Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[surfingslovak]

It's pretty obvious that after the last firmware update, the mi/Kwh went way up from before the update. I typically used to get to work with an efficiency of 4.1 to 4.2 mi/Kwh, now I've been getting 4.7 to 4.8 and once in awhile as high as 5.0 mi/Kwh. It makes it kind of hard to check capacity against last years data.

There is another simple test, you could perform. The data I've been getting for wall energy to recharge the battery has been pretty consistent for me. I took several measurements, and the values observed have declined from about 24.5 kWh when new to about 22.5 kWh 16 months after purchase. This is roughly in line with about 10% autonomy loss, which I have measured through other means.

While every vehicle is different, and the instrumentation is likely not adequate, significant trends can emerge, as has been demonstrated over the past few months.

I believe that what we are seeing is real, but I have to admit that only Nissan has access to the data required to fully assess the situation and formulate a remedy, which will satisfy customer expectations and meet other criteria as well. That said, I found the recent events very encouraging and hope that this constructive dialog will continue. This forum consists of a collection of very knowledgeable and resourceful owners, and I'm glad that I could be part of this community.

 

[doug401]

Hi Jeff, and welcome to the jungle.

I am looking forward to the 2013 model. Will it include the same "auto passive cooling" system that my 2011 came with? You know... the free option offered North of Eugene and West of the Cascade crest.**

**Warning-auto passive cooling may have side effects like,
Moss growth on roofs, increased winter suicide rate, blighted tomatoes, foot fungus, rainy 4th of
July's, and better-than-average battery capacity loss.

 

[edatoakrun]

It's pretty obvious that after the last firmware update, the mi/Kwh went way up from before the update. I typically used to get to work with an efficiency of 4.1 to 4.2 mi/Kwh, now I've been getting 4.7 to 4.8 and once in awhile as high as 5.0 mi/Kwh. It makes it kind of hard to check capacity against last years data.

This probably just warm weather. My mi/kWh went up by about the same amount when the temperature rose in the summer, well after my firmware upgrade (~5mo). For me, the firmware only affected my GOM leaving an extra 5mi or so after I hit one bar before turtle.

I'm sure you'll see mi/kWh go back down by December.

Not entirely.

There is a seasonal variation, but there is also energy report error, in my LEAF, and I suspect many others, leading the to a common belief "my capacity is dropping, but I'm making up for it by increasing my efficiency."

I have documented an increase in my LEAFs dash/CW m/kWh over the last year in a normalized temperature range test, backed up by calculated actual capacity on recharge, as precisely as I can with only time-of Charge data.

In my case, the increase on the identical-condition-and-distance range, test has been from ~4.9 m/kWh to ~5.7 m/kWh.

The proportionate increase in my m/kWh all my other trips seems to be approximately the same.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[September]

If this advisory board is supposed to be global it would be cool to include some people from other countries than US as well. In UK there is leaftalk.co.uk forum and elbilforum.no in Norway.

 

[evchels]

If this advisory board is supposed to be global it would be cool to include some people from other countries than US as well. In UK there is leaftalk.co.uk forum and elbilforum.no in Norway.

Thanks! Yes, other countries will absolutely be included.

 

[WetEV]

Moss growth on roofs

Usually around the wheel wells, not on the roofs.

 

[TonyWilliams]

They did not test drive the cars. Has anybody done that test ?

12 of us drove cars on a little test last week.

Click here -->>> http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=225481#p225481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and click here -->>> http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=228326#p228326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, click here for a range chart -->>> http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=101293#p101293" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@Tony,
I've been reading those threads for a while and I am very admirative of the work you are doing to help the community understand what is happening. But with all due respect, you did not understand my question. I was asking about the battery test which consists in running the AC and heater at full blast as described in the service manual.

I don't know anybody (owner) who has done that test. I know one owner who has a dynomometer who was planning a test.

 

[ericsf]

If many people are already at 21.25% loss (2 bars, 15% bar 1 + 6.25% bar 2) in the first year (and a half or so), why would they believe Nissan that the next 4 years or so will only sustain another 3% loss?

The only credibility right now is to back all claims and projections up with a battery capacity warranty.

I guess it's about seeing the glass half full or half empty. I've decided to see it on the full side and this is how I interpret the published result of the range test done during the weekend of Sept 15 in AZ: The 6 cars whith 10 bars had on average 85% of the expect range of a new car. That's 15% loss not 21%. The nominal range has been set at 84 miles for a drive at 64mph (dashboard speed). Tony's tables tell us that at 60mph the nominal range is 82 miles. Now I am not sure if the range tables are speedometer speed or GPS speeds. Depending on that it still puts the target norminal range to be 5% to 14% more pessimistic than the range table. I don't know which is more accurate (the tables or the Sept 15 test) but since the 2 cars with 12 bars had 93% of the 84 miles estimate range that would be consistent with the fact that the 84 miles target range was overestimated which makes the numbers lean towards the pessimistic side. My opinion is that depending on how you look at it, the 2 bars loss translate into a range loss betweem 15% (compared to a pessimistic target of 84 miles) and 8% (compared to a more optimistic target range of 80 miles).

To me those numbers remains consistent with an estimate of the average AZ driver having 76% remaining capacity after 5 years. I don't see any reason to say that Nissan's projections are wrong. They will probably be off by a few points but not by a factor 2 or more as some seem to believe.

 

[GreenPowerDP]

It seems that Nissan is taking this issue seriously and have taken several positive steps:

> Sending a letter to the owners community - to recognize that additional communication is needed.

> Appointing an independent council with a recognized industry leader to represent the owners (Thanks Chelsea!) and to gather feedback.

> Offering someone to represent Nissan here on the forums (Jeff Kuhlman, Head of Global Communications for Nissan Motor Co.)

Jeff: in the absence of an official response to very technical questions, you will see speculation from the owners, many of whom are very technical. So my advice for you is to use your connections to bring other technical resources to bear on these discussions - get input from Nissan engineers when attempting to answer questions or concerns. You expressed concern about officially participating - to be successful here you have to take the good with the bad. Always offering the "company line" wont necessarily help here. People here are passionate (this post is on page 17!!!) and want to be involved - so engage them.

The message we heard in the open letter is that the range loss that is being reported is within design specifications, and that Nissan wants to address customer concerns. Although the range loss may be within parameters - it was not expected so customers are feeling like they were mislead. We are dealing with expectations.

If Nissan wants to turn this around, they need to go out of their way to turn those "affected" by the battery degradation into happy customers. The best selling tool in their arsenal is a happy customer. If this is a localized problem and is only a small percentage of the overall Leaf population, then it would be a small financial matter to address.

There have been several good suggestions about how to address the issue: including swapping battery packs, converting loans to leases etc. This would have to be done on a case by case basis since some may not want to keep their cars, while others would.

Most here want the Leaf to succeed - myself included. This battle is more about managing expectations than technology.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I would like to see Jeff, Andy, Mark and the whole gang come to Phoenix for a town hall on the issue. I know other areas have problems, but this is ground zero. We have easy airport access for any others who would like to come, and I would be more than happy to house at least one person in our casita.

This is actually a reasonable request, since Nissan engineers / execs / etc do go to Phoenix because they have a corporate facility there. The Dec 3, 2011 meeting of LEAF owners and Nissan principles at the Google headquarters was possible, in part, because the chief engineer was returning FROM Phoenix to sign off on the next EV coming from Nissan. They had a whole cross section of the engineering team, plus execs (I think 17 were from Nissan of the well over 100 people (and over 100 LEAFs) present that day. I flew in from San Diego to join up, and I thought it was awesome.

What is different is that the Google meeting was a huge Love Fest. They might not be quite as excited to have angry, loud, large Americans yelling at them at a proposed Phoenix meeting. Therefore, I think your chances are that if anybody showed up, it would be the folks who are hired to cover Nissan's back on its mistakes (low on engineers, high on lawyers and other "non-specific answer, don't sue us" folks). It's extremely unlikely that anything would be offered that might suggest in any way that there was any issue, which stops any resolution or comfort for you, the LEAF consumer.

Even during our Love Fest, we had the quality guy for Nissan ramble off legal disclaimers and ass-covering statements. That guy would have a heart attack at a Phoenix meet!!! I think there's a picture of he and I standing outside Google somewhere in this forum.

I'd recommend that if somebody were to organize such an event, that it be done in with the results / recommendations of the convening "Chelsea Sexton Board", with Nissan, that board, and owners in Phoenix at some date in the coming months AT the Nissan test facility (if they have room for 100 plus people there). I'd also recommend NO news reporters or your lawyers be allowed.

 

[thankyouOB]

Tony,
how do you effectively close a meeting to the media with more than 100 people are attending and there is no invite list?

regardless, we would expect reporting on the meeting here and in other forums. dont those folks effectively become media?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony,
how do you effectively close a meeting to the media with more than 100 people are attending and there is no invite list?

regardless, we would expect reporting on the meeting here and in other forums. dont those folks effectively become media?

It's actually how the Google meeting was conducted. You register to attend... folks from Joe's Legal Service and Big News Agency won't be accepted. No recording devices, either.

Sure, people will report. But, potentially more open and forthright communication will result without a court reporter and TV news camera present.

 

[timhebb]

...I have always felt that this issue would be defined more by Nissan's response than by the technical issues involved.

Of RegGuheert's numerous sound and sensible observations, this one stands among the keenest and cuts closest to the bone.

The battery degradation issues should be neither shocking, nor fatal to the evolution of the Leaf or EVs in general. Who would NOT have expected growing pains to emerge from the introduction of a revolutionary first-generation mass-produced EV? (Apologies for borderline smugness here, but that's why I leased...)

The technical issues are surmountable, but only in the context of sensitive, responsive, accountable customer service and deft, intelligent policy-making by Nissan.

The outreach by Nissan demonstrated in this thread suggests reason for moderate optimism.

 

[TonyWilliams]

A few just want to be done with the LEAF and move on to another car- and some already have. Is that a fair assessment?

I recently asked the Phoenix test group that if Nissan were to either give you a new battery, or a new LEAF today, would that satisfy you?

I don't think anybody said no. Both of the 2012 model LEAFs of the 12 cars tested in Phoenix were replacement LEAFs from the previous reduced range LEAF, each paid for entirely by the owners (no special deals from Nissan because of capacity loss). That should tell you a lot.

Very few want to go back to oil burning. I'll bet Scott Yarish would happily accept a 2012 loaner LEAF, after having turned in his 4 bar loser car last week. Then, perhaps they could interest him in a really cheap lease that had some proviso that should the capacity fall below XX% (tough to define when Nissan can change the measuring parameters at will) of range, he can turn in the car with no penalty.

 

[RegGuheert]

The message we heard in the open letter is that the range loss that is being reported is within design specifications, and that Nissan wants to address customer concerns.

That's not exactly the message that I heard. Look carefully at the words that Carla Bailo wrote:

• The Nissan LEAFs inspected in Arizona are operating to specification and their battery capacity loss over time is consistent with their usage and operating environment. No battery defects were found.

Note that she says the "LEAFs" "are operating to specification" and then talks about battery capacity. She only mentions range in one sentence that I saw in the entire letter.

In fact, I do not think Nissan has any idea what the RANGE of the cars that went to Casa Grande is. Why do I say that? Because, according to the owners of those cars, Nissan didn't drive them far enough to determine range. While this might sound like a nitpick, I will say that it is a central problem in the communication chasm that exists between Nissan and LEAF owners. We have been talking about "battery degradation" around here because we know that shortens range, but as Tony, Ed and Azdre have recently been correctly pointing out, the REAL issue is range.

Does it matter? I have come to believe that it does. To start with, the Nissan LEAF starts with a very limited range compared with most cars any of us have driven before. Any reduction from that range is a big deal. Also, The recent range tests showed some cars where a large percentage of the range is bottled up below LBW and VLBW. Driving a Nissan LEAF after VLBW is akin to driving an ICE car with the fuel gauge pushing against the empty peg, except you likely have fewer miles to go and refilling is more difficult.

To make the point more clear, let's consider the extreme case: Imagine driving a Nissan LEAF which has 100% of the battery capacity of a new LEAF, but the VLBW comes on as you pull out of the driveway each time. I can tell you that I do not want to drive that car, even though it might go farther than my current LEAF. Why? Because it is virtually unusable in that condition.

By NOT testing the RANGE of the cars sent to Casa Grande, Nissan missed an opportunity to experience first-hand the problem that their customers have been complaining about.

IMO, we as a community need to break our habit of referring to range and battery capacity interchangeably. They are not interchangeable and we are contributing to communication issues with Nissan whenever we do this.

 

[thankyouOB]

Tony,
how do you effectively close a meeting to the media with more than 100 people are attending and there is no invite list?

regardless, we would expect reporting on the meeting here and in other forums. dont those folks effectively become media?

It's actually how the Google meeting was conducted. You register to attend... folks from Joe's Legal Service and Big News Agency won't be accepted. No recording devices, either.

Sure, people will report. But, potentially more open and forthright communication will result without a court reporter and TV news camera present.

and what is the point of a closed meetings, as the issues affect thousands of car owners?
or are we really effectively saying that only a few score in Phoenix really care about this.

what you are proposing is a loser for improving communication with the many owners who are concerned as a result of all the noise (dont take it as a negative word) on this board.

As a communication professional, I would strongly recommend to Nissan that they not get into mass private meetings where what is discussed is reported out by folks who were there but have no expertise in reporting, autos or a track record as professional media.

what we dont need is more secrets and rumors and whispers and "information or data" that can be challenged for how it was produced.

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=155571#p155571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; might be insightful (I didn't know those details when I was attending) along w/many of the posts that followed Tony's at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=155461#p155461" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But then again, you probably read them since I noticed one of your replies.

 

[evchels]

and what is the point of a closed meetings, as the issues affect thousands of car owners?
or are we really effectively saying that only a few score in Phoenix really care about this.

I think the thought behind the comment is that the Nissan team might be more candid with you guys if they weren't worried about being quoted by press, etc. And yes, there are ways to control media access, as well as times when it's advantageous to do so.

But I agree with you that something like this should be as open as possible. No matter where such an event happened, I'd personally love to see any town hall mtg webcast if it's feasible so all drivers can watch and participate remotely.

 

[kolmstead]

There's one more group that ought to be added to the factions affected by the LEAF's battery capacity issue... the people who are walking into Nissan dealerships in the hot parts of the country and buying brand-new LEAFs that have lost a significant portion of their battery capacity because they sat on the dealer's lot for a year at 100% SOC.

 

[timhebb]

... we as a community need to break our habit of referring to range and battery capacity interchangeably. They are not interchangeable and we are contributing to communication issues with Nissan whenever we do this.

RegGuheert has parsed another distinction critical to the dialog with Nissan, and even among ourselves, Leaf owners/lessees.

For his steady contributions of penetrating, insightful commentary here, I nominate RegGuheert as a member of Chelsea Sexton's global advisory board.