Good news on range and battery health!

[AmpUpCO]

Fellow Leafers!

Finally, some good news on range and battery health!

But first some background:

I took possession of my 2012 Leaf in January of 2012
I live in metro Denver, CO (Minimal - 400 ft elevation between home & work |up, heading to work / down, home|)
40 mile RT commute: 24 City (Av. 45 mph) / 16 Hwy (Av. 60 mph)
For the majority of this year, I've charged (L2) to 80% each evening.
No Start Timer set. End Timer set to 1/2 hour before my departure on weekdays. 8:00am weekends.
I drive primarily in ECO mode.
Longterm Average miles/kWh: 5.0
I use A/C liberally, but Heater/Defrost - especially because I was an early Leaf adopter who took possession of the car in January - very sparingly.
I've logged 9,900 miles
All 12 capacity bars remaining.

Today, I had a welcomed surprise! I made my commute using just 4 fuel bars - a feat I had not experienced since the early days of ownership.

The only factors I can identify are cooler weather - and perhaps a battery balance this weekend.

We're finally seeing consistent nighttime temperatures in the 40s, and this past weekend I didn't drive the Leaf at all - a first since pulling out of the dealership 10 months ago. I plugged in Friday evening at 6PM, and unplugged Monday morning at 7AM.

Note: I have the Aerovironment EVSE and do not have a GID meter, so I cannot confirm that the battery balance took place, but I can only assume it did. Normally, I arrive home with 3-4 bars remaining - around 25 miles on the GOM. Today: 6 bars remaining and 40 miles on the GOM. I was tickled!!

We hit 7 bars on the battery temp gauge in mid-summer, but since the start of October, 5 bars are the norm.

I've had nothing but joy behind the wheel of this car! It has performed exactly as I had hoped it would.
All I wanted was a reliable car to get me safely to work and home. For that task, it's passed with flying colors.

But any decently made new car can accomplish that.

I bought the Leaf because I wanted to prove to the world that an electric vehicle can get the job done. Everytime I push the start button, I grin at the fact that not a drop of oil was used to move me on my way. Certainly, I'm contributing to GHG emissions, but not as much as an ICE, and the energy used was produced domestically.

Environmental benefits aside, this car is a blast to drive! Quiet as a whisper, smooth as glass, and pull-your-cheeks-back fast off the line!

Many posters have had real concerns with battery health, and those concerns are troubling for all of us who own or lease a Leaf. I simply hope my post may let other potential Leaf owners know that if the climate is right and your driving needs fall within the cars - comfortable 60 - 70 mile range - the Leaf is a truly remarkable vehicle.

Take the plunge with your eyes opened. This forum is an invaluable resource. I read for weeks before making my final decision. I truly believe that the future of transportation is electric, and for me, that future cannot come quickly enough.

Happy driving!

 

[adric22]

There are plenty of other folks who have had no battery health issues. I count myself among them and I live in a hot climate. In fact, I think there are more of us than there are people complaining of lost capacity. I've had my car 18 months and 15,000 miles. I have all 12 bars and the capacity seems to be about right where it is supposed to be. I think I may have lost 5 miles of range, but it is hard to say.

 

[mkjayakumar]

This is interesting. You are the first one I know of in the DFW area that has 15k miles and has seen two summers and don't have more than 10% loss.

 

[TomT]

Conversely, there are also people who live in moderately temperate climates who HAVE had battery health issues...

There are plenty of other folks who have had no battery health issues.

 

[Luft]

Conversely, there are also people who live in moderately temperate climates who HAVE had battery health issues...

There are plenty of other folks who have had no battery health issues.

I think there is some question about if it's a battery problem or a problem with the electronics that is reporting the state of charge. EV TV talked a little about it and even mentioned Tony's test. They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

 

[surfingslovak]

They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

Please, with all due respect, I don't think that Jack had all his facts straight. Although there usually is a kernel of truth, I would not give too much credence to everything he says. Disclaimer: I followed all recent EVTV episodes closely, and I was at PADT in Phoenix on September 15 and 16.

 

[TomT]

In my case, I know how far I used to be able to go on routes I drive frequently, versus how far I can go now, and the loss of range I have at this point roughly correlates with the displayed loss of battery capacity. That is all that really matters to me - what I experience in the real world

Conversely, there are also people who live in moderately temperate climates who HAVE had battery health issues...

There are plenty of other folks who have had no battery health issues.

I think there is some question about if it's a battery problem or a problem with the electronics that is reporting the state of charge. EV TV talked a little about it and even mentioned Tony's test. They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

 

[TonyWilliams]

EV TV talked a little about it and even mentioned Tony's test. They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

That's ok, I wasn't too impressed with his reporting.

 

[Luft]

They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

Please, with all due respect, I don't think that Jack had all his facts straight. Although there usually is a kernel of truth, I would not give too much credence to everything he says. Disclaimer: I followed all recent EVTV episodes closely, and I was at PADT in Phoenix on September 15 and 16.

I don't hang on every word from Jack's mouth. He also suggested that Tesla could turn their Super Chargers into cash cows by selling stuff at those locations like gas stations do. The problem with that of course is that if you can only charge one or two vehicles at a time and that takes half an hour you're not going to sell very much stuff on any given day.

That said, I can see how if the electronics is reporting a low battery charge, the car could go into turtle mode very early and give the appearance that the battery had lost capacity. I wasn't there so I don't know if Tony's tests prove anything or not. Almost everyone knows more about batteries than I do so I'll leave it to other's to sort it all out.

 

[Caracalover]

They were not impressed with how the test was done and stated that the data actually supported the faulty electronics theory.

Please, with all due respect, I don't think that Jack had all his facts straight. Although there usually is a kernel of truth, I would not give too much credence to everything he says. Disclaimer: I followed all recent EVTV episodes closely, and I was at PADT in Phoenix on September 15 and 16.

I don't hang on every word from Jack's mouth. He also suggested that Tesla could turn their Super Chargers into cash cows by selling stuff at those locations like gas stations do. The problem with that of course is that if you can only charge one or two vehicles at a time and that takes half an hour you're not going to sell very much stuff on any given day.

That said, I can see how if the electronics is reporting a low battery charge, the car could go into turtle mode very early and give the appearance that the battery had lost capacity. I wasn't there so I don't know if Tony's tests prove anything or not. Almost everyone knows more about batteries than I do so I'll leave it to other's to sort it all out.

I'm with you on battery knowledge, but if a car with two lost capacity bars went further than some of those with all 12 capacity bars it states very clearly to me that individual results will vary. On my long Sunday commute i used to see the low battery warning, and now after I lost a capacity bar I don't get the LBW. So I am happier with the new instumentation and I am percieving it as a minor issue with a great car. Coming up on 23,000 oil free miles!

 

[surfingslovak]

I'm with you on battery knowledge, but if a car with two lost capacity bars went further than some of those with all 12 capacity bars it states very clearly to me that individual results will vary.

There was no such car, at least not to my knowledge.

I believe that Tony misread couple of entries from the results sheet and had a vehicle at 79 miles, when in reality it went 75. That's unfortunate, but considering everything that went into organizing the test, this is just a minor glitch. The most important takeaway is that none of the cars went 84 miles, not even the control cars. This is a level of performance we can reasonably expect, and which was independently demonstrated earlier this year in very similar conditions and ambient temperature by Jay in Plano, TX.

In addition to Rick's EVTV episode, I would recommend watching Tony's interview with Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield and John Volcker on Transport Evolved. I think it will answer many of your questions.


Click to open

 

[davewill]

... That said, I can see how if the electronics is reporting a low battery charge, the car could go into turtle mode very early and give the appearance that the battery had lost capacity. I wasn't there so I don't know if Tony's tests prove anything or not. Almost everyone knows more about batteries than I do so I'll leave it to other's to sort it all out.

Tony didn't make that determination. The point of the test was whether, from the owner's POV, the car was indeed traveling less on a full charge than it did when new. He showed that pretty clearly which puts the ball back in Nissan's court. If it turns out that Nissan made a mistake in their software and can restore the missing range, we'd all be pretty happy.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... That said, I can see how if the electronics is reporting a low battery charge, the car could go into turtle mode very early and give the appearance that the battery had lost capacity. I wasn't there so I don't know if Tony's tests prove anything or not. Almost everyone knows more about batteries than I do so I'll leave it to other's to sort it all out.

Tony didn't make that determination. The point of the test was whether, from the owner's POV, the car was indeed traveling less on a full charge than it did when new. He showed that pretty clearly which puts the ball back in Nissan's court. If it turns out that Nissan made a mistake in their software and can restore the missing range, we'd all be pretty happy.

Exactly. We tested the product in its entirety, not just a battery on wheels. If the software is bad, I'll look forward to it being fixed.

To believe that the battery is not to blame with Nissan's implementation in hot climates without TMS, or their failure to tell customers about 7500 mile per year index for degradation, or all the battery and EV experts who suggested this was a bad idea before Nissan made even one LEAF...

Sure, just discount all that, then I'm sure it's software.

No, you weren't there for the test... But what would be different if you were? I wasn't on the moon when we "alledgedly" landed there, and neither was 99.9999999999999999999% of the human race.

 

[Luft]

No, you weren't there for the test... But what would be different if you were? I wasn't on the moon when we "alledgedly" landed there, and neither was 99.9999999999999999999% of the human race.

I'm not sure what the point of that last remark is except that maybe your ego got bruised. I certainly didn't intend to do that.

I'll tell you what difference it may have made if I was involved. If you were trying to show battery capacity loss and were counting on the car not lying to you, I would have picked up on it. I'm VERY good at certain things and that's one of them. I'm no genius but according to IQ tests I am "extremely gifted." Not a brag just what I've been told.

So, I apologise if I hurt your feelings. I wasn't there so I don't know if your tests prove anything or not.

 

[surfingslovak]

I wasn't there so I don't know if your tests prove anything or not.

Luft, point taken, but please keep in mind that this is the exact language used by Nissan PR. Verbatim. I can only speak for myself, but it did have negative connotations for me, even though I tried to put it aside. Battery degradation is clearly the white elephant in the room, but I don't believe that proving it was the main objective. If it was, then a bench test with proper lab instrumentation would likely have been better suited for that.

In regards to data collection, several of us suggested recording pack voltages as a source of truth. Although this was done, the numbers are not available for all cars, as many of the drivers were not all that familiar with Gid meters. I think many people were also quite tired, having worked through the entire night. And again, if the main objective was to show battery degradation, this type of data would have been emphasized more.

Is there something specific you would have focused on if you had participated in the test?

 

[Luft]

I wasn't there so I don't know if your tests prove anything or not.

Luft, point taken, but please keep in mind that this is the exact language used by Nissan PR. Verbatim. I can only speak for myself, but it did have negative connotations for me, even though I tried to put it aside. Battery degradation is clearly the white elephant in the room, but I don't believe that proving it was the main objective. If it was, then a bench test with proper lab instrumentation would likely have been better suited for that.

In regards to data collection, several of us suggested recording pack voltages as a source of truth. Although this was done, the numbers are not available for all cars, as many of the drivers were not all that familiar with Gid meters. I think many people were also quite tired, having worked through the entire night. And again, if the main objective was to show battery degradation, this type of data would have been emphasized more.

Is there something specific you would have focused on if you had participated in the test?

I guess I didn't understand the point of the test. I assumed that it was to determine if the battery capacity had diminished. That appears to be what Tony is claiming in the interview linked to earlier in this thread.

Please don't get me wrong. I lean toward the battery capacity being the reason for the reduced range but I don't think that Tony's test proved it. Remember that if the electronics is lying you can't believe anything the car is telling you. That means that the Gid meter readings can't be trusted because (as I understand it) that piece of equipment is just reading messages that the car is sending and those messages may not be telling the truth.

Phil would be a better person to talk to than me about how to determine the real state of charge. I would think it would require dropping the battery pack and directly measuring voltages.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I guess I didn't understand the point of the test. I assumed that it was to determine if the battery capacity had diminished. That appears to be what Tony is claiming in the interview linked to earlier in this thread.

We measured vehicle range, not batteries. We werent measuring Gid readings to provide an answer; quite the contrary. How would you explain why one car went 59 miles, and another went 79 miles in controlled conditions? Answer: battery capacity.

One point I will bring up is that the objectives of our test have been met. The word is out, and Nissan has taken back 4 out of 12 cars tested.

 

[Luft]

I guess I didn't understand the point of the test. I assumed that it was to determine if the battery capacity had diminished. That appears to be what Tony is claiming in the interview linked to earlier in this thread.

We measured vehicle range, not batteries. We werent measuring Gid readings to provide an answer; quite the contrary. How would you explain why one car went 59 miles, and another went 79 miles in controlled conditions? Answer: battery capacity.

One point I will bring up is that the objectives of our test have been met. The word is out, and Nissan has taken back 4 out of 12 cars tested.

I think that battery capacity is the most likely answer but it's not the only possible answer.

The LEAF has electronics that is designed to provide an on board computer information about the battery pack's state of charge. If those electronics are giving erroneous information, that could effect the range. The LEAF is programmed to go into turtle mode and completely shut down to protect the battery pack if the state of charge falls too low. If the electronics (not the software) erroneously put low state of charge information onto the CAN bus the LEAF's on board computer may react and shut down the vehicle when in reality the battery still contains a significant amount of charge.

I'm glad that Nissan is taking some cars back. They may be doing so just to avoid bad PR or they may have reversed their position and agree with the battery capacity theory. Personally I hope that they are right about it being faulty electronics rather than an overly heat sensitive battery pack.

 

[cwerdna]

I think that battery capacity is the most likely answer but it's not the only possible answer.

The LEAF has electronics that is designed to provide an on board computer information about the battery pack's state of charge. If those electronics are giving erroneous information, that could effect the range. The LEAF is programmed to go into turtle mode and completely shut down to protect the battery pack if the state of charge falls too low. If the electronics (not the software) erroneously put low state of charge information onto the CAN bus the LEAF's on board computer may react and shut down the vehicle when in reality the battery still contains a significant amount of charge.

Sure, but then if this were the case, why hasn't Nissan come forward with this? Why did they buyback cars instead of fixing this problem or announcing that they would have a fix for this?

And then there are the statements by Nissan such as the Andy Palmer video at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=10257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[WetEV]

faulty electronics rather than an overly heat sensitive battery pack.

Charge measuring isn't an easy problem. As the car ages, the measurement seems to get less accurate.

On the other hand, batteries are well known to be heat sensitive.

Maybe the answer is "both", instead of "rather than".