opossum said:
Hey everyone.
I (we) wanted to clear up a few vague items in the “who has lost a bar” list and give everyone a bit of recent Phoenix capacity loss information...
“Azdre” (the originator of this massive thread) and I own the same Phoenix Leaf, VIN #0500. We lost our second bar several weeks ago and appear to be on the cusp of losing the third. So on the current list, our car is one of the two I had reported earlier had lost two bars in Phoenix (notes section).
Sorry for being so vague earlier. Things were happening quickly. Knowing that Nissan monitors this forum, we were walking a fine line between declaring too much on a public forum and still sharing our experience with everyone. We are very concerned about this dramatic and non-linear (non-gradual!) capacity loss, and wanted to be sure our bargaining position with Nissan was not compromised by anything we said on this forum.
Many days have since passed, the trend is quite clear, and it is fairly obvious to everyone now (hopefully) that this capacity loss is not due to poor owner treatment...
Thanks for the update and additional info.
I think it's pretty clear, by analyzing the reports by geography and climate, that the primary determinant of battery bar loss is the battery pack's long term exposure to high ambient temperatures.
What is not clear to me, is whether bar loss is entirely the result of lost battery capacity, or reflects, at least in part, the LEAFs BMS operation.
As I understand it, your ScanGauge reports are calculated from the same data widely reported by those with gid monitors. This reports the amount of energy the battery pack accepts at a given charge setting,
which is not necessarily a fixed percentage of total battery capacity. It may, instead, reflect, in part, the LEAFs BMS operation.
The fact that many have reported rapidly dropping gid counts and Scangauge reports over the last few months, as temperatures have risen, seem to me, to indicate that either Nissan has equipped LEAFs with batteries with
extremely poor resistance to hot temperatures, or that there is another factor at work.
It seems to be generally accepted, that the best way to reduce battery capacity in high heat conditions, is to limit the charge level.
IMO, it would have been extremely shortsighted (if not a total BEV plan FUBAR) for Nissan
not to have equipped the LEAF with a BMS that would adapt to climate conditions, to allow higher charge levels where they are most needed, in cold climates, and reducing maximum charge level, under hotter conditions, to prolong battery life. In fact, there
may be quite a bit of anecdotal evidence tending to indicate BMS effects on gid counts, limiting charge levels in hotter climate conditions, reported on various threads.
This is not to say we should not be very concerned about you bar losses. You, even more than the rest of LEAF owners, have a right to be angry with Nissan's virtual embargo of battery capacity information, ever since the LEAF was launched. And it does not indicate the bar loss LEAFs have not lost very significant (and maybe still totally unacceptable) capacity permanently. Every LEAF will lose some battery capacity every day. Hot climate LEAFs will lose capacity faster than Cold climate LEAFs, independent of other battery use variables.
But I would encourage all to consider the methodical collection of actual long-term battery performance data, as opposed to assembling the fragmentary evidence that Nissan has provided, from the dash bars, and in statements on what they indicate, with relatively limited observations of actual battery performance, and forming conclusions, uncritically.