User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:13 pm

Valdemar wrote:Are all of them affected to a comparable extent?
Comparable? Yes. Identical? No. We are seeing a distribution, just as would be expected from a sampling of manufactured items which have been treated differently over the course of a year or so. But the mean for Phoenix is in a range that fits expectations.

Even Nissan says the degradation may be normal for this environment.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Valdemar
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:32 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Sep 2011
Location: Oak Park, CA

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:14 pm

RegGuheert wrote: But the mean for Phoenix is in a range that fits expectations.

Even Nissan says the degradation may be normal for this environment.
Is there a problem then?

jspearman
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:04 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 5954
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:17 pm

It took them longer than I imagined, but conservatives finally discovered the story. At least they hate Obama more than they hate electric cars, if not by much, so perhaps we won't see much coverage during the presidential election.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/07/25/heat ... lose-power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm

Valdemar wrote:Is there a problem then?
Yes. Nissan's recent after-the-fact statements do not match their public statements of what LEAF customers should expect. Not even close.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
mwalsh
Posts: 9753
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:10 am
Delivery Date: 05 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0213
Location: Garden Grove, CA

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:23 pm

jspearman wrote:It took them longer than I imagined, but conservatives finally discovered the story. At least they hate Obama more than they hate electric cars, if not by much, so perhaps we won't see much coverage during the presidential election.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/07/25/heat ... lose-power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damn! They missed a chance to directly blame Obama for "crony capitalism" in subsidizing batteries that are clearly not "anglo-saxon" enough.
2011 Blue Ocean SL with 86,000 miles
2015 pack on 12/30/15
Tinted windows
Bosch AGM 12v
Ecopia 422+ tires
L1 EVSE upgrade
FIAMM horns
Superbright LED lighting
2013 sun visors
LED shifter
Heated seats
GT-R map lamp lenses
Altima illuminated door switches

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:26 pm

mwalsh wrote: Damn! They missed a chance to directly blame Obama for "crony capitalism" in subsidizing batteries that are clearly not "anglo-saxon" enough.
LOL. :D That is a hilarious comment.
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

User avatar
OrientExpress
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2331
Location: San Jose, Ca

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:45 pm

Valdemar wrote:Oh boy, this thread has definitely beaten all records by the amount of speculation contained. Just to throw one more into the mix, does anyone think that all these issues may be related to a bad batch of batteries?
Actually this hypothesis is probably the one that has the most legs.

Consider that it appears that all of these suspect cars are pretty much from the first major large scale delivery in 2011, with many of them coming in the May 2011 delivery batch. and that they are all being operated in extreme heat area in the south and southwest. It is possible that an early production batch of batteries may have a characteristic that would cause them not to operate to design when in a severe environment with some other unclassified (as yet) variable. Of the cars that are being examined, the battery component modules will be examined for their build dates and revision level, and that will be compared with the manufacturing information and board level component information to get a better understanding of what is going on and with the goal of finding a common issue.

The perfect scenario is that a specific component is found that in certain environmental and operational situations causes the issue. And that that particular component was superseded in later component releases. Then it is a simple (relatively) effort to find the cars that have this suspect component, and issue a TSB for those VINs to have it replaced with the newer component. This happens all the time with production runs of parts that are later discovered to have a defect.

But the second part of this puzzle is that it is really not known empirically how these suspect cars were operated. That does not mean that the drivers of these cars were operating them in an improper way, but it just means that it really isn't reliably understood how the cars were being operated because it has not been formally and scientifically investigated.

Now I know that several of you would dispute that, but honestly there really hasn't been any quality forensic evidence collected other than the anecdotal or interpretative data that has been seen here. Yes, there is 185+ pages of rants and raves mixed with some numbers, but none of the data I have seen here would stand up to scientific scrutiny. It may indicate symptoms, but it is not actionable data. Nissan has acknowledged that this data bears further investigation and is now doing just that.

The part of the investigation that Nissan will do with the customer cars and the drivers of these cars is important for them so they can have a better understand driving patterns in climates like Arizona. If Nissan can improve their modeling of how an EV vehicle is operated in harsh environments, then they can design and build a better car.
2018 LEAF SL
Gun Metalic
Delivery April 10 2018

Prior LEAF:
2014 LEAF SV
Ocean Blue
Delivery May 23 2014
50,000+ miles - all 12 bars - Same range as new - No warranty issues ever!

Reddy
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:09 pm
Delivery Date: 18 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 006828
Location: Pasco, WA

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:56 pm

OrientExpress wrote:
Valdemar wrote:Oh boy, this thread has definitely beaten all records by the amount of speculation contained. Just to throw one more into the mix, does anyone think that all these issues may be related to a bad batch of batteries?
Actually this hypothesis is probably the one that has the most legs.

Consider that it appears that all of these suspect cars are pretty much from the first major large scale delivery in 2011, with many of them coming in the May 2011 delivery batch.....
Let's have some fun with this and speculate that all of these cars are from the ship that left Japan days before the earthquake, were dusted with radioactive :o dust, and that is the reason for the capacity decrease. :lol: ;)
Reddy.
Reddy
2011 SL; 9 bar, 45.80 AHr; 45,000 mi; rcv'd Aug 18, 2011
Long: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... al#p226115"
Cold: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 60#p243033"

Volusiano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:41 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:57 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:i will say; i am in the camp that feels that Nissan has full prior knowledge of the heat issues for AZ and have already taken steps to rectify the issue in the 2013 MY along with addressing current 2012 and 2011 MY owners when US production begins
Add me to this camp.

If Nissan truly has been working on this battery chemistry for as long as they have (10+ years or something like that as they claimed?), they must have already been continually tweaking their chemistry for many different things, such as extended range, and hopefully heat resistance, too. Maybe even cold resistance. In fact, I thought the word on the street is that they may have an extended range version by 2015 that will double the energy density of the current version?

If you look at A123, a much younger company in terms of number of years in the battery business, they already recently claimed to have a heat resistant chemistry tweak to their battery. So for Nissan to fall behind and not have their own heat resistant version would be shameful. If that's the case, maybe Nissan should seriously consider licensing the technology from A123 for a fix. Admittedly, A123 uses a different battery chemistry (Lithium Ion Phosphate) than Nissan's (Lithium Magnanese Oxide). I don't know if the Lithium Ion Phosphate chemistry lends itself to a heat-resistant tweak more easily or not, but A123 has already gotten it. So hopefully Nissan is not too far behind.

For Nissan to take a HUGE risk to decide not to have TMS on the LEAF would seem to imply that while they don't have a heat resistant version available yet in their first roll-out year, they might have gambled on the fact that their heat resistance version can be in production soon to mitigate any potential back-fire on the current battery version, should it happen (and it just happened). Maybe in their risk calculation, it's still cheaper to have a non-TMS design up front to cut cost, in the hope that the heat resistant version will follow suit very soon to support their non-TMS design.

I sure hope that my guess is correct. If I'm wrong and Nissan doesn't have a heat-resistant version to back up their non-TMS design, then they're doomed. That is, unless their extended range version can go into production soon enough to save the day. I sure hope they still have a few tricks up their sleeve.
Last edited by Volusiano on Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:01 pm

OrientExpress wrote:[ It may indicate symptoms, but it is not actionable data.
Did you miss the part about an entire battery back being replaced in 10/2011?

Sounds like actionable data to me.

You are obviously thoughtful, but your continued denial and ignoring of important facts is bewildering.
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”