Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[ericsf]

Less than 100 of 28000 is nowhere near a significant number nor a majority.

It's already been explained to death that the 80+ reported on this forum for having lost capacity bars can't be compared to the 28000 LEAFs sold. If you're doing math like this, obviously you don't know anything about statistics because you're mixing apples with oranges. The 100 must be compared against the number of forum members, not against every single LEAF owners regardless of whether they participate on the forum or not.

If you take the issue from the angle of lost capacity bars due to being in hot weather states, the 100 then should be compared to an even more reduced number of forum members from hot weather states only, which is even a smaller sample still.

Sure, I'm not a statitician but I never meant to calculate how many LEAFs in hot climates are affected. Your statistics are not much better. Even if you were to know the number of forum members who reported battery issues and the number of forum of owners who live in hot climate that wouldn't be correct because the forum members are not a representative sample of the entire LEAF population. That is statistics 101.

My point was just to put some perspective on the severity of the problem vs the entire LEAF population - wherever they are.

 

[Volusiano]

Even if you were to know the number of forum members who reported battery issues and the number of forum of owners who live in hot climate that wouldn't be correct because the forum members are not a representative sample of the entire LEAF population. That is statistics 101.

Nobody is trying to take a representative sample of the entire LEAF population here except you and Nissan. That's why nobody cared to bring up 5/28K or later 100/28K to make things look insignificant except you and Nissan. But if you care to bring it up, then the onus is on YOU to compare apples to apples. But if you can't bring the right apples to compare to these apples, then at least don't compare them with oranges.

All people on this forum are trying to do is to point out an anomaly for early reported capacity loss by Nissan's own capacity instrumentation for hot weather states. Instead of downplaying it, why not focus on trying to explain this anomaly?

If you want to believe Nissan completely because you think they have all the good data, then that's your prerogative.

But for me, I won't be naive enough to believe Nissan blindly like you until they stop being vague about everything and actually share the real data (you think they have) with us. A lot of people bought the LEAF based of a lot of half-truths marketed by Nissan. Now that the real truths are coming out via anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies, it's time for Nissan to come clean and "stand-by" their customers by sharing what they know with us.

My point was just to put some perspective on the severity of the problem vs the entire LEAF population - wherever they are.

But we're not talking about the entire population here. We're just talking about AZ owners affected by this heat problem. So while the problem is not severe for the entire population, it's severe for AZ owners.

My point is that the perspective you're trying to point out is the wrong perspective to begin with. It's not about the entire population. It's always been about the AZ and hot weather state population who are suffering the issue.

 

[Weatherman]

I think this whole thing has long since evolved away from being a technical issue for a small set of LEAF owners and is now a support issue for everyone. Given how poorly Nissan has handled the battery degradation problem, it brings into question how they will handle any other problem with the LEAF.

I may not be significantly impacted by battery capacity loss, and I don't have to worry about resale value because I leased, but I am worried about what will happen the first time I go into a dealer asking for any other kind of fix. Am I going to be turned away with the comment that the problem I'm experiencing is "normal" and they aren’t going to do anything about it, or are they going to make a best effort to fix it?

I pray that I have no issues with the car for the next three years. That's a pretty sad state to be in regarding such an important tool in my daily life.

 

[cwerdna]

Even if you were to know the number of forum members who reported battery issues and the number of forum of owners who live in hot climate that wouldn't be correct because the forum members are not a representative sample of the entire LEAF population. That is statistics 101.

Nobody is trying to take a representative sample of the entire LEAF population here except you and Nissan. That's why nobody cared to bring up 5/28K or later 100/28K to make things look insignificant except you and Nissan.

OrientExpress was trying to do the same thing as ericsf and thus trying to dismiss the problem.

My point was just to put some perspective on the severity of the problem vs the entire LEAF population - wherever they are.

But we're not talking about the entire population here. We're just talking about AZ owners affected by this heat problem. So while the problem is not severe for the entire population, it's severe for AZ owners.

My point is that the perspective you're trying to point out is the wrong perspective to begin with. It's not about the entire population. It's always been about the AZ and hot weather state population who are suffering the issue.

+1

 

[Volusiano]

I think this whole thing has long since evolved away from being a technical issue for a small set of LEAF owners and is now a support issue for everyone. Given how poorly Nissan has handled the battery degradation problem, it brings into question how they will handle any other problem with the LEAF.

I may not be significantly impacted by battery capacity loss, and I don't have to worry about resale value because I leased, but I am worried about what will happen the first time I go into a dealer asking for any other kind of fix. Am I going to be turned away with the comment that the problem I'm experiencing is "normal" and they aren’t going to do anything about it, or are they going to make a best effort to fix it?

I pray that I have no issues with the car for the next three years. That's a pretty sad state to be in regarding such an important tool in my daily life.

Very well said!

I've also said from the beginning that the problem is not only going to be a capacity problem, but it's going to become a TRUST problem if let festered for too long.

And it's been let festered for too long. Nobody is trusting Nissan and what they say anymore. It's time to put the money where their mouth is and take corrective actions to show good faith. Empty words like "standing by" their customers mean nothing at this point without real actions.

The communication step offered by Jeff Kuhlman is long overdue and too little too late. The trust has already been broken. So he'll have a gargantuan task to repair this broken trust by not just communicating, but also showing a reasonable/acceptable action plan to remedy the issue and repair the trust.

 

[evchels]

I would like to make one more observation for Chelsea and Jeff based on my limited six months of LEAF ownership and participation on this forum: LEAF customers within the United States do not form a homogeneous group. I have noticed that our views tend to diverge along a few lines:

- Owners versus lessees
- Hot climate versus cold climate versus constant climate
- Those with access to an extensive quick-charge network versus L2 only versus no charging network
- Commuters versus sporadic drivers
- High-mileage versus low-mileage/long calendar life
- High-speed driving versus low-speed driving
- Save the planet versus peak oil/national sovereignty versus save money versus new technology

While I think there are other demographic splits between the many members here, these are the ones which I see that result in the most differences of opinion regarding the LEAF.

As such, I do not think most one-size-fits-all solutions will meet the needs of the entire U.S. LEAF community.

These are all insightful distinctions, and you're right that they can have various impacts on different types of perceptions about the experience of driving a LEAF (or any EV, for that matter.)

The one that caught my attention tonight is the lessees vs owners, especially as it relates to the AZ issue. It makes sense that the owners would be more concerned about the technical impact (as opposed to the broader communication/trust concerns that I know many feel.) I'm curious whether you guys think any proposed "remedy" should be different between the two groups? If so, how?

 

[cwerdna]

The one that caught my attention tonight is the lessees vs owners, especially as it relates to the AZ issue. It makes sense that the owners would be more concerned about the technical impact (as opposed to the broader communication/trust concerns that I know many feel.) I'm curious whether you guys think any proposed "remedy" should be different between the two groups? If so, how?

In earlier posts (I'm sure somewhere within the 387 page thread at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false, some, including myself, have suggested that owners be given the option to convert to a lease.

For those leasing, some might want the option of terminating their lease early w/o having to pay the penalty for ending it early.

 

[LEAFer]

The one that caught my attention tonight is the lessees vs owners, especially as it relates to the AZ issue. It makes sense that the owners would be more concerned about the technical impact (as opposed to the broader communication/trust concerns that I know many feel.) I'm curious whether you guys think any proposed "remedy" should be different between the two groups? If so, how?

In earlier posts (I'm sure somewhere within the 387 page thread at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false, some, including myself, have suggested that owners be given the option to convert to a lease.

For those leasing, some might want the option of terminating their lease early w/o having to pay the penalty for ending it early.

And, IMHO, the reverse might apply. Ours is leased. We are in the Sacramento area (SMUD), which can be hot. We will make a decision near the end of the 36 month lease whether to buy the car. The amount of remaining capacity will be a major factor. The LEAF is a great car, if the battery can hold up. And if it can't, there would be only one "save" (for us). We might still buy the car if we had a firm price (installed, all inclusive) and time target for a replacement battery, in the same spirit as Tesla Motors provides a replacement battery for a Roadster (for about 10% of original vehicle MSRP after 7 years).

There will be other factors for the return/buy decision at 36 months, including what other vehicles (or better LEAFs) are out there, including those that have thermal management of the battery. (This is another example of significant difference between lesee / owner groups and their perceptions, realities and decision matrices. )

 

[ericsf]

Even if you were to know the number of forum members who reported battery issues and the number of forum of owners who live in hot climate that wouldn't be correct because the forum members are not a representative sample of the entire LEAF population. That is statistics 101.

Nobody is trying to take a representative sample of the entire LEAF population here except you and Nissan. That's why nobody cared to bring up 5/28K or later 100/28K to make things look insignificant except you and Nissan. But if you care to bring it up, then the onus is on YOU to compare apples to apples. But if you can't bring the right apples to compare to these apples, then at least don't compare them with oranges.

All people on this forum are trying to do is to point out an anomaly for early reported capacity loss by Nissan's own capacity instrumentation for hot weather states. Instead of downplaying it, why not focus on trying to explain this anomaly?

If you want to believe Nissan completely because you think they have all the good data, then that's your prerogative.

But for me, I won't be naive enough to believe Nissan blindly like you until they stop being vague about everything and actually share the real data (you think they have) with us. A lot of people bought the LEAF based of a lot of half-truths marketed by Nissan. Now that the real truths are coming out via anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies, it's time for Nissan to come clean and "stand-by" their customers by sharing what they know with us.

My point was just to put some perspective on the severity of the problem vs the entire LEAF population - wherever they are.

But we're not talking about the entire population here. We're just talking about AZ owners affected by this heat problem. So while the problem is not severe for the entire population, it's severe for AZ owners.

My point is that the perspective you're trying to point out is the wrong perspective to begin with. It's not about the entire population. It's always been about the AZ and hot weather state population who are suffering the issue.

Downplay it? How? I feel like the AZ battery problem is the only thing that's beeing discussed in this forum!

Lets assume for a second that heat in AZ does indeed kill ALL the LEAFs battery to a point that's impossible to own one in AZ. That's 450 LEAFs according to Nissan. If that was the case, Nissan would eventually have to admit it and compensate the owners. Then it would be a known fact about the LEAF and just like people who need do off road driving don't buy a Yaris, people in extremely hot climates won't buy the LEAF. I'd agree that Nissan would have made a mistake in selling the LEAF in those places but what's the big deal? Did somebody die?

But I don't think it's the case. In this letter, Nissan wrote (emphasis added): "In Arizona, we have approximately 450 LEAFs on the road. Based on actual vehicle data, we project the average vehicle in that market to have battery capacity of 76 percent after five years."

Call me naive but I've decided to believe Nissan. Do you really think that Nissan would put out such statement if they knew that it's false? They did not have to put any numbers out there in the first place. If they had data that shows otherwise their lawyers would be telling them to shut up until they are called to testify in court. Why make those numbers public if they are false? It would only put them deeper in trouble when the truth comes out.

 

[azdre]

Hi, I am one of those Austin buyers. We were told that if the battery was truly defective and that if it lost capacity too fast (not the normal lithium ion capacity loss) then that was under warranty. We were also told that the "modules" could be replaced so that you are not just replacing the entire battery pack. Is this not a correct statement?

If we drive around 30 miles a day and charge to 80% every day or every other day I will lose capacity even in the first year?

If a module is bad, they can replace just a module. BUT... there are many people in hot/warm climates that are experiencing rapid decreases in range during the 2nd summer of ownership, the modules are not defective, it's just 'normal', sudden loss of 15-30% range. Nothing to fix, all modules have degraded equally. There is nothing in the warranty that defines 'too fast', so it's up to Nissan to decide if your scenario fits their own internal definition of 'gradual' at the time you complain. I would imagine with your usage, you'd be on the slower end of this degradation and wouldn't notice it with the short commutes. A bad cell/module can be a cause of degradation, but it's not always the case.

Would you say your salesperson led you to believe that all/most degradation can be addressed by individual module replacements? Or that degradation more than 80% in 5 years would be considered defective?

 

[planet4ever]

- Owners versus lessees
- Hot climate versus cold climate versus constant climate
- Those with access to an extensive quick-charge network versus L2 only versus no charging network
- Commuters versus sporadic drivers
- High-mileage versus low-mileage/long calendar life
- High-speed driving versus low-speed driving
- Save the planet versus peak oil/national sovereignty versus save money versus new technology

Thanks, Reg! Could you please post a 7-dimensional chart of that? :lol:

Seriously, you make some very good points, and it gives me a real perspective on how non-typical my own attitudes may be as a save-the-planet low-speed low-mileage sporadic constant-climate lessee. I apologize if I have offended others here with some of my comments.

With that background, I got my LEAF thinking that

• I've dreamed of owning an EV for many years, and I'm not getting any younger,
• this is a new technology which will probably advance rapidly,
• the LEAF and Volt were the only two cars I felt worth considering at the time, but that many more would follow,
• and therefore that, lease or purchase, I would plan to upgrade to another EV in about three years.

That's still my plan and, unlike some of the more bitter voices on this board, Nissan will be one of the manufacturers I consider when my lease runs out. I very much welcome Chelsea's and Jeff's participation here.

Ray

 

[cwerdna]

@Tony,
I've been reading those threads for a while and I am very admirative of the work you are doing to help the community understand what is happening. But with all due respect, you did not understand my question. I was asking about the battery test which consists in running the AC and heater at full blast as described in the service manual. The manual describes how many minutes each battery segment is supposed to last in those conditions. I know some people have dismissed this test but I am very curious to know if anybody who has experienced battery bar loss has done THAT test. Not a road driving test.

I would be very curious to hear the results of a static test involving the HVAC system comparing control or relatively new cars vs. those with AZ/TX cars w/2+ capacity bars lost. It might provide further insight as to how much of a % we think has been lost.

At least it removes a whole bunch of variables that are unfortunately present during a driving test (e.g. alignment differences, wind, elevation changes, slight driver variations, etc.)

 

[Volusiano]

Lets assume for a second that heat in AZ does indeed kill ALL the LEAFs battery to a point that's impossible to own one in AZ. That's 450 LEAFs according to Nissan. If that was the case, Nissan would eventually have to admit it and compensate the owners. Then it would be a known fact about the LEAF and just like people who need do off road driving don't buy a Yaris, people in extremely hot climates won't buy the LEAF. I'd agree that Nissan would have made a mistake in selling the LEAF in those places but what's the big deal? Did somebody die?

You're purporting that somebody has to die or the heat has to "kill" the battery for the reduced range in AZ a legitimate issue. I'm simply saying that the premature reduced range on AZ batteries is enough cause to make it a legitimate issue. Nobody has to die. Even the battery doesn't have to die. It only has to lose enough range prematurely to no longer being able to serve the needs of AZ owners.

Are you OrientExpress reincarnated? Your argument sure sound a lot like him.

But I don't think it's the case. In this letter, Nissan wrote (emphasis added): "In Arizona, we have approximately 450 LEAFs on the road. Based on actual vehicle data, we project the average vehicle in that market to have battery capacity of 76 percent after five years."

Call me naive but I've decided to believe Nissan. Do you really think that Nissan would put out such statement if they knew that it's false? They did not have to put any numbers out there in the first place. If they had data that shows otherwise their lawyers would be telling them to shut up until they are called to testify in court. Why make those numbers public if they are false? It would only put them deeper in trouble when the truth comes out.

All Nissan did was to "PROJECT" an estimate that AZ battery capacity is on a glide path to 76% after 5 years. It's just a guess or a claim, not bound by any kind of warranty. And Nissan did not come forth with it sooner at the point of sale. And previous projections or claims people based on to make their purchase decision has back fired when it comes the battery capacity for hot weather states. So why would another "revised" projection like this for AZ have any credibility?

If many people are already at 21.25% loss (2 bars, 15% bar 1 + 6.25% bar 2) in the first year (and a half or so), why would they believe Nissan that the next 4 years or so will only sustain another 3% loss?

The only credibility right now is to back all claims and projections up with a battery capacity warranty.

 

[Hawk0630]

MrIanB asked the question ... "how many Leafs have been sold?".

13,921 Nissan Leaf's have been sold in the U.S. since the start of sales.
Nearly 38,000 Leaf's have been sold worldwide.
This is data through August 2012.

Also, I saw a note suggesting that Andy, Jeff, Carla and others come to Phoenix for a townhall. We like that idea and I am working with calendars to see how quickly we can do that. We would try to get to a number of cities.

Jeff

 

[RegGuheert]

The one that caught my attention tonight is the lessees vs owners, especially as it relates to the AZ issue. It makes sense that the owners would be more concerned about the technical impact (as opposed to the broader communication/trust concerns that I know many feel.) I'm curious whether you guys think any proposed "remedy" should be different between the two groups? If so, how?

Well, since you asked, I proposed a remedy over four months ago:

Let me preface this post by saying that I think the LEAF is any outstanding automobile and a remarkable piece of engineering. We love out LEAF and we expect to get many, many trouble-free years out it! My comments below are all intended to help the LEAF to maintain the excellent image that Nissan has managed to build for that car.

...(problem statement removed)...

So what should be done about this? I feel that Nissan should take the financial risk for all of the LEAFs sold into areas where the climate is hotter than some set of criteria that only they can determine based on this first year of data they have collected on the LEAF. They can do this by offering (not forcing) to buy back all of the LEAFs in the affected areas and allow their customers to retain the cars by instead signing a lease agreement for two more years. Nissan should also stop selling LEAFs in the affected areas and instead should only offer leases until more data can be gathered and Nissan can clearly communicate to prospective buyers what the experience has been from several years of actual experience in that area.

This might sound like a drastic step, but I feel that the reputation of the LEAF, of Nissan, and of EVs in general may be irreparably tarnished if this issue is not immediately addressed. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about the magnitude of this issue, but the experience of LEAF owners in Phoenix is so far from what I consider to be reasonable expectations that I feel Nissan must address it now.

Many here were not interested in discussing Nissan's response at that time, but I have always felt that this issue would be defined more by Nissan's response than by the technical issues involved. That thread had a rocky start, but if you can get through the first ten pages or so, there are quite a few interesting proposals in there. You can also clearly see the demographic splits displayed in that thread.

(Note: I have linked to that old thread so that Chelsea could read it if she desires, but please let's not reopen it since the "lost bar" thread has now evolved to include discussion of Nissan's response.)

 

[JRP3]

I would be very curious to hear the results of a static test involving the HVAC system comparing control or relatively new cars vs. those with AZ/TX cars w/2+ capacity bars lost. It might provide further insight as to how much of a % we think has been lost.

At least it removes a whole bunch of variables that are unfortunately present during a driving test (e.g. alignment differences, wind, elevation changes, slight driver variations, etc.)

The problem with even a static test is you are still counting on the vehicle to accurately report data. If the sensors that measure pack capacity are not accurate and/or the software that calculates and compensates that data is faulty the car would still under report actual capacity. The Hall effect sensor in my conversion does not handle large temperature variations well and I have to manually recalibrate it myself when the seasons change. I discovered that when I parked the car overnight with a partially discharged pack and it showed 100% full the next morning after a temperature drop. Realizing I had not discovered a self filling pack I knew the data was faulty. Certainly Nissan has better sensors than that but maybe not good enough, or maybe the temperature compensation software is not good enough.

 

[evchels]

Well, since you asked, I proposed a remedy over four months ago

Thanks- I've been trying to follow all of the relevant threads since they started, though surely have missed some. I'd seen the requests for buybacks and to stop sales in the hotter climates, but not the sale/lease conversion idea.

Communication with current and potential customers on various fronts definitely needs to change going forward, and trust needs to be re-earned for some of you. Those are things I'm hoping the advisory group can help focus Nissan's attention on, and why the group is being established regardless of what happens with the AZ issue.

But for those currently affected - and apologies in advance for the oversimplification - it sounds like most of you would still like to keep your LEAFs, as long as the risk of immature failure can be mitigated. A few just want to be done with the LEAF and move on to another car- and some already have. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Pipcecil]

Nissan is still, in my opinion, spinning the numbers in their favor. You can't compare the cars with range loss to all 38,000 sold OR even those 450 sold in arizona. You cannot claim a car sold yesterday and point "look no range loss, see, we were right, its normal!!" You can ONLY compare numbers of cars, say, over a year old? (yes I know some cars had loss at 9 months, but this is just a simple comparison). Only then are you comparing correctly. The fact that Nissan won't use those correct comparisons means, to me, that the whole thing is just BS. When they actually do correct responses and comparisons, then I will start to pay attention.

 

[Volusiano]

But for those currently affected - and apologies in advance for the oversimplification - it sounds like most of you would still like to keep your LEAFs, as long as the risk of immature failure can be mitigated. A few just want to be done with the LEAF and move on to another car- and some already have. Is that a fair assessment?

I think your assessment is very accurate here. I would also venture to guess that many (including myself) fall into the first category (like to keep their LEAFs as long as the risk of immature failure can be mitigated). As you can see, almost everybody say they love the LEAF except for the battery capacity issue and Nissan's totally unsatisfactory response to it so far.

 

[downeykp]

Well, since you asked, I proposed a remedy over four months ago

Thanks- I've been trying to follow all of the relevant threads since they started, though surely have missed some. I'd seen the requests for buybacks and to stop sales in the hotter climates, but not the sale/lease conversion idea.

Communication with current and potential customers on various fronts definitely needs to change going forward, and trust needs to be re-earned for some of you. Those are things I'm hoping the advisory group can help focus Nissan's attention on, and why the group is being established regardless of what happens with the AZ issue.

But for those currently affected - and apologies in advance for the oversimplification - it sounds like most of you would still like to keep your LEAFs, as long as the risk of immature failure can be mitigated. A few just want to be done with the LEAF and move on to another car- and some already have. Is that a fair assessment?

That is a fair assessment. But regardless, there is a problem with the battery no matter where you live. I do not have any issues with my Pacific Northwest Leaf as of now, but what happens if I were relocated to a hot climate. Now I have a problem. I am tiring of worrying about this and might be in the "I am done with this camp" and would like to be out. I made the mistake and bought mine so do not have the "I can be done with this" at lease end.