planet4ever said:
I'd like to take one more stab at explaining the instrumentation hypothesis, without taking sides, because it seems to me that some people here don't "get" it, despite attempts by Phil and others to explain it. So, here are some hypothetical numbers, that are almost certainly not correct, but should make the concept clear:
Assume a new battery with 24kWh total capacity and an LBC (using Nissan's name for the battery controller) that limits charging to 22kWh maximum and 1kWh minimum. As users we would see a 21kWh capacity from "100%" to dead turtle.
Next, assume that at some time later the battery has degraded to 23kWh total capacity, but for some reason the LBC now sets the charging limit at 20kWh maximum and 2kWh minimum. This could be due either to a concern that the degraded battery needed more protection or to a programming error. Either way, as users we would now see an 18kWh capacity from "100%" to dead turtle.
All of our tests, whether Gids or wall kWh or range tests or dyno or whatever you can imagine, would show a capacity loss of 3/21 = 14%. In fact the true capacity loss would be 1/24 = 4%.
Ray
If the discrepancy of 10% here (4 vs 14) is due to a programming error (unlikely in my opinion because this would have been the first place for Nissan to look when the heat issue surfaced about a year ago) then Nissan would have jumped in to fix and provide a firmware update for the LBC months ago already, and everything would have been fine and dandy and we wouldn't have this discussion today.
If the 10% discrepancy is due to a concern that the degraded battery needs more protection, then it's still a legit reduction in range even though the 10% capacity is still there because Nissan shouldn't removed this protection anyway. In this case, it's still a lot of cause for concern. And if this kind of required protection is linear as more chemistry capacity is lost, then it'd be a huge cause for concern because the need for protection would be amplified further with more chemistry range loss.
At any rate, all this technical discussion about fixing any possible LBC error that might have contributed to artificial loss of range is fascinating, but it still shouldn't have any bearing or justification in Nissan providing an unacceptable 9 bar warranty. The whole purpose of an acceptable warranty for hot climate owners is to back up previous claims made by Nissan that hot climate owners should enjoy the same battery performance that cool climate owners enjoy. Simple as that.
If Nissan has an acceptable battery warranty in place, and later in due time manages to recover locked-up capacity by fixing their programming errors in the LBC or instrumentation accuracy or whatever, and the locked-up capacity is released back to affected owners and the chemistry capacity loss due to heat is insignificant like Phil thinks, then everything will turn out great and it's a win-win for everybody. Nissan gets to show that they have customer's back by issuing an acceptable warranty, affected owners get to reclaim and enjoy the range that they lost thanks to Nissan's software fixes.
The point I'm trying to make here is that I want to make a clear distinction between the PR problem that Nissan has FOR SURE right now versus any potential technical LBC problem or instrumentation that Nissan MAY have. And these two problems, while related, they simply don't mix.
If Nissan can't fix the technical problem(s) fast enough (hello, it's been at least 6 if not 9 months since the heat problem surfaced), then they NEED to proceed with underwriting an acceptable warranty NOW to fix their PR problem first. Then if they can manage to fix their technical in time before warranty claims start piling in, then that's great for them (as well as the owners).
This all goes back to one of Phil's earlier statement that said
"Let's at least give them time to fix this before condemning them!" If we have no idea (and I assume Nissan has no idea either) how long it'll take Nissan to fix this technical problem, and it's been at least 6 if not 9 months already since the problem surfaced, and the problem is real and is severely affecting hot climate owners, then it's overdue by now for Nissan to put in a PR fix first if they need more time for their technical fix.
The thing is, their current 9 bar warranty PR fix is not acceptable because it doesn't solve anything for hot climate owners.
If anyone (Nissan or Phil) is convinced that a technical fix will solve this problem eventually, then there should be no concern to ask Nissan to underwrite an acceptable PR fix right now, because by the time technical fix becomes available, no warranty claim will be needed anyway in the future and Nissan will have a win-win situation in hand.