Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[mikesri]

.... By the way, if anyone remembers, there is a thread started by phxsmiley which talks about a co-worker who had not lost a bar and primarily uses L1 charging... this is that car! We will be reporting this to Nissan tomorrow and get their "official" response and have the incident properly logged.

Darn!!! I was REALLY hoping the L1 charging might make a difference in the longevity of the battery capacity since I do L1 charging here at home too. Sorry to hear about your lost bar.

Thanks.

From the start I figured it was best to try to treat the battery gently using L1, and because of our housing situation, it seemed like a good choice at the time. But alas, mileage and ambient temp seem to be the key ingredients here.

 

[Jimmydreams]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Did I forget something?

 

[vrwl]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Did I forget something?

Manufacture date... metal plate inside driver's side door frame

 

[mikesri]

.... By the way, if anyone remembers, there is a thread started by phxsmiley which talks about a co-worker who had not lost a bar and primarily uses L1 charging... this is that car! We will be reporting this to Nissan tomorrow and get their "official" response and have the incident properly logged.

Darn!!! I was REALLY hoping the L1 charging might make a difference in the longevity of the battery capacity since I do L1 charging here at home too. Sorry to hear about your lost bar.

Thanks.

From the start I figured it was best to try to treat the battery gently using L1, and because of our housing situation, it seemed like a good choice at the time. But alas, mileage and ambient temp seem to be the key ingredients here.

Additional info:
Manufacture Date: 8/11
VIN #: 8857

 

[Stoaty]

Wiki updated for Jimmydreams and mikesri. If the reports increase any more I will have to quit my day job to keep up the Wiki.

 

[gaswalla]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Did I forget something?

Wow, you're in Coastal San Diego and you lost a bar? That's a whole different angle than living in Phoenix

 

[smkettner]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Dang, first beach city with a bar loss? I was hoping mine would make 3 yrs (standard lease term) then hoping for 2 yrs with the heat issue.
Although a lot of my charging is 80%.... 15 months, 20,900 miles and fingers crossed :|

 

[Stoaty]

Wow, you're in Coastal San Diego and you lost a bar? That's a whole different angle than living in Phoenix

Yes, but look at the number of miles driven and the 100% charging (don't know if his Leaf sits at 100% for significant periods of time, though). Heat is the major factor in places like Phoenix, but even there higher mileage per month predicted greater capacity loss.

PS That doesn't mean I think this is OK, I definitely don't. It is really bad when the expectations Nissan set can't even be met if you live near the coast.

 

[downeykp]

We seem to be all in the same boat no matter where we live. Nissan sent a product to market that was not ready for prime time. Many of these owners are just unplugging and driving. Isn't that what all of us bought this car for?

 

[padamson1]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Did I forget something?

Since Nissan is now saying 20% loss after 5yrs (down from 30% over 8yrs), losing one bar after 26k miles doesn't seem all that far off because practically every charge was to 100%. Given that the LEAF is 73mi range per 100% charge car, 13k mi/year would be the expected annual mileage, thus 10% capacity loss should be expected after more than two years worth of driving the car. If one bar really is 20% (which has been the interpretation here on MNL), then this represents twice the normal capacity loss. Not good, but perhaps that's the cost of always charging to 100% (but Nissan should've told owners this when they bought the car).

IMHO The reason to report this to Nissan is for them to realize that when cars are always charged to 100%, they will not perform as they promised. A good data point for Nissan, but certainly another failure by them to not inform us early adopters up front as to what daily charging to 100% would do to the battery capacity. Perhaps 80% charge level should be labelled for 'normal' battery life instead of 'longer' battery life. :?

 

[RegGuheert]

Since Nissan is now saying 20% loss after 5yrs (down from 30% over 8yrs), losing one bar after 26k miles doesn't seem all that far off because practically every charge was to 100%. Given that the LEAF is 73mi range per 100% charge car, 13k mi/year would be the expected annual mileage, thus 10% capacity loss should be expected after more than two years worth of driving the car. If one bar really is 20% (which has been the interpretation here on MNL), then this represents twice the normal capacity loss.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. First of all, this car was driven an annuallized mileage of about 16,300 miles, which is not too much above the average. Secondly, your calculation implies that mileage is the primary factor here. Since there are other LEAFs north of 40,000 miles with less than 10% battery capacity loss, I will argue that it is not the major contributor here. As you say, charging to 100% is likely the major culprit here. Or, more precisely, I suspect it is the time spent at 100% SOC combined with temperature that matters most. But it is hard to say for sure.

To me, this is the most disturbing report that I have seen because the battery in this LEAF probably stays year around close to the 72F temperature that the Volt's TMS targets. If the battery loses 15% of its capacity in 1.625 years under that temperature environment, then it implies that the charging regime chosen by Nissan must be extremely damaging to the battery. It will be interesting to see if the Volt's strategy of avoiding the higher SOCs really makes a difference. I suspect it will.

Perhaps 80% charge level should be labelled for 'normal' battery life instead of 'longer' battery life. :?

More likely the 100% mode should be relabeled "Very Short Battery Life Mode".

 

[Jimmydreams]

Wow, you're in Coastal San Diego and you lost a bar? That's a whole different angle than living in Phoenix

I work near Miramar, and it gets pretty hot there during the day sometimes. Although the car never sat in that heat at 100% charge. Usually near 50% by the time I get to work. Plus, over 26K miles....that's a fair amount.

 

[Jimmydreams]

I finally lost my first bar:

On or around Aug 13. Took possession of the car January 7th, 2011. (1 yr, 7mo) 26,610 miles on the ODO. 1 QC, virtually all others L2 charging to 100%. VIN 00175. Not reported to Nissan.

Did I forget something?

Manufacture date... metal plate inside driver's side door frame

Manufacturer date 11/10

 

[vrwl]

Manufacturer date 11/10

Added to wiki.

 

[dhanson865]

Since Nissan is now saying 20% loss after 5yrs (down from 30% over 8yrs), losing one bar after 26k miles doesn't seem all that far off because practically every charge was to 100%. Given that the LEAF is 73mi range per 100% charge car, 13k mi/year would be the expected annual mileage, thus 10% capacity loss should be expected after more than two years worth of driving the car. If one bar really is 20% (which has been the interpretation here on MNL), then this represents twice the normal capacity loss.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. First of all, this car was driven an annuallized mileage of about 16,300 miles, which is not too much above the average. Secondly, your calculation implies that mileage is the primary factor here. Since there are other LEAFs north of 40,000 miles with less than 10% battery capacity loss, I will argue that it is not the major contributor here. As you say, charging to 100% is likely the major culprit here. Or, more precisely, I suspect it is the time spent at 100% SOC combined with temperature that matters most. But it is hard to say for sure.

To me, this is the most disturbing report that I have seen because the battery in this LEAF probably stays year around close to the 72F temperature that the Volt's TMS targets. If the battery loses 15% of its capacity in 1.625 years under that temperature environment, then it implies that the charging regime chosen by Nissan must be extremely damaging to the battery. It will be interesting to see if the Volt's strategy of avoiding the higher SOCs really makes a difference. I suspect it will.

Perhaps 80% charge level should be labelled for 'normal' battery life instead of 'longer' battery life. :?

More likely the 100% mode should be relabeled "Very Short Battery Life Mode".

I'd still like to see a charge option change to allow 70% and 90% charge instead of 80% and 100%. Even more importantly would be to have 3 charge options like 60%, 80%, 100% or 75%, 85%, 95%.

I like to cite the Wendys triple vs double experiment but I have a hard time finding a URL that tells the story I remember.


I found this quote from a thread but it isn't the whole story

Here's a fun Munger mental model fact about Dave Thomas. He created the triple cheeseburger not because he wanted to sell it, but to increase the sales of the double cheeseburger. And he priced it goofy, like--- cheeseburger ($0.99), double cheeseburger ($1.49), triple cheeseburger ($2.49), so therefore, he could make a lot more money selling doubles instead of singles. Of course, the triple was the most profitable, but he wasn't concerned about their fledgling sales. He knew that comparatively, the double cheeseburger would be the most attractive option, because it seemed cost-efficient, and customers could buy it guilt-free without feeling like a piece of lard because the triple cheeseburger existed out there. No one in Wendy's marketing embraced the idea at first, but Dave saw it through, and it worked out well.

What I remember being key was that some time after the triple was created they took it off the menu and when they did sales of the double dropped. Put it back on the menu and sales of the double rose again. It didn't matter what the price of the triple was, it just seemed more psychologically acceptable to take the middle option. Maybe because so many people know the Goldilocks story, maybe something else in the human psyche.

Whatever the case give only two charge options and people are likely to be in the bigger is better frame of mind. Give three charge options and you'll find the same person is more likely to take the middle choice instead of the largest.

And how different would this story be if there were four charging options of 75%, 85%, 95%, 100%? How many would charge all the way up if there were more charging options?

How about if the selection of 100% came up with a "are you sure" prompt?

 

[thankyouOB]

so what does a new battery cost?
does Nissan have a price for it?

 

[jlsoaz]

[...]
For an updated list of affected owners, as reported to members of this thread, see the wiki:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery,_Charging_System#Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello azdre:

I tried clicking on that link and it appears to be sort of updated/broken. It did not take me to a list of owners or discussion of battery capacity loss. It's sort of in and around batteries and I think the info might be there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. [quick edit a few minutes later]... ok, I think I see something like it here, though I"m not sure about a list of owners.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[JRP3]

I'd still like to see a charge option change to allow 70% and 90% charge instead of 80% and 100%. Even more importantly would be to have 3 charge options like 60%, 80%, 100% or 75%, 85%, 95%.

You can always stop charging early, and charge to any SOC you wish.

 

[vrwl]

Hello azdre:

I tried clicking on that link and it appears to be sort of updated/broken. It did not take me to a list of owners or discussion of battery capacity loss. It's sort of in and around batteries and I think the info might be there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. [quick edit a few minutes later]... ok, I think I see something like it here, though I"m not sure about a list of owners.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jlsoaz, the wiki is in a constant state of modification as new information continues to roll in about the car. RIGHT NOW, you can find the list of owners and the battery capacity loss information at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find more info about it at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, but the table with the data is at the first link I gave above.

 

[dhanson865]

I'd still like to see a charge option change to allow 70% and 90% charge instead of 80% and 100%. Even more importantly would be to have 3 charge options like 60%, 80%, 100% or 75%, 85%, 95%.

You can always stop charging early, and charge to any SOC you wish.

That's only true if you are awake to stop the charging. If I want to charge while I'm asleep and stop at something other than 80% or 100% the current options won't do that. You can play guessing games and tell it to charge with a timer to start late enough that it won't be charged to 100% by the time you wake up but if you guess wrong and start too late you may not have enough charge and if you guess wrong and start charging too soon you will hit 100% charge before you wake up.

It'd be so much easier if there were more charging options or heaven forbid an interface option that let you type in a number from 42-99%. Or even a up arrow/down arrow interface that starts at 80% and allows you to increment by 5% within the range of 45% to 95%.