NTB11-076a ONLY covers new range expectations, as Tony provided in the OP of this thread. The degradation chart shown later is purely the fabrication of Yanquetino.mwalsh wrote:I'm glad to see that range chart extracted from the TSB...I've never seen that before, and it's the kind of information I've been calling on Nissan to make fully available for a while now. As owners, we have a right to know what we should expect to be "normal" degradation.
I said chart. I really meant table. I can see he's marked his chart as an extrapolation. Is the table of his own manufacture too?RegGuheert wrote:NTB11-076a ONLY covers new range expectations, as Tony provided in the OP of this thread. The degradation chart shown later is purely the fabrication of Yanquetino.mwalsh wrote:I'm glad to see that range chart extracted from the TSB...I've never seen that before, and it's the kind of information I've been calling on Nissan to make fully available for a while now. As owners, we have a right to know what we should expect to be "normal" degradation.
For everyone else, here is a link to a post by TickTock containing a partial scan of the first page of NTB11-076a:mwalsh wrote:Oh, and is there a link to the TSB, so I could see it with my own eyes? Edit: Never mind...found it.
I really hesitate to criticize a fellow Utoid, but since you so freely criticize other peoples hard work, I hope that you take it as well as you give it out.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
That is the most misleading (? fraudulent) part of the article. It took me a while to figure out that he made the whole thing up. Nissan never said a thing about how mileage would affect capacity loss.RegGuheert wrote:NTB11-076a ONLY covers new range expectations, as Tony provided in the OP of this thread. The degradation chart shown later is purely the fabrication of Yanquetino.
Notably the 8 bar car also had the lowest M/kWH, any idea why that is? If we extrapolate to e.g. 4.2 M/kWh, which is the mean for the other cars, it would have gone 67.3 miles, which makes it less of an outlier in terms of range as it appears. This would also lower the overall correlation of observed range with e.g. capacity bars or gids.
Given the variation in (reported) efficiency, one should actually consider the quotient of actual range (lets assume that these values are comparable, i.e. every car was indeed driven to turtle) of range measured divided by efficiency.
The you would get the following list
[Car] [Apparent capacity (=range/efficiency)] [normalized capacity = (apparent cp- <apparent cp>)/std(apparent cp)
Red429 16.7 -0.43
Blue494 16.0 -0.94
Blue534 18.0 0.57
Blue744 16.4 -0.63
mean 17.3 std 1.3
So all tested cars (with this small sample size), fall within 2 standard deviations of the sample mean, so technically, no outliers there. If we now had results for supposedly healthy new batteries (e.g (e.g. for at least 12 (ideally 30 or so) brand new leafs) under the same conditions, we could actually tell which of the tested cars had significant degradation. If we assume that 19.6 apparent capacity (Black782) is representative of the mean for a healthy battery, and we have the same variation as in our sample of 11 bad cars then we have
Armchair quarterbacking rarely includes any hard work; just criticism as easy as typing on a keyboard. So, I'm confident what Mark's answer will be to your question. I, on the other hand, have probably hundreds of hours doing it, and documenting my work for the past over one year here.KJD wrote:Mark where is the data from your actual over the road range testing?
Tony how many of the Casa Grande 6 where included in the Tempe 12 ?
Back on page one of this tread there is a table with a column for Manufacture year. Could we change that to have month and year from the tag on the car?
Just one more line to ad:azdre wrote:Reg-Thanks for the post. I do in fact still love the LEAF and can't imagine driving anything else. But, as you've stated it's not living up to nearly any of the marketing. Most of that I learned to live with in the first 6 months, but these last 6 months is a different story.
Opossum has had EVs his whole life. Here's how I summed up my first EV experience for some local enthusiasts back in June, it's gotten much worse since then.
Cool!!! An EV with a hundred mile range. I want one!
Wow, look at the big polar bear, boy those are yummy cheesecake bites.
Wow! I love my new car!!! It's so much better than I hoped for!!! I'm going to tell all my friends.
Wow! Going 65 really cuts into range. 10-20% gone.
Wow! Even at 55, going north on the 51 really cuts into range 10-15% gone.
Oh no, my new car is being towed across town...
Yay, got my car back, uh oh, broken again... Yay I got my car back, uh oh, broken again. Ok, early adopter is one thing, this is ridiculous, it better be fixed this time.
Yay! I love my car again.
Hmm, I expected the AC to reduce range, but 10%? Ok, I can deal.
Oh, it's been a year and now takes 2 more bars to to 40 miles than it did last year. Lost a capacity bar 1 week after 12 month checkup. 15% gone.
Oh, the EV infrastructure that I was counting on to make up for battery degradation is going to charge so much that an ICE would be more economical.
What the heck am I going to do with a car that requires a 2 hour extra charge to go 80 miles.