Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[ksnogas2112]

Tony and everyone involved.... Thank you. It is truly impressive what you did and I think far more telling than any 'laboratory' tests. I only wish it hadn't been necessary. I hope that something positive comes out of this for everyone and especially the future.

Tom

[richard]

From what I can tell, Blue534 seems to be the biggest anomaly (10 bars but a 79.7 mile range).

The rest suggest the first bar is lost after a much smaller amount a degradation occurs than has currently been thought. (Maybe good news for all of those who have only one bar gone?)

Even more so when you consider it beat the lower mileage, 12 bar cars. This must be why Tony is looking for another new LEAF to test. It's hard to determine how degraded the other batteries are unless you have a good value for the top end.

Tony, I thought one of the goals of this project is to try to correlate battery degradation to the hot PHX conditions. If so, we need to know which of the cars are PHX cars. I don't see this in your table above.

Thanks for taking on this project, Tony (and everyone else who was involved). We all appreciate it.

[vegastar]

Amazing data. I'm still processing the information. From this data we know that there is a very bad instrumentation in the Leaf. How is it possible that a car with 2 bar lost has almost 95% of a new Leaf range??

During the test did the miles/gid stayed constant along the route? I'm asking this because in my car I can make a lot more miles per gid (almost double) below LBW than above. And the voltage at LBW is climbing from 357V a year ago to 362V this month.

[DaveEV]

Nicely done.

The good news: The capacity bars seem to be more pessimistic than expected.
The bad news: The batteries are definitely degrading.

I wonder if the capacity bars are measuring a smaller amount of the pack - say 100% to LBW or VLBW - that might explain the discrepancy.

My only comment about possible ways to improve future tests - it was noted that at least Tony's car is normally charged to 80% and then charged to 100% for this test. So just a couple questions - did each car sit plugged in for 4+ hours after charged? I imagine that logistics with only 4 EVSEs available would have been difficult to make sure all cars sat for 4+ hours connected to the L2. If that was managed to be done - please disregard! Otherwise, I suspect that some cars may have been more out of balance than others which would have resulted in lower available charge. The only solution here would have been to attempt top off each car shortly before departure.

I know you captured other data during the test such as battery pack voltage - will this data be released?

Also, at least one driver mentioned that the gauges and GID meter started doing wonky things below LBW - any comments there? It would have be nice to see what GID counts LBW, VLBW and turtle came on on various cars - along with distances between each if available (if nothing else, to give owners of bar-loss vehicles some expectation of what to expect when exploring the bottom 17% of their remaining capacity).

[DaveinOlyWA]

great data!! and as always any single event has a large margin of error but still a 2 bar discrepancy. 10 bars showing with 95% of range? a dozen variations all erring on the positive side would not make up that much difference.

i cant even call it the GOM any more. its gotta be the POM (psyche o meter)

[cwerdna]

Even more so when you consider it beat the lower mileage, 12 bar cars. This must be why Tony is looking for another new LEAF to test. It's hard to determine how degraded the other batteries are unless you have a good value for the top end.

Tony, I thought one of the goals of this project is to try to correlate battery degradation to the hot PHX conditions. If so, we need to know which of the cars are PHX cars. I don't see this in your table above.

Agreed on the first point. I'm sure he prefers it have 281 gid or close to it.

As for the 2nd point, it would be nice to have a column/indication of MNL username associated w/each car. Perhaps some people wish to remain semi-anonymous? We know Black782 is Tony's BC2BC car and the 8 bar (4 bar loser) 59.3 mile car is Scott Y's. Other than Black782, I believe all of the rest are AZ cars and most them are PHX cars.

Maybe the car owners should self identify (at the risk of polluting this thread) or perhaps they should do it in another thread or via PM to Tony?

[bowthom]

Hello,
Great work guys. I was wondering what updates have been applied to the Leafs? Are they all at the same revision level of software. That might account for the 10 bar = 95% discrepancy. I know my car has not had all the updates.

[mksE55]

Thanks Guys and Gals,

I do like the Idea that bar loss may not be as bad as it seems related to the exact percent but a loss this early in a EVs life is not good and still a loss.

[edatoakrun]

As to actually estimating battery capacity of the test LEAFs, as well as the accuracy of the LEAFs’ kWh use and m/kWh reports, I believe the the necessary data from the test remains unreported.

As I posted prior to the test:

...You are planning to monitor your recharge capacity after the range tests, I hope?

...If you monitor the recharge, you should be able to determine accuracy of the the two m/kWh reports from each LEAF (and the battery capacity value they are calculated from), the KWh use as reported by carwings, as well as the values in Wh of each gid, or (lost) capacity bar in your LEAFs...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if none of the recharges were monitored, the m/kWh reports from these LEAFs should at least show whether they share a common error with the gid count reports.

Does anyone still believe gids reflect an accurate and constant Wh value?

What is the source for the 84 mile “new car demonstrated capacity”, as reported?

Were multiple new LEAFs, or even a single one, ever actually tested under the same conditions, resulting in 84 miles of range?

I don't think Nissan ever gave range estimates near this value. So, without documentation of this as the actual capacity and range common to new LEAFs, the calculated percentages of loss could appear to be exaggerated.

On the PR front, I suspect Nissan may actually be fairly pleased that this range test, of a group of LEAFs, so heavily weighted toward those perceived to have the very worst capacity loss, would seem to show that that all but one car (with 29 k miles) have come fairly close to their own highway range estimate:

...Applying the EPA's LA4 test cycle, also less commonly referred to as the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), Nissan came up with some real-world range numbers for the Leaf. Here's an overview of the range variations we can expect from the Leaf:

Cruising at 38 miles per hour with ambient temps of 68 degrees, you could squeeze 138 miles out of the Leaf.
Averaging 24 mph in city traffic drops range to 105 miles, assuming air conditioning (A/C) is not in use on a 77-degree day.
In heavy stop-and-go traffic, averaging just 6 mph with temps of 86 degrees and A/C on, range drops to 47 miles.
At 55 mph on the highway in 95 degree temps and A/C on, expect range to be 70 miles.
Winter temps of 14 degrees with the heater on, will drop range to 62 miles in stop-and-go traffic, assuming an average speed of 15 mph.
There are an infinite numbers of variables which will effect your actual range, but these numbers give you a good idea of what to expect based on your own personal driving habits...

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14/ni ... dual-resu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can’t find a Live link, and Nissan may now be very cautious with public pronouncements of expected range, but I posted more complete info from its site ~6 months ago here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... &view=show" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can adjust for speed, temperature, AC use, altitude, miles driven from new and age of the cars, and arrive at your own opinion as to how many of the eleven cars with ~66.1 to ~79.7 miles range fell short, or actually exceeded, what Nissan estimated, for LEAF range.

[TonyWilliams]

You are planning to monitor your recharge capacity after the range tests, I hope?

No, that's not range. This was a range test, not a battery capacity test. I'm not dumb enough to get into a spitting contest where they hold all the cards. Too many variables dilute the message, and I fear just introducing the Gidmeter is a stretch.

Even if none of the recharges were monitored, the m/kWh reports from these LEAFs should at least show whether they share a common error with the gid count reports.

Those numbers were ALL OVER THE PLACE. Not only is that data not needed, you can't prove much with bad data.

Does anyone still believe gids reflect an accurate and constant Wh value?

I thought it was a heck of a lot better than it clearly is.

What is the source for the 84 mile “new car demonstrated capacity”, as reported?

Nissan service bulletin, quoted in the piece.

Were multiple new LEAFs, or even a single one, ever actually tested under the same conditions, resulting in 84 miles of range?

As indicated, no car went 84 miles. My car (Black782) would certainly meet the 84 mile threshold a month or three ago, but as stated elsewhere, I only charge to 80% (except for the BC2BC trip) and really had no idea that this car could already be tanking. My previous LEAF went about a year before things starting falling apart.

So, mea culpa on me. I should have checked before bringing the car. I can check another car, if I find one, and if Nissan wants to keep this in the news longer, we can go back and forth. Absolutely fine with me. The fact remains, one car went X distance, and the others went X minus some significant number. It would be stupid of them to brag about 76-79 miles to dead, when they're advertising 100. I can make a new chart with the range compared to 100 miles if they want. Or we can get 5 or 10 cars new LEAFs and test only them. It just wouldn't end well for their argument, IMHO.

I have not played my whole hand on this, and I believe I'm ready for the hate fest (or they could pull their heads out of their 6 anytime and do right in Phoenix).

I don't think Nissan ever gave range estimates near this value. So, without documentation of this as the actual capacity and range common to new LEAFs, the calculated percentages of loss could appear to be exaggerated.

Again, Nissan's own data. But, sure, if they want to say 84 miles is an exaggerated range at 62mph, we can do that.

On the PR front, I suspect Nissan may actually be fairly pleased that this range test, of a group of LEAFs, so heavily weighted toward those perceived to have the very worst capacity loss, would seem to show that that all but one car (with 29 k miles) have come fairly close to their own highway range estimate:

Yes, it is better than initially perceived, but I'm not sure it's wise to start bragging publically about the "good" losses in 12-18 months... or far less miles. Nobody considers 29,000 miles "high mileage", and it is still under warranty.

There are an infinite numbers of variables which will effect your actual range, but these numbers give you a good idea of what to expect based on your own personal driving habits...

I didn't quite follow the reason for that whole angle. We used one set of variables... That was kind of the point.