mksE55
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:10 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Oct 2011
Leaf Number: 5086
Location: Tyler TX

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:37 am

Make sure you put that link in your sig. LOL
Bye Bye Exxon , Shell, Mobil
* 2011 SL
3 bar loss 23,000 mi
in less than 2 yrs
4/14 now 4 bar loss 32,000 just over 2 years

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:59 am

garygid wrote:Too bad the testers did not report GID readings.

22000 / 281 = 78.2

Or 22000 / 80 = 275
Good point! I wonder if a GID has a slightly lower value going into the battery than coming out to account for this difference.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 15070
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:46 am

either way this is still a confirmation which means we are on the right track.

curious now that in my own calculations i was getting nearly same efficiency on modded EVSE running at 12 amps (averaging 84-85%) now wondering if relying on dash miles/kw introduced error biased towards the car.

wondering now that i am probably only getting just over 80%?
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; 13,705 mi, 93.41% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
gbarry42
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:48 pm
Delivery Date: 06 May 2011
Location: Moonlight Beach

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:57 pm

TonyWilliams wrote:Guys, we expected the "new" cars to pass 84 miles in Phoenix. We used that number to align with Nissan's data, and our over one year old 21kWh baseline
As I recall, even that reference figure attracted a good bit of controversy. I know you wanted to find a "100%" car (that could store 281 GID) and run the test outright. Were you ever able to do this?
And there goes the first capacity bar! At 24,000 mi on 9/9/2013.
Second bar at 30,500 mi on 2/7/2015.

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:28 pm

gbarry42 wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:Guys, we expected the "new" cars to pass 84 miles in Phoenix. We used that number to align with Nissan's data, and our over one year old 21kWh baseline
As I recall, even that reference figure attracted a good bit of controversy. I know you wanted to find a "100%" car (that could store 281 GID) and run the test outright. Were you ever able to do this?
I looked, and may have one source. But, my enthusiasm level is quite low. The arm chair quarterback crew would just find some miraculous problem, so I sure wouldn't be doing that for anybody but me. The rest of us already know the car will go 4 * 21 = 84 miles.

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:37 am

drees wrote: ...The NREL advanced vehicle testing typically gives a full report of motor/vehicle efficiency at some point in time (look at the Sonata hybrid data in the first PDF). I couldn't find any such report yet, so hopefully they publish additional information at some point in time.
Of course the full report was presented the day after you wrote that drees, and is available here:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/D3/da ... 101212.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem many of those commenting on LEAF battery capacity and range, or maintaining the Wiki, have full comprehension of it.

And since widespread misconceptions RE the LEAFs battery capacity and range seem to have originated in this thread, maybe the actual report should be discussed here.

The wiki repeats the misnomer of this thread, that the "Benchmarking of Competitive Technologies" data is:
...Further confirmation of the range of a new Leaf comes from a teardown of a Leaf by the NREL which revealed usable energy of a new Leaf at 21.381 kWh...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index. ... acity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which also misstates that the two sources on the first page of this thread:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... 2012_p.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... 2012_o.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Were reports of "NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing".

Which they clearly are not.

The "Leaf Recharge System Efficiencies Defined" diagram on page nine of the link closest above does not identify the condition, temperature, or actual battery capacity at the time the available battery capacity 21.381 kWh was found.

In contrast, the actual report states available battery capacity on p. 21:
Advanced Powertrain Research Facility
AVTA Nissan Leaf testing and analysis


Measurement point Average value
A) Wall Plug energy 21.722 AC kWh
C) DC energy to pack 18.529 DC kWh
E) DC Test energy * 17.957 DC kWh

Analysis Note:
Values are based on
13 level 2 battery
charge events from
completely depleted
to fully charged...
Obviously, the averages above cannot be for "new" batteries, as they are for multiple charge/discharge events. They also could be for LEAFs with packs that have already suffered significant total capacity loss, but I don't see any indications in the report that that is the case.

Multiple charge/discharge cycles are necessary to give an accurate picture of available battery capacity, given the LBC's well documented use of inconsistent percentages of the total battery capacity, either due to instrument error, or by design, as suggested by the reference on p.17 of the report to:
...Two different Leafs, two different voltage cutoffs
which could contribute to the battery
capacity difference...
IMO, the inference from the rest of the report is that the battery testing might have been conducted at widely ranging temperatures, from 20 F to 95 F, which could explain the relatively low average available battery capacity of 17.957 kWh.

Unfortunately, the battery temperature (and other test conditions) for the merit review 21.381 kWh available capacity which started off this thread, have (AFAIK) never been reported.
no condition is permanent

User avatar
DaveEV
Posts: 6246
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:21 am

edatoakrun wrote:Unfortunately, the battery temperature (and other test conditions) for the merit review 21.381 kWh available capacity which started off this thread, have (AFAIK) never been reported.
What's your point?

Energy from the wall has been confirmed by multiple sources for like new LEAFs:
~25 kWh from turtle to 100% for a new LEAF

The Oct 12 test only measured 21 kWh from the wall (and a noted 5750 miles at start of test) which corresponds according to the reduction in DC energy available compared to the May 12 report, which appears to be the same vehicle.

Are you arguing that Nissan LEAF batteries don't lose capacity over time?

This report clearly shows they do (note that it's not clear where exactly they are measuring capacity):
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/energystorage/D ... et_40k.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
DaveEV
Posts: 6246
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: NREL LEAF Teardown and Detailed Testing

Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:46 am

I contacted TTRDC @ INL asking them about their testing on the Nissan LEAF a few days ago. They put me in contact with Henning Lohse-Busch who is the Manager, Vehicle Systems Research at the Center for Transportation Research and got some good information from him on some of these tests. Notes from my discussion:

1. The LEAF tested at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/D3/20 ... ctric.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is not a 2012 LEAF, but a 2011 (VIN 000356 ~4300 miles at the start of test).
2. The LEAF tested at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... 2012_o.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is also a 2011 LEAF (VIN 001432 ~1200 miles at start of test).

VIN 0356 has more information on it here: http://avt.inel.gov/fsev.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that the maintenance records on 0356 indicate that it had two battery modules replaced at 22,606 miles - currently the best hypothesis behind 0356's reduced capacity (~57Ah when tested) is that the two modules were already significantly weaker at the time of the test. Unfortunately, the car is no longer available for further testing so that can't be confirmed.

They will be obtaining a 2014 LEAF and doing HVAC testing specifically to see how much more efficient the heat pump is - hopefully in addition to their usual suite of tests.

If there is anything specific one would like to see, let me know and I can relay it on, or you can contact them yourself.

Return to “Engineering”