Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[surfingslovak]

I'm not trying to kill the EV movement and want to see this technology succeed. I have solar panels on my house and one of the main reasons I bought this car because it was the first "affordable" 100% EV that I could generate my own energy for.

Probably the single most used statement from those who are actually personally affected by degradation. I also have solar, installed two months after my LEAF arrived. We all want it to succeed, even the deniers and haters that frequent our forum.

It's very surprising to see how many EV advocates question and even attack affected owners and Tony. They continue to dispute the results and the intent of the range test. Nissan has been much more gracious in this instance. I believe that they have access to the CarWings data, the test protocol and other particulars. While they wisely chose not to comment, I'm certain that if there was a big error or omission somewhere, we might have heard about it.

Anecdotal as this data is, the battery state of health determined by Nissan in Casa Grande for several vehicles in July seems to correlate very well with the real-world range demonstrated during the test. I take it as an indicator that the test was well organized and executed, despite of all the controversy that it has spawned in the circles of EV advocates and activists.

I believe that we need to work together, and not against each other, to get through the teething issues to ensure that consumers across the nation can purchase an electrified vehicle and be confident in both its performance, and the implied and explicit warranty of its drivetrain.

 

[edatoakrun]

It's very surprising to see how many EV advocates question and even attack affected owners and Tony. They continue to dispute the results and the intent of the range test. Nissan has been much more gracious in this instance. I believe that they have access to the CarWings data, the test protocol and other particulars. While they wisely chose not to comment, I'm certain that if there was a big error or omission somewhere, we might have heard about it...

Well, you have heard about it. I will repeat:

There were several relatively minor errors in the test methodology, such as not normalizing charging temperatures before the test, and misstating estimated range to turtle as actual observations, for several of the LEAFs.

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.


Any other LEAF driver who has "access to the CarWings data" for their own LEAF, and used it to monitor their own range tests, as I have, would probably also realize just how far removed from reality this entire range test discussion has been.

Unfortunately very few LEAF owners have monitored this valuable source of data, since Tony, and many others on this forum, have denigrated Carwings, value, based only on their own ignorance, rather than actual experience.

 

[walterbays]

Coming from someone who is currently using this forum to solicit thousands of dollars from other LEAF drivers for your rather nebulous "non-profit" proposal

Nebulous? Yes, I told Tony I thought he could raise more money faster if he would get specific about the structure, bylaws, membership, and voting rights in a quick charging non-profit. After all, people would like to know what is the path by which future expansion of QC might finally reach their location. Attorneys with 501c3 and California non-profit mutual benefit corporation experience might volunteer some time as well as money, to help sort all that out.

Nevertheless I know Tony and am confident that every dime will go towards the cause of QC, and his is the only effort to install QC which seems to have any reasonable chance of reaching my location, so I pledged. NRG is just talk for now. Blink seems way more interested in lawsuits to prevent NRG from rolling out QC than in rolling out QC of their own. Walgreens, EVOasis, and Chargebliss have all gone missing. SDG&E and SCE are prevented by CPUC from selling charging, while cooperating with the demand charge rate structure that prevents anyone else from profitably selling QC.

It's a total mess. Lots of us complain about it. Tony does something about it.

your previous promotion of trinket and t shirt sales

Yes Tony is a Leaf Fan, guilty as charged.

and assorted cases of panhandling for "gas money"

Several people on MNL, not Tony, started a collection so that Tony shouldn't be out of pocket for trailering his Leaf over to Arizona to do this test. Tony replied that the money would go first to any other test participant who was out of pocket, then replied that he had a donation that would pay those expenses and more - excess going to support QC.

 

[surfingslovak]

Unfortunately very few LEAF owners have monitored this valuable source of data, since Tony, andmany others on this forum, have denigrated Carwings, value, based only on their own ignorance, rather than actual experience.

Ed, while I appreciate your response, and acknowledge that Tony's test was not perfect, my CarWings data is still flawed, especially when it comes to energy economy. The mandatory software update I received recently did not change that, and this resource remained largely unusable for me, with the exception of tracking miles driven. This is unfortunate, and also indicative of the Leaf conundrum: a great car, which holds even more promise, but unfortunately comes short in many regards. The many instruments I looked at all had one problem or another. The workarounds I would entertain (e.g. the reverse SOC meter) would have problems of their own.

But instead of letting this degenerate into a rant fest about what's good or bad, and how Tony's test sucked, let me tell why I mentioned CarWings at all. I know that the test was scrutinized, and not just by you, and likeminded individuals. The people that matter did not find anything glaringly wrong with it. Moreover, Tony had the intellectual honesty to admit that there was an instrument problem, the very thing we set out to disprove in Phoenix.

 

[LEAFfan]

It definitely wasn't 44 miles.

Randy, if you let me drive your car for about the last five miles before you 100% charge with L2 so I can get the m/kW h into the 6s, I guarantee you that I can make your GOM show 60s to low 70s. And with that charge, I can also show you how to get at least 65 miles at 65mph. With my car, I usually can go at least 1% per mile at 65mph. I've also done close to the same with A/C because I only lose 1 to 2 miles using it.
During that efficiency rally, when I was down to the last two bars, I drove 50 miles and had 4% left according to my BCM. Now I know this isn't 'regular' driving, but there is a lot left below LBW.

 

[WetEV]

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.

Doesn't matter what the initial range is. The correlation between mileage on the car and actual miles driven from full to dead gives a battery life of about 35,000 miles in Arizona, and the initial range isn't used to make this calculation. Nissan's own data as quoted by TickTock shows a battery life of about 45,000 miles in Arizona, and this might be more accurate as Nissan has data on more cars.

This is rather less battery life than people were expecting. Being in a cool place, you and I might well get over 100,000 mile before EOL (70%). But that is cool comfort for those in the heat.

 

[DaveEV]

I completely agree. But my car got 67.3 miles with no A/C, 64mph, and ~80F ambient temp. These are not "normal" conditions for a car in AZ during the hot months. The speed limit on the freeway is 65mph "in town" & 75mph in less populated areas. I'm sorry, but if you sell a car in AZ and expect us not to use the A/C then I'm not sure why I would buy a car like that.

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

Nissan does give you something to aim for here.

From HOW CONDITIONS AFFECT RANGE:

CROSS-TOWN COMMUTE ON A HOT DAY

Distance: 68 miles
Speed: Average 49 mph
Temperature: 110 degrees
Climate control: On
Driving from a rural area into the city at an average 49 mph with the a/c on high may produce this range. Under these conditions, climate control combined with higher-speed driving produces increased energy consumption, hence the effect on range.

My beef with these simplifications:

1. Who drives an average of 49 mph? This appears to assume a speed limit of 55 mph - not 65-70 mph as is most common.
2. These are distances to empty and should subtract at least 10 miles for some buffer, or whatever amount remains under LBW.
3. Completely forgets that you're going to lose 10% range after 1 year and 20% after 5.

Add these up and you probably don't want to rely on the car to drive more than 40 miles under these conditions for the long term. Which is sad because I bet the Volt will be able to get 70% of that distance after 5 years without any of the worry thanks to it's well designed thermal management system.

In the end it comes down to this:

1. Nissan needs to provide repeatable range scenarios when the car is new.
2. Nissan needs to provide expected capacity loss over time under varying climates and usage patterns.
3. Nissan needs to provide more accurate gauges that reliably indicate the usable charge left in the battery.

 

[EVDRIVER]

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.

Doesn't matter what the initial range is. The correlation between mileage on the car and actual miles driven from full to dead gives a battery life of about 35,000 miles in Arizona, and the initial range isn't used to make this calculation. Nissan's own data as quoted by TickTock shows a battery life of about 45,000 miles in Arizona, and this might be more accurate as Nissan has data on more cars.

This is rather less battery life than people were expecting. Being in a cool place, you and I might well get over 100,000 mile before EOL (70%). But that is cool comfort for those in the heat.

I disagree, mine starts off high but I still get about 100 miles after my double-equalization trick, here is my record high to start after just drafting a truck down hill for 20 minutes then charging to 100%.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Funny pic... I wonder when it goes to 888, instead of just 456 or some other insane number?

 

[edatoakrun]

...Tony had the intellectual honesty to admit that there was an instrument problem, the very thing we set out to disprove in Phoenix.

Yes, The test proved pretty much all Tony had previously asserted about premature "battery degradation" based not only on bar capacity displays, but also gid counts, was incorrect, and he actually "admit"ed that one aspect of his battery degradation FUD campaign, that here was no "instrument problem", had been dis-proven.

I mentioned the significance of this, probably confirming my own earlier range test observations of m/kWh reporting error, in my summary from page 8 of this thread:

Below, in my opinion, is an accurate short summary of the test results, and significant conclusions, based on the partial release of test data:

After selecting LEAFs nationwide, whose drivers believed them to have some of the largest range losses, a recent range test in Phoenix showed less than the range loss as had been expected, by relying on what the test showed were inaccurate capacity bars displays, and "gid" counts.

One outlier on the low side got only 59.3 miles. The unknown conditions experienced by this LEAF during over 29,000 miles of use, make it impossible to determine if any factor or factors of use contributed to this car's relative under-performance.

While the other eleven of the twelve did all have close to the highway range (and many, even more) that Nissan had estimated for new LEAFs in its promotional materials, many, but not all, seemed to show a significant reduction from the higher "new" LEAF range, as estimated by another source, Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a.

There was large variability between the LEAFs individual ranges, of between 66.1 and 79.6 miles. Inadequate test protocols could only seem to explain a small part of the large range disparities, between all twelve cars.

We can now conclude, in all likelihood, that many or all LEAFs have a a significant flaw or flaws in their energy use reports, that make it difficult to determine with great precision what capacity or range loss has been experienced by any LEAF, either from new, or from an assumed standard range.
Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.

However, all data indicating accuracy or inaccuracy of all m/kWh reports from the test LEAFs, has so far been withheld, by the promoter of the range test.

Tony later released the withheld m/kWh data, but it is still absent from the summary one page one of this thread, as are the other errors and omissions that have come out since I wrote that summary.

IMO, if test methodology had been better, we probably would now know much more about what those variable dash m/kWh reports from the test indicated.

 

[LEAFfan]

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.

Wow! This statement of yours just shocks me. One of your biggest errors is the above statement. You can not be serious (to borrow a quote)! A new pack with 100% SOC and 100% capacity WILL go AT LEAST 84 miles at 4.0m/kW h. I know, because when my LEAF was new, I did it (not often). I guess you never did or you would know how ridiculous your statement is. It also shows that you have not done your homework. You're the only one of all the members on here that I've seen that has disputed the 21kW h usable capacity for a new, non-degraded battery pack that has been proven by many different tests many times. I would love to see your evidence/proof to the contrary.

 

[wiltingleaf]

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

I did not drive my own car, but I believe it was driven until it would not move anymore. I know that car that I drove would not even go into drive when we tried to put it on the trailer. So I can't say that mine was driven that low, but that was the intention. What information do you have that shows that it wasn't driven to turtle?

 

[DaveEV]

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

I did not drive my own car, but I believe it was driven until it would not move anymore. I know that car that I drove would not even go into drive when we tried to put it on the trailer. So I can't say that mine was driven that low, but that was the intention. What information do you have that shows that it wasn't driven to turtle?

The data is there in post #2 of this thread. Intention or not, we do not know the true range of your car to turtle and even Tony agreed that it's results should be discarded. All we know is that it was capable of driving at least 67 miles under the test conditions.

Two of the cars did not hit turtle (that was my command decision as the last cars were arriving, and we'd already damaged 4 during tows). Not all the drivers got the final voltage, because the Gidmeters were set on Gid # or %.

<snipped other data>

LEAF --- CapBars- miles-M/kWh-Volts ---GOM
Blue744 ---9 -----72.3*- 4.4 - -352.0*-- 63 (*No Turtle; 1 mile after VLB; added 5 miles)

 

[TonyWilliams]

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

I did not drive my own car, but I believe it was driven until it would not move anymore. I know that car that I drove would not even go into drive when we tried to put it on the trailer. So I can't say that mine was driven that low, but that was the intention. What information do you have that shows that it wasn't driven to turtle?

Two cars (and I think your's was one) were only driven to a bit past VLB. This was because we had already driven ten cars, and 4 of them came back damaged, so I didn't want any more damaged cars.

I told the last two drivers, Andrea and George, to just bring the cars in. I didn't want them towed.

So, your car still could go about another 4-5 miles. I need to update the initial post with this info, but I've been absolutely flooded this past week.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

Tony

 

[surfingslovak]

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

I did not drive my own car, but I believe it was driven until it would not move anymore. I know that car that I drove would not even go into drive when we tried to put it on the trailer. So I can't say that mine was driven that low, but that was the intention. What information do you have that shows that it wasn't driven to turtle?

Randy, as mentioned earlier, I ended up driving your car that morning. I believe that I was the last man out, and by the time I hit the very low battery warning, it was past 9 am, the freeway was getting busy and ambient temps were rising. Tony asked me to abort and return to the staging area after I reached the very low battery warning, which occurred just ahead of the E Elliot Rd exit. I drove your Leaf another mile to the staging area. If memory serves, the total on the trip odometer was 67.3 miles.

 

[edatoakrun]

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.

Wow! This statement of yours just shocks me. One of your biggest errors is the above statement. You can not be serious (to borrow a quote)! A new pack with 100% SOC and 100% capacity WILL go AT LEAST 84 miles at 4.0m/kW h. I know, because when my LEAF was new, I did it (not often). I guess you never did or you would know how ridiculous your statement is. It also shows that you have not done your homework. You're the only one of all the members on here that I've seen that has disputed the 21kW h usable capacity for a new, non-degraded battery pack that has been proven by many different tests many times. I would love to see your evidence/proof to the contrary.

I would like to see the threads where you or anyone else posted the results of those multiple 84 mile trips at 62 mph, when your (or their battery) was "new".

Nissan never promised a specific level of available battery capacity. It now appears likely that there could have been more initial range than Nissan promised us, but this rapidly disappears over the first six months,and at a far higher rate in hot climates.

Whether you ever saw 84 miles at 62 mph at normalized Phoenix test conditions, may have depended on how long after the date of manufacture you took delivery, and/or how early you began accurate range tests. Since Nissan never promised us this longer and very temporary range, I think it is not useful to use any anecdotal reports, to now claim than Nissan somehow "promised" us this additional range.

If the future capacity loss and loss of range over time more or less match what Nissan told TickTock, below, I think Nissan's Error is largely in not revealing how much high heat alone will cause deviation from the norm of Capacity loss. Yes, I think many hot Climate LEAF drivers probably will deserve additional consideration from Nissan, for this failure, as their range declines in the future, and it looks like Nissan may be planning specific steps to see many more of them may get it.

Prior poor treatment of owners, however, does not, IMO, excuse misstating the results of this, or any other, range test.

See the discussions at:


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&start=4030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Context and graph on page 393 here:

Thanks for posting this TickTock.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&p=230575#p230575" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The rapid loss of battery capacity you report in the first 6 months, pretty much answers the puzzling results
I have seen in my own range tests, showing negligible loss of range over the last year. Most of my cars capacity loss probably occurred during the first six months from the factory, and 3,300 miles of driving before my first range test Last Summer. I just haven't had enough additional loss, over the last year, to show up over the other "noise" in my more recent range tests.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just don't see any evidence yet of widespread reports of actual range loss not representative of the curves TickTock reported. And I don't see them as indicative of any intentional fraud by Nissan. If actual range reports do not match those declines in capacity in the future, either during those five years, or during (less-specific estimates of) the five years following, I would expect huge problems for Nissan, as well as LEAF many drivers, so I certainly hope Nissan was entirely candid with TickTock, and that the information that they presented to him was as accurate as possible.

Thanks again, for your efforts, TickTock.

On my own range tests, my "moderate climate" (relatively infrequent and short term exposure above 100 F) LEAF could even be be out-performing Nissan's "Boston" estimate so far, but until I have more loss, I won't really know. I'm not reporting that to brag, or to be dismissive of other's problems. I'm just pointing out that it is really too early to conclude whether Nissan is being both honest, and correct, about the ~80% remaining LEAF battery capacity and range average overall, after five years, and ~70%, over ten years.

 

[GRA]

It appears to me, with Nissan's range quoted as 76-84 miles @ 4.0 miles/kWh in that tech bulletin, that they are allowing for 20kWh usable +-5%, or 19-21kWh. Personally, I'd spec it as minimum plus, i.e. 19kWh (or whatever) -0% +x%. It's possible that's what Nissan did here, but without knowing any details of what's typical with Lithium-Ion production, I'd think 10% variation from spec would be very loose quality control on capacity adjustment, costing them a fair amount of money.

 

[wiltingleaf]

The numbers for your car are incomplete - isn't that 67 mi to VLBW and it was not driven to turtle?

I did not drive my own car, but I believe it was driven until it would not move anymore. I know that car that I drove would not even go into drive when we tried to put it on the trailer. So I can't say that mine was driven that low, but that was the intention. What information do you have that shows that it wasn't driven to turtle?

Two cars (and I think your's was one) were only driven to a bit past VLB. This was because we had already driven ten cars, and 4 of them came back damaged, so I didn't want any more damaged cars.

I told the last two drivers, Andrea and George, to just bring the cars in. I didn't want them towed.

So, your car still could go about another 4-5 miles. I need to update the initial post with this info, but I've been absolutely flooded this past week.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

Tony

Thanks Tony, that does clear things up a bit. I didn't realize that my car hadn't gone to turtle. I guess I overlooked that one thread. I can tell you for a fact though that I used to be able to do a 32 mile one-way commute to and from work and now there is no way that I would make it. I also don't understand why people think we have done something wrong because we didn't range test our cars when they were new. If I wouldn't have thought I was going to have issues, I would have definitely done that, but one doesn't buy a car thinking it's going to seriously degrade after only 15 months of ownership.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The "big error or omission" however, was in the range test summary on page one of this thread, which used an artificial range standard, 84 miles, to calculate percentage losses of range.

Wow! This statement of yours just shocks me. One of your biggest errors is the above statement. You can not be serious (to borrow a quote)! A new pack with 100% SOC and 100% capacity WILL go AT LEAST 84 miles at 4.0m/kW h. I know, because when my LEAF was new, I did it (not often). I guess you never did or you would know how ridiculous your statement is. It also shows that you have not done your homework. You're the only one of all the members on here that I've seen that has disputed the 21kW h usable capacity for a new, non-degraded battery pack that has been proven by many different tests many times. I would love to see your evidence/proof to the contrary.

I would like to see the threads where you or anyone else posted the results of those multiple 84 mile trips at 62 mph, when your (or their battery) was "new".

well, gee i could provide more than a few of those but problem is...84 miles is kinda lame so did not do a whole lot of data recording other than to say i have only seen turtle 3 times, heck i have only seen VLB probably a dozen times at most but still have 15 instances of mileage of 78 or greater on a single charge including 4 times over 84 miles.

the 3 turtle times were all over 100 miles except one which i saw turtle after about 40 miles because i did not start the day with a full charge but i did 100 miles TWICE WITHOUT seeing turtle...

so there!

 

[edatoakrun]

I would like to see the threads where you or anyone else posted the results of those multiple 84 mile trips at 62 mph, when your (or their battery) was "new".

well, gee i could provide more than a few of those but problem is...84 miles is kinda lame so did not do a whole lot of data recording other than to say i have only seen turtle 3 times, heck i have only seen VLB probably a dozen times at most but still have 15 instances of mileage of 78 or greater on a single charge including 4 times over 84 miles.

the 3 turtle times were all over 100 miles except one which i saw turtle after about 40 miles because i did not start the day with a full charge but i did 100 miles TWICE WITHOUT seeing turtle...

so there!

All of them at a constant 62 mph, and ~64 mph by your speedometer?

My favorite range test course is over a mountain pass, two ways, with ~5,500 to ~6,000 ft of total ascent and the same descent on the return. I've done it about 20 times to or past the 87.6 mile minimum, and over 100 miles on six of those trips, with the longest being nearly 113 miles to just past the VLBW.

But none of them were at the low average m/kWh required by a 62 mph constant speed on a level course.

I have never seen the turtle, as it is not necessary to test the practical LEAF range, and possibly not advisable for maximum battery life, IMO. I expected I'd eventually see it by accident, but I have found my LEAF's range to be so entirely predictable, it has never happened.


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;