Letter about possible Nissan Lawsuit

[Stoaty]

How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

Maybe because lack of disclosure is what got them here in the first place?

PS I am not in favor of a class action lawsuit, but it remains to be seen whether it will be a help or a hindrance.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Comply with what? The rule that says that technology can't be put on the market until it's proven and tested to work with every single possible person and use case? If that rule was enforced we'd all still be riding horses (which after all might not be a bad thing).

Engineers are the ones who can improve the technology and fuel progress. Not the lawyers. Lawyers serve a purpose, but not in technology. Patent trolls, class action lawsuits are impeding progress. Everything that Nissan has been upfront about regarding the battery (80% saves the battery, extreme heat voids the warranty, [EDIT] even showing the battery health of the dashboard) is now used AGAINST them... How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

IMO, all it will achieve (at best) is make the paperwork for new LEAF owners 2-3 pages longer with gibberish lawyer talk. I curse a lawyer every time I have to press on the Accept button when I start my LEAF. That's lawyer's contribution to society.

if it were so simple.

in my experience with dealing with the people who have the control over final products we enjoy, i find there are usually 3 controling entities. Engineering, Sales/Marketing and Finance.

the latter dictates to the other two and Finance is VERY closely in contact with legal. its usually Engineering lobbying to Finance what needs to be done and Finance putting up the fences to control the cost.

on the LEAF, cost control clearly the reason for the final product. I think Nissan Engineers warned finance and finance made a decision based on the lesser of several evils.

now, we can say Nissan put out a bad product that was widely predicted and be right in some circumstances and wrong in others. I have no real complaints. the LEAF is not perfect but i cant afford to even buy "very good" so the LEAF is a product that fits the needs of my limited income bracket.

not all can say that and this is no way saying the lawsuit is not justified but there is no perfect product and there will always be disgruntled owners.

but at the same time, there is a degree of expected reliability in a product and for automobiles, it is VERY high. this aint a cellphone that provide inconveniences in one's life for dropped calls "i was in the middle of an important sales call and probably just lost $1000 because of you!" (trust me, that phrase is repeated hundreds of times a day)

transportation (or lack thereof) can create disastrous consequences in nearly every phase of our lives even to the point of compromised safety and well being so they must be on a higher level.

but at the same time, there is a bit of expectation among many here that is unjustifiably high.

the language we have now is vague but understandable but having been involved with EVs much more than the average Joe, i might simply be taking too many already known assumptions for granted that a newer EV'er does not have.

Nissan commissioning Chelsea to investigate this is the right thing (albeit a bit late) thing to do


Great TV Show quotes;
From "Walking Dead" episode 6 season 1. from the lone occupant of the CDC in Atlanta musing over the impending loss of power to the center which would trigger a self destruct sequence

"The Whole World runs on fossil fuel. How dumb is that?"

 

[TonyWilliams]

How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

Maybe because lack of disclosure is what got them here in the first place?

Sadly, I have to agree. Clearly, Nissan is, and will, have multiple lawsuits concerning their LACK of disclosures. You just can't sell a product that costs half the value of an average HOUSE without disclosing the known data to make an informed decision.

It wasn't that Nissan didn't know. They did. They purposely left out information, or used information like 100 mile range to aid SALES.

The lawsuits pending may NOT disclose information should a settlement be reached (that's where the lawyers get paid, and the consumer gets the $20 coupon). But, a consumer advocate who is seeking public disclosure of these issues won't settle for that.

 

[ericsf]

Great TV Show quotes;
From "Walking Dead" episode 6 season 1. from the lone occupant of the CDC in Atlanta musing over the impending loss of power to the center which would trigger a self destruct sequence

"The Whole World runs on fossil fuel. How dumb is that?"

I'm sure it was the CDC legal department who caused it all.

 

[ericsf]

How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

Maybe because lack of disclosure is what got them here in the first place?

Sadly, I have to agree. Clearly, Nissan is, and will, have multiple lawsuits concerning their LACK of disclosures. You just can't sell a product that costs half the value of an average HOUSE without disclosing the known data to make an informed decision.

It wasn't that Nissan didn't know. They did. They purposely left out information, or used information like 100 mile range to aid SALES.

The lawsuits pending may NOT disclose information should a settlement be reached (that's where the lawyers get paid, and the consumer gets the $20 coupon). But, a consumer advocate who is seeking public disclosure of these issues won't settle for that.

I don't fully agree (no surprise ;-))on forcing Nissan to disclose data. Ideally, consumers should know everything that can impact the value of what they put their money into. But that's not practical in the field of new technologies. First, disclosure of data often means exposing trade secrets on the design.
Second, most people would not have clue what to do with that data. You suggested the idea of a sticker on the car but how can the average Joe understand how temperature, average SOC, # of cycles and DOD will impact their battery when, we the uber geeks of EVs are struggling with. We're a long way before this is dumbed down for the rest of the people to understand.
This is where trusting a brand comes into play. Nissan made the claim that their product will fit a very large majority of owners which I believe is true on all counts (but only time will tell). They have to deal with the ones who don't fall in the majority but I think that whatever they could have disclosed, people would have either not understood or not believed them.

This is why people like you who are independently testing and publishing data on the car are way more valuable than any of Nissan's disclosures.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i dont think that battery degradation and range is the same as not getting 50 mpg in your Prius. this is a new field, new technology and Nissan must consider the preconceived notions new customers bring to the table especially with something as familiar as personal transportation

 

[ericsf]

i dont think that battery degradation and range is the same as not getting 50 mpg in your Prius. this is a new field, new technology and Nissan must consider the preconceived notions new customers bring to the table especially with something as familiar as personal transportation

I don't agree: MPG is a very reasonnable equivalent to range (in fact they are affected by the same driver behaviors) and battery degradation is the same as the wear of the dozen of parts in a ICE as you drive it. They are affected differently and have some uniqueness but they are the fundamentally same things. I'd like to understand better what angle you have on this question.

 

[downeykp]

But isn't the point that Nissan overestimated the capabilities of the car to make sales? That is the area where Nissan is culpable.
It would have been prudent for Nissan to underestimate, but who would spend $35000 for a car that only went 50 mi. on a charge.

 

[ericsf]

But isn't the point that Nissan overestimated the capabilities of the car to make sales? That is the area where Nissan is culpable.
It would have been prudent for Nissan to underestimate, but who would spend $35000 for a car that only went 50 mi. on a charge.

Sure. Like Apple should tell you that your iPhone battery charge won't last a day if you browse, stream and email non stop.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i dont think that battery degradation and range is the same as not getting 50 mpg in your Prius. this is a new field, new technology and Nissan must consider the preconceived notions new customers bring to the table especially with something as familiar as personal transportation

I don't agree: MPG is a very reasonnable equivalent to range (in fact they are affected by the same driver behaviors) and battery degradation is the same as the wear of the dozen of parts in a ICE as you drive it. They are affected differently and have some uniqueness but they are the fundamentally same things. I'd like to understand better what angle you have on this question.

sorry, i did a poor job of making my point. i should not have used the Prius since it tells you what your mpg is. in my meanderings preaching EVs and general overall reduction in use, i have noticed that nearly everyone tends to overestimate their mileage which is the reason i bring up the mpg thing.

what most people never realize is the precipitous drop in performance their gas car experiences each winter. but its not noticed because they only get gas when tank is down to an eighth or whatever and unlike an EV they dont clearly remember when they filled up last, how much they drove etc.

EVs are different because you always start (more or less) with a full charge in the morning and any significant loss of range will be noticed. the fact that Nissan hides so much of the lower capacity aggravates the issue

 

[ericsf]

what most people never realize is the precipitous drop in performance their gas car experiences each winter. but its not noticed because they only get gas when tank is down to an eighth or whatever and unlike an EV they dont clearly remember when they filled up last, how much they drove

Got it.

 

[leafkabob]

Frankly, I don't think the allegation in the lawsuit about the 100 mile claim is likely to be a winner. On the other hand, failure to disclose to folks in hot climates that the heat will cause them to have a much shorter battery life than those in more favorable climates IS likely to be a winner. Material omissions are violations of the Arizona (and probably California) consumer fraud laws.

 

[downeykp]

But isn't the point that Nissan overestimated the capabilities of the car to make sales? That is the area where Nissan is culpable.
It would have been prudent for Nissan to underestimate, but who would spend $35000 for a car that only went 50 mi. on a charge.

Sure. Like Apple should tell you that your iPhone battery charge won't last a day if you browse, stream and email non stop.

Apples and oranges? One is a phone one is a $35000 vehicle, I do not get the comparison. People know now what the capabilities of an iPhone are. All we had to go on from Nissan was their word. They were inflating numbers to make everyone think they were getting more than they were.
This does not even mention how they scammed the people of Arizona.

 

[EVDrive]

How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

Maybe because lack of disclosure is what got them here in the first place?

Sadly, I have to agree. Clearly, Nissan is, and will, have multiple lawsuits concerning their LACK of disclosures. You just can't sell a product that costs half the value of an average HOUSE without disclosing the known data to make an informed decision.

It wasn't that Nissan didn't know. They did. They purposely left out information, or used information like 100 mile range to aid SALES.

The lawsuits pending may NOT disclose information should a settlement be reached (that's where the lawyers get paid, and the consumer gets the $20 coupon). But, a consumer advocate who is seeking public disclosure of these issues won't settle for that.

Edit: to be more polite...

Tony, above you stated that the Leaf costs half the value of a house. Maybe in another country but in the US, not a chance, that is ridiculous. you would be right if we were still living in 1980. Now the average cost to buy a house is between $270,000 - $300,000 including land. In the bay area a house costs between $6-$800,000. Pretty sure none of the prices are twice the cost of a leaf.

http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

 

[Stoaty]

Above you stated that the Leaf costs half the value of a house.

Never heard of hyperbole? - an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” If this is the best example you can provide, I'll stick with Tony.

 

[QueenBee]

Above you stated that the Leaf costs half the value of a house.

Never heard of hyperbole? - an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” If this is the best example you can provide, I'll stick with Tony.

Also, he didn't mention what state. There are many states where the average house, or at least a great deal of houses can be had for $70k, or even less. (I tried finding a good source for state by state averages but eh closes I could come up with was http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

 

[EVDrive]

I think Nissan definatley over promised on their initial range claim of 100 miles. They didn't say you had to go 45mph on a flat road in warm temps to get that until we were all about to actually start purchasing the Leaf. I think the EPA test covered Nissans ass with the 73 mile range sticker on the window. I have to admit, that when I heard about the EPA rating, I was not thrilled because I thought the car would go 100 miles freeway speeds because of Nissan original marketing. With no other decent EV on the market, I took delivery of the Leaf like many others did. I also had to sign the Nissan disclosure that the range would be all over the place depending on climate control use, outside temp and speed. I was not thrilled with the real world estimates but signed the papers anyway. Everyone who signed this disclosure can't go back now and say "oh my Leaf will only go 45 miles with a cold outside temp with the heater on. I never saw this coming, I thought I could drive 100 miles." It was disclosed people. If your dealer did not have you sign that disclosure, that could be a big liability for them.

The real issue here in my opinion is that nobody had any information about how fast the battery would degrade in different climates. We can't do anything about the past but going forward Nissan now needs to disclose capacity loss estimates for different climates in addition to the information they gave us about range estimates. So after baking ones Leaf in the sweltering AZ heat for 2 years that 50 mile commute that was easy year 1 and 2 is now impossible after year 3. Before Nissan could reasonably claim ignorance to some degree as they gave us the 70% of original battery capacity after 10 years of use estimate. Now we and they know that does not hold true in hot climates. Time for Nissan to build some better models based on all the factors and real world field tests that have happened.

Getting into this purchase as an early adopter, I knew I could get burned because this technology is 1, so new and untested in the real world and 2, may be obsolete in a few years to boot. That risk was acceptable to me, I wanted to show Nissan and other auto manufacturers that there is a market for EVs and they should invest the resources to build better technology.

In the future, I think that the EPA should estimate miles per charge for the first ten years instead of what they tell us now which is only true for perhaps year 1 and will decrease every year after the sale.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Above you stated that the Leaf costs half the value of a house. Maybe in another country but in the US, not a chance, that is ridiculous. you would be right if we were still living in 1980. Now the average cost to buy a house is between $270,000 - $300,000 including land. In the bay area a house costs between $6-$800,000. Pretty sure none of the prices are twice the cost of a leaf.

http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

I lose credibility for that? I didn't say the average home, or one in the highest price housing market in the USA (SF Bay). I said a house.

My 23 year old son just bought one in Feb 2012 in Phoenix for $65,000. We just sold it after his death for $85,000. It was almost brand new. So, I ask, is that not "a house"? Is it not about double the price of a LEAF ?

EDIT: just reread my post. I did say "average", of course, not stating where that average was. I really don't know what the average was in with my son's house, but obviously there were "comparable" houses in the development for similar prices.

 

[abasile]

My 23 year old son just bought one in Feb 2012 in Phoenix for $65,000. We just sold it after his death for $85,000.

Tony, I am so sorry to learn of your son's passing at such a young age. I know it would absolutely break my heart to have that happen to one of my sons. Please accept my condolences.

 

[shrink]

I put in an offer on an investment property this weekend for $90,000 and it's most definitely a house.