Phoenix Range Test Sept 15, 2012 planning!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
surfingslovak said:
vegastar said:
That is an interesting sugestion. In my car the OCV is achieved in 20-30 minutes (after 30 minutes there is no further variation of the voltage).
Yes, that's about the only relevant suggestion out of the great voltage debate. I was going to ask if 5 minutes wait were really necessary, but you seem to suggest that even more is needed? What was the variation you saw? Was it more than 0.5V on the pack level or does the Gid meter offer better resolution than that?

My empirical evidence is that the voltage recovery (not gid recovery) depends on the load the car was getting before turn off. If I was drawing around 20kW then 2 to 3V is normal. For lower loads it can be around 1V.

But the voltage recovery also depends on the SOC. For lower SOC, especially below VLBW the recovery is much higher. I remember seeing around 10V recovery the last time I got to turtle by using the CC. With a bigger load than the CC I think it could be more.

In my daily log I use 0.25V resolution. If the gidmeter has the voltage changing from one value to another I assume the value with less error is the average between the 2 (.25 or .75):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvuZhK4s7poqdEJfYTBCb3lwakZDNGI1cGNJUlFIUmc
 
jspearman said:
I really appreciate all the effort going into this, and I'm sorry I can't participate. Will come by as show of solidarity, though, and would be happy to bring anything along that might be helpful.
If you had an upgraded Leaf EVSE or knew someone willing to loan one to you, that might help!
 
We will not do a 30 minute wait for OCV to stabilize because we are comparing performance, not quantifying an absolute range.

Every car will be exposed the same. So, when they hit Turtle, each had the same parameters up to the point, therefore the comparisons are valid. Plus, even if every car could go another mile or two, it's mostly irrelevant. Range does not equal, stop, shut off car, wait 30 minutes, drive one or two more miles.
 
surfingslovak said:
jspearman said:
I really appreciate all the effort going into this, and I'm sorry I can't participate. Will come by as show of solidarity, though, and would be happy to bring anything along that might be helpful.
If you had an upgraded Leaf EVSE or knew someone willing to loan one to you, that might help!

Yes, still need a J1772 adaptor splitter and two EVSEupgrade units.
 
At PADT right now and the right port wouldn't work. Son-of-a... will test it again after I get some more juice on the left port...

Where are we expecting to use these EVSE upgrade units? I don't see 120 or 240 outlets around, though I admittedly haven't really checked around the parking lot yet.

Edit: Okay, 3rd time was the charm. Man, I just love the reliability of Blink units. :roll:
 
opossum said:
Mark, Heather Moore from KPHO CBS 5 (the one who did the first 2 stories) is aware of what is happening this Saturday. I gave her a summary of what has happened (or not happened) since her last story and our cars went to Casa Grande. She has also poked around on this forum. She says she is interested in doing another story. I just don't know if she plans to get video of the event.
This is good. They may well not want to get a camera crew out at 5:30am, but perhaps they would be willing to use some of the video I hope you folks are producing.
 
mwalsh said:
palmermd said:
May I suggest 5.5 be to leave the car off for 5 minutes. This will allow for the car to calculate the OCV and re-adjust the SOC calculation based on this new information. Turn the car back on and then record items listed in (4) again [voltage and Gid]. I suspect they will be the same, and will not be adjusted higher, but this additional step will eliminate any question about the OCV at the end of the test. In fact mine seems to always adjust downward if I stop the car after a freeway run and then turn it back on. But better to record and have this information then to not have it and then have Nissan question the results later.

On days when I record "anomalous SOC readings" to my spreadsheet it is no uncommon for me to "recover" 2-3% SOC after leaving the car sit for a while. How long? I'm not sure. But it's not instantaneous - I do have to come back to the car sometime later to note my mid-point readings. I can't just turn it off and turn it back on again to see this change.
Usually I see a loss of 1 or more Gids if I turn the car back on right away. Over a few 10s of minutes I have seen recovery of 1 or 2 Gids, but never 1%, much less 2-3%. Have you seen this at very low SOC, near or below LBW? (I rarely go to LBW).

Edit: <<I stand corrected. It happens my car just hit LBW as I pulled into my garage this pm. It has been sitting for half an hour and its Gid SOC has risen from 16% to 18%.>>

I agree getting OCV helps the Gid calculation, but it would seem waiting to Turtle could be too late. Is it possible it would be better to pull over the car and stop at LBW for at least 5 minutes, and then resume driving?
 
opossum said:
Where are we expecting to use these EVSE upgrade units? I don't see 120 or 240 outlets :

We use the Blink J1772 adapter (I have one, we need one more), which becomes a 14-50R. Then, we plug in a 14-50P with two L6-20R pigtails. Now, two EVSEupgrade's can plug in at the same time.
 
TonyWilliams said:
opossum said:
Where are we expecting to use these EVSE upgrade units? I don't see 120 or 240 outlets :
We use the Blink J1772 adapter (I have one, we need one more), which becomes a 14-50R. Then, we plug in a 14-50P with two L6-20R pigtails. Now, two EVSEupgrade's can plug in at the same time.
The second J1772 adapter and L6-20R splitter should be covered courtesy of ElectricVehiclehttp://www.mynissanleaf.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=500. Is another EVSEupgrade still needed?
 
TonyWilliams said:
We will not do a 30 minute wait for OCV to stabilize because we are comparing performance, not quantifying an absolute range.

Every car will be exposed the same. So, when they hit Turtle, each had the same parameters up to the point, therefore the comparisons are valid. Plus, even if every car could go another mile or two, it's mostly irrelevant. Range does not equal, stop, shut off car, wait 30 minutes, drive one or two more miles.


I fully agree with this. It is just not the way any normal person would use the car. We drive until the car says no more and that is all.

Personally I don't think it would take 30 min to get a good OCV reading. It's probably more like 5 minutes, and I bet you'll take longer than 5 minutes just getting the car back to the charge station. If you take the second reading just prior to plugging in the charger it takes almost no time at all out of your schedule.

I think we all agree that at best we'll see a 1% recovery, and so for a car that has 20-25% loss of capacity it is meaningless. You still don't have enough range to make the car viable. The only thing I was trying to suggest is that taking this extra measurement will insure that they cannot come back and say "We are familiar with the test that was run by some of our customers, but they failed to realize that the software was...yada yada yada...and if they would have allow the car to reset, they would not have seen that much loss in range" Which is a true statement...we would have seen 1 or 2 percent less than we reported, but it gives Nissan a way to discredit the entire test and lead people (who are not following as closely) to believe the capacity loss is just a software problem. If we know how much was recovered (if any...I personally don't believe you will see any recovery) then they cannot use this line of reasoning to discredit the test.

If you still don't feel the need to take the second measurement, that is fine, but I just wanted to clarify my statements since somehow it seemed to be coming across as a suggestion to sit on the side of the highway for 30 minutes doing nothing for a measurement we all believe will show nothing.
 
surfingslovak said:
TonyWilliams said:
opossum said:
Where are we expecting to use these EVSE upgrade units? I don't see 120 or 240 outlets :
We use the Blink J1772 adapter (I have one, we need one more), which becomes a 14-50R. Then, we plug in a 14-50P with two L6-20R pigtails. Now, two EVSEupgrade's can plug in at the same time.
The second J1772 adapter and L6-20R splitter should be covered courtesy of ElectricVehiclehttp://www.mynissanleaf.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=500. Is another EVSEupgrade still needed?

No, that's all we need. Now, we can power 5 cars at once with the two Blink EVSEs, and DC charger.
 
palmermd said:
The only thing I was trying to suggest is that taking this extra measurement will insure that they cannot come back and say "We are familiar with the test that was run by some of our customers, but they failed to realize that the software was...yada yada yada...and if they would have allow the car to reset, they would not have seen that much loss in range" Which is a true statement...we would have seen 1 or 2 percent less than we reported, but it gives Nissan a way to discredit the entire test

Yes, we can take another voltage reading just before charging.

The Nissan PR machine will say that anything we do is flawed, that they know better, they've been doing EVs for a billion years, etc. At the same time, they are doing clean up on their Internet sites with their 100 mile range bullsh*t, just like OrientExpress is trying to rewrite history and deleting his posts on this site. All class. :roll: They KNOW they f-d up when they CHOSE to offer this chemistry, with not even a fan to circulate air internally to the battery, and expose it to Dubai / Phoenix style heat. Now, they are just reaping those results that virtually every automotive battery expert questioned before Nissan built one car.

The real audience to our test is Nissan. Just don't expect them to pull their heads out of their posterior any time soon. They may just go down with the ship. Even if they have that "super" battery waiting for a 2013/2014 model, their reputation for this blunder will not be good.

If you need direction to what Nissan is thinking and doing, it doesn't get any better than OrientExpress. I truly believe the trash he talks here is straight out of Nissan execs mouths.
 
TonyWilliams said:
palmermd said:
The real audience to our test is Nissan.
Perhaps, but I see it as the end-user. I still think that if your test goes at least "pretty well" with a decent number of cars, and enough data to make a reasonable conclusion, then Nissan cannot undermine the results with any amount of spin, because the numbers will say something else and math doesn't lie. Whatever you find out tomorrow will never make it to a show room, but a Leaf isn't something an old grandma buys on a whim. Most people are researching it first and many are likely to come across these issues. Plus, the greatest evangelists for the car are owners, many of whom will learn one way or the other of your results (I know most don't visit forums for any car they own, but many do).
 
Good to see thes range tests planned. I have been conducting range tests of my LEAF, and suggesting how useful they are to all LEAF drivers, for over a year now.

You are planning to monitor your recharge capacity after the range tests, I hope?

I haven’t seen much mentioned about this on this thread.

If you monitor the recharge, you should be able to determine accuracy of the the two m/kWh reports from each LEAF (and the battery capacity value they are calculated from), the KWh use as reported by carwings, as well as the values in Wh of each gid, or (lost) capacity bar in your LEAFs.

If you control for battery temperature, The only variables on the recharge I can think of would be BMS operation (if the”100%” charge level allowed is different from the previous “100%” charge level) and variable charging efficiency, which probably will vary with battery degradation.

This is what I've found from my own range tests over the last year, but without the opportunity of having access to a (near) constant-speed no-regen test course such as that you have selected, or having a recovery vehicle on standby:

...I did not meter my charge a year ago, but I did record the charge time, and also got an accurate 16 amp 240v recharge time on 9/8/12. It took 4 hours and 16 minutes to reach 80% (and another one hour and 11 minutes to reach “100%”) following this trip.

Assuming a 3.75 kWh/h draw from my 16 a modified Panasonic charger, and the 16.7 total capacity from VLBW to 100% charge, I believe that this would indicate a charging efficiency from ~VLBW to the “80%” level of ~96%, which is implausible, in light of all reports of charging efficiency by others.

This compares to a recharge time of ~4 hours 25 minutes to reach “80%” following my first range test, on 9/7/11, with a reported 18.7 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, ~VLBW.

This would seem to indicate a charging efficiency of from ~VLBW to 80%” a year ago of ~89%. but remember, this was recorded after my LEAF had seen most a of a Summer of use, so my LEAF’s m/kWh use reports might have already started to “drift,”meaning this percentage may already have been somewhat inflated, and the kWh use similarly understated.

The ~ 9% (erroneous, I believe) increase in reported charge efficiency is fairly close to the ~11% (also erroneous, I believe) decrease in reported kWh use over my ~one-year-apart-near-identical-driving-condition range test a few weeks ago.

"The results from 8/30/12 were:

97.3 miles to VLB, 98.9 miles in total, by the odometer.

CW: 96.5 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 5.7 m/kWh, 16.8 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW.

Compare this test with my first test on 9/7/11:

91.5 miles to VLB, 93.4 in total, by the odometer

CW: 91.1 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 4.9 m/kWh, 18.7 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW."

It seems very likely to me that both are reflecting the same underlying error in my LEAF’s dash, nav screen and CW kWh use reports, as also effected by other variables which I cannot eliminate from my observations.

So, I believe that the recharge time results are compatible with my range tests, which indicate no observed reduction in range, both probably indicating that my LEAF has no observable loss of available battery capacity (though some amount has almost certainly occurred) over the last 12 months.

I think it is also very likely that many other LEAFs have similar errors in kWh reports, quite possibly due to the gid Wh variability TickTock observed last year, and that capacity bar displays might be similarly effected. Not having lost a bar (yet) or ever having monitored my gid count, I can’t observe those results.

I do think that anyone seeing capacity bar losses or dropping gid counts should try both range and charge capacity tests, to try to more accurately determine their LEAF’s actual loss of battery capacity.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I heard that you plan to block out all LEAF readings on the dashboard and screen, and rely on the GID meter and GPS readings only for data independence from LEAF readings.

That's fine and dandy, but I don't see any harm in recording all LEAF readings as well, SOC bars, capacity bars, temperature bars, and ESPECIALLY the energy efficiency readings, both on the dashboard and the screen. Also record recharge capacity after the range test like edakotarun suggested.

If anything, it can help to compare and to show how inaccurate or accurate the LEAF instrument readings are compared to your independent readings/data.
 
Back
Top