Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[TonyWilliams]

A genuine Nissan-LEAF-Year(TM) equals a 16-19 year old driver, or over 65.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group

Age...........Male........Female.......Total
16-19........8,206........6,870........7,624
20-34.......17,976......12,000......15,098
35-54.......18,858......11,464......15,291
55-64.......15,850.......7,780.......11,972
65+..........10,304.......4,785........7,646
Average....16,550......10,142......13,476

 

[vrwl]

can we please eliminate the troll, or send him back to the fantasy land he claims to be from?
he is spamming numerous posts with his ideological BS.

I was thinking the same exact thing

I just put him on my "Foes" list and I don't see his posts anymore. Works just as well as elimination.

 

[Volusiano]

Now that the news of 2 of the AZ LEAFs are being bought back by Nissan under the AZ lemon laws, and some hint from channel 5 about Nissan thinking of pulling LEAF sales from AZ, let's talk about options for the remaining LEAF owners (not just in AZ, TX, or hot states, but everywhere) who are experiencing premature capacity loss despite a good battery report.

I assume that there are those with capacity bar loss who don't necessarily want to take the drastic lemon buy-back option because they don't have long enough commutes that would render their LEAF totally useless. However, reduced range still affects the usability of their LEAFs because they now have less option to make longer trips than they could before.

Also, there's still the uncertainty of how fast they'll continue to lose range because it remains to be seen whether the range loss will really slow down like Nissan claims or not. Just with this uncertainty alone, people may be compelled to go the buy-back route even if they don't want to.

So we need to find some medium where there's an option to keep the car, but address the capacity loss in a fair way. Here's what I'm thinking, Nissan should offer to buy-back the battery instead of buy-back the car. Here's how it works:

1. Effective immediately, Nissan provide owners with premature capacity bar loss with a free Blink charging card (free membership and free charging cost) so those people can manage the shorter range limitation by refilling while they're out and about more often.

2. Whenever the range loss is severe enough for the affected owner to decide it's not worth the trouble managing longer trip, even with free filling up Blink cards, the owner can decide to call it quit and make a request to Nissan for a buy-back of the old battery and replacement with a new battery pack.

3. This new battery pack replacement won't be free. Nissan will basically determine the pro-rated value to buy back the old battery based on how many miles already logged on the old battery. For example, let's say the battery life is determined to be good for 100K miles, and the car already logged 30K miles when the battery buy-back is requested. And let's say the new battery price is $10K. Then the pro-rated value of the old battery would be $7K, and the owner has to pitch in $3K to get the battery swap.

With this model, there is incentive for owners to try to manage to live with the original battery for as long as they can hold out, assuming that battery pricing will only drop in the future, so that the cost to replace the old battery will be reduced further the longer they can hold out.

This will also address the range loss situation/fear. If the range loss is linear/faster and doesn't flatten out than Nissan claims, then owners can request a battery buy-back sooner rather than later.

This will also give time for battery technology to mature. Maybe in a few year, a heat-resistant chemistry will be available, and the owners can then decide to call on their buy-back option to get the newer/heat-resistant battery.

From Nissan's perspective, this should be a win-win situation for everybody, Nissan included. If they have to buy-back the cars, they'd have to incur a cost to swap in new batteries to be able to resell those cars anyway. Same situation when their leased cars expire and get returned. So why not offer to buy-back the batteries of reduced-range owners and swap them newer battery, and get some compensation for the used mileage through the pro-rated model. That seems fair to both the owners and to Nissan, and everybody wins.

Nissan can probably even take this model further and apply it to all future Leaf sales instead of just for reduced-range LEAFs if they want. This battery buy-back program can remove the need for a battery warranty, because it is kind of a battery warranty by itself.

The beauty of this model is that the owner can call the shot on when to replace the battery, based on their need. And they have to balance between the true need of replacement, vs the pro-rated cost of the replacement. Another beauty of this model is the time component. This gives Nissan time to deliver a heat-resistant chemistry into production. Time is also an incentive for owners to wait for lower cost replacement as production ramps up on the batteries in Smyrna. The bottom line is that the owner gets to call the shot to balance out their driving needs vs their driving cost/saving vs how long than can wait and hold out for cheaper/better battery. So they're satisfied customer and not disgruntled and doubtful of Nissan anymore. As long as Nissan promises to buy-back the battery any time they want, the trust can be rebuilt.

 

[EVDrive]

Re-post from the capacity lost thread. Thought this was really relevant here as well... Plus my 2 cents.

The 4th KPHO CBS5 news story has been posted...

http://www.kpho.com/video?clipId=7772224&autostart=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow what a mess. I don't think they should sell the v1 leaf in Phoenix. Too damn hot and the Leaf can't stand the heat. Until they offer a hot weather package at least. I wouldn't buy one in a hot climate knowing what we know now.

Mine still works great and seems to have about 90% the original range after 20k miles but I'm in a moderate climate. I can go 75 miles when I hyper mile but it is not fun to go 55 on the freeway to do that. Nissan needs to offer at least 115 miles of EPA range so after a few years we could still go 100 miles. I still can't believe Nissan didn't offer a bigger battery and battery cooling. 2 big mistakes followed by another big mistake of not admitting they made any mistakes.

I really want Nissan to succeed and they should be given credit for launching a practical EV when no other carmakers would. However, we know first generation innovative products have issues. We should have all known that was a potential going in. If there are problems fix them and move on. Don't pretend there is not an issue, that is just shooting yourself in the foot as far as credibility goes.

I agree with the poster above me and Boomer23. Nissan needs to get ahead of this problem ASAP before they start loosing credibility and trust from early adopters who are just waiting to upgrade to the new version of the Leaf. They can't afford to loose our trust.

 

[wiltingleaf]

A genuine Nissan-LEAF-Year(TM) equals a 16-19 year old driver, or over 65.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group

Age...........Male........Female.......Total
16-19........8,206........6,870........7,624
20-34.......17,976......12,000......15,098
35-54.......18,858......11,464......15,291
55-64.......15,850.......7,780.......11,972
65+..........10,304.......4,785........7,646
Average....16,550......10,142......13,476

I'm pretty sure that 16-19 and 65+ is not the average demographic of leaf owners. And in Arizona everything is so spread out that I would guess we do more driving than the average states, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[EVDrive]

I'm in the 20 to 34 and 15000 miles/year is spot on for me.
7500 miles/year makes no sense for an AZ benchmark.

A genuine Nissan-LEAF-Year(TM) equals a 16-19 year old driver, or over 65.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group

Age...........Male........Female.......Total
16-19........8,206........6,870........7,624
20-34.......17,976......12,000......15,098
35-54.......18,858......11,464......15,291
55-64.......15,850.......7,780.......11,972
65+..........10,304.......4,785........7,646
Average....16,550......10,142......13,476

I'm pretty sure that 16-19 and 65+ is not the average demographic of leaf owners. And in Arizona everything is so spread out that I would guess we do more driving than the average states, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[DaveEV]

Wow what a mess. I don't think they should sell the v1 leaf in Phoenix. Too damn hot and the Leaf can't stand the heat. Until they offer a hot weather package at least. I wouldn't buy one in a hot climate knowing what we know now.

There's no problem with selling the LEAF in hot climates - as long as Nissan properly discloses how they expect range to be affected by climate and usage. No more of this extremely generic 5-year 80%/10year 70% crap. Pulling the LEAF from AZ isn't going to help Palm Springs, CA or other CA desert owners, or Texas owners... and there may be quite a few AZ owners who never drive more than 40 miles/charge who will be quite happy with the LEAF as is for a decade. After all, that 7500 mi/year estimate had to come from somewhere...

Nissan needs to offer at least 115 miles of EPA range so after a few years we could still go 100 miles. I still can't believe Nissan didn't offer a bigger battery and battery cooling. 2 big mistakes followed by another big mistake of not admitting they made any mistakes.

More range certainly helps. But losing 30% capacity between 5-10 years still hurts. BMS will help - but still only prolongs the inevitable.

Both are needed in hot climates, but if the LEAF had cost another $7k even fewer people would have bought it.

For sure - if Nissan had a battery that was 20% more energy dense that could be retrofitted into the LEAF, that should satisfy just about everyone (provided that capacity loss does indeed slow down over time).

 

[mwalsh]

Mine still works great and seems to have about 90% the original range after 20k miles but I'm in a moderate climate. I can go 75 miles when I hyper mile but it is not fun to go 55 on the freeway to do that.

Do you have hilly terrain? I reckon I'm down around 10% too, over the same kind of milage. But the terrain here is relatively flat, and I'm able to mitigate much of that loss by driving in ECO more and increasing my energy economy. I reckon I can still squeeze 80-85 miles out of a full charge at 65mph.

In two weeks time I'm going to do my own range test. I've planned a series of routes that are between 65 and 82 miles, with various detours and jump off points that wil put me in range of home or local charging infrastructure as I approach Turtle. I'll run this in D, at 65mph, and with the Cruise Control on. No games. I'm expecting that I'll get between 70 and 80 miles. Actually, I'm hoping 75-80 miles, but I'm not completely willing to have that level of optimism just yet.

 

[EVDrive]

I'll agree with you that being real with customers on disclosing capacity loss projections would be a great step in the right direction. Especially now that they have some real world data to share. At this point, I think that selling the Leaf in Phoenix is doing them more harm than good.

As far as the range goes, having such tight range tolerances really magnifies any loss in range.

I have told the Nissan engineers this over and over again that they should offer an optional pack under the trunk for those of us who want to pay more for 25% added range and extra gas free driving freedom.
Having only one small pack size was not well played. People need options and Tesla has the options piece right. Nissan should model after Tesla more, but just with a more affordable entry level product. Offer 2 battery pack sizes. 24kwh and 34kwh and make all the cars upgradeable to add more cells in the trunk space or under the trunk space.

Wow what a mess. I don't think they should sell the v1 leaf in Phoenix. Too damn hot and the Leaf can't stand the heat. Until they offer a hot weather package at least. I wouldn't buy one in a hot climate knowing what we know now.

There's no problem with selling the LEAF in hot climates - as long as Nissan properly discloses how they expect range to be affected by climate and usage. No more of this extremely generic 5-year 80%/10year 70% crap. Pulling the LEAF from AZ isn't going to help Palm Springs, CA or other CA desert owners, or Texas owners... and there may be quite a few AZ owners who never drive more than 40 miles/charge who will be quite happy with the LEAF as is for a decade. After all, that 7500 mi/year estimate had to come from somewhere...

Nissan needs to offer at least 115 miles of EPA range so after a few years we could still go 100 miles. I still can't believe Nissan didn't offer a bigger battery and battery cooling. 2 big mistakes followed by another big mistake of not admitting they made any mistakes.

More range certainly helps. But losing 30% capacity between 5-10 years still hurts. BMS will help - but still only prolongs the inevitable.

Both are needed in hot climates, but if the LEAF had cost another $7k even fewer people would have bought it.

For sure - if Nissan had a battery that was 20% more energy dense that could be retrofitted into the LEAF, that should satisfy just about everyone (provided that capacity loss does indeed slow down over time).

 

[EVDrive]

Yes there are moderate hills all around. I live in the east bay and the places I drive are not flat. 4.4kwh on the dash going 55mph reaching 75 miles before vlbw in 80 degree temps. I wish I had a Leafscan type of thing to get some more scientific measurements. So this is only a guess as far as the 10% loss calculation. Last year I was able to go 85 miles, no way this year unless I went 45 - 50 mph and that would be crazy on the freeway. I charge to 100% almost everyday and to 100% twice a day 2-4 times a week for some additional background. I fully expect to have a loss based on my driving habits but I am starting to wonder what shape I'll be in 2 years from now range wise. 55 miles to vlbw driving 55 mph? That would not work for me so I feel for the Hot Climateers.

I have been driving with the expectation that Nissan will sell us a better battery in the future so we upgrade packs or cars. I would prefer to have both options.

Mine still works great and seems to have about 90% the original range after 20k miles but I'm in a moderate climate. I can go 75 miles when I hyper mile but it is not fun to go 55 on the freeway to do that.

Do you have hilly terrain? I reckon I'm down around 10% too, over the same kind of milage. But the terrain here is relatively flat, and I'm able to mitigate much of that loss by driving in ECO more and increasing my energy economy. I reckon I can still squeeze 80-85 miles out of a full charge at 65mph.

In two weeks time I'm going to do my own range test. I've planned a series of routes that are between 65 and 82 miles, with various detours and jump off points that wil put me in range of home or local charging infrastructure as I approach Turtle. I'll run this in D, at 65mph, and with the Cruise Control on. No games. I'm expecting that I'll get between 70 and 80 miles. Actually, I'm hoping 75-80 miles, but I'm not completely willing to have that level of optimism just yet.

 

[surfingslovak]

In two weeks time I'm going to do my own range test. I've planned a series of routes that are between 65 and 82 miles, with various detours and jump off points that wil put me in range of home or local charging infrastructure as I approach Turtle. I'll run this in D, at 65mph, and with the Cruise Control on. No games. I'm expecting that I'll get between 70 and 80 miles. Actually, I'm hoping 75-80 miles, but I'm not completely willing to have that level of optimism just yet.

Mike, could you please set your CC to 64 instead of 65? If you were willing and able to control the other factors Tony listed in the Phoenix range test protocol, there might nteresting data to compare against. Gid meter and voltage readout would be nice as well

 

[mwalsh]

Mike, could you please set your CC to 64 instead of 65? If you were willing and able to control the other factors Tony listed in the Phoenix range test protocol, there might nteresting data to compare against. Gid meter and voltage readout would be nice as well

Yeah. I could do that. To quote Michael Keaton from 'Mr. Mom' - "220, 221...whatever it takes"

 

[surfingslovak]

Yeah. I could do that. To quote Michael Keaton from 'Mr. Mom' - "220, 221...whatever it takes"

You sound like a pretty handy guy!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3kxAA2L4Q[/youtube]

 

[JRP3]

I have told the Nissan engineers this over and over again that they should offer an optional pack under the trunk for those of us who want to pay more for 25% added range and extra gas free driving freedom.

Problem is the car would probably have to be redesigned and crash tested again, unless it was originally designed to have cells back there in a somewhat unprotected area.

 

[Pipcecil]

1. Effective immediately, Nissan provide owners with premature capacity bar loss with a free Blink charging card (free membership and free charging cost) so those people can manage the shorter range limitation by refilling while they're out and about more often.

Thinking about it, this would be a great idea. An option to keep the car but still support the limited range. In a place like Dallas-Fort Worth, you may have to support more than Blink with ChargePoint and, we have eVgo QC chargers (cost an enrolment plan per month for unlimited use) instead of Blink, purchasing free usage at those as well would add a significant gesture back to the communittie and would most likely be a lower cost option.

For myself, because of range loss, I must charge (via Blink) at work everyday plus I have to use the QC when I go out on weekends, so I am enrolled in the eVgo charging plan. If they would pick up those cost it would go a long way to remedy the current problem

 

[leafwing]

1. Effective immediately, Nissan provide owners with premature capacity bar loss with a free Blink charging card (free membership and free charging cost) so those people can manage the shorter range limitation by refilling while they're out and about more often.

Thinking about it, this would be a great idea. An option to keep the car but still support the limited range. In a place like Dallas-Fort Worth, you may have to support more than Blink with ChargePoint and, we have eVgo QC chargers (cost an enrolment plan per month for unlimited use) instead of Blink, purchasing free usage at those as well would add a significant gesture back to the communittie and would most likely be a lower cost option.

For myself, because of range loss, I must charge (via Blink) at work everyday plus I have to use the QC when I go out on weekends, so I am enrolled in the eVgo charging plan. If they would pick up those cost it would go a long way to remedy the current problem

Although this is a very nice gesture, but I wonder what would be the consequences of frequent charging on the battery especially during the hottest days of the year?

 

[JPWhite]

1. Effective immediately, Nissan provide owners with premature capacity bar loss with a free Blink charging card (free membership and free charging cost) so those people can manage the shorter range limitation by refilling while they're out and about more often.

Thinking about it, this would be a great idea. An option to keep the car but still support the limited range. In a place like Dallas-Fort Worth, you may have to support more than Blink with ChargePoint and, we have eVgo QC chargers (cost an enrolment plan per month for unlimited use) instead of Blink, purchasing free usage at those as well would add a significant gesture back to the communittie and would most likely be a lower cost option.

For myself, because of range loss, I must charge (via Blink) at work everyday plus I have to use the QC when I go out on weekends, so I am enrolled in the eVgo charging plan. If they would pick up those cost it would go a long way to remedy the current problem

Providing a robust free QC network across the nation, but especially in AZ would go a long way to compensating for the dashed expectations of LEAF owners.

Given that Tesla have announced (and started to build) a free nationwide quick charge network, from a competitive standpoint Nissan need to respond anyway. European Dealers have QC's, US dealers don't. This was and is a mistake. ALL Nissan Dealers should have a free QC unit for LEAF drivers (or any Chademo vehicle like the Mitsubishi). If they want to promote the quick charge standard how better to do it and provide a way for LEAF owners to get around in vehicles that have slowly (or rapidly) reduced range.

 

[vrwl]

Personally, I am less concerned with reduced range as I am with a reduced trade-in value of the car whenever I plan to get a new car. I work from home and rarely drive my car more than 30 miles a day anyway, so I can probably go awhile with a reduced range vehicle. However, the potential loss of the value of my car when I'm ready to purchase my next car is what I'm concerned about.

Several people have proposed a guaranteed trade-in allowance from Nissan as part of the resolution for this issue. I think that should definitely be a component of any final proposal. There have been many other good ideas (like the free charging cards, etc), but reduced new battery costs will not override the stigma this car has received due to this mess and I don't want that to follow us down the road years from now, even if it is sporting a new battery inside. I want a guarantee that the value of this car will remain high (like a Prius) once it's time to get a new car.

 

[TomT]

One of my favorite all-time bits!

Yeah. I could do that. To quote Michael Keaton from 'Mr. Mom' - "220, 221...whatever it takes"

 

[ttweed]

So we need to find some medium where there's an option to keep the car, but address the capacity loss in a fair way. Here's what I'm thinking, Nissan should offer to buy-back the battery instead of buy-back the car. Here's how it works:

1. Effective immediately, Nissan provide owners with premature capacity bar loss with a free Blink charging card (free membership and free charging cost) so those people can manage the shorter range limitation by refilling while they're out and about more often.

2. Whenever the range loss is severe enough for the affected owner to decide it's not worth the trouble managing longer trip, even with free filling up Blink cards, the owner can decide to call it quit and make a request to Nissan for a buy-back of the old battery and replacement with a new battery pack.

3. This new battery pack replacement won't be free. Nissan will basically determine the pro-rated value to buy back the old battery based on how many miles already logged on the old battery. For example, let's say the battery life is determined to be good for 100K miles, and the car already logged 30K miles when the battery buy-back is requested. And let's say the new battery price is $10K. Then the pro-rated value of the old battery would be $7K, and the owner has to pitch in $3K to get the battery swap.

With this model, there is incentive for owners to try to manage to live with the original battery for as long as they can hold out, assuming that battery pricing will only drop in the future, so that the cost to replace the old battery will be reduced further the longer they can hold out.

This will also address the range loss situation/fear. If the range loss is linear/faster and doesn't flatten out than Nissan claims, then owners can request a battery buy-back sooner rather than later....
As long as Nissan promises to buy-back the battery any time they want, the trust can be rebuilt.

I really love this idea, and it would indeed allay my growing fears about battery degradation as an owner, but looking at it from Nissan's viewpoint as well, I still don't see how "premature capacity loss" can be accurately defined to everyone's satisfaction. We all knew going in that the batteries would degrade and that it would be somewhat dependent on the conditions of usage. Nissan was very clear about that, but I think it is also clear to everyone that there is some kind of elevated rate of degradation that is taking place in hot climates beyond what was expected or could be considered acceptable. Where do you draw the line, though, between what is reasonable capacity loss and what is "premature?" Whose expectations regarding performance should prevail in making that decision? Is the customer always right? What objective standard is there that can be used to judge normal and acceptable capacity loss--their previous marketing claims regarding range? I think we are seeing that with careful "spinning" of the data, measurements and statistics, arguments can be made on both sides of the equation.

Offering a blanket, iron-clad capacity warranty to every Leaf owner could be a devastatingly costly option for Nissan, one they obviously did not anticipate in their original business plan and pricing strategy, or they would have offered it from the beginning. Offering a "case-by-case" resolution process where some owners are made whole while others are deemed to have unreasonable expectations could be devastating to consumer confidence levels and thus the resale values of used cars. A class-action lawsuit to determine the dividing line between "acceptable and expected" or "premature and fraudulent" degradation through the judicial system would be devastating to both sides, with only the lawyers winning in the end and the EV movement receiving a terrible body blow in the process. Nissan is really stuck between a rock and a hard place in this situation, as they have committed enormous resources towards the success of their program as well as the entire EV movement and cannot easily reverse course at this point and withdraw from the market. I certainly do not want to see that be the result, but I am beginning to regret my "buy vs. lease" decision when I see the value of used Leafs plummeting because of this problem. I would hope that one of the solutions Nissan might offer would be a "guaranteed buyback price" as mentioned above, or allowing owners to convert purchases to leases without penalties, if, at the end of a 3-year period of ownership, the battery pack is not performing to their expectations (regardless of what "normal" specs might be determined to be in the end). This would be a fair and "revenue-neutral" action for Nissan to take to restore confidence for early adopters, as it is my understanding that they fully expected a much larger proportion of Leafs to be leased than actually were, and were prepared to assume that risk. If I know that the car will be worth at least the same amount as the lease residual would have been in 3 years, I would feel much more comfortable at this point in time.

Another necessary component in this mess is for Nissan to come up with a definitive, fairly simple, objective and reliable test for battery capacity that can be performed cheaply by any dealer in order to preserve the value of used Leaf cars in the marketplace. The current "battery report" methodology is obviously a sad joke, as cars with extensive capacity loss have still been rated "5-stars" across the board by dealers. I would never consider buying any relatively expensive used ICE vehicle without performing a PPI on the engine and drivetrain (if out of warranty) to insure that it is not in imminent need of costly repairs, at least not for anything but a rock-bottom price which factored in the cost of such repairs. Without a similar test for EVs to assure potential buyers that a major component with no warranty coverage is sound, the current clusterf#@k in AZ will absolutely kill used car value and sales, if that hasn't already happened.

Just my $0.02,
TT