Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

the problem is that Nissan's response has been so poor to date that there is little compelling people to officially report the issue... but yes, EVERYONE who is experiencing rapid battery loss, even 1 bar in a year should report it to Nissan coporate, not a dealer, the higher ups as Nissan need to know how far and wide this reaches.

KJD said:

QueenBee said:

opossum said:

There are 10 people (including my wife) I knew before they purchased Leafs (or met immediately after they purchased their Leafs). I did not meet any of these people *because* they began complaining of capacity/range issues. I simply met them before or immediately after they purchased Leafs. And now, 9 to 15 months later, let's check in on those 10 cars (all here in Phoenix) and see whether they have lost any capacity...

Click to expand...

Thanks for providing this sample since it's hard to really know what percent of AZ LEAFS will soon or have already lost bars.

I'm very baffled at Mark Perry's response. Well over 2 months into this issue and he says they are still only researching 5 cars? I think we have to assume that they've looked at the battery report data and aren't seeing any trends in AZ, or they haven't let Mark Perry know about it, or he's lying. I sure wish there was someone on the inside of the Nissan machine who could be frank with us and really let us know WTF is going on.

Click to expand...

As of this morning the WIKI battery page only shows 9 people with a customer service case number. How many of these were only reported after Mark Perry's phone interview this week. Could it be there really were only 5 reported cases at the time of his comments. He could be telling the truth.

The Nissan customer service people do NOT have time to read this forum. If you people have a problem with the battery pack you need to take time to report it to Nissan.

For all of those that have lost a battery capacity bar I feel your pain as a Leaf owner myself. I also can see it from Nissan's point of view that they have sold thousands of cars world wide and only a very small number have reported capacity loss so far. My own car is only 6 months old and I have only had a GID meter for about a week. My own car shows a very small loss if any. In my case it may be that 5 years and 20% capacity loss might be a reasonable estimate.

Full Disclosure - I am a Leaf owner and I DO NOT work for Nissan and I still think the Leaf is a good car.

Click to expand...

opossum said:

Just got this from Scott. Do all of us really need to make yet another phone call? Maybe someone can just share with this person the newly expanded wiki tables? I have been feeding information to Vicki to expand those tables today.

"Nissan customer care just called. She said that if anyone is having battery capacity loss problems they should call her. Jessica Hernandez (number removed by request from Nissan)."

Click to expand...

Is this the same Jessica who was posting here prior to the launch?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=93" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would not be surprised if the large temperature anomaly in the US southwest over the last few months, was the proximate cause of a significant proportion of the bar disappearances.

If you go to the link below, you can see the same map, for prior months.

The maps for the last few months, and also for Spring and Summer 2011, show much the same anomaly for Phoenix, BTW.

•The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

Click to expand...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OrientExpress said:

Herm said:

OrientExpress said:

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.

Click to expand...

Not an excuse at all, just a fact. This year is the hottest it has been in the US since records have been kept. This is an unprecedented year climate-wise, and stuff is going to have issues, especially things whose performance is related to the temperature of the environment it has to operate in.

I would suspect that every manufacturer of equipment that is temperature sensitive is re-evaluating their design criteria.

Click to expand...

No doubt.

So now we know what Nissans response will be, GW messed up our testing..

Hmm Perry's been around a while.

found this:

Nissan LEAF Battery Warranty Update
Posted by Jay (Statik) Cole on October 26, 2010

http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/10/26/nissan-leaf-battery-warranty-update/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shortly after Chevrolet announced that the Volt would come with a battery warranty of 8 years, 100,000 miles, Nissan followed suit saying also would offer 8/100 coverage themselves.

So when GM detailed just how their warranty would work in practice (which was basically that the pack was covered to not lose anymore than 10%-30% of its total capacity0depending on the age/mileage of the vehicle), we wondered if Nissan would offer something similar in the LEAF.

During a seemingly innocuous interview with Autoblog Green late last week, Mark Perry, who is Nissan’s Director of Product Planning, seems to have given us the answer. And unfortunately, the answer is no, it does not work the same:

“The warranty is not related to battery capacity. The warranty is related to motor output. So if the battery has degraded to a point where the motor can’t get enough power from the battery, then it’s a warrantable event. But if someone abuses the battery – parks it outside in 140 degrees and all that – and they have 60 percent capacity after eight years, that’s on them. They abused it.” (As FYI, the LEAF has a expected retained capacity of 70%-80% at the 8 year mark)

Click to expand...

And that is it…no further explanation given. From the sounds of that, you could theoretically have a LEAF that is only getting 50 miles range in year two, but if you took it to Nissan to say there was a problem, they basically test the car to see if the battery can still operate the motor at optimal performance for those 50 miles, and if it does, you are out of luck. /ouch

Click to expand...

edatoakrun said:

I would not be surprised if the large temperature anomaly in the US southwest over the last few months, was the proximate cause of a significant proportion of the bar disappearances.

If you go to the link below, you can see the same map, for prior months.

The maps for the last few months, and also for Spring and Summer 2011, show much the same anomaly for Phoenix, BTW.

Click to expand...

Any additional days over 100 degrees that we may have had this year over normal, only would extend the heat exposure by 1 day each. So, say there were 10 extra days over 100 degrees so far this year (I have no idea if this is even close to accurate), the decrease in range and the bar-loss that we are seeing may have been postponed by those 10 days (I'm guessing here). Not 3-4 years. It may have been exceptionally hot at a few points over the last year, but we're talking 116 vs 112 (examples, not real data). We actually had a fabulously mild winter this year that the car should have LOVED! It didn't get cold, it stayed a beautiful 70-ish degrees for far longer than usual. Someone had mentioned that it's hot year-round here, and that's not true. We have two months of cold, 6 months of weather in the 80s or below and 4 months averaging over 100 for the highs. 2 of those 4 months though come with cool evenings. I love my city, I love my LEAF, I wish it could get me more than 58 miles before LBW (5 mi/kWh).

azdre said:

edatoakrun said:

I would not be surprised if the large temperature anomaly in the US southwest over the last few months, was the proximate cause of a significant proportion of the bar disappearances.

If you go to the link below, you can see the same map, for prior months.

The maps for the last few months, and also for Spring and Summer 2011, show much the same anomaly for Phoenix, BTW.

Click to expand...

Any additional days over 100 degrees that we may have had this year over normal, only would extend the heat exposure by 1 day each. So, say there were 10 extra days over 100 degrees so far this year (I have no idea if this is even close to accurate), the decrease in range and the bar-loss that we are seeing may have been postponed by those 10 days (I'm guessing here). Not 3-4 years. It may have been exceptionally hot at a few points over the last year, but we're talking 116 vs 112 (examples, not real data). We actually had a fabulously mild winter this year that the car should have LOVED! It didn't get cold, it stayed a beautiful 70-ish degrees for far longer than usual. Someone had mentioned that it's hot year-round here, and that's not true. We have two months of cold, 6 months of weather in the 80s or below and 4 months averaging over 100 for the highs. 2 of those 4 months though come with cool evenings. I love my city, I love my LEAF, I wish it could get me more than 58 miles before LBW (5 mi/kWh).

Click to expand...

Perhaps the stats say that this was a hotter than normal summer, but I believe we have had worse here, this doesn't feel that abnormal for the Phoenix area. We've had several summers where it sat above 110 for several weeks at a time. Anyway, like you said, it would only have delayed the bar dropping by a couple weeks or so.

"azdre"
Any additional days over 100 degrees that we may have had this year over normal, only would extend the heat exposure by 1 day each. So, say there were 10 extra days over 100 degrees so far this year (I have no idea if this is even close to accurate), the decrease in range and the bar-loss that we are seeing may have been postponed by those 10 days (I'm guessing here). Not 3-4 years...

Click to expand...

I do not find your reasoning persuasive.

Did you actually expect, that most Phoenix LEAFs would not lose a capacity bar, until "3-4 years" after delivery?

The additional capacity deterioration and/or BMS restriction on charge levels, caused by high temperatures, is overlaid on the underlying capacity deterioration every LEAF is experiencing, due to other factors.

For example. IF the southwest high temperature anomaly over the last two "hot seasons" (AFAIK, winter temperatures are largely irrelevant) has caused each of the 37 LEAFs with reported loss of one or more bars, to each have lost one more bar on average, over that which would have occurred under "normal" temperatures, and we had experienced those same "normal" temperatures, we might now have a list of only nine LEAFs with lost bars, only two of which would have lost two bars.

Most of the other 28 LEAF owners would probably be oblivious to their significant, but less-than-one-bar loss, of available capacity.

I would not be surprised if that rate of Leafs with bar disappearance by this time, under a dozen rather than several dozen, was about what Nissan was expecting.

And I also expect that Nissan is now trying to figure out the most cost-effective response to the unexpectedly large number of early bar losses, and to the hysteria that it has caused.

edatoakrun said:

I would not be surprised if that rate of Leafs with bar disappearance by this time, under a dozen rather than several dozen, was about what Nissan was expecting.

Click to expand...

The problem with this reasoning is that we don't have several dozen Leafs that have lost one or more bars in Phoenix. We have several dozen known Leafs that have lost significant capacity. Let's assume that 25% of all Leaf owners in Phoenix are members of MNL (a very generous assumption). That would mean that there are probably 4 times as many Leafs with at least one bar capacity loss (144 Leafs), unless the 25% sample is not representative of the entire Phoenix population of Leaf owners. Remember that of the people Azdre/Opossum know who have Leafs, 70% have lost one or more capacity bars. A larger sample would be nice, but that is an ominous statistic since there is no evidence the sample is biased to contain more bar losers than the general population.

GRA said:

You may well be right. Of course, that doesn't help those who already have their cars, and it should be Nissan that's taking this step rather than the dealers, but at least it prevents anyone else from getting screwed.

Click to expand...

Here's three 2011 Used Leafs for sale in the Phoenix area.... wanna bet they've all lost a bar?

That bottom car was skywagon's. It's on the 1-bar list. I suspect the top one was shrink's.

Stoaty said:

edatoakrun said:

I would not be surprised if that rate of Leafs with bar disappearance by this time, under a dozen rather than several dozen, was about what Nissan was expecting.

Click to expand...

The problem with this reasoning is that we don't have several dozen Leafs that have lost one or more bars in Phoenix. We have several dozen known Leafs that have lost significant capacity. Let's assume that 25% of all Leaf owners in Phoenix are members of MNL (a very generous assumption). That would mean that there are probably 4 times as many Leafs with at least one bar capacity loss (144 Leafs), unless the 25% sample is not representative of the entire Phoenix population of Leaf owners. Remember that of the people Azdre/Opossum know who have Leafs, 70% have lost one or more capacity bars. A larger sample would be nice, but that is an ominous statistic since there is no evidence the sample is biased to contain more bar losers than the general population.

Click to expand...

You are correct, in that I should have written:

I would not be surprised if that rate of Leafs with reported bar disappearance by this time, under a dozen rather than several dozen, was about what Nissan was expecting.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure there are many more than 37 LEAFs with lost of capacity bars. But I don't think Nissan was, or is, very concerned with those LEAF owners who do not notice, or care about capacity bar loss enough to report, or publicise the fact.

Whatever the number of Southwest LEAFs (and those elsewhere) with unreported bar loss is, I think the current efforts to publicise the problem, will lower the unreported fraction, and that Nissan is well aware of, and trying to figure out the best response, to this other change of "climate".

Update to the "10 people I know" sample...

1. 2 bars
2. 2 bars
3. 2 bars
4. 1 bar
5. 1 bar
6. 1 bar
7. 1 bar (then sold car)
8. on the cusp of losing 1 bar
9. hope to hear from him when he's back from vacation
10. No known capacity loss. 80% charges, owned 1 year, only 5000 miles driven

So...

70% have already lost 1 or 2 bars (15% to 30%+)
10% have just about lost 1 bar (~15%)
10% unknown right now
10% no known loss w/ 80% charges in 1yr/5k

Background: There are 10 people (including my wife) I knew before they purchased Leafs (or met immediately after they purchased their Leafs). I did not meet any of these people *because* they began complaining of capacity/range issues. I simply met them before or immediately after they purchased Leafs. And now, 9 to 15 months later, let's check in on those 10 cars (all here in Phoenix) and see whether they have lost any capacity...

opossum said:

That bottom car was skywagon's. It's on the 1-bar list. I suspect the top one was shrink's.

Click to expand...

Whoever is selling them is selling them at nearly full price (less the $7500 rebate amount), so it appears the latest round of press hasn't yet affected the used car market for these cars.

Of course, people can ask whatever price they want, but if there are no bids, there is no market.

If these do sell, it will, likely, be at a much lower price.

edatoakrun said:

Yes, I'm sure there are many more than 37 LEAFs with lost of capacity bars. But I don't think Nissan was, or is, very concerned with those LEAF owners who do not notice, or care about capacity bar loss enough to report, or publicize the fact.

Click to expand...

True, Nissan would not care about those owners. However, while a lot of owners may not notice, or be too bothered by, a one bar loss, a 3 bar loss puts the Leaf at "end of life" according to industry standards, and it is likely that most people with that magnitude of loss would notice it and complain. So perhaps 30% will complain about a one bar loss, 50% about a two bar loss, 70% about a 3 bar loss and 99% about a 4 bar loss (in 2-3 years). I think the cases reported so far are the tip of a very large iceberg... and you know what happened to the Titanic when it hit one.

edatoakrun said:

"azdre"
Any additional days over 100 degrees that we may have had this year over normal, only would extend the heat exposure by 1 day each. So, say there were 10 extra days over 100 degrees so far this year (I have no idea if this is even close to accurate), the decrease in range and the bar-loss that we are seeing may have been postponed by those 10 days (I'm guessing here). Not 3-4 years...

Click to expand...

I do not find your reasoning persuasive.

Did you actually expect, that most Phoenix LEAFs would not lose a capacity bar, until "3-4 years" after delivery?

The additional capacity deterioration and/or BMS restriction on charge levels, caused by high temperatures, is overlaid on the underlying capacity deterioration every LEAF is experiencing, due to other factors.

For example. IF the southwest high temperature anomaly over the last two "hot seasons" (AFAIK, winter temperatures are largely irrelevant) has caused each of the 37 LEAFs with reported loss of one or more bars, to each have lost one more bar on average, over that which would have occurred under "normal" temperatures, and we had experienced those same "normal" temperatures, we might now have a list of only nine LEAFs with lost bars, only two of which would have lost two bars.

Most of the other 28 LEAF owners would probably be oblivious to their significant, but less-than-one-bar loss, of available capacity.

I would not be surprised if that rate of Leafs with bar disappearance by this time, under a dozen rather than several dozen, was about what Nissan was expecting.

And I also expect that Nissan is now trying to figure out the most cost-effective response to the unexpectedly large number of early bar losses, and to the hysteria that it has caused.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not an expert, so chances that my assumptions about a few degrees are wrong is pretty good. I wouldn't be pursuaded either.

When I purchased the car, I didn't know what those bars represented really so had no thoughts one way or another about who and when the bars would drop. I noticed a slight, but obvious drop in range this spring, and commented to opossum about it. Then when the bar dropped I felt vindicated in a way. I immidiately called the dealer where I purchased the car to see if I should be concerned. The response was that Nissan engineers had flown out to look at another car with a dropped bar, it's normal and I will not lose another one. Ever? Ever. I was ok with that, I imagine everyone else here was okay with that. Then my range really started falling and dropped another bar 6 weeks after the first.

I think everyone here should be concerned about ending up in this boat with a few of us whose range losses have become significant. I really
hope it all stops soon and it's just a few of us trying to be made whole again. To me the trends seem to indicate that many will follow us down this hole, but I really hope I'm wrong and this ends up really to being much adu about a few severe cases.

Thanks everyone who came out yesterday and sorry the Roosevelt ended up being closed. Still we had a good time, lots of good conversation and even an out of town visitor.

From what I can take out of our readings yesterday, more miles seems to mean more bars dropped and we are approaching the point where some people will no longer be able to use their cars soon. Mine read 82.5% at 12,434 miles (7/18/12) whereas it read 83.6% at 11,383 miles (6/10/12) when I first lost the top bar. Considering the BMS data was reset a week before (as far as I can tell) it hasn't gotten too terribly much worse in 1000 miles. Plus the % (GIDS) varies a bit any how.

To me this shows that it is definitely actual degradation and not a mis-calculation.

Okay, I just looked at the Wiki on battery loss for the first time and I burst into laughter. I thank the person who distilled my thoughts on the battery situation to, " . . . I am pretty pissed.". While I am occasionally a little verbose and sometimes obtuse, "I am pretty pissed," sums it all up nicely.

edatoakrun said:

I do not find your reasoning persuasive.

Did you actually expect, that most Phoenix LEAFs would not lose a capacity bar, until "3-4 years" after delivery?

Click to expand...

Nissan North America Director of Product Planning Mark Perry said in a recent video, "Heat is definitely not a friend of batteries. But I'm talking about severe 130-, 140-degree Fahrenheit kind of heat..

Way back in January of 2010. At the time, Nissan's Perry said, "We don't need thermal management in the U.S. ... We've gone on record saying that the pack has a 70 to 80 percent capacity after 10 years."

Click to expand...

Based on what we were told and what is documented "on the record," 15% loss after 3-4 years is hardly an unreasonable expectation when Nissan:

1. Makes Phoenix a launch market,
2. Tells us local temps are not "severe."
3. "On the record" says 20-30% capacity loss after 10 years is expected.

We were, however, obviously wrong.