Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[thankyouOB]

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.

this is seriously wrong and overstated. let's all just go to our fainting couches.

This is not wrong nor overstated. ScottY and Azdre found that they were not able to reasonably continue to use their cars for their intended purpose long before two years had passed. As a result Nissan was compelled to repurchase their vehicles or face further bad press or legal action. There will be more cases like this.

That frequency of battery replacement is a very far outlier.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I also think that my question was simple and valid: what good do they expect from this? If this answer was posted already, then fine, chastise me for not doing my homework before posting. But questioning the time spent debating, that sounded just like my wife

Funny! I think that I must have been married to a few posters in a previous life. Yes, I suspect your question here is valid. My response is probably not much different than yours, however if Nissan continues to find those most affected and make them "whole" as they've done at least twice, I suspect the lawsuits will not ultimately provide the same relief that they recieve by Nissan acting promptly and deliberately now.

Nissan will also save beau coup money and significantly reduce brand damage.

 

[Boomer23]

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.

Thanks again for carefully parsing and helping to clarify some of these issues.

All I've been trying to say in my last couple of posts is that battery capacity loss is partially a tech/engineering problem and partially a consumer psychology/paradigm change problem, and the latter may be just as tough a nut to crack as the former. As much as I love my Leaf, I mourn the steady incremental loss of capacity and range that I sense almost every day, and I live in a supposedly temperate, Leaf-battery-friendly climate (Los Angeles). After 18 months, I haven't lost a bar yet, but the loss of range since day one has been clear and dramatic. I wouldn't think of embarking (clumsy word choice, invoking a boating metaphor) on certain itineraries that I once would not have hesitated to drive. I resist undertaking homegrown pseudo-scientific analyses purporting to quantify and metricize the loss - for one, I want to experience the Leaf like an ordinary driver and, two, I don't have the patience, obsession or interest in buying a GIDmeter or other like tools, although I appreciate the findings of the many MNL members who have and continue to conduct obsessive testing, observation and analysis.

I suspect my personal response to my Leaf's slow decline is and will be shared by many if not most BEV drivers. Unlike our experience with the ICE paradigm, we live with an ongoing, ever-present sense of the vehicle's mortality, almost as if it were an untreatable and irreversible disease, which takes a heavy toll on us emotionally and mentally over time. With an ICE, when something goes wrong, we can usually just have parts replaced and - voila! - it's as good as new (at least, that is how we psychologically perceive most repairs on an ICE vehicle). The nearest ICE analog to the BEVs' existential condition would be something like the gradual loss of cylinder compression, which is essentially untreatable without a major engine overhaul or replacement.

My point is that the experience - the paradigm - of owning/driving a BEV is radically different from that of an ICE car, and there's a profound psychological component involved. When I acquired my Leaf, I thought I was prepared for the concept of capacity loss. I intellectually accepted it, and dismissed the thought from my mind. But now, 18 months later, even though the battery's performance and condition are probably well within the guidelines established by Nissan (certainly more favorable than that of Tucson Leafs), I find I'm not really emotionally accepting of the loss. In fact, I often find myself running through my mental calendar to contemplate the day when, lease expired, I'll be free to sign paperwork to get behind the wheel of a new Leaf, or Tesla, or some freshly minted BEV yet to come to market.

Perhaps, as some have suggested, this is a result of Nissan's particular engineering choices. I believe that it's probably too early to tell. The success of the new paradigm depends on more than the chemistry of the batteries; to a large degree it depends as well on the mysterious chemistry of the human brain.

Tim, allow me to add my thanks and kudos for your well written thoughts on this subject. This particular post captures especially well the state of mind that I sense among my fellow LEAF owners. As enthusiastic as we are, and we still are enthusiastic, about the promise of EVs, there is a subtle psychological shift that is taking place, at least among those of us who read this board regularly. With 22 months left on my LEAF lease, I'm also avidly staying up to date on developments in the industry, and especially on news stories about affordable upcoming new BEVs from various manufacturers. But even though I can intellectually say that the Phoenix experience with Nissan's batteries shouldn't have an impact on the velocity of EV adoption because other battery chemistries are more robust and TMS will be more common, I realize that I myself am a bit less enthusiastic and excited. One thing is for certain, as I did with the LEAF, I will lease rather than buy any new tech EV or PHEV for the forseeable future.

 

[TonyWilliams]

That frequency of battery replacement is a very far outlier.

And so is Phoenix weather.

 

[RegGuheert]

That frequency of battery replacement is a very far outlier.

True, yet it was fully predictable by Nissan since they had screened all potential buyers for many parameters including their location and how far they would commute each day. If this was the expected "normal" degradation of the LEAF battery under those conditions, then why weren't these customers informed of that fact BEFORE the sale/lease?

 

[JRP3]

However, I can see a potentially negative psychological component of having that gauge so obviously placed. Drivers who have not begun to actually experience range reduction will see the capacity bars start to decline and perceive their cars as declining even if the usefulness to that individual hasn't changed at all.

I know capacity is useful information, particularly in the context of used EV sales. But it's not as useful on a day-to-day basis as range and other data. My suggestion is to keep the capacity information available, but to locate it elsewhere.

Except drivers will see the reduced capacity every day as their displayed range after charging and miles remaining decreases. Without capacity data they may not know why their displayed range is decreasing. You seem to suggest that someone who only drives maybe 30 miles on a charge won't notice that the range display on a charge has changed from "80 miles" or so to "70 miles" or so. I think they will.

 

[thankyouOB]

I am not defending nissan.
I am just head-shaking at the hyperbole by some posters.

I would be pissed if i owned a leaf in AZ. But i cant imagine that circumstance happening.
Corporations often try to cheat or trick us. Consmers need to be wary.
Failing that, we need good regulation, consumer protections and, in some cases, smart trial attorneys.
I support the victims and am glad we have rallied to support them; that is what community -- even a virtual one -- is for, but i wonder what they were thinking in their air conditioned homes when this brand new product hit the AZ market.

 

[JRP3]

Let's be honest; for the multitudes of LEAF owners in hot areas that only drive short distances daily, they wouldn't worry about degradation if it wasn't staring them in the face.

As per my response above, it still is staring them in the face.

That data isn't there yet, but wouldn't you prefer the data TickTock got at 84.7% capacity, as opposed to a goofy non-linear, low resolution (and currently not very accurate) dash display? Better data without the alarmist aspect.

I'm all for better data, but how does that address the alarmist aspect? Are you suggesting more accurate data but hide it?

 

[JRP3]

Perhaps, as some have suggested, this is a result of Nissan's particular engineering choices. I believe that it's probably too early to tell. The success of the new paradigm depends on more than the chemistry of the batteries; to a large degree it depends as well on the mysterious chemistry of the human brain.

Why aren't Tesla Roadster owners with older vehicles and higher miles having the same issues? Same brain chemistry. The answer is engineering choices. A pack with a TMS eliminates temperature issues in battery chemistry susceptible to such, and the large pack size reduces the impact of any capacity loss. If the LEAF had a 150-200 mile range pack even a 50% capacity loss leaves most people with a very usable vehicle. With a 80 mile pack, not so much. Since we won't be changing brain chemistry any time soon Nissan better be able to change pack chemistry, or design, preferably both.

 

[Stoaty]

I support the victims and am glad we have rallied to support them; that is what community -- even a virtual one -- is for, but i wonder what they were thinking in their air conditioned homes when this brand new product hit the AZ market.

They were probably thinking the same thing the Volt prospective purchasers in Arizona were thinking: "GM (Nissan) is a major car manufacturer with years of experience building vehicles. If their testing shows the vehicle will be OK in this climate, I trust it is true, because I can't believe they would risk their reputation on a product that wasn't properly tested for this environment."

For the Arizona Volt purchasers, their trust seems well placed so far. For the Arizona Leaf purchasers, not so much.

 

[GRA]

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.

Coda's long-term viability is certainly a worry, although they've got the Chinese backing them, and China is serious about EVs (they have to be). I've previously stated my reservations about the Coda so won't repeat them (see the Coda topic), but for a basic commute car with more range than most, a more heat-tolerant and slower degrading chemistry, I think it would be worth a look. If I were Coda's head of marketing I'd sure as hell be trying to move into hot-weather markets where the Leaf is wilting. They need to sell more cars to stay alive. It may be blah to look at, but the battery should hold up a lot better than the Leaf's, and that's more important for a commute car.

 

[thankyouOB]

I support the victims and am glad we have rallied to support them; that is what community -- even a virtual one -- is for, but i wonder what they were thinking in their air conditioned homes when this brand new product hit the AZ market.

They were probably thinking the same thing the Volt prospective purchasers in Arizona were thinking: "GM (Nissan) is a major car manufacturer with years of experience building vehicles. If their testing shows the vehicle will be OK in this climate, I trust it is true, because I can't believe they would risk their reputation on a product that wasn't properly tested for this environment."

For the Arizona Volt purchasers, their trust seems well placed so far. For the Arizona Leaf purchasers, not so much.

It is a very sad state of affairs in the marketplace, but as i said- buyer beware. Doesnt ye olde latin have a phrase for it? Caveat somebody, wasnt it?
U trust these mfers at ur own risk; but a trial lawyer can be ur best friend.

 

[copdoc]

I suspect my personal response to my Leaf's slow decline is and will be shared by many if not most BEV drivers.

The last new car I bought I expected to drive into the ground 12 years later. But then I consider the special stationary I found in the closet last month: I got it as a gift in high school and liked it too much to use it on anything that wasn't worthy which means that umpteen years later, I've never used it.

I would hate for the LEAF to be more like the stationary than the minivan. Of course, perhaps the stationary should have been enjoyed and used up.

 

[evchels]

Actually, I experienced the decline of my car range way before the disappearance of my top capacity bar.

Of course. Even with the current capacity gauge, some notice the range first. With others, it's vice versa. But when you did notice the decline, I doubt you needed the capacity gauge to tell you that. Sure, it's useful to confirm, which you could still do if the info was located elsewhere in the screens. But how additive is it to have the gauge occupying some of the best real estate in the car, so you can see the capacity every day?

If I understand her correctly, she wants drivers understanding that there is degradation, but to not fixate on it. Let's be honest; for the multitudes of LEAF owners in hot areas that only drive short distances daily, they wouldn't worry about degradation if it wasn't staring them in the face.

Exactly. Or at a minimum, not to fixate on it before it actually affects them. We definitely need to establish basic awareness of what to reasonably expect both when the car is new and over time. But using Tony's example, someone who drives 20 miles a day probably wouldn't notice a range difference until well after the capacity gauge had started to decline, if ever. I don't see how it helps to draw his attention to the capacity on a daily basis, as long as he can get the info from the car when he wants to.

 

[evchels]

However, I can see a potentially negative psychological component of having that gauge so obviously placed. Drivers who have not begun to actually experience range reduction will see the capacity bars start to decline and perceive their cars as declining even if the usefulness to that individual hasn't changed at all.

I know capacity is useful information, particularly in the context of used EV sales. But it's not as useful on a day-to-day basis as range and other data. My suggestion is to keep the capacity information available, but to locate it elsewhere.

Except drivers will see the reduced capacity every day as their displayed range after charging and miles remaining decreases. Without capacity data they may not know why their displayed range is decreasing. You seem to suggest that someone who only drives maybe 30 miles on a charge won't notice that the range display on a charge has changed from "80 miles" or so to "70 miles" or so. I think they will.

Some will notice the numbers changing- and anyone who wonders why could easily pull up another screen to get more data. But many won't notice the numbers changing, as long as the car still does what they need it to. Capacity is also only one of many reasons why the GOM numbers vary - and why so many drivers of all plug-in models would prefer %SOC on the dash instead of (or in addition to) bars or a GOM.

Asking differently: assuming the capacity info is still accessible within the car - how significant is the downside of not having it on the dash?

 

[GRA]

However, I can see a potentially negative psychological component of having that gauge so obviously placed. Drivers who have not begun to actually experience range reduction will see the capacity bars start to decline and perceive their cars as declining even if the usefulness to that individual hasn't changed at all.

I know capacity is useful information, particularly in the context of used EV sales. But it's not as useful on a day-to-day basis as range and other data. My suggestion is to keep the capacity information available, but to locate it elsewhere.

Except drivers will see the reduced capacity every day as their displayed range after charging and miles remaining decreases. Without capacity data they may not know why their displayed range is decreasing. You seem to suggest that someone who only drives maybe 30 miles on a charge won't notice that the range display on a charge has changed from "80 miles" or so to "70 miles" or so. I think they will.

Some will notice the numbers changing- and anyone who wonders why could easily pull up another screen to get more data. But many won't notice the numbers changing, as long as the car still does what they need it to. Capacity is also only one of many reasons why the GOM numbers vary - and why so many drivers of all plug-in models would prefer %SOC on the dash instead of (or in addition to) bars or a GOM.

Asking differently: assuming the capacity info is still accessible within the car - how significant is the downside of not having it on the dash?

I've always preferred gauges to idiot lights, but as modern cars have gotten far more reliable and less fixable in the field, the need for gauges has declined. And with modern electronic displays, they often provide more data than is useful or absorbable, because they can. Given the choice between displaying cutesy trees/butterflies or something more valuable like battery capacity, I'll take capacity. However, I don't think having it available full-time is critical, as long as you don't have to remember/enter multiple passwords or take a ton of steps to call up the info - either call up a battery health screen on the main display, or else make it available in the dash instruments via a single toggle between that and some other data, SOC, say. Just make sure you can easily distinguish between the two.

 

[surfingslovak]

Asking differently: assuming the capacity info is still accessible within the car - how significant is the downside of not having it on the dash?

Appreciate the thought and effort going into this. Personally, I don't care much for the capacity bars, or the GOM, for that matter. I would like to have the option to show the available kWh estimate. I would like to be able to see it somewhere on the dash. If I could push a switch, and replace the miles estimate on the GOM with a kWh number, I would do that. But that's just me.

 

[Stoaty]

Some will notice the numbers changing- and anyone who wonders why could easily pull up another screen to get more data. But many won't notice the numbers changing, as long as the car still does what they need it to. Capacity is also only one of many reasons why the GOM numbers vary - and why so many drivers of all plug-in models would prefer %SOC on the dash instead of (or in addition to) bars or a GOM.

If I could only have one, I would rather have kwh of usable energy instead of %SOC. If your battery is down 25% in capacity, you will still show 100% SOC when fully charged, but you won't be able to go nearly as far. If you have kwh of usable energy and either "ideal miles" or miles based on your long-term driving average that is all you would really need. I would prefer the either of the latter two mileage estimates to the GOM.

 

[GRA]

Some will notice the numbers changing- and anyone who wonders why could easily pull up another screen to get more data. But many won't notice the numbers changing, as long as the car still does what they need it to. Capacity is also only one of many reasons why the GOM numbers vary - and why so many drivers of all plug-in models would prefer %SOC on the dash instead of (or in addition to) bars or a GOM.

If I could only have one, I would rather have kwh of usable energy instead of %SOC. If your battery is down 25% in capacity, you will still show 100% SOC when fully charged, but you won't be able to go nearly as far. If you have kwh of usable energy and either "ideal miles" or miles based on your long-term driving average that is all you would really need. I would prefer the either of the latter two mileage estimates to the GOM.

+1 to your and Surfingslovak's posts.

 

[evchels]

Appreciate the thought and effort going into this. Personally, I don't care much for the capacity bars, or the GOM, for that matter. I would like to have the option to show the available kWh estimate. I would like to be able to see it somewhere on the dash. If I could push a switch, and replace the miles estimate on the GOM with a kWh number, I would do that. But that's just me.

Fair enough. Ideally, people could select from any of these choices since this type of into is becoming so customizable. I can see many drivers wanting kWh instead of capacity bars, and SOC instead of GOM. I'd be one of them!