally be willing to disclose a purchase price. And I'm hoping that they'll offer some especially good deal to those of us who bought the first generation battery. Since I have an SL and an undemanding commute I can more easily wait for relief than many others, and improved infrastructure could extend my battery's usable lifetime considerably.

 

[mwalsh]

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.

I respectfully reserve the right to disagree. Until we get one of those cells opened up, nobody knows what the effects of high heat have been on them. With what I know now about seperator materials, I'd be inclined to suspect that the separators will be found to have shrunk or otherwise deformed.

Before the 5/60 warranty, I don't think anyone expected to get a free battery out of Nissan. What we did have a full expectation of is getting the cost of a replacement pack, even if the price horrified us, so we could reach a decision for ourselves as to whether we wished to buy one or not.

 

[TimLee]

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.

Did they know and hide it or did they not know? That's what discovery in the class action lawsuit would have determined, had the plaintiffs attorneys been competent and acting in the interest of the class.

Stoaty, you are maintaining that Nissan was hiding relevant information from the LEAF buyers all along, and in essence were making false statements that the LEAF battery on average would only lose capacity down to 70% in 10 years.

I just don't find that to be very plausible. I guess anything is possible, but that just doesn't seem very likely to me.

It is much more likely that Nissan was in a rush to market the Leading Environmental Affordable Family car and was rushing things with accelerated aging testing and got it badly wrong based on those tests or that they did inadequate tests to really know. Whether they missed the chemistry by a little bit, or failure to include ceramic separators caused a problem, or some combination of the two; they missed their design intent and their stated expectation on the rate of capacity degradation. By definition a product that doesn't meet the OEM's stated design intent and specifications is defective. The first 100,000 LEAF batteries are defective.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Since I'm leasing, I don't have a horse in this race, but, for what it may be worth:

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.

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.

Did they know and hide it or did they not know? That's what discovery in the class action lawsuit would have determined, had the plaintiffs attorneys been competent and acting in the interest of the class.

From 2010, evnow's "History of Nissan EV from 2006":

Even as Nissan shuttered factories in 1999, it continued battery work. In 2006, Ghosn overruled Nissan’s researchers and approved high-volume EV manufacturing. “The engineers will always tell you, ‘Wait a little more,’ and if you keep playing this game, you never launch any product,” he says.

So, if anyone who opted out gets to discovery, seems a decent probability they'll find Nissan knew something.

Mr. Ghosn appears to have calculated the odds and threw the dice.

Edit: Could be what TimLee just wrote too, Ghosn jumped the gun.

 

[JPWhite]

Since I'm leasing, I don't have a horse in this race, but, for what it may be worth:

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.

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.

Did they know and hide it or did they not know? That's what discovery in the class action lawsuit would have determined, had the plaintiffs attorneys been competent and acting in the interest of the class.

From 2010, evnow's "History of Nissan EV from 2006":

Even as Nissan shuttered factories in 1999, it continued battery work. In 2006, Ghosn overruled Nissan’s researchers and approved high-volume EV manufacturing. “The engineers will always tell you, ‘Wait a little more,’ and if you keep playing this game, you never launch any product,” he says.

So, if anyone who opted out gets to discovery, seems a decent probability they'll find Nissan knew something.

Mr. Ghosn appears to have calculated the odds and threw the dice.

Edit: Could be what TimLee just wrote too, Ghosn jumped the gun.

And after this period of 'waiting' why did Ghosn choose 2006 to pull the trigger?

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1669723_1669725_1669747,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tesla is at the heart of the current EV revolution.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

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.

i have to disagree because the battery itself is not defective but the battery's support system is. its not like its rocket science. a lot of people in the community rightfully predicted the issues while others blindly (me included) assumed Nissan has tested the heat issue (their main testing facility is literally located at ground Zero outside Phoenix!) and resolved it to the criteria they stated.

granted their original statement of longevity was vague and for all intent and purposes covers what eventually occurred in a roundabout way but either we were purposefully mislead or Nissan simply tested the vehicles in cooler circumstances instead of choosing extreme circumstances.

The Summer of 2011 was a hotter than normal one for Phoenix but then we get cars that went thru Coastal CA Summers that were hotter than normal (there were a few hot days. Remember the ENTIRE country with the exception of the Western WA had hotter than normal Summers) for the area but still below what Phoenix sees in a normal Summer

So lets liken this situation to the Brake Actuator on the Prius. In that situation, "some" of them might crack, causing leaks, etc. Now they are not requesting you wait for that to happen. Toyota recommends you come in and get them changed right away due to safety issues but some of us drove the Prius so conservatively (me!!) that it was easily conceivable that I would have gone well over 100,000 miles before needing any kind of brake work. But that due to my choice on how to drive the car.

But what if the actuator was not prone to cracking but did not generate pressure in time to safely stop the car in EMERGENCY stopping situations only? And a recall was required to add a booster instead of replacing the actuator? This would be a modification instead of part replacement. This is a common workaround to several recalls.

Remember the spontaneous combustion Fords? they were leaking from something causing fluids to drip onto something hot that started a fire in the engine compartment? unlike the very rude and inconvenient Teslas that start fires in the middle of nowhere, the Fords fires would start after the car was parked in the owner's driveway sometimes hours after being parked. ok so the fix is to replace the leaking part right?

nope. the fix was a shield that directed the leaking fluid away from the hot parts in the engine. The result? did not fix the root cause but there were no more fires.

Either way, this all goes back to my statement of reasonability. We have a reasonable expectation of performance based on Nissan claims. That level of expectation is not being met in CERTAIN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY due to a decision made in the manufacturing process for cars in ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY. So the issue is really does Nissan fix the issue in the most minimalistic way possible like Ford? or not?

Now, will Nissan replace batteries only in the areas where they feel the weather warrants it? or will it be for every one? Well, the latter, as we all know, would create a huge amount of resentment among the still (mostly) rabidly faithful EV community. It would be more of a headache than its worth if Nissan attempted to draw lines in the sand saying ok this side gets batteries, that side does not.

simply does not make sense. So we go back to the "people in the cracks" and in this situation that means ALL OTHER PARTS OF COUNTRY except Phoenix and Palm Springs or other localized hotspots...see what I mean??

So a discount program perhaps based on a sliding scale of mileage/age for all those who got the "cold" batteries is an acceptable solution for me as long as the lowest discount is a reasonable amount and should be cut off at 100,000 miles or so to where if you go 100,000 miles or 150,000 miles the discount is the same.

**parting shot** When Nissan came out with their battery claims of 80% after 5 years, 70% after 10, i assumed (and you know what that makes me!) that because of the climate i was in and the driving style, charging style, etc (remember I had been driving EVs for 3½ years before my LEAF showed up) that I would EASILY beat that estimate. I really was expecting 20% after 10 years...not 5.

as it stands even with my much better than yours performance. I will be over 20% in less than 5 years. I live in the BEST (or close enough) area for battery health so if I drive 100,000 miles before hitting 70% what does that have to do with the fact that I have a known issue with my battery support system?

 

[mwalsh]

....but then we get cars that went thru Coastal CA Summers that were hotter than normal (there were a few hot days. Remember the ENTIRE country with the exception of the Western WA had hotter than normal Summers)

I'm not arguing with you, but the last 3 summers in our part of CA have been quite moderate in comparison to years past, with (as you say) the exception of a few days here or there. But this actually drives your entire point home better.

Things would be much, much worse in terms of CA complaints if we'd had 3 years of brutal summers! And while this may be bad news for owners under the 5/60 warranty, it may save Nissan from many more warranty claims than they'd have otherwise!

 

[Stoaty]

Stoaty, you are maintaining that Nissan was hiding relevant information from the LEAF buyers all along, and in essence were making false statements that the LEAF battery on average would only lose capacity down to 70% in 10 years.

Well, here is the information we know they hid from the average buyer:

1) The range one could reasonably expect from the Leaf (73 miles) by claiming over and over the Leaf was a 100 mile car--including the salesmen on the car lot. This one was easy to spot, since there is an EPA sticker, but that is still false and misleading

2) The fact that the batteries would degrade 2.6 times faster in Phoenix than Seattle (varies with geography, etc. is so vague as to be misleading; they omitted what they knew). See the Wiki for a study that showed this even for a newer more heat resistant battery they were working on and the methodology used.

3) The fact that mileage is a crucial element in battery degradation (again, they had a good idea of the effect of mileage, but hid what they knew with extraordinarily broad statements to the point they were meaningless)

4) The fact that the rate of calendar battery capacity loss would be greatest in the first year (again, study referenced in the Wiki assumes calendar loss proportional to the square root of time; most of us had no idea about that and assumed we would lose about 4% a year in a linear manner).

It isn't much of a stretch to assume that the engineers knew a lot more about the rate of capacity loss than was disclosed and were overruled to bring the Leaf to market quickly. Recall that Elon Musk knew this in 2010 and wrote about it, even though he was not privy to the details of their battery program. Nissan claimed that Elon was wrong, they had carefully studied their battery and stood behind their claims.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

....but then we get cars that went thru Coastal CA Summers that were hotter than normal (there were a few hot days. Remember the ENTIRE country with the exception of the Western WA had hotter than normal Summers)

I'm not arguing with you, but the last 3 summers in our part of CA have been quite moderate in comparison to years past, with (as you say) the exception of a few days here or there. But this actually drives your entire point home better.

Things would be much, much worse in terms of CA complaints if we'd had 3 years of brutal summers! And while this may be bad news for owners under the 5/60 warranty, it may save Nissan from many more warranty claims than they'd have otherwise!

the Summer of 2011 was rated "significantly warmer than normal" (includes nearly all of CA) in about 80% of the country "warmer than normal" in the rest with the exception of the Pacific Northwest which actually rated "slightly below normal"

Either way, not the point. it was a design flaw... pure and simple

 

[mwalsh]

the Summer of 2011 was rated "significantly warmer than normal" (includes nearly all of CA)

OK, now I am arguing with you. While I'll agree that the rest of the country may be getting hotter, it hasn't been "significantly warmer than normal" here since I've had my LEAF. The last three summers we've barely even needed to run the air conditioning at the house. Except, like I said, a few exceptional days. And even then...where we've typically had heat waves that have lasted a week or more, these haven't been more than a couple of days at a time. When you move here yourself, THEN I'll accept your anecdotal rememberance of the weather here.

Thanks, IMO, to climate change, the weather in our part of CA appears to be getting more moderate year-round, making it an absolute paradise. We've even had fewer instances of Santa Ana winds this fall than we normally do. I guess the only thing we really need is more rain. But we could even start desalinating the oceans for drinking water, if we really had to.

 

[thankyouOB]

and much of the previous page fills in the technical side and sets up the legal side of the other issue: they conducted a bait-and-switch with buyers who were promised a price for a replacement battery.

this promise was made explicitly here and to every buyer who purchased the car, as there was no disclaimer that they key and most expensive part of the car would never be sold to you even though it's design meant it would degrade and need replacement during the life of the car.
this isnt a disposable razor, this is a 30k vehicle.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

the Summer of 2011 was rated "significantly warmer than normal" (includes nearly all of CA)

OK, now I am arguing with you. While I'll agree that the rest of the country may be getting hotter, it hasn't been "significantly warmer than normal" here since I've had my LEAF. The last three summers we've barely even needed to run the air conditioning at the house. Except, like I said, a few exceptional days. And even then...where we've typically had heat waves that have lasted a week or more, these haven't been more than a couple of days at a time. When you move here yourself, THEN I'll accept your anecdotal rememberance of the weather here.

Thanks, IMO, to climate change, the weather in our part of CA appears to be getting more moderate year-round, making it an absolute paradise. We've even had fewer instances of Santa Ana winds this fall than we normally do. I guess the only thing we really need is more rain. But we could even start desalinating the oceans for drinking water, if we really had to.

I thought we agreed that temperatures; hot or cold didnt really matter? but
you are undoubtedly right i am sure but that does not negate the fact that most in your area did see warmer than normal temps. be that hot in your book is up to you. I am going by a weather map that is probably only representative of large geographical areas without regard to localized microclimates. the picture is small but only shows very small slivers on the northern CA coast as not being "much" warmer. only "warmer than normal" but there is no "normal" in any part of the state.

as far as my remembrance; I lived mostly in Riverside during the very early days of CARB. I remember a living thru a dozen stage THREE smog alerts (ones that banned children from going outside during recess...) and hot being the norm.

our method of cooling off was to head over the hill to the beach...

 

[surfingslovak]

Well, here is the information we know they hid from the average buyer:

Very well said, Stoaty, thank you for summarizing it so succinctly.

 

[TimLee]

It isn't much of a stretch to assume that the engineers knew a lot more about the rate of capacity loss than was disclosed and were overruled to bring the Leaf to market quickly. Recall that Elon Musk knew this in 2010 and wrote about it, even though he was not privy to the details of their battery program. Nissan claimed that Elon was wrong, they had carefully studied their battery and stood behind their claims.

Very thoughtful response. I still hope you are wrong, but in a day and time in which many corporations and politicians seem more than willing to lie to further their short term interest with complete disregard for integrity or their long term interests, I'm afraid you might be correct.
But taking a chance on an inadequate design is one thing.
Propagating false information of an average 5 year 80% capacity, 10 year, 70% capacity; and highly touting 100 mile range with minimal small print disclaimers, is downright incomprehensible.

I'd say that only 10% of those 100,000 leaf drivers live in an area where its really hot and maybe another 40% in areas where it is somewhat hot. Sub divide that further for people that have short commutes and aren't severely affected by loss of range and I could easily imagine something closer to 25% of all leaf drivers wanting the hot battery pack for reasons of climate AND actual limitations due to lost range.

If Nissan replaced one in four battery packs to cover the people that would really benefit from the "hot" battery chemistry they would be making so many customers happy it would be beyond reasonable from a business standpoint.

I think they could cover the people that reasonably need a better battery without replacing $1 billion worth of batteries. It looks like in your post you are assuming 100,000 cars x $10,000 per battery pack to make that $1 Billion. I'm not arguing about the cost per battery pack (which might be lower, higher, or spot on), I'm just saying no need to replace every single battery pack.

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.

I agree that my $1 billion dollar value is conservatively high for what Nissan should spend to correct the deficiencies in their first 100,000 LEAFs.
Very unlikely they need to replace 100% of the first 100,000 LEAF batteries.
The negative impact on LEAF purchasers has varied markedly.
A reduced battery price on the first 100,000 LEAFs up to a 100,000 mile pro-rated limit is a much more equitable remedy for the design shortcoming than the 5 year, 60,000 miles, 66.25% capacity warranty.

I am still very surprised by most people on MNL being unwilling to acknowledge the Nissan LEAF design being defective. I referred to it as the battery being defective.
That is not technically correct, in that the battery might be marvelous in a vehicle with a Temperature Management System (TMS).
But the LEAF doesn't have a TMS. I think Nissan is probably correct that cost effective EV design needs to avoid use of a TMS.
But the LEAF doesn't have TMS. Only passive cooling from conduction through the battery case, and some passive cooling if ambient temperature is < the battery temperature from air flow under the battery case when the vehicle is moving. So the battery they have been using and continue to use for the first 100,000 LEAFs is basically defective for the design they are using it in.

 

[JPWhite]

It isn't much of a stretch to assume that the engineers knew a lot more about the rate of capacity loss than was disclosed and were overruled to bring the Leaf to market quickly. Recall that Elon Musk knew this in 2010 and wrote about it, even though he was not privy to the details of their battery program. Nissan claimed that Elon was wrong, they had carefully studied their battery and stood behind their claims.

Very thoughtful response. I still hope you are wrong, but in a day and time in which many corporations and politicians seem more than willing to lie to further their short term interest with complete disregard for integrity or their long term interests, I'm afraid you might be correct.
But taking a chance on an inadequate design is one thing.
Propagating false information of an average 5 year 80% capacity, 10 year, 70% capacity; and highly touting 100 mile range with minimal small print disclaimers, is downright incomprehensible.

I'd say that only 10% of those 100,000 leaf drivers live in an area where its really hot and maybe another 40% in areas where it is somewhat hot. Sub divide that further for people that have short commutes and aren't severely affected by loss of range and I could easily imagine something closer to 25% of all leaf drivers wanting the hot battery pack for reasons of climate AND actual limitations due to lost range.

If Nissan replaced one in four battery packs to cover the people that would really benefit from the "hot" battery chemistry they would be making so many customers happy it would be beyond reasonable from a business standpoint.

I think they could cover the people that reasonably need a better battery without replacing $1 billion worth of batteries. It looks like in your post you are assuming 100,000 cars x $10,000 per battery pack to make that $1 Billion. I'm not arguing about the cost per battery pack (which might be lower, higher, or spot on), I'm just saying no need to replace every single battery pack.

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.

I agree that my $1 billion dollar value is conservatively high for what Nissan should spend to correct the deficiencies in their first 100,000 LEAFs.
Very unlikely they need to replace 100% of the first 100,000 LEAF batteries.
The negative impact on LEAF purchasers has varied markedly.
A reduced battery price on the first 100,000 LEAFs up to a 100,000 mile pro-rated limit is a much more equitable remedy for the design shortcoming than the 5 year, 60,000 miles, 66.25% capacity warranty.

I am still very surprised by most people on MNL being unwilling to acknowledge the Nissan LEAF design being defective. I referred to it as the battery being defective.
That is not technically correct, in that the battery might be marvelous in a vehicle with a Temperature Management System (TMS).
But the LEAF doesn't have a TMS. I think Nissan is probably correct that cost effective EV design needs to avoid use of a TMS.
But the LEAF doesn't have TMS. Only passive cooling from conduction through the battery case, and some passive cooling if ambient temperature is < the battery temperature from air flow under the battery case when the vehicle is moving. So the battery they have been using and continue to use for the first 100,000 LEAFs is basically defective for the design they are using it in.

I have no problem referring to the LEAF battery as defective, the open question in my mind is is the defect a design defect or a manufacturing defect? It seems the separator is a component in the hot battery that helps to improve performance. If the seperator is the major element of the battery fix, then we maybe looking at some regrettable choices made when they readied the LEAf for full scale manufacturing. OEM's shave pennies as part of their manufacturing process, shaving pennies on the separator may go down as a major Bo Bo for Nissan, while they put $900 headlights in the vehicle.

Can't wait to see the new battery next year as promised and how it performs in the Phoenix summer.

 

[GRA]

I am still very surprised by most people on MNL being unwilling to acknowledge the Nissan LEAF design being defective. I referred to it as the battery being defective.
That is not technically correct, in that the battery might be marvelous in a vehicle with a Temperature Management System (TMS).
But the LEAF doesn't have a TMS. I think Nissan is probably correct that cost effective EV design needs to avoid use of a TMS.
But the LEAF doesn't have TMS. Only passive cooling from conduction through the battery case, and some passive cooling if ambient temperature is < the battery temperature from air flow under the battery case when the vehicle is moving. So the battery they have been using and continue to use for the first 100,000 LEAFs is basically defective for the design they are using it in.

No, neither the design nor the battery is defective, it's just the wrong choice if you desire to serve the whole of the U.S. market. Being a continent-spanning country (one of only three, four if you count Australia), the U.S. experiences temperature extremes and climate variations much greater than smaller countries, plus we have a very mobile population that moves a great deal.

What's defective is Nissan's marketing, claiming that a car with a battery pack design only suitable for mild climates is a universal pack well-suited for use anywhere. That, and the misleading claims they made about range. Even though from an owner's perspective it may seem to amount to the same thing, while the battery pack design is unsuitable for much of the U.S., it's not defective. Nissan can be nailed, and rightly so, for their marketing claims, but not, ISTM, on their design.

 

[TimLee]

No, neither the design nor the battery is defective, it's just the wrong choice if you desire to serve the whole of the U.S. market. Being a continent-spanning country (one of only three, four if you count Australia), the U.S. experiences temperature extremes and climate variations much greater than smaller countries, plus we have a very mobile population that moves a great deal.

What's defective is Nissan's marketing, claiming that a car with a battery pack design only suitable for mild climates is a universal pack well-suited for use anywhere. That, and the misleading claims they made about range. Even though from an owner's perspective it may seem to amount to the same thing, while the battery pack design is unsuitable for much of the U.S., it's not defective. Nissan can be nailed, and rightly so, for their marketing claims, but not, ISTM, on their design.

You are correct that the LEAF as currently designed and built is only appropriate for some climates.
But Nissan the OEM decided to design for international use anywhere, and proceeded to market it and sell it in many climates for which it is currently not suitable.
I see that as way more than a marketing error. It is a design error and/or manufacturing choices error.

Guy, your signature line is interesting, in that you have extensive experience/knowledge designing and selling battery-based AE systems and some using EVs, but don't own an EV. I haven't read all of your nearly 2000 posts. Have you shared your reasons for not owning an EV with the advisory group :?:
Might be of great interest to them on why someone very interested in EVs and the LEAF hasn't bought one :?:

Your signature line quote of "When nurturing a new technology, under-promise and over-deliver rather than the opposite." is a very important feedback to Nissan. Over promising and under delivering on what they promised has been their biggest mistake. Clearly a mistake, whether we agree on it being a design defect or a marketing error. It certainly has been a very big mistake.

 

[downeykp]

I also concur that the battery is defective and was touted as something it is not.

 

[GRA]

No, neither the design nor the battery is defective, it's just the wrong choice if you desire to serve the whole of the U.S. market. Being a continent-spanning country (one of only three, four if you count Australia), the U.S. experiences temperature extremes and climate variations much greater than smaller countries, plus we have a very mobile population that moves a great deal.

What's defective is Nissan's marketing, claiming that a car with a battery pack design only suitable for mild climates is a universal pack well-suited for use anywhere. That, and the misleading claims they made about range. Even though from an owner's perspective it may seem to amount to the same thing, while the battery pack design is unsuitable for much of the U.S., it's not defective. Nissan can be nailed, and rightly so, for their marketing claims, but not, ISTM, on their design.

You are correct that the LEAF as currently designed and built is only appropriate for some climates.
But Nissan the OEM decided to design for international use anywhere, and proceeded to market it and sell it in many climates for which it is currently not suitable.
I see that as way more than a marketing error. It is a design error and/or manufacturing choices error.

[Edit: Something like 18 months or two years ago I wrote that I thought the LEAF's design was only suitable for tech-oriented early adopters, because it required far too much knowledge and compromise on the part of the owner to prevent damaging it, and that the Volt was far better designed for U.S. mass market consumers, as it was designed to protect the battery by itself.] IMO Nissan's decision was certainly the wrong design choice, but that doesn't constitute a design error. Here's an example of what I mean:

Let's say that a customer asked me to design an off-grid AE system for them, told me that they lived on the Northern California coast and had no plans to move, what their loads were etc. I design a system for them with my usual built-in conservatism, and guarantee its performance under those conditions, although I'm very hesitant to warranty battery life without a huge fudge factor, as how they are treated can affect their life by a factor of as much as four or five (as the LEAF is now demonstrating). Subsequently, the customer moves to Phoenix or Fairbanks, taking the system with them, and it doesn't meet its guaranteed performance. Is the design defective?

No, because I was neither asked nor required to design it to work anywhere in the U.S., let alone anywhere in the world. Only if I had so designed it and it failed to meet its specs would the design be defective. If I had claimed that the system could work anywhere in the U.S. or the world, knowing or suspecting that it wouldn't, then it's my marketing that's misleading, as in my non-legal opinion Nissan's was, and they can and should be slammed for that.

Cars being a lot more mobile than houses, IMO any car that will be sold in the U.S. _should_ be designed to handle a wide variety of climates, but not designing it to do so is a defensible decision provided you limit where it is sold, and clearly spell out where and why you are doing so. Nissan didn't do either: The first is a design decision, wrong IMO but justifiable, the latter I consider actionable.

Guy, your signature line is interesting, in that you have extensive experience/knowledge designing and selling battery-based AE systems and some using EVs, but don't own an EV. I haven't read all of your nearly 2000 posts. Have you shared your reasons for not owning an EV with the advisory group :?:
Might be of great interest to them on why someone very interested in EVs and the LEAF hasn't bought one :?:

I briefly considered applying for a spot on the advisory board for that reason, but my increasing deafness makes face to face meetings or briefings a waste of time for both parties, so recommended they pick someone like cwerdna instead (who was also on the fence for a long time, but has since bought a LEAF).

I've made no secret here of why no currently available EVs suit me. I don't need a city car; that's what my feet, bicycle and transit are for. I only use a car for 100+ mile trips, most of my driving is freeway/highway, often involves thousands of feet of climb in cold weather (I X-C ski) using the heat and defrost, often traveling routes and parking in locations like remote trailheads that will be the last places to get charging infrastructure, and I need a small CUV/wagon that I can sleep in and/or haul a lot of equipment, preferably AWD and a spare tire is required. And I have to be able to afford it, which means it can't cost more than about $35k, preferably $10k less. Something like the upcoming Audi A3 e-tron Sportback PHEV may work, but I'd prefer a wagon body style rather than a 5-door liftback. And I'd rather not have to take an intermediate step like a PHEV, instead of going directly from ICE to BEV/FCEV/FCHV. In the meantime my 11 year old Forester with only 61k miles works just fine.

Your signature line quote of "When nurturing a new technology, under-promise and over-deliver rather than the opposite." is a very important feedback to Nissan. Over promising and under delivering on what they promised has been their biggest mistake. Clearly a mistake, whether we agree on it being a design defect or a marketing error. It certainly has been a very big mistake.

I've tried to make that point every way I knew how. At first, I refused to believed that any major corporation selling consumer goods could be so clueless about what expectations high-tech early adopters had re communication and backup. I thought it was just one or two incompetents who believed they could treat LEAF owners just like they treat the usual ill-informed ICE customer; once they were replaced the problem would be solved. But, after watching Nissan consistently make entirely predictable and wholly avoidable error after error, usually after having been told repeatedly what the result would be beforehand, I've concluded that they're just a big, dumb, slow-moving and insular corporation with appalling business ethics. This is disappointing, especially with Tesla showing anyone who bothers to look how it should be done.

Tesla has had their share of missteps and over-exaggerated claims too, but they listen to their customers and respond rapidly. More important, it's clear that their attitude is "no customer should suffer because of our errors, and it's our responsibility to make them whole, whatever it costs us." I despair that Nissan will learn this lesson and act accordingly.

 

[KJD]

Does the LEAF Advisory group have any comments about the new EV Sales and Marketing director ?

http://insideevs.com/nissan-shuffles-ev-sales-leadership-in-america/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After only 10 months of looking after the promotion of the LEAF, Erik Gottfried has be relocated as Nissan’s new “Director of Customer Quality and Dealer Network Development,” while Toby Perry has taken over the reigns leading the EV charge for Nissan.