Weatherman wrote: One more summer of battery degradation should do it.
No matter what the new-car range is, a 20%+ loss in capacity in a year and a half makes it a no-deal for me. Nissan needs to fix the degradation problem, first, then consider offering more battery capacity.
Don't you think the two are intertwined?
As an engineer having too small a battery means no margins for error, no spare capacity, no flexibility, extreme charge cycles.
Increase the battery capacity and you can increase the "hidden" or "locked" portion of the battery at both low state of charge and high state of charge and just doing that will fix a large amount of degradation issues.
If your 20% loss out of 24KW became 5% loss out of 48KW would you consider that fixed? I don't know the exact comparison but I expect the ratio is non linear on the actual capacity and the higher the capacity the more room you have to hide some from the user.
Take hard drives for example. When a drive is manufactured with millions of blocks they pick a fixed number less than that and report it to the PC. As blocks fail the drive remaps data and reports no change in capacity to the PC. Only a catastrophic failure will change the reported capacity. That isn't because they fixed a degradation issue, its because the capacity is so enormous that they have plenty of spare to hide from the user.
Why shouldn't a battery pack work the same way? Have a factory capacity (design minus buffer), an OEM capacity (Tesla or Nissan's number but also available over ODBII including some additional buffer), an end user capacity (as shown on the dash or MFD).
I suppose that is what GIDs/amp hours are about since every battery pack is slightly different but the point is if every battery has more capacity than what is shown to the user why should you care assuming you have enough usable range/capacity to make your trips?