You are playing word games.arnis wrote:It's not that complicated. There are Leafs, incl 30kWh Leafs, that have excellent SOH no matter how
deep are the cycles, how many cycles there are, how far are they charged (80% or 100%), QC or not.
Without any other data it is possible to conclude with high degree of certainty that ALL
these factors do not play a major role in rapid degradation as there are hardly any rapid degraders
in moderate climates. They play some role, but at expected rates, giving battery a 10+ year or 200Mm lifetime.
Nissan dropped the 80% charge option in the US immediately after the EPA used it to lower the overall range estimate for the Leaf in 2013. Just a coincidence...? Also, I believe that the 80% charge option was retained in Europe, at least until Leaf 2. I'm sure that this too is just a coincidence...The evidence for charging habits is a lot more murky but Nissan doesn't think that charging to 100% should be a problem and all Leaf's do just that by default. Leafs in Europe and Japan don't seem to have problems due to charging to 100%
... Let me amend your sentence to:johnlocke wrote:The evidence for charging habits is a lot more murky but Nissan doesn't think that charging to 100% should be a problem
How many people actually use the 80% option if it's still available in Europe or Japan? If it's used by most people over there, then I'd amend my opinion. If most don't use that option, I'd still suggest that charging isn't a major problem because their failure rates are much lower. We don't see this problem in the northern half of the U.S. either. If charging to 100% was a major factor, I'd expect the failures to be better distributed across the U.S. I'm not saying that it has no effect, just that it's probably minor compared to other effects. Nissan claims very low failure rates for the battery overall and I have no reason to believe they would lie about that. There is a cost analysis by Nissan here that says that failure rates overall are low enough that it's cheaper to replace failed batteries than re-engineer the battery. Also that the level of battery failures won't affect sales enough to be a problem.SageBrush wrote:... Let me amend your sentence to:johnlocke wrote:The evidence for charging habits is a lot more murky but Nissan doesn't think that charging to 100% should be a problem
[should not be a problem] for Nissan, meaning the battery should make it to the warranty end.
How reassuring. NOT
he said "100%" not the full charge level of 97.7%. I think the actual 100% level is 375 btw.johnlocke wrote:I'd check with GaryGID to say for sure but I've never seen a report of more than 363 GID's on a new car even when the owners reported AH values over 82 AH from Leaf Spy. I think the value is software limited by the BMS. That would explain why some cars report the same value (363) for months before the the GID's value starts to drop.Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:I think so. And I think 380 GIDs was 100%? I don't have a concrete number since I didn't get the leafspy stats on day one. I did think it was rather odd that SOH was showing 100% all way to 7000 miles (~4.5 months of winter-spring driving)! So for me, I trust the GID number more, since it's a more detailed number than X %ironmanco wrote:
I noticed in your sig that you only reference GID as a representative of the condition of the battery. Is it always a 1:1 relationship of the SOH of the battery and the GIDs?
Can you share with us what you can do to resurrect any battery SOH?DaveinOlyWA wrote:I am fully confident I can pop it back up to 100%