Page 160 of 174

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

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 10:21 pm
by LeftieBiker
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 12:06 am
by cwerdna
Another person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/NissanL ... 5303971444 (initials WL) also replying to the same person's (initials TC) post (in another group) mentions they're down 2 bars on their 30 kWh Leaf, post-update (with about 17.8K miles). Don't know where they are now, but in older posts, they (WL) said they live in Los Angeles.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 12:08 am
by LeftieBiker
cwerdna wrote:Another person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/NissanL ... 5303971444 also replying to the same person's (initials TC) post (in another group) mentions they're down 2 bars on their 30 kWh Leaf, post-update (with about 17.8K miles). Don't know where they are now, but in older posts, they said they live in Los Angeles.
Based on what I've seen (not that much) it looks to me like we're seeing a pack with heat resistance in between the Canary and Wolf packs. My first nickname of "Lettuce pack" may be too harsh. "Cabbage Pack"...?

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 am
by DaveinOlyWA
cwerdna wrote:The person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/4377412 ... 445619506/ posted there and at least 2 other closed FB groups. He has a 30 kWh Leaf and wrote
Bought my 2016 SV new in August of 2016...
-Lost my first bar Oct 2017
23,384 miles
-Lost my second bar Apr 2018
33,025 miles
*Got the battery update/recall (30kWh)
June 2018, and got my two bars back.
35,505
-Lost my first bar AGAIN Aug 2018.
38,803 miles
-Lost my second bar AGAIN today May 2019
51,088 miles
Live in temperate climate.
Don't have LEAF Spy.
...Still love my little LEAFY
His profile says he lives in Utah.

It does seem like these 30 kWh packs are a step backwards from the "lizard" packs, even post-update.
Seen worse in the Pacific NW. Primary driver for degradation is likely the end user. He didn't say anything about his charging habits. It still comes back to Nissan not providing any options other than "just plug it in"

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:25 am
by SageBrush
LeftieBiker wrote:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:31 am
by DaveinOlyWA
SageBrush wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.
I think LG capability to supply cells was another factor. Its not like they are having problems finding customers.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:37 am
by SageBrush
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.
I think LG capability to supply cells was another factor.
Their contract with AESC forces them into a non-competitive, one supplier only position. This is not an LG issue, this is Nissan eating crow to partially exit AESC.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 2:04 pm
by LeftieBiker
SageBrush wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.
The "games" to which I refer are claiming that this is all just a BMS programming error, and that their BMS update will fix the problem - which never really existed according to them. I was suspicious of this from the first, because a factory programming error should have affected ALL of the BMS units manufactured in a certain time frame - not just some of them.

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 8:28 pm
by WetEV
LeftieBiker wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.
The "games" to which I refer are claiming that this is all just a BMS programming error, and that their BMS update will fix the problem - which never really existed according to them. I was suspicious of this from the first, because a factory programming error should have affected ALL of the BMS units manufactured in a certain time frame - not just some of them.
Do you, or have you done computer programming of embedded systems for a living, Leftie?

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

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 10:03 pm
by LeftieBiker
Do you, or have you done computer programming of embedded systems for a living, Leftie?
Nope. And despite not having a degree in automotive engineering I managed to discover, at my desk at home, that Nissan was using the old battery chemistry in early build 2013 Leafs. Sometimes all you need is a firm grasp of general scientific and technological principles - like realizing that all the BMS units manufactured at the same time, at the same factory, would have all received the same firmware, and that all of those BMS units - not just some of them - would then misreport the pack's capacity. You are engaging in a logical fallacy that is very similar to the "appeal to authority" that argues that only those who have been officially titled as experts in a field can understand that field, and are thus the only people to be believed in any discussion of that field. Like Ford engineers, in a discussion of why Pintos were exploding in low speed accidents. Or Boeing engineers, in a discussion of why their planes only needed one airspeed sensor, and why a system relying entirely on that sensor should be able to override pilot input...

Had this been just a 'batch issue' then Nissan wouldn't be trying to reprogram every 30kwh pack BMS. No, they found that some packs responded to the "update" by regaining all lost capacity bars for at least several months, and doing that was far easier and cheaper than replacing the packs themselves. It appears that in reality, there are quite a few poor quality 30kwh packs out there, some very good ones, and an unknown number that belong to one, or neither, category.