Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[JRP3]

...as long as you keep that battery stretched at least once a day. Ha! :mrgreen:

That makes about as much sense as running your engine at redline most of the time to increase it's longevity. :roll: Cool temperatures and a probably better than average battery pack are what give you good results, not this fantasy of "battery stretching". Constantly charging a battery to 100% causes irreversible physical changes, it does not "help" the battery. Whatever life you get out of your pack you would have gotten even more life from it if you treated it better, regardless of what you may think. I urge others to avoid this "battery stretching" concept in the hopes of improving their pack life.

 

[Pipcecil]

After thinking a bit I could both owners and nissan be right about the car problems? While I think Nissan's statement that the cars tested performed normally rubbed many people the wrong way, from their testing they had not reached the magical 20% (which, I still believe was the target most people were concerned about).

But what the concern of the owners - loss of range - while Tony's test did show a strong correlation between Nissan's % loss and range % loss, what is causing the greater % loss of range in real world use?

Take for example Scott's car. Commuting to work, to me is the best representation of the car's performance. Its a repeatable "test" that has a large enough data points to smooth out any problems such as the random traffic accident, high winds, rain, snow, etc. In fact, myseld, and I assume others, can easily predict the car's "fuel" usage on our daily drives and know when it would use more from abnormal conditions. In fact, the car is dead accurate almost every time with fuel usage in these predictable trips. Now take scott's car, an almost 50% drop in usable range to and from work. How is that possible? Why is it greater? I seriously doubt that additional AC usage or anything is causing such a large range drop in comparison to actual battery capacity loss.

I myself see this same problem, with two bars gone, I have seen my range drop from the mid 80's to mid 60's, yet I am sure my car would test the same for battery, @15% loss or so (similar to the 7 tested cars). Why has my range dropped 20-25%? The summer here in texas is COOLER than last year. I also get to pre-cool going home versus last year when I didn't have a charger at work available. The results don't make sense!

On a side note, I think Tony's test did point out something in comparison to the battery loss and range loss comparisons. I don't believe it is acceptable to factor in any range below LBW. Yes, I know there is much untapped power below, but how many people see the fuel light come on in their ICE car and say, Oh, I got at least an extra 1 1/2 gallons, I can go at another 35 miles! Its the warning of, you better start refueling soon. I think that loss of range from not utilizing (and shouldn't be relied upon) contributes some to this discrepancy.

So can both Nissan and the owners be right? I do agree that Nissan's response wasn't the most tactful and a blanket response that these cars are preforming normally is too much of a generalization based on one test, but it may be something to consider that both sides could be right. There is problem and there is not a problem...

 

[JRP3]

I still think it's a problem of some capacity loss that is being over reported by the car, so you end up with a much larger effective range loss. If the car can properly monitor it's capacity loss then range loss will not be as great.

 

[RegGuheert]

surfingslovak posted a link to Transport Evolved Episode 119 in the Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012 thread. It's a good watch, but I wanted to highlight this statement made by Mark Chatterley, who is a LEAF owner, since it captures the heart of why the range reduction issue is such a hot topic:

Yeah, I, I find the whole thing fascinated (sic) because it, it's the one fear that I think a lot of EV drivers have, especially of these 100-mile production electric cars, which is that early battery degradation. And everyone kind of accepts that there's gonna be some, but it's the fear it's going to happen too soon and too quickly. And people have been living this. And it's been, it's very weird, it's kinda feeling very sorry for them, but also feeling very glad for myself that I'm not involved. And I feel both guilty and sad at the same time. It's a very interesting area that's happening.

The simple fact is that for many people who are considering purchasing an EV, the limited range is a big deal to start with. If you add in the possibility that it might drop considerably after a year or so of driving, then there are few potential customers left who will sign up for that risk. And Nissan stating that it is "normal" only reinforces the concerns that people have.

 

[TonyWilliams]

In fact, there was a >50V difference in voltage at which the Phoenix range-test LEAFs turtled.

I originally said that, but it's not accurate. The two cars that had 350v-ish were just past the voltage "knee" at VLB, but had not made the plunge to 300v-ish at turtle. Therefore, those voltages should not be considered.

When I made the statement, I didn't qualify that important nuance. So, please just magically erase that from your memory!

In his most recent show, Jack Rickard of EVTV took your 50V difference and ran with it, concluding that there is no battery degradation but instead it is in fact a hall effect sensor error, and called it a BMS issue. Just remember, Jack loves to speak with authority on a subject, even if he's completely wrong.

Ya, I saw that. Of course, I did not share that info with him for it to be his news peice. I just read off some voltages when he asked, and that included the two cars that were not at turtle (which, again, I did not tell him, as I didn't here).

I think many of us confuse the instruments with stored energy, even after our range test. Sure, the BMS could be one issue, and I'd bet that the Hall effect device is probably not doing its job perfectly, but there's little doubt in my mind that heat accelerates battery degradation. Actually, the body of evidence is overwhelming.

So, Nissan claims no problem because they have data that shows most cars on a "glideslope". Obviously, losing 4 bars doesn't appear to we little people as any glideslope that makes sense, unless you understand the context of 7500 miles per year is what they base that on (in Nissan logic, that was NEVER disclosed). Four Bar Loser Scott Yarish has 29,000 miles divided by 7500, to equal almost 4 "NISSAN-YEARS(TM)" of driving. Naturally, Nissan-Years(TM) don't apply to the lease, where the standard is 12,000 miles, and for just a few dollars more, 15,000 miles.

So, with a slight of hand, 80% in five years is re-indexed to 76% at five years, and now it all makes sense. Heck, Yanquetino would require Scott to apologize for complaining of a 30% loss in a little over one year; it's "normal" to Nissan, but NOBODY outside this little island of thought would likely agree. It is EXACTLY this (undisclosed) bullsh*t that they won't win in court, or the court of public perception of ALL electric cars. I'd be happy to sit outside a Nissan dealer for an afternoon taking a survey, "Sir/Madam, would you consider the purchase of any car you may buy from this Nissan store to be normal if it had a 30% loss of range in a bit over one year? That's what Nissan claims for their new electric car, the LEAF. Have a nice day."

So, how many Nissan-Years do you have on your LEAF? One more interesting bit of the puzzle; in another two or three brutal summers, with normal Nissan-Year driving of 7500 miles per year, Scott would be looking at a number far greater than 30% loss for 29,000 miles.

 

[Stoaty]

So, Nissan claims no problem because they have data that shows most cars on a "glideslope". Obviously, losing 4 bars doesn't appear to we little people as any glideslope that makes sense, unless you understand the context of 7500 miles per year is what they base that on (in Nissan logic, that was NEVER disclosed). Four Bar Loser Scott Yarish has 29,000 miles divided by 7500, to equal almost 4 "NISSAN-YEARS(TM)" of driving. Naturally, Nissan-Years(TM) don't apply to the lease, where the standard is 12,000 miles, and for just a few dollars more, 15,000 miles.

Yes, I was stunned to see them disclose this information as if to defend that "everything is normal" when in fact it showed that they had been "lying with statistics" previously. That one bit of information pretty much confirmed what we have been saying all along: "Phoenix, we have a problem."

 

[mksE55]

surfingslovak posted a link to Transport Evolved Episode 119 in the Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012 thread. It's a good watch, but I wanted to highlight this statement made by Mark Chatterley, who is a LEAF owner, since it captures the heart of why the range reduction issue is such a hot topic:

Yeah, I, I find the whole thing fascinated (sic) because it, it's the one fear that I think a lot of EV drivers have, especially of these 100-mile production electric cars, which is that early battery degradation. And everyone kind of accepts that there's gonna be some, but it's the fear it's going to happen too soon and too quickly. And people have been living this. And it's been, it's very weird, it's kinda feeling very sorry for them, but also feeling very glad for myself that I'm not involved. And I feel both guilty and sad at the same time. It's a very interesting area that's happening.

The simple fact is that for many people who are considering purchasing an EV, the limited range is a big deal to start with. If you add in the possibility that it might drop considerably after a year or so of driving, then there are few potential customers left who will sign up for that risk. And Nissan stating that it is "normal" only reinforces the concerns that people have.

What makes this even worse. You will get the greatest loss in the first year and suffer for the remaining years, of ownership or lease. I read the papers like everyone else and read the good reviews and mileage range like other here on this forum. (its still a great source of info). but I was ahead of the heat damage issue when I signed a lease. 20% in 5 years. 30% 10 years is what they said, so I am thinking like 5% a year should be good. heck even 7.5% the first year and then less each year. No problems, ( like most people probably.) NOT thinking I would get 15% loss with less than 12,000miles and less than 1 year of use. No disclosure of range reduction with A/C or Heater. So yes Nissan did poor job educating the buyer of the impact of these issues. But to say all is normal with the car is a False statement.

 

[09Bamb00]

Well if the range is to be 7000 miles per year, average speed 20mph with daily range not over 20 miles then I should have purchased a golf car like they drive in Sun City Center!

 

[Nubo]

"Battery stretching" as stated above is not a real thing; any problems not noticed at $26k are in spite of this continual 100% charging, not because of it. It's well known across the industry, for laptops to cars, that a lower peak charge is better on battery life than 100%.

But perhaps the battery balancing opportunity at the end of 100% charge, helps prevent "drift" in the battery management, with the result of a better net range despite the battery consequences? I have wondered lately if that might be the case and if there is a frequency of 100% charging that may hit the optimal combination of rebalancing vs. battery stress.

 

[WetEV]

The "customer service" component is the most urgent. From this standpoint, it almost doesn't matter anymore what is or isn't wrong with the car (no tomatoes yet! ). The overall situation needs to be made right to the extent possible for anyone acutely affected and the concerns of other current and future 2012 owners alleviated through a "guaranteed buyback" plan or other remedy.

Also needed is a public price for a replacement battery pack, and some realistic warranty. The point to these is to reduce the number of people that feel the need to take the "guaranteed buyback".

Edit: corrected quote authorship.

 

[evchels]

1) The "customer service" component is the most urgent. From this standpoint, it almost doesn't matter anymore what is or isn't wrong with the car (no tomatoes yet! ). The overall situation needs to be made right to the extent possible for anyone acutely affected and the concerns of other current and future 2012 owners alleviated through a "guaranteed buyback" plan or other remedy.

Also needed is a public price for a replacement battery pack, and some realistic warranty. The point to these is to reduce the number of people that feel the need to take the "guaranteed buyback".

Agreed, and I've reiterated these points directly to Nissan.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Tony; are you seriously going to trademark the term "Nissan-years?"

 

[thankyouOB]

Agreed, and I've reiterated these points directly to Nissan.

that is a big bravo from me, particularly for the battery replacement WITH install* price.

*variations for removal and replace in an accident have ranged from 1k to 3.3k, as reported on this forum.
nissan needs to set a standard price for this. i see dealer gouging.

 

[JRP3]

"Battery stretching" as stated above is not a real thing; any problems not noticed at $26k are in spite of this continual 100% charging, not because of it. It's well known across the industry, for laptops to cars, that a lower peak charge is better on battery life than 100%.

But perhaps the battery balancing opportunity at the end of 100% charge, helps prevent "drift" in the battery management, with the result of a better net range despite the battery consequences? I have wondered lately if that might be the case and if there is a frequency of 100% charging that may hit the optimal combination of rebalancing vs. battery stress.

I would think battery balancing should occur at 80%, but the practice of ending charge, regardless of level, just before you plan to drive the vehicle, may not give enough time for the cell balancing to occur. Letting the car sit on the charger for longer periods occasionally may allow better balancing, Tesla recommends that for unbalanced packs, and an occasional 100% charge might be helpful. However, the cells should not be going out of balance quickly enough to require daily 100% charges or "battery stretching".

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony; are you seriously going to trademark the term "Nissan-years?"

Yes, along with "Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)"

:mrgreen:

 

[GenericUser]

...
Everyone knows that the issue is the lack of a TMS of any kind in the Leaf.
...

That conclusion isn't universal. Nissan tested the affected AZ cars by removing the battery and testing it as an independent unit. Regardless of the poor communication, I doubt if they would simply lie about those results. The difference between those battery tests and the independent range tests would then seem to lie in --- the rest of the car, which includes the BMS, instrumentation ,sensors, software, etc...

You're right. Not "everyone" believes the lack of a temperature management system is the root cause of the Leaf's Li-ion battery losing capacity. Nissan doesn't, obviously. (Actually, I think they do, but are now in CYA mode.)

However, it is very well known that Li-ion batteries are very vulnerable to capacity loss in high heat circumstances. Nissan does not dispute this.

And yet they chose to build a BEV without any kind of active cooling for the battery. Unlike Tesla and GM (who both have liquid cooling), and Toyota (who has a beefed up air cooling system in their PiP).

So I don't think it is hard to figure out why these catastrophic capacity losses are happening.

Not everyone believes in evolution, either. So my bad.

 

[dsh]

Thank you Chelsea Sexton. CAN WE PLEASE GET THE PRICE OF THE NEW BATTERY PACK AND/OR INDIVIDUAL MODULES? I contacted my local Avondale, AZ Nissan LEAF Service Advisor and he has not gotten an answer from Nissan Corporate on the price of a new battery pack for the LEAF. The parts department also has no price for individual modules, and says the whole battery pack needs to be purchased.

Some LEAF owners will just absorb the costs and buy a new battery pack or modules if necessary, if Nissan is not going to warrany the accelrated capacity loss. PLEASE FIND OUT FOR US THE PRICE OF THE NEW BATTERY PACK AND/OR INDIVIDUAL MODULES.

Thank you.

1) The "customer service" component is the most urgent. From this standpoint, it almost doesn't matter anymore what is or isn't wrong with the car (no tomatoes yet! ). The overall situation needs to be made right to the extent possible for anyone acutely affected and the concerns of other current and future 2012 owners alleviated through a "guaranteed buyback" plan or other remedy.

Also needed is a public price for a replacement battery pack, and some realistic warranty. The point to these is to reduce the number of people that feel the need to take the "guaranteed buyback".

Agreed, and I've reiterated these points directly to Nissan.

 

[Volusiano]

I suspect the reason Nissan doesn't like to give out a price quote for a new battery pack is because it'll probably just shock the heck out of everybody for being exorbitantly high.

Maybe they're waiting for the Smyrna battery plant to come online first to reign down the cost before making it public.

 

[Nubo]

You're right. Not "everyone" believes the lack of a temperature management system is the root cause of the Leaf's Li-ion battery losing capacity. Nissan doesn't, obviously. (Actually, I think they do, but are now in CYA mode.)

However, it is very well known that Li-ion batteries are very vulnerable to capacity loss in high heat circumstances. Nissan does not dispute this.

And yet they chose to build a BEV without any kind of active cooling for the battery. Unlike Tesla and GM (who both have liquid cooling), and Toyota (who has a beefed up air cooling system in their PiP).

So I don't think it is hard to figure out why these catastrophic capacity losses are happening.

Not everyone believes in evolution, either. So my bad.

I'm not disputing the known effects of heat on batteries. But it's not inconceivable that both you AND Nissan are correct. There could be another factor that is degrading range besides the heat-caused battery capacity degradation. Remove that other factor and Nissan's evaluation of the packs themselves may be entirely accurate.

 

[evchels]

I suspect the reason Nissan doesn't like to give out a price quote for a new battery pack is because it'll probably just shock the heck out of everybody for being exorbitantly high.

I'm sure that's part of it- none of the automakers really want to give out prices. Sometimes they become public first through a body shop who had to buy one after a wreck, but that would still be today's price and only partially useful. Better than nothing, but would absolutely scare potential buyers away. You really need a projected price for when you might actually have to buy a new pack (or at a few different milestones, e.g. 3,5,8 years from time of purchase). And that's something no one in the industry wants to commit to, especially this early.

If you guys could get enough clarification around the warranty to be comfortable with it, how would you feel about a price (or a "not to exceed") at the end of the warranty term? If not, what's the preferred alternative?

Ultimately, I'd like to see extended battery warranty or insurance options, which would also help make dealers happier since they're another revenue stream for them.