GaslessInSeattle
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 2:15 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 850

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:57 pm

yeah, well, the 3 and 4 bar losers have totally blown that theory out of the water, which makes me uneasy. it appears that whatever loss one is seeing, that it's going to be linear or even worse, it may accelerate rather than level off. I suppose that what is happening in Phoenix is so catastrophic that it's causing a atypical degradation curve. It's tempting to want to try and learn something about these batteries by what is happening in Phoenix but what we are seeing may simply not relate to the rest of the country... time will tell, bottom line though, uncertainty is bad for marketing!
gbarry42 wrote:Interesting from the standpoint of Nissan being surprised by all this. I have read lots of lectures here about how Nissan tested batteries in Arizona long before the car was delivered.

I am also a bit uneasy about how the deterioration is supposed to "slow down after the initial loss". It's a great way to put off the owners, telling them "wait another year and see what happens".
Gasless: Silver 2012 SL, traded in for Lease on 1/13
Tesla S P85, Gray, pano, carbon fiber, took delivery: 2-9-13... LOVE this car!
9.8 kW PV Solar installed 9/12, http://www.westseattlenaturalenergy.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:23 pm

DesertDenizen wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:Seems like normal corporate speak to head off hysteria (which could cost Nissan sales and money).
I am with Tony, it is a bunch of blah blah blah. Of and if it is only 0.3% of owners, why not make us whole?
So, what exactly, in your opinion, would "make us whole" entail?

If a driver has already put 25,000 miles on their LEAF, used QC frequently on hot afternoons, regularly charged to 100% as soon as getting home during the hottest part of the day, and has left the battery charged at 100% for long periods of time, during the hottest weather, and now has lost one or more bars, Does Nissan now owe them a new battery?

And should Nissan replace that battery, when they lose another bar, in 12 or 18 months?

The more responsibility you shift to the BEV manufacturer, for driver behavior, the greater the total cost of the battery per mile driven, for the entire And these costs will have to be paid by other BEV owners.

It certainly sounds to me that many of the bar loss LEAFs have, or probably will have in the future, legitimate complaints about their batteries not meeting their reasonable expectations, and I do expect Nissan, following the investigation, to offer to "make (you) whole".

But satisfying all LEAF drivers may not be an easy (or cheap) thing for Nissan to do, given some of the statements made on this and other threads.

Do you expect Nissan to essentially guarantee the same capacity life for batteries in Phoenix, and other extreme climates, as experienced by LEAFs driven in regions, where average annual temperatures are 20 to 30 degrees F lower?
no condition is permanent

DesertDenizen
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:23 am
Delivery Date: 11 Sep 2014
Leaf Number: 314507
Location: Tucson

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:31 pm

edatoakrun wrote:
DesertDenizen wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:Seems like normal corporate speak to head off hysteria (which could cost Nissan sales and money).
I am with Tony, it is a bunch of blah blah blah. Of and if it is only 0.3% of owners, why not make us whole?
So, what exactly, in your opinion, would "make us whole" entail?

If a driver has already put 25,000 miles on their LEAF, used QC frequently on hot afternoons, regularly charged to 100% as soon as getting home during the hottest part of the day, and has left the battery charged at 100% for long periods of time, during the hottest weather, and now has lost one or more bars, Does Nissan now owe them a new battery?

And should Nissan replace that battery, when they lose another bar, in 12 or 18 months?

The more responsibility you shift to the BEV manufacturer, for driver behavior, the greater the total cost of the battery per mile driven, for the entire And these costs will have to be paid by other BEV owners.

It certainly sounds to me that many of the bar loss LEAFs have, or probably will have in the future, legitimate complaints about their batteries not meeting their reasonable expectations, and I do expect Nissan, following the investigation, to offer to "make (you) whole".

But satisfying all LEAF drivers may not be an easy (or cheap) thing for Nissan to do, given some of the statements made on this and other threads.

Do you expect Nissan to essentially guarantee the same capacity life for batteries in Phoenix, and other extreme climates, as experienced by LEAFs driven in regions, where average annual temperatures are 20 to 30 degrees F lower?
I will only speak for myself. I have never quick charged. I charge to 80%, and do so just before leaving in the morning so my Leaf does not sit even at the 80% level. The early morning is the coolest part of the day. My long term average of 5.6 m/kwh tells you how I drive. Is there anything more an owner could do? As for making whole, one suggestion made on this forum was to allow purchased Leafs to be converted to a lease. I would have leased if I knew of this phenomenon here in Arizona so that seems a reasonable resolution to me.
Fully charged by photo voltaic system.
Nov 9 2014 got my 2015 lease, SL. My third Leaf. Tucson AZ. 5,500 miles, 5.2 long term m/kwh. Let us see if the 'lizard' battery does better than my 2011, which lost a capacity bar at 6,771 miles.

TurboFroggy
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:41 pm
Delivery Date: 21 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2398
Location: Everett, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:35 pm

Hmm, I am wondering if this isn't really cell capacity loss or maybe a bug in the GID-Counter/BMS. I know my Ranger EV with it's NiMH pack and BMS has a bug in it, that if you charge frequently with 50% the BMS starts to reduce/leak the Ah capacity over time. Every 6 months or so I have to drain my pack down until the point at which the contactors open, disconnect the 12V battery for 10-15 minutes, then reconnect it and plug it in. This makes my range increase from 45 miles back to the 62 miles it normally starts with.

This could be something related to NiMH which are not supposed to have a battery memory but I bet certainly do. Lithium batteries however should not be fully cycled often as it can really take a toll on the cycle life.

However that being said, my guess is that Nissan will remove the packs from these 2-3 bar loss vehicles and individually cycle them on a cell cycler/recorder to see what the actual capacity is. Then use that data to compare to what the actual BMS thinks is in each cell/module.

It would be fantastic if a combination of heat is causing the BMS to be off on it's capacity guess and just an updated firmware to the BMS that better compensates for temps is what is really needed.
Reserved 4/25/2010 - Ordered 12/2010 - picked up 6/21/2011
6.88KW Grid-Tie Solar
2013 Tesla Model S P85, Reserved 11/10/2012 picked up 3/8/2013.
2011 Nissan Leaf
2000 Ford Ranger EV NiMH (SOLD)
2 Ton Geothermal
Zero Energy Bills

HXGuy
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 12:44 am
Delivery Date: 16 May 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:35 pm

edatoakrun wrote:
Do you expect Nissan to essentially guarantee the same capacity life for batteries in Phoenix, and other extreme climates, as experienced by LEAFs driven in regions, where average annual temperatures are 20 to 30 degrees F lower?
For the LEAF (or any other electric vehicle) to be a true viable alternative to a regular ICE vehicle, they need to have the same warranty/guarantee across the nation, just as ICE vehicles have. It's not like Nissan/Ford/Audi/etc have different warranties on their cars depending on where they are sold.

DANandNAN
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:25 am
Location: St. Johns/Jacksonville

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:38 pm

edatoakrun wrote:So, what exactly, in your opinion, would "make us whole" entail?

If a driver has already put 25,000 miles on their LEAF, used QC frequently on hot afternoons, regularly charged to 100% as soon as getting home during the hottest part of the day, and has left the battery charged at 100% for long periods of time, during the hottest weather, and now has lost one or more bars, Does Nissan now owe them a new battery?

And should Nissan replace that battery, when they lose another bar, in 12 or 18 months?

The more responsibility you shift to the BEV manufacturer, for driver behavior, the greater the total cost of the battery per mile driven, for the entire And these costs will have to be paid by other BEV owners.
If these are all the causes, and they were known, then Nissan should have stopped it from being possible. An electronic limit on "QC", a electronic temperature limit on charging, and not allowing "100%" (everyone knows it's not a true 100%, right?).

Of course they couldn't do that, they would have sold even less Leaf's. So, they did this instead and now have to fix the consequences.
Chevy Volt! - I hate burning gas but the Volt can't be Turtled!
Waiting for a 2013 Leaf w/6.6 or FFE to accompany the Volt and complete our EVolution

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: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:39 pm

gbarry42 wrote:Interesting from the standpoint of Nissan being surprised by all this. I have read lots of lectures here about how Nissan tested batteries in Arizona long before the car was delivered.
Just because Nissan tested the cars does not mean the tests found any and all problems with their product.

When testing software, it almost never fails that once released to a large community of users, bugs are found that testing did not reveal, but were there all along. You can blame the level, quantity or quality of testing until you are blue in the face, Quality Assurance is not an exact science. The fact that shit happens is a fact of life.

I am sure Nissan are as surprised as we are, maybe more so, since they may have thought they had tested all reasonable use cases prior to releasing their product on the unwashed masses.

At the end of the day it might not be the batteries, but the charging system or software doing crazy stuff in hot weather and inadvertently frying the batteries (increasing charge rate erroneously rather than backing off). It's also possible that recent changes to firmware (long after Nissan's initial tests in Arizona) have introduced a problem.

Who knows the true root cause? We don't. Hopefully Nissan will before we long.
--
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.

GRA
Posts: 11060
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:42 pm

DANandNAN wrote:
edatoakrun wrote:So, what exactly, in your opinion, would "make us whole" entail?

If a driver has already put 25,000 miles on their LEAF, used QC frequently on hot afternoons, regularly charged to 100% as soon as getting home during the hottest part of the day, and has left the battery charged at 100% for long periods of time, during the hottest weather, and now has lost one or more bars, Does Nissan now owe them a new battery?

And should Nissan replace that battery, when they lose another bar, in 12 or 18 months?

The more responsibility you shift to the BEV manufacturer, for driver behavior, the greater the total cost of the battery per mile driven, for the entire And these costs will have to be paid by other BEV owners.
If these are all the causes, and they were known, then Nissan should have stopped it from being possible. An electronic limit on "QC", a electronic temperature limit on charging, and not allowing "100%" (everyone knows it's not a true 100%, right?).

Of course they couldn't do that, they would have sold even less Leaf's. So, they did this instead and now have to fix the consequences.
I think that's exactly right. Nissan took a car which in its original design is essentially only suited to early adopters. There's nothing wrong with that, but Nissan then made two mistakes:

First, they neglected to give those early adopters the info they need (and crave) to operate it for maximum efficiency and longevity, leaving it to the owners to piece this info together for themselves instead of providing the data that Nissan's own engineers (who aren't incompetent) undoubtedly have.

Second, despite the above they tried to sell the car in a mainstream fashion as if it were a mainstream car.

I think someone had a quote from a GM guy in the marketing thread that GM and Nissan didn't know how to market and sell the car, and I think that's correct. A mainstream car has to be usable anywhere in the U.S, without requiring the owner to learn a great deal of specific info to operate it reasonably efficiently in a particular climate. IMO among EV manufacturers GM has done the best job of this currently, with Ford second. Barring use of a battery chemistry that has its capacity and longevity essentially unaffected by temperature, to be mainstream an EV needs an active TMS and high efficiency HVAC system, so that temperature effects on range/longevity will be insignificant.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

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: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:46 pm

DesertDenizen wrote:
I will only speak for myself.... As for making whole, one suggestion made on this forum was to allow purchased Leafs to be converted to a lease. I would have leased if I knew of this phenomenon here in Arizona so that seems a reasonable resolution to me.
I agree, and that Nissan should probably also give owners whose use is documented to be similar to yours, an early lease termination option, since some will find shorter range a real impediment to use, even before the lease expiration date.

Relatively cheap and equitable policy, IMO.

But...

Does that mean every LEAF owner who loses a bar during the lease period, in the future, should have that same option?

Not so cheap, and possibly, quite a bit more expensive.
no condition is permanent

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

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:48 pm

TurboFroggy wrote:Hmm, I am wondering if this isn't really cell capacity loss or maybe a bug in the GID-Counter/BMS. I know my Ranger EV with it's NiMH pack and BMS has a bug in it, that if you charge frequently with 50% the BMS starts to reduce/leak the Ah capacity over time. Every 6 months or so I have to drain my pack down until the point at which the contactors open, disconnect the 12V battery for 10-15 minutes, then reconnect it and plug it in. This makes my range increase from 45 miles back to the 62 miles it normally starts with.

This could be something related to NiMH which are not supposed to have a battery memory but I bet certainly do. Lithium batteries however should not be fully cycled often as it can really take a toll on the cycle life.

However that being said, my guess is that Nissan will remove the packs from these 2-3 bar loss vehicles and individually cycle them on a cell cycler/recorder to see what the actual capacity is. Then use that data to compare to what the actual BMS thinks is in each cell/module.

It would be fantastic if a combination of heat is causing the BMS to be off on it's capacity guess and just an updated firmware to the BMS that better compensates for temps is what is really needed.
I wish you are right on that, despite I look like a fool not driving my car during time when I should really use it because AC is really efficient on it.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”