DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14223
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:25 am

Interesting posit, but you did not factor time into it. You likely could "easily" make your mileage goal if you drove more in a year. I get that there is a huge range of need, but in the day of ultra expensive city living, commuting from cheaper bedroom communities is more the norm than the exception these days.

That is much more so in my area than most. There is a $3-$5 an hour wage difference from Seattle to Thurston County. McDonalds starts at $15 an hour. Remember the big Amazon/Walmart $15 wage? Well, might have been cool in Tennessee, but there would be no one working here at that wage.

This means that 15,000 annually is a bit on the low side. We have LEAFers here completely blowing up the curve but only because they are driving a lot. They are beating the clock.

In reality, a bigger battery will last longer because it provides a bigger buffer. As far as Tesla goes; we can only guess at the size of the buffer in their packs.

So 20 to 90% is good but 30 to 70% is better.
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 412 mi, 99.72% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:59 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:25 am
So 20 to 90% is good but 30 to 70% is better.
.
"Better" but far from linear
And very much pack temperature related

Personally, I don't give charging up to 90% SoC a second thought in the winter so long as I use the car within a few hours, but I do routinely charge to below 80% SoC in the summer.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

johnlocke
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Dec 2015
Leaf Number: 300582

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:44 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:25 am
Interesting posit, but you did not factor time into it. You likely could "easily" make your mileage goal if you drove more in a year. I get that there is a huge range of need, but in the day of ultra expensive city living, commuting from cheaper bedroom communities is more the norm than the exception these days.

That is much more so in my area than most. There is a $3-$5 an hour wage difference from Seattle to Thurston County. McDonalds starts at $15 an hour. Remember the big Amazon/Walmart $15 wage? Well, might have been cool in Tennessee, but there would be no one working here at that wage.

This means that 15,000 annually is a bit on the low side. We have LEAFers here completely blowing up the curve but only because they are driving a lot. They are beating the clock.

In reality, a bigger battery will last longer because it provides a bigger buffer. As far as Tesla goes; we can only guess at the size of the buffer in their packs.

So 20 to 90% is good but 30 to 70% is better.
There is an apparent problem at least in Teslas that causes the reported available range to decrease if they are charged to only 70%-80% regularly. Tesla now suggests the car be occasionally charged to 100% (once or twice a month) to keep the BMS calibrated. From what I've read, the critical thing is to keep the maximum cell voltage to 4.00 VDC per cell. For every 70 millivolts above that, you lose 10% of battery life. The actual values probably vary slightly depending on which exact chemistry you use. The latest research points to batteries with much longer life spans even with full charges and deep discharges so It may not matter much in the future how you charge.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14223
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:31 am

johnlocke wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:44 pm
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:25 am
Interesting posit, but you did not factor time into it. You likely could "easily" make your mileage goal if you drove more in a year. I get that there is a huge range of need, but in the day of ultra expensive city living, commuting from cheaper bedroom communities is more the norm than the exception these days.

That is much more so in my area than most. There is a $3-$5 an hour wage difference from Seattle to Thurston County. McDonalds starts at $15 an hour. Remember the big Amazon/Walmart $15 wage? Well, might have been cool in Tennessee, but there would be no one working here at that wage.

This means that 15,000 annually is a bit on the low side. We have LEAFers here completely blowing up the curve but only because they are driving a lot. They are beating the clock.

In reality, a bigger battery will last longer because it provides a bigger buffer. As far as Tesla goes; we can only guess at the size of the buffer in their packs.

So 20 to 90% is good but 30 to 70% is better.
There is an apparent problem at least in Teslas that causes the reported available range to decrease if they are charged to only 70%-80% regularly. Tesla now suggests the car be occasionally charged to 100% (once or twice a month) to keep the BMS calibrated. From what I've read, the critical thing is to keep the maximum cell voltage to 4.00 VDC per cell. For every 70 millivolts above that, you lose 10% of battery life. The actual values probably vary slightly depending on which exact chemistry you use. The latest research points to batteries with much longer life spans even with full charges and deep discharges so It may not matter much in the future how you charge.
Let us not mistake software shortcomings with best case battery practices.
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 412 mi, 99.72% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

johnlocke
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Dec 2015
Leaf Number: 300582

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:44 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:31 am
johnlocke wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:44 pm
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:25 am
Interesting posit, but you did not factor time into it. You likely could "easily" make your mileage goal if you drove more in a year. I get that there is a huge range of need, but in the day of ultra expensive city living, commuting from cheaper bedroom communities is more the norm than the exception these days.

That is much more so in my area than most. There is a $3-$5 an hour wage difference from Seattle to Thurston County. McDonalds starts at $15 an hour. Remember the big Amazon/Walmart $15 wage? Well, might have been cool in Tennessee, but there would be no one working here at that wage.

This means that 15,000 annually is a bit on the low side. We have LEAFers here completely blowing up the curve but only because they are driving a lot. They are beating the clock.

In reality, a bigger battery will last longer because it provides a bigger buffer. As far as Tesla goes; we can only guess at the size of the buffer in their packs.

So 20 to 90% is good but 30 to 70% is better.
There is an apparent problem at least in Teslas that causes the reported available range to decrease if they are charged to only 70%-80% regularly. Tesla now suggests the car be occasionally charged to 100% (once or twice a month) to keep the BMS calibrated. From what I've read, the critical thing is to keep the maximum cell voltage to 4.00 VDC per cell. For every 70 millivolts above that, you lose 10% of battery life. The actual values probably vary slightly depending on which exact chemistry you use. The latest research points to batteries with much longer life spans even with full charges and deep discharges so It may not matter much in the future how you charge.
Let us not mistake software shortcomings with best case battery practices.
If the indicated available range drops that's a problem. Doesn't really mater if it's hardware of software if you can't tell the difference. Those of us who have third party software and hardware for monitoring might be able to tell which it is or maybe not (the last BMS update was for software issues that caused even LeafSpy to report lower values) In the end what charging practice you use is likely what you are most comfortable with. Most Leaf owners charge to 100% occasionally to keep the battery balanced. If it keeps the software in line with the actual range, that's good.

Bigger batteries last longer because they are bigger, not because the buffers have increased in size. If you charge the bigger battery half as often as you'ld charge a small battery, it makes sense that the bigger battery lasts twice as long as a small one. And that's before you take into account the facts that the larger battery spends less time at full charge and likely operates at a lower temperature.

The problem with shallow charge/discharge cycles is that although the battery lasts through more cycles, the total energy delivered is lower than with a battery with a larger charge/discharge swing and fewer cycles. I don't know what the ideal range would be but I would guess that somewhere in the 60%-70% range is about right and less than 50% is probably going to hurt more than help.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

mn4az
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:24 pm
Location: Prior Lake, MN

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:54 pm

mn4az wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:52 pm
mn4az wrote:
mn4az wrote: Rather than having folks deal with the crappy formatting I'm keeping my numbers at the below URL. As of now it seems that I am degrading at a faster clip than before the software upgrade. :-( However, that could mean lots of things. By this time next year things could be much different (hopefully) or not (kinda expecting it).

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AmMHBcyzLWAx7IAfhTHs_dPgwtVW6w

No matter what, it's serving it's 9+ year commuter car purpose for us: 3 years of us driving it before the kids drive it 6+ years around town for high school and extracurricular activities.
URL has been updated. Minnesota driver. Dec '15 manufacturing date.

Date: 10/4/2018
SOH: 89.3%
Mileage: 37231

The 100% charge after software upgrade was....

Date: 6/23/2018
SOH: 93.44%
Mileage: 32830

I'm losing ~0.9% SOH every 1k miles. On track for battery warranty replacement at around 84K miles (about 3 years from now at current driving habits). If that happens, I'd be totally cool with a new battery about 5.5 years into the ownership of the car to get me another 5-ish years.
Full blown winter now in MN. SOH improved from 10/4/2018 readings. :o

Date 12/29/2018
AHr 71.63
SOH 90.12%
V 395.04
Hx 73.18%
ODO 41034
QC 11
L1/L2 2139
SOC 97.80%
GIDS 327
kWh 25.3
Welp... if finally happened.... Lost my first bar....

Date 10/24/2019
AHr 67,11
SOH 84.43
V 395.01
Hx 62.19%
ODO 50731
QC 13
L1/L2 2588
SOC 97.50%
GIDS 307
kWh 23.8

apara
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 1:21 pm
Delivery Date: 02 May 2014

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:15 pm

I have been leasing the 2017 Nissan Leaf S. Just recently I lost the 4th bar. Off to the dealership I went to get a new battery. They said that the car was missing some software updates (recalls). After the update of the software i am back to 11 bars (only 1 lost). Is this what other's have experienced?

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 13448
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:28 pm

apara wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:15 pm
I have been leasing the 2017 Nissan Leaf S. Just recently I lost the 4th bar. Off to the dealership I went to get a new battery. They said that the car was missing some software updates (recalls). After the update of the software i am back to 11 bars (only 1 lost). Is this what other's have experienced?

Yes. Read the 30kwh section of my used Leaf buying guide for the long answer:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 2&p=538030
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

apara
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 1:21 pm
Delivery Date: 02 May 2014

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:52 pm

Nice summary. So, it does not sound like the BMS on my car was reset as there is 1 bar missing. So, I will probably wait for a few weeks before making any conclusions and in the meantime try to gauge the mileage changes, if any.

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 13448
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:01 pm

If the BMS was reset a couple of months ago the bars would return one at a time, but I assume you didn't have the update that long ago. It's less common for the "update" to restore it to 11 bars - this indicates that you have had real, substantial capacity loss. Hopefully you either have 11 'real' bars or the others will drop again fast. Has your driving range improved?
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”