OTonyWilliams wrote:MrIanB wrote:
What kind of planes? Pix please.
Sweet. Thanks for the pix, my sister is a ticket/gate/operations employee for AA.
OTonyWilliams wrote:MrIanB wrote:
What kind of planes? Pix please.
My car is down 1 bar now and I'm not too far from you... It's not as bad as the AZ cars, but it's something... PM me if you want to hook up and check it out.Ingineer wrote:If I had easy access to a degraded car I could make some good measurements, but unfortunately/fortunately my own Leaf has not experienced any capacity loss.
The test was to discover the truth of their statement, although I think that most of us went in thinking the fault instrument claim was bunk. We ended up finding that the instrumentation seems to be unreliable as reported, and that degradation is real, but not always as severe as we were led to believe by the Gid meter and the capacity bars. Of course, Nissan had confirmed some degradation after testing the Casa Grande 6. We're still left with degradation and no plan from Nissan to deal with it.N952JL wrote:Good post, but not what I thought the test was trying to prove.
1. Nissian stated that the batteries have not degraded but that the bar display was faulty.
2. The test was to show the bar display was not faulty, that when the display showed a degradtion than in real testing the range had in fact also degraded. In other words, that when the bar display showed only 11 bars at full charge, your range was also only "eleven" bars worth.
I am Blue917. As a reference, I turtled at 72.5miles on the test. On my normal commute with AC, I get LBW at 50 miles driving to the same QC that was used in this test. (15 miles city, 37 miles highway, with some nominal elevation changes). On the test, I was LBW at 64miles (from memory) or so over a flat course. The flat course did skew the numbers a bit toward making the issue look better than it really is. Real driving conditions reduce the range considerably as already stated. My best guesstimate is I would turtle at 60 miles on my normal commute, based on the 8 miles left on the GOM at LBW. Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.Volusiano wrote:Is this 45 miles range a guess, or based on some calculation? (since the test was done with no AC and LBW data is not shared).kolmstead wrote:That for freeway driving, with A/C on and going no lower than LBW, the 4-bar car has maybe 45 miles of range.thankyouOB wrote:i looked at the data.
the range does not seem all that bad for these cars, considering that they are supposed to be paradigms of troubled Leafs.
what do we conclude from this?
But your point is well taken, like others have made, that pure data like this gives people the wrong impression that the results don't seem that bad. In reality, AC and LBW are the 2 important factors that would have caused the real-life range to be shortened much more considerably.
If LBW had been recorded, I think it would be beneficial to share this data to at least show what the results are even worse than it looks.
Point taken, you are very likely correct. I was going to present you with a fairly long calculation until I realized that the total commute range would have been 60 miles, just like you said.spooka wrote:I am Blue917. As a reference, I turtled at 72.5miles on the test. On my normal commute with AC, I get LBW at 50 miles driving to the same QC that was used in this test. (15 miles city, 37 miles highway, with some nominal elevation changes). On the test, I was LBW at 64miles (from memory) or so over a flat course. The flat course did skew the numbers a bit toward making the issue look better than it really is. Real driving conditions reduce the range considerably as already stated. My best guesstimate is I would turtle at 60 miles on my normal commute, based on the 8 miles left on the GOM at LBW. Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.
edatoakrun wrote: And since no one (apparently) tried to calculate the battery capacities of the test LEAFs, from any data source independent from the (erroneous) gid count, the actual gid error rate is now not calculable.
There is no real way I can see to verify this attempt at backwards analysis, other than to see how closely the unreported m/kWh report error rates from the other cars, match (or do not) the gid report error rates from the other test cars.
If consistent correlation is observed, we might be able calculate the actual available battery capacity, if we actually knew how many m/kWh these cars actually achieved, on the test.
But of course, if we actually knew the m/kWh, we would know the kWh capacity already...
Looks to me that if you want to know your LEAFs actual battery capacity, a meter or (accurate charge rate) and the charge efficiency, will be required.
The problem with your entire drive to figure out battery capacity is that you are assuming we can measure it. The gids are inaccurate because the hall-effect measurement system is inaccurate. You cannot rely on wall energy put into the car because this is just what the BMS allows you to put into the battery. If there is any truth to Nissan's claim or faulty instrumentation then the BMS may also rely on the same instrumentation and therefore may be restricting the battery by mistake. I do not believe this is the whole story, but nonetheless it highlights the fact that unless we yank the packs and manually test each cell or module we will not know with any certainty the actual capacity and no amount of testing is going to reveal it, if the BMS is confused. You wouldn't even be able to prove the BMS was confused.edatoakrun wrote: Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.
I'm really just delaying the release of more data to jerk Ed's chainSierraQ wrote:Tony,
If you do decide to release more figures I suggest gathering the software versions on each Leaf if you have not done so. It would be interesting to see any correlations with the unreliable numbers it produces. For instance you said, I think, that the m/kw is all over the place. I wonder if there is a correlation with software revs?
Cool plane! Wish I was a pilot sometimes.
Agreed! Good stuff!kolmstead wrote:To me, this could be the most exciting news from the Tempe test.
Perhaps you have never been to a Nissan dealer before... (Sorry, but I presently am having difficulty getting a simple software update that they have in-hand.)kolmstead wrote:If we do have one or two cell pairs failing, all it will take to demonstrate this is to run the car down to VLBW or better still, turtle, and have the dealer perform a cell pair voltage check.