Multiple DC Quick Charges did get a Hot Battery for this guy

[LEAFfan]

Again, genius, why did a car displaying 126.5F not shut down?

There could be many reasons why. Since the 'fuel' bars have a wide range (At times, I have 8%SOC more than what CarWings reports). So even though it showed nine bars (out of the red), maybe the actual temp wasn't really 126.5. I'll ask the techs tomorrow where the temp bars were when it shut down at 122-123F. They measured the 'actual' temperature of the battery pack, not what the bars said. It sounds very similar to the 'fuel' bars. You should know better than anyone that you can't go by any 'bars' if you want accurate readings.

 

[Herm]

Now we know why the Leaf has such a prominent battery temperature display..

 

[Ingineer]

If they are the same five guys that told you the battery is 28.8kWh, then we are already starting with a suspect source of info. I doubt they have anything to lie about; they just don't know any better.

Indeed... I think Ecotality's Engineering speaks for itself! :shock: I can with 100% certainty say my car is (and all others tested are close to) reporting 67.568ah of capacity, which is directly calculated by the Nissan Battery ECU. To obtain 28.8kWh, you'd need the average pack voltage to be over 426! Simply not possible!

Also, the same battery ECU reports watt-hours on most cars to be 22,480 (281 "Gids) at around 94-95% SOC. That jives pretty well with 24kWh!

The Leaf will protect itself. If you had high thermal rise from a lot of QC'ing in high ambient temps, it would simply terminate the QC if things got too hot.

FYI: The ScanGauge is not Reading real SOC, it's reading the same stored watt-hours figure. (Gids)

-Phil

 

[surfingslovak]

Also, the same battery ECU reports watt-hours on most cars to be 22,480 (281 "Gids) at around 94-95% SOC. That jives pretty well with 24kWh!

Thank you for confirming that, Phil! I took a lot of flak last year for daring to suggest that the 28-32 kWh battery was a myth. Amazing how rumors get started and take on a life of their own.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Also, the same battery ECU reports watt-hours on most cars to be 22,480 (281 "Gids) at around 94-95% SOC. That jives pretty well with 24kWh!

Thank you for confirming that, Phil! I took a lot of flak last year for daring to suggest that the 28-32 kWh battery was a myth. Amazing how rumors get started and take on a life of their own.

Oh, there's still some people who believe 28.....

 

[surfingslovak]

Oh, there's still some people who believe 28.....

Wait, but didn't some of these folks argue that it was Phil who measured total capacity of 27-28 kWh via the CONSULT III diagnostic tool? He clearly says otherwise!

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5667#p130503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

Again, genius, why did a car displaying 126.5F not shut down?

There could be many reasons why. Since the 'fuel' bars have a wide range (At times, I have 8%SOC more than what CarWings reports). So even though it showed nine bars (out of the red), maybe the actual temp wasn't really 126.5. I'll ask the techs tomorrow where the temp bars were when it shut down at 122-123F. They measured the 'actual' temperature of the battery pack, not what the bars said. It sounds very similar to the 'fuel' bars. You should know better than anyone that you can't go by any 'bars' if you want accurate readings.

Sounds like what I wrote several posts back:

The guy did a bunch of Quick Charging in moderate weather conditions, and ended up showing 9 temp bars.

Fact.

Then, we consult Nissan data to find that the battery is 126.5F.

Fact.

Did the car turtle? We don't know, because it may not have been operated. Or the turtle temp really isn't 122F, but is different. Or it was cooled down first. I don't know.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If they are the same five guys that told you the battery is 28.8kWh, then we are already starting with a suspect source of info. I doubt they have anything to lie about; they just don't know any better.

Indeed... I think Ecotality's Engineering speaks for itself! :shock:

This week's Ecotality Design Excellence Award goes to Blink Network in Balboa Park, San Diego, California. I'm just giddy with excitement to learn the wonders LEAFfan will come back with from this learned group.

After almost a year after their installation, two of ten Blinks didn't need a repair this week (so far) !!!!!


The Balboa Park Blink EVSE's are as follows:

Rueben H. Fleet Science Museum:

Serial number:
102309
103115 (fixed, 3/20/12)
103173 (fixed, 3/20/12)


Pan American Plaza / Palisades / Aviation Museum:

Serial number:
205600 (down, 3/21/12, up 3/22/12)
103119 (down 3/22/12)
103127 (down, 3/21/12, RFID card doesn't work)
200917 (fixed, 3/20/12)
211133
208124 (down, 3/21/12 completely dead)
205222 (fixed, 3/20/12)

 

[edatoakrun]

...Or the turtle temp really isn't 122F...b]

What is your source, for 122F, as indicated by the 12 bar display, causing turtle?

Seems very odd to me, that Nissan would set the 12 bar display to show 4 temp bars, 2 of them white, beyond the "battery safe" driving temp, and a "turtle" event.

They show you are "in the red" on the 12 bar battery capacity display, when you still have almost a quarter of a charge.

An alternate explanation, is that, since there are multiple temperature readings available from the battery pack, the temperature levels you are getting from different sources, are compiled from different readings, or even as modified by a further "time at temp" calculation, used by Nissan to more accurately model high temp effects on the entire battery pack.

 

[TonyWilliams]

...Or the turtle temp really isn't 122F...b]

What is your source, for 122F, as indicated by the 12 bar display, causing turtle?

Seems very odd to me, that Nissan would set the 12 bar display to show 4 temp bars, 2 of them white, beyond the "battery safe" driving temp, and a "turtle" event

Source is Nissan LEAF Service Manual. 50C is the official temp to turtle that bad boy. I find it odd that you find it odd that Nissan would display some really goofy stuff to the operator (GoM, bizarro changes in battery temp per bar, etc)

LEAF Batt Temp
Segments Degrees C (F)
12 60. (140) Teeny tiny
11 57.5 (135.5) changes
10 55 (131) per
9 52.5 (126.5) bar
8 50 (122) Big
7 36.8 (98.2) temperature
6 23.5 (74.3) changes
5 10.3 (50.5) per
4 -3 (26.6) bar
3 -6 (21.2
2 -9 (15.8)
1 -12 (10.4)
0 -15 (5) not so much

show you are "in the red" on the 12 bar range display, when you still have almost a quarter of a charge.

That's not range (or fuel in the tank)... it's battery capacity in red. You'll never get there before you have the battery replaced.

An alternate explanation, is that, since there are multiple temperature readings available from the battery pack, the temperature levels you are getting from different sources, are compiled from different readings, or even as modified by a further "time at temp" calculation, used by Nissan to more accurately model high temp effects on the entire battery pack.

Certainly plausible. There are four temp probes, and I'm sure each thermister reads a slightly different resistance reading when it goes into the magic box to be sorted out as the battery temperature. I would not be surprised that the battery temp gauge has been changed from the official service manual index.

 

[edatoakrun]

...Or the turtle temp really isn't 122F...b]

What is your source, for 122F, as indicated by the 12 bar display, causing turtle?

Seems very odd to me, that Nissan would set the 12 bar display to show 4 temp bars, 2 of them white, beyond the "battery safe" driving temp, and a "turtle" event

Source is Nissan LEAF Service Manual. 50C is the official temp to turtle that bad boy. I find it odd that you find it odd that Nissan would display some really goofy stuff to the operator (GoM, bizarro changes in battery temp per bar, etc)...

Well, except that the only driver who got to nine bars on the temp display, apparently did not have a "turtle" event.

Did any hot climate drivers, ever get a temperature-induced "turtle", or even see 9 bars on the temp display, last summer?

I can't recall seeing more than 7 bars, even on the few days, when I used L2 recharges, on over 100 miles, in over 100 F ambient temps.

So we don't know if turtle will ever (or consistently) occur at 9 bars, or ten, eleven, or twelve bars, on the display.

 

[padamson1]

Well certainly some interesting info here, but nobody is discussing the duration of this trip compared to an ICE. Corvallis center to Ashland center by ICE takes around 4.5hrs at 65 (speed limit), tack on 30min for a food & bio stop, so 5hrs and that's generously slow I think I could easily do it faster, this trip took 10.5 hrs (the return trip back took longer, but I think there was socializing b.c the QC times are much longer).

The QC times take a reasonable amount of time, there were the two extra charging stops, but one still needs to replenish used battery, so not much time would be saved skipping those two. Eugene only has L2 chargers, and they are not right on I-5, so the stopover there is a long (but necessary) layover and it adds distance to the trip.

The upshot: We are most certainly a long ways away from convenient long distance EV travel with the current LEAF capacity even with QC chargers.

 

[edatoakrun]

...We are most certainly a long ways away from convenient long distance EV travel with the current LEAF capacity even with QC chargers.

Driving a LEAF, you can travel over 60 miles at 70 mph, from your initial L2 charge.

After that distance, access to DC/QC, allows a maximum average speed, including charge time, of about 40 mph.

Whether this is convenient, depend on whether you can use your BEV charge time for other purposes, and how much you value the inconvenience of the only alternative, buying gas for an ICEV.

For me, this will generally mean LEAF DC/QC travel, would be more convenient than an ICEV, for trips of 150 to 250 miles, befor getting another overnight L2 charge.

For one-way trips of more than 500 miles, I would generally consider it inconvenient, to drive at all.

The window of distances for ICEV-convenient travel, should progressively shrink, as longer range or faster charging BEVs are introduced.

 

[Desertstraw]

...We are most certainly a long ways away from convenient long distance EV travel with the current LEAF capacity even with QC chargers.

Driving a LEAF, you can travel over 60 miles at 70 mph, from your initial L2 charge.

After that distance, access to DC/QC, allows a maximum average speed, including charge time, of about 40 mph.

Whether this is convenient, depend on whether you can use your BEV charge time for other purposes, and how much you value the inconvenience of the only alternative, buying gas for an ICEV.

For me, this will generally mean LEAF DC/QC travel, would be more convenient than an ICEV, for trips of 150 to 250 miles, befor getting another overnight L2 charge.

For one-way trips of more than 500 miles, I would generally consider it inconvenient, to drive at all.

The window of distances for ICEV-convenient travel, should progressively shrink, as longer range or faster charging BEVs are introduced.

I don't follow your argument. I am more conservative than you and will allow 60 miles for the first hour. Using your numbers for an 8 hour day, shorter than I usually drive when taking long trips, 40*7=280 miles, or a total 340 miles. Most people I know go about 300 miles a day when on vacation. When traveling across the country, I drive from dawn to dusk, about 12 hours on average, yielding 440+60=500 miles.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

I suggest that the title of this thread be changed to "Multiple DC Quick Charges May Result In A Hot Battery". I think it's a good thing to be aware of, but the way it's worded it makes it sound like multiple QC's will inevitably cause a hot battery, which is not the case from what I can tell. We know one thing from the data so far, QC'ing to a high SOC frequently with heavy climate control use and high speeds results in a hot battery... let's not jump to conclusions till we have more data!

 

[padamson1]

For me, this will generally mean LEAF DC/QC travel, would be more convenient than an ICEV, for trips of 150 to 250 miles, before getting another overnight L2 charge.

The trip from Corvallis to Ashland is around 230miles. It took 10.5 hours instead of 4.5, I don't consider that convenient by any stretch of the imagination. This is one of the most direct drives in OR, basically straight down I-5, it doesn't get any easier than this and it doubled in duration. If I want to get my daughter to that soccer tournament in southern OR, I'm going to use an ICE b/c I don't want to spend 10hrs just getting to the game when I can drive there, watch her play the game, and drive back in the same time period polluting away in my ICE.

I stand by my statement. I am very happy with LEAF but I also know its limitations. I'm glad Quick Chargers are becoming available, they will certainly allow me to drive my LEAF to new places outside of my current local area. However I don't think people should expect that the Quick Chargers are going to radically change what a LEAF can do. Since one will still need to recharge every 60 or so highway miles (unless they slow down to 50mph) even with QC's a LEAF just is not built for traveling >150mi in a time efficient manner and won't be until it comes with larger battery capacity.

Given that lowered expectation, the battery heating side-effects observed in the thread are essentially moot. I shouldn't expect to QC my LEAF more than 3 times a day, I should take a train or rent an ICE.

 

[edatoakrun]

...We are most certainly a long ways away from convenient long distance EV travel with the current LEAF capacity even with QC chargers.

Driving a LEAF, you can travel over 60 miles at 70 mph, from your initial L2 charge.

After that distance, access to DC/QC, allows a maximum average speed, including charge time, of about 40 mph.

Whether this is convenient, depend on whether you can use your BEV charge time for other purposes, and how much you value the inconvenience of the only alternative, buying gas for an ICEV.

For me, this will generally mean LEAF DC/QC travel, would be more convenient than an ICEV, for trips of 150 to 250 miles, before getting another overnight L2 charge.

For one-way trips of more than 500 miles, I would generally consider it inconvenient, to drive at all.

The window of distances for ICEV-convenient travel, should progressively shrink, as longer range or faster charging BEVs are introduced.

I don't follow your argument. I am more conservative than you and will allow 60 miles for the first hour. Using your numbers for an 8 hour day, shorter than I usually drive when taking long trips, 40*7=280 miles, or a total 340 miles. Most people I know go about 300 miles a day when on vacation. When traveling across the country, I drive from dawn to dusk, about 12 hours on average, yielding 440+60=500 miles.

What don't you follow?

With QC available:

If I wanted to travel less than about 200 miles, I'd probably drive a BEV.

If I wanted to go 200-500 miles, I would probably drive an ICEV.

If I had to travel over 500 miles, I'd probably drive a BEV to the nearest airport, take a plane to the airport closest to my destination, and rent another QC BEV there.

Does that answer your question?

The only time I've driven "dawn to dusk" in the last 15 years, was in a BEV, with L2 re-charging.

Not exactly, by "choice"...

 

[edatoakrun]

For me, this will generally mean LEAF DC/QC travel, would be more convenient than an ICEV, for trips of 150 to 250 miles, before getting another overnight L2 charge.

The trip from Corvallis to Ashland is around 230miles. It took 10.5 hours instead of 4.5...

That 10.5 hours time for a 250 mile (IIRC) drive was due to delay by the driver, and/or due to less-than-fully-available QC locations.

A 250 mile drive on a high-speed freeway like I-5 puts about a 3 hour "penalty" on a QC BEV driver, as opposed to an ICEV.

I wouldn't want to take that much extra time, and I don't think many others would, either.

On lower-speed roads, or shorter trips, the BEV time penalty would be much less.

The ICEV cost penalty will also vary, with the future prices of gasoline and electricity, of course.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I suggest that the title of this thread be changed to "Multiple DC Quick Charges May Result In A Hot Battery".

"May" doesn't address that fact that the thread is primarily about a case where it did.

 

[klapauzius]

That 10.5 hours time for a 250 mile (IIRC) drive was due to delay by the driver, and/or due to less-than-fully-available QC locations.

A 250 mile drive on a high-speed freeway like I-5 puts about a 3 hour "penalty" on a QC BEV driver, as opposed to an ICEV.

I wouldn't want to take that much extra time, and I don't think many others would, either.

On lower-speed roads, or shorter trips, the BEV time penalty would be much less.

The ICEV cost penalty will also vary, with the future prices of gasoline and electricity, of course.

Somehow the math in that does not seem to make sense.

250 miles with QC should not take that long...realistically, one could expect to go ~ 50 miles on a 80% charge at freeway speeds?
That means you need 4 QC s for the trip i.e. at 50, 100, 150 and 200 miles. Each takes 20 minutes, so 80 minutes penalty vs. ICE which can do the whole trip in one leg. if you add some extra minutes for getting to and from the charger, maybe a bit longer.

A 3 h penalty would imply that each QC would take 45 minutes which would be twice as long as advertised...