Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer

[TomT]

I believe the S uses a different TMS algorithm than the Roadster did... It appears to be a little more aggressive.

For the most part, the Roadster TMS only runs when the car is on or plugged in.

After a hot drive, it will run the TMS for a short period of time, a few minutes. After a full 100% charge, it may run the circulating pump for even a couple of hours, but not the fans or A/C (at least not in the Seattle climate).

 

[Volusiano]

6. The question is what will reasonably give affected owners the same kind of battery capacity performance that unaffected owners enjoy?
7. The answer is an 80% warranty in 5 years and 70% in 10 years, because Nissan has said that this is the kind of battery capacity performance unaffected owners should enjoy.

Except that the owners in Seattle may hit 80% at the end of 10 years, resulting in reduced range for the last couple of years, while an AZ owner will be dealing with reduced range for 9 of the 10 years.

A warranty will make your car more usable, but it won't give AZ owners "the same kind of battery capacity performance that unaffected owners enjoy." I think a battery TMS is the only thing that will level that playing field. And even then, if it becomes a future option, AZ owners will end up paying more for a Leaf to get basically the same capacity performance as those owners lucky enough to live in climatic conditions that are equivalent to EV Paradise.

this is just silly. you live where you live and take the - and + that go with that.
that applies to cars, cost or necessity of house ac, snow mobile utility yearround, the availability of fresh fruit. what are you thinking?t

I think Leafkabob has a good point ONLY because Nissan specifically touted all along that the AZ heat (or elsewhere in the US) is not going to be a factor in the capacity performance. So the true goal of giving AZ owners the same kind of battery capacity performance that unaffected owners enjoy will not be possible even with the 80% in 5 year and 70% in 10 years warranty.

However, I think it's a reasonable enough remedy that I would accept for the reason that ThankyouOB said, because realistically, I know I can't expect a perfect solution, and because I live where I live, so I will have to be realistic and reasonable about it and accept a reasonable compromise, which is 80% in 5 years and 70% in 10 years warranty.

 

[tomsax]

Tesla gets away with it because they have a large pack and can give up some energy to keep the pack cool when not plugged in without using a large portion of range.

What's bad for the batteries is pulling or pushing current when they are hot, it's less of an issue for the batteries to be resting hot, until you get into really high temperatures.

Which is exactly what they have in AZ. I think a Roadster or S in AZ would be working the TMS a lot more.

If the environment is hot enough to require TMS when the car is just sitting, it has to be plugged in or it will brick the battery, either from excessive discharge or overheating.

 

[edatoakrun]

... it would be insanely expensive for Nissan to replace your battery every two months, so nine times out of ten they are not going to give you a nine-bar replacement.

OK, that does leave one special case: If you are very close to end of warranty, they might do that to you. But I'm guessing that most everyone else will get a remanufactured battery with 11 or 12 bars.

Ray

I think you could be feeding paranoia with that supposition.

Even if Nissan didn't care about Leaf drivers complaining about losing their ninth bar just after the expiration of the warranty, the majority of the cost of most battery warranty work will probably be in labor, so it would be in Nissan's best interests to insure they don't get a second claim, no matter how close to the end of the warranty you are.

But I do think there may be a "special case", in that Nissan may try to discourage repetitive or abusive warranty claims by giving you back only nine bars, if it's clear that a LEAF driver intentionally caused premature capacity loss...

 

[EVDRIVER]

... it would be insanely expensive for Nissan to replace your battery every two months, so nine times out of ten they are not going to give you a nine-bar replacement.

OK, that does leave one special case: If you are very close to end of warranty, they might do that to you. But I'm guessing that most everyone else will get a remanufactured battery with 11 or 12 bars.

Ray

I think you could be feeding paranoia with that supposition.

Even if Nissan didn't care about Leaf drivers complaining about losing their ninth bar just after the expiration of the warranty, the majority of the cost of most battery warranty work will probably be in labor, so it would be in Nissan's best interests to insure they don't get a second claim, no matter how close to the end of the warranty you are.

But I do think there may be a "special case", in that Nissan may try to discourage repetitive or abusive warranty claims by giving you back only nine bars, if it's clear that a LEAF driver intentionally caused premature capacity loss...

I agree.

 

[GRA]

Cheslea, thanks for correlating all the questions. If Nissan is going to stick with bars as an easy representation of capacity loss, they need to both fix the inherent inaccuracies, which even THEY have claimed exist, and IMO the software should be changed so that each bar represents the same % capacity. They can make them all represent either 7.5% if they intend to stick with their replacement only at 30% loss, or better yet 5%, which allows them to also use a 20% capacity loss. No one will ever drive the car to where the battery capacity drops down to 20% or less, so the area below that can be treated as whatever residual is left when all bars are gone - with twelve bars, either <= 10% @ using 7.5%/bar, or below 40% if using 5%.

Agreed. And I know that the "fix" has always been intended, which is why I put that on the list. (2a)

FWIW, I have also heard consideration of changing (this one time only, for purposes of this warranty) the value of the bars to be more straightforward- so 70% is the top end of 9 bars, for example, and a driver would know that when the 10th bar disappears, they're at the eligible warranty threshold if not yet at the 5/60 mark. I'm not sure what's been decided, which is why we need a current (but post-gauge fix) value for each bar. (2b)

Thanks, I figured you had something like that it mind, but just wanted to mention some specific numbers instead of the more general listing you gave, cause we really can't allow them any wiggle room. As it is, we all [Edit: change to "many of us"] figure they made the first bar 15% to hide the steep 1st year degradation they now claim is normal. All people are asking for is honest instrumentation designed to provide maximum info in an easy to interpret fashion to the owner, rather than instrumentation designed to obscure or hide info Nissan would prefer customers not discover until they're well into their ownership.

 

[thankyouOB]

Thanks, I figured you had something like that it mind, but just wanted to mention some specific numbers instead of the more general listing you gave, cause we really can't allow them any wiggle room. As it is, we all figure they made the first bar 15% to hide the steep 1st year degradation they now claim is normal. All people are asking for is honest instrumentation designed to provide maximum info in an easy to interpret fashion to the owner, rather than instrumentation designed to obscure or hide info Nissan would prefer customers not discover until they're well into their ownership.

we all?
who all would that be?
not, me all.
i dont figure that statement is accurate without some proof.

as i said above, we aint ever going to know any of this without a lawsuit and discovery of internal memos and emails.
blase and effusive degradation of Nissan intentions is not my bag.
(again, i dont advocate a suit, i am just saying that all the supposing with certitude on this blog is almost an unnatural act.)

 

[GRA]

Oh, Chelsea, one more thing. Poeple have been asking how they can get a useful battery check on used cars, but I'd like you to ask what steps Nissan will take to better inform their dealers as to proper battery charging and storage (i.e. in shade) while sitting on the lot, and any incentives/penalties to enforce this behavior.

I'm not sure how to solve this issue. It's clear that there are many dealers who believe that keeping the car charged to 100% all the time even when it's just sitting on the lot is best practice. There seems little doubt that this has caused some new Leafs in hot locations to be sold with batteries already suffering significant degradation. Even for those dealers who know or learn that this is bad, I'm not sure how Nissan could enforce this, because from the dealer's perspective it's a sales advantage to have a customer jump in the car and have it show its maximum range, instead of telling them 'that's just partial range, you'll have to wait a bit so we can charge the car fully if you want to see it's maximum range." The dealers don't care if they've damaged the battery by keeping it topped up, because they aren't going to suffer the consequences; only the customer and Nissan will.

The only stick Nissan has that I can see, and it's a somewhat expensive one, is to require a battery inspection showing actual capacity, charging frequency and level, battery temps etc., with copies provided to the customer and Nissan, as a pre-condition of any sale/lease, and no more than two days prior. Any 'bad charging practices' and more than minimal degradation would result in the dealer forfeiting some holdback to Nissan, which I'd suggest they split 50-50 with the customer. And of course, the customer could decline to buy any car if the degradation was beyond some nominal amount (say 1-2%).

 

[GRA]

Thanks, I figured you had something like that it mind, but just wanted to mention some specific numbers instead of the more general listing you gave, cause we really can't allow them any wiggle room. As it is, we all figure they made the first bar 15% to hide the steep 1st year degradation they now claim is normal. All people are asking for is honest instrumentation designed to provide maximum info in an easy to interpret fashion to the owner, rather than instrumentation designed to obscure or hide info Nissan would prefer customers not discover until they're well into their ownership.

we all?
who all would that be?
not, me all.
i dont figure that statement is accurate without some proof.

as i said above, we aint ever going to know any of this without a lawsuit and discovery of internal memos and emails.
blase and effusive degradation of Nissan intentions is not my bag.
(again, i dont advocate a suit, i am just saying that all the supposing with certitude on this blog is almost an unnatural act.)

It is true, try as I might to avoid doing so, I am still (occasionally) guilty of making overly definite statements that don't include qualifiers to allow for uncertainty. As you correctly point out, this is such an occasion. I have modified the text you object to.

 

[thankyouOB]

Oh, Chelsea, one more thing. Poeple have been asking how they can get a useful battery check on used cars, but I'd like you to ask what steps Nissan will take to better inform their dealers as to proper battery charging and storage (i.e. in shade) while sitting on the lot, and any incentives/penalties to enforce this behavior.

I'm not sure how to solve this issue. It's clear that there are many dealers who believe that keeping the car charged to 100% all the time even when it's just sitting on the lot is best practice. There seems little doubt that this has caused some new Leafs in hot locations to be sold with batteries already suffering significant degradation. Even for those dealers who know or learn that this is bad, I'm not sure how Nissan could enforce this, because from the dealer's perspective it's a sales advantage to have a customer jump in the car and have it show i's maximum range, instead of telling them 'that's just partial range, you'll have to wait a bit so we can charge the car fully if you want to see it's maximum range." The dealers don't care if they've damaged the battery by keeping it topped up, because they aren't going to suffer the consequences; only the customer and Nissan will.

The only stick Nissan has that I can see, and it's a somewhat expensive one, is to require a battery inspection showing actual capacity, charging frequency and level, battery temps etc., with copies provided to the customer and Nissan, as a pre-condition of any sale/lease, and no more than two days prior. Any 'bad charging practices' and more than minimal degradation would result in the dealer forfeiting some holdback to Nissan, which I'd suggest they split 50-50 with the customer. And of course, the customer could decline to buy any car if the degradation was beyond some nominal amount (say 1-2%).

true.
when i had my car repaired from a rear-ending, the battery was removed.
I had to tell the service manager -- a LEAF "expert" -- that the car should not be charged to 100% when it was sent back to the repair shop to do finish work -- about three days of things.
he expressed surprise and then agreed to charge to 80%

 

[TomT]

A simple solution to the dealer and other charging level issues would be to simply make the factory default charge level for the car 80% rather than the current 100%...

 

[evnow]

OK, that does leave one special case: If you are very close to end of warranty, they might do thatto you. But I'm guessing that most everyone else will get a remanufactured battery with 11 or 12 bars.

Considering that Nissan has to store the replacement batteries for dealer use, my bet is that everyone that needs a warranty replacement will get a remanufactured battery with 11 or 12 bars. It is not economical to maintain batteries that are at just above 70% for those edge cases.

 

[Herm]

I suspect that lease returns (2014?) will be re-certified new and have the battery replaced locally if they show any bars missing.. the used batteries (with 1-2 bars missing) will be stored at the dealership for warranty work, all they have to do is charge it up to 80% every year or so. Perhaps warranty work will be so rare that they wont bother.. then again one used battery stored per dealership is more than plenty.

 

[OrientExpress]

I can say with certainy that the vast majority of the exchange battery packs for this warranty program will be classified as remanufactured. This means that they might have come from a vehicle that was in service and the pack was brought up to some standard, but most likely it will be a pack that had to be re-worked from the manufacturing line. Of course it may be that a run of brand new packs is allocated for this program. I think that is possible, but probably not probable. Along those lines it will be interesting to see what the mix of Mk1and Mk2 packs will end up being.

 

[thankyouOB]

the level of mistrust here is pretty high.
for you skeptics, answer this, if you would:
if you buy a new battery at your dealership, how do you know it is new?

 

[mkjayakumar]

[Planet4ever]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'. But based on Nissan's definition of 'Gradual', makes me skeptical about everything that Nissan says.

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.

 

[Stoaty]

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.

I believe it is true based on what we know about Lithium ion chemistry, and also take a look at TickTock's graph (from Nissan) here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Nissan.27s_Responses_and_Actions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that while losses slow for both Boston and Phoenix after the first year, they don't slow to the same rate of capacity loss. Phoenix will still lose capacity faster than Boston (and that graph is based on 7,500 miles a year for Phoenix, not 12,500). My battery aging model shows the following "slowing" for an average owner in Phoenix and for Boston based on 12,500 miles per year driving for each. Note that those who lost many bars in Arizona may be worse than average due largely to higher mileage or perhaps parking in the sun a lot (although probably not a lot worse).

Year  Phoenix  Boston

1      12.1      7.2
2       5.7      3.0
3       4.8      2.5
4       4.4      2.3
5       4.1      2.1

Note that my model shows 69% capacity retained for the "average" Phoenix driver after 5 years and 62,500 miles. So it may be that Nissan's warranty would apply to less than half of the Phoenix Leaf owners (assuming there is something to my battery aging model, of course. )

 

[surfingslovak]

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. Since the majority of the capacity fade in the LEAF will be due to calendar life degradation, we can expect this process to slow down over time. This is typically modelled with square root of time, which means that calendar life degradation seen in the second year will be about 41% of the loss seen in the first year of ownership. This diminishes to 32% in the third year, and 27% in the fourth year, and so forth.

Stoaty's model incorporates this assumption as well, and so far it has been pretty accurate, considering the field data we have collected so far. Linear cycling losses assume similar and constant charging and driving habits over time. If you have to start quick charging every day to make your commute, much like TaylorSFguy lately, or charge more often on a daily basis, then these losses could accelerate instead of remaining steady. However, since they will likely make out a smaller portion of the total degradation figure, the net effect of more agressive charging could be somewhat contained. Overall, there is a good chance that we will see the leveling off Andy mentioned in his interview.

Below is what the model from the Wiki predicts for Dallas, TX. Assumptions made: 12.5K miles annually, 4.2 m/kWh average economy, 5 days a week in the sun, 100% charging with 1 hour spent sitting at full charge.

(Many thanks to Stoaty for all the hard work that went into this).

 

[azdre]

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.

 

[JRP3]

If the environment is hot enough to require TMS when the car is just sitting, it has to be plugged in or it will brick the battery, either from excessive discharge or overheating.

I expect the S will attempt to keep the pack cool as long as it can until it reaches a specific low SOC. Then the car will give up and go to sleep and will not brick the battery. However during this time the extended time at elevated temps will continue to accelerate cell degradation.