12% capacity loss in 9 months is "normal"

[EVDRIVER]

Consider this. What is the exact percentage of loss that is warrantable or acceptable? What is the time frame, miles, conditions? Where is that written so every LEAF owner is not at the dealer asking for a repair? What is the number? It does not exist for this even reason.

The number does not exist, but in this case we don't need to find the exact number. The loss (12.5% at last report when full charge was 246 gids) is obviously so low that if it isn't covered who would want to buy a Leaf? I'm not talking about legal definitions or a court case, but whether Nissan wants to continue to own the EV market in the future. Not covering this sort of capacity loss could end up seriously undermining public confidence in the Leaf.

And if the car has 10% capacity left in two years also is not good but if they draw the line in the sand publicly then they will also have a line of people behind it which is exactly why they were smart and wrote the warranty as they did. That is quite clear. If it were my car I would run the issue up the pole and keep my mouth shut. Consider why that may make sense for the owner until more negotiation or a resolution is reached.

 

[garygid]

I thought that the LEAF warranty described some expected gradual capacity loss, pointed out that this was NOT covered, and also said that there is NO capacity coverage [new or old, gradual or sudden].

The only real test available is the 96 Cell-Pair Voltage test. Done once at (or near) "full" and again at (or near) VLBW, the lower-capacity (and higher) cell-pairs can usually be identified.

One test, at any charge level, does not tell enough to be certain, because an out-of-balance cell-pair can be insufficiently charged, and look like a lower-capacity cell-pair (have a lower-voltage) when the pack is almost empty.

Usually, a truely low-capacity cell-pair will have a higher voltage when newly full, a lower voltage when near empty, or both.

 

[Gonewild]

I know there are 13 bar on the scale and the Leaf uses only 12 of them. Do you see when it is full 1 bar higher then normal. I had this happen to me. The extra bar caused it to shut off sooner and think the car was at full 100% charge. But I found the time to full charge was low can't remember 3 or 4 hours maybe and my distance drop I was is very low battery mode after my normal 76 miles RT to work.

I think the battery just needs to be what the call reregistored to the car is that in the manual?

 

[TickTock]

TickTock,

Please reconsider the suggestion made by myself, and several similar ones by others, many pages of comments back:

IMO, the most accurate and comprehensive calculation of battery capacity, can (presently) be accomplished by range tests, from 100% charge, to the lowest level your situation allows...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8331&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did you post results of a capacity test, that I missed?

OK edatoakrun,

I had the opportunity to take it to VLBW today after my 100% charge this morning. 75.2 miles, "---" on the GOM, 4.6 mpkWh efficiency, 31.6 mph avg., battery voltage 355V, 23 gids.

 

[DaveEV]

I had the opportunity to take it to VLBW today after my 100% charge this morning. 75.2 miles, "---" on the GOM, 4.6 mpkWh efficiency, 31.6 mph avg., battery voltage 355V, 23 gids.

Yep, very roughly 12-17% short of what one would expect on a normal battery and what one might expect with a 246 starting gid number.

You had about 1-1.5 kWh left in the pack for a total range of 80 miles before turtle where one might expect 90-95 miles.

You charging to 100% to see what the GIDs do? I would still be curious to run the battery to turtle using the heater and then see what happens.

 

[SanDust]

As I've said many times before, the total range of my Leaf, and the range of Leafs owned by other people I know, is in the vicinity of 68-72 miles for conservative freeway driving. For all those who have said this is impossible and that we're FOS, maybe not.

I'm simply attempting to point out the facts of the warranty and that it is very clear.

Why do you keep trying to make it a warranty issue? It's not. It's about false representations and the omission of material facts regarding range.

 

[palmermd]

some folks might want to read through this as a refresher.... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[surfingslovak]

I had the opportunity to take it to VLBW today after my 100% charge this morning. 75.2 miles, "---" on the GOM, 4.6 mpkWh efficiency, 31.6 mph avg., battery voltage 355V, 23 gids.

Yep, very roughly 12-17% short of what one would expect on a normal battery and what one might expect with a 246 starting gid number.

You had about 1-1.5 kWh left in the pack for a total range of 80 miles before turtle where one might expect 90-95 miles.

You charging to 100% to see what the GIDs do? I would still be curious to run the battery to turtle using the heater and then see what happens.

Yes, pretty close. This is what I get when I plug the key figures into the range table we worked on earlier this year. Note that this assumes 70F battery and no elevation change. The model predicts 24 Gids and 1.26 kWh at VLB. Total projected usable battery capacity based on this range test is 17.5 kWh.


Click to open

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think most of us are convinced there's a big problem. I remember the picture of debri on the fused link cover of the battery, which itself is unique.

So, first, how do we "prove" it's faulty, and who are we proving that to? To that respect, you are wasting your time with dealers/Nissan.

I think I would make my audience the panel for denied warranty claims. Yes, it will also probably be a loser, but the experience might shed light on the next step.

So, to start the elevation, I would make another run from 100% to DEAD (to leave no wiggle room as to how far the car should have gone). I would video the entire event (to be heavily edited of dead, boring time) with all the available instrumentation. Put the Gidmeter right up on the dash to video the odometer and dash.

Once that was compiled, I would "test drive" a loaner LEAF from the dealer, and do the same thing. Then I would split screen the two cars on exactly the same course, with the same instrumentation showing. I would bring the dealers mechanic with me to "certify" the results.

I'd carefully document everything, use the data from Nissan that says everything is A-OK, and then make the case that in spite of the official line of BS, everything is not OK by documented, certified performance.

Always specify the remedy (don't leave things unsaid as "obvious"). In this case, a complete new battery assembly installed by the dealer of your choice.

 

[EVDRIVER]

1) Best bet, submerge the car in a pool of 20% saline solution with a full charge. Drive the car to turtle and the place the car back in the pool, if the specific gravity level changes by more than 2% then there is an issue with capacity. Next, call the insurance company and get the car totaled from water damage. Problem over.

2) Second best bet, rent a LEAF and then swap the pack.

 

[EVDRIVER]

some folks might want to read through this as a refresher.... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crickets..

 

[Ingineer]

TickTock,

Please reconsider the suggestion made by myself, and several similar ones by others, many pages of comments back:

IMO, the most accurate and comprehensive calculation of battery capacity, can (presently) be accomplished by range tests, from 100% charge, to the lowest level your situation allows...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8331&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did you post results of a capacity test, that I missed?

I disagree with this. Such a test adds more random variables to the measurement (wind, tire pressure, grade, condition of the road, driving style, etc.). The ultimate means to characterize capacity (until we get the LeafScan) is:

• 1) to use Gary's box and log a charge from turtle to 100% and integrate the power going into the battery.
  2) Next best is to multiply gids times .08. If you take the QC plot I posted above, and plot (gids-130)*80, the curve follows the energy entering the battery curve almost exactly. I've confirmed and reconfirmed over and over. A gid really is a pretty good measure of available charge in the battery.
  3) Next best is to install a wall-meter and measure the power from the grid from turtle to 100% (only random variable there is the charging efficiency).
  4) Next best is to measure using the utility meter (means turning off power to all the other circuit breakers in the house for the duration of the test and reading the meter before and after).

I've done 1-3. Problem is I only have a handful of quantified datapoints from other Leafs.

Now, maybe if we did a side-by-side test (i.e. driving both leafs in the same lane on CC at the same time but far enough apart that neither drafts the other) from 100% to turtle (thus eliminating the GOM from the equation) that would be an interesting datapoint.

Since everyone has at least a utility meter, I've been trying to get at least that datapoint for comparison from as many people who care to particepate:

Collecting data:Off-the-wall power for turtle to 100% charge

TickTock is correct, a gid is 80 watt-hours. This is not speculative or a guess, this is from Nissan.

If he started out at a full charge with 239 in October, that was only 19.12kWh of capacity. His current full reading is 255, which is 20.4kWh. Many people get around 281, (as I do) which is 22.48kWh. This means in October he was "missing" 3.36kWh, and currently missing 2.08kWh. It's that simple! Due to temperature variations in pack parameters, such as temperature, the top end "Gids" are going to fluctuate, BUT; they will also slowly drop over time as the pack ages and capacity is lost. At a "full" charge, you will still see all 12 bars, as this is based on SoC %, not Gids.

-Phil

 

[Ingineer]

My last charge to full recorded these numbers from the Battery ECU:

SoC: 94.591%    (Current State of Charge)
Lvl: 22.240kWh  (Current Level, i.e. 278 Gids)
Ful: 67.568Ah   (Full Capacity)
Tmp: 72.3f   	(Battery Temp)
Vlt: 393.23v 	(Battery Voltage)
CLC: 1.030   	(Grad Cap Loss Coef)
CLM: 1.005   	(Grad Cap Loss Mtr)
CPL: 92.3kW  	(Charge Power Limit)
RPL: 41.6kW  	(Regen Power Limit)
DPL: 110kW   	(Discharge Power Limit)

Last time I checked, my car opened it's main contactor at around 2% SOC. That means about the bottom 2% and the top 5% are not normally usable.

So using these numbers, I can calculate that if I were able to charge to 100% instead of 95%, I'd have 23.512kWh total capacity. (Pretty close to 24kWh)

The Battery ECU says the full capacity is 67.568 amp-hours which means that the average voltage would be ~348 which sounds about right to me.

-Phil

 

[TonyWilliams]

CLC: 1.030 (Grad Cap Loss Coef)
CLM: 1.005 (Grad Cap Loss Mtr)

-Phil

Is there a way that Tick Tock can get this piece of data from the dealer? Any idea what those numbers represent?

 

[Ingineer]

Is there a way that Tick Tock can get this piece of data from the dealer? Any idea what those numbers represent?

The Consult III+ that the dealer uses does not show this information, but I think it is available to Nissan via the ASIST system. (Their internet connection tool)

The "Grad Cap Loss Coef" is Nissan's Label. I think it means Gradual Capacity Loss Coefficient. Grad Cap Loss Mtr is likely Gradual Capacity Loss Meter, which is what is used by the 12 bar capacity display. This means my battery is actually at 103% but reporting 100%.

Strangely, the Consult III+ system doesn't even give the dealer access to kWh level (Gids).

All that's needed to calculate loss is Gary's meter, as TickTock proved himself.

-Phil

 

[TonyWilliams]

All that's needed to calculate loss is Gary's meter, as TickTock proved himself.

-Phil

I agree, however, don't you think there might be some value in building a case to "prove" the capacity loss (as futile as that may be) with their data for "capacity loss".

 

[vegastar]

I think the gradual capacity loss coeficient from Ticktock car whould shed some light if the low capacity is from gradual capacity loss or a low capacity battery from the beginning.

 

[Ingineer]

I agree, however, don't you think there might be some value in building a case to "prove" the capacity loss (as futile as that may be) with their data for "capacity loss".

The dealer is working for Nissan. I wouldn't think they are going to help a customer prove anything against Nissan. Besides, as I said; Nissan does not give the Dealer Tech access to really anything useful other than cell voltages.

Didn't TickTock report that the Dealer Tech wouldn't even allow him to take a picture of Consult III+ screen?

-Phil

 

[TonyWilliams]

I agree, however, don't you think there might be some value in building a case to "prove" the capacity loss (as futile as that may be) with their data for "capacity loss".

The dealer is working for Nissan. I wouldn't think they are going to help a customer prove anything against Nissan. Besides, as I said; Nissan does not give the Dealer Tech access to really anything useful other than cell voltages.

Didn't TickTock report that the Dealer Tech wouldn't even allow him to take a picture of Consult III+ screen?

-Phil

I'm not suggesting the dealer; I'm suggesting your tool, that does indeed have the data.

 

[Ingineer]

I'm not suggesting the dealer; I'm suggesting your tool, that does indeed have the data.

The tool is LEAFSCAN. I'm working as best I can on getting it out to everyone, I'm sure you'll be the first to know!

-Phil