Boomer23 wrote:I'll now have accurate CW data. I hope it doesn't frack up something else on the car.
I thought that this update had been applied to our car along with the voluntary NTB12-014 recall update a year ago, but looking at the service records and the diagnostic screens, as well as our CW data, it is obvious that the NTB-11-041 Telematics fix was not applied as we requested, perhaps because we never had any telecommunication problems with the Leaf. Before I go hassle the dealer to apply it now, I am still trying to understand the advantage of having the CW data be more accurate. I have never used CW for anything more than remote charging and CC preconditioning, which works fine and always has. If and when Nissan begins charging a monthly fee for the telematics service, unless it was an extremely nominal cost, I would abandon the service in a heartbeat and just accomplish those tasks manually instead of remotely.
At the moment, I am leaning towards the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" stance unless there is some practical advantage in having the update done and making the CW energy use data more accurate. As I understand it, the NTB-11-041 Telematics fix simply makes your CW energy usage figures match that of your dash and nav screen output (with possibly some 2.5% odometer error?) instead of inflating the reported m/kWh figures, as the old, non-updated CW algorithm does. Can someone please explain how they find this increased CW accuracy useful? Why not just depend on the nav screen output for this figure, if all the update does is make the CW number match it? How is the m/kWh number useful other than telling you how efficient your driving habits are? Chances are that even if you know you could be more efficient in throttle and brake application, or coasting technique, to become a better "hypermiler," you might not be able to change your habits significantly--that is the very nature of "habits," they are fairly well ingrained in your behavior, and unless there is a compelling reason to change them, and a concerted effort made over a long period of time, they persist. I have little interest in doing that myself, and I am pretty sure that telling my wife she should drive differently to be more efficient and perhaps gain a few miles of range would be like spitting into the wind.
I know that edatoakrun has claimed that the CW detailed energy usage figures can be used to calculate battery capacity degradation, but frankly, I have not been able to follow either his logic or methodology in doing so, and I am not all that concerned about the exact rate of degradation of our battery pack. It is what it is, not the least bit unexpected, and the car is still meeting our needs and will for quite some time to come. I don't really see how drilling down into the individual trip and mileage data that CW contains is more accurate, useful or necessary for this purpose, as ed claims. Isn't knowing that your m/kWh number has not changed substantially (i.e., your driving efficiency is the same), that the car used to go 77 miles on a full charge when new and now goes 70 over the same route enough to tell you that the pack has degraded 10% or so? What more do you need to know, from a practical standpoint? I don't understand how more accurate CW energy usage data is going to enhance the accuracy of this degradation estimate significantly, or increase the utility or enjoyment of the car, exactly. Can someone give me a compelling reason to have this update performed? What have you gotten out of it that you simply couldn't live without?
TT
Tom Tweed
La Jolla, CA
Plowshare Media
2011 SLe #1317 del. 4/1/11
1st bar lost at 31,953 miles
2nd bar lost at 38,685 miles
3rd bar lost at 50,711 miles
4th bar lost at 59,758 miles after 64 months
Battery replaced at 61,307 miles.
