Lost Battery Capacity and Range / Autonomy, Page 2

[surfingslovak]

we don't overcharge past 4.2V (per cell) or undercharge below 3.7V per cell

Did you mean discharge below 2.7 Volts? Any idea which cell chemistry is typically used in the R/C airplane world? Would it be lithium cobalt by any chance?

 

[theaveng]

Lithium-ion polymer

 

[theaveng]

What is not disclosed by Nissan to consumers is hot areas, like Phoenix, is that the PERFORMANCE of the vehicle will permanently degrade the RANGE of the vehicle at a rate FAR greater than those in temperate climates, like San Francisco, Seattle and San Diego. Notice that I said RANGE and PERFORMANCE.

Dear Judge: "I bought this car to get me to work and now, a mere 30,000 miles later, the car no longer has enough power to get me there. If Toyota or some other manufacturer built a car that's engine died after only 30,000 miles, they would be investigated by the NHSTA for fraud and warranty violations. The same investigation should apply to Nissan. They advertised 100 miles. My workplace is only 1/3rd that, and I still can't reach it due to premature engine or battery problems." <--- That's what I would say if I were filing a lemon law case.

 

[TonyWilliams]

What is not disclosed by Nissan to consumers is hot areas, like Phoenix, is that the PERFORMANCE of the vehicle will permanently degrade the RANGE of the vehicle at a rate FAR greater than those in temperate climates, like San Francisco, Seattle and San Diego. Notice that I said RANGE and PERFORMANCE.

Dear Judge: "I bought this car to get me to work and now, a mere 30,000 miles later, the car no longer has enough power to get me there.

Just so you understand the issue better, Nissan does warranty POWER... not capacity.

 

[theaveng]

EDIT: "I bought this car to get me to work and now the car [dies after just 30 miles..... not far enough to get to work.]" - Toyota was sued by the U.S. DOJ for selling engines that only lasted 20-30,000 miles. Toyota was forced to replace the engines for free. I hope the same happens to Nissan.

 

[Nubo]

What is not disclosed by Nissan to consumers is hot areas, like Phoenix, is that the PERFORMANCE of the vehicle will permanently degrade the RANGE of the vehicle at a rate FAR greater than those in temperate climates, like San Francisco, Seattle and San Diego. Notice that I said RANGE and PERFORMANCE.

Dear Judge: "I bought this car to get me to work and now, a mere 30,000 miles later, the car no longer has enough power to get me there.

Just so you understand the issue better, Nissan does warranty POWER... not capacity.

Which is a bit vague. How much power? And for how long? Power x Time = Capacity

 

[TonyWilliams]

Dear Judge: "I bought this car to get me to work and now, a mere 30,000 miles later, the car no longer has enough power to get me there.

Just so you understand the issue better, Nissan does warranty POWER... not capacity.

Which is a bit vague. How much power? And for how long? Power x Time = Capacity

They specify that as meaning power to accelerate. So, if you had 95% battery degradation (only 5% capacity remaining) and the car could still accelerate "normally" for the 3 miles before you consumed all the battery energy, Nissan says, "all is well".

Toyota didn't sell a car with a disclaimer that ANY and ALL degradation (loss of range) is normal. Nissan, however... THEY KNEW.... all along, and they'll take money from people TODAY in Phoenix. If they truly thought that the battery would last 80% in 5 years, they could have warranteed that... just like their sister company that doesn't sell in the USA, Renault, does (they warranty 75% capacity).

The lawsuits won't all be successful, but I think some will prevail.

 

[jfreire]

Toyota didn't sell a car with a disclaimer that ANY and ALL degradation (loss of range) is normal. Nissan, however... THEY KNEW.... all along, and they'll take money from people TODAY in Phoenix. If they truly thought that the battery would last 80% in 5 years, they could have warranteed that... just like their sister company that doesn't sell in the USA, Renault, does (they warranty 75% capacity).

Just a quick heads up. Renault doesn't sell the batteries with the car, they rent them for periods from 1 year to 3+ years combined with annual mileage.
And they don't say "warranty", they "guarantee" you that your rented battery will have at least 75% of original capacity at delivery. And I assume they give you a new one if it drops below 75%.

From the web site:

The battery hire agreement guarantees you a minimum charge capacity of 75% of the original capacity at delivery.

You can read it here: http://www.renault.co.uk/cars/model/fluence-ze/zebattery.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TickTock]

Average Joe doesn't know the difference between power and energy (AKA capacity) - they are often used interchangeably. You tell someone the car's power is guaranteed for 10 years, that sounds an awful lot like a guarantee of range to those who were passing notes during science class. Having a vehicles range diminish is a new concept in automobiles. A precedence has been established - you never had to look for the range warranty before. Regardless of the fine print, unless the dealer clearly told you verbally that there was no guarantee that in one year (or two, or five) you would be able to use it anymore for your 30 mile commute and had you sign something saying that you understand this, I think you have a very good case.

What is not disclosed by Nissan to consumers is hot areas, like Phoenix, is that the PERFORMANCE of the vehicle will permanently degrade the RANGE of the vehicle at a rate FAR greater than those in temperate climates, like San Francisco, Seattle and San Diego. Notice that I said RANGE and PERFORMANCE.

Dear Judge: "I bought this car to get me to work and now, a mere 30,000 miles later, the car no longer has enough power to get me there.

Just so you understand the issue better, Nissan does warranty POWER... not capacity.

 

[theaveng]

In the R/C airplane world, we don't overcharge past 4.2V (per cell) or undercharge below [3.2V] per cell. Either case would damage the cell and potentially make it catch fire. Does the Leaf follow similar limits per cell?

Okay so does anyone know how low the Leaf voltage drops (per cell)? Maybe the engineers took the cells too low and it's causing gradual damage.

 

[surfingslovak]

Okay so does anyone know how low the Leaf voltage drops (per cell)? Maybe the engineers took the cells too low and it's causing gradual damage.

Unlikely, the turtle cutoff is 3.2 Volt. There is a safety margin of about 0.5 Volt built in, but the SOC is down to about 2% at that point according to Phil. The battery will appreciate if it's cycled above the voltage knee, which roughly corresponds to the very low battery warning. Although I wouldn't want to hit turtle mode on a daily basis, it should be safe to do so. This is fairly basic stuff, and we can expect the manufacturer to get it right. If I had to guess, the problem we are seeing is a bit more complex.

 

[cwerdna]

July 24, 2012 - Carla Bailo, Senior Vice President, Research & Development, Nissan Americas sends an undated open letter to LEAF owners, and the world, about their commitment to address these issues. This letter is not present on Nissan’s main news site, where corporate news items are usually posted. Several forum readers have privately suggested that our poster "OrientExpress" actually penned this letter, as a way to "protect" Nissan from bad press.

Interesting... of course I'd seen the letter when it was posted, but I didn't realize the other points.

I tried Googling for stuff like site:nissannews.com Carla Bailo letter, site:nissanusa.com Carla Bailo letter, and site:nissan.co.jp Carla Bailo letter, but couldn't find the letter. After some more digging, some articles had references to a Facebook post. I see https://www.facebook.com/nissanleaf/posts/494625323886497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But interestingly, even the Nissan Leaf FB page uses a bit.ly link to point to the open letter hosted here in MNL.

Is the above letter or the text of it hosted anywhere on a domain owned by Nissan?

 

[TonyWilliams]

July 24, 2012 - Carla Bailo, Senior Vice President, Research & Development, Nissan Americas sends an undated open letter to LEAF owners, and the world, about their commitment to address these issues. This letter is not present on Nissan’s main news site, where corporate news items are usually posted. Several forum readers have privately suggested that our poster "OrientExpress" actually penned this letter, as a way to "protect" Nissan from bad press.

Interesting... of course I'd seen the letter when it was posted, but I didn't realize the other points.

I tried Googling for stuff like site:nissannews.com Carla Bailo letter, site:nissanusa.com Carla Bailo letter, and site:nissan.co.jp Carla Bailo letter, but couldn't find the letter. After some more digging, some articles had references to a Facebook post. I see https://www.facebook.com/nissanleaf/posts/494625323886497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But interestingly, even the Nissan Leaf FB page uses a bit.ly link to point to the open letter hosted here in MNL.

Is the above letter or the text of it hosted anywhere on a domain owned by Nissan?

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but it's possible that it's a completely phantom letter, except that "Mike" the forum founder is reported to have received the letter directly to him. Now, where did it come from? Ask him.

It doesnt really matter because it's all corporate non-speak platitudes. Interestingly, the PDF version that he has linked has no Nissan letterhead, or any of the other adornments of a typical corporate letter. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it was a fake, since the Nissan Facebook page links this forum to display the letter. Not a Nissan source.

Seems fishy, and if OE really had his hand in it, like it's been strongly suggested to me, then something fishy probably is business as usual.

 

[bradbissell]

It wasn't a phantom letter. I remember seeing it on the Nissanusa.com/leaf website. It was a link on the bottom right corner labeled "Open letter to owners", or something like that. So yes, it wasn't "easy" to find, but it was there for the public to see. At sometime in August this link went away. I did find it surprising that the link was available, but I am more shocked that we have not heard from Nissan since then. I don't count the off the cuff response from the guy in Australia "We don't have a battery problem" as credible.

 

[mwalsh]

We were contacted by Johnathan at TWBA Chiat Day about hosting the letter. Trust me (FWIW) it's genuine.

 

[palmermd]

We were contacted by Johnathan at TWBA Chiat Day about hosting the letter. Trust me (FWIW) it's genuine.

Still seems strange that they would ask us to host it. If it were genuine and important to Nissan, then Nissan would have hosted it themselves.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i saw the letter on the LEAF FB page. i only read the first paragraph and skimmed the rest just to verify it was the same letter and it was

 

[TonyWilliams]

i saw the letter on the LEAF FB page. i only read the first paragraph and skimmed the rest just to verify it was the same letter and it was

But, wasn't that just linked from this site? I guess I could ask Jonathan at Nissan LEAF Facebook, but it's really low on the interest-to-know list.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i saw the letter on the LEAF FB page. i only read the first paragraph and skimmed the rest just to verify it was the same letter and it was

But, wasn't that just linked from this site? I guess I could ask Jonathan at Nissan LEAF Facebook, but it's really low on the interest-to-know list.

omg!! FB search is sooo Ba... oh wait!! what FB search??

**edit**

it does appear that the only reference to the letter is a link from this site. not as i remember it but once again, FB posts can change at will. if there was a direct letter posted from Nissan, it is no longer there or at least i cannot find it

but that would not be saying much. FB has made it very easy to miss stuff

 

[FairwoodRed]

July 24, 2012 - Carla Bailo, Senior Vice President, Research & Development, Nissan Americas sends an undated open letter to LEAF owners, and the world, about their commitment to address these issues. This letter is not present on Nissan’s main news site, where corporate news items are usually posted. Several forum readers have privately suggested that our poster "OrientExpress" actually penned this letter, as a way to "protect" Nissan from bad press.

Interesting... of course I'd seen the letter when it was posted, but I didn't realize the other points.

I tried Googling for stuff like site:nissannews.com Carla Bailo letter, site:nissanusa.com Carla Bailo letter, and site:nissan.co.jp Carla Bailo letter, but couldn't find the letter. After some more digging, some articles had references to a Facebook post. I see https://www.facebook.com/nissanleaf/posts/494625323886497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But interestingly, even the Nissan Leaf FB page uses a bit.ly link to point to the open letter hosted here in MNL.

Is the above letter or the text of it hosted anywhere on a domain owned by Nissan?

I contacted Ms. Bailo after this letter, by email to her Nissan USA address. She responded and referred my concerns to Leaf support. Actually, it was the same guy I had worked with before on Carwings problems, so I knew that he worked for Nissan. I guess that OE could be Ms. Bailo, but to my mind, the letter was verified, and on the up & up. Nissan is way overdue for a follow up letter.