Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

Stoaty said:

Weatherman said:

I might be able to find plots for other locations Just let me know where.

Click to expand...

I would be interested to see other areas of San Fernando Valley (Canoga Park, CA) if available.

Click to expand...

There's a pulldown menu in the upper left hand corner of the page for LA County and northwest locations (the first link I provided). Van Nuys would be a pretty representative location for the central and western part of the San Fernando Valley.

Tajim said:

planet4ever said:

Note: Following quote is edited and severely trimmed.

Weatherman said:

My suggestion, for those concerned about the life of their LEAF's battery, is to think of it this way:

1. If you almost always see five bars or less on the battery temperature gage, and it only gets up to six bars a handful of times each summer...
   Don't worry about it.
2. If you see five bars or less during the winter half of the year and, fairly often, see six bars during the summer half...
   You, probably, are going to see the quoted loss (20% loss at 5 and 30% loss at 10).
3. If seeing six bars is common for a large part of the year and an, occasional, seventh bar pops up during the summer months...
   Don't consider buying.
4. If you spend a large part of the summer with seven temperature bars, or more, showing...
   It's, probably, best to stay away completely

Click to expand...

Well put, Weatherman. I fall in your group 2, I love my car, and I expect that it will continue to satisfy my needs for a number of years.

Ray

Click to expand...

My Temp bars are always on six bars. In fact, I have never seen anything else in summer or winter in Florida. No capacity loss yet. Could happen any time. :shock:

Click to expand...

I suspect that most of the southeast U.S would fall into the third category. I see six bars nearly all year, also, and I have no idea whether that's ok, or that's bad. I guess we'll find out sometime toward the middle of next year.

planet4ever said:

LEAFfan said:

Since the battery warranty DOES cover any capacity loss that isn't "gradual", any intelligent person knows that a 15% or higher loss in about a year isn't gradual.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, LEAFfan, but that is flat wrong. Intelligent English-speaking people should know that "gradual" is not a synonym for "slow". Nissan's lawyers, and any judge hearing a case, will certainly know that. What is covered is sudden capacity loss, not gradual loss. Gradual means a little bit at a time. If you lose a bit of capacity each week, that's gradual, even if that is 0.3% per week. And, yes 0.3%/week adds up to more than 15%/year.
But I don think your complaints will get very far in the court system.
Ray

Click to expand...

Ray, my post has no mention of court action. Please don't assume or infer that I did. You do know what happens when you do that.

vrwl said:

Weatherman said:

My suggestion, for those concerned about the life of their LEAF's battery, is to think of it this way:

1. If you almost always see five bars or less on the battery temperature gage, and it only gets up to six bars a handful of times each summer...
   Don't worry about it.
2. If you see five bars or less during the winter half of the year and, fairly often, see six bars during the summer half...
   You, probably, are going to see the quoted loss (20% loss at 5 and 30% loss at 10).
3. If seeing six bars is common for a large part of the year and an, occasional, seventh bar pops up during the summer months...
   Don't consider buying.
4. If you spend a large part of the summer with seven temperature bars, or more, showing...
   It's, probably, best to stay away completely

Click to expand...

The problem is.... if you're seeing either 6 or 7 bars, you already own or are leasing the car and you're essentially screwed. :shock:

Click to expand...

+1 :lol: He should have posted his conclusions two years ago.

palmermd said:

edatoakrun said:

I've asked several times, of those that have access to this source, that they please post this entire table (?) and any associated text.

Please add this info to the Wiki, when it is available.

Click to expand...

Everyone has access... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7570" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but it is a $20 subscription. Worth every penny if you want to know about the vehicle. I suggest you get a copy for yourself.

Click to expand...

Actually, that table is no longer available in the service manual. It was apparently in the original version, but it has been removed and is not found in the current version.

RegGuheert said:

Actually, that table is no longer available in the service manual. It was apparently in the original version, but it has been removed and is not found in the current version.

Click to expand...

A service manual that doesn't include basic information about the temperature of the battery; specifically removed why?

TonyWilliams said:

RegGuheert said:

Actually, that table is no longer available in the service manual. It was apparently in the original version, but it has been removed and is not found in the current version.

Click to expand...

A service manual that doesn't include basic information about the temperature of the battery; specifically removed why?

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the section on the temperature bars, but rather the section on the capacity bars. While the table on the temperature bars is now different the table showing the values of the capacity bars is now completely gone. Why? I certainly don't know.

RegGuheert said:

palmermd said:

edatoakrun said:

I've asked several times, of those that have access to this source, that they please post this entire table (?) and any associated text.

Please add this info to the Wiki, when it is available.

Click to expand...

Everyone has access... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7570" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but it is a $20 subscription. Worth every penny if you want to know about the vehicle. I suggest you get a copy for yourself.

Click to expand...

Actually, that table is no longer available in the service manual. It was apparently in the original version, but it has been removed and is not found in the current version.

Click to expand...

So with the software update back in April (?), we now have no idea what these bars actually reflect. Interesting...

Nubo said:

dsh said:

One thing I failed to mention, was when speaking to the technician who checked out my LEAF, he mentioned Air conditioning takes it's power directly from the Li-Ion Pack Battery...Does anybody think there is a correlation between battery degredation and LEAF owners who who use the air conditioning every day in the Summer in addition to the the hot air surrounding the battery pack. Sounds like the more strain you put on the Battery pack i.e. A/C and other environmental conditions will cause the battery to get weaker faster...just a thought.

Click to expand...

If the energy info screen can be believed, the AC never seems to use more than 200-300 watts. I'm sure that might be more in AZ at peak time, but still seems to be just a couple percent compared to the electric motor load.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the AC compressor does run off the HV.

Actually, under 90F+ conditions, I've seen the CC energy gauge hit 1500W for a few minutes when everything is still hot and run about 500W continuous. Cooler temps, I agree that 300W is common.

DarkStar said:

So with the software update back in April (?), we now have no idea what these bars actually reflect. Interesting...

Click to expand...

Actually, the service manual was revised with these changes in April 2011.

RegGuheert said:

DarkStar said:

So with the software update back in April (?), we now have no idea what these bars actually reflect. Interesting...

Click to expand...

Actually, the service manual was revised with these changes in April 2011.

Click to expand...

Back to my original question:

I've asked several times, of those that have access to this source, that they please post this entire table (?) and any associated text.

IMO, if you choose to rely on Nissan for this information, you should at least try to discern exactly what Nissan is stating. The terms "Capacity" and "15% loss", for example, have multiple possible interpretations.

Most importantly, perhaps, is whether Nissan is saying that these percentage losses are of total battery capacity, or rather of that percentage (possibly variable) of the capacity that the BMS allows us to use between a "100% charge" and the low state of charge warnings, and/or shut down.

Click to expand...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&start=2840" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Wiki States:

The twelve smaller segments at far right of the battery gauge represents the battery's current maximum capacity. As the battery's capacity degrades, these bars disappear one by one. This table shows the approximate battery capacity represented by each bar [6]:
Segments Retained capacity (%) — Note
12 85 or more T12 —
11 85 T11 Value at which segment 12 turns OFF
10 78.75 T10 Value at which segment 11 turns OFF
9 72.5 T9 Value at which segment 10 turns OFF
8 66.25 T8 Value at which segment 9 turns OFF
7 60 T7 Value at which segment 8 turns OFF
6 53.75 T6 Value at which segment 7 turns OFF
5 47.5 T5 Value at which segment 6 turns OFF
4 41.25 T4 Value at which segment 5 turns OFF
3 35 T3 Value at which segment 4 turns OFF
2 28.75 T2 Value at which segment 3 turns OFF
1 22.5 T1 Value at which segment 2 turns OFF
0 16.25 T0 Value at which segment 1 turns OFF

Click to expand...

http://mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery,_Charging_System#Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the explanation above the table, and the table itself, directly copied from the pre-April 2011 manual, or did someone else summarize this information?

Was that all the manual said on the subject?

What was the context of the table? Was it presented as a way too accurately diagnose capacity problems, to determine "current maximum capacity", and is that term defined anywhere else in the manual?

Do we have any way to know whether revisions were made to LEAFs, prior to any US deliveries, which make the "approximate battery capacity represented by each bar" in the table, inaccurate?

edatoakrun said:

Do we have any way to know whether revisions were made to LEAFs, prior to any US deliveries, which make the "approximate battery capacity represented by each bar" in the table, inaccurate?

Click to expand...

No, but I think it is a fair bet that if a change had been made that would put the capacity loss in a more favorable light Nissan would have been all over it publicly.

Tajim said:

My Temp bars are always on six bars. In fact, I have never seen anything else in summer or winter in Florida. No capacity loss yet. Could happen any time. :shock:

Click to expand...

I used to live in Florida. It doesn't have a winter.

RegGuheert said:

DarkStar said:

So with the software update back in April (?), we now have no idea what these bars actually reflect. Interesting...

Click to expand...

Actually, the service manual was revised with these changes in April 2011.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the changes this year.

Stoaty-

I asked earlier:

Where are the "no correlation" results graphed, for the same group of bar loss reports??

edatoakrun said:

Stoaty said:

edatoakrun said:

I don't understand why you have come to that conclusion, since one axis itself is months since delivery.

I wanted to see what might account for the anomalous 24,000 mile one bar loss report, and only then realized it must be the 10 month/20,000 mile report on the Wiki, right?

Click to expand...

Right. To be honest, I don't know which is the correct comparison:

One compares the total miles driven to the time it takes to lose a bar - no correlation
The other compares the rate at which miles are accumulated to the time it takes to lose a bar - moderate correlation

The more I think about it, the more confused I have become. I welcome input from others more knowlegeable than I.

Click to expand...

Where are the "no correlation" results graphed, for the same group of bar loss reports?

Click to expand...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&hilit=capacity+bar&start=2780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edatoakrun said:

Where are the "no correlation" results graphed, for the same group of bar loss reports??

Click to expand...

I may not have posted them for the exact same data set. Here is the graph for one bar losers in Phoenix. Correlation coefficient is .0003. I think we can safely say there is no correlation.

Stoaty said:

edatoakrun said:

Where are the "no correlation" results graphed, for the same group of bar loss reports??

Click to expand...

I may not have posted them for the exact same data set. Here is the graph for one bar losers in Phoenix. Correlation coefficient is .0003. I think we can safely say there is no correlation.

Click to expand...

Having no expertise in statistical analysis, I am quite willing to be corrected.

But I'd say that you could find a significant correlation in the ~50% of the reports following the trend line, and, as you say, much less correlation in the 100% of the reports graphed.

It would be very interesting if it were possible to isolate the most significant factors in common, for the ~half the LEAFs that are outliers from the (more highly correlated, 50% of reports) trend.

My best guess for the largest single "off the chart" factor, would be ambient temperature, where the LEAFs are parked at night. This probably varies significantly more, than ambient temperature during the day.

edatoakrun said:

Stoaty said:

edatoakrun said:

Where are the "no correlation" results graphed, for the same group of bar loss reports??

Click to expand...

I may not have posted them for the exact same data set. Here is the graph for one bar losers in Phoenix. Correlation coefficient is .0003. I think we can safely say there is no correlation.

Click to expand...

Having no expertise in statistical analysis, I am quite willing to be corrected.

But I'd say that you could find a significant correlation in the ~50% of the reports following the trend line, and, as you say, much less correlation in the 100% of the reports graphed.

It would be very interesting if it were possible to isolate the most significant factors in common, for the ~half the LEAFs that are outliers from the (more highly correlated, 50% of reports) trend.

My best guess for the largest single "off the chart" factor, would be ambient temperature, where the LEAFs are parked at night. This probably varies significantly more, than ambient temperature during the day.

Click to expand...

i am seeing evidence that very high temps can take more than 36 hours to equalize

edatoakrun said:

Having no expertise in statistical analysis, I am quite willing to be corrected.

But I'd say that you could find a significant correlation in the ~50% of the reports following the trend line, and, as you say, much less correlation in the 100% of the reports graphed.

It would be very interesting if it were possible to isolate the most significant factors in common, for the ~half the LEAFs that are outliers from the (more highly correlated, 50% of reports) trend.

Click to expand...

You can't pick and choose data to get a correlation. Either there is a correlation (weak, moderate, strong) or there isn't. Otherwise, you could take any data set, decide which half of the points followed the trend you wanted to see and throw the rest out. As I showed in a previous analysis, there IS a moderate correlation between monthly mileage and rate of capacity loss (edit: for those in Phoenix who have lost a capacity bar).

Stoaty said:

edatoakrun said:

Having no expertise in statistical analysis, I am quite willing to be corrected.

But I'd say that you could find a significant correlation in the ~50% of the reports following the trend line, and, as you say, much less correlation in the 100% of the reports graphed.

It would be very interesting if it were possible to isolate the most significant factors in common, for the ~half the LEAFs that are outliers from the (more highly correlated, 50% of reports) trend.

Click to expand...

You can't pick and choose data to get a correlation. Either there is a correlation (weak, moderate, strong) or there isn't. Otherwise, you could take any data set, decide which half of the points followed the trend you wanted to see and throw the rest out. As I showed in a previous analysis, there IS a moderate correlation between monthly mileage and rate of capacity loss.

Click to expand...

"Either there is a correlation (weak, moderate, strong) or there isn't."

And clearly, there is a correlation of capacity bar loss with both time and miles driven, whatever adjective you use to describe it.

If bar loss was not correlated to these factors, and an entirely random event, then the entire field of your graph would have more even * distribution.

This would be far more more clearly illustrated, by a graph that had both the X and Y axes originating at zero.

Click to expand...

Both of these factors might be expected show far greater correlations in cooler climates. Even more so, if they are restated as time from delivery, and number of charge cycles. But in Phoenix, both of these individual factors are themselves probably reflecting (in varying amounts) a much "strong"(er) correlation, to exposure to high battery temperatures.

I am saying, it could useful to look at the outliers from this "weak" correlation, to isolate the primary causes, of loss of capacity bars in Phoenix.

Since daytime ambient temperatures may have been largely eliminated as a variable factor, by limiting the sample to the Phoenix area, the next factor to look into, IMO, would be ambient temperature while parked, or as you have suggested, charging patterns.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*edit