EatsShootsandLeafs
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:59 am
Delivery Date: 24 Aug 2012

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:24 pm

I kept looking at the other thread for three days waiting for results, too stupid to check this forum.

Great job Tony AND everybody else who put time in. I know a few people put in serious effort in addition to Tony.

These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.

Yanquetino
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:47 am

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:25 pm

EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh

palmermd
Posts: 2587
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

Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Yanquetino wrote:
EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh
VERY thoughtful review. Thank you for posting this.
Michael

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


Leaf Bar Loss

klapauzius
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:19 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0197
Location: Seattle, Wa

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:07 pm

Yanquetino wrote:
EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh
Yes, that is an interesting perspective. However it should be noted that there Leafs in colder climates, who have NOT experienced similar degradation, despite having similar mileage or more. It all depends what you consider the baseline performance, but I guess Nissan spelled that out in their manual.

Also note that the capacity bars (like many other things in the LEAFs displays) are apparently NOT linear, so the first bar is NOT 8.3% but 15%. I think this non-linearity (also for the temperature) is a BIG mistake on Nissans side, since people generally cannot cope with non-linearity well (unless its asymptotic).

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

Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:17 pm

Yanquetino wrote:
EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh
I think you generally raise a good point about the 76 vs. 84 miles.
However, you have some errors in your review...
Unless I am mistaken in my arithmetic, another error is the percentage they assign to each capacity bar in the gauge. There are 12 such bars, and if we divide 100% by that number, the result is 8.34% per bar. Yet they informed Green Car Reports that “11 capacity bars showing instead of the full 12 capacity bars” indicates “approximately 15 percent loss in battery capacity” —nearly twice the actual amount.
An early version of Nissan's technical manual states that the capacity gauge was not linear. The first bar represents 15%. This invalidates part of your analysis towards the end.
For example, as I have indicated in the last column, it would be informative to know the number of quick charges and/or 100% charges they have undergone, since Nissan explicitly warns owners that these factors can have a detrimental effect upon the battery pack’s longevity over time.
This is a misleading statement. Nissan does state this in a general sort of way in the owners manual but they have gone onto clarify in various interviews and such that they are talking about multiple QCs a day, or leaving the battery charged at a 100% for long periods of time. They have given the impression that their batteries are very robust and only serious abuse beyond that of the average owner would cause premature capacity loss. Furthermore a broader look at all the Leafs showing capacity bars missing from this forum indicates that charging habits have weak correlation to capacity loss.
"Please tell me this doesn't run on gas! Gas explodes, you know?" --Susan in I-Robot

EatsShootsandLeafs
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:59 am
Delivery Date: 24 Aug 2012

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:20 pm

Yanquetino wrote:
EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh
I will read this shortly.

I think there is basically no value at all in considering these cars against the mythical 84 mile range, because they were not on a course used to set that baseline. The most important data is that there is a big variance in cars that are all quite young. Even taking out the 60 mile car-- because who knows its history--we see really substantial differences in ranges of the other cars.

It is difficult to make strong conclusions with 12 cars and none older than two years. Thames tat in three years from now would be even more interesting :D

EDIT : read hat review. Some compelling points.

palmermd
Posts: 2587
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

Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:57 pm

so capacity loss by this method is:

Code: Select all

Vehicle #	Mileage	Distance to Turtle	% capacity versus 76 mile "new"	% capacity versus 84 mile "new"
494.....	29000	59.3.....	22.0.....	29.4
500.....	23000	69.3.....	8.8.....	17.5
744.....	22500	67.3.....	11.4.....	19.9
272.....	17500	66.1.....	13.0.....	21.3
626.....	17500	73.5.....	3.3.....	12.5
534.....	16000	79.7.....	-4.9.....	5.1
679.....	15000	71.8.....	5.5.....	14.5
917.....	14000	72.5.....	4.6.....	13.7
530.....	12500	69.7.....	8.3.....	17.0
429.....	11500	71.8.....	5.5.....	14.5
782.....	7000  	76.6.....	-0.8.....	8.8
842.....	2500..	79.6.....	-4.7.....	5.2
That puts car 494 clearly over the 20% range which is what Nissan says we should have in 5 years, and car 272 is entering the grey area, but all other cars are still within Nissan's specification.

I agree that this document puts the 76 mile range as the standard to hold up against, and this does change the view of the results. It does not change the fact that the cars are not going as far as they did, and the owners are still probably upset, but I'm glad we are seeing some good analysis of this test.

The other shocking thing from reading the TSB in detail was just how much capacity is now on the last bar and below. I think this change has been the biggest problem. The earlier software did not seem (I have no data to prove this, just my gut feel) to have so much "reserve" on and below the last bar. At an economy of 4.0 you have 16 miles of range at the last bar. Given that we are supposed to have 76 miles range total that means the last bar represents 21 percent of the usable capacity! Think about that. 21 percent of the usable range is now on the last bar. Most of us start looking for a place to plug in on the last bar. I wish I knew what it was on the earlier software.
Michael

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


Leaf Bar Loss

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

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:01 pm

Yanquetino wrote:Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle
Mark, while it's interesting to read your study, I would be careful with long-term predictions, and even more careful about passing judgement on affected owners. Since this problem seems to interest you, may I suggest that you got in touch with some of them and found a way to examine their vehicle? I suspect that it will be a revelation.

That said, several of us tried to make predictions about the trajectory and the velocity of changes this phenomenon represents. I don't think that anyone had any conclusive answers at this point. My recommendation is to follow the developments and check in a few months to see how well your model is working out.

And more to the point, I don't agree with the 76 miles range estimate at 4 m/kWh for a new vehicle. That implies 19 kWh usable. Happy to be proven wrong on this, but this does not jive with what new Leaf owners report.

Unlike GM did for the Volt, Nissan never disclosed the usable battery capacity, which leaves us all guessing. Phil delivered some very interesting figures, but if memory serves, they all represented stored energy. As far as I can recall, we have not measured and integrated the energy outflow from the battery, and have little to go by, except for the numbers supplied by dash instruments.

Interestingly, NTB11-076a itself seems to suggest 21 kWh usable if you crunch their numbers, which was my main takeaway when the bulletin was published.Image

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:31 pm

Yanquetino wrote:
EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:These results confirm what most of us suspected: A real loss of range, prematurely. The only saving grace of these particular cars is if the loss of capacity now stops and I cannot imagine any of us expect that. Clearly these batteries have lost capacity much faster than Nissan indicated they would, or that they should have, thus making these particular cars not usable long term.
Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions: AZ Leaf Capacity Kerfuffle

Image

* Extrapolated from Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a: Nissan LEAF Range Estimates at 4 Miles-per-kWh
very nice story but...

you state you did not see any car losing capacity at 3X the rate of others but you are only looking at AZ cars. look at mine. 21,800 miles, estimated degradation of 2%.

you also dispute the value of the capacity bars then go on to show how the LEAFs are going farther than they should based on the capacity bars missing but you are assigning a value of 8% to each when the first one is 15%. so ya, your chart will appear that the LEAFs are going farther than expected because you have not assigned the correct value to the missing bars.

other than that; i agree with you. this has become a witch hunt and its hard to place blame on owners especially when some are to the point where they can no longer make the commutes they need to make. Nissan obviously has an action plan they are working on since i would find it very difficult to believe they would allow this much ill will to go on when its really not that much money to them but could easily cost millions in trash talking.

the way i see it; Nissan can do the "right thing" (whatever that is) for the AZ owners (at least the worst of them) and if it is right enough, in a year less than a quarter of the world will remember anything about it or let the AZ owners do as the might, sue, etc. knowing that the upgrades coming down the line are so compelling, the LEAF will sell no matter what.

as far as options out there. a lot of people here seem to think there is a bunch. i do not. the rest is either too small, too expensive or does not have quick charge. throw that in the mix and there is not much left standing
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yanquetino
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:47 am

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:42 pm

klapauzius wrote:Also note that the capacity bars (like many other things in the LEAFs displays) are apparently NOT linear, so the first bar is NOT 8.3% but 15%. I think this non-linearity (also for the temperature) is a BIG mistake on Nissans side, since people generally cannot cope with non-linearity well (unless its asymptotic).
Yes, I have heard that, but please note: if the first bars are not proportional, but represent even higher percentages at the upper levels, then the differences between what the lost bars were predicting and what the actual range was in the test are even greater.

For example, if White626's 11 bars indicated 85% (instead of 92.7%), then the capacity range would predict only 64.6 miles (instead of 69.7 miles), i.e., 8.9 miles lower (instead of 3.8 lower) than the actual 73.5 miles it achieved in the test.

Return to “Range / Efficiency / Carwings”