GaslessInSeattle said:
glad to see some progress, I think this is a big step forward!
-I agree with others that it doesn't solve the real problem, which is heat accelerated range loss that appears to be happening in various shades of gray as you go from north to south in the US. The chemistry is apparently too prone to heat related loss and this ultimately needs to be dealt with.
-I also agree with others that I very much hope that Nissan does not use software updates to simply recalibrate the capacity bars, rendering the warranty meaningless and frustrating. If this is what Nissan has in store, it will backfire in a huge way. things need to be very above board going forward.
-I also feel that Nissan needs to re-brand the car. The early adopter is by nature a tester and prover. if you say the car goes 100 miles, people will set to prove or disprove that. Say it can be quick charged and people will try and prove how far you can drive it in a day by quick charging. If the car is more realistically marketed, then people will be happier with it in terms of their own expectations and it should be marketed based on the expected loss, not as new. If 20% loss is expected but no more than 30% loss is allowed, then give a realistic number for how far a commute is reasonable and comfortable on a daily basis with the Leaf assuming some side trips on occasion. What was it designed for in terms of maintaining customer satisfaction over it's intended lifespan? For instance, best to go with the 73 EPA rating, minus 30% for long term range loss or 51 miles, minus a 20% for comfort or 36 miles. I believe that marketing the car as ideal for a 30-40ish mile commute with no public charging required is way better than getting caught up with how many miles it can go on a single charge or how long it takes to recharge. 30-40 miles covers the vast majority of people's daily driving and that is impressive in and of itself. Now that I have stopped trying to prove the car and use it mostly for in town stuff, I am much happier with it, able to use the cabin heater and defroster freely and zip around town without hypermiling and I only QC on the occasion that I need a little boost rather than try and take it long distances ... I'm a much happier customer, and I believe this car can meet the needs of many more drivers in the US if only people could more realistically determine if it will meet their needs before buying it.
Agree with all the above, and I'm glad that Nissan plans to clarify what charging procedures are most likely to reduce battery life.
As others have mentioned, even if 80%/5 years is the median expected loss, there's no way you'd ever warranty that unless you did as the Volt does, and sequester some capacity at the outset. I was figuring a 70%/5 year warranty months ago. Of course, that still leaves the people who need 80% for their normal driving screwed, and they need the option of getting out of their purchase/lease.
Although Nissan did what I expected with a battery warranty (if they were going to offer one), I think they really need to include 2 years/25k miles or 3 years or 37.5k miles/ 80% in the warranty as well, for those people who are leasing and in hot climates. They also need to include more info on degradation rates. Going forward, _provided_ they stress the details of this in their pre-sale information (yeah, like the typical salesman is going to do so), both customer and company are protected.
As George mentions above, for pre-purchase calculations to see if the car fits your needs you should figure on a max. daily commute range of about 36 miles at battery EOL, figured as 73 x .5 (.7 [new capacity] - .2 [LBW reserve] = .5), modified plus or minus depending on the details of your commute. For those in more benign climates who wish to take a bit of a chance, you can use 73 x .6 (.8 -.2) = 43.8 miles instead. And of course either group needs to make allowances for local climate - realistically, unless you're one of the people willing to do without heat and defrost, a long-term Leaf in daily usage for 5+ years shouldn't be considered viable for more than a guaranteed 30 miles/charge in temperate climates, and perhaps as little as 20-25 miles in cold climates (depending on how effective the new heat pump is at lower temps). The same calculation can be used for any other BEV battery with a similar chemistry, i.e. similar degradation rate and usable SOC range and not sequestering capacity.
This is an honest appraisal of a BEV like the Leaf's true guaranteed capability, and should prevent a flood of customers in future from finding out that the car is useless for them after a short period of time. The problem, of course, is that with the early adopters having already gotten their cars, I don't think there's much of a remaining market for a $30k+ car that can only be depended on to go 30-40 miles. The economic return isn't there for most people, and even if you are so fortunate that the numbers work for you, the perceived value just isn't there.
I think anyone who really is committed to getting a BEV and who could possibly afford it will opt for a Tesla S-60 (or even an 85), because you're paying less than twice as much for over 2.5 times the range (figure 104 miles @ EOL, minus climate allowance) a far more useful range. Everyone else will go ICE/HEV/PHEV, or, if the range of the Tesla S-40 is acceptable, opt for the RAV4 instead.