="TonyWilliams"
Those (m/kWh) numbers were ALL OVER THE PLACE. Not only is that data not needed, you can't prove much with bad data.
It is irresponsible for you to refuse to disclose this "bad data".
Withholding this information only puts your own credibility, and that of all the other test data, into question.
You seem to be saying that you only source for the 84 mile “new car demonstrated capacity” is the Nissan service bulletin, you posted on page one of this thread. As I read it, that states that the "
estimated" LEAF range is 76 to 84 miles, at 4m/kWh.
So it looks to me like you may have misrepresented this as a source for an 84 mile range claim. I think any reasonable reading of this service bulletin indicates an estimated range of 80 miles, with a very large variation, of plus or minus 4 miles, or 5%. Neither this this source, nor your test, (or any other LEAF range test, AFAIK) appears to answer the important question of whether the individual range of new LEAFs, and/or their underlying battery capacities, actually varies by close to this much.
And so, it appears you may have misrepresented the range loss of all the LEAFs tested, by exaggerating the percentages of range lose by about that same 5%. And since you apparently
did not collect any data that would allow us to try to estimate actual battery capacity of any of the test cars:
"TonyWilliams"
...This was a range test, not a battery capacity test...
You now seem to have no way to verify the test cars even matched the 4.0 m/kWh which Nissan specified as the rate required to achieve the indicated ~80 mile range.
So, the only thing I can conclude from the methodology and results of of this range test, its that eleven of the twelve LEAFs (~ten of which were selected for testing
because the owners reported unusually high loss of range) have about 84% to 100% (with a large and unknown level of uncertainty) of what Nissan states (in your single source cited) is "
estimated" new LEAF range.
Whether I personally considered the level of range reduction of any of the LEAFs greater than "promised' by Nissan, and unacceptable, would depend largely on the conditions of use these LEAFs experienced, which you have made no attempt to report.
Unfortunately, in the ~six months since the rate of battery loss has become such an obsession on MNL, very little has been accomplished in the way of collecting useful information as to what use factors lead to
actual battery capacity loss, as opposed to the of capacity bar losses, or reduced gid counts, which the test seems to have confirmed to be quite inaccurate.
IMO, the most significant new information from this test seems to be that the hot Arizona climate has
far less to do with actual capacity loss, than the capacity bar losses and gid count losses, once seemed to indicate.
TonyWilliams wrote:edatoakrun wrote:You are planning to monitor your recharge capacity after the range tests, I hope?
No, that's not range. This was a range test, not a battery capacity test. I'm not dumb enough to get into a spitting contest where they hold all the cards. Too many variables dilute the message, and I fear just introducing the Gidmeter is a stretch.
Even if none of the recharges were monitored, the m/kWh reports from these LEAFs should at least show whether they share a common error with the gid count reports.
Those numbers were ALL OVER THE PLACE. Not only is that data not needed, you can't prove much with bad data.
Does anyone still believe gids reflect an accurate and constant Wh value?
I thought it was a heck of a lot better than it clearly is.
What is the source for the 84 mile “new car demonstrated capacity”, as reported?
Nissan service bulletin, quoted in the piece.
Were multiple new LEAFs, or even a single one, ever actually tested under the same conditions, resulting in 84 miles of range?
As indicated, no car went 84 miles. My car (Black782) would certainly meet the 84 mile threshold a month or three ago, but as stated elsewhere, I only charge to 80% (except for the BC2BC trip) and really had no idea that this car could already be tanking. My previous LEAF went about a year before things starting falling apart.
So, mea culpa on me. I should have checked before bringing the car. I can check another car, if I find one, and if Nissan wants to keep this in the news longer, we can go back and forth. Absolutely fine with me. The fact remains, one car went X distance, and the others went X minus some significant number. It would be stupid of them to brag about 76-79 miles to dead, when they're advertising 100. I can make a new chart with the range compared to 100 miles if they want. Or we can get 5 or 10 cars new LEAFs and test only them. It just wouldn't end well for their argument, IMHO.
I have not played my whole hand on this, and I believe I'm ready for the hate fest (or they could pull their heads out of their 6 anytime and do right in Phoenix).
I don't think Nissan ever gave range estimates near this value. So, without documentation of this as the actual capacity and range common to new LEAFs, the calculated percentages of loss could appear to be exaggerated.
Again, Nissan's own data.
But, sure, if they want to say 84 miles is an exaggerated range at 62mph, we can do that.
On the PR front, I suspect Nissan may actually be fairly pleased that this range test, of a group of LEAFs, so heavily weighted toward those perceived to have the very worst capacity loss, would seem to show that that all but one car (with 29 k miles) have come fairly close to their own highway range estimate:
Yes, it is better than initially perceived, but I'm not sure it's wise to start bragging publically about the "good" losses in 12-18 months... or far less miles. Nobody considers 29,000 miles "high mileage", and it is still under warranty.
There are an infinite numbers of variables which will effect your actual range, but these numbers give you a good idea of what to expect based on your own personal driving habits...
I didn't quite follow the reason for that whole angle. We used one set of variables... That was kind of the point.
