Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[lukati]

The large majority of the posts here look at this problem from the owner/user perspective and that is as it should be. But Nissan's perspective will ultimately determine what will and will not happen. I worry that they will pull the plug on the LEAF or put it into deep sleep. The reality is that they absolutely will pull the plug if the numbers don't add up for them. They can only cross-finance this endeavor for as long as their cost projections make sense.

One key design decision was to determine the fraction of usable to total battery capacity. Nissan decided to make ~93% user accessible. This gives the LEAF optimal range/cost characteristics and helps broaden the customer base. Since Nissan presumably loses money on current sales, it needs the broadest possible customer base for future cost reductions through increased production numbers. So a large usable fraction makes good business sense. Until the unavoidable technical realities start to materialize.

Lowering usable battery capacity in future models would solve or at least mitigate many of the current issues but would cost Nissan a lot of money and/or projected sales. The question is do their sales and cost projections still work under those circumstances?

 

[thankyouOB]

timehebb tees it up; and clippy hits it out of the park.
chelsea and hawkeye, please note.

Bravo to both of you two mnl posters, though I think timehebb did the harder part.

we need to know what it will cost to replace the battery -- installed -- and we need to know it now.
what is the trade in value of a used battery, and does it vary depending on its condition, is another key part of that equation.

the battery is going to degrade and some of us can stand more degradation, owing to our usage situation, than others.

please tell us and the world the answer soonest.
then we can all go back to our Leafs and our lives.

 

[LEAFfan]

Then again, most cars ever made have also gone to the great Junkyard in the sky. The issue isn't that batteries degrade, it's how quickly a particular pack degrades. There are Rav4 electrics with nearly a decade on original packs delivering good range. There are a number of engineering approaches to make battery life approach that of a gasoline engine, at which point there is no "fatal flaw". And the technology will improve.

+1! Absolutely!

 

[SteveS29Palms]

Isn't this just depreciation from an EV owner's perspective? These complaints make me think some Leaf owners have unrealistic expectations. Everything wears out with use. Should we suspend knowledge and demand 100% new condition after we have enjoyed these EVs for several years? Nissan encourages generous lease terms to Leaf users with an absolute agreed to return value at lease end. This totally covers the battery life issue and then it returns to Nissan. If I choose to buy, the Leaf then becomes all mine at some point, and its depreciation is one of the joys of ownership.
I am glad to drive my new Leaf, even knowing it will have some heat related damage over the years. I've lived in the CA desert most of my life, in the Coachella Valley now. I have seen the actual damage/destruction heat has on most thing. My new Leaf is one of those things and still, I'm loving driving without buying any gas.

 

[timhebb]

Timhebb, I did not take offense or feel like you are trivializing the issue. A lot of what you said is absolutely true and I particularly enjoyed your poetic style. But I'd also like to offer my view of one thing you said:

We knew, intellectually, there was a snake in the garden (capacity loss and eventual death)

We all knew there was a snake in the garden, but Nissan never told the folks in hot climates that their snake was a python, while the folks in Seattle, Portland, Boston, SF, etc. got a Barbados Thread Snake.

Leafkabob, would it be an apt (or an asp) metaphor to characterize it this way: we all have the same deadly snake in our gardens, but those in AZ, etc. have a more concentrated venom? (perhaps a heatseeking sidewinder...)

 

[leafkabob]

Timhebb, I did not take offense or feel like you are trivializing the issue. A lot of what you said is absolutely true and I particularly enjoyed your poetic style. But I'd also like to offer my view of one thing you said:

We knew, intellectually, there was a snake in the garden (capacity loss and eventual death)

We all knew there was a snake in the garden, but Nissan never told the folks in hot climates that their snake was a python, while the folks in Seattle, Portland, Boston, SF, etc. got a Barbados Thread Snake.

Leafkabob, would it be an apt (or an asp) metaphor to characterize it this way: we all have the same deadly snake in our gardens, but those in AZ, etc. have a more concentrated venom? (perhaps a heatseeking sidewinder...)

Even if we use that metaphor, my point is that Nissan didn't tell AZ folks that they had a sidewinder in the garden. No disclosure that our snake was in any way different.

 

[JRP3]

And what we are doing here in this forum is nothing less than working out our grief for the realization that the Promethean promise of electric vehicles is fatally flawed, critically compromised by the crippled chemistry its vision depends on.

Well written, but wrong. Specifically, the LEAF pack is dying too quickly, other chemistry and/or pack design does not. Of course all packs will die, as will all automobiles, ICE or EV, the pack just has to live long enough and stay healthy enough to be useful for a large enough portion of vehicle life. Quite likely temperature controlled packs in the RAV4, at 42kWh's, the Model S at 40, 60, and 85 kWh's will provide useful range for most people even with degradation, and the Toshiba SCIB chemistry in the Honda Fit EV will probably have little degradation and keep it's capacity for the life of the vehicle, and beyond. The fatal flaw is in the LEAF, but can be fixed in a number of different ways, if Nissan chooses to do so.

 

[GRA]

And what we are doing here in this forum is nothing less than working out our grief for the realization that the Promethean promise of electric vehicles is fatally flawed, critically compromised by the crippled chemistry its vision depends on.

Well written, but wrong. Specifically, the LEAF pack is dying too quickly, other chemistry and/or pack design does not. Of course all packs will die, as will all automobiles, ICE or EV, the pack just has to live long enough and stay healthy enough to be useful for a large enough portion of vehicle life. Quite likely temperature controlled packs in the RAV4, at 42kWh's, the Model S at 40, 60, and 85 kWh's will provide useful range for most people even with degradation, and the Toshiba SCIB chemistry in the Honda Fit EV will probably have little degradation and keep it's capacity for the life of the vehicle, and beyond. The fatal flaw is in the LEAF, but can be fixed in a number of different ways, if Nissan chooses to do so.

The Coda's LiFePo4 should be less susceptible to heat, and have slower degradation generally as well. I'm curious to see if the other companies will start making use of their technical advantages in hot climates in their marketing. I know I would.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

And what we are doing here in this forum is nothing less than working out our grief for the realization that the Promethean promise of electric vehicles is fatally flawed, critically compromised by the crippled chemistry its vision depends on.

Well written, but wrong. Specifically, the LEAF pack is dying too quickly, other chemistry and/or pack design does not. Of course all packs will die, as will all automobiles, ICE or EV, the pack just has to live long enough and stay healthy enough to be useful for a large enough portion of vehicle life. Quite likely temperature controlled packs in the RAV4, at 42kWh's, the Model S at 40, 60, and 85 kWh's will provide useful range for most people even with degradation, and the Toshiba SCIB chemistry in the Honda Fit EV will probably have little degradation and keep it's capacity for the life of the vehicle, and beyond. The fatal flaw is in the LEAF, but can be fixed in a number of different ways, if Nissan chooses to do so.

oh really?

lets suppose the Volt pack was degrading as well. how long would it take for the end user to find this out if they were losing say 10% a year?

there are many different reasons why batteries degrade and heat is one of them. depending on the chemistry of the battery, heat may not be the biggest factor.

so to say everyone else is fine because they have TMS is saying you know a lot more than anyone else does.

 

[timhebb]

And what we are doing here in this forum is nothing less than working out our grief for the realization that the Promethean promise of electric vehicles is fatally flawed, critically compromised by the crippled chemistry its vision depends on.

Well written, but wrong. Specifically, the LEAF pack is dying too quickly, other chemistry and/or pack design does not. Of course all packs will die, as will all automobiles, ICE or EV, the pack just has to live long enough and stay healthy enough to be useful for a large enough portion of vehicle life. Quite likely temperature controlled packs in the RAV4, at 42kWh's, the Model S at 40, 60, and 85 kWh's will provide useful range for most people even with degradation, and the Toshiba SCIB chemistry in the Honda Fit EV will probably have little degradation and keep it's capacity for the life of the vehicle, and beyond. The fatal flaw is in the LEAF, but can be fixed in a number of different ways, if Nissan chooses to do so.

I am sticking to my guns. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Nissan's particular batteries, practices or policies, I think there's a much deeper issue here, and it will resound on all BEV manufacturers and all BEV drivers. There is going to continue to be a long, painful period of adjustment to the EV paradigm that will prevail until far superior battery technology has been developed. You suggest that it already has (Toshiba SCIB chemistry), but I won't believe it until I drive it...and drive it, and drive it, and drive it. (If it were that clear and straightforward a solution, wouldn't Nissan be adopting it?)

People have been complaining about poor battery life, no doubt, as long as there have been batteries. Most recently the problem has been most evident vis-a-vis their cell phones and laptops. Apple seemed to have made some strides forward when they introduced iPads with 10-hour battery life. But the iPad I'm writing this on no longer has anywhere near 10 hours of life - I've seen its capacity steadily diminish, day after day, since the day I bought it not all that long ago. And I have no doubt that the affliction will spread proportionally with the adoption of battery electric vehicles. There will be some variation in the success that EV makers achieve, but it's a slam-dunk drivers of most of their vehicles will rue their lack of range and - more to the point - all will protest their steady loss of it.

Consumers grudgingly accept that they are forced to replace the batteries in their laptops and electronic devices more often than they think they should, but for consumer electronics it has always been that way. I don't believe drivers are going to be so forgiving when it comes to their electric cars, because 1) they have strong expectations based on their history with a paradigm they've lived with all their lives (and their parents' and grandparents' lives), and 2) the replacement batteries will be WAY more expensive than those for any cell phone they've ever owned.

I do agree that the issue will likely be resolved to a reasonable degree of satisfaction at some point in the future, but I suspect that point is considerably more distant than you do. I hope I'm wrong, but I've no evidence that there's anything like a game-changer on the horizon. Until there is, confident, upbeat projections are not just unwarranted, they are evidence of continued denial, and equivalent to the kind of wishful misrepresentation that many members of this board now accuse Nissan of peddling.

 

[thankyouOB]

i buy batteries for my flashlight. they go dead.
i buy rechargeable batteries for laptops, toothbrushes, radios, and now my car, and they dont last forever.

who knew?
we knew.

keep the tool outside in the sun and use it daily, that is a lot of stress on the chemistry.
who knew?
we knew.

how much did we know?
is it a legal case?

we will find out. but more importantly, as timehebb says, it is a paradigm that we and nissan (and alas, we can only hope, every car manufacturer) will have to get used to, and also find a way to talk about it; i am talking to you nissan.
but we all know, this is a new technology, we arent pouring gasoline into the car for energy. we are recharging a vulnerable batter. it is not a perpetual motion machine.

 

[JRP3]

And what we are doing here in this forum is nothing less than working out our grief for the realization that the Promethean promise of electric vehicles is fatally flawed, critically compromised by the crippled chemistry its vision depends on.

Well written, but wrong. Specifically, the LEAF pack is dying too quickly, other chemistry and/or pack design does not. Of course all packs will die, as will all automobiles, ICE or EV, the pack just has to live long enough and stay healthy enough to be useful for a large enough portion of vehicle life. Quite likely temperature controlled packs in the RAV4, at 42kWh's, the Model S at 40, 60, and 85 kWh's will provide useful range for most people even with degradation, and the Toshiba SCIB chemistry in the Honda Fit EV will probably have little degradation and keep it's capacity for the life of the vehicle, and beyond. The fatal flaw is in the LEAF, but can be fixed in a number of different ways, if Nissan chooses to do so.

oh really?

lets suppose the Volt pack was degrading as well. how long would it take for the end user to find this out if they were losing say 10% a year?

there are many different reasons why batteries degrade and heat is one of them. depending on the chemistry of the battery, heat may not be the biggest factor.

so to say everyone else is fine because they have TMS is saying you know a lot more than anyone else does.

If you notice in my post I not only mention TMS but also pack size and chemistry. Nissan has three strikes against it's pack right now, small size, no TMS, and not the longest lived chemistry. Each example I posted beats Nissan in at least two of those three criteria. Though I did not mention the Volt pack, by sizing it much larger than the allowed capacity GM has effectively hidden much of the capacity loss so that it will likely last the life of the vehicle. That is another option I've mentioned previously for Nissan, install a larger pack but only allow a smaller portion to be accessed, and increase that portion over the life of the vehicle as capacity drops, effectively masking the loss. Or use a TMS, or a more durable chemistry, or all of the above.

 

[JRP3]

You suggest that it already has (Toshiba SCIB chemistry), but I won't believe it until I drive it...and drive it, and drive it, and drive it. (If it were that clear and straightforward a solution, wouldn't Nissan be adopting it?)

Honda has, Nissan could. The issue is probably cost, but it's not technical. Tesla addresses the issue with a TMS and large packs, so they are lightly used and when they do degrade they still provide useable capacity. Other long lived chemistry belongs to Altairnano and A123, and plain old LiFePO4. Or, as I've suggested, Nissan could oversize their packs a bit and limit available capacity a bit more. This does two things, it shallow cycles the pack more, extending life, and provides a larger "reserve" to be unlocked as capacity degrades, hiding actual capacity loss and preserving range.

 

[surfingslovak]

You suggest that it already has (Toshiba SCIB chemistry), but I won't believe it until I drive it...and drive it, and drive it, and drive it. (If it were that clear and straightforward a solution, wouldn't Nissan be adopting it?)

Honda has, Nissan could. The issue is probably cost, but it's not technical.

That's exactly what it is. While I appreciate and admire the artistic ambition and skill, the engineer in me must tell you that there are alternatives today, which could have been deployed in the Leaf, but time and cost to market were likely the overriding criteria.

 

[Volusiano]

I've only seen Jeff Kuhlman posted maybe a few times on this thread so far. Most notably was his introduction post, and another one was a response to see if he could talk with the other Nissan execs about coming to Phoenix for a town hall of some sort.

I thought we were going to hear a lot more from Jeff than just a few posts he's put in so far. There have been a ton of posts from LEAF owners with lots of comments and ideas on this thread, and also lots of recent events like the AZ lemon-law buybacks, the Mark Perry retirement, and also the newly Nissan-announced 7500-mile Nissan-LEAF-Year (as Tony Williams dubbed it).

So Jeff, please participate some more and give us your thoughts on what Nissan is thinking in light of the recent events and comments on this thread? I really hope you'd be a regular participant on this thread/forum to answer questions, like you said you would. Thanks.

 

[LEAFguy]

I've only seen Jeff Kuhlman posted maybe a few times on this thread so far. Most notably was his introduction post, and another one was a response to see if he could talk with the other Nissan execs about coming to Phoenix for a town hall of some sort.

I thought we were going to hear a lot more from Jeff than just a few posts he's put in so far. There have been a ton of posts from LEAF owners with lots of comments and ideas on this thread, and also lots of recent events like the AZ lemon-law buybacks, the Mark Perry retirement, and also the newly Nissan-announced 7500-mile Nissan-LEAF-Year (as Tony Williams dubbed it).

So Jeff, please participate some more and give us your thoughts on what Nissan is thinking in light of the recent events and comments on this thread? I really hope you'd be a regular participant on this thread/forum to answer questions, like you said you would. Thanks.

Mr. Kuhlman has contributed four posts to this forum in five days. In any world other than this forum, this would be seen as an amazing response. A high level Nissan Motors (the parent company of the Nissan and Infiniti brands) executive choosing to participate at all is almost unheard of. During that time he has gone from Japan to France, all the while conducting his business, which is Nissan Global Communications, which includes virtually every Nissan business world wide.

It should be clear (but perhaps it is not to some), that Chelsea Sexton is acting, to a degree, as Nissan's proxy in this matter.

and Chelsea Sexton has been sending me updates and reminding me to stay up to speed.

Mr. Kuhlman's presence here is appreciated by all, I'm sure. A corporation the size of Nissan does nothing quickly. Their communication experience observed prior to his introduction is a testament to that. The "town hall of some sort" that you refer to is not just for Phoenix, but in addition for "a number of cities" according to Mr. Kuhlman. This kind of planning and coordination for several high level executives doesn't happen quickly in any organization. The fact that Nissan is willing to meet the public directly and accept input from us should be seen as a step in the right direction. The fact that Mr. Kuhlman has been as active as he has, considering his position, should be seen as an extremely positive step.

 

[surfingslovak]

Mr. Kuhlman's presence here is appreciated by all, I'm sure. A corporation the size of Nissan does nothing quickly. Their communication experience observed prior to his introduction is a testament to that. The "town hall of some sort" that you refer to is not just for Phoenix, but in addition for "a number of cities" according to Mr. Kuhlman. This kind of planning and coordination for several high level executives doesn't happen quickly in any organization. The fact that Nissan is willing to meet the public directly and accept input from us should be seen as a step in the right direction. The fact that Mr. Kuhlman has been as active as he has, considering his position, should be seen as an extremely positive step.

Absolutely, great post.

 

[LEAFguy]

You know that Renault (sister company to Nissan) offers a 75% capacity guarantee on their leased battery?

Yes, but Renault doesn't use the AESC supplied batteries, they are using LG supplied batteries. You know - the same ones used in the Volt that are holding up very well.

You were likely referring to this AutoBlogGreen article:
Renault, LG Chem will make next-gen batteries in 2017
According to the article, these sourced batteries will not be available until 2015, with next generation batteries available in 2017. Currently, Renault uses the same battery modules as the LEAF:
Global study on the development of the automotive Li-ion battery market

 

[cwerdna]

The Coda's LiFePo4 should be less susceptible to heat, and have slower degradation generally as well. I'm curious to see if the other companies will start making use of their technical advantages in hot climates in their marketing. I know I would.

Only problem is, I doubt that Coda will survive the length of their battery warranty (whatever it is) or Nissan's.

I drove one at Alt Car Expo and was underwhelmed. I'll post more about it later.

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm with you on the theme of your posts. Your observation that we are working our way through the grieving process is dead-on!

The main reason I posted in May the Nissan should stop selling in Phoenix is that prospective owners from that city were coming here for advice and they were not being told to use caution by members here. Rather they were being told to dive into the shallow end of the pool. "The water's great!" No mention of the fact that the batteries were dying so fast that they wouldn't be able to make their commute for the life of the lease.

But I will answer one of your rhetorical questions:

Once we recognize that the poisoned pea under our stack of mattresses is the inevitability of battery mortality, what difference does it make whether our batteries linger 4% less long in the Arizona heat, or 10% longer in Seattle's mists?

Simply put, the difference is total cost of ownership. All of us wanted to get into the EV movement (or to take the next step) and we all had our own threshold of cost that we were willing to bear to make our go/no-go decision on the purchase and/or lease of the LEAF. We all weighed the costs and risks based on our financial situations and our perceptions of the utility of the cars.

Unfortunately, Nissan painted the picture with a broad brush and did not properly differentiate between the life of the LEAF in Phoenix versus Seattle versus San Diego. Worse, when Elon Musk publicly stated that the battery system was primitive and would not survive in the desert, Nissan insisted that they had done the testing there and all was well. Yes, they had done the testing, but, no, all was not well. Based on Nissan's communications, no owner could possibly have foreseen losing a capacity bar weighted at 15% in just 4.4 months and 3900 miles. That experience is too far from the picture that Nissan painted to be reconciled with their statements that this is "normal". But more importantly it completely destroys the TCO for the LEAF for that individual. I seriously doubt that any of us, including those in Phoenix, thought we might be signing up to replace out batteries every year or two.

BTW, the charts that Nissan showed TickTock that indicate only 4% additional capacity loss in Phoenix after five years versus the norm are simply their most recent fabrication, IMO. Until we start hearing credible information from Nissan that matches our experience then I feel we all should restrain ourselves from parroting their statements to others. Instead, I suggest that we continue to piece together the puzzle as best we can from the anecdotal evidence and testing that we are able pull together. While it may not be a scientific approach, at least it is an honest one.

(And, no, I am not criticizing TickTock! There is nothing wrong with sharing what Nissan has told us. But the days of sharing those statements as the gospel should be behind us.)

Edit: Corrected mileage and months from dreamer's recent report.