My Nissan Leaf Forum

Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service, I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82 - closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).

TickTock wrote:Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service, I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82 - closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).

Very interesting data. If a mis-calibrated sensor explains part of the apparent loss, the problem may not be quite as bad as it appears. I wonder if that explains any of the loss for other Leafs. Of course, 15% loss in such a short time is still far from acceptable based on Nissan's representations/assurances. I believe Scott got his Leaf back with 3 capacity bars still missing.

It looks like in some cases such as yours, even the Leafscan would not have given 100% accurate data about capacity loss.

TickTock wrote:Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service,- closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).

I'm confused.

" ...I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82.."

Exactly how are you calculating wH/gid ? From "the wall", as corrected by what charging efficiency factor?

Are you saying ALL your reports of kWh accepted per charge, prior to your last one, should be adjusted upward by the same constant (to what wH/gid value?) or did this discrepancy vary over time?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... li=1#gid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thankyouOB wrote:we had to destroy the village to save it.

-infamous vietnam war logic

Positive things can be both the goal, and outcome. One possible goal is working toward legislation that might prevent a scenario where an auto manufacturer sells a product with defects, and then attempts to cover up the defects (aka Honda, which lost court challenges to their post sale battery funny business to try and cover up a defective product). I have a good deal of experience on Capitol Hill with organized lobbying work.

Anyhoo, I know your stand on the issues; be quiet, and don't rock the boat. There might be collateral damage. The bad news is that people who will ultimately sue Nissan won't share your view, and I won't like the out-of-court settlement where nothing changes, and people get paid money to shut their mouth.

Stoaty wrote:It looks like in some cases such as yours, even the Leafscan would not have given 100% accurate data about capacity loss.

Great points. All the more reason to use physical range tests (with controls that I've outlined many times) and outside measurement of battery energy consumed.

I have added a short paragraph on the testing in Casa Grande to the "battery capacity loss" section of the Wiki, but am still missing a couple of links to the forum for the info on Azdre/opossum and Scott Yarosh. If anyone can find these links and add them (or wants to make any other corrections/additions), I would appreciate it:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index. ... acity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TonyWilliams wrote:

thankyouOB wrote:we had to destroy the village to save it.

-infamous vietnam war logic

Positive things can be both the goal, and outcome. One possible goal is working toward legislation that might prevent a scenario where an auto manufacturer sells a product with defects, and then attempts to cover up the defects (aka Honda, which lost court challenges to their post sale battery funny business to try and cover up a defective product). I have a good deal of experience on Capitol Hill with organized lobbying work.

Anyhoo, I know your stand on the issues; be quiet, and don't rock the boat. There might be collateral damage. The bad news is that people who will ultimately sue Nissan won't share your view, and I won't like the out-of-court settlement where nothing changes, and people get paid money to shut their mouth.

dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.

I does look like the seasonality I was observing in my gid based capacity estimations was s/w related and the unit value of 1 gid was being modulated by temperature. Just looking at wall-power, I see a much slower rate of degradation over the year. More detail here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 89&start=9

thankyouOB wrote: dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.

Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!

I prefer to stick with known facts:

1. Cars were sold with a range of XX miles in XYZ scenario (I'm purposely not mentioning 100 mile BS)

2. One year later, plus or minus a few months, those same cars have significantly reduced range.

3. The manufacture (and its dealers) has publically stated that virtually any range reduction is "normal"

4. Consumers , by and large, don't find this quantity of range reduction acceptable

TonyWilliams wrote:

thankyouOB wrote: dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.

Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!

i didnt misquote you, paraphrase you or cite your post.
I just made a statement that you do not like.