Meeting with Nissan, Phoenix, Jan 8, 2013, 6pm, drinks prior

leafkabob said:

mwalsh said:

Call me an old skeptic. But while meeting with Phoenix owners and listening to their concerns may have been on the agenda, I think the primary reason for the event was to release details of the 2013 LEAF. No coincidence, methinks, that it was decided to advance release to the press too, a couple of weeks ahead of scheduled. Reason? Well just check the web - gazillions of posts about the 2013 specs and just 2 (that I've found) about the meeting with Phoenix owners (which would have been a big-deal normally). Well played, Nissan.

Click to expand...

Whether they intended for it play out like this or not, it appears to have done so. It seems to me that even within this thread a larger percentage of posts are about the 2013 specs, rather than the primary focus of the Town Hall meeting.

Click to expand...

The meeting wasn't a ruse to show the 2013 car- Tim G just thought it would be cool for you guys to get to check it out, and even better if it was a little before the "official" spec announcement (which has long been planned to happen before Detroit; it wasn't "pulled up" b/c of this event). Some of you know Tim and that this is the sort of thing he likes to do- same w him pressing to do the driver events in NorCal on Saturday. As it was, I know some journalists gave them a hard time about it, but they thought it was a nice thing to do for the drivers.

However, I think the fact that so many posts are about the 2013 vs the meeting is because there wasn't a lot of "new" info in the meeting. The value was more in the direct conversation and having them hear your concerns. I do think many now understand that the Nissan folks are more sincere than they thought, but I suspect that in terms of actual info, Nissan learned more than many of the drivers. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

RegGuheert said:

cwerdna said:

Not to go too OT, but http://priuschat.com/threads/low-rolling-resistance-replacement-tires-current-list.92778/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a LRR tire discussion thread. I'm no tire connoisseur/enthusiast so I can't really comment or summarize.

Michelin Energy Saver A/S is a "Priuschat.com favorite"...

Click to expand...

Thanks! That thread looks like it will take some time to digest! I'll have to come back to it as our tires get older.

It's interesting that they don't list the Michelin Energy Saver A/S tires in the OP under the 215/50/R17 size, but they do have it elsewhere. Does the OP only included tires that have been reviewed in the thread?

Click to expand...

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Energy+Saver+A%2FS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; doesn't show 215/50/17 for that tire.

The thread doesn't review tires, it just lists what we can find specs on.

Weatherman said:

myleaf said:

It was mentioned that the LEAF battery is air cooled -- similar to liquid cooling. An example mentioned is that the human body is air cooled.

Click to expand...

Bad example. Our bodies are cooled mostly by evaporation of water. Vastly more effective than simple air cooling.

Click to expand...

Also blood (which is mostly water) is pumped around the body to move heat away from hot spots and to warm up cool spots. So the human body is primarily water cooled with a air component at the outermost layer.

If it can be shown across a broad population of cars that LEAFs are losing capacity faster in hot climates than they are in cooler climates, and LEAFs are losing capacity faster than Teslas and Volts, at some point they have to accept the story the data tells.

evchels said:

It may have been helpful for me to help moderate with Jeff so I could help dig into certain questions and topics, I don't know.

Click to expand...

Hi Chelsea,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for helping organize the town hall. While I'm disappointed with how it turned out (in terms of lack of focusing on a meaningful resolution for Phoenix and hot climate owners), I do appreciate the chance to have such an event to attend, and your effort in helping organizing it. It's better than having no event.

I must say that when I heard that you and Tony and Phil and George were coming out, I envisioned that you guys would sit on a panel up there together with the Nissan execs to help moderate the event with them and maybe help drive some of the more important questions that might have been remissed to be asked by the audience up front so they could be addressed before we ran out of time, to help keep the focus of the meeting on how to solve the battery heat issue to AZ owners' satisfaction. A prime example of this is that if you guys were on a panel up there, maybe you could have initiated the question to ask the audience to find out from them what it would take to solve the heat issue to their satisfaction since Nissan never bothered to ask.

Unfortunately, that was not the case, and you guys were scattered around in the audience, and I felt like we lack representation for LEAF owners up there on the stage. Because of that, I think it contributed to the meeting quickly losing its main focus and too much time was spent wasted on discussing the accuracy of the bars and the specifics of the warranty. But hello!, if the 9 bar warranty is not good enough, why bother discussing the specifics of that warranty anyway? The focus should have been to find out and discuss what remedies the Phoenix audience would find acceptable and get the response from Nissan on whether they can deliver the remedy that AZ owners want to see or not.

Would it be possible to get answers in writing to some of these questions? Perhaps the "Ask Nissan" forum could be revived, instead of having meetings in person?

dhanson865 said:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Energy+Saver+A%2FS doesn't show 215/50/17 for that tire.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but Phil posted a picture of a tire with "Energy" and "215/50R17" on the sidewall. It looks like there could be more words following the word "Energy".

dhanson865 said:

The thread doesn't review tires, it just lists what we can find specs on.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Hopefully we can get some reviews here.

sirenbrian said:

Would it be possible to get answers in writing to some of these questions? Perhaps the "Ask Nissan" forum could be revived, instead of having meetings in person?

Click to expand...

Yes. In addition to the video coming out, I will work on posting the answers I can in the questions thread I started, and add to them as I/we get more from Nissan.

brg2290 said:

Phil, just curious, why do you think the emergency brake change? Is the foot actuation mechanical...and less expensive? Was this a cost cutting measure? Or have there been problems with the original?

Click to expand...

I think the electrically-actuated solution was a stop-gap because the leaf was rushed and their normal handbrake system couldn't be used, because of the battery location. Now that they've had time to work out a mechanical system, it's better, because it saves cost, weight, and is more reliable and safer.

I'd much rather have that mechanical system any day!

FYI: The mechanical system still activates the rear wheels, not the front.

-Phil

DarkDave said:

My bet is that part of the reason for changing the parking brake pedal was to move the brake from the rear to the front wheels to make room for the inductive charger on future MY Leafs. I didn't take a look under the 2013 to see if it's true or not, but on 2011/2012 the brake actuator takes up room where the inductive charger would probably be. I agree it would also reduce the costs to change from an electronically activated brake to a foot and cable powered brake for the front wheels.

Click to expand...

The brake cables run along the center top of the battery in tubes, passing both sides of the main battery fuse, to the rear wheels.

LTLFTcomposite said:

If it can be shown across a broad population of cars that LEAFs are losing capacity faster in hot climates than they are in cooler climates, and LEAFs are losing capacity faster than Teslas and Volts, at some point they have to accept the story the data tells.

Click to expand...

I don't know why we focus on this "accepting". They know the issues, whether they publically state them or not.

As things stand now, the big hole in "the plan" is this late summer, when we have 100's of multi-bar losers who don't meet the 66.24% capacity threshold of 9 to 8 capacity bars, yet their cars are 20-30% reduced in range, and nobody told them that when they bought the car.

Again, it doesn't matter if Nissan publically ackowledges that heat bakes batteries.

Personally, and as an experienced EV Engineer, I agree with Nissan for choosing passive cooling. I do not think in the future we will see much active cooling for EV battery systems.

The chemistry will improve so as to be more heat tolerant, and the problems we have now will disappear!

If Nissan had installed active cooling, the Leaf would be heavier, have less range, and be significantly more costly. In addition, Active cooling requires power, which means it must be plugged in most of the time or even more drastic range reduction will occur.

Keep in mind, it's not actually proven there is much actual degradation! I believe it's a combination of a small amount of degradation combined with instrumentation errors (failures), and that once Nissan corrects the software in the LBC (Battery ECU), apparent "lost" capacity will return. Let's at least give them time to fix this before condemning them!

Just because a Leaf owner cannot drive as far, doesn't mean the battery has a fault. The LBC determines all charging and discharging limits, and if it's being "overprotective" like I suspect, once they correct this, range will magically return. If it doesn't, Nissan will fix it. Regardless, I'm convinced Andy was sincere and Nissan is going to make this right.

-Phil

evchels said:

sirenbrian said:

Would it be possible to get answers in writing to some of these questions? Perhaps the "Ask Nissan" forum could be revived, instead of having meetings in person?

Click to expand...

Yes. In addition to the video coming out, I will work on posting the answers I can in the questions thread I started, and add to them as I/we get more from Nissan.

Click to expand...

Can Jeff Kuhlman (HAWK0630) run through the list and provide answers to some of the questions ?

RegGuheert said:

Perhaps not, but Phil posted a picture of a tire with "Energy" and "215/50R17" on the sidewall. It looks like there could be more words following the word "Energy".

Click to expand...

It reads "ENERGY Saver A/S" on the sidewall. Here are my 3 tire pictures:







I've got a Hi-res version of all of them if anyone needs more info.

-Phil

Ingineer said:

Keep in mind, it's not actually proven there is much actual degradation! I believe it's a combination of a small amount of degradation combined with instrumentation errors (failures), and that once Nissan corrects the software in the LBC (Battery ECU), apparent "lost" capacity will return.
-Phil

Click to expand...

That is great new.

Chels,
with regard to your post at 12:57 today:
it is nice to have a pro working at this.

you write well, you are clear and summarize with efficiency and accuracy, you know how to project integrity, and you seem to be sufficiently stubborn and subtle enough to deal with a corporate environment. Now, if we could just swap "get results from" for "deal with", we all might see some progress.

good luck on the questions and getting the answers.
i really get that the human exchange in AZ was an important part of having real communication. I would like to think that real communication would lead to changes at Nissan for those of us who bought the LEAF in 2011.

Ingineer said:

Personally, and as an experienced EV Engineer, I agree with Nissan for choosing passive cooling. I do not think in the future we will see much active cooling for EV battery systems.

The chemistry will improve so as to be more heat tolerant, and the problems we have now will disappear!


-Phil

Click to expand...

I agree, active cooling always seemed like a bandaid to me.

But from the town hall meeting it seems that heat tolerant battery chemistries will not be available (at Nissan) in the near future

Ingineer said:

Just because a Leaf owner cannot drive as far, doesn't mean the battery has a fault.

Click to expand...

Certainly, that sentiment was expressed at the meeting by several. They really don't care about bars and batteries, they just want the car to go the distance it is supposed to.

Ingineer said:

Keep in mind, it's not actually proven there is much actual degradation! I believe it's a combination of a small amount of degradation combined with instrumentation errors (failures), and that once Nissan corrects the software in the LBC (Battery ECU), apparent "lost" capacity will return. Let's at least give them time to fix this before condemning them!

-Phil

Click to expand...

To me job #1 should be to fix the software. From the town hall meeting, it sounds like applying the MY 2013 software to our cars is not going to be fix we are hoping for. I've completely given up on using the GoM and only use my gidmeter and Tony's range chant to determine how far I can drive given my car's degraded battery. I think it would engender a lot of good will and confidence if Nissan could make the gauge as accurate as possible for both range and battery health. I don't want a pessimistic gauge at all, ever. I want it to be accurate. Just doing that would give people more confidence in their cars, especially with a degraded battery.

In my car, if I go by the gauge I should never be able to drive more than 45 miles ever given my daily commuting habits on an 80% charge. I have routinely proven that I can actually drive to 55-58 miles using the gidmeter and range chart.

DarkDave said:

... Tony's range chant...

Click to expand...

Freud?