Page 13 of 40

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:39 am
by LEAFfan
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. 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.
+1! Great explanation and post!

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:53 am
by Ingineer
Nubo wrote:Phil, I imagine you've had to look into this in some detail while readying LeafScan. Do you have any insight to what actions a driver might take to "help" the BMS along? Specifically I am wondering about frequency of 100% charges to present the pack with rebalancing opportunities? An occasional quick-charge?

Thanks for the post. Makes a lot of sense and I've probably been too dismissive of the Nissan's software claims. Easy to lose sight of the fact that a lot of data gathering and assumptions have been based on GID's which are after all a dynamically-generated abstraction and not a unit of measurement.
Unfortunately LEAFSCAN™ exclusively relies on data provided by the Leaf's systems. It cannot "bypass" the readings of the BMS (LBC) and perform it's own measurements. What we can do is use what metrics are provided to calculate our own numbers when we figure out what is going on. If I had easy access to a degraded car I could make some good measurements, but unfortunately/fortunately my own Leaf has not experienced any capacity loss.

I will try include the capability to reset the battery loss figures as Nissan did on some of the cars it tested in Arizona. This may help.

-Phil

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:59 am
by TonyWilliams
Live at:

http://www.transportevolved.com/live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
by surfingslovak
Volusiano wrote:For example, if you reach turtle all of a sudden without seeing LBW and VLBW first, then that's an obvious safety issue that Nissan has to concede and address. Or if the speedometer is insanely wrong, causing you to drive much faster than the speed limit, which constitute a safety hazard. Or if the odometer is insanely wrong, causing you to underestimate your trip, resulting in not being able to complete it before the battery juice runs out. But almost anything else probably does not require Nissan to guarantee instrument accuracy. They can simply say that they don't have to guarantee the accuracy of anything else that is not a safety related issue.
Right, and I'm not going to claim that I have extensive experience pursuing lemon law coverage. It's my understanding however that it does not have to be a safety issue. Take my ActiveE for example. It often fails to complete a charge, which is very annoying. If I don't notice it, I don't have the range to get to my destination or need to come up with contingency plans for charging.

I reported this problem to the dealer and to BMW, and although they been working on it and I'm hearing that there is a fix, my car still suffers from the issue. It spent nine weeks in the shop, we had to visit the dealer three times and broke down on the freeway as a consequence of a faulty battery sensor. I was told that the charging issue alone and the length spent at the dealer and in the technical service center in Oxnard would be sufficient to seek coverage under California lemon law.

I'm not sure if any of the issues we encountered in Phoenix would come close. Seeing how saintyohann has difficulty getting any traction, I have my own doubts about the viability of this approach. I just wanted to entertain the idea.

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:12 pm
by N952JL
LEAFfan wrote:
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. 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.
+1! Great explanation and post!
Good post, but not what I thought the test was trying to prove.
1. Nissian stated that the batteries have not degraded but that the bar display was faulty.
2. The test was to show the bar display was not faulty, that when the display showed a degradtion than in real testing the range had in fact also degraded. In other words, that when the bar display showed only 11 bars at full charge, your range was also only "eleven" bars worth.

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:13 pm
by edatoakrun
Ingineer wrote:Unfortunately LEAFSCAN™ exclusively relies on data provided by the Leaf's systems. It cannot "bypass" the readings of the BMS (LBC) and perform it's own measurements. What we can do is use what metrics are provided to calculate our own numbers when we figure out what is going on. If I had easy access to a degraded car I could make some good measurements, but unfortunately/fortunately my own Leaf has not experienced any capacity loss...

-Phil
Phil,

I noticed the first capacity bar loss report from the Bay Area.

Would you be willing to check it out?

Or, if that one is unavailable, another 12 bar Bay area LEAF whose owner thought they had evidence of capacity/range loss?

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:27 pm
by surfingslovak
TonyWilliams wrote:Live at:

http://www.transportevolved.com/live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Finally live now. Tune in if you can.

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:40 pm
by DaveEV
edatoakrun wrote:
Ingineer wrote:Unfortunately LEAFSCAN™ exclusively relies on data provided by the Leaf's systems. It cannot "bypass" the readings of the BMS (LBC) and perform it's own measurements. What we can do is use what metrics are provided to calculate our own numbers when we figure out what is going on. If I had easy access to a degraded car I could make some good measurements, but unfortunately/fortunately my own Leaf has not experienced any capacity loss...
I noticed the first capacity bar loss report from the Bay Area.

Would you be willing to check it out?

Or, if that one is unavailable, another 12 bar Bay area LEAF whose owner thought they had evidence of capacity/range loss?
Screw that - let's get Phil and LEAFSCAN to Arizona (I think Phil has a Consult, too) to run diagnostics on as many cars used in the test as possible.

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:56 pm
by Ingineer
edatoakrun wrote:Phil,

I noticed the first capacity bar loss report from the Bay Area.

Would you be willing to check it out?

Or, if that one is unavailable, another 12 bar Bay area LEAF whose owner thought they had evidence of capacity/range loss?
Sure, have them contact me directly.

-Phil

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:03 pm
by edatoakrun
Ingineer wrote:
edatoakrun wrote:Phil,

I noticed the first capacity bar loss report from the Bay Area.

Would you be willing to check it out?

Or, if that one is unavailable, another 12 bar Bay area LEAF whose owner thought they had evidence of capacity/range loss?
Sure, have them contact me directly.

-Phil
Hear that? Someone in the Bay with battery anxiety should take up Phil on his offer.

I only actually have met a few LEAFers way up north, and none of them believe they've lost range yet.

And besides, I doubt I'll want to make that ~500 mile trip again, until that damn Vacaville DC...