Nubo
Well-known member
cwerdna said:
Just a bit awkward because Jeff introduced the video in the other thread as well. Maybe that portion of the open letter thread can be brought over here. But no big deal either way.
Andy Palmer and Chelsea Sexton Discuss the Nissan LEAF
- Thread starter OrientExpress
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Just a bit awkward because Jeff introduced the video in the other thread as well. Maybe that portion of the open letter thread can be brought over here. But no big deal either way.
Sorry, I was not so impressed by the video. Not one new piece of information gleaned from the discussion. Yes it was nice that Nissan stood up and said it publicly but we already had 4-5 new questions without any answers. 1) battery pack, how many times do people have to ask. if you have auto accident it may need to be replaced. ,Its a BATTERY you need to replace them. This isnt Star Trek with Dilithium Crystals. 2) what is the projection for 12.5K in AZ or TX and what about other location in hot climates with battery loss. How many different US projections do they have. When were they going to tell anyone about these projections.3) Is there any degradation level they feel would constitute battery failure. Why do we have an 8 yr warranty that covers nothing. ect.... Just seems like more smoke screen , We need technical people dissecting these cars with rapid loss and spewing the data back as to why they declined early. were they driving fast, charging to 100% freq, heat, miles, hills, A/C . color blue, overweight driver give us something factual.
Boomer23
Well-known member
Volusiano said:
What I heard in the video was that Nissan is handling customer concerns on a customer by customer basis. If I were having premature degradation issues that interfered with my intended usage of the car, I'd be on the phone to Customer Service on a regular basis asking about my situation. I'd also be trying to get in touch with an actual Nissan exec if the CS route yielded no results, and I'd be in touch with Chelsea about my particular situation for her help in escalating my and similar issues to Nissan's top people.
IMHO, the biggest issue is the range expectations that Nissan touted without providing buyers (or lessees) with predictions about how soon significant degradation should be expected. I'd say that a large percentage of us expected to see very little range degradation in the first 2 to 3 years, with a little degradation perhaps starting to show up in year 3. I think that had Nissan warned potential buyers that their range might drop by 10% to 15% in the first year in warm climates (to include Metro Southern California, their primary market!) and 20% or more in desert climates if you drove more than 7,500 miles per year, many buyers would have opted out before purchase and Nissan would have a smaller, but much more satisfied customer base.
The 7,500 mile Phoenix norm, by the way smacks to me of something Nissan came up with after the complaints and the Casa Grande tech review, to explain why those cars had suffered as much degradation as they had. If Nissan had 7,500 miles as an annual driving range norm for Phoenix at the time the cars were sold there, why did they allow customers to assume that they would get the same range over time as people elsewhere who drive the US average of 12,500 miles per year?
shrink
Well-known member
I'm sorry but I don't believe the Phoenix 7500 miles per year claim. In one communication, they claimed Phoenix drivers have more highway miles due to urban sprawl. Well, if everything is so far apart, why do we drive 55% of the annual average? If they are basing this on Carwings data, wouldn't it limited to when drivers hit "accept?" Not everyone does that consistently. I just don't buy it.
A few questions I would like answered:
1) Your stated goal is to improve communication. To help better manage owner expectations, will prospective Phoenix LEAF buyers be advised in writing that if they drive 7500 miles per year, they can expect 76% battery capacity after 5 years, on average, with normal usage?
2) Will leases be offered based on 7500 miles per year average? If so, will the residual be calculated based on a regional Phoenix usage average, or a prorated amount based on the typical 10K, 12K, and 15K rates? In other words, does a 7500 mile lease in Phoenix = a 12K lease elsewhere, or will lease rates be even lower on a 7500 mile lease since usage and presumably depreciation will be much lower as compared to national averages.
3) Original Phoenix area owners were never previously advised a 76% 5-year capacity based only on 7500 miles/year. Why were they not informed of this? What would you say to these owners with battery degradation that is occurring much faster than expected?
4) You seem to acknowledge that heat, such as in Phoenix, increases the rate of battery degradation. Elon Musk was quoted 2 years ago as saying, "LEAF's battery temperature will be 'all over the place,'and result in 'huge degradation.'" What are your thoughts on that comment now? Are there plans for a TMS in future LEAF models?
5) You mentioned one QC/day. Mark Perry said multiple QC's in a day are fine. Which is it? Why are QC's bad for the battery? Is it heat? If so, wouldn't a TMS keep the battery cool and allow more frequent QC's?
6) There are several cases of low mileage LEAFs in warm climates losing capacity bars. Can you comment on that?
I am glad the car seems to be doing well in other climates and the effort to make this video is lauded. However, IMO they continue to do a disservice to hot climate owners.
A few questions I would like answered:
1) Your stated goal is to improve communication. To help better manage owner expectations, will prospective Phoenix LEAF buyers be advised in writing that if they drive 7500 miles per year, they can expect 76% battery capacity after 5 years, on average, with normal usage?
2) Will leases be offered based on 7500 miles per year average? If so, will the residual be calculated based on a regional Phoenix usage average, or a prorated amount based on the typical 10K, 12K, and 15K rates? In other words, does a 7500 mile lease in Phoenix = a 12K lease elsewhere, or will lease rates be even lower on a 7500 mile lease since usage and presumably depreciation will be much lower as compared to national averages.
3) Original Phoenix area owners were never previously advised a 76% 5-year capacity based only on 7500 miles/year. Why were they not informed of this? What would you say to these owners with battery degradation that is occurring much faster than expected?
4) You seem to acknowledge that heat, such as in Phoenix, increases the rate of battery degradation. Elon Musk was quoted 2 years ago as saying, "LEAF's battery temperature will be 'all over the place,'and result in 'huge degradation.'" What are your thoughts on that comment now? Are there plans for a TMS in future LEAF models?
5) You mentioned one QC/day. Mark Perry said multiple QC's in a day are fine. Which is it? Why are QC's bad for the battery? Is it heat? If so, wouldn't a TMS keep the battery cool and allow more frequent QC's?
6) There are several cases of low mileage LEAFs in warm climates losing capacity bars. Can you comment on that?
I am glad the car seems to be doing well in other climates and the effort to make this video is lauded. However, IMO they continue to do a disservice to hot climate owners.
jhm614
Well-known member
Boomer23 said:
If I understood the video correctly, the 7500 mile figure comes from the CARWINGS data from the 400 AZ customers that click "accept" when the LEAF is started. So Nissan wouldn't have had the data when the original cars were sold. The one question is will this data be given to new customers -- as in, a region specific disclaimer. "If you live in Phoenix and drive 7,500 miles you will have 76% capacity after 5 years. Higher miles and higher speeds will result in less capacity."
Also, I would love to see the Dallas area data -- how many were sold, how many people are clicking "accept", average mileage per year and how many bars are left....
And it seems like this data would lend itself to a fantastic web app. Enter your home zip, your commute destination zip, number of days you communte and get a region specific battery life estimate...
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Boomer23 said:
Ya, that was certainly pulled out of the "legal department". There is no way they knew that 7500 miles would be the "norm" in Phoenix before selling a car there. But, great play for the lawsuits.
Boomer23 said:
+1 I could not agree more. They gave no inclination that battery issues would be as bad as they seem to be. Yes 80% was supposed to be a long life mode, but what is a long life? Andy said no more than 1 QC a day. Mark Perry said a few a day are no problem. Which is it? They are making this sh!t up as they go along.
The video was too cute by half. Nothing new was learned. The warrantee claim was stupid. This case by case bs was also stupid.
Do we have real data for what a used 2011-2012 Leaf with no degradation is going for?
My concern is that because of the fall out of all of this that my Leaf will be worthless. Not that I want to sell or that I see this as an investment, but I do not want to take a bath on it.
shrink
Well-known member
Two more questions I think need answers to improve communication with owners:
1) Since battery degradation is nonlinear, up to how much degradation would be considered normal after the first year? 10% 20% 30%? Owners need to know this to determine if the LEAF is viable for their commutes and anticipated usage.
2) Since you cite customer safety as one of your reasons for including a battery capacity gauge, and you want to continue to improve communication with owners, will you stop withholding and tell owners exactly how much usable capacity is remaining in their battery packs if requested? Both usable kWh and % of original capacity would be very informative, so drivers can better plan and anticipate their commutes.
1) Since battery degradation is nonlinear, up to how much degradation would be considered normal after the first year? 10% 20% 30%? Owners need to know this to determine if the LEAF is viable for their commutes and anticipated usage.
2) Since you cite customer safety as one of your reasons for including a battery capacity gauge, and you want to continue to improve communication with owners, will you stop withholding and tell owners exactly how much usable capacity is remaining in their battery packs if requested? Both usable kWh and % of original capacity would be very informative, so drivers can better plan and anticipate their commutes.
jspearman
Well-known member
shrink said:
I feel guilty every time I QC the car. Nissan has created the first passive-aggressive automobile.
cwerdna
Well-known member
1) I thought about the accident scenario and concluded that if it came to the point where the battery pack were damaged to the point where it needs to be replaced in its entirety, the car is totaled anyway, due to the severity of the damage. They wouldn't be fixing it. Maybe that's why they don't have a customer paid price?mksE55 said:
2) Agreed about #2. As for other people's points, yeah, it sure doesn't seem like AZ, TX and other hot climate area buyers/lesees were ever told about 7.5K miles/year and the glide path after x years after various annual mileage figures.
3) Agree. Battery warranty seems mostly useless. This I'd be hesitant to buy a new one. I'd either lease or try to get a used one for real cheap.
I too am confused about his 1 QC/day comment. Agreed that it contradicts what Mark Perry's said before, including at the meeting at the Googleplex last year.
I sorta disagree w/the comments there was nothing learned. We at least have some better idea where Nissan's coming from, even if we don't like it.
abasile
Well-known member
The way I take it is that multiple QC's in a day are fine, and do not create a safety issue, risk of battery fire, etc., but are not ideal on any sort of regular basis. The last couple of times we've QC'ed (once per day), our battery temperature rose to seven bars, which is itself not ideal for battery longevity. Had we QC'ed more than once per day, the battery temperature certainly would have gone even higher. This is almost certainly less of an issue in cooler ambient temperatures, but for most owners most of the time, using QC in moderation only makes sense, and is advice consistent with what we just heard from Andy Palmer.shrink said:
We also know that, even apart from any heat issue, QC causes more degradation than L2 charging. How much more, we don't know. All I can say is, given that most of our LEAF's miles are in the mountains, we regularly do a large amount of regenerative braking which for us does not involve quite as much continuous charging current as QC, but is still pretty significant. Today, for instance, our LEAF did about 10,000 feet of descending (and of course climbing), as it was used for two round trips from our home to the valley below. While we definitely have noticed battery degradation (just over 8% according to our gid meter), it doesn't seem particularly out of line considering that we have had the car for almost 1.5 years and it's about to turn over 23K miles. (Our local auto mechanic, who is very reputable, always says that "mountain miles" on ICE cars are sort of equivalent to double the number of flatland miles.)
scottf200
Well-known member
It was interesting that they very clearly wanted/expected people to lease.
cwerdna
Well-known member
Agreed. It sure didn't seem like it for most/all of the time it's been available for lease/sale.scottf200 said:
Before it was available, Ghosn and others kept talking about the car being for sale but the battery being lease only. But, that never happened (and we've had a bunch of discussion about that as to why already)...
TonyWilliams said:
But he also said that 7,500 is "a little bit less than the norm". The norm was stated to be 12,500.
So by NissanMath, a Leaf that can only go 48 miles, only goes a little bit less than one that goes 80 miles. What is the big deal?
Stoaty
Well-known member
Summary of points in the video added to Wiki:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Nissan.27s_Responses_and_Actions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought the most interesting part was the admission that the "norm" was set using the LA04 cycle and 12,500 miles per year. This contradicts what TickTock reported being told (that the LA04 cycle was not the basis for setting the norms).
The biggest answer that was missing (that Nissan will probably not want to answer) is what the predicted 5 and 10 year capacities are for the LA04 cycle in Phoenix using 12,500 miles per year. Not giving that answer is basically an admission that the Arizona Leafs are far from the norm, which means that proper disclosure was not given before purchase/lease.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Nissan.27s_Responses_and_Actions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought the most interesting part was the admission that the "norm" was set using the LA04 cycle and 12,500 miles per year. This contradicts what TickTock reported being told (that the LA04 cycle was not the basis for setting the norms).
The biggest answer that was missing (that Nissan will probably not want to answer) is what the predicted 5 and 10 year capacities are for the LA04 cycle in Phoenix using 12,500 miles per year. Not giving that answer is basically an admission that the Arizona Leafs are far from the norm, which means that proper disclosure was not given before purchase/lease.
gsleaf
Well-known member
I know many people here on the forum aren't happy with Nissan, but this felt like a reasonable start of dialog. I'd love to see if Nissan is planning on adding any sort of temperature management for the battery anytime in the near future.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
gsleaf said:
No, Andy stated Tuesday that they were not.
Volusiano
Well-known member
Chelsea asked 2 good will questions, not just 1.Boomer23 said:
At 9:13 she said "How are you dealing with the good will issue? ..." Then Andy answered "on customer by customer basis" like you said.
But at 10:25, she was not satisfied with Andy's response above, so she asked again: "I know that you said you'll deal with it on a customer by customer basis for the Phoenix issue. Is there going to be a broader good will remedy for those who still love their LEAF, but are concerned that one day this issue will be their issue?" Andy again blew off the question and did not answer it directly. He simply said if you look at battery warranty around the world, it's 5 years, but in the US it's 8 years. I read it between the lines to mean "Don't push the question, US customers are already lucky enough to get 8 year battery warranty instead of 5, so they should be grateful and that's good will enough from us right there."
The truth of the matter is that they did the 8 year in the US only because, and right after, GM announced the 8 year warranty for the Volt. So they did the 8 year only because they didn't want to be bested by GM on the Volt. It's not because they have good will for the US owners. If so, then why don't they have good will for the rest of the world and give everybody 8 years?
By then, Chelsea knew she wasn't going to get an answer out of him, so she moved on with other questions.
My whole point was that Nissan's first answer to the question about handling it on a case by case basis is not going to be satisfactory for people in Phoenix or elsewhere who are not affected enough to render their LEAF totally useless, and can live with the premature range reduction, but are still very much inconvenienced because of the premature range reduction. In their cases, they don't necessarily want to proceed with the lemon buyback, but they still get a very bitter taste in their mouth because there's no other good will measure to satisfy them, short of going through the lemon buyback process.
There may end up being a dozen lemon buybacks in AZ, but there are still going to be 400 very sore and bitter AZ owners who decide not to do the lemon buyback, but still feel that they're royally screwed by Nissan for luring them into buying LEAFs in AZ without enough information and facts to make an informed purchase decision.
And there will be thousands of other LEAF owners outside of AZ in similar fate, who got affected by premature capacity bar loss, but not severe enough for a lemon buyback, but with a very sour taste in their mouth because of a lack of any good will remedy
The problem is now already beyond a technical problem. The problem is now a public relations problem. And it's not going to go away. Look at the last few months alone. That's all everybody ever talked about. And it's going to get worse next summer, and the summer after. More and more capacity bar losers are going to emerge, by the thousands in the next couple of years. Nissan can't tape over the capacity meter on the LEAF anymore. The cat is already out of the bag. Even for owners who are not affected, AND especially for potential buyers, all eyes are looking at Nissan to see if they're going to stand behind their product or not.
Short of a technical remedy, like heat resistant battery chemistry, or TMS, which we now know clearly they don't have for 2013, a good will remedy is the ONLY way Nissan is going to get out of this mess. A lack of any kind of good will remedy at all whatsoever (and lemon buyback is not the answer for everyone) will show everybody that Nissan is not willing to stand behind their product. So who is willing to buy from a company who's not willing to stand behind their product?
planet4ever
Well-known member
Yes, that's the way I heard it, too. But I'm surprised no one has pointed out that this is a prime way to lie with statistics. What Andy said (in effect) was that 11% (50/450) of AZ drivers never click accept. What he implied was that the other 89% always click accept. What if I drive 15,000 miles a year, but only click accept half the time? Or my wife and I drive the car equally, and she always clicks but I never do? Bingo! We're suddenly 7500 mile drivers. (I know whereof I speak. My car's odometer has gone past 10,000, but CARWINGS says I've driven a total of 88.8 miles in the parts of two years I have had it.) In fact, if my mileage was averaged with that of a 15K mile driver ...jhm614 said:
Now, I suppose it is barely possible that neither Andy nor any of the bean counters at Nissan thought if this but, frankly, I think the overwhelming probability is that they did, and decided to pretend that they didn't.
Ray
Volusiano
Well-known member
Well said, Ray, about this being a prime way to lie with statistics.planet4ever said:
When you think of it, the concept of the glide path is a very technical concept. If I were a competent engineer, I would want to make an apple to apple comparison and do all glide paths w.r.t. the 12.5K base line. Just the fact that they change to the 7.5K base line is deliberate enough in my opinion because this baseline gives them a more favorable result of 76%. I don't believe that they "accidentally" use a different baseline. It's all very deliberately thought out. That's why Andy said in the video that whether the baseline should be 7.5K or 12.5K is another subject for discussion altogether.
But it's not. It's very simple, please give us the glide path extrapolation for Phoenix using the 12.5K baseline. End of discussion.
