User avatar
TomT
Posts: 10642
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:09 pm
Delivery Date: 01 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 000360
Location: California, now Georgia
Contact: Website

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:48 pm

And a big red button that pops out of the battery if it ever get over 100 degrees!
Cheezmo wrote:
charlestonleafer wrote:I wonder if any changes will be made to the 2013's as a result?
They will have a mileage limiter that prevents you from driving more than 12,500 miles/year.
Leaf SL 2011 to 2016, Volt Premier 2016 to 2019, and now:
2019 Model 3; LR, RWD, FSD, 19" Sport Wheels, silver/black; built 3/17/19, delivered 3/29/19.

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:04 pm

shrink wrote:So I didn't see anything about faulty software/instrumentation....
That omission is what stood out in my reading of the letter, also.

Could be just because the range loss is what has been so heavily publicized, or it could mean Nissan doesn't have a fix for the m/kWh, bar loss display, and now, at least one of the Phoenix test cars reporting bizarre LBW (and other warning level?) behavior. It is pretty clear to me now that there must be multiple and/or complex problems with LEAF energy use displays.

For myself, I believe I have very good data showing I have lost no significant range or capacity, but my m/kWh reports have drifted toward a very inaccurate state:
...The ~ 9% (erroneous, I believe) increase in reported charge efficiency is fairly close to the ~11% (also erroneous, I believe) decrease in reported kWh use over my ~one-year-apart-near-identical-driving-condition range test a few weeks ago (from page two of this thread):
The results from 8/30/12 were:

97.3 miles to VLB, 98.9 miles in total, by the odometer.

CW: 96.5 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 5.7 m/kWh, 16.8 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW.

Compare this test with my first test on 9/7/11:

91.5 miles to VLB, 93.4 in total, by the odometer

CW: 91.1 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 4.9 m/kWh, 18.7 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW.
It seems very likely to me that both are reflecting the same underlying error in my LEAF’s dash, nav screen and CW kWh use reports, as also effected by other variables which I cannot eliminate from my observations.

So, I believe that the recharge time results are compatible with my range tests, which indicate no observed reduction in range, both probably indicating that my LEAF has no observable loss of available battery capacity (though some amount has almost certainly occurred) over the last 12 months.

I think it is also very likely that many other LEAFs have similar errors in kWh reports, quite possibly due to the gid Wh variability TickTock observed last year, and that capacity bar displays might be similarly effected. Not having lost a bar (yet) or ever having monitored my gid count, I can’t observe those results.

I do think that anyone seeing capacity bar losses or dropping gid counts should try both range and charge capacity tests, to try to more accurately determine their LEAF’s actual loss of battery capacity.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 4&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I ran another test on the same route yesterday, only to LBW, but very closely matching the prior test results of 8/30/12. I will post results on the thread above, once I get the complete numbers.

I find it very hard to believe either I or my LEAF has increased in efficiency enough to support this great an increase in m/kWh on this same route, with all variables normalized, to the best of my abilities. And even if this were the case, I don't see how the kWh recharge-by-time calculation could be showing so large an error, and of so similar an error percentage.

If I am correct, Losing the accuracy, or at least the consistency, of my energy use figures is not as much of an immediate problem as losing actual battery capacity, but I still consider it a significant problem with my LEAF, and quite possibly many (or all?) others.
no condition is permanent

mynameisjim
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:12 pm
Delivery Date: 17 Jul 2012
Leaf Number: 23226
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:05 pm

Perhaps Nissan purposefully didn't drive the 7 test cars and instead tested the battery on the bench specifically because they knew the problem is in the car and not the battery.

evchels
Gold Member
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:06 pm

azdre wrote:I hope this advisory board can help make the LEAF program and technology a success. Through all of my issues, I really want this program to succeed. For an entire year I LOVED my car, and am very sad at the way I feel now. Chelsea Sexton, I for one will help you in any way I can if it means a successful mass-market EV comes out at some point.
Thank you, I really appreciate it- and fully understand the emotions involved. Part of why it's frustrating to watch some of these issues fester is because we all want so much for this to work in the first place.

I'm also open to suggestions for the advisory board- folks who'd be particularly good for it, things you'd like to see us focus on, etc. I've got some thoughts, obviously, but always happy for input.

On the AZ issues, I have been following those threads since they started, and believe your experiences without needing to drive the cars. Which isn't to say that Nissan's data isn't credible or that they're being disingenuous in saying that the gauge is too conservative. In my experience, "within manufacturer spec" is one of the most frustrating conclusions, regardless of which side you're on (though my technician husband would probably argue that it's "could not duplicate customer concern"!) :D User experience and data don't always corroborate as we'd expect, and it's a pain.

I also don't know if this particular issue will be resolved in a way that makes everyone comfortable, given how much it's festered. I hope so. But I do know that things can be done better from now on- starting with better expectation-setting around things like range in the first place. Communication through the inevitable infant process and product issues. Etc. It won't happen overnight, but our collective hope for a successful mass-market EV depends on our willingness to keep at it.

EdmondLeaf
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Edmond, OK

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:24 pm

evchels wrote:Communication through the inevitable infant process and product issues. Etc. It won't happen overnight, but our collective hope for a successful mass-market EV depends on our willingness to keep at it.
I guess good starter here will be that 24 kWh = 24 kWh http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric- ... ection_nav
and than 24 kWh X 4 miles/kWh = 96 miles
I like things that are simple

EVDrive
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 21 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 776
Location: SF Bay Area, Ca

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:41 pm

Very odd Nissan did not mention the suspect instrumentation in the Leaf which may be limiting some of our batteries ability to accept a charge to the max of their current potential.

The other really big issue is that the Leaf goes nowhere near the 100 miles a charge that Nissan claimed. I can still get my Leaf to go 75 miles on a charge if I go 55 mph on the freeway. That is a far cry from 100 miles.

What I really want is an EV with fast charge that goes at least 120 miles so a few years into ownership I can still go 100 miles at 65 mph.

Battery pack options with increased capacity are what we need for future models. I hope Nissan realizes that and they fix any issues with current and future Leaf instrumentation.
- SF Bay Area
- 2011 Leaf traded in at 46,000 miles, 3 years, lost 1 bar
- Upgraded to 2014 Rav4EV with Quickchargepower.com CHAdeMO port, 53,000 miles
- Tesla Model 3 reserved

User avatar
TimeHorse
Gold Member
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 4:40 am
Delivery Date: 02 Nov 2011

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:54 pm

Speaking as one of those who lives where there's weather, not "Always hot" or "Always temperate" but the Mid Atlantic where we sometimes get snow and summers can be hot and humid like a m*th*rf*ck*r.

Point being, I think after 17,000 mi and 10 months of driving I have not yet lost my first bar but am getting quite close to it. My daily commute is about 70 mi of mostly highway. This works out to 2 bars when I get home on a good day to LBW on a bad one. Loss is not an option but worse case I'm the guy on the Capital Beltway driving 45 mph so I can get home, which I've taken to doing to extend the range vice sitting in a car dealer for 90 min to get an extra 25 mi of range (when a 6.7 kWh charger could do same in 45!!) Point being, I am definitely gonna trade in my LEAF when it's paid off for something with a faster charger and more range. Could be a 2014 or 2015 or even a late 2013 LEAF or maybe I save up for a Model X (because I like Gull Wings).

But logically it's true the initial loss will be greater than future losses by the simple principle of compounding. If you loose 0.2% per month, you can expect to see about 2.4% total loss in the first year, and 4.7% loss in the second, only 2.3% more, and in 5 years 11.3%, not 12% (2.4%*5).

What irks me is the 100,000 mi / 8 year warranty. They never told us what would be considered unacceptable loss. They suggest 80% in 5 years and 70% in what was it, 8 right? They would consider about 70% loss in 100,000 to be acceptable but clearly with the suggestion that 76% in 5 years as possible in AZ they must consider 35.5% loss in 100,000 mi / 8 years also acceptable. Consider that's more than one third your original capacity and as I'm already on the border with my commute there's no way I can keep this for that long unless I change jobs or that stupid Mr. President passes an executive order to match the bill in Congress he signed that allows the legislative branch to charge their electric cars at cost on capital ground: this should be the rule for the entire executive branches and military! We'll pay for it even though it's less expensive than a mini fridge, just f*ck*ng let us!!
EVDrive wrote:Battery pack options with increased capacity are what we need for future models.
Couldn't agree more, as well as a faster charger!!

Now, happy national Plug-In Day everyone!
RIP CO2 Fre, 27 months, 42,282 mi & 11 bars.
unAmerican Job & Nissan's Rapid Depreciation cost $20,000!
5 hours on the road daily w/o Charge at Work on 100%.

Long Live CO2 Fre, Maxed 2013 SL, 20,000 mi/yr lease.
http://aecn.timehorse.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stacekar
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:07 pm
Delivery Date: 17 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2125

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:30 pm

What is covered in the battery warranty? Does the battery have zero range or stop working? Do other EVs that don't have battery cooling have the same problem?

cwerdna
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:40 pm

Stacekar wrote:What is covered in the battery warranty? Does the battery have zero range or stop working? Do other EVs that don't have battery cooling have the same problem?
See page 12 of http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/images ... ooklet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShtvd5jJHQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; re: warranty.

Name the other EVs that were available for sale in AZ and TX when the Leaf went on sale and have no cooling system.

'19 Bolt Premier
'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
DaveEV
Forum Supporter
Posts: 6239
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:38 pm

gsleaf wrote:Ouch, I was hoping for a better response.
+1. It's just more of the same CYA gobblygook.
gsleaf wrote:
mwalsh wrote:We at Nissan stand by our product, and we also stand by our customers.
If they truly believe this they would have a better battery warranty. I LOVE my Leaf, but I can't recommend them anymore because of this issue.
I've thought this for a while now - but really Nissan's biggest failure here (if this is truly normal) is the complete lack of transparency in terms of what to expect in terms of actual range and long-term capacity loss.

All you need to do are these 3 things:

1. Produce an "ideal" speed/range chart that lets you know how fast/far you can travel on a single charge in a new car. All new cars should be able to match these numbers at a minimum. The data in NTB11-076a is not good enough, but it's a good start.
2. Provide guidelines on how capacity will be reduced over the warranty period based on where you live assuming typical usage (used as daily commuter, parked in sunny parking log, parked in garage, etc).
3. Provide guidelines on how tweaking usage habits may improve or reduce capacity loss over time. How does calendar life change when using 80% vs 100% charging? How does calendar life change when averaging 3.5 mi/kWh vs 4.5 mi/kWh?

Return to “General / Main Owners Forum”