Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[TonyWilliams]

The data obtained from this Leaf proves that Nissan thankfully does not sell new battery packs with useable capacities below 21KW (or 24KW total).

I wouldn't quite go this far. There's, at least, anecdotal evidence to suggest a fair amount of variability in the usable capacity of new battery packs. True, a vast majority should be around the 21kWh range, but my first LEAF had perceptibly less than that to start. That's why I sold it.

Your car likely didn't leave the factory in that reduced state. More likely, in your hot climate, the battery took a dive (as mine did in just a few short months from manufacture, but for different reasons).

We saw that in Phoenix with the other "control" car. Now, thankfully, we demonstrated what it can do, and that can be duplicated over and over, but only with cars "fresh off the boat" and not exposed to brutal heat (or quick charged to death, like mine).

 

[Weatherman]

Your car likely didn't leave the factory in that reduced state. More likely, in your hot climate, the battery took a dive (as mine did in just a few short months from manufacture, but for different reasons).

We saw that in Phoenix with the other "control" car. Now, thankfully, we demonstrated what it can do, and that can be duplicated over and over, but only with cars "fresh off the boat" and not exposed to brutal heat (or quick charged to death, like mine).

I wish I could chalk it up to hot weather, but that's not the case. The car was purchased in early December 2011 (a 2012 model) and I ran my first range test in early April 2012. So we're talking temps in the 50s, 60s and 70s during that period. I was only able to go 61 miles from 100% to LBW at 4.0 miles/kWh for the first test. The car only had 3,000 miles on it at the time.

If temperatures averaging around 70 can kill off that much usable capacity in the first 3,000 miles, then Nissan has a major problem on their hands.

 

[LEAFer]

@Weatherman: you need to correct your Delivery Date in your profile. Also ... what was the manufacturing date (see driver's door jamb/B-Pillar) ?

Edit: and your signature data (4 months by 11/7/12) conflicts with the Dec2011 purchase also, but appears to match the July delivery in your profile :?

 

[surfingslovak]

Recently, a new Leaf popped up, which seems to be down 10% just from baking on dealer lots for 12 months. This became apparent when the owner needed to stretch his range on a day trip, and asked questions in the 100-mile club thread.

 

[Volusiano]

If not due to heat sitting on the dealer's lot, it can also be due to sitting on the dealer's lot all that time at 100% SOC.

 

[Yanquetino]

The achieved range is admirably toward the high end, but 83.2 miles is still within Nissan's 76-to-84 range at 4 miles-per-kWh in a new Leaf. Those parameters are not "opinion": they are Nissan's own projected estimates."

Yanquentino, this is not an attack on you and I hope you don't perceive it in that manner. I believe that you love the Leaf and want to see EVs thrive as much as I do. We both approach the battery issue from different ends of the spectrum and the following is my argument for my concerns about the data you present on your site.

Correct, the service bulletin states a range of 76 to 84 miles. The "opinion" enters the arena of discussion when a number is arbitrarily chosen from this range and as a result, incorrect conclusions are deduced from it. The brand new Leaf that just ran the Tempe Twelve course at the speed Nissan states is needed to obtain 4Miles/KW made it 83.2 miles with 21 GIDs remaining in the pack. It is reasonable to extrapolate that it would have made 88.7 miles to turtle, based on the average of 2.9 GIDs/mile obtained at the tests end point of 83.2 miles. This is observed data that demonstrates Nissan's 84 mile upper limit in the service bulletin was conservative and that all Leafs in the test can now reasonably be compared to the upper end of the range using 84 miles to turtle vs the 80 miles you arbitrarily chose. I hope your web article will reflect this change as others have used your presented data as factual in media stories which only perpetuates the distorted data in your article. I am publicly asking you to address this and base the data on your site on 84 miles. The data obtained from this Leaf proves that Nissan thankfully does not sell new battery packs with useable capacities below 21KW (or 24KW total). When you pick a happy medium of 20KW (80 miles) you are implying that Nissan is selling new Leafs to the public in an already damaged or defective state. The issue is what happens to the pack after use, not before delivery. Your whole assumption in your article is based on the "before" aspect and leaving your article as would (IMO) show a bias on your part now that there is hard data to the contrary.

Thanks for considering this.

Hi, spooka:

Yes, I do want to see EVs in general thrive, but contrary to what others have accused, "proving Nissan right" has never been my motivation. I have said this elsewhere, and will repeat it here: if the test data had shown that the majority of those Leafs achieved a range notably below Nissan's parameters, I would have stated as much. Believe me, given the reactions from others, there have been times when I wish that were the case. But... it's not. It's just the way the math adds up using what few benchmarks and scenarios Nissan has made public. As for "attacks" on me personally... I appreciate your reassurance and approach, but I think you and I both know that there are others who have resorted to such tactics.

Please know that I do feel bad for the AZ owners involved. As I've said many times, Nissan should have addressed their concerns much earlier: it could have made a world of difference, and nipped all the bad publicity in the bud. And I can’t blame the owners in the least for being alarmed by what they were experiencing: it was only logical to assume that those capacity bars were reliable. That certainly would have been my default conclusion had I suddenly noticed that one was missing! However, now that the test results have shown that the gauges are indeed inaccurate, I would hope that at least some AZ owners will feel relieved and reassured to know that, as Nissan confirmed with its own analysis, their Leafs “are behaving as we expected.”

I appreciate your suggestion, but hope you will understand that I feel like I have already updated my post to be as fair, thorough, accurate, and free of "opinion" as possible. As you have probably seen, I now plot the polynomial curve for "normal" capacity degradation using the average 80 miles in the middle of Nissan's 76-to-84 range estimate for a new Leaf. More importantly, I also include grey error bars to display the corresponding variance in that scale for each Leaf according to its mileage, top-to-bottom, high-to-low.

For those who assert that only the top of those bars is valid, the challenge is to first convince Nissan --not me-- that their estimated 76-to-84 scale needs to be higher so that they can then prove that the AZ Leafs' ranges really were lower than the automaker anticipated. I wish them luck with that effort. I can tell you this much, if it helps: if they are successful in convincing Nissan to raise their range scale, I will gladly alter my tables and graphs accordingly.

Finally, allow me to say that there are still, unfortunately, missing data. Since the majority of the Leafs tested achieved ranges within Nissan's scale of ranges, there must be additional factors besides heat and even mileage that affected the few vehicles that fell below those parameters: number of charges per day, 100% vs. 80% charging, time sitting fully charged, 120v vs. 240v vs. 480v, typical speeds driven, Drive vs. ECO, use of climate control, location during the hottest hours of the day, driving style, road and traffic conditions, etc., etc. These are all factors that might affect the "rate of reduction" in battery capacity, but we have yet to see those CarWings data for each vehicle --from either the owners or Nissan. I sure wish we could. For example, it would probably help explain why --with the same mileage on their odometers-- one Leaf tested in the middle of Nissan's scale, yet another fell notably below it.

 

[Weatherman]

@Weatherman: you need to correct your Delivery Date in your profile. Also ... what was the manufacturing date (see driver's door jamb/B-Pillar) ?

Edit: and your signature data (4 months by 11/7/12) conflicts with the Dec2011 purchase also, but appears to match the July delivery in your profile :?

The information is correct. When I sold my first LEAF in July, I leased a new one for three years. I like the car. I just don't trust the battery.

As for the manufacturer date on the first LEAF, I'm going to guess it was October 2011. Maybe someone else with a LEAF VIN in upper 15000s can check to confirm. How Fontana Nissan treated it for the month, or so, they owned it before I did, I don't know,

If anyone is interested, my first LEAF is still for sale:

http://www.huntervolvo.com/used/Nissan/2012-Nissan-LEAF-7d519e210a0a00e00051aee0a1587f22.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think it's worth $26,000, though.

You have to love the picture of the car's 48 miles GOM range on a nine-bar charge. The battery wasn't in great shape, but it wasn't that bad.

 

[surfingslovak]

I appreciate your suggestion, but hope you will understand that I feel like I have already updated my post to be as fair, thorough, accurate, and free of "opinion" as possible.

I'm sorry, but your post is anything but accurate, and free of opinion, despite the numerous edits made to it (which are appreciated). It still does not predict the range decline observed in the field in a realistic way. Although the write-up is based on the sparse publicly available information from Nissan, your article does by definition include a fair amount of interpretation.

I find it surprising that you would choose to speak on behalf of Nissan, where this large multinational corporation is perfectly capable of doing that itself, and would likely have done so, if the range test was completely wrong or presented misleading data.

None of us have access to the type of information available to Nissan staff, and our claims are always based on interpretation, original research, or our own data. I think the range test might have been misunderstood in the sense that it was not a scientific examination of traction batteries. It was supposed to demonstrate that some of these cars don't go as far as a new vehicle would. As we later found out, the results obtained for two of these cars were very close to what Nissan staff has reported to the owners after examining their batteries in a bench test at their Casa Grande facility. This is something you likely have heard before, but never acknowledged.

As to having empathy for affected owners, I wonder how anyone can claim that after saying the following. (Keep in mind that the owners could reportedly barely make it through the day on one charge, and this was possible before.)

In other words, rather than clarify that Nissan’s analyses showed that “The cars and the battery packs are behaving as we expected,” the Conveys still maintain that there is a capacity problem and postulate that the company might be trying to just get them to shut them up about it.

Again, no matter what those owners “believe,” this is not true according to the data gathered. There is no evidence that even the few exceptions to the general rule are solely due to the “high heat.” As Yarosh’s daily commute shows above, his capacity loss might very well fall within the parameters of “what Nissan expected.”

It should not matter if the battery was a problem or something else, like adequate communication, software, some of the gauges, or all of the above. Fact remains that owners would not complain this loudly if they did not feel that there was a qualitative change of behavior, which they did not anticipate. It is also true that several people tried to alert Nissan that a problem was brewing, well before it has escalated and was covered by the media. There was ample opportunity to address this issue, whatever its nature may be, early on.

For example, it would probably help explain why --with the same mileage on their odometers-- one Leaf tested in the middle of Nissan's scale, yet another fell notably below it.

As Andy Palmer publicly stated in his recent interview, climate does play a role, yet you continue to exclude it. Obviously, it's not the sole factor, but a factor nonetheless, and your interpretation of publicly available Nissan information will not be complete without it.

A small number of Nissan LEAF owners in Arizona are experiencing a greater than average battery capacity loss due to their unique usage cycle, which includes operating mileages that are higher than average in a high-temperature environment over a short period of time.

Click to open

 

[Yanquetino]

As Andy Palmer publicly stated in his interview, climate does play a role, yet you continue to exclude it. Obviously, it's not the sole factor, but a factor nonetheless, and your interpretation of publicly available Nissan information will not be complete without it.

Oh, George... that's simply not true. I have never excluded climate as one of the possible factors. As you well know, I have stated in other forums:

Yup, ’tis true that heat can also plays a role. No question. As Nissan’s disclaimer explicitly states: “Factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: exposure to very high ambient temperatures for extended periods of time.” I would even venture to guess that this might explain why only 1 of the test Leafs plotted above its error bar, 3 toward the middle, and 4 toward the bottom. Regardless, they nonetheless performed as Nissan anticipated.

I "would choose to speak on behalf of Nissan"? Uh... I thought I was just using the benchmarks and scale the automaker provided, and applying them to the test data. I don't presume to speak for the company. Are you referring to the quote I cited from Mark Perry's interview in which he said those Leafs "“are behaving as we expected”? We = Nissan; not me.

Sure I've seen the correlation between the Leafs with the worst achieved range and Nissan's own analyses. Makes sense: their range in the test plotted below Nissan's variance according to their mileage. What isn't explained --again-- is what specific, individual factors accelerated the capacity degradation in those outliers besides "heat" --since the majority of Leafs did not suffer similar capacity loss, even though the Arizona climate would/could/should affect them all.

And finally, yes: I do feel bad for the owners, as I think they deserved earlier, better, more open communication from Nissan as soon as those faulty gauges started losing capacity bars. Nonetheless, as I have also stated from the outset, I still opine that it made matters worse for them to take the issue to the media, especially when, despite Nissan's goodwill effort to buy back their cars, they make statements like "I think they're trying to get me to shut up, to be honest: keep my mouth shut.” Airing such accusations in front of the publc eye makes me also feel bad for Nissan. Both sides have my sympathy in this kerfuffle.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... As for "attacks" on me personally... I appreciate your reassurance and approach, but I think you and I both know that there are others who have resorted to such tactics.

Not sure who you are referring to, but if it's me, I would hope that you could stop bringing it up. I don't continue to make references to your opening salvos for continued drama.

Nissan should have addressed their concerns much earlier: it could have made a world of difference, and nipped all the bad publicity in the bud.

Why? I thought everything was normal, and fell within their data; it's just bad capacity bars (or software, or bad drivers, or too many miles on the freeway, etc).

it was only logical to assume that those capacity bars were reliable. That certainly would have been my default conclusion had I suddenly noticed that one was missing! However, now that the test results have shown that the gauges are indeed inaccurate, I would hope that at least some AZ owners will feel relieved and reassured to know that, as Nissan confirmed with its own analysis, their Leafs “are behaving as we expected.”

Heck, then "all is well". Where have I heard that before?

Hey, honestly, a word of advice. Don't run for "Phoenix LEAF President".... they pack heat down there!!

the average 80 miles in the middle of Nissan's 76-to-84 range estimate for a new Leaf. More importantly, I also include grey error bars to display the corresponding variance in that scale for each Leaf according to its mileage, top-to-bottom, high-to-low.

How do you account for heater and air conditioning use in your "official Nissan" data? Answer; you don't. It clearly was a bad move on my part to not have the 84 mile car (that we know will really go 88 miles) in the original test of Sept 15. The Nissan tech bulletin data was referenced to substantiate my missing data. Had I never posted that Nissan tech bulletin, you and Russ Finley would never have known of its existence. I would not have had to reference it had we had good cars.

We didn't. But, now we do.

Oh well, no surprise that when we do provide that data, that you're still stuck in back to the future.

For those who assert that only the top of those bars is valid, the challenge is to first convince Nissan --not me-- that their estimated 76-to-84 scale needs to be higher so that they can then prove that the AZ Leafs' ranges really were lower than the automaker anticipated.

News flash. Nissan knows exactly what these cars will do. You'll note, our data was NEVER challenged by them. Not a whimper.

We don't need to convince Nissan; we need to convince law makers, courts, etc. I think we'll do OK there, believe me. Next summer will be a LEAF slaughter in hot climates, IMHO. This summer is only the first volley.

if they are successful in convincing Nissan to raise their range scale, I will gladly alter my tables and graphs accordingly.

A perfect example of "proving Nissan right, no matter what the facts". Facts are facts... whether Nissan says them, or not, doesn't change the facts.

For all of us who can see through the smoke screen, honestly, what is your motivation? It appears that the efforts are merely to deflect away from the facts, and gain brownie points with those who are the "official" stalwarts of the EV movement. Hey, I'm sure I'm wrong... right?

 

[TonyWilliams]

... earlier, better, more open communication from Nissan as soon as those faulty gauges started losing capacity bars. Nonetheless, as I have also stated from the outset, I still opine that it made matters worse for them to take the issue to the media, especially when, despite Nissan's goodwill effort to buy back their cars, they make statements like "I think they're trying to get me to shut up, to be honest: keep my mouth shut.” Airing such accusations in front of the publc eye makes me also feel bad for Nissan. Both sides have my sympathy in this kerfuffle.

Good Gawd... there's no hope here, uh?

Nissan didn't go out and make this right. The folks who made media appearances, and raised hell, got results from Nissan afterwards.

Poor Nissan. Who knew? They were just pumping out battery chemistry that doesn't do well in heat, and selling it in places with a LOT of heat.

Gosh, faulty gauges. Nothing wrong with those batteries, eh? I know there's people reading your "stuff" and thinking you're just a paid puppet for Nissan, but I don't agree. I think you're an unpaid parrot. (oh, ****, I'll be accused of name calling here... it's a characterization, not a name... thanks all).

 

[TomT]

Give me a break! :roll:

... earlier, better, more open communication from Nissan as soon as those faulty gauges started losing capacity bars. Nonetheless, as I have also stated from the outset, I still opine that it made matters worse for them to take the issue to the media, especially when, despite Nissan's goodwill effort to buy back their cars, they make statements like "I think they're trying to get me to shut up, to be honest: keep my mouth shut.” Airing such accusations in front of the publc eye makes me also feel bad for Nissan.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Give me a break! :roll:

... earlier, better, more open communication from Nissan as soon as those faulty gauges started losing capacity bars.

I won't miss any of this BS with the Rav4 !!!

:mrgreen: :ugeek: :roll:

 

[Biodiversivist]

While I suspect both Yanquentino and Russ Finley will have any number of exceptions with this, ...I agree, great idea, but the Mark Larsens and Russ Finleys of the world would find fault.

Making mountains out of mole hills.

Are you hoping to deflect critique by repeatedly mentioning our names?

Anyone interested in reality, read this comment under this article.

If the published spec overstated the car's capacity, you might have a beef. Your argument is that Nissan’s published performance specifications undershoot all new car's actual capacity (as if there would be something wrong with that if it were true). A test with a single data point is meaningless. You need to hire a statistician and build a statistically significant sample size.

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
Are you another instance of OrientExpresss? He tried to make a similar argument.

It's ridiculous to compare the population of Leafs in AZ vs. the total and claim there's "no problem". It IS a problem for those in hot climates like Phoenix, AZ and TX. Others in hot climates (and a few in not so hot climates) have also lost battery capacity.

Unless something is done, I'm pretty sure we're going to see another wave of battery capacity losers in those hot climates next summer as new cars reach the one year mark and others have theirs age another year. The cycle will repeat... Meanwhile, those in mild climates (e.g. San Francisco, Western WA, Portland, etc.) will see MUCH slower degradation, even w/higher mileage than their AZ/hot climate counterparts.

 

[surfingslovak]

Making mountains out of mole hills.

Are you another instance of OrientExpresss? He tried to make a similar argument.

Welcome, Russ. Good on you to join the party. Quite a week, and it's not even summer.

Click to open

 

[TomT]

Alas, I'm certain it will have its own brand and type of BS...

I won't miss any of this BS with the Rav4 !!!

 

[surfingslovak]

Jack posted this in the ActiveE group earlier today, but the proper place for this gem is in this thread, I believe.

 

[edatoakrun]

Four weeks now since anyone has reported a capacity bar loss.

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

Obviously, "capacity" bars have high ambient temperature exposure as a major (or the major) cause, rather than reflecting actual total battery capacity. And Ticktock's observation of wh/gid variability (hotter batteries having more wh per gid) from last Fall and Winter now seems to have been confirmed by many others. More recently:

It appears I may be seeing a slight increase in my range on a 100% charge, too. However, it is small enough that the fact I no longer have the AC running could explain it. The 74 high out-lyer is the 64mph constant speed test drive I did with Tony. The low 55 value was at my lowest efficiency ever (3.9mpkWh).

His entire log is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An7gtcYL2Oy0dHNwVmRkNkFnaEVOQTVENW5mOTZlb0E&pli=1#gid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I have been suggesting for quite a while now, I think it is time to leave the "rapid battery degradation" hysteria behind us, and move on to rationally address what I think is the major unanswered question about LEAF battery capacity, whether the BMS varies available SOC levels. If many more can confirm TickTock's observations of constant (or increasing) kWh charge or range with cooler battery temperatures, when they should be declining, then I think the only likely explanation is that the BMS is limiting battery pack access, correlating to higher temperature (and perhaps other variables)presumably to protect the battery from rapid degradation.

A real shame, IMO, that some are apparently still trying to do range tests without monitoring the recharge capacity, now that we know capacity bars, gid reports, and kW use reports from the LEAF itself are all highly inaccurate.

TonyWilliams:

...News flash. Nissan knows exactly what these cars will do. You'll note, our data was NEVER challenged by them. Not a whimper...

For whatever reason, Nissan has decided to give LEAF drivers the "mushroom treatment" regarding the facts of battery capacity.

Tony's various efforts being such a major source of nourishment for this project, I hardly think it should surprise anyone that Nissan wants to keep the compost production maintained at the current high rate.

 

[Pipcecil]

well to add more fuel to the fire with the guage is faulty - please oh please describe this to me:

I go to me in-laws about once every 2 weeks (sometimes every weekend and sometimes on the weekdays too). Same drive, every time through hot weather, cold weather, ice (yes we get some in texas), etc. I assume, like most Leaf owners, we predict our range via how many bars it takes round trip to get to a place: 3 bars to Cedar Hill, 6 bars to Mansfield, 5 bars to my in-laws.

5 bars to my in-laws - very predictable, every time. 5 bars in the Texas summer with A/C full blast. 6 bars with heat/ice or strong headwind.

Last weekend - 70 degrees, no wind, no accidents, same trip, no A/C or heat - 8 bars. yes 8. A very very large difference. And this was a repeat of the previous visit - 9 bars (it was only partially charged so I just round down to 8).

Yup - my battery is just fine and my capacity gauge is all wrong. its my imagination its taking so much of my fuel to get to my in-laws despite the trip being completed numerous times.

Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong can buy my car - its only 1.4 years old! I mean its almost new, right?