Page 259 of 799

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:44 pm
by cwerdna
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.

As I have said before, patience is the keyword here as this issue is resolved.
Then you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is. You should be willing to swap your Leaf for one from AZ that has lost at least 2 capacity bars.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:47 pm
by TonyWilliams
cwerdna wrote: Then you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is. You should be willing to swap your Leaf for one from AZ that has lost at least 2 capacity bars.
Ya, I suggested that some time ago! Heck, just swap batteries!!! I'll facilitate by volunteering to get both cars side by side for the swap!!! No charge at all. Then, when the simple software glitch is fixed, voila, "all is well".

So, Arizona one, two and three bars losers, who would like a Bay Area battery to swap?

Edit: extra bonus; the new owner of a reduced range battery (waiting for the Nissan software change any day now) can just "charge more" until then. It's all going to work out !!!

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:58 pm
by TickTock
GeekEV wrote: I appreciate the need for dialog and discussion, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low...
Go to your user control panel-->Friends and Foes tab. You can easily remove a lot of the noise once you identify a source.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:01 pm
by ALLWATZ
TonyWilliams wrote:
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest......

Thank You.

Since you've advertised your rubbing shoulders with Nissan execs (as I have), I'll just assume that's your source. You do recognize the motivation for Nissan to want us to believe that it's a "simple" teeny tiny software glitch, and "all is well"?

Or, maybe you can't. Gosh, wouldn't it be awesome to overlook that heat significantly reduces the livelihood of ANY battery that isn't protected from such (with TMS). Or using 93% of the total battery capacity isn't beneficial to long life.

Yes, patience. That's exactly what Nissan needs. And lots of it. Maybe through model year 2015, when they are expected to get a new battery.
+1 with Tony. There may be a time for sticking your head in the sand but, now is not the time for any Leaf owner (by the way, does that strategy actually work for an ostrich). Been following the auto industry for years and am racking my brain to think of one time in the past when car owners waited and a car company came through and acknowleged a problem without some form of prodding by a group or government agency. By the way found a site that has some interesting e-mail addresses, facebook pages and phone #s for Nissan Corp. people (1/2 way down under Contacts Updated). Link http://dontbuynissan.wordpress.com/cate ... tegorized/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:14 pm
by Stoaty
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.
Actually, the data that we have so far from Nissan's own testing suggests that while over-reporting of capacity loss by the Leaf is a factor in some cases, that doesn't explain the bulk of the capacity loss. To quote from the Wiki section I have been working on:

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

"In late July, 2012, Nissan took 6 of the most severely affected Leafs with significant capacity loss to their Casa Grande testing facility in Arizona. One Leaf owner, Scott Yarosh, got his Leaf back with 3 capacity bars still missing (27.5% capacity loss), although Nissan removed the battery for bench testing and told him that he had only a 15% loss. Interestingly, he reported that Nissan had taken a total of 11 cars for testing. Another owner, Azdre/opossum were told that their Leaf has a 15% capacity loss, although the Leaf still showed 2 capacity bars missing (21.25% capacity loss). Their Leaf had the second best remaining capacity--the best was a 14% loss. A third owner, TickTock, got his car back with all 12 capacity bars restored. His testing suggested that he had not gained any capacity, but that a mis-calibrated sensor was reset and his Leaf now more accurately reports the actual capacity loss. He estimated that his real capacity loss was 15%, not 23%. Further testing showed that the value of a Gid (a unit of energy roughly equal to 80 watt-hours, named for Gary Giddings, who designed and built a meter to show battery state of charge) is apparently temperature dependent. Relying on the Gid-meter led to an inflated estimate of battery capacity loss. The entire thread can be read here.

The limited results available so far (8/8/12) from Nissan's testing suggest that part of the apparent capacity loss is due in some cases to the Leaf reporting a somewhat greater capacity loss than actually exists (6% greater in 2 cases, 12.5% greater in one case). However, all but one of the tested Leafs had at least a 15% loss of capacity, indicating that the problem is more than just incorrect reporting of the battery capacity. "

Again, feel free to make additions, corrections, or add data which contradicts this information. If you go to the Wiki, hyperlinks will direct you to the relevant post on the forum that the information is taken from.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:26 pm
by Nubo
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.

As I have said before, patience is the keyword here as this issue is resolved.

Thank You.
Has the reputable source described the mechanism by which the software bug is degrading the real-world capacity as demonstrated by driving tests?

Possibly the glitch is allowing overcharge or over-discharge to take place?

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:24 pm
by TonyWilliams
Nubo wrote:
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.

As I have said before, patience is the keyword here as this issue is resolved.

Thank You.
Has the reputable source described the mechanism by which the software bug is degrading the real-world capacity as demonstrated by driving tests?

Possibly the glitch is allowing overcharge or over-discharge to take place?
And this "glitch" didn't exist last summer in Arizona in the same heat. What software changed May 2012, when both the desert temps went up and capacity losses began being reported?

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:04 pm
by Gonewild
TonyWilliams wrote:
Nubo wrote:
OrientExpress wrote:Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.

As I have said before, patience is the keyword here as this issue is resolved.

Thank You.
Has the reputable source described the mechanism by which the software bug is degrading the real-world capacity as demonstrated by driving tests?

Possibly the glitch is allowing overcharge or over-discharge to take place?
And this "glitch" didn't exist last summer in Arizona in the same heat. What software changed May 2012, when both the desert temps went up and capacity losses began being reported?

I had my Battey pack changed in Nov after going through a hot summer. And only the first AC software update I believe.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:07 pm
by Gonewild
Herm wrote:Battery degradation must be tapering off as Nissan predicted, if you go by the pace of new posts in this thread.. someone should graph it to what the correlation is.
NOT everyone knows of this web site so that is most likely not true.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:15 pm
by Stoaty
Herm wrote:Battery degradation must be tapering off as Nissan predicted, if you go by the pace of new posts in this thread.. someone should graph it to what the correlation is.
Just ran into another (unreported) case of battery capacity loss:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/107 ... e#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look for Chris Shaia. Added to Wiki. Total of 55 known cases so far. Most likely the tip of the "iceberg" (? "volcano").