Lost Battery Capacity and Range / Autonomy, Page 2

[TonyWilliams]

Nissan is way overdue for a follow up letter.

Perhaps they will be prompted for additional information on Saturday?

 

[cwerdna]

It's interesting that OrientExpress has now today suddenly decided to erase virtually all his posts that Tony linked to at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=221444#p221444" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and replace them w/numbers. :roll: WTF?

I sure hope MNL tracks edits and thus can revert them. At least a bunch of people have quoted his posts in their responses.

 

[theaveng]

2

Erasing all your previous posts eh? You're a real cockerspaniel.
QUOTE:
"very vocal and seemingly hysterical schizophrenic ADD owners ... they don't represent the vast majority of LEAF owners.... for whatever reason are unable to deal with the situation and would rather freak out. Speculation is rampant, and facts are few... fan the flames of discontent in a very trollish manner... for many that is not good enough and demand immediate satisfaction... Other than assigning wet nurses to the most vocal and impatient of those that are dissatisfied, it is hard to say what more than can be done."

 

[mark1313]

No one did or has contacted me about NOT parking in 110 heat for 5 hours,if they had told me before I had bought the car I never would of bought the Leaf,the car sits on a very hot blacktop 6 hours a day sometimes..I guess Nissan thought everyone in Phx was only going to drive the car at night..

This is a page 2 to the thread, currently titled, "Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)".

Here's the current Wiki page on these issues

*******************************

Here's a summary of the issues:

November 2011 - the first known Nissan LEAF had it's battery pack replaced when an owner in the Phoenix area reported a missing battery capacity bar on the dash instrument and reduced range. He is currently (August 2012) operating his vehicle on the second battery that is also degraded. He wishes to get out of his lease now. He has now reported that his LEAF was returned to Nissan August 29, 2012.

April 2012 - another Phoenix area LEAF driver reported the same issues.

Since then, dozens have reported on this forum the loss of range / autonomy and/or battery capacity. Many have reported to Nissan at 877-NO-GAS-EV (1-877-664-2738) and been given a "case number" concerning the issue. Most of these reports are currently LEAF's from extremely hot parts of the USA, namely Arizona and Texas. However, there are now reports from other areas.

July 24, 2012 - Carla Bailo, Senior Vice President, Research & Development, Nissan Americas sends an undated open letter to LEAF owners, and the world, about their commitment to address these issues. This letter is not present on Nissan’s main news site, where corporate news items are usually posted. Several forum readers have privately suggested that our poster "OrientExpress" actually penned this letter, as a way to "protect" Nissan from bad press.

Nissan took between 6 and 11 LEAFs (Nissan does not officially disclose the full number, thought to be 11, however only 6 are known on the forum) with significant capacity loss to their Casa Grande testing facility in Arizona.

August 2012 - Nissan Motor Co. said it’s hiring the senior auto reviewer at Consumer Reports magazine to be the carmaker’s new executive adviser on vehicle quality. David Champion will work at Nissan’s vehicle testing center in Stanfield, Arizona, where Nissan tests the LEAF for high temperature environments, among other things.

August 23, 2012 - Nissan sends out a survey to owners asking, among other things, how much range loss is acceptable.

August 31, 2012 - LEAF owner Scott Yarosh is the first to lose 4 of the 12 capacity bars, for approximately 33.75% - 39.99% total battery capacity loss. He has scheduled to return his leased car to Nissan on September 15, 2012. His car was sent to the Nissan testing center (at Nissan's request), in Casa Grande, Arizona in July 2012 with several other customer LEAFs. The battery was removed by Nissan, however no repairs were made or promised. Below is a table with the number of battery capacity bars missing on his car, the percentage lost, date lost, miles driven to date, and months in service.

1 bar - 15.00% to 21.24%: Apr 07, 2012, 20000 miles, 10 months of service since new
2 bars - 21.25% to 27.24%: Jun 07, 2012, 23800 miles, 12 months (3800 miles/2 months)
3 bars - 27.50% to 33.74%: July 07, 2012, 25870 miles, 13 months (2070 miles/1 month)
4 bars - 33.75% to 39.99%: Aug 31, 2012, 28190 miles 14 months (2320 miles /1.7 months)
5 bars - 40.00% is the next threshold displayed on the LEAF's dash instrument of 12 total bars.

September 2, 2012 - The first overseas report of reduced battery capacity, from Hong Kong.

September 4, 2012- Andy Palmer, executive vice president of Nissan also dismissed recent reports of battery problems in hot weather for the LEAF. A number of owners in America complained of reduced range during summer, but Palmer says the problem is a faulty battery level display.

"We don't have a battery problem," he says.

Andy Palmer holds global responsibility for product planning, program management, market intelligence, IS, marketing communications and corporate planning, including in a leadership role for the zero-emissions business unit during the development of the Nissan LEAF.

September 15, 2012- In response to Andy Palmer's comments, some of the Phoenix cars, including Scott Yarosh's LEAF that currently has the most displayed battery capacity loss, will be tested to determine if in fact the cars can physically drive as far now as they did when new with a "faulty battery level display", or if this is merely another attempt by Nissan execs to deflect attention from the serious battery issues that were predicted by many experts before Nissan manufactured the car.

September 2012 - Awaiting official word from Nissan as to the results of their studies, and their intentions going forward. Many have expressed concern that if the results are "everything is normal" and try to "explain things away", aka "whitewashing", that those affected owners will then have the resolve to move forward with more robust methods to address these issues. As of the end of August, 2012, one Phoenix owner reported that Mark Perry, Director of Product Planning for Nissan North America, "didn't seem so interested in determining the root cause of the LEAF's Battery Capacity Loss issue." In addition, he told the owner (with 3 battery capacity bars lost on his LEAF) "(paraphrasing)'...well that battery must not of been cared for very good…'" and that they "are trying to learn the drivers habits with the state of the batteries with making a determination if there is any problem."

********************************

Why Did Nissan Develop an EV Battery? "A battery that can control its heating without a cooling mechanism is also longer lasting, since the biggest cause of a battery's lifetime being shortened is overheating."

Nissan developed a service bulletin specifying the range of the LEAF that you can download from http://www.NissanHelp.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Search for NTB11-076a.

A recent study by Pikes Research with U.S. Department of Energy data shows, lithium ion batteries (like those in the LEAF) exposed to hotter average temperatures lose their ability to store energy; the hotter the temperature the faster they lose their storing ability. So BEV owners in Phoenix will likely be looking to replace their batteries faster than owners living where the thermometer doesn’t often reach 110°F.

A very technical discussion, dated Sept 2004, of Lithium Ion cell degradation over time shows "the largest capacity loss has been found for the cell stored under the FL condition at temperature of 35C (about 95F) with 4.2V EOCV (fully charged)". They did not test extreme temperatures like Phoenix, that can exceed 50C (about122F) on an asphalt car park.

Nissan specifically DOES NOT WARRANTY BATTERY DEGRADATION (capacity losses), however, changes to range / autonomy are not specified as a result of battery capacity losses. Nissan's sister company, Renault, does warranty the battery for 75% capacity with a virtually identical battery of four AESC cells per each of 48 modules. General Motors also offers this protection with a far more robust Volt battery pack, mostly because there are emission control considerations (the gasoline/petrol engine will run more if the battery degrades). NOTE: Volt battery uses about 60% of capacity, LEAF uses 93%. Volt battery is liquid cooled, LEAF has no battery cooling.

“Thermal management of lithium-ion battery systems is critical to the success of all-electric vehicles because extreme temperatures can affect performance, reliability, safety and durability,” says a Ford press release.

“Extreme temperatures impact a battery’s life and performance, making it crucial to have an effective cooling and heating system to regulate temperature for these demanding applications,” said Anand Sankaran, Ford executive technical leader, Energy Storage and HV Systems.

****************************

Arrhenius Law - while I expect this will come up in legal challenges against Nissan, it has nothing to do with "Law"

Some owners suggest that the battery degradation is contingent on "Arrhenius Law" formula of double the degradation per 10C rise in temperature. So, a 0C battery has X loss per hour, then a 10C battery has 2X loss per hour, 20C = 4X, etc. Here is a graph of this formula on various US cities.

An excellent technical published paper on Arrhenius Law on batteries, page 326. Here's the discussion about this paper.

From battery expert Charles Whalen:
"The salient point and operative principle here is that lithium battery life follows an exponential Arrhenius relationship with respect to temperature.... let’s say that at 100F lithium battery life is 3 years; then at 75F it’s 6 years, and at 50F it’s 12 years. Those probably aren’t too far off the mark, though there is some differentiation for the various different cathodic subchemistries (e.g. LiCoO2, LiFePO4, LiNi.33Co.33Mn.33O2, and the LiMn2O4 chemistry, that both GM and Nissan are using in the Volt and Leaf, being the most heat sensitive and having the shortest life at higher ambients).... it is the combination of: a) the high ambients in hot climates like Phoenix and South Florida, b) the exponential nature of this Arrhenius function relating lithium battery life to temperature (where battery life roughly doubles for about every 25 degrees F reduction in temperature), and c) the high current cost of lithium batteries [$625/kWh for the Volt ($10,000/16kWh) and $750/kWh for the Leaf ($18,000/24kWh)], … that makes a liquid-cooled, water-chilled, active thermal management system economically advantageous and viable ***FOR AN EV THAT WILL SPEND ITS LIFE IN A HOT CLIMATE***."

******************************

Some owners are making plans for legal help or class action status. Some Phoenix area attorneys have expressed interest in suing Nissan over these issues. Please PM "opossum" and "Azdre" for more information. At least one LEAF owner received a solicitation from one of the law firms actively looking for clients on these matters. Here is a thread discussing law suit issues.

There could be a claim against Nissan for violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Here is a law firm that is interested in this case.

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

The forum's most dedicated data collector, and a reduced range Phoenix LEAF owner, has started this thread concerning his data driven findings.

Here's a first hand account by an owner who met with Nissan engineers in May 2010 (well before the car was released) at the Arizona Testing center, "They did admit that the high temperatures reduced the mileage by 10 to 20%."

Some have suggested that this must be a software issue, and further that "high up" Nissan folks think so too, instead of a battery issue (by Nissan's use of 93% of the capacity of the battery, and not using a temperature management system on the LEAF), however another data driven LEAF driver with capacity and range reduction says that his low serial number car (185) with the original firmware went through last summer in Phoenix without issue, and now has capacity / range issues this summer with the same firmware. The same was expressed here.

Some owners have sold their purchased LEAF, only to lease a second LEAF or other EV, as a method to mitigate any impact to value of the vehicle because of battery capacity and range reduction.

Going to a Nissan dealer has thus far resulted in a response of "all is normal" with the battery, regardless of the range / autonomy reduction and/or battery capacity degradation. Also, any battery report conducted at a dealer, and the subsequent results given to a consumer, will likely have "5 of 5 stars" in every category, regardless of the range / autonomy reduction and/or battery capacity degradation.

Please read the comments posted on this "autoblog" website in an article titled "Is the Nissan LEAF Battery Pack under Engineered?". These comments were made almost one year before a single LEAF was produced, and suggests Nissan seriously made a mistake selling the car in hot environments like Phoenix and Texas.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in 2009, well before LEAF was released for sale rips on Nissan's battery technology, and says it's "primitive" without a temperature management system. PLease read the comments on this article, also. Very well thought predictions that this would not end well for Nissan, and the greater electric vehicle community.

Naturally, the Nissan legal department made clear the battery capacity is without warrantee, but as we know, consumers have been sold a car in hot places like Phoenix that the manufacturer knew would NOT survive the heat and did NOT tell the consumer of these shortcomings.

The US government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has an presentation from Nissan concerning their theory on how the battery handles heat (see slide 12 of the presentation). While I am not suggesting that this may happen, if the NHTSA orders a vehicle recall for a safety defect, the manufacturer has three legal options for making good on the order. The manufacturer can:

- Repair the vehicle free of charge (this is the usual remedy you see offered for a vehicle defect);
- Replace the vehicle with an identical or similar vehicle that is free of the defect; or
- Refund the purchase price in full minus a reasonable allowance for vehicle depreciation.

*********************************
Why is the range advertised as "100 miles" when EPA says it's 73 miles?

Some have suggested that manufacturers should not be allowed to market any other range figure except what a standardized EPA test has determined. Also, to include the effects of local climate on batteries that are without any method to protect from ambient heat.

Maybe it has something to do with CARB ZEV credits? (California Air Resource Board - Zero Emissions Vehicle)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/zev_tutorial.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,
See page 46.
Vehicles which offer 100 mile range with "Fast Refueling" are considered "Type III" and qualify for 4 credits per vehicle. 100 mile range without "Fast Refueling" is a Type II for 3 credits.

California Air Resource Board (CARB)
Zero Emissions Vehicle Requirements

Type V - 300+ miles range with fast refueling - Credit 7 - Req # 1,427
Type IV - 200+ miles range with fast refueling - Credit 5 - Req # 2,000
Type III - 100+ miles range with fast refueling - Credit 4 - Req # 2,500
Type III - 200+ miles range……………………... - Credit 4 - Req # 2,500
Type II - 100+ miles range…………………….... - Credit 3 - Req # 3,333
Type 1.5 - 75-100 miles range………………... - Credit 2.5 - Req # 4,000
Type 1 - 50-75 miles range…………………..... - Credit 2 - Req # 5,000

********************************

If you are experiencing reduced range / autonomy issues, and/or your dash battery capacity instrument is missing one or more of its twelve bar segments, here are some suggestions to pursue:


1. Report to Nissan at 877-NO-GAS-EV (1-877-664-2738) and get a "case number" concerning the issue

2. Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "Office of Defects Investigation" and get a Confirmation Number (ODI Number) concerning the issue. Address: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590, 1-888-327-4236 or 1-202-366-0123. Here is a NHTSA presentation about electric vehicle safety from Nissan. Check out slide 12 about heat affects on lithium batteries.

3. Report to Consumer Reports. This can be a little confusing. In fourth line click on Non-Consumer Reports product or services, click again for Share an experience and then click again on Defective but non hazardous.

4. Report to respective Better Business Bureau. Here is Arizona BBB and here is California BBB. The Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. is at 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203; 1-703-276-0100

5. Report to your State Attorney General’s Office

6. Report to Center for Auto Safety, 1825 Connecticut Ave, NW, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20009-5708. You may send them a letter sharing your experiences with them. Should they have any information on your particular automobile, they will forward it to you, along with helpful information and advice within 10 days from date of receipt of their letter. They ask, but do not require, a $.60 SASE to help keep their costs down.

*****************************

Here's some options on how to dispose of your car, should it no longer meet your needs, or you are concerned about loss of value concerning loss of range / autonomy. First, you must determine what your end result needs to be:

1. Wait for Nissan to acknowledge there is a problem, devise a plan and implement a fix to your satisfaction.

2. Nissan may take back leases under certain parameters.

3. Sell the car. CarMax has been a good place to start.

3. Use your state's Lemon Law. It may be prudent NOT to address battery capacity, as that is specifically not covered by warranty.

4. Hire legal help for individual (tort) suits.

5. Join a class action suit.

**************************

Nissan Corporate Contacts:

Mark Perry, Director of Product Planning for Nissan North America. On August 3, 2012, he was reported to have said, "We've also been very transparent in making sure people know that battery capacity will degrade in very high heat – for instance, if the cars sit out in 110-degree heat for five hours a day." He was also quoted as saying sometime before January 25, 2010, "We don't need thermal management for the U.S., but we are looking at the technology for Dubai and other locations like that.... We've gone on the record saying that the pack has a 70 to 80 percent capacity after 10 years."

Here are some average temperatures:

........................Dubai............................................Phoenix........

May: avg high 100F avg low 76F......ave high: 95F, average low: 69F
Jun: avg high 103F avg low 81F....... ave high: 104F, average low: 78F
July: avg high 105F avg low 86F.......ave high: 106F, average low: 83F
Aug: avg high 106F avg low 86F......ave high: 104F, average low: 83F
Sept: avg high 102F avg low 81F.....ave high: 100F, average low: 77F


Bradley D. Thacker
Vice President, Total Customer Satisfaction Nissan Americas
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/brad.thacker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Melissa Ortiz
Nissan Arbitration
[email protected]
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8811388" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anna Naraeva
Nissan North America, Inc.
Escalation Team Supervisor, Consumer Affairs
Phone: 615-725-7376
Fax: 615-967-2559
[email protected]
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Naraeva/1646221651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

**********************************

ARIZONA’S LEMON LAW

- two years or 24,000 miles, whichever is earlier
- a problem with the car that substantially impairs the use and value
- fails to successfully repair the defect after four attempts, or...
- out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days

CALIFORNIA’S LEMON LAW

- the lessee or buyer is completely free to choose whether to accept a replacement or a refund
- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act applies to your warranty period (3 years, 36,000 miles on LEAF in USA)
- does not apply if the problem was caused by abuse; follow the terms of the warranty for maintenance and use
- reasonable number of repair attempts for problems that substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle
- during the first 18 months / 18,000 miles "Lemon Law" presumes four or more repair attempts, or.....
- vehicle is out of service of more than 30 days since delivery of the vehicle

TEXAS' LEMON LAW

- $35 filing fee is charged for complaints about new vehicles
- Case Advisor to determine whether it meets the jurisdictional requirements of the law
- Administrative Law Ruling
- if unresolved, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) has hearing(s)
- consumers must prove to the Administrative Law Judge that their vehicle is a lemon
- manufacturers also have the right to appear and present evidence and argument to the contrary

FLORIDA'S' LEMON LAW

- consumer has an unconditional right to choose a refund rather than a replacement motor vehicle
- "Lemon Law Rights Period" is the first 24 months
- recurring problem not fixed after three attempts, or....
- out of service for repair for 30 cumulative days
- you must complete a specific form provided on the Florida Secretary of State website
- you must submit your information to the proper arbitrator

 

[TickTock]

In October 2011 I reported what appeared to be 15% degradation based on gids. At the time this was theorized as a bad gidometer, tsunami damage, refurbished battery, etc. since everyone else reporting was seeing within a few gids of 281. I actually bought the gidometer and a wall power monitor at that point because I was not seeing the advertised range even after fall started and I stopped using the AC.

I want my 281!

(just adding to the timeline)

 

[KJD]

In October 2011 I reported what appeared to be 15% degradation based on gids. At the time this was theorized as a bad gidometer, tsunami damage, refurbished battery, etc. since everyone else reporting was seeing within a few gids of 281. I actually bought the gidometer and a wall power monitor at that point because I was not seeing the advertised range even after fall started and I stopped using the AC.
I want my 281!
(just adding to the timeline)

What is your GID count today ?
Based on your most recent testing what level of degradation do you have now.

 

[edatoakrun]

I think there's some good history of the issue On the "12% capacity loss in 9 months is "normal"
thread, also.

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:29 am

edatoakrun:

IMO, the most accurate and comprehensive calculation of battery capacity, can (presently) be accomplished by range tests, from 100% charge, to the lowest level your situation allows. Shortly after I got my leaf, I chose a trip I knew I would want to make repeatedly, near maximum range.

By reducing variations under my control, speed. driving style, and climate control, as much as possible, and recording variations in available battery capacity, energy use and efficiency outside my control, principally (estimated) battery temperature, and driving temperature, I believe I now have a baseline record of maximum range, allowing me to calculate any reduction, in the future.

I’ve repeated the process several times, and, since having CW updated in August, I believe I am able to not only record the range experienced on this drive, but am also able to calculate available battery capacity, with reasonable accuracy. For example, last September:

:
...According to CW, on this drive I used 18.7 kWh to drive 91.1 miles at average energy economy of 4.9 m/kWh....

Extrapolating from the chart, it appears CW may be saying the 1.7 kWh (8.5% from the chart, of 20.4 total kWh-anyone have a better number?) I had left at or near VLBW implies total available battery capacity of about 20.4 kWh.
So, from the limited info I can gather, looks to me that Carwings may now be accurate as to energy use.

Posts from others who can take the charge lower could verify this...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5423&hilit=carwings+update&start=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, if you feel you have more accurate means of calculating available battery capacity from range, than Carwings, you could use those methods.

I would suggest Every LEAF owner try this. At least until some point in the Future, when Phil, or others, may provide more accurate methods.

But IMO, every LEAF owner should be able get resolution to +/- a few percent, by doing this. You will also see for yourself how variations in temperature, ECO/drive, use, braking, etc., affect your energy use, and how effectively ascent energy is recovered, in descent.

It could also be very useful to have this information, if there is ever a difference of opinion between yourself, and Nissan as to your present or past battery capacity, such as may be so, in this case.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=184774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too bad the records of actual LEAF range tests remains so inadequate today, so long after the question of significant battery capacity loss first arose.

 

[TickTock]

In October 2011 I reported what appeared to be 15% degradation based on gids. At the time this was theorized as a bad gidometer, tsunami damage, refurbished battery, etc. since everyone else reporting was seeing within a few gids of 281. I actually bought the gidometer and a wall power monitor at that point because I was not seeing the advertised range even after fall started and I stopped using the AC.
I want my 281!
(just adding to the timeline)

What is your GID count today ?
Based on your most recent testing what level of degradation do you have now.

This isn't an easy thing to answer. Based of gids alone, I'm at 215/281=76.5%. Based on the dealer assertion that I was at 87% capacity on 8/7 and using wall power to scale, I am now at 86%. According to gids, I was at 82%=231/281 at the time they said I was at 87%.

Given that we know gids to be volatile, I am inclined to believe the 87% number from Nissan in August except if you believe that, then they are saying 100% is only 21.8kWh. This doesn't align with the 281*.08=22.5kWh.

Like I said - not an easy question to answer...

 

[edatoakrun]

In October 2011 I reported what appeared to be 15% degradation based on gids. At the time this was theorized as a bad gidometer, tsunami damage, refurbished battery, etc. since everyone else reporting was seeing within a few gids of 281. I actually bought the gidometer and a wall power monitor at that point because I was not seeing the advertised range even after fall started and I stopped using the AC.
I want my 281!
(just adding to the timeline)

What is your GID count today ?
Based on your most recent testing what level of degradation do you have now.

This isn't an easy thing to answer. Based of gids alone, I'm at 215/281=76.5%. Based on the dealer assertion that I was at 87% capacity on 8/7 and using wall power to scale, I am now at 86%. According to gids, I was at 82%=231/281 at the time they said I was at 87%.

Given that we know gids to be volatile, I am inclined to believe the 87% number from Nissan in August except if you believe that, then they are saying 100% is only 21.8kWh. This doesn't align with the 281*.08=22.5kWh.

Like I said - not an easy question to answer...

But you do feel your recent range test results, 73.5 miles, fairly represents your current comparative battery capacity, right TickTock?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem, of course is our inability to determine whether that represents a ~12.5% loss from "new" leaf range, of ~84 miles, as Tony has misstated as fact, a ~3.3% loss of range from ~76 miles (the low range of the estimate from Nissan, which Tony says the test was intended to replicate) or, as I believe, quite likely a loss of range and capacity somewhere between those two extremes.

 

[surfingslovak]

The problem, of course is our inability to determine whether that represents a ~12.5% loss from "new" leaf range, of ~84 miles, as Tony has misstated as fact, a ~3.3% loss of range from ~76 miles (the low range of the estimate from Nissan, which Tony says the test was intended to replicate) or, as I believe, quite likely a loss of range and capacity somewhere between those two extremes.

Ed, I realize that you are nearly impossible to satisfy, but consider this. The range test Tony has organized determined loss of range that was within 0.5% of the bench test results performed in Casa Grande, and verbally communicated to TickTock by the dealer. This would indicate surprisingly good accuracy from something that was essentially a demonstration of real world autonomy performed in a structured manner by a group of owners. Wouldn't you say?

 

[TickTock]

This isn't an easy thing to answer. Based of gids alone, I'm at 215/281=76.5%. Based on the dealer assertion that I was at 87% capacity on 8/7 and using wall power to scale, I am now at 86%. According to gids, I was at 82%=231/281 at the time they said I was at 87%.

Given that we know gids to be volatile, I am inclined to believe the 87% number from Nissan in August except if you believe that, then they are saying 100% is only 21.8kWh. This doesn't align with the 281*.08=22.5kWh.

Like I said - not an easy question to answer...

Wanted to mention that the 82%=231/281 gid-based capacity at the time I was told 87% was based on the gid count after the car was returned (presumably recalbrated since the gid count was noticeably higher and I was back to 12 bars). Just prior to leaving the car with Nissan, I was at 77%=217/281 and 10 bars.

 

[edatoakrun]

The problem, of course is our inability to determine whether that represents a ~12.5% loss from "new" leaf range, of ~84 miles, as Tony has misstated as fact, a ~3.3% loss of range from ~76 miles (the low range of the estimate from Nissan, which Tony says the test was intended to replicate) or, as I believe, quite likely a loss of range and capacity somewhere between those two extremes.

Ed, I realize that you are nearly impossible to satisfy, but consider this. The range test Tony has organized determined loss of range that was within 0.5% of the bench test results performed in Casa Grande, and verbally communicated to TickTock by the dealer. This would indicate surprisingly good accuracy from something that was essentially a demonstration of real world autonomy performed in a structured manner by a group of owners. Wouldn't you say?

Actually, I'm pretty satisfied with my LEAF, even with the problems I've had.

But I do like to have all available data on hand before I reach conclusions.

You make a very good point that TickTock's two percentages are fairly close, as best as I can recall. What was the actual verbal percentage again?

And did Nissan say how they calculated the ? %, what exactly was it a percentage of, the total battery capacity, the amount accessible, etc.?

How many other of the CS cars were in the test, and what did Nissan report to them at the time, something like all 14-15% for each wasn't it?

Didn't a couple of those cars take the range test? How did they do?

And BTW, did we ever determine what TickTock's capacity bar reset all about? I never really understood why Only TickTocks showed that after CS.

Sorry for all the questions, but I really haven't seen the answers on any of the threads, though I've tried to read them all carefully.

The problem with accepting either the ~12.5% or Nissans ?% as definitive, IMO, is that as I read TickTocks data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An7gtcYL2Oy0dHNwVmRkNkFnaEVOQTVENW5mOTZlb0E&pli=1#gid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There seems to be a lot of variability between his charges, both "from the wall" and as reported by the gid count.

I would prefer to defer to TickTock to characterize what this might mean about how "typical" his charge was, prior to the range test. I certainly would expect that Nissan used a much more accurate method, than a single range test, without a specified reference point of "100%" to determine the ?% number they told him.

But didn't Nissan actually use GOM results when he first reported his problem...?

edit-Just saw TickTocks post) will edit or re-post once I consider it's content.

2nd edit: I need to think about TickTock's comment above on the "reset" issue some more. Still would like the answers to the other question questions above, if any one has them, though

PS. Could you explain "best fit" on your data, TickTock?

 

[surfingslovak]

You make a very good point that TickTock's two percentages are fairly close, as best as I can recall. What was the actual verbal percentage again?

And did Nissan say how they calculated the ? %, what exactly was it a percentage of, the total battery capacity, the amount accessible, etc.?

I believe that this was a bench test. The battery was removed from the vehicle, charged to full and then discharged at constant 5 kW. I don't know how the 87% state of health was determined, but I will take the dealer's (and Nissan's) word for it. What I meant about the difficulty to satisfy you is about the discussions on this forum. I get that you like your Leaf, and I'm happy to hear it, good for you. It was very difficult to part with my vehicle when the time came, and I can relate.

That said, please realize that although this owner community is quite resourceful, people usually don't have access to proper instumentation and they might not have the time and interest to engage in endless discussions. This does not mean however that signficant trends cannot be spotted, and that's the whole point. I don't need a bench test and a scientific experiment that will take a month to execute to notice loss of range.

When I say that, I realize that the accuracy of the results I can get will be limited and my conclusions will need to be interpreted in this context. While it's important to highlight the inadequacy of our instrumentation and methods, endless and almost pointless arguments about it won't really help anyone.

Pointing out some issue with Tony's range test is fine, and we have all heard you, loud and clear. I believe that the range test achieved or exceeded the stated goals. Anyone is free to employ whatever means they have and spend as much time as they wish in pursuit of great test results. This applies to you as well, Ed. If you don't like something someone is doing, you can retest on your own. If you don't like their results, you can shrug them off. I believe that this is how discussions are generally conducted on this forum.

 

[edatoakrun]

="surfingslovak" Anyone is free to employ whatever means they have and spend as much time as they wish in pursuit of great test results. This applies to you as well, Ed. If you don't like something someone is doing, you can retest on your own. If you don't like their results, you can shrug them off. I believe that this is how discussions are generally conducted on this forum.

Actually, I was testing my own LEAFs range over a year ago, and continued to do so, even after the now-dis-proven theory that gid count data could answer all battery capacity questions, was proposed.

This gives me the great advantage, IMO of having a (nearly) "new" battery capacity reference point, my own battery capacity and range tests.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I welcome suggestions on how to improve my own future test methods, If you or anyone else would care to make any.

As to how "...discussions are generally conducted on this forum..." I think you will should consider that many participants actually make a practice of making frequent disparaging comments, at an extremely immature level. You may not like my comments or criticism, but I don't think you could accuse my of that type of offensive behavior, specific examples of which I don't think I need quote here.

 

[surfingslovak]

I think you will should consider that many participants actually make a practice of making frequent disparaging comments, at an extremely immature level. You may not like my comments or criticism, but I don't think you could accuse my of that type of offensive behavior, specific examples of which I don't think I need quote here.

No, I agree with you there. We should try to keep discussions civil, even if emotions flare up from time to time. We have all benefited from this forum and from each other.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think you will should consider that many participants actually make a practice of making frequent disparaging comments, at an extremely immature level. You may not like my comments or criticism, but I don't think you could accuse my of that type of offensive behavior, specific examples of which I don't think I need quote here.

Ed, I'll give you that, with a few minor exceptions.

 

[ztanos]

I think you will should consider that many participants actually make a practice of making frequent disparaging comments, at an extremely immature level. You may not like my comments or criticism, but I don't think you could accuse my of that type of offensive behavior, specific examples of which I don't think I need quote here.

Ed, I'll give you that, with a few minor exceptions.

Everyone has an off day every now and then. Just depends on how you react after you get called on it that shows maturity.

 

[scottf200]

ARIZONA’S LEMON LAW

- two years or 24,000 miles, whichever is earlier
- a problem with the car that substantially impairs the use and value
- fails to successfully repair the defect after four attempts, or...
- out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days

Rumor is some AZ LEAFs have been bought back by Nissan under the lemon law (comments from a conversation at a plug in day)
https://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+lemon+law+nissan+leaf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[scottf200]

ARIZONA’S LEMON LAW

- two years or 24,000 miles, whichever is earlier
- a problem with the car that substantially impairs the use and value
- fails to successfully repair the defect after four attempts, or...
- out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days

Rumor is some AZ LEAFs have been bought back by Nissan under the lemon law (comments from a conversation at a plug in day)
https://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+lemon+law+nissan+leaf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One example:

Nissan has agreed to repurchase my car under AZ Lemon Law. Check out my blog [<--link] for additional information.

Second example: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&p=230642#p230642" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nissan is also going to buy our car back at standard lemon law repurchase terms. We were told of this intent (verbally only) a few days before the range test (9/11), and debated whether to say anything. We really couldn't jeopardize our chance at the buyback so we decided to keep quiet. We were very skeptical at whether they would actually follow through and were given no details at that time.

We followed the dispute resolution process as outlined in the warranty manual... to the tee. So if someone wants to know how we did it, tell them to RTFM!

She gets returned on Tuesday at 9am. This will put this to an end for us, but we're still here to help anyone else get the resolution they desire. If anyone has an idea of an offset for all of the bad mojo I've given to EVs, let me know. I want them to be mainstreamed, but I'm not willing to throw $33,000 out the window for it to happen.

We'll have an update on KPHO (probably tonight @10pm). http://www.kpho.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[pb1]

Doesn't look like there is a lot of activity from TX owners but I am getting close to the critical point where the Leaf with continuing range loss won't serve my basic commuting needs anymore. Used to be able to do comfortably over 80 miles and now get the low battery warning around 60 miles. It has been showing only 1 bar loss but suspect we will see another disappear shortly given the full charge on guess o meter now shows 78 compared to 82 last month.

Have over 18k miles in about 13 months, regular SL and not the SL-e. Got five stars on the annual battery check with no answer on range issue. Nissan customer service responds by asking to continue to drive regularly and trust road side assistance for help. Also, refer to warranty addendum for other options.

Hope Nissan comes through with a better answer to fix this battery capacity loss in the next couple of months or will have to look at getting rid of this expensive experiment(sadly) taking the financial hit.