palmermd
Posts: 2621
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:19 pm
Delivery Date: 31 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 1100011011
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:16 am

edatoakrun wrote:
Where are the voltage levels at "100%", and at warning levels and stop for all the test LEAFs posted?

I don't think you understand what the test was about. Let me try and explain. The test was to see what a "normal" (i.e. not somebody who frequents this forum) Leaf driver would see. They plug the car in and charge it up. They drive it and have the DTE/GOM and some bars to see how far they can go. After a year they seem to be able to only go 75% as far (real distance to work and back, not DTE/GOM distance) as they could when they bought the car. This test shows that in fact the cars with a loss of at least one bar drove 70-85% of what it could when it was new. That is a 15-30% loss of range. That is beyond what Nissan suggested we would see after 5 years of ownership.

Plain and simple, that is what the test was about. You seem intent on figuring out why they lost the range, and that is great, but it is not what the test was about. In fact you, nor anyone else on this forum has enough information to truly determine why we are seeing this loss of range. Is it caused by heat damaging the battery? maybe/maybe not. Is it caused by an instrument error that is limiting our range? maybe/maybe not. Has an instrument error caused the pack to go out of range and thereby damaging the pack? maybe/maybe not. Is it a combination of all the above? None of us have the tools to get to the root cause. This has to be done by Nissan. Lets hope they will have some comment on this issue soon.
Michael

Leaf from 31 March 2011 - Traded 18 April 2018 for Tesla Model 3 Unicorn
Driving electric since 1996


Leaf Bar Loss

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 am

palmermd wrote:
edatoakrun wrote:
Where are the voltage levels at "100%", and at warning levels and stop for all the test LEAFs posted?

I don't think you understand what the test was about. Let me try and explain... This test shows that in fact the cars with a loss of at least one bar drove 70-85% of what it could when it was new. That is a 15-30% loss of range. That is beyond what Nissan suggested we would see after 5 years of ownership.

Plain and simple, that is what the test was about.
Something tells me that this isn't the last we'll hear about all the failings of this demonstration, but I thank you for the succinct explanation for the rest of the world who will read that.

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: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:36 am

edatoakrun wrote:Where are the voltage levels at "100%", and at warning levels and stop for all the test LEAFs posted?
Upthread:
drees wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:turtle voltages had a SIXTY volt spread. I'll suggest that batteries at 350 volts could have gone much farther, maybe as far as my car went with 290 volts remaining. This reeks of a BMS problem; hardware of software, or both.
There's only two things that might cause one car to turtle at 350V and another to turtle at 290V.

1. A software problem. No further explanation needed here.
2. At least one cell-pair with significantly lower capacity than the rest - one cell-pair hit the low-voltage limit and the BMS shut the party down. Should be easy to check with a Consult by taking this car down near turtle.

I doubt it's a balancing problem - the OCV of the cars after being charged to 100% looked to be grouped together pretty well and appeared to be within normal variation of 100% charge voltage. If this car showed a lower than average OCV after being fully charged, then that would indicate that the BMS is having a hard time keeping the pack balanced. Weak cells will tend to drift faster than others due to their higher internal resistance.
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

downeykp
Forum Supporter
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:11 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2011
Leaf Number: 1931
Location: Keaau, HI

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:38 am

It seems everyone is an engineer. Palmermd's explanation works for me, but I am just a lowly Middle School Science teacher. Mahalo, Tony et al
2011 Black Leaf SL+QC Vin. 1931
Res. 6-14-10 Order 1-25-11
EVSE: Mod'd Ver. 2 Nissan L1
Delivered 5-31-11

8 years 33000mi. 7 bars

39 Suniva panels 10.3kw with Enphase micro inverters my electricity cost $26 a month.

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: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:42 am

downeykp wrote:...but I am just a lowly Middle School Science teacher. Mahalo, Tony et al
And Nissan let you purchase a LEAF? :twisted:
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
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:55 am

downeykp wrote:It seems everyone is an engineer. Palmermd's explanation works for me, but I am just a lowly Middle School Science teacher. Mahalo, Tony et al
Hello, and thanks for dropping in. Yes, of course, many are engineers. I organize bi-monthly meetings for LEAF owners in San Diego, and our straw polls show about 1/3 are electrical engineers. Also, about 1/3 have solar at their house.

No surprise, I have solar, but professionally, I'm not an engineer. I fly planes, and now am starting a company to operate EV charging in California.

MrIanB
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:29 pm
Delivery Date: 21 Jan 2012
Leaf Number: 0870
Location: Cedar Park, Texas

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:06 am

TonyWilliams wrote:
downeykp wrote:It seems everyone is an engineer. Palmermd's explanation works for me, but I am just a lowly Middle School Science teacher. Mahalo, Tony et al
Hello, and thanks for dropping in. Yes, of course, many are engineers. I organize bi-monthly meetings for LEAF owners in San Diego, and our straw polls show about 1/3 are electrical engineers. Also, about 1/3 have solar at their house.

No surprise, I have solar, but professionally, I'm not an engineer. I fly planes, and now am starting a company to operate EV charging in California.
What kind of planes? Pix please.

Ian B

Thanks for doing the testing again. Just saw a report about in on autoblog.com front page.

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:21 am

RegGuheert wrote:
edatoakrun wrote:Where are the voltage levels at "100%", and at warning levels and stop for all the test LEAFs posted?
Upthread:
drees wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:turtle voltages had a SIXTY volt spread. I'll suggest that batteries at 350 volts could have gone much farther, maybe as far as my car went with 290 volts remaining. This reeks of a BMS problem; hardware of software, or both.
There's only two things that might cause one car to turtle at 350V and another to turtle at 290V.

1. A software problem. No further explanation needed here.
2. At least one cell-pair with significantly lower capacity than the rest - one cell-pair hit the low-voltage limit and the BMS shut the party down. Should be easy to check with a Consult by taking this car down near turtle.

I doubt it's a balancing problem - the OCV of the cars after being charged to 100% looked to be grouped together pretty well and appeared to be within normal variation of 100% charge voltage. If this car showed a lower than average OCV after being fully charged, then that would indicate that the BMS is having a hard time keeping the pack balanced. Weak cells will tend to drift faster than others due to their higher internal resistance.
Yes, I saw that, but it was a sort of vague statement "...grouped together pretty well and appeared to be within normal variation of 100% charge voltage"...".

When you earlier replied to my question regarding the possibility of adaptive BMS, you said:
"RegGuheert

...ONLY raising the voltage at which you go into turtle makes NO sense to me. If Nissan wants to protect the car from us, they should trim the top end AND the bottom end and keep us closer to the middle of the SOC band...

Which sounded reasonable, to me.
So, I thought it possible that the "...normal variation of 100% charge voltage" specifics might be informative.

I was also wondering it the LBW, VLBW, and turtle, and stop, voltages showed much consistency among LEAFs, and particularly among those with the similar capacity losses.

I have only seen those two cars turtle voltages (highest and lowest?) reported.
no condition is permanent

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:23 am

MrIanB wrote:
What kind of planes? Pix please.

Ian B
Image

User avatar
surfingslovak
Vendor
Posts: 3809
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 am

MrIanB wrote:Thanks for doing the testing again. Just saw a report about in on autoblog.com front page.
Thanks for mentioning the article, I copied one of the comments below. It's well articulated, although it goes to the extreme. Let's hope that this issue is getting the attention it deserves at Nissan.
SVX pearlie wrote: A lot of EV folks were surprised that Nissan failed to incorporate active thermal management into the car, given the chemistry chosen. Many predicted premature failure and degradation. The results are merely confirming the predictions.

EVs in general are not affected, because the top selling EV (Volt), and all newer-generation cars (Ford) are incorporating active thermal management. One reasonably expects GM, Ford etc. to have their Sales and Marketing teams prepared to discuss why the Nissan EV is a stupid choice, and how their active thermal management systems prevent similar rapid degradation.

Nissan should have offered buyback / lease release / battery pack swap, at the outset. Instead, Nissan is failing to support the customer. I see people are now starting to look into CA and AZ "Lemon Law" protection. This is really bad, because Lemon Law action gets the lawyers and courts involved, and that is probably the last thing Nissan needs right now.

The only upside of that is that Lemon Law is an single, solitary individual. But this is America, and we have a huge number of underemployed, hungry lawyers. The longer Nissan drags their feet, the more likely they will be compelled to act by Federal (EPA / DOT ) recall, or (much more likely) class action lawsuit and court order.

Doing the math, class size is roughly 14,000 owners (Leaf sold) / lessees, and the potential harm is $20,000 per battery pack (Nissan price). So that's a prospective payout of $300,000,000. Plus costs and legal fees. That's well worth rolling the dice for any law firm.

But above and beyond the $300+M payout obligation, the real damage is to their reputation and management focus. Any such lawsuit will generate huge publicity and lost sales. It puts Smyrna into question, and is a huge distraction to management.
Image

Return to “Range / Efficiency / Carwings”