Page 257 of 798

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:35 am
by TickTock
I does look like the seasonality I was observing in my gid based capacity estimations was s/w related and the unit value of 1 gid was being modulated by temperature. Just looking at wall-power, I see a much slower rate of degradation over the year. More detail here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689&start=9

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:52 am
by TonyWilliams
thankyouOB wrote:dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.


Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!

I prefer to stick with known facts:

1. Cars were sold with a range of XX miles in XYZ scenario (I'm purposely not mentioning 100 mile BS)

2. One year later, plus or minus a few months, those same cars have significantly reduced range.

3. The manufacture (and its dealers) has publically stated that virtually any range reduction is "normal"

4. Consumers , by and large, don't find this quantity of range reduction acceptable

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:57 am
by thankyouOB
TonyWilliams wrote:
thankyouOB wrote:dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.


Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!


i didnt misquote you, paraphrase you or cite your post.
I just made a statement that you do not like.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:21 am
by TonyWilliams
thankyouOB wrote:i didnt misquote you, paraphrase you or cite your post.
I just made a statement that you do not like.


You're right, of course. You didn't misquote me. Your inference that I, or anybody except Teabagger idiots, wants to "burn down the metaphorical EV village" is complete BS.

Did I get it right this time?

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:22 am
by TonyWilliams
Duplicate...

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:38 am
by thankyouOB
i prefer to wait for some answers. things are apparently happening.
that was true for line-jumping, blink, delivery delays, and perhaps for batteries in the dessert.

tick tock seems to be supplying some good data, and Nissan may, as well.

please do not flame me because you disagree with me.
i apologize if you feel the burn-the-village analogy was too personal.
I tried to distance it from you by not quoting you; and regular readers could appropriately attach it to all who feel Nissan is dragging its feet or hiding something. I admire your persistence, but think the conspiracy theories should await the currrent fact-finding and investigation of batteries.

this is a big corporation that moves slowly, but is moving.
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:54 am
by TonyWilliams
thankyouOB wrote:I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.


Well, calling every instance of range reduction "normal" doesnt fall into the area of good will.

I personally have never been professionally employed in any business that relied on "crossing fingers" and hoping for the best. So, when things don't look right, I'll assume they are not, and find a way to prove or disprove that assumption.

For every "sky-is-falling" proclamation is a blissful hope that 2013 has a fantastic new battery (denied by Nissan decision makers recently) or other denier response.

So far, Nissan's posture suggests other than forthrightness. Calling the issues "5 or 6 cars" when in fact the problem is many multiples larger (and they know it), all degradation is normal, and issuing 5 stars to any battery that can roll into a dealership are at the top of my list. Heck, they have yet to officially recognize that there is a problem.

I don't say it often here, but I truly do hope for the best. However, I recognize that the only real fix will come from a government mandate or lawsuit.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:59 am
by thankyouOB
peas in the king dome.
good.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:02 pm
by GeekEV
More information transparency is always a good thing, but I just don't see that happening from any corporation really. Speaking of information transparency, 250+ pages is a bit much. I'd like to keep up on what's happening, but the thread is moving too fast and wanders too much. You can't tell when something significant happens from the thread title. Can one of the key regulars involved in this issue start a separate summary thread that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up with? I'm tempted to start one myself, but I don't want to misrepresent anything as I'm not having the issue myself. I appreciate the need for dialog and discussion, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low...

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:10 pm
by Stanton
I agree (and will leave it at that).
TickTock tried to do that very thing and provided the link to a new topic in a recent post.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689