Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer

[surfingslovak]

so nine times out of ten they are not going to give you a nine-bar replacement.

If your interpretation is right, then I am quite happy to change my vote to 'Pleased'.

Would it make sense to change the wording to indicate that in an event of a warranty repair, the new pack will have 85% (or better) state of health? Ideally, the affected owner would go from several bars missing to no bars missing, even if the replacement battery was not necessarily factory-fresh and at 100% capacity.

 

[walterbays]

If they say 70% and then give 99% of people warranty replacements between 85% and 100% then they'll delight owners. But if they say 85% and then give only 99.9% of people warranty replacements between 85% and 100% then the 0.1% who get 84% packs will file lawsuits. I think I'm unlikely to need the warranty, and if I did I think it's very likely my replacement pack will be better than promised - simply because as others have pointed out they won't want to pay the replacement labor repeatedly, nor pay the logistical costs of producing and stocking a range of sub-standard batteries.

If there are some battery chemistry and manufacturing improvements in the next few years then I expect they'll state that the warranty will cover an exchange for a guaranteed 70% pack, or for $X more you can have a guaranteed 105% pack, or for $Y more you can have a guaranteed 120% pack.

 

[surfingslovak]

If there are some battery chemistry and manufacturing improvements in the next few years then I expect they'll state that the warranty will cover an exchange for a guaranteed 70% pack, or for $X more you can have a guaranteed 105% pack, or for $Y more you can have a guaranteed 120% pack.

Yes, I'm hoping to see this type of outcome, and suggested that we asked a question about a better, paid-for warranty, which is thematically related to what you said above. Range is such a priority at this stage of the game, and most owners likely recognize that it might come at a premium.

 

[RegGuheert]

On my 2nd point, what are the experts here in MNL think about Palmer's quote about decrease in capacity loss over time ? I think that statement is false.

Capacity fade models typically assume diminishing caledar losses and linear cycling losses, as evidenced by this NREL study as well.

I consider both of those assumptions to be invalid, particularly when applied to an EV like the LEAF with a very limited initial range and no TMS.

I have previously discussed the problem of standard cycling loss measurements in this post. Basically, as the battery degrades, each DOD is higher than the previous one, resulting in faster-than-linear cycling loses. This will not be much of an issue with the 85kWh Model S vehicles since the daily %DOD will be so low that the DOD will not tend to increase to a significant value.

There are a couple of issues with the assumption of diminishing calendar losses. First, that model is a simple extrapolation of the calendar losses seen during the first week of testing. In fact, the testing I have seen (and posted somewhere around here) that is done for months at high temperatures and high SOCs shows calendar capacity fade INCREASING as the battery degrades. I have asked several times for someone to post similar calendar-only degradation MEASUREMENTS that showed it reducing over a long time (not a week) and none has been produced. Frankly, I think the industry has done far to little testing of calendar losses of EV batteries for those of us who will not wear out our batteries through cycling. Second, since the LEAF has such a limited range when new, as the capacity of the battery is reduced, the owner is forced to charge to higher and higher SOCs. We already see this with LEAF owners who used to charge only to 80% when new who now charge to 100% daily to get to work.

I hope I am wrong on both points, since Stoaty's model predicts that our car will not get to 70% capacity until 2028, but what I see in Phoenix makes me think that BOTH cycling AND calendar losses have been under-predicted with the LEAF.

 

[surfingslovak]

I hope I am wrong on both points, since Stoaty's model predicts that our car will not get to 70% capacity until 2028, but what I see in Phoenix makes me think that BOTH cycling AND calendar losses have been under-predicted with the LEAF.

Yes, that's a valid concern, and I believe it's something the new capacity warranty should address. Nissan must have done more than just superficial testing and modeling. They seem to have great faith in their ability to predict how these batteries will do out in the field. In addition to the aging models we discussed, I believe that someone found reports on engineering mules, which preceded the LEAF. Some of them had very significant mileage, and were presumably in use for more than just a few months. Then there are early LEAFs, which were used for validation, and I suspect that some of them might be around as well.

I agree that we might not have fully understood what happened in Phoenix, but it could have been a combination of several factors. Drivers taking GOM estimates at their face value, losing disproportional amount of range between the low battery warning and full, and other issues. What made me concerned initially, was the fact that the capacity fade seemed much faster than what I would have anticipated based on the field numbers from both the Tesla Roadster and the MINI-E. While the Roadster has a TMS, the MINI-E didn't . Both vehicles used 18650 form-factor (laptop style) cells, which were supposed to have worse thermal properties than the prismatic cells used in the LEAF. Secondly, Gids seemed to be in a free-fall this summer, but they have recovered some since then, and appear to be overly depressed when it's hot out, as the Phoenix range test has demonstrated as well.

If you wish, we can revisit these discussions in the degradation model thread.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Stoaty & Surfingslovak: thanks for your data and detailed explanation. But I tend to agree with RegGuheert that either of those data don't seem to take into consideration the real world scenario of charging to higher SOC more frequently for the same commute. That would probably have a significant impact skewing the results.

 

[surfingslovak]

Stoaty & Surfingslovak: thanks for your data and detailed explanation. But I tend to agree with RegGuheert that either of those data don't seem to take into consideration the real world scenario of charging to higher SOC more frequently for the same commute. That would probably have a significant impact skewing the results.

More frequent charging will skew the results. However, cycling losses will only amount to about 20% of capacity fade according to Stoaty's model. Even if you saw twice the amount of cycling loss due to more aggressive charging, which is unlikely, that would still only amount to about 5% total additional loss over five years (32% vs 27%). Calendar loss is unaffected by charging, it depends on the average SOC. If you switched from 80% to 100% charging, and the car sat at a higher potential on average over the course of months and years, then yes, this could cause appreciably faster relative capacity fade. I would think that Nissan must have tested both 80% and 100% charging protocols, but I don't know how long these tests stretched, and what they entailed. Perhaps it's something that should be asked to help alleviate these concerns.

 

[edatoakrun]

As one of the cars that was in Phoenix the longest (March 2011 delivery), we were on track to getting a warranty battery every 25-30K miles until 60,000 miles. Even if those refreshes were 100% restored, that would be 1 original, 2 Nissan-paid battery packs, plus 1 owner paid, just to limp past 80,000 miles. The whole point, as I see it, of the electric car is it should be easy on maintenance, environmentally friendly, and (eventually) cost-effective. This car, in these climates is none of these things. There are very few cars that experienced as many warm/hot days as ours and our milage was only slightly above normal at 14,000/year. So, I don't think our experience can be dismissed as an outlier.

I think this is why this warranty is good overall for temperate climates, but does nothing for affected southern owners and they all need to be given an 'out' if they want it.

Well, your battery practices probably were an "outlier", azdre, so I don't think you can reach those conclusions.

="azdre"
...
* We always charge to 100% (we drive it a lot, 17,000 miles in 14 months of driving).
* We do 'top it off' a lot. That's the one item we got 4/5 stars on the battery check in March 2012.
* The car sat at 100% for a month in May, 2011, not plugged in...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't particularly like having to post this in response to your comments, as you are one of the few hot-climate LEAF drivers who experienced multiple bar loss who has acknowledged anything less than optimal battery care, and I think we all should appreciate your candor.

But since we do not know how the various battery maintenance practices effect capacity loss, it is premature to consider your experience typical, unless your battery practices were typical.

And as I have mentioned before, IMO it is quite likely that leaving a LEAF at a very high SOC in (presumably) very high ambient temperatures for a month, along with your LEAF's other conditions of use, were factors in your loss of capacity bars, which in fact was not typical of the experiences of all Arizona LEAFs.

 

[thankyouOB]

the last page of exchanges have been very informative and civil.
i remain in awe of how well we do as a group when we are on topic; i.e. the LEAF.

 

[JPWhite]

4. Misc-
a. Will Nissan stop selling the LEAF in AZ or other hot climates?
b. Clarity around reporting between dealers and NNA regarding used vehicle transactions. Who can a used LEAF buyer contact to verify that NNA has current ownership info?

I'd like to add a line item to the misc section.

CHADEMO.

What are Nissan going to do to promote the deployment of CHADEMO units in the USA? I understand they are "working with partners". Let's understand what that means and if Nissan intend to deploy any units themselves or will they depend on others to fund the deployment. I believe Quick Charge is fundamental to the 2013 model being a success or a flop now we have Nissan addressing the battery issues.

 

[abasile]

What are Nissan going to do to promote the deployment of CHADEMO units in the USA? I understand they are "working with partners". Let's understand what that means and if Nissan intend to deploy any units themselves or will they depend on others to fund the deployment. I believe Quick Charge is fundamental to the 2013 model being a success or a flop now we have Nissan addressing the battery issues.

+1. Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part, and would help seal the Leaf's frontrunner status in the EV market. The "competition" doesn't even support QC yet. (I consider Tesla to be in a different market category; if anything, I see the existence of the Tesla S as being helpful to Leaf adoption thanks to Tesla's "inspirational" role.)

The goal should be to enable travel within large metro areas and between metro areas that aren't far apart. Connecting metro areas with nearby resorts (beaches, mountains, etc.) also makes for great marketing. Of course, it makes sense to start with the regions with the greatest potential for Leaf adoption.

 

[OrientExpress]

Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part.

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

 

[KJD]

4. Misc-
a. Will Nissan stop selling the LEAF in AZ or other hot climates?
b. Clarity around reporting between dealers and NNA regarding used vehicle transactions. Who can a used LEAF buyer contact to verify that NNA has current ownership info?

I'd like to add a line item to the misc section.

CHADEMO.

What are Nissan going to do to promote the deployment of CHADEMO units in the USA? I understand they are "working with partners". Let's understand what that means and if Nissan intend to deploy any units themselves or will they depend on others to fund the deployment. I believe Quick Charge is fundamental to the 2013 model being a success or a flop now we have Nissan addressing the battery issues.

I agree 100% that this should be a high priority with Nissan. I bought the SL version just so I could have QC ability, now just one problem there are no QC stations in the entire state of Utah.

 

[leafkabob]

Well, your battery practices probably were an "outlier", azdre, so I don't think you can reach those conclusions.

="azdre"
...
* We always charge to 100% (we drive it a lot, 17,000 miles in 14 months of driving).
* We do 'top it off' a lot. That's the one item we got 4/5 stars on the battery check in March 2012.
* The car sat at 100% for a month in May, 2011, not plugged in...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't particularly like having to post this in response to your comments, as you are one of the few hot-climate LEAF drivers who experienced multiple bar loss who has acknowledged anything less than optimal battery care, and I think we all should appreciate your candor.

But since we do not know how the various battery maintenance practices effect capacity loss, it is premature to consider your experience typical, unless your battery practices were typical.

And as I have mentioned before, IMO it is quite likely that leaving a LEAF at a very high SOC in (presumably) very high ambient temperatures for a month, along with your LEAF's other conditions of use, were factors in your loss of capacity bars, which in fact was not typical of the experiences of all Arizona LEAFs.

Sigh. I'm probably wasting my time with this, but in case there are any newbies out there who haven't waded through the "Lost Capacity" thread, I would like for them to know that many folks in AZ lost multiple capacity bars and have been very candid about their treatment of their batteries, including myself. The fact that we have not disclosed "less than optimal battery care" is because there is none to disclose.

I rarely charged to 100%, never let it sit at 100% for any appreciable length of time (certainly not for days, weeks or months), and never topped it off, unless it was going to be driven right away. Azdre lost three bars and so far I've only lost two, but my take on that is that I have owned my car for two (hot) months less.

 

[Stoaty]

Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part.

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

Well, the battery capacity warranty was certainly a step forward, but it didn't make many people "very happy" (even the majority that voted positive in the poll). Hopefully this one will be different. Also, it doesn't matter what the plans are for QC if they never get implemented.

 

[JPWhite]

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

Freaking awesome.

 

[Nubo]

Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part.

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

Well the only way around the bureaucratic red tape in the short-term would be for Nissan to put QC on-site. Would be a brilliant move, imho. Building customer loyalty at the same time getting getting them to the showroom on a regular basis. Can't lose.

 

[TomT]

You know, I am really getting tired of this "forthcoming news" crap, only to find the actual "news" underwhelming! If there is something to report, whomever should report it; otherwise just shut up until then! :x

Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part.

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part.

I think you will be very happy with some forthcoming news on this issue.

Well the only way around the bureaucratic red tape in the short-term would be for Nissan to put QC on-site. Would be a brilliant move, imho. Building customer loyalty at the same time getting getting them to the showroom on a regular basis. Can't lose.

I presume you mean off-site; namely at privately owned Nissan dealerships.

The only on site QC that I'm aware of is the factory in Smyrna, Tennessee.

 

[Reddy]

What are Nissan going to do to promote the deployment of CHADEMO units in the USA? I understand they are "working with partners". Let's understand what that means and if Nissan intend to deploy any units themselves or will they depend on others to fund the deployment. I believe Quick Charge is fundamental to the 2013 model being a success or a flop now we have Nissan addressing the battery issues.

+1. Funding the deployment of QC at strategic locations, possibly some Nissan dealerships, would be a great move on Nissan's part, and would help seal the Leaf's frontrunner status in the EV market. The "competition" doesn't even support QC yet. (I consider Tesla to be in a different market category; if anything, I see the existence of the Tesla S as being helpful to Leaf adoption thanks to Tesla's "inspirational" role.)

The goal should be to enable travel within large metro areas and between metro areas that aren't far apart. Connecting metro areas with nearby resorts (beaches, mountains, etc.) also makes for great marketing. Of course, it makes sense to start with the regions with the greatest potential for Leaf adoption.

Nissan, how about us out here in the "sticks"? How do we get the $15K DCQC?