Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[dhanson865]

Maybe an Illinois MNL forum member who has the Leaf Battery App could go out to the dealership and check out the capacity numbers if you're really interested in it, because with 3 bars down, it probably won't be long till it hits the 4th bar loss and then it would qualify for a warranty replacement.

Honestly I don't trust the battery replacement warranty as a down the road concept.

If I bought a 2 or 3 bar loser and didn't lose the 4th bar until after the 5 yr / 60,000 mile mark I'm on the hook for a battery lease that is very expensive.

If I bought a 2 or 3 bar loser and lose the 4th bar before then I still might get screwed by Nissan in some change of policy or some exclusion in the fine print.

I'd be more interested in taking those risks at half that price but I'm not risking $18,000 on Nissan's battery replacement schemes as I understand them now and I don't trust Nissan in general.

I do still want a used Leaf but at that price I'm thinking it needs to have 11 or 12 bars remaining and no history of being in a warm environment.

As is I'll wait for Leafs to drop in price more on the used market after people start having to lease batteries and those negative stories make the news / word of mouth circuits.

But honestly if the news is too negative it might even scare me away and I'll end up with another Prius. Best case for me is the news is scary for the people in high heat environments but not so scary for my area and I can get a good leaf that never needs a leased battery.

 

[pchilds]

And less so even is some relatively "benign" climates such as areas of Southern California... (I'm still waiting for that tapering off of degradation that Nissan promised us...)

A Leaf style BEV makes lots of sense in the PNW, less so in AZ.

If you want the degradation to tapering off, keep the battery in your fridge.

 

[TonyWilliams]

But, why make the Phoenix market one of their first roll-out markets, if they suspected a heat-related issue with the batteries? Did Nissan really not know they had an issue with the batteries?

My gut feeling, after very briefly getting the Cliff's Notes version second hand from Casa Grande Nissan LEAF engineer Craig Pike was that the cars were tested (in part, by him) and all was well.

Now, is that what he and his colleagues and superiors sent upstream to Nissan management? Or, was this the standard line of BS to tell the public? Obviously, I have no way to know, but I do know that they tested a lot of cars for 30 days at a time. I have no idea how many cars were tested for a year or more in the desert heat before the launch of the car. We may never know.

Also, make no mistake, there are folks within Nissan who really don't like this car, and think it will be a failure. So, this is "way out there" thinking, but it is possible that somebody knew what would happen if the car were launched in Phoenix, particularly first, and welcomed the outcome.

But, having said that, remember, NOBODY with intimate knowledge of this chemistry in the industry thought no TMS was a good idea, so that wasn't a secret. GM went overboard with protection of the Volt battery, and that chemistry is virtually the same as LEAF. The LEAF is the only car of the many out there now without a TMS of some kind; they knew they were the only one.

Nissan and GM; two large companies, two similar batteries, virtually opposite controls of SOC% used and temperature control. Elon Musk was public about this battery failing in heat and it potentially being bad for HIS fledging car company.

So, my opinion is still that Nissan DID know, because they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know. Why launch in Phoenix. Arrogance?

 

[scottf200]

It's sad that we're so numbed by this, it's not even big news. Oh, another trashed LEAF battery... yep, sounds about right.

It never was big news. The expectations were unrealistic. Lots of wishful thinking. Hot climates were going to be a problem, Arrhenius's equation isn't new. A Leaf style BEV makes lots of sense in the PNW, less so in AZ.

The expectations were what Nissan told us. Frankly, I was sold, because it surely didn't make sense to me that they would launch a whole new product without solid data. As it turns out, the $1.6 billion from Uncle Sugar required that it be rolled out, ready or not, by Dec 31, 2012 in the USA. Plus, all those high profit margin Altimas and other Nissan products enjoy rolling down the factory in Tennessee that was refurbished with Recovery Act tax dollars intended for EVs. You do know that a LEAF only uses the Tennessee factory assembly line once every 15 minutes, right?

Why did it have to have 100 mile range? Marketing primarily, of course, but the CARB-ZEV credit sales are HUGE in this game. A 100 mile range car with "fast refueling" is worth 4 credits per car, and a simple "75-100" range car is worth only 2.5. That's 62% greater potential income per car for the credits.

So, even if ALL the batteries failed in 12 months, those cars were going to get built!!!

Seems strange that the CARB-ZEV credit sales (4 vs 2.5) are not tied to the USA EPA mileage figures.

VERY interesting point about the Dec 31, 2012 date requirement.

 

[cwerdna]

The expectations were what Nissan told us. Frankly, I was sold, because it surely didn't make sense to me that they would launch a whole new product without solid data. As it turns out, the $1.6 billion from Uncle Sugar required that it be rolled out, ready or not, by Dec 31, 2012 in the USA. Plus, all those high profit margin Altimas and other Nissan products enjoy rolling down the factory in Tennessee that was refurbished with Recovery Act tax dollars intended for EVs. You do know that a LEAF only uses the Tennessee factory assembly line once every 15 minutes, right?

Why did it have to have 100 mile range? Marketing primarily, of course, but the CARB-ZEV credit sales are HUGE in this game. A 100 mile range car with "fast refueling" is worth 4 credits per car, and a simple "75-100" range car is worth only 2.5. That's 62% greater potential income per car for the credits.

So, even if ALL the batteries failed in 12 months, those cars were going to get built!!!

Yep. Nissan definitely did set a bunch of expectations thru a bunch of channels. And yes, I think many of us figured that if they said the batteries didn't need TMS, they had data to back it up, given their test facility in AZ.

Back to 100 miles, I have an old printed brochure in front of me for the '11 Leaf that says "100 miles" of range per charge. There is a footnote mentions "Based upon US EPA LA4 city cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... (and a bunch of other stuff)" But OTOH, I hadn't realized that it tied into that much value of ZEV credit.

My gut feeling, after very briefly getting the Cliff's Notes version second hand from Casa Grande Nissan LEAF engineer Craig Pike was that the cars were tested (in part, by him) and all was well.

Now, is that what he and his colleagues and superiors sent upstream to Nissan management? Or, was this the standard line of BS to tell the public? Obviously, I have no way to know, but I do know that they tested a lot of cars for 30 days at a time. I have no idea how many cars were tested for a year or more in the desert heat before the launch of the car. We may never know.
...
So, my opinion is still that Nissan DID know, because they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know. Why launch in Phoenix. Arrogance?

Yep. Definitely a lot of unknowns to us outsiders.

Perhaps the above is true or perhaps some people down below didn't want to pass along the bad news re: degradation results in AZ (prior to Leafs going on sale) to their superiors? Or, they knew it would be a problem but had no choice but to go ahead w/o TMS as retrofitting and re-engineering would be too expensive/delay the project too much? If they knew, it still puzzles me as to why they launched (and made available for sale) in Phoenix and other hot climates anyway...

I wonder how many LEAF buyers know anything about Arrhenius' equations.

I'm not a buyer (only leasing and am not in Phoenix), but I suspect 90+% of buyers never heard of them. I'd never heard of them until the Phoenix capacity loss issues came up. I suspect that at least 80% of buyers now still haven't heard of them.

 

[TickTock]

I wonder how many LEAF buyers know anything about Arrhenius' equations.

I'm not a buyer (only leasing and am not in Phoenix), but I suspect 90+% of buyers never heard of them. I'd never heard of them until the Phoenix capacity loss issues came up. I suspect that at least 80% of buyers now still haven't heard of them.

I am a buyer and from Phoenix and only vaguely remembered Arrhenius' law by name (although I was well aware of the exponential dependency on temperature for chemical reactions). Call me an optimist, but I am still hopeful that in a couple years no one will have to know Arrhenius' law (they'll get the activation energy for whatever process is causing the degradation high enough to meet expectations).

 

[WetEV]

But, having said that, remember, NOBODY with intimate knowledge of this chemistry in the industry thought no TMS was a good idea, so that wasn't a secret. GM went overboard with protection of the Volt battery, and that chemistry is virtually the same as LEAF. The LEAF is the only car of the many out there now without a TMS of some kind; they knew they were the only one.

Nissan and GM; two large companies, two similar batteries, virtually opposite controls of SOC% used and temperature control. Elon Musk was public about this battery failing in heat and it potentially being bad for HIS fledging car company.

So, my opinion is still that Nissan DID know, because they would have to have their heads in the sand not to know. Why launch in Phoenix. Arrogance?

No TMS is a good idea for the PNW. Battery life should be longer, cost is lower... Most of the summer my battery would be hotter with a TMS than without one. Yesterday I hit 6 TB just before I got home, for the 5th time of this year. OAT was a scorching 81F.

But yes, I'm puzzled. Why Phoenix?

 

[vrwl]

Back to 100 miles, I have an old printed brochure in front of me for the '11 Leaf that says "100 miles" of range per charge. There is a footnote mentions "Based upon US EPA LA4 city cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... (and a bunch of other stuff)" But OTOH, I hadn't realized that it tied into that much value of ZEV credit.

I wonder how many LEAF buyers know anything about Arrhenius' equations.

I'm not a buyer (only leasing and am not in Phoenix), but I suspect 90+% of buyers never heard of them. I'd never heard of them until the Phoenix capacity loss issues came up. I suspect that at least 80% of buyers now still haven't heard of them.

Nissan is STILL advertising 100 miles range with the same footnote. See these pictures I took at the Don Davis Nissan dealership in Arlington, TX on 4/20/2013. And no, I had never heard of Arrhenius equations until I came here to this forum.

 

[WetEV]

Call me an optimist, but I am still hopeful that in a couple years no one will have to know Arrhenius' law (they'll get the activation energy for whatever process is causing the degradation high enough to meet expectations).

Even with a much improved battery, there will still be more than a three to one ratio between best case and worse case battery life due strictly to outside air temperature. Will still be useful knowledge, at least as far as to know that avoiding hot places is a good idea for battery life.

 

[TickTock]

Call me an optimist, but I am still hopeful that in a couple years no one will have to know Arrhenius' law (they'll get the activation energy for whatever process is causing the degradation high enough to meet expectations).

Even with a much improved battery, there will still be more than a three to one ratio between best case and worse case battery life due strictly to outside air temperature. Will still be useful knowledge, at least as far as to know that avoiding hot places is a good idea for battery life.

True, but if the battery lasts 20 years instead of 2 in Phoenix then the difference between 20yrs and 60yrs is less of a problem. Lets assume the current difference in degradation rate is, indeed, 3:1 between Boston and Phoenix. If so, taking into account Boston average temperature is about 4% cooler than Phoenix (Kelvin) we can compute Ea/RT=~27 in Phoenix (303K degrees average). To get a 10X improvement in battery life (reduce the reaction rate by 10X), Ea need only be increased 8.5%. Theses are rough calculations but I am trying to illustrate the the exponent can work in our favor - a small change can result in a dramatically improved owner satisfaction level. This is why I am an optimist. However, I'm not a chemist and I'm guessing 8.5% is not an easy task.

 

[TomT]

I was thinking about one of those large drive-ins... :lol:

If you want the degradation to tapering off, keep the battery in your fridge.

 

[TomT]

Who knew that southern California would be a "hot place" in Leaf Land...

Even with a much improved battery, there will still be more than a three to one ratio between best case and worse case battery life due strictly to outside air temperature. Will still be useful knowledge, at least as far as to know that avoiding hot places is a good idea for battery life.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Ticktock: they'll get the activation energy for whatever process is causing the degradation high enough to meet expectations.

Don't quite understand, what you mean. Can you please elaborate ?

thanks
Jay

 

[TickTock]

Truth is, I don't really either. I know math. Chemistry.. not so much. My points were based on analysis of the, now famous, Arrhenius' law. Yes degradation rate has an exponential increase with temperature, but it is also exponentially related to activation energy which is specific to the process at hand. Tweaking the battery chemistry to increase the required energy to cause degradation even slightly will dramatically increase the battery life.

Ticktock: they'll get the activation energy for whatever process is causing the degradation high enough to meet expectations.

Don't quite understand, what you mean. Can you please elaborate ?

thanks
Jay

 

[surfingslovak]

Truth is, I don't really either. I know math. Chemistry.. not so much. My points were based on analysis of the, now famous, Arrhenius' law. Yes degradation rate has an exponential increase with temperature, but it is also exponentially related to activation energy which is specific to the process at hand. Tweaking the battery chemistry to increase the required energy to cause degradation even slightly will dramatically increase the battery life.

Yes, we can absolutely expect a tweak in the chemistry. There were some recent R&D reports about the benefits of adding sulfur to electrolyte, for example. Bottom line is that the LMO chemistry is one of the safest available, but it is also known for its susceptibility to heat, in expert circles at least. Based on the messaging, one would have assumed that Nissan has tweaked the chemistry before introducing the LEAF to the market. I don't think that anyone expected to see batteries hitting EOL after 2.5 years in Phoenix, and I recall only one source using a 2-year life target. More importantly, based on Arrhenius law and the showing in Phoenix, one can expect first batteries hitting EOL after four years in SoCal, five years in the Bay Area and six years in Seattle. It would appear that very few will see 20% capacity loss in ten years, which part of the original advertising at market launch.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

I don't think that anyone expected to see batteries hitting EOL after 2.5 years in Phoenix, and I recall only one source using a 2-year life target. More importantly, based on Arrhenius law, we can expect first batteries hitting EOL after four years in SoCal, five years in the Bay Area and six years in Seattle. It would appear that very few will see 20% capacity loss in ten years, which part of the original advertising at market launch.

Seesm like it caught Nissan by surprise. I wonder how Nissan will deal with all the leases ending with worn out batteries. Not good financially for them. Will hurt the reputation of the Leaf, Nissan and EVs. Will be a glut of otherwise good cars with worn out batteries. Seems that GM might be taking a bath selling the Volt but Nissan will be taking a bath dealing with lease returns and warranty fulfillment. Maybe Nissan figures batteries will be cheaper later so its better to make the money now and delay the loss.

 

[surfingslovak]

Maybe Nissan figures batteries will be cheaper later so its better to make the money now and delay the loss.

Yes, possibly! I think the question upthread about the decision makers knowing or not knowing about the implications is a valid one. Perhaps they wanted to be on the market first and knowing that the technology is improving rapidly, deal with any fallout later, when it's easier to do so. It's difficult for a bystander to rationalize these decisions.

 

[TomT]

The only problem with that scenario is that it can take MUCH longer to overcome the bad-will that results from such actions. I, for one, am MUCH less likely to recommend a LEAF to anyone now than I was when I first got mine 29 months ago... Nissan is going to have to make some serious changes to make it back on to my recommended list, let alone my buy list...

Maybe Nissan figures batteries will be cheaper later so its better to make the money now and delay the loss.

Yes, possibly! I think the question upthread about the decision makers knowing or not knowing about the implications is a valid one. Perhaps they wanted to be on the market first and knowing that the technology is improving rapidly, deal with any fallout later, when it's easier to do so. It's difficult for a bystander to rationalize these decisions.

 

[shrink]

Yes, possibly! I think the question upthread about the decision makers knowing or not knowing about the implications is a valid one. Perhaps they wanted to be on the market first and knowing that the technology is improving rapidly, deal with any fallout later, when it's easier to do so. It's difficult for a bystander to rationalize these decisions.

I'm pretty sure Nissan knew. I posted this in another thread: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&p=309431#p309431" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the relevant text from that post:

Below is a quote from a post by Charles Whalen over at gm-volt on 10/4/2010 - almost 3 years ago! It is amazingly prescient:

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5243-Volt-thermal-management-system-temperature-band&p=43641#post4364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nissan knows and acknowledges that they’re going to have to replace battery packs early, under warranty, in hot climates. (I’ve been in meetings with fleet customers in hot climates where I’ve seen Nissan tell them to expect a 4 to 5 year battery pack life, which is why Nissan is urging them to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease, rather than purchase.) Nissan has done their own financial cost-benefit/trade-off analysis whereby they determined that it will be cheaper for them to replace a few battery packs early, under warranty, in those few hot-climate areas of the country, for those few customers who don’t take the hint to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease rather than purchase, than it would have been for them to design, engineer, develop, and manufacture a sophisticated and relatively expensive active-cooled TMS, especially when most of the country probably won’t need it (as much). (It’s just in really hot climates where the economics strongly favor going with an active-cooled TMS.) For Nissan, it was simply a cold, hard-nosed business decision.

 

[RickS]

Well, I only had 10 bars for a grand total of 57 days 1,535 miles. I left for vacation last week and got back to nine bars yesterday at 24,357 miles. It's looking more like I'll possibly get some more range before the summer is out.