What the two of you have clarified, is that you are both unaware of Carwings use, and do not comprehend the plain language of my OP.
SanDust:: ...the OP was trying to use his range on a given route as proof that his battery hadn't degraded....
No, I was not. And please do not misrepresent my posts, in the future, as you have so often done in the past.
I explicitly stated that the CW energy report, not a range test, is the most accurate method. of assessing kWh use between different battery pack SOC indicators.:
...you can simply use Carwings, for data of total kWh use between whichever initial charge % and charge end point you select. Any inaccuracies in the CW reports, IMO, are probably not nearly as significant to accuracy, as other variables, such as the “100%” charge level, the battery warnings levels, and unknown battery temperature effects, to name just a few...
(and on the recent tests) I was not trying to replicate speed or other factors leading to my earlier m/kWh performance on this trip, just trying to find the kWh capacity between 100% charge and the same end point...
And I reported that in both recent tests, CW indicated 17.5 kWh use in both recent test from 100% charge to just past VLBW, as opposed to 18.7 in my first test, last Summer.
So, in the simplest analysis, I could conclude this about a 6% reduction in battery capacity was evidence of “degradation”.
However, I believe that there are other factors which cause both the “100%" charge level, and the level of the LBW, to occur at different levels of total capacity.
And I would not make any assertion, of what part of this reduction was a permanent loss in battery capacity, as opposed to a reduction in access to my total battery capacity, imposed by my LEAF’s battery management system.
...That's why there's specific guidelines in my range protocol to eliminate variables like regeneration, etc...
Tony, I would suggest you consider that all three of my range tests I reported here would be impossible on a single charge under your “guidelines”.
This is largely due to your underestimation of recovery of ascent energy, as posted in your range chart, at 50%-75%.
I would think you would come to the same conclusion if you took a look at your energy use during the large ascent/descent segments of your recent BC/BC drive, and would suggest you do so, and correct your range chart to reflect this reality.
Of Course, if you look at the CW reports for the same stretches of road on your recent trip, you should have a far more accurate database to consider.
IMO, there is some more useful information, beyond battery capacity, to be gleaned from my logs of these trips, and I will post more details, as time allows.
The most important point I’d like to make, is that if any suspect you have a significant loss of capacity, such as the “15%” or more that the 12th bar loss is reported to show, I think a range and Carwings kWh use test, such as this, would be very useful, as a battery capacity reduction of that order, should show up much more clearly, above the other “noise” of other available battery capacity and range-affecting factors.