apvbguy said:
mwalsh said:
And you can thank this forum for you having it. We told Nissan it was necessary, and they listened for the 2013 model year.
and despite that "fact" they still ignore the people here and prefer to put together a "focus" group on FB
Well, it was also partly because of pleading for a % SoC meter and giving explanations as to why the GOM was crappy at the December 2011 meeting at Googleplex. The Nissan quality guy kept drilling/asking for info about why it was bad. It seemed to really sink into the Nissan folks, including Kadota-san (Chief Vehicle Engineer) that something had to be done.
DeaneG said:
LeftieBiker said:
It's a good feature, all right, but it's my understanding that it too is just a "guess" instead of an exact state of charge reading...
The amount of charge left in a Li-ion battery can only be estimated from voltage, history, temperature, etc. The exact state of charge is only known by Schroedinger's cat.
Yeah, there was a summary given by Kadota-san about how you really only "know" the SoC at 1 point in time, w/no load (when the car's off). Once you put a load on it, it becomes a guess/estimate. I ran this by a friend who has some EE knowledge and flies battery powered remote-controlled airplanes. He essentially agreed and agreed w/the difficulties of "guessing" how much is left, even in % terms.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=155842#p155842" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was someone's summary. One might want to skim forward starting from http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6049&start=250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
I don't want to type something that's wrong now (due to faulty memory on my part) as the meeting was over 1.5 years ago.
Back to the focus group and all, at a SF BayLEAFs meeting earlier this week, a Nissan product planner from Franklin, TN showed up and gave a presentation. He's the product planner for Leaf, GT-R and 370Z. I raised the question about what the best way to was to submit feedback. His answer was that he preferred if the group (SF BayLEAFs) compiled suggestions and removed the duplicates. My response was that shouldn't the # of requests for something have some weight? We could remove the dupes but at least put a # (e.g. # of requests) by them. I think we should also ask requester to rate the request in terms of importance (e.g. would be nice to have to MUST have).
I unfortunately didn't get to hang around him afterwards to talk to him or see what others had to say. I ended up in a conversation w/someone else there, not from Nissan. :/ I would've wanted to talk to the Nissan employees afterward...
I think local groups providing suggestions is a decent idea, but there is some lag and some regions could be under/not represented (e.g. those w/NO Leaf groups). And, us Bay Area folks wouldn't be hitting certain issues as badly as say Phoenicians (e.g. battery degradation). I don't think it's that practical for Nissan folks to constantly actively monitor MNL and compile info as that can be almost a full-time job. And there's the quantitative data reliability problem (see http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=293091#p293091" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
for trying to gather data by posts on a forum.
I know some Nissan corporate employees (not those at dealers who aren't actually Nissan employees) do view MNL, but I don't know how often and to what degree. They're often responsible for other vehicles too and... well, Leaf is a drop in the bucket vs. more mainstream Nissan products.
A bunch of suggestions were given to Nissan at the December 2011 meeting via slides at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=243337#p243337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There wasn't time to go over all of them verbally or drill down into all of them, but Nissan got the slides.
