MY2014 no more 80% charge option?

[kubel]

I don't charge to 80% anymore (I used to religiously). Now, I figure- what the hell, the battery is crap anyway. It's barely sufficient for my needs when charged to 100%. I'm not going to artificially limit an already severely limited range car just to slightly reduce the degradation on a battery pack that already degrades rapidly due to conditions that are entirely out of my control. Besides, this won't be my problem after the lease is up anyway.

I would want my next electric car to have a variable charge setting, however. It shouldn't be up to the charging station (or the owner unplugging the car) to determine how much juice you put into the pack. The car should be smart enough to be able to take the figure I give it (30%, 50%, 80%, 100%- whatever) and work with it.

I swear, Tesla is going to mop up the competition when it releases the Bluestar / Model E. And by competition, I'm not talking just electric cars. It's the little bits of freedom that Tesla gives to owners that you don't see with other manufacturers.

 

[Nubo]

People who live at or near the top of long climbs seriously want regen available when they leave home - for convenience and safety. Charging to less than 100% has real-world uses and shouldn't be arbitrarily removed. Instead user charge-selection should be expanded, a la Tesla.

 

[Pipcecil]

I think this change is 100% due to EPA's asinine handling of the estimated range. If the car offers two modes BOTH should be displayed for full purchaser knowledge. Averaging the two doesn't tell you anything. In addition, you cannot compare cars that don't have a lower SOC charge option and gives a bias to those cars. Most consumers will just look at that one number - and if they were shopping a 2013 FFEV vs a 2013 Leaf, the FFEV has one more mile of range, and that would be all the consumer would see.

I thought something like this would happen if the EPA did not change how they reported range; they are basically forcing the EV manufactures to eliminate partial charging to get a higher range number since if you did, you would only hurt yourself.

Nissan just wants to point and say we are better than the FFEV, better than the Spark, and better than the Fit, and although the Fiat is slightly better range, we have more space! In one software change they are esentially eliminating the competition for most consumers who don't research until their eyes bleed out. And, meeting many new 2013 owners, most are just regular joes, not as fanboyish as the 2011/2012 owners - there are some 2013 owners that fall into this category but its significantly less.

 

[jsongster]

So... the next question... if I go get an update... does my 2013 lose 80% mode?

Also... we should probably start using end timer feature more. If you really don't want 100 percent in a 2014 you could just set an end timer to 30 minutes or an hour after you plan to leave... you may need to experiment to hit it right... but it should work for daily use.

As mentioned... the key is trying not to leave it at 100 for extended periods.

This seems definitely related to marketing and possibly also getting more out of range because it forces regular balancing. For daily battery preserving use though... end timer just became a more important feature.

 

[Stanton]

I don't charge to 80% anymore (I used to religiously). Now, I figure- what the hell, the battery is crap anyway. It's barely sufficient for my needs when charged to 100%. I'm not going to artificially limit an already severely limited range car just to slightly reduce the degradation on a battery pack that already degrades rapidly due to conditions that are entirely out of my control. Besides, this won't be my problem after the lease is up anyway.

That may be OK for you (although I still disagree with the reasoning), but completely unacceptable for someone like me who OWNS their Leaf and wants the battery pack to last as long as possible (whether it's the original or warranty replacement). My only concern now is: will a future software update REMOVE the 80% option? If it's too difficult for them to modify the "press ok" nag screen, you'd think it's too difficult to remove the 80% charge option (both functions are part of the center console).

 

[Bicster]

I really doubt they would remove the 80% charge capability from MY11-13 cars. What would be the motivation for that? I think that part of the software is unlikely to be updated in any case.

It's just another reason to lease if you want a new Leaf.

 

[Stanton]

I really doubt they would remove the 80% charge capability from MY11-13 cars. What would be the motivation for that? I think that part of the software is unlikely to be updated in any case.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Leaf is the first time in my life I was actually GLAD I bought v1.0 of something, and there is more than just a couple of reasons for that.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

I didn't believe it, but I looked in the 2014 Navigation manual,
https://owners.nissanusa.com/content/techpub/ManualsAndGuides/NissanLEAF/2014/2014-NissanLEAF-navigation-manual.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On page 2-14 it clearly shows the 80%, "Long life" setting gone. And its also gone from the charge timer as previously mentioned.

Seems short sighted to me. The LEAF already gets less range than people expect. Making the battery degrade faster and giving the illusion of even higher range is a fundamental marketing mistake on both counts. You want to under promise and over deliver.

 

[DanCar]

Seems short sited to me. The LEAF already gets less range than people expect. Making the battery degrade faster and giving the illusion of even higher range is a fundamental marketing mistake on both counts.

Is there battery degradation for 2013 leafs? Did degradation issue improve with 2013 leafs?

 

[evchels]

I hope that they will more "officially" make this reassurance themselves, but Nissan did share w the LAB in Nov that the 80% LLM didn't end up having the practical effect on battery life that they anticipated and therefore wasn't necessary for that purpose going forward. (They did not give any details beyond that general statement.)

However, I agree that programmable charging settings via a sub-menu or app could be handy for some drivers, especially if 100% is the default for new drivers and those who don't want to deal w customizing.

 

[Nubo]

I'd think the EPA wasn't motivated by the 80% charge setting per se, but rather Nissan's representation of it being something that the owner SHOULD use when possible to preserve the battery. I.e., "Long-Life Mode". When represented as being essential to proper care of the vehicle then EPA feels compelled to factor it.

Couldn't they simply rename it "80% charge mode" and represent it as the energy-saving feature it is? I.e., it enables regenerative braking at the start of the drive, and also the charging is more efficient. EPA likes that kind of thing, no? As long as it's represented as not being necessary to the vehicle I'd think EPA wouldn't have to consider it for range calculations.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

yeah sure, remove 80%, who cares when the charging style probably is not effecting long term degradation because Nissan's batteries aren't lasting long enough to see the effect! What a shame that they didn't figure this out before mass producing the car. Tesla nailed this, they simply sent out a software update that changed the charging options into a slider so the owner can choose anything between 50 and 100%, it's a beautiful solution, making it easy to do a 50% charge by default with top up via timer or even phone app depending on range needed. Lots of user preference flexibility. Nissan should just get it over with and develop a temperature management system like every other manufacturer, I'm sure with high production numbers now they could figure out how to make it economically. The experiment has, IMHO, failed so far.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

yeah sure, remove 80%, who cares when the charging style probably is not effecting long term degradation because Nissan's batteries aren't lasting long enough to see the effect!
...
Nissan should just get it over with and develop a temperature management system like every other manufacturer, I'm sure with high production numbers now they could figure out how to make it economically. The experiment has, IMHO, failed so far.

"Hot" battery being released this year is claimed to have a good degradation curve even in hot climates. If true, maybe they can get away with not having a battery cooling system.

 

[edatoakrun]

The "100%" charge setting has never allowed use of the full battery capacity for any LEAF.

Available battery capacity has always been limited by the LBC.

There is quite a bit of evidence, IMO, that the "100%" SOC available has never been a constant percentage of the full battery capacity either.

See:

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

BTW TickTock, why no updates of "100%", "from the wall" since last October?

So, IMO, it is entirely possible that when charging to "100%", the 2014 LBC may limit the available battery capacity differently than it has in previous years.

It could be that since Nissan decided to add an additional warrantee of capacity, it also found it prudent to further idiot-proof SOC management.

As to the "80%" SOC, and other SOC options below "100%", won't this be fairly easy for the after-market to address?

If I recall correctly, Ingineer (Phil) stated he could add variable SOC settings years ago.

 

[evnow]

One thing I noticed in '13 compared to '11 is that more regen is available at 100% (I'll confirm this today). Obviously Nissan is learning more about the battery as years go by.

 

[Valdemar]

Too bad it's gone. One use case 80% could be useful is when planning for a DCQC session that is billed per connected time as you can get more kwh for the same money when starting at lower SOC.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Too bad it's gone. One use case 80% could be useful is when planning for a DCQC session that is billed per connected time as you can get more kwh for the same money when starting at lower SOC.

Or if you live at the top of a tall hill.

 

[Valdemar]

In some situations you can work around the missing mode by setting the end of charge timer sufficiently later than your departure time. Not ideal, but can work.

 

[Nubo]

In some situations you can work around the missing mode by setting the end of charge timer sufficiently later than your departure time. Not ideal, but can work.

Definitely not ideal. Not only does the timer fail to accurately predict end of charge (finishing early), it fails by different amounts depending on the beginning SOC.

 

[reeler]

"Hot" battery being released this year is claimed to have a good degradation curve even in hot climates. If true, maybe they can get away with not having a battery cooling system.

I will take simplicity over complexity any day. By avoiding a TMS, Nissan's design is simpler, more reliable and doesn't have the thermal run away issues. No Nissan LEAF fires yet like Tesla.

If the new battery is what they say, it is a home run for Nissan. The old battery was suitable for all climates, but desert ones. To have a chemistry that works across all climates, we will all be winners.