Hi, Stoaty:
I applied the data from your table for Phoenix to plot its corresponding polynomial curve for battery loss over time. Compared to
my own graph that uses Nissan's generic 5- and 10-year benchmarks, It differs significantly, as you can see:
If your model is correct, the 80% and 70% capacity losses certainly do occur
much earlier, because your proposed 1.81 aging factor for Phoenix drops the curve much lower and at a faster rate. Indeed, the model projects a 70% capacity several months before Nissan anticipates even 80%.
I am still puzzled, however, when I see how your model's curve applies to the ranges achieved in the owners' test. To compare projections, I have overlaid your model's polynomial curve on top of my own graph of those ranges. We can see that your model's
purple curve does indeed plot lower and drops faster than Nissan's
green curve:
As for the ranges achieved in the test, the 2 red outliers are still notably below your curve; 1 Leaf is barely below it; 2 are on top of it; and... 7 Leafs are above it. It therefore seems to me that, despite what their faulty gauges were predicting, most of the Leafs tested actually achieved
better ranges than one might expect in Phoenix using your Battery Aging Model...?
As you can see, these are the same 7 Leafs, curiously enough, that fell within their corresponding error bars of Nissan's projected ranges in my analysis.
May have been helped by running down further into the pack than I normally do - Monday I really hammered it on the drives to and from work, getting home with just 10.6%/50 Gids remaining.
