WetEV
Posts: 3889
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:19 am

Yanquetino wrote:Sigh.... Given what I have experienced in these forum discussions, I hesitate to state this, but... I draw very different conclusions:
I have several issues with this calculation.
First, as others have suggested, if a Leaf at warmer temperatures and at altitude could only travel the minimum rated 76 miles, the same Leaf at sea level and 20 C would be short. The fair way to handle this is to start with the center of the new range, 80 miles, and then to adjust for conditions, which would give a near 84 mile range.
Second, and this is somewhat of a minor point, but the average miles per month should be 1042 so that the end of the chart is at 100,000 miles, not at 96,000. Yes, a 4% difference. Minor.

I calculate the minimum least mean squared error between the estimated remaining range based on the two corrections above and the measured ranges from the road test with about a 2.9 times faster loss than the 100,000 mile warranty period would suggest. This projects in AZ an average battery pack life of 35,000 miles. Now, I doubt is this is an unbiased sample of AZ leafs, so use this number with caution for that reason. Also the rated range is taken at 84 miles, and that isn't exact. Also the test was fairly good, but not perfect. The sample size is too small to make the confidence in this calculation high. One Leaf was from California and I didn't adjust for that. Several Leafs were not driven to turtle and I accepted the adjustment for that. YMMV. Several other cautions apply.

At the nominal case of 100,000 mile life to 70%:
The cost per mile of battery pack replacements based on $5000 replacement cost would be $0.05 per mile. Add this to the electric cost of $0.02/mile to $0.10/mile, and $0.07/mile to $0.15/mile is a fairly reasonable cost.

At the AZ projected 35,000 mile life to 70%:
The cost per mile of battery pack replacements based on $5000 replacement cost would be $0.14 per mile. Add this to the electric cost of $0.02/mile to $0.10/mile, and $0.16/mile to $0.24/mile is still a fairly reasonable cost per mile.

As a reference, a Toyota Prius would cost around $0.07/mile for gasoline at $3.50/gallon, and has maintenance and repair costs of around $0.07/mile. A Ford Edge might be more like $0.16/mile for gasoline and $0.25/mile counting maintenance and repair costs. So these costs are not out of line.

When horrid Nissan communications mixed with unrealistic owner expectations collide with reality, a food fight is likely. More noise than information is expected for the next 1000 replies. A little respect for those we disagree with will go a long way. Please show some respect to those you disagree with.
Last edited by WetEV on Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14946
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:14 am

i thought it was 30% after 10 years? or is that only in CA (with its stronger warranty requirements? :shock: ) or 120,000 miles at 12,000 miles per year?
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 11,333.1 mi, 93.73% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WetEV
Posts: 3889
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:46 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:i thought it was 30% after 10 years? or is that only in CA (with its stronger warranty requirements? :shock: ) or 120,000 miles at 12,000 miles per year?
"The Lithium-Ion coverage period is 96 months or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first." Source Publication No.: WB1E 0ZE0U0 (which is for a 2012)

The disclosure form I signed says 80% after 5 years. A linear projection would give about 70% at 96 months. Not an iron clad case, but seems reasonable.

Edit: typo correction
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

derkraut
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:39 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 004248
Location: San Diego vicinity

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:08 am

In a previous post, ALLWATZ said:

"Wow! If Nissan doesn't come through with a solution to the battery problems in heat prone areas, I am so glad that I have GAP insurance for my purchase. As long as someone totals my car before it's paid for (financed the whole enchilada $36,000), I'll be looking better than at the end with a large valueless paperweight with a PV panel on top."

IMHO, comments like the above are really counter-productive. I wish we could keep things in perspective. If this "flaming" keeps up, we may be viewing a movie titled "Who killed the Nissan Leaf?" in a few years. Yes--I live in a moderate climate; My Leaf is almost 2yrs old; I have over 9K miles on the odometer; I have no apparent reduction in range or battery capacity loss; This is absolutely the best automobile I've ever owned (not leased); It is perfect for our needs: average ~50 miles per day, mostly ~20 miles from home. And, the most important issue: my wife LOVES it!
Derkraut
Color: Cayenne SLE, ETEC trim
reserved: 5/15/2010
Leaf del. 6/14/2011
New Traction battery installed on 7/28/2017:

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

Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:12 am

WetEV wrote: One Leaf had a replacement pack and I didn't adjust for that. Several Leafs were not driven to turtle and I accepted the adjustment for that. YMMV. Several other cautions apply.
I'm not aware of any car with a new pack in our test.

Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/107 ... -exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WetEV
Posts: 3889
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:59 am

TonyWilliams wrote:
WetEV wrote: One Leaf had a replacement pack and I didn't adjust for that. Several Leafs were not driven to turtle and I accepted the adjustment for that. YMMV. Several other cautions apply.
I'm not aware of any car with a new pack in our test.
Thank you for the polite correction.

TonyWilliams wrote:Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/107 ... -exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Looking at 450 Nissan Leafs now in Arizona, Perry said, using data each car transmits to a Nissan control center, it appears that Leafs in Arizona are "on a glide path" to average battery capacity of 76 percent after five years rather than 80 percent."

Taking this at face value, Nissan needs to notice that the owner satisfaction or dissatisfaction isn't based on the average loss, but on the loss in that owner's car. The old joke about "Bill Gates walking into a bar and as the average wealth of the bar patrons is then over a billion dollars, the bar owner doubles the drink prices" probably applies somehow...
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

foobert
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:34 pm
Delivery Date: 13 Nov 2011
Location: Greater Seattle Area

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:05 pm

I think it's worth making it super easy for everyone to see what NTB11-076a is all about. Here's a link to the full document. And, here's the pertinent part that is the cause of much debate.

Image

Given the absence any authoritative data from Nissan stating what the minimum capacity of a new battery shall be under specific conditions, the best we have is NTB11-076a. Please correct me if there is any more authoritative information from Nissan on this.

Clearly, Nissan has left some room for manufacturing tolerances in this range expectation (+/- 5%, to be exact). Tolerances are a normal part of anything that is mass produced. Keep in mind that these tolerances exist in the battery (its effective capacity), the efficiency of the rest of the power train, and the instrumentation that is used to measure the battery and provide the 4.0 miles/kw data required to use the range chart provide above in NTB11-076a. A 5% tolerance is well within reason for the cumulative tolerances of all systems that make up the car.

Tony Williams is convinced that by demonstrating a new car will cover 84 miles at 4.0 miles/kw, this settles the arguments about what the baseline expectation for all cars shall be. However, in the most objective frame of mind, it is statistically insignificant and proves nothing. I do not doubt that a single car, or set of cars, will be capable of achieving this range.

The crux of all arguments (regardless of bias) is that given a beginning of life capacity of XX kw/h, the capacity loss after YY time, or ZZ miles, is/isn't excessive. These arguments are less than objective for two very significant reasons:
  • First, we MUST establish a statistically significant, new battery capacity baseline and the standard deviation. In absence of this, the best data we have to go with is NTB11-076a. Sadly, we don't know how many sigma Nissan used when they bounded their tolerances for publication.
  • Second, we MUST establish what the nominal schedule for capacity degradation is within 2 or 3 sigma allowances. Nissan has given little guidance other than the 2 data points that some are making linear assumptions with and extrapolating upon. But, we simply don't know what to expect without collecting a wide array of data from cars in all regions of the country.
I want to thank Tony and the rest of the crew that performed testing, with especial thanks to the patience/understanding of the members whose cars were damaged in the towing. I would humbly ask that Tony share ALL the data, in one place (as opposed to sprinkled throughout all these many pages) with all the worts and any incompleteness clearly highlighted. It is very understandable that typos and errors will be made -- please correct such mistakes as needed and provide a dated change log showing what/why something is changed.

The next step is to objectively establish a baseline and nominal degradation rates. How can I help with this cause?


<soapbox=on>
The amount of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that is generated on this site due to incomplete analysis is just as frustrating as Nissan's seemingly dismissive/non-responsive handling of the situation.

Nissan made it very clear from the beginning that "gradual capacity loss" was not warrantied, yet, we all jumped head first into this pool of uncertainty without any formal definition of the term "gradual" when we bought/leased our cars. Is that Nissan's fault? Partially, yes -- they wrote the ambiguous warranty. We are just as culpable for agreeing the terms were acceptable.

At the rate that many early adopters are using incomplete data to prove a biased point, market forces will require that such ambiguous warranty terms MUST be addressed for future EV programs to be successful. This will be a Good Thing in the long run, but, the short-term outcome is tenuous and we should be prepared for the worst.
<soapbox=off>
Last edited by foobert on Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly: 2012 SL

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

Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:05 pm

WetEV wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/107 ... -exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Looking at 450 Nissan Leafs now in Arizona, Perry said, using data each car transmits to a Nissan control center, it appears that Leafs in Arizona are "on a glide path" to average battery capacity of 76 percent after five years rather than 80 percent."

Taking this at face value, Nissan needs to notice that the owner satisfaction or dissatisfaction isn't based on the average loss, but on the loss in that owner's car. The old joke about "Bill Gates walking into a bar and as the average wealth of the bar patrons is then over a billion dollars, the bar owner doubles the drink prices" probably applies somehow...
Yes, I just see this doing anything but delaying the inevitable. Next summer in Phoenix, there will be dozens and dozens of multi-bar loser LEAFs. Just saying everything is normal and "average" ain't gunna cut it.

ALLWATZ
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:15 am
Delivery Date: 14 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 6877
Location: Palm Springs area

Re: Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:09 pm

derkraut wrote:In a previous post, ALLWATZ said:

"Wow! If Nissan doesn't come through with a solution to the battery problems in heat prone areas, I am so glad that I have GAP insurance for my purchase. As long as someone totals my car before it's paid for (financed the whole enchilada $36,000), I'll be looking better than at the end with a large valueless paperweight with a PV panel on top."

IMHO, comments like the above are really counter-productive. I wish we could keep things in perspective. If this "flaming" keeps up, we may be viewing a movie titled "Who killed the Nissan Leaf?" in a few years. Yes--I live in a moderate climate; My Leaf is almost 2yrs old; I have over 9K miles on the odometer; I have no apparent reduction in range or battery capacity loss; This is absolutely the best automobile I've ever owned (not leased); It is perfect for our needs: average ~50 miles per day, mostly ~20 miles from home. And, the most important issue: my wife LOVES it!
Counter-productive or true? The value has already dropped 70% for a 1 year old car (I was offered $10,000 at Fontana Nissan) so our perspectives may be different for a reason. As for your movie "Who killed the Nissan Leaf", the answer is of course Nissan. I'll tell you what, we could trade cars and then maybe your perspective would change!

palmermd
Posts: 2627
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

Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:11 pm

Clearly they have a heat issue, but they are not willing to admit to it just yet and are still deflecting the conversation by saying its due to high mileage.
Those projections, based on battery testing during development of the Leaf, assume the car covers 12,500 miles a year, in climates largely similar to those of Los Angeles (50 to 90 degrees F, with an average temperature of 68 or 70 degrees).
They are saying we should not have the car over 90F and should average 69F. This sort of implies the excess heat in AZ is a problem but they do not say it outright.

Clearly mileage is not the determining factor in the loss of capacity because we have cars with double the mileage that the AZ cars have (TaylorSF) and have almost no loss of capacity, but this car is in the temperature range that they used in their projections quoted above. DaveinOly has similar mileage to the ones Nissan is claiming have excess mileage causing the degradation and his car shows very little loss of capacity.

Nissan is still deflecting attention and diverting from the real problem.
Michael

Leaf from 31 March 2011 - Traded 18 April 2019 for Tesla Model 3 Unicorn
Driving electric since 1996


Leaf Bar Loss

Return to “Range / Efficiency / Carwings”