Letter about possible Nissan Lawsuit

[thankyouOB]

Well, now that you're citing stats, let me know what get when you run a t-test comparing the mean capacity losses of LEAF owners in Phoenix versus the mean capacity loss of the general population of LEAF's. Then if you really want to get crazy, run an ANOVA among capacity losses among Arizona LEAF owners versus every other state. You can even add the means of international populations to the ANOVA if you want.

If you want to use stats, please have an understanding of which statistical analyses address the question at hand. In this context, the "fraction of less than 1%" you cite has little meaning. 0.14% of babies born in the U.S. will have Down's Syndrome. Doesn't meant it's not a problem.

I get that you are upset.
I see the point of using a data set of just AZ owners. We can all see the point of using a data set of all US owners in other circumstances.
None of that changes the fact that the choice of the word "some" to describe the situation is imprecise, at best.
I think the phrase "a very few and increasing number" captures what is happening accurately, unless you still want to argue that we should have an AZ-only data set.

 

[ztanos]

Well, now that you're citing stats, let me know what get when you run a t-test comparing the mean capacity losses of LEAF owners in Phoenix versus the mean capacity loss of the general population of LEAF's. Then if you really want to get crazy, run an ANOVA among capacity losses among Arizona LEAF owners versus every other state. You can even add the means of international populations to the ANOVA if you want.

If you want to use stats, please have an understanding of which statistical analyses address the question at hand. In this context, the "fraction of less than 1%" you cite has little meaning. 0.14% of babies born in the U.S. will have Down's Syndrome. Doesn't meant it's not a problem.

I get that you are upset.
I see the point of using a data set of just AZ owners. We can all see the point of using a data set for other purposes of all US owners.
None of that changes the fact that the choice of the word "some" to describe the situation is imprecise, at best.
I think the phrase "a very few and increasing number" captures what is happening accurately, unless you still want to argue that we should have an AZ-only data set.

And in the context of the actual statement... both some and a very few and increasing number are correct. So again, you are just arguing semantics.

 

[GRA]

I wonder if it will be as well engineered as their Civic Hybrid? If it looses capacity, they can just reprogram it to run the engine more! :lol:

Which is better than having to sell the car because it will no longer get you to work, as some BEV owners have already found out . My main point is that the Accord and Fusion have both been in the top ten in sales this year (the Prius has been in and out depending on gas prices), so having such high-selling cars provide both HEV and PHEV options to customers is a very good thing (tm), IMO.

some = highly misleading.
a few = closer to the truth
a very few but increasing number of = accurate

or tiny tiny ity bitty of less than a fraction of less than 1% of all buyers in the first year.

Because I live and breathe for your approval in all matters grammatical, I have edited my post to eliminate possible confusion.

 

[thankyouOB]

very cool. i like it.
some very few of us write for a living.

 

[ztanos]

Because I live and breathe for your approval in all matters grammatical, I have edited my post to eliminate possible confusion.

It's just getting sad, the level of nit-picky that he is harping on.

 

[LEAFfan]

I think the phrase "a very few and increasing number" captures what is happening accurately, unless you still want to argue that we should have an AZ-only data set.

You are unbelievable! How do you come up with "a very few"? Let's be realistic about the numbers: There are 400 LEAFs in AZ, with at least 300-350 in the Phoenix area. Now add all the LEAFs in the warmer parts of CA, OR, WA, and TX. All these other LEAFs have also lost more capacity than the usual 1-4% per year. EVERY car in these locations have already or are going to lose much more capacity than the cooler places, just not as fast as the Phoenix area, except TX. What you may want to say is there are very few reported, but that doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot more out there that have lost capacity. I believe there is enough of a sample on the forum to show that EVERY LEAF in these hot/warmer areas has already lost much more capacity than the 'usual' 1-4% per year. Obviously, your "very few" is based on the absolute production total, which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[thankyouOB]

i would accept your "reported" edit, but not the rest, if we were talking about cars that have lost capacity.

happily, we are not.
we are discussing people who had "to sell the car because it will no longer get you to work, as some* BEV owners have already found out ."

*that word "some" really is just a very few and increasing.

--if you come up with a method to do what you want to do, which is to count cars that have trouble but are not reported, let us know how to do that.

 

[TomT]

Just give it up. Some people enjoy life in their own little utopian world... But it IS nice knowing that my capacity and tick loss is just imaginary... :lol:

You are unbelievable! How do you come up with "a very few"?

 

[ztanos]

i would accept your "reported" edit, but not the rest, if we were talking about cars that have lost capacity.

happily, we are not.
we are discussing people who had "to sell the car because it will no longer get you to work, as some* BEV owners have already found out ."

*that word "some" really is just a very few and increasing.

--if you come up with a method to do what you want to do, which is to count cars that have trouble but are not reported, let us know how to do that.

Since he blocked me I know he won't read this anyhow, but I thought it appropriate to mention that the definition of some = an unspecified amount.

 

[Pipcecil]

Well also, you have to consider age too. It is not fair to say that 60 have loss capacity and compare to all leaf's on the road, even the ones that are only 2 days old! Statistically, that is very bad to do. What should be done is take all the Leaf's that are old enough to loose capacity (1 year maybe is about average, but an acurate average would be nice). Then take only those cars from areas that have lost capacity (most if not all places in arizona, most if not all places in texas, and some places in california since climates vary greatly). Get account of ALL the cars in those areas and record the numbers that have had lost and those that have not, that would give you the best % and ratio. Anything else is bad math and bad statistics.

Unfortunately, we don't have the numbers. Nissan probably does from the battery reports (assuming that a year average is good, have all the reports with loss versus those without), but I seriously doubt they would ever release that information, especially if it is counter to their stance (I am assuming it is since they are not lavising it around it around to prove their point).

The best we can do is a microsample of the forum members, since we cannot assume that everyone who has had capacity loss is a) a forum member or has reported it to a forum member or b) reported it to Nissan (which fyi doesn't help our analysis). We can assume that our forum is a sample of the general leaf population, take the same ration of no loss to loss in the regions only that have had experienced loss and are of the age to experience it and you get a true sample statisic that is defendable.

 

[thankyouOB]

pipcecil makes sense.
counting cars of owners who are not reporting is not possible.
but how do we propose to count cars a year old in AZ that have lost capacity versus those that havent.
does anyone even know how many cars are a year old in AZ?

 

[Pipcecil]

either a "step down" flow chart questionaire poll or hope that everyone responds right and a single poll:

for a step down:

Is your car more than a year old (or whatever is determined to be the mean, or median - you could go just the minimum on the youngest car to capature everyone, that would give you conservative results, like 9 months)

Do you own a Nissan Leaf in Arizona, Texas, or California (only in X, X, and X places)

Does your car have battery capacity loss (i.e. one ore more battery capacity bars no long is lighted)

You filter and toss all those that answer no to question 1, your question 2 people are your total pool of vehicles, and the last are your capacity loss people.


If you do a one vote poll test it would be the honor system:

If you live in X places and your car is over X age, do you have battery capacity loss? Your total vote is your pool of cars, and the yes are the loss people.

Unfortuantely, the sample size may not be enough to get within a good level of accuracy, but, its the best we could do with what we got. IF we could get some blog site (autoblog/autoblog green, jalopnik, hybridcars, etc.) to post a vote like this we could get a more accurate number assuming it is not abused (since we could potentially get a higher total votes).

 

[thankyouOB]

Just give it up. Some people enjoy life in their own little utopian world... But it IS nice knowing that my capacity and tick loss is just imaginary... :lol:

You are unbelievable! How do you come up with "a very few"?

I dont know why you decided to attack me for no reason in the above post; maybe you are angry about your car situation and did not read the thread.

But what we were discussing in terms of "a very few but increasing number" was those people who had "to sell the car because it will no longer get [them] to work, as some* BEV owners have already found out." We were NOT discussing people whose cars had lost capacity or a bar.

It would help the level of discussion if people would pay attention before belittling others.

 

[ztanos]

Just give it up. Some people enjoy life in their own little utopian world... But it IS nice knowing that my capacity and tick loss is just imaginary... :lol:

You are unbelievable! How do you come up with "a very few"?

I dont know why you decided to attack me for no reason in the above post; maybe you are angry about your car situation and did not read the thread.

But what we were discussing in terms of "a very few but increasing number" was those people who had "to sell the car because it will no longer get [them] to work, as some* BEV owners have already found out." We were NOT discussing people whose cars had lost capacity or a bar.

It would help the level of discussion if people would pay attention before belittling others.

Careful... he'll start blocking some... I mean a very few but increasing number of you if you aren't willing to line up and accept his arguments. You have to be willing to let him follow people into other threads and harp on them as well.

 

[TomT]

I can always hope! :lol:

Careful... he'll start blocking some... I mean a very few but increasing number of you if you aren't willing to line up and accept his arguments. You have to be willing to let him follow people into other threads and harp on them as well.

 

[thankyouOB]

TomT--I can always hope! :lol:


be a stand up person. I adjust my views when people critique what I write here.
admit you didnt read the thread before you jumped on what I said.

 

[ztanos]

TomT--I can always hope! :lol:


be a stand up person. I adjust my views when people critique what I write here.
admit you didnt read the thread before you jumped on what I said.

Hello Mr. Pot. glad you met Mr. Kettle.

 

[TonyWilliams]

This attorney thinks there is a good claim against Nissan for violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Hyung Choi
Choi & Fabian, PLC
90 South Kyrene, Suite 5
Chandler, AZ 85226
(480) 517-1400 (voice)
(480) 517-6955 (fax)

 

[Stoaty]

This attorney thinks there is a good claim against Nissan for violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

http://www.azag.gov/consumer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Consumer fraud, as defined by Arizona law, is any deception, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of merchandise. In addition, concealment, suppression or failure to disclose a material fact may be consumer fraud if it is done with the intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or nondisclosure. Merchandise may include any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.

The Arizona Attorney General has the authority to bring actions alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. Sometimes the enforcement authority is delegated to County Attorneys. A private citizen can also bring an action for a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act within one year from the date the claim arises.

If you believe you have been the victim of consumer fraud, you should first contact the company in writing and specifically request the relief that you feel is appropriate. You may also file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office."

The bolded part (bold added by me) certainly would fit current sales practices in Arizona from the descriptions I have read here.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Lawsuit Settlement News!
Nissan Leaf Battery Life Class Action Lawsuit

By Mike Holter

 

A federal class action lawsuit accuses Nissan of concealing that its Leaf vehicles have a design defect that causes them to prematurely lose battery life and driving range.

California Plaintiff Humberto Klee says Nissan advertises the Leaf’s driving range at 100 miles or less, depending on a number of variables such as road conditions and the weather. What Nissan doesn’t disclose in its advertising, however, is that the advertised driving range is based on the vehicle’s performance only after charging the battery to 100% capacity – which Nissan tells owners not to do because it could cause battery damage, the Nissan Leaf class action lawsuit says.

“Before purchase or lease, Nissan failed to disclose its own recommendations that owners avoid charging the battery beyond 80% in order to mitigate battery damage and failed to disclose that Nissan’s estimated 100 mile range was based on a full charge battery, which is contrary to Nissan’s own recommendation for battery charging,” the Nissan Leaf battery class action lawsuit says.

“Consumers thus were misled by Nissan’s representations regarding driving range without being aware that these ranges were only achievable by charging the battery in a manner contrary to Nissan’s own guidance.”

Nissan also failed to disclose and/or intentionally omitted to reveal a design defect in the Leaf’s battery system that causes the Leaf to suffer “widespread, severe and premature loss of driving range, battery capacity and battery life,” the class action lawsuit continues.

The Nissan Leaf class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed Class of all California and Arizona consumers who purchased or leased any 2011 through 2012 Nissan Leaf vehicle. It is asking, among other things, that Nissan remove and replace Class Members’ battery systems with a suitable alternative product, reform its Leaf battery warranty, cover the loss of battery capacity under warranty, and reimburse Class Members for any repairs made. Klee is alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act and Unfair Business Act, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of Implied Warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

A copy of the Nissan Leaf Battery Life False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is Humberto Daniel Klee, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-08238, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. The Plaintiffs are represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Andrew Sokolowski and Tarek Zohdy of the Initiative Legal Group, APC.