Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[mwalsh]

Mike, you actually have two gambles; whether or not your battery will qualify, and whether or not they force you to accept the P3227 update before they determine your battery's capacity loss. In my case, the update "added" quite a bit of capacity, and it took about six months to get back to the pre-update numbers. When Nissan announced the warranty for the 2011 and 2012 Leafs, they said that you must have the update before they will honor the warranty. Good luck, Sir!

-Karl

You are right, of course. Though we've heard of at least one instance where an owner has not had the update done until after loosing his fourth bar and going in for warranty replacement. The dealer did the update there and then and deemed the pack was sufficiently degraded anyway. I'll have to see if I can find that thread again and get the details. Specifically, how much time went by between the bar loss and the warranty claim.

So it's probably three gambles:

1) Whether or not I end up loosing the fourth bar and qualifying in the first place.
2) Whether or not I get the update well in advance and take that nasty regen hit over a longer period of time than I'd like (permanently even, should I not end up qualifying at all!).
3) Whether or not I wait it out, even if that ends up being quite a ways beyond losing the fourth bar, until I'm certain there will be zero chance of the update ballsing up the warranty claim.

Decisions, decisions.

PS: This is why I started that one poll about bar behavior post-update - to see how many cars regained capacity bars once the update had been done. It seemed to be a very small percentage.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

not that they would or have such a program but I want to play with the math of how much to charge on prorated battery replacements

replacement battery at retail rates is what $5000? It gets replaced at 4 bars lost (33.75% lost / 66.25% remaining) but a "new car" battery doesn't show 100% guaranteed if you use leafspy (they degrade on the lot). So we should value that at about $175 per percent below 99%, 98%?

If a 4 bar loser gets a free battery at 59,000 miles and 59 months

a 3 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $4075?
a 2 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $3150?
a 1 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $2200?

based on remaining value assuming they can sell a degraded pack to someone else for $6000-the price paid to replace the battery leaving used packs worth

1 bar lost pack still worth $3800?
2 bar lost pack still worth $2850?
3 bar lost pack still worth $1025?

how does that compare to junkyard prices for used packs?

Is that anywhere near the correct valuation for a prorated replacement cost and residual value for the leftover pack?

So many players, so hard to make it fair to all and have fixed prices. I'm not sure if I'm even close to the right approach.

i agree with proration but I think you need to flip your math upside down.

 

[dhanson865]

not that they would or have such a program but I want to play with the math of how much to charge on prorated battery replacements

replacement battery at retail rates is what $5000? It gets replaced at 4 bars lost (33.75% lost / 66.25% remaining) but a "new car" battery doesn't show 100% guaranteed if you use leafspy (they degrade on the lot). So we should value that at about $175 per percent below 99%, 98%?

If a 4 bar loser gets a free battery at 59,000 miles and 59 months

a 3 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $4075?
a 2 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $3150?
a 1 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $2200?

based on remaining value assuming they can sell a degraded pack to someone else for $6000-the price paid to replace the battery leaving used packs worth

1 bar lost pack still worth $3800?
2 bar lost pack still worth $2850?
3 bar lost pack still worth $1025?

how does that compare to junkyard prices for used packs?

Is that anywhere near the correct valuation for a prorated replacement cost and residual value for the leftover pack?

So many players, so hard to make it fair to all and have fixed prices. I'm not sure if I'm even close to the right approach.

i agree with proration but I think you need to flip your math upside down.

I considered it the other way around and changed it. The question is should you pay more for what you already used (3 bar loser pays more for new battery) or Pay more for unnecessary replacements (1 bar loser pays the most as a deterrent to swapping batteries unnecessarily).

I think the 3 bar loser should pay more as there is less value remaining in the pack. Just like tread wear warranty. If you have less tread remaining you pay more for the next set of tires.

Can you explain why you would flip the math?

 

[keydiver]

The question is should you pay more for what you already used?

I think this is the flaw in your formula, as in most cases it isn't "what you have used" as much is it is where you live. You are basically saying that people who live in a hotter climate aren't entitled to as much restitution. A 1 bar loser has a lot of life left to it, and it has degraded slowly if it lasted to 59,000 miles, so why replace it? The 3 bar loser, on the other hand, is rather worthless to most owners.

 

[dhanson865]

The question is should you pay more for what you already used?

I think this is the flaw in your formula, as in most cases it isn't "what you have used" as much is it is where you live. You are basically saying that people who live in a hotter climate aren't entitled to as much restitution. A 1 bar loser has a lot of life left to it, and it has degraded slowly if it lasted to 59,000 miles, so why replace it? The 3 bar loser, on the other hand, is rather worthless to most owners.

So should the 3 bar loser get a half price and the 2 bar loser get no option at all instead of a graduated scale?

How do you justify the cutoffs and differences in pricing if user A and user B both want a new battery after the same amount of use but have a different value battery for the used market?

Ignore the 1 bar loser for now and tell me how you would handle the 2 bar and 3 bar losers.

 

[davewill]

...So should the 3 bar loser get a half price and the 2 bar loser get no option at all instead of a graduated scale?

How do you justify the cutoffs and differences in pricing if user A and user B both want a new battery after the same amount of use but have a different value battery for the used market?

Ignore the 1 bar loser for now and tell me how you would handle the 2 bar and 3 bar losers.

It should work like the warranty on a tire or car battery works. You get a replacement when the battery gets down to a set level like happens now. You pay for part of the replacement depending on the time and/or mileage that you have when the replacement becomes necessary. If you need a replacement inside of 3 years, you get the replacement for free. If you need one in year four you pay for 1/5 of the replacement cost, year 5 you pay 2/5 of the replacement, and so on until year 7 where you pay for 4/5 of the replacement cost. Year 8 you're out of warranty and a replacement costs you full boat. The situation you're talking about never comes up since all the cores are in the same shape.

You don't have to do it on one year increments like that, you can break it down to months (or even days I suppose) and calculate the prorated values more precisely. Of course there are endless details to work out. What should the warranty be on the replacement, for instance. On a tire or car battery, the warranty is handled by refunding part of the original purchase price, after which I can buy a new one (from someone else if I don't want the same kind that failed) and I get a new warranty. I don't know if Nissan would go for a model like that, plus they are likely to be the only game in town for the replacement anyway.

Also, the poor schmuck who's battery degraded in three years had to put up with a suboptimal range for a long time on a nearly new car, and isn't really being compensated for that hassle, but I don't know what to do for that part...if anything needs to be done.

 

[dhanson865]

...So should the 3 bar loser get a half price and the 2 bar loser get no option at all instead of a graduated scale?

How do you justify the cutoffs and differences in pricing if user A and user B both want a new battery after the same amount of use but have a different value battery for the used market?

Ignore the 1 bar loser for now and tell me how you would handle the 2 bar and 3 bar losers.

It should work like the warranty on a tire or car battery works. You get a replacement when the battery gets down to a set level like happens now. You pay for part of the replacement depending on the time and/or mileage that you have when the replacement becomes necessary. If you need a replacement inside of 3 years, you get the replacement for free. If you need one in year four you pay for 1/5 of the replacement cost, year 5 you pay 2/5 of the replacement, and so on until year 7 where you pay for 4/5 of the replacement cost. Year 8 you're out of warranty and a replacement costs you full boat. The situation you're talking about never comes up since all the cores are in the same shape.

I assume when you say "need a replacement ... in year 5" you mean lose the 4th bar. I say that because no where in your post do you mention how many bars are lost.

How about the person that loses 2 bars and is close to losing the 3rd but can't make their commute? In their eyes they "need a replacement" but with a plan based on years to hit 4 bars lost they don't qualify for a prorated replacement yet.

 

[davewill]

I assume when you say "need a replacement ... in year 5" you mean lose the 4th bar. I say that because no where in your post do you mention how many bars are lost.

How about the person that loses 2 bars and is close to losing the 3rd but can't make their commute? In their eyes they "need a replacement" but with a plan based on years to hit 4 bars lost they don't qualify for a prorated replacement yet.

They bought the wrong car. It certainly doesn't make sense for someone to say they need ALL the range and keep replacing their battery under warranty any time their range drops below 80 miles. You need a set point. The reason I didn't name "4 bars" is that I feel it's not reasonable enough, but you need some set point at which the warranty triggers.

 

[Valdemar]

I bought the 20% loss after 5 years car thinking it'll lose 30 by 6 at which point I'd be thinking about a new car anyway. I'm down 30 by year 3.5 and can barely make my 60-mile commute. Did I buy a wrong car or was it false advertisement?

 

[Moof]

IMO a prorated warranty that was based on when you hit 70% would have been fair. 5 years 60k or less would be 100% Nissan, 10 years/120k miles more more would be 100% the owner with linear drop off of Nissan responsibility in between.

The good news is that with more competition we should see something much better than a 5 year/60k mile warranty as standard for capacity on future cars.

 

[Valdemar]

IMO a prorated warranty that was based on when you hit 70% would have been fair. 5 years 60k or less would be 100% Nissan, 10 years/120k miles more more would be 100% the owner with linear drop off of Nissan responsibility in between.

Yup, something like that. Who knew Nissan based their estimate on 7500 annual miles in the NW region.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

not that they would or have such a program but I want to play with the math of how much to charge on prorated battery replacements

replacement battery at retail rates is what $5000? It gets replaced at 4 bars lost (33.75% lost / 66.25% remaining) but a "new car" battery doesn't show 100% guaranteed if you use leafspy (they degrade on the lot). So we should value that at about $175 per percent below 99%, 98%?

If a 4 bar loser gets a free battery at 59,000 miles and 59 months

a 3 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $4075?
a 2 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $3150?
a 1 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $2200?

based on remaining value assuming they can sell a degraded pack to someone else for $6000-the price paid to replace the battery leaving used packs worth

1 bar lost pack still worth $3800?
2 bar lost pack still worth $2850?
3 bar lost pack still worth $1025?

how does that compare to junkyard prices for used packs?

Is that anywhere near the correct valuation for a prorated replacement cost and residual value for the leftover pack?

So many players, so hard to make it fair to all and have fixed prices. I'm not sure if I'm even close to the right approach.

i agree with proration but I think you need to flip your math upside down.

I considered it the other way around and changed it. The question is should you pay more for what you already used (3 bar loser pays more for new battery) or Pay more for unnecessary replacements (1 bar loser pays the most as a deterrent to swapping batteries unnecessarily).

I think the 3 bar loser should pay more as there is less value remaining in the pack. Just like tread wear warranty. If you have less tread remaining you pay more for the next set of tires.

Can you explain why you would flip the math?

I thought the whole point was proration to subsidize a FREE warranty replacement pack. that means you start from Free and work your way towards the cost of the new unsubsidized pack. right?

 

[davewill]

I bought the 20% loss after 5 years car thinking it'll lose 30 by 6 at which point I'd be thinking about a new car anyway. I'm down 30 by year 3.5 and can barely make my 60-mile commute. Did I buy a wrong car or was it false advertisement?

If the warranty was in place so that we knew that we could lose up to 4 bars before the warranty kicked in, then you bought the wrong car. Since that wasn't so for us...they decided to sue and we're debating the settlement.

 

[dhanson865]

not that they would or have such a program but I want to play with the math of how much to charge on prorated battery replacements

replacement battery at retail rates is what $5000? It gets replaced at 4 bars lost (33.75% lost / 66.25% remaining) but a "new car" battery doesn't show 100% guaranteed if you use leafspy (they degrade on the lot). So we should value that at about $175 per percent below 99%, 98%?

If a 4 bar loser gets a free battery at 59,000 miles and 59 months

a 3 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $4075?
a 2 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $3150?
a 1 bar loser should be able to buy a new battery at 59,000 miles or 59 months for $2200?

based on remaining value assuming they can sell a degraded pack to someone else for $6000-the price paid to replace the battery leaving used packs worth

1 bar lost pack still worth $3800?
2 bar lost pack still worth $2850?
3 bar lost pack still worth $1025?

how does that compare to junkyard prices for used packs?

Is that anywhere near the correct valuation for a prorated replacement cost and residual value for the leftover pack?

So many players, so hard to make it fair to all and have fixed prices. I'm not sure if I'm even close to the right approach.

i agree with proration but I think you need to flip your math upside down.

I considered it the other way around and changed it. The question is should you pay more for what you already used (3 bar loser pays more for new battery) or Pay more for unnecessary replacements (1 bar loser pays the most as a deterrent to swapping batteries unnecessarily).

I think the 3 bar loser should pay more as there is less value remaining in the pack. Just like tread wear warranty. If you have less tread remaining you pay more for the next set of tires.

Can you explain why you would flip the math?

I thought the whole point was proration to subsidize a FREE warranty replacement pack. that means you start from Free and work your way towards the cost of the new unsubsidized pack. right?

If you buy tires rated for 100,000 miles and you drive them for 33,000 and they are bald you get 2/3 your money back. If you drive them 80,000 miles and they are bald you get 20% of your money back. So traditional prorated warranties lose value as time passes and you have to pay more because you used more or just waited too long.

Is that fair to all customers? No, but the company has to set limits, they can't give away free product to everyone.

The problem here is battery degradation due to heat does NOT equal usage. So you either have to handle heat vs time/mileage claims with seperate warranties or you'll have someone that is getting the shaft.

Nissan promoted the Leaf battery as something that would last the life of the car and never need replacing. Now we know otherwise but there is a strong cutoff from free battery to full priced battery if you happen to wait the one day or drive the one extra mile it takes to cross the line.

The point isn't to give prorated from free to full cost in that order, the point is to offer some sort of gradient between free and full cost. It could be positive slope, it could be level, it could be negative slope, it could be stair steps or linear. They could put separate clauses for separate types of proration.

But whatever method you propose has to make some sense for both the consumer and the manufacturer. You can argue any side you like. I'm just trying to make sure both sides are covered so we aren't just dancing around one side of the issue.

 

[Reddy]

IMO a prorated warranty that was based on when you hit 70% would have been fair. 5 years 60k or less would be 100% Nissan, 10 years/120k miles more more would be 100% the owner with linear drop off of Nissan responsibility in between.

Yup, something like that. Who knew Nissan based their estimate on 7500 annual miles in the NW region.

Unfortunately, some of us low mileage drivers in the PNW are already below 80% at 3.5 yrs. I've even babied the pack (10-20 mi/day, 40-60 %SOC most of the time, mostly L1 charging, parking outside the garage in the summer). I would love to find out if ANY batteries ANYWHERE make 80% in 5 yrs.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Unfortunately, some of us low mileage drivers in the PNW are already below 80% at 3.5 yrs. I've even babied the pack (10-20 mi/day, 40-60 %SOC most of the time, mostly L1 charging, parking outside the garage in the summer). I would love to find out if ANY batteries ANYWHERE make 80% in 5 yrs.

I would expect that pretty much every Norway LEAF would make it. I'm at 85% in three years so I have a shot at it, although something closer to 75% seems more likely.

 

[evnow]

Nissan promoted the Leaf battery as something that would last the life of the car and never need replacing.

Never heard of that.

 

[Stanton]

Nissan promoted the Leaf battery as something that would last the life of the car and never need replacing.

Never heard of that.

Me neither. The only thing in question now is the ACCELERATED degradation that many of us are seeing. If the battery design had come anywhere close to the original degradation projections (70% after 10 years), we wouldn't be talking about it. Now we start the same process over with the "lizard" battery.

 

[dhanson865]

Nissan promoted the Leaf battery as something that would last the life of the car and never need replacing.

Never heard of that.

Said a thousand times over, take this as just one of them (If that isn't good enough for you I can finder older references)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1tfX7fRWPI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (say 5:30 to 10:00 or so)

I would think you'd accept quotes from Andy Palmer, Executive Vice President of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. who says:

"We we developed the motor car we couldn't imagine a scenario where you replace the battery"

Chelsea clarifies "that the customer pays to replace the battery"

Andy continues to blather about leasing and then says about buying "in that instance the only reason that (seen from Tokyo in the development process) the only reason that you replace a battery is if something went wrong with the battery in which case Nissan would replace it under the 8 year warranty scheme. period." he blathers about modules and how you can fix a bad battery without replacing the whole thing then says "we never imagined that there would be a customer (and apparently there is) who would say at the end of five years of life that they would want to bring the state of health of the battery back up to 100% and therefore buy a battery. So in consequence of that we have never set a price for a battery pack."

He's British so he speaks in a rambling not concise manner but it was said repeatedly in various ways by various Nissan employees between unveiling the car up to the time of that video. If you've been around the leaf scene prior to 2012 you'd have to have heard it in the videos on youtube, on the boards here, at the car shows, from the dealerships, etcetera.

Now we aren't talking about how inaccurate the statements were. I'm just saying the message from Nissan corporate to the potential buyer of the Leaf back in the day was that you'd never need to replace the battery and (un)related to that message they wouldn't sell you one if you tried to buy it.

Literally they would not sell you a battery pack for several years and several owners had to sell their car, take a buyback from Nissan, trade in for another car, or just let their car sit because they couldn't buy a battery pack back then.

 

[Stanton]

Now we aren't talking about how inaccurate the statements were. I'm just saying the message from Nissan corporate to the potential buyer of the Leaf back in the day was that you'd never need to replace the battery and (un)related to that message they wouldn't sell you one if you tried to buy it.

I will concede your point, recognizing that there is a difference between NEED to replace the battery pack (my interpretation) and WANT to replace the battery pack (settlement interpretation per Nissan statements). Unfortunately, there were a LOT of things Andy Palmer said that didn't help the Leaf (or it's owners), but then again that's probably why he's not at Nissan anymore.