DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14820
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

Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:44 am

lorenfb wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
What is does say is that Nissan failed to provide basic BMS operation that would lessen any negative impact by the customer. A monumental oversight.
Like what?
??

Did you read my post?

How about charging to 99.5%? Is that ok too?

http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/02 ... downs.html


Examine the LEAF Spy log....
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; 10,081 mi, 95.03% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lorenfb
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

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

Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:00 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
What is does say is that Nissan failed to provide basic BMS operation that would lessen any negative impact by the customer. A monumental oversight.
Like what?
??

Did you read my post?

How about charging to 99.5%? Is that ok too?

http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/02 ... downs.html


Examine the LEAF Spy log....
That's been discussed before and concluded that it has an insignificant effect relative to other factors, e.g. battery heat, cycles, age.
There's a whole thread devoted to that discussion with detailed graphs!
#1 Leaf SL MY 9/13: 76K miles, 47 Ahrs, 5.0 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=73, L2 - 100% > 1000, temp < 95F, (DOD) > 20 Ahrs
#2 Leaf SL MY 12/18: 10.3K miles, SOH 109Ahrs/115Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), DOD > 20%, temp < 105F

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14820
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

Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:04 am

lorenfb wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
Like what?
??

Did you read my post?

How about charging to 99.5%? Is that ok too?

http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/02 ... downs.html


Examine the LEAF Spy log....
That's been discussed before and concluded that it has an insignificant effect relative to other factors, e.g. battery heat, cycles, age.
There's a whole thread devoted to that discussion with detailed graphs!
Ohhhh.... ok. So u r in "that" camp.

Got it!
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; 10,081 mi, 95.03% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dwl
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:06 pm
Delivery Date: 08 Jan 2016
Leaf Number: 112097
Location: New Zealand

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

Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:54 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:??
Did you read my post?
How about charging to 99.5%? Is that ok too?
http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/02 ... downs.html
Examine the LEAF Spy log....
The 2018 pack is being charged to 4.2V with different chemistry to the 2016-17 which I believe top out around 4.12V. The regen when nearly full is when less than 4.2V and I suspect will be limited to 4.2V so probably ok. I don't think the 40kWh details are very relevant for the 30kWh but still interesting.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14820
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

Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:45 am

dwl wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:??
Did you read my post?
How about charging to 99.5%? Is that ok too?
http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/02 ... downs.html
Examine the LEAF Spy log....
The 2018 pack is being charged to 4.2V with different chemistry to the 2016-17 which I believe top out around 4.12V. The regen when nearly full is when less than 4.2V and I suspect will be limited to 4.2V so probably ok. I don't think the 40kWh details are very relevant for the 30kWh but still interesting.
hmmm...

sorry but I don't believe a word of what you have to say after "so"
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; 10,081 mi, 95.03% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dwl
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:06 pm
Delivery Date: 08 Jan 2016
Leaf Number: 112097
Location: New Zealand

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

Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:24 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
dwl wrote:The 2018 pack is being charged to 4.2V with different chemistry to the 2016-17 which I believe top out around 4.12V. The regen when nearly full is when less than 4.2V and I suspect will be limited to 4.2V so probably ok. I don't think the 40kWh details are very relevant for the 30kWh but still interesting.
hmmm...

sorry but I don't believe a word of what you have to say after "so"
If the cell voltage doesn't rise above the maximum of 4.2V on the 40kWh chemistry I don't see why there is an issue if regen is allowed below this. I should have said I don't think the 40kWh details are relevant to this thread which is about 30kWh bar losers - sorry if I caused confusion.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:41 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 5734
Location: Hendersonville TN
Contact: Website Yahoo Messenger AOL

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

Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:52 am

WetEV wrote:
Yes, Nissan will be replacing a lot of batteries. Hopefully they will find and fix the issue, which might not be chemistry or packaging, but electronics/firmware.
I've lost hope that Nissan are even trying to resolve the issue anymore. Let's face it, poor battery degradation has been present since the first car came off the production line in 2010. If after 8 years they haven't figured it out, they either are incompetent or simply dealing with the issue until they can get someone else (eg LG) to make the batteries for their cars. If the fix was simply electronics/firmware they would have taken care of the issue a long time ago.

The advantage for Nissan with going 3rd party is that they will recover any warranty costs from the OEM rather than have to continually eat the costs themselves. By selling the battery factories Nissan may have achieved that financial goal already.
--
JP White
http://jpwhitenissanleaf.com
2011 Blue SL-e, 132,400 Miles.
Lost 5 Capacity bars
7/18/13 (29,206), 8/25/14 (51,728), 7/12/15 (71.108), 5/12/16 (88,362), 10/17/16 (96,532)
New Battery 12/3/16 (98,956)
2018 Model 3 20,000 Miles.

Levenkay
Gold Member
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:01 pm
Delivery Date: 11 Aug 2018
Leaf Number: 308382
Location: Portland, OR

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

Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:29 am

JPWhite wrote: If the fix was simply electronics/firmware they would have taken care of the issue a long time ago.
Oh?? Have you tried using a LEAF's Nav system?

User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:41 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 5734
Location: Hendersonville TN
Contact: Website Yahoo Messenger AOL

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

Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:01 am

Levenkay wrote:
JPWhite wrote: If the fix was simply electronics/firmware they would have taken care of the issue a long time ago.
Oh?? Have you tried using a LEAF's Nav system?
There is a lot more at stake when comparing a major drive train component to an optional feature.

There is a strong financial motive for Nissan to resolve this to avoid warranty costs. If it was relatively simple to fix it would be done already. Clearly there is something fundamental wrong with the battery or design of the system that isn't easy to overcome and Nissan have opted to absorb the warranty cost instead of fixing the issue.
--
JP White
http://jpwhitenissanleaf.com
2011 Blue SL-e, 132,400 Miles.
Lost 5 Capacity bars
7/18/13 (29,206), 8/25/14 (51,728), 7/12/15 (71.108), 5/12/16 (88,362), 10/17/16 (96,532)
New Battery 12/3/16 (98,956)
2018 Model 3 20,000 Miles.

WetEV
Posts: 3749
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

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

Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:36 am

JPWhite wrote:I've lost hope that Nissan are even trying to resolve the issue anymore. Let's face it, poor battery degradation has been present since the first car came off the production line in 2010.
The lizard battery(late 2013 to 2016 24kWh) is pretty good. If the 30kWh battery was similar, few would be complaining.
JPWhite wrote:If the fix was simply electronics/firmware they would have taken care of the issue a long time ago.
The problem with the 30kWh battery is different than the problems with early 24kWh batteries. Batteries, regeneration, charging and balancing are all fairly complex. The fact that simply driving more seems to improve lifetime suggests to me that a firmware change could make a large difference in battery life.

JPWhite wrote:The advantage for Nissan with going 3rd party is that they will recover any warranty costs from the OEM rather than have to continually eat the costs themselves. By selling the battery factories Nissan may have achieved that financial goal already.
Not if the OEM can prove that Nissan's other electronics is shortening the life of the batteries.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”