Over 20 times at Turtle, shutdown 3 or 4 times, VLB many, many times, perhaps 100 or more.edatoakrun wrote:Tony, you are the only LEAF owner anywhere (AFAIK) who, through careful planning, intentionally subjected your battery to charge levels below VLBW dozens (or hundreds? Please report) of times."TonyWilliams"...So, is that the problem with my battery (and not mentioned in the owner's manual)?...
Let's see, if I drive my Nissan gasoline car to empty, is there damage? Are there warnings in the owner's manual? Are there warranty disclaimers for such activity?edatoakrun wrote:Should Nissan now be responsible for not anticipating your behavior, in the owner's manual?
So, I should "take one for the team"? I've done plenty of that. My car was sold with a fresh battery report from Nissan, reporting all 5 stars. Any degradation is normal; just ask Nissan. It's so normal that it's not even covered by warranty. My operation of the vehicle was wholly within the specified limits of the car. Being smart enough to understand that when there are HUNDREDS / THOUSANDS of missing capacity bar LEAFs, the market will tank on used car value. Plus, the car didn't meet my mission anymore with its current reduced, but "normal" range autonomy.edatoakrun wrote:I think it's very unfortunate, that after subjecting your LEAFs battery to these conditions, you sold it, without disclosing your knowledge of its past abuse, and your suspicions of the level of battery degradation, to a new buyer. Now we may never know what the results of your past behavior will be, on this LEAFs future battery capacity. Continued reports on this LEAFs future battery capacity, would be very valuable information, IMO.
Bars aren't lost until 15% loss, so no, no bar loss yet. As far as diminished range... I don't know because I did not get the car new. I purchased it just 1.5 months ago, it was pre-owned by Hertz as a fleet car (which was never leased, so they auctioned it off). I haven't yet done a 100% to VLBW (or turtle) because I'm chicken. But as a baseline for my own period of ownership, it's probably a good idea if I did.OrientExpress wrote:Vicki, has your car lost a bar or have diminished range?
Interesting. My first 80% charge since getting the car back was 12% *higher* than what I was getting before handing the car over for evaluation. So their 87% assessment is pretty close to my own post-eval assessment. I will do a turtle to 100% test as soon as possible (probably on the weekend). I was on vacation prior to handing the car over so it sat at ~60% for 2 weeks before going [Edit]the Nissan Maricopa testing facility[/Edit] for 10 days. Perhaps all the battery needed was a good vacation.edatoakrun wrote:Indicating, perhaps, that a larger part of your LEAF's reduced capacity was due to seasonal variations (rather than permanent degradation) than for those LEAFs that come back with the same number of capacity bars?TickTock wrote:Just got my car back too. Was told my capacity was read to be 87% which is also 10% higher then my own repeatable and cross-checked measurements. Only rational explanation I can come up with is they keep seasonal variation separate and are able to distinguish that from permanent degradation. Maybe they cold soaked the battery and ran the test - we'll find out in a few months, I guess.
My capacity bars, also, were reset so I am now showing 12 bars capacity again.
Please update your spreadsheet, and add the after-the-check figures also, as soon as you get some.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... li=1#gid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I just heard back from Scott Yarosh, who just got his car back from Casa Grande after two weeks. He was down 3 bars and still is. They told him nothing.dsh wrote:How do we get our Capacity Bars reset???...could this indicate the Testers in Casa Grande dowloaded new software to fix the capaciy loss issue...anybody have thoughts on how the Testers could have added capacity bars back on?
I agree. Lots of posts describe the last two charge level bars as the "red" zone when reality it is just the capacity bars that have a red indication.TonyWilliams wrote: Let's see, if I drive my Nissan gasoline car to empty, is there damage? Are there warnings in the owner's manual? Are there warranty disclaimers for such activity?
No. Nor is there for the LEAF. How you suspect the consumer should just magically know that there might be a problem, well, we just disagree.
Heres a news flash: there are now several (some not reported here) coastal climate LEAFs that never hit VLB or turtle, or left at 100% charge for appreciable lengths of time, or Quick Charged, which have significantly lower miles then mine and actually have lower Gid counts than my car did last week. My point is that while you're busy blaming me, I don't believe that anything I did comes close to the impact of the preexisting LEAF's battery design on degradation.
Please confirm that the 12% higher is the Gid count, and not some other abstract. Sounds like they swapped a few cell modules.TickTock wrote:edatoakrun wrote:Interesting. My first 80% charge since getting the car back was 12% *higher* than what I was getting before handing the car over for evaluation. So their 87% assessment is pretty close to my own post-eval assessment.TickTock wrote:Just got my car back too. Was told my capacity was read to be 87% which is also 10% higher then my own repeatable and cross-checked measurements.