Letter about possible Nissan Lawsuit

[EVDRIVER]

One aspect of this suit I agree with, NIssan never disclosed 100% charging could reduce capacity and full range is based on that. For this reason I hope Nissan is forced to compensate all owners. If range were based on 80% charging then there would be no issue but this move on their part was really slimy besides other points. Complaining about not getting 100 miles is utter nonsense since it is EPA rated for less and such an early suit for the AZ issues is premature IMO.

 

[DaveEV]

One aspect of this suit I agree with, NIssan never disclosed 100% charging could reduce capacity and full range is based on that.

Technically, the higher the average SOC, the faster capacity will degrade. The big difference is that Nissan recommends you let the SOC drop below 10 bars before charging so you in effect don't let the car sit for long periods of time over 10 SOC bars. Still, I agree that this should have been disclosed up front, even though this doesn't appear to have that much of an effect on battery life compared to temperature from what we can tell so far.

 

[EVDRIVER]

One aspect of this suit I agree with, NIssan never disclosed 100% charging could reduce capacity and full range is based on that.

Technically, the higher the average SOC, the faster capacity will degrade. The big difference is that Nissan recommends you let the SOC drop below 10 bars before charging so you in effect don't let the car sit for long periods of time over 10 SOC bars. Still, I agree that this should have been disclosed up front, even though this doesn't appear to have that much of an effect on battery life compared to temperature from what we can tell so far.

The reason is irrelevant, the important part is that if Nissan claims a certain range at 100% and then says 100% charging is not as good for the pack, it is a shorter life mode. They should have added 20% more capacity that was never used and then eliminated the "long life setting" This way a full charge which is what is required to go to the stated range would not be a compromise. Even though this is no surprise to me most consumers would never expect this.

 

[WetEV]

The reason is irrelevant, the important part is that if Nissan claims a certain range at 100% and then says 100% charging is not as good for the pack, it is a shorter life mode. They should have added 20% more capacity that was never used and then eliminated the "long life setting" This way a full charge which is what is required to go to the stated range would not be a compromise. Even though this is no surprise to me most consumers would never expect this.

I'd rather have the ability to use the top 20%. It allows the battery pack to be used more and longer, lowering cost per mile. It allows me to take occasional trips that are longer.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The reason is irrelevant, the important part is that if Nissan claims a certain range at 100% and then says 100% charging is not as good for the pack, it is a shorter life mode. They should have added 20% more capacity that was never used and then eliminated the "long life setting" This way a full charge which is what is required to go to the stated range would not be a compromise. Even though this is no surprise to me most consumers would never expect this.

I'd rather have the ability to use the top 20%. It allows the battery pack to be used more and longer, lowering cost per mile. It allows me to take occasional trips that are longer.

i use the top 20% frequently. if properly managed, there is no reason not to.

its a question of following basic rules of engagement. i am sorry that your LEAF must be treated with respect unlike any other car but that is how it is.

 

[WetEV]

I'd rather have the ability to use the top 20%. It allows the battery pack to be used more and longer, lowering cost per mile. It allows me to take occasional trips that are longer.

i use the top 20% frequently. if properly managed, there is no reason not to.

its a question of following basic rules of engagement. i am sorry that your LEAF must be treated with respect unlike any other car but that is how it is.

It is a BEV, not an ICE.

 

[nosuchthing]

Boy!

We're topping off about every other day. Charge exclusively 100% unless we're out or time and need to drive somewhere. Logged in 26,600 miles in 18 months... We should be 2 bars down by now!

We're not.

Is it the coastal CA? Or is my counterintuitive "stretch it-shrink it to prevent capacity loss" battery theory actually hold water?

There are 3 kW of unused capacity in the battery, right? 24 vs. usable 21. Isn't that enough protective buffer already? Sure seems to me it is.

I'm going to start a "say no to 80% charging" club here... :twisted:

 

[surfingslovak]

I'm going to start a "say no to 80% charging" club here... :twisted:

I'm certain that the apparent absence of range loss is to a large degree the result of the climate you live in. That, and the fact that the Leaf is driven every day, which means that it does not sit fully charged for an extended period of time. I'm sure that you recall Steve Marsh: he racked up 50K miles in the Pacific Northwest, and measured only about 10-13% range loss. He still has all 12 capacity bars. Scott Yarosh put about 30K miles on his Leaf in Phoenix, and was down four capacity bars in the same time frame. I believe that both gentlemen charged their cars to 100% every day, perhaps even multiple times. The only difference between the two was their geographic location.

 

[GerryAZ]

Boy!

We're topping of about every other day. Charge only 100% unless we're out or time and need to drive somewhere. Logged in 26,600 miles in 18 months... We should be 2 bars down by now!

We're not.

Is it the coastal CA? Or is my counterintuitive "stretch it-shrink it to prevent capacity loss" battery theory actually hold water?

There are 3 kW of unused capacity in the battery, right? 24 vs. usable 21. Isn't that enough protective buffer already? Sure seems to me it is.

I'm going to start a "say no to 80% charging" club here... :twisted:

I'm in your no to 80% club. I only charge to 100% and typically discharge rather deeply. I am in Phoenix and down 2 bars, but have noticed several loss of bars posts saying they only charge to 80% and baby the car by driving slow and gentle who lost their first bars at much lower mileage than me. For reference, I lost my first bar at 11,731 miles and 12-1/2 months; second bar at 13,834 miles and 14 months.

As Surfingslovak noted, climate clearly makes a difference but I think there is more than just climate involved. I remember seeing a chart/graph posted somewhere on MNL that showed a slightly higher degradation rate at 80% than at 100% SOC.

Gerry

 

[Stoaty]

I remember seeing a chart/graph posted somewhere on MNL that showed a slightly higher degradation rate at 80% than at 100% SOC.

See this portion of the Wiki about half-way down the section:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Factors_Affecting_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once the values are normalized to full cycles, the best is 80% to 0%.

 

[GRA]

I remember seeing a chart/graph posted somewhere on MNL that showed a slightly higher degradation rate at 80% than at 100% SOC.

See this portion of the Wiki about half-way down the section:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Factors_Affecting_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once the values are normalized to full cycles, the best is 80% to 0%.

The posts by Charles Whalen referenced in this link:

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5243-Volt-thermal-management-system-temperature-band/page6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

are fantastic.

high rate of degradation once you get above 95 degrees F

 

[garygid]

This thread is about a LETTER that discusses a POSSIBLE lawsuit.

We should have a new thread to discuss the actual lawsuit filed,
a substantially different subject from the letter discussed here.

Please unlock the new thread that was formed to discuss the
actual lawsuit that was filed.

 

[pb1]

Just curious if anyone heard of any new developments about the lawsuit filed in CA.

 

[fotajoye]

I must comment. Let me say that the winners in Class-Action suits are the Lawyers. Based on recent settlements by the courts, you, as a member, stand to win coupons toward the purchase of a new Nissan while the lawyers gain riches only one can hope for, by collecting their gross fees. If you think you are going to get an updated battery out of this deal, forgetaboutit!

 

[TonyWilliams]

I must comment. Let me say that the winners in Class-Action suits are the Lawyers. Based on recent settlements by the courts, you, as a member, stand to win coupons toward the purchase of a new Nissan while the lawyers gain riches only one can hope for, by collecting their gross fees. If you think you are going to get an updated battery out of this deal, forgetaboutit!

While I agree with your general statement, I have found that there are actually law firms who specialize is consumer rights. In general, the court will not require Nissan to "do" anything, like offer a redesigned battery or TMS. But, they will tell Nissan to STOP doing something, like selling the car in Phoenix.

What if a claim included a battery CAPACITY warrantee? Would you like that? What if were spelled out in normal earth years by average consumers, instead of secret Nissan-LEAF-Years(TM)?

They've already shown (with sister company Renault) that they will GUARANTEE 75% on battery leases, and GM must offer an 80% capacity warrantee to comply with EPA emissions. What if either of those capacities were warranteed?

Naturally, we would need third party monitoring, and I would suggest the same folks who do emission testing in California to be licensed to test the batteries. Otherwise, I fear Honda-esque software changes whereby the battery is on an ever changing trip of Nissan-LEAF-Capacity(TM). We've already gotten a taste of that with TickTock's car going from 10 capacity bars to 12, and then falling to 11, all with the exact same battery and capacity. It's just magic, the Nissan way!!!

What else would WE want from a class action? How about no further grandiose claims of high range autonomy mileage? How about disclosures of REAL LIFE (average 12,500 mile/year consumer) range and capacity, adjusted for climates, over the life of the vehicle?

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

 

[ericsf]

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

Something we all can do: Opt-out so that those lawyers don't get righ and the sky doesn't fall the LEAF

 

[TonyWilliams]

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

Something we all can do: Opt-out so that those lawyers don't get righ and the sky doesn't fall the LEAF

I'm not sure what that does or doesn't accomplish. I'll bet the lawyers still get paid (plenty), and Nissan still loses. None of the things that I suggested, or the $20 discount coupon on a future LEAF, will make the "sky fall (on) the LEAF".

Lack of sales will do that.

 

[downeykp]

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

Something we all can do: Opt-out so that those lawyers don't get righ and the sky doesn't fall the LEAF

I think you are missing his point. He is saying that if Nissan can't come up with or will never admit there is a battery problem then the only other course is to have a court make them comply. If they were upfront about this these owners would never have filed this suit. Badmouth lawyers all you want but they do serve a purpose.

 

[ericsf]

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

Something we all can do: Opt-out so that those lawyers don't get righ and the sky doesn't fall the LEAF

I'm not sure what that does or doesn't accomplish. I'll bet the lawyers still get paid (plenty), and Nissan still loses. None of the things that I suggested, or the $20 discount coupon on a future LEAF, will make the "sky fall (on) the LEAF".

Lack of sales will do that.

I was also wondering about that (what does opt-ing out actually accomplishes). Some wishfull thinking on my part. I don't even know if the "opt-out" letters are sent before of after the ruling and if it's before, can it influence the lawsuit... Why not: One of the requirements for a class action lawsuit is that it represents "a class". What if the majority of the class decides that it has nothing to do with lawsuit?

You're also right on the point that low sales is the biggest problem. If it's true that there is no such thing as "bad press", then maybe it's ONE good thing this lawsuit will bring. Some attention.

 

[ericsf]

Why don't we add concrete, positive things THAT A COURT MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, instead of the generic sky-is-falling, nothing-can-be-done, lawyers-are-all-rich, etc?

Something we all can do: Opt-out so that those lawyers don't get righ and the sky doesn't fall the LEAF

I think you are missing his point. He is saying that if Nissan can't come up with or will never admit there is a battery problem then the only other course is to have a court make them comply. If they were upfront about this these owners would never have filed this suit. Badmouth lawyers all you want but they do serve a purpose.

Comply with what? The rule that says that technology can't be put on the market until it's proven and tested to work with every single possible person and use case? If that rule was enforced we'd all still be riding horses (which after all might not be a bad thing).

Engineers are the ones who can improve the technology and fuel progress. Not the lawyers. Lawyers serve a purpose, but not in technology. Patent trolls, class action lawsuits are impeding progress. Everything that Nissan has been upfront about regarding the battery (80% saves the battery, extreme heat voids the warranty, [EDIT] even showing the battery health of the dashboard) is now used AGAINST them... How can you possibly believe that suing them will encourage them to be more open?

IMO, all it will achieve (at best) is make the paperwork for new LEAF owners 2-3 pages longer with gibberish lawyer talk. I curse a lawyer every time I have to press on the Accept button when I start my LEAF. That's lawyer's contribution to society.