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 1:46 pm

TonyWilliams wrote:
MrIanB wrote:
What kind of planes? Pix please.

Ian B
Image
O


Sweet. Thanks for the pix, my sister is a ticket/gate/operations employee for AA.

Keep safe,

Ian B

User avatar
GeekEV
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:11 pm
Delivery Date: 15 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 0308
Location: NorCal, USA

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:53 pm

Ingineer wrote: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.
My car is down 1 bar now and I'm not too far from you... It's not as bad as the AZ cars, but it's something... PM me if you want to hook up and check it out.

2014 Chevy Spark EV 2LT
2013 Tesla Model S 60kWh[/url]
AV L2 EVSE + kWh meter
9.4kW Solar Array + enphase energy

User avatar
davewill
Posts: 5079
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, US

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:11 pm

N952JL wrote: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.
The test was to discover the truth of their statement, although I think that most of us went in thinking the fault instrument claim was bunk. We ended up finding that the instrumentation seems to be unreliable as reported, and that degradation is real, but not always as severe as we were led to believe by the Gid meter and the capacity bars. Of course, Nissan had confirmed some degradation after testing the Casa Grande 6. We're still left with degradation and no plan from Nissan to deal with it.
2014 Rav4 EV, Blizzard Pearl White
2011 LEAF SL w/QC, Blue Ocean, returned at end of lease

spooka
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:38 pm
Delivery Date: 15 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 004917

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:13 pm

Volusiano wrote:
kolmstead wrote:
thankyouOB wrote:i looked at the data.
the range does not seem all that bad for these cars, considering that they are supposed to be paradigms of troubled Leafs.

what do we conclude from this?
That for freeway driving, with A/C on and going no lower than LBW, the 4-bar car has maybe 45 miles of range.

-Karl
Is this 45 miles range a guess, or based on some calculation? (since the test was done with no AC and LBW data is not shared).

But your point is well taken, like others have made, that pure data like this gives people the wrong impression that the results don't seem that bad. In reality, AC and LBW are the 2 important factors that would have caused the real-life range to be shortened much more considerably.

If LBW had been recorded, I think it would be beneficial to share this data to at least show what the results are even worse than it looks.
I am Blue917. As a reference, I turtled at 72.5miles on the test. On my normal commute with AC, I get LBW at 50 miles driving to the same QC that was used in this test. (15 miles city, 37 miles highway, with some nominal elevation changes). On the test, I was LBW at 64miles (from memory) or so over a flat course. The flat course did skew the numbers a bit toward making the issue look better than it really is. Real driving conditions reduce the range considerably as already stated. My best guesstimate is I would turtle at 60 miles on my normal commute, based on the 8 miles left on the GOM at LBW. Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.

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 9:07 pm

spooka wrote:I am Blue917. As a reference, I turtled at 72.5miles on the test. On my normal commute with AC, I get LBW at 50 miles driving to the same QC that was used in this test. (15 miles city, 37 miles highway, with some nominal elevation changes). On the test, I was LBW at 64miles (from memory) or so over a flat course. The flat course did skew the numbers a bit toward making the issue look better than it really is. Real driving conditions reduce the range considerably as already stated. My best guesstimate is I would turtle at 60 miles on my normal commute, based on the 8 miles left on the GOM at LBW. Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.
Point taken, you are very likely correct. I was going to present you with a fairly long calculation until I realized that the total commute range would have been 60 miles, just like you said.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what many have said before: the GOM does not predict onset of turtle. A better way to calculate your range after LBW is to look at the percentages. From the test results, your Leaf achieved about 17 or 18% of its range after the low battery warning.

If you take the miles driven until LBW, and divide them by five, you will get the remaining true range. It's a fairly simple formula, and it assumes roughly comparable driving conditions.Image

SierraQ
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:44 am
Delivery Date: 02 Sep 2011
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:58 pm

edatoakrun wrote: And since no one (apparently) tried to calculate the battery capacities of the test LEAFs, from any data source independent from the (erroneous) gid count, the actual gid error rate is now not calculable.

There is no real way I can see to verify this attempt at backwards analysis, other than to see how closely the unreported m/kWh report error rates from the other cars, match (or do not) the gid report error rates from the other test cars.

If consistent correlation is observed, we might be able calculate the actual available battery capacity, if we actually knew how many m/kWh these cars actually achieved, on the test.

But of course, if we actually knew the m/kWh, we would know the kWh capacity already...

Looks to me that if you want to know your LEAFs actual battery capacity, a meter or (accurate charge rate) and the charge efficiency, will be required.
edatoakrun wrote: Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.
The problem with your entire drive to figure out battery capacity is that you are assuming we can measure it. The gids are inaccurate because the hall-effect measurement system is inaccurate. You cannot rely on wall energy put into the car because this is just what the BMS allows you to put into the battery. If there is any truth to Nissan's claim or faulty instrumentation then the BMS may also rely on the same instrumentation and therefore may be restricting the battery by mistake. I do not believe this is the whole story, but nonetheless it highlights the fact that unless we yank the packs and manually test each cell or module we will not know with any certainty the actual capacity and no amount of testing is going to reveal it, if the BMS is confused. You wouldn't even be able to prove the BMS was confused.

In short, what makes you think you can trust the m/kw or charge times or energy consumed? Any attempt to measure capacity could be just as flawed as you claim the range test to be.
"Please tell me this doesn't run on gas! Gas explodes, you know?" --Susan in I-Robot

SierraQ
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:44 am
Delivery Date: 02 Sep 2011
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:06 pm

Tony,
If you do decide to release more figures I suggest gathering the software versions on each Leaf if you have not done so. It would be interesting to see any correlations with the unreliable numbers it produces. For instance you said, I think, that the m/kw is all over the place. I wonder if there is a correlation with software revs?

Cool plane! Wish I was a pilot sometimes.
"Please tell me this doesn't run on gas! Gas explodes, you know?" --Susan in I-Robot

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

Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:38 am

SierraQ wrote:Tony,
If you do decide to release more figures I suggest gathering the software versions on each Leaf if you have not done so. It would be interesting to see any correlations with the unreliable numbers it produces. For instance you said, I think, that the m/kw is all over the place. I wonder if there is a correlation with software revs?

Cool plane! Wish I was a pilot sometimes.
I'm really just delaying the release of more data to jerk Ed's chain :twisted:

Ok, that's not true, but I've been too busy to complete everything. I've been getting ready for our Quick Charge Power display at National Plug In Day. So, it might be next week.

There's a few corrections to be made, and the usual sundry items to attend to.

That plane was a good one. Good avionics package, all glass panels, good power, 41,000 service ceiling, 85,000 pounds MGTOW. No auto-throttles, but FADEC engine controls. I flew that same model in western Africa, too. That pic was taken a while ago, in Buffalo, New York.

kolmstead
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:07 pm
Delivery Date: 15 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 000257
Location: Ridgecrest, California (100 miles east of Bakersfield)

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:01 am

drees wrote:

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.
-----

To me, this could be the most exciting news from the Tempe test. If we do have one or two cell pairs failing, all it will take to demonstrate this is to run the car down to VLBW or better still, turtle, and have the dealer perform a cell pair voltage check. But it is crucial that the car not be charged before this is done. My experience has been that the first thing the dealer does with a low SOC car is charge it up. My car, which turtled on the way to the dealer in January, was up to 70% SOC before they did cpvc.

If we know the voltage at which a battery with all good cell pairs goes to turtle, then anyone with Gary's SOCmeter can run to turtle and check pack voltage. If it's significantly higher than normal, you have one or more bad cell pairs, which would be a warranty issue.

-Karl

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

Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:17 am

kolmstead wrote:To me, this could be the most exciting news from the Tempe test.
Agreed! Good stuff!
kolmstead wrote:If we do have one or two cell pairs failing, all it will take to demonstrate this is to run the car down to VLBW or better still, turtle, and have the dealer perform a cell pair voltage check.
Perhaps you have never been to a Nissan dealer before... ;) (Sorry, but I presently am having difficulty getting a simple software update that they have in-hand.)
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

Return to “Range / Efficiency / Carwings”