Lizard Pack Holding Up

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.
And **** like this is why I dont plan to ever* buy EV without battery TMS - its just not worth the risk.

* unless we get 200K miles / 8 years / 85% capacity warranty
 
well, looks like certain areas simply will not do with TMS. its an added expense I don't need so make it an option Nissan. FYI; I lived in AZ back in the 80's when it was "cooler" and car batteries did not last 2 years. this was back in the "top it off with distilled water" days. Went thru close to a gallon a month or so I think. didn't really help
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
well, looks like certain areas simply will not do with TMS. its an added expense I don't need so make it an option Nissan.

I likely don't need TMS either, although my summers get a little hotter than yours. But I don't think that TMS is the sort of thing that anyone will provide as an option. They'll likely either engineer it in always or never. So your options are more likely something like a Focus EV with TMS or a Leaf without it.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
well, looks like certain areas simply will not do with TMS. its an added expense I don't need so make it an option Nissan.

I likely don't need TMS either, although my summers get a little hotter than yours. But I don't think that TMS is the sort of thing that anyone will provide as an option. They'll likely either engineer it in always or never. So your options are more likely something like a Focus EV with TMS or a Leaf without it.

I know this is an extreme example but i recently read about a FFE user complaining because he had so little range left after his TMS "took its share" this is something I could not accept. I am ok with wearing a coat, hat or whatever I need to get an extra 5 miles of range. IOW; I'd rather leave the battery usage decisions to me.

now design a customizable TMS that allows me to direct power to whatever as I see fit, then I would be interested in hearing more of that or wait until we have 40-50 kwh to play with then I would be more ok with sending 10 kwh to the TMS but until then...
 
uh...I don't think the lack of Leaf TMS has much to do with wearing a hat. I think the big issue is still dissipating the heat FROM the battery, not using the heater (resistive or heat pump).

I'm in the PNW so TMS talk is nothing I know about, haha.

Having visited my relatives in Phoenix...I KNOW that dissipating heat is an issue! I mean, they wear hats when it dips below 70 degrees F. I feel for ANYTHING (persons or machines) that have to withstand the high temps down there.
 
finman100 said:
uh...I don't think the lack of Leaf TMS has much to do with wearing a hat. I think the big issue is still dissipating the heat FROM the battery, not using the heater (resistive or heat pump).

I'm in the PNW so TMS talk is nothing I know about, haha.

Having visited my relatives in Phoenix...I KNOW that dissipating heat is an issue! I mean, they wear hats when it dips below 70 degrees F. I feel for ANYTHING (persons or machines) that have to withstand the high temps down there.

well TMS also includes cooling. I guess we should find out what the overhead cost is for that in Phoenix
 
Here are some statistics for Leaf 2 (Lizard Battery) for the past 14 months.

Dec 18th 2014 install.------ 100% SOH

Jan 2015 100% SOH

Feb 100% SOH

March 100% SOH

April 100% SOH

May 100% SOH

Jun 100% SOH

July 7th------100% SOH

Aug 11th------99% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss1%

Aug 25th------97% SOH-------2% loss-----Total running loss 3%

Sept 8th-------95% SOH-------2% loss-----Total running loss 5%

Oct 9th--------94% SOH--------1% loss-----Total running loss 6%

Nov 10th------93% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss 7%

Nov 26th------92% SOH-------1% loss------Total running loss 8%

Dec 9th--------89% SOH-------3% loss------Total running loss 11%
======================================================== 1 year mark 11% Total
Jan 11th 2016---89% SOH----0% loss-----Total running loss 11%

Jan 21st--------88% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss 12%

Feb 12th-------87% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss 13% at 14 months.

March 15------88% SOH--------0% loss----Total running loss 12% at 15 months.

May 6th--------90% SOH--------0% loss----Total running loss 10% at 17 months.

June 21st-------91% SOH--------0% loss----Total running loss 9% at 18 months

It stayed at 100% SOH for close to 7 months then dropped an average of almost 2% per month

(Leaf 2) is on track to lose 1st bar May-June 2016 at 85% SOH

Based on these stats of losing 2% per month, the car will lose 2nd bar Sept.

It will lose the 3rd bar January 2017.

It will lose the 4th bar April-June 2017.


I appear to have been too optimistic on my previous predictions because of the 6.5 months that showed 100% SOH before dropping like a rock to an averaged 11% loss for the first year. Having burned through that initial pack headroom for 7 months I can only expect to continue to lose 2% per month on average. That puts me at 12(ish) months from this March to hit 8 bars. It SUCKS. The battery will only be 2.3ish years old... My other car (Leaf 1) previously (non lizard) dropped from 10 bars to 8 bars in 9 months on the original battery (Feb 28-November 25). I was really counting on these Lizard batteries to be heat tolerant with better durability. I am disappointed... I talked to a Tesla Roadster owner a few years ago, and he was losing 2% capacity per year. Sheesh! These Leaf lizard batteries need to be better. Either I need to take the time to engineer something (no time) or find cars built with more durable batteries.

Edit: From a low of 87% SOH in Feb 2016, it has risen back to 91% SOH in June 2016.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
well TMS also includes cooling. I guess we should find out what the overhead cost is for that in Phoenix

Forgoing a TMS in Phoenix because of the extra energy consumption would seem to be penny wise / pound foolish.
 
Evoforce said:
Here are some statistics for Leaf 2 (Lizard Battery) for the past 14 months.
.
.[edit]
.
It stayed at 100% SOH for close to 7 months then dropped an average of almost 2% per month

(Leaf 2) is on track to lose 1st bar March-April 2016 at 85% SOH

Based on these stats of losing 2% per month, the car will lose 2nd bar July-August.

It will lose the 3rd bar November-December 2016.

It will lose the 4th bar Feb- March 2017

Very interesting! I suspected the "hidden capacity" (above the 66 AHr that 2011/2012 Leafs can "see") would provide a honeymoon period for new owners, but I didn't expect to see your SOH continue to drop in the winter months (although I know winter in Arizona is a relative term). It will be very interesting to see if my battery stats (via LeafDD) follow a similar pattern later this year.
 
That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing. I purchased a 2015 Leaf and have been driving it since June 2015. So it shows your SOC dropped to 97% on the 8th month.

I'm showing the same thing. My SOC is at 97.3% today and it's also 8 month in. Up to a month ago, it was showing anywhere between 99.7 ~ 102% SOC every month. So potentially I'm looking at a 1~2% loss every month starting now?. :cry:

This is in Vancouver, BC, Canada where the climate is quite moderate.


Evoforce said:
Here are some statistics for Leaf 2 (Lizard Battery) for the past 14 months.

Dec 18th 2014 install.------ 100% SOH

Jan 2015 100% SOH

Feb 100% SOH

March 100% SOH

April 100% SOH

May 100% SOH

Jun 100% SOH

July 7th------100% SOH

Aug 11th------99% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss1%

Aug 25th------97% SOH-------2% loss-----Total running loss 3%

Sept 8th-------95% SOH-------2% loss-----Total running loss 5%

Oct 9th--------94% SOH--------1% loss-----Total running loss 6%

Nov 10th------93% SOH-------1% loss-----Total running loss 7%

Nov 26th------92% SOH-------1% loss------Total running loss 8%

Dec 9th--------89% SOH-------3% loss------Total running loss 11%
======================================================== 1 year mark 11% Total
Jan 11th 2016---89% SOH----0% loss------Total running loss 11%

Jan 21st--------88% SOH--------1% loss-----Total running loss 12%

Feb 12th-------87% SOH--------1% loss-----Total running loss 13% at 14 months.




It stayed at 100% SOH for close to 7 months then dropped an average of almost 2% per month

(Leaf 2) is on track to lose 1st bar March-April 2016 at 85% SOH

Based on these stats of losing 2% per month, the car will lose 2nd bar July-August.

It will lose the 3rd bar November-December 2016.

It will lose the 4th bar Feb- March 2017



I appear to have been too optimistic on my previous predictions because of the 6.5 months that showed 100% SOH before dropping like a rock to an averaged 11% loss for the first year. Having burned through that initial pack headroom for 7 months I can only expect to continue to lose 2% per month on average. That puts me at 11(ish) months from this March to hit 8 bars. It SUCKS. The battery will only be 2.3 years old... My other car (Leaf 1) previously (non lizard) dropped from 10 bars to 8 bars in 7 months on the original battery (April 28-November 25). I was really counting on these Lizard batteries to be heat tolerant with better durability. I am disappointed... I talked to a Tesla Roadster owner a few years ago, and he was losing 2% capacity per year. Sheesh! These Leaf lizard batteries need to be better. Either I need to take the time to engineer something (no time) or find cars built with more durable batteries.
 
Xcopy, I have to believe you meant SOH (state of health) and not SOC (state of charge). I have made the same typo in the past and might goof again too! I sure hope that you end up with better stats than I have, especially since I represent what appears to be an extreme climate for a Nissan battery.

Other manufacturers have done better addressing heat and so hot climates like Arizona are not an extreme degradation to their batteries. I want to be able to say (and believe) that my Nissan Car can handle hot and cold as well or better than competing manufacturers. We really like our two Leafs in every way except for the battery.

Nissan when are you going to fix this extreme battery degradation problem? So far, even their latest proposed 60kWh battery from what has been published doesn't deal with hot ambient temperature. Their cathode changes appear to allow for faster charging and thus probably leads to less heat at charging but still do not go far enough to keep their pack cool in any other known way...
 
GetOffYourGas said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
well TMS also includes cooling. I guess we should find out what the overhead cost is for that in Phoenix

Forgoing a TMS in Phoenix because of the extra energy consumption would seem to be penny wise / pound foolish.

my point exactly but if we knew what other TMS were using like the Focus EV, then it would be easier to determine what size battery would be needed to provide that overhead and give the range desired.
 
Evoforce said:
Xcopy, I have to believe you meant SOH (stat of health) and not SOC (state of charge). I have made the same typo in the past and might goof again too! I sure hope that you end up with better stats than I have, especially since I represent what appears to be an extreme climate for a Nissan battery.

Other manufacturers have done better addressing heat and so hot climates like Arizona are not an extreme degradation to their batteries. I want to be able to say (and believe) that my Nissan Car can handle hot and cold as well or better than competing manufacturers. We really like our two Leafs in every way except for the battery.

Nissan when are you going to fix this extreme battery degradation problem? So far, even their latest proposed 60kWh battery from what has been published doesn't deal with hot ambient temperature. Their cathode changes appear to allow for faster charging and thus probably leads to less heat at charging but still do not go far enough to keep their pack cool in any other known way...

I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.
 
tkdbrusco said:
Evoforce said:
Xcopy, I have to believe you meant SOH (stat of health) and not SOC (state of charge). I have made the same typo in the past and might goof again too! I sure hope that you end up with better stats than I have, especially since I represent what appears to be an extreme climate for a Nissan battery.

Other manufacturers have done better addressing heat and so hot climates like Arizona are not an extreme degradation to their batteries. I want to be able to say (and believe) that my Nissan Car can handle hot and cold as well or better than competing manufacturers. We really like our two Leafs in every way except for the battery.

Nissan when are you going to fix this extreme battery degradation problem? So far, even their latest proposed 60kWh battery from what has been published doesn't deal with hot ambient temperature. Their cathode changes appear to allow for faster charging and thus probably leads to less heat at charging but still do not go far enough to keep their pack cool in any other known way...

I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.


I haven't even tried to crunch the numbers on what the (best guess) expectations would be for a 60kWh battery for hot climates.

Well I have to go right this minute, but I have opened the box and peered inside... So I started a thread "What expectations or concerns do we have of a Nissan 60kWh battery". So we don't get off topic here.
 
tkdbrusco said:
Evoforce said:
Xcopy, I have to believe you meant SOH (stat of health) and not SOC (state of charge). I have made the same typo in the past and might goof again too! I sure hope that you end up with better stats than I have, especially since I represent what appears to be an extreme climate for a Nissan battery.

Other manufacturers have done better addressing heat and so hot climates like Arizona are not an extreme degradation to their batteries. I want to be able to say (and believe) that my Nissan Car can handle hot and cold as well or better than competing manufacturers. We really like our two Leafs in every way except for the battery.

Nissan when are you going to fix this extreme battery degradation problem? So far, even their latest proposed 60kWh battery from what has been published doesn't deal with hot ambient temperature. Their cathode changes appear to allow for faster charging and thus probably leads to less heat at charging but still do not go far enough to keep their pack cool in any other known way...

I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.
Problem is, that if such calculations prove to be incorrect, it could easily result in very expensive PR nightmare....
 
tkdbrusco said:
Evoforce said:
Xcopy, I have to believe you meant SOH (stat of health) and not SOC (state of charge). I have made the same typo in the past and might goof again too! I sure hope that you end up with better stats than I have, especially since I represent what appears to be an extreme climate for a Nissan battery.

Other manufacturers have done better addressing heat and so hot climates like Arizona are not an extreme degradation to their batteries. I want to be able to say (and believe) that my Nissan Car can handle hot and cold as well or better than competing manufacturers. We really like our two Leafs in every way except for the battery.

Nissan when are you going to fix this extreme battery degradation problem? So far, even their latest proposed 60kWh battery from what has been published doesn't deal with hot ambient temperature. Their cathode changes appear to allow for faster charging and thus probably leads to less heat at charging but still do not go far enough to keep their pack cool in any other known way...

I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.

a possible problem arises here (in the land of battery nirvana) with simply time. We have one guy who went over 70,000 miles on a 2011 without losing a bar verses one who lost their first bar before the "bumper to bumper" mileage was used up. Difference is the one exceeded 70,000 miles in slightly less than two years while the bar loser took almost 5 years. so its not only cycling, its time. now time adds all kinds of stuff including 2 more Summers. Now, the Summers around here have been mild including 2013 that was downright coldish. But 2015 was one of the warmest here in decades (keeping in mind that "warm" is anything above 80º) so heat "could" be factor even in low levels due simply to calendar life and how is that to be determined?
 
The capacity warranty will also have a time limit on it, so either way I think that if you see Nissan announce a Leaf 2 without a TMS, they have probably done some cost/benefit analysis of the situation and found that it wasn't worth the expense to put in a TMS. Even if they find that the batteries are degrading faster than other TMS cars, they likely have plenty of time before this becomes a PR issue. If they continue to drop the first capacity bar at 15% loss and the battery degrades at less than that rate for 6+ years or 100K miles, the issue wouldn't really rear its head until about 2023 or so. At that point all of the tax credits are gone and the market is flush with EVs from every manufacturer. I bet they are analyzing the heck out of 2015 and 2016 MY cars and seeing what kind of impact the new chemistry is having and extrapolating that out in the lap or with computerized models. If they find they can keep that first bar from dropping with a 60kwh pack before 100K miles, I doubt you'll see a TMS system.
 
tkdbrusco said:
The capacity warranty will also have a time limit on it, so either way I think that if you see Nissan announce a Leaf 2 without a TMS, they have probably done some cost/benefit analysis of the situation and found that it wasn't worth the expense to put in a TMS. Even if they find that the batteries are degrading faster than other TMS cars, they likely have plenty of time before this becomes a PR issue. If they continue to drop the first capacity bar at 15% loss and the battery degrades at less than that rate for 6+ years or 100K miles, the issue wouldn't really rear its head until about 2023 or so. At that point all of the tax credits are gone and the market is flush with EVs from every manufacturer. I bet they are analyzing the heck out of 2015 and 2016 MY cars and seeing what kind of impact the new chemistry is having and extrapolating that out in the lap or with computerized models. If they find they can keep that first bar from dropping with a 60kwh pack before 100K miles, I doubt you'll see a TMS system.

I agree with the minimal benefits of TMS but for severe areas, it should be an option. Realistically; I think the better way to go is simply beef up the battery options. it is past time for multiple pack sizes. It amazes me that the industry is taking so long to grasp this concept especially since its been their primary marketing tool for decades.

how many engine choices? transmission choices? battery pack sizes should have been the next obvious thing
 
tkdbrusco said:
I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.

Unless I missed something, the warranty is 8yrs (not 80%)/100k mi for the 2016 30kwh pack until you lose the 4th bar. That is down to 66% by 100k, not 80%. So that is quite a difference from the calculations above...
 
Firetruck41 said:
tkdbrusco said:
I wonder if their thoughts on the TMS is that the doubling of size of the pack with by cycle rate decrease the degradation by 50% compared to the 30kwh 2016 Leaf even if they acknowledge heat as an issue. Let's assuming that the 80%/100K warranty is a big enough buffer on the 30kwh leaf for even the hottest climates, this means that most 2016 30kwh leafs will still have 12 capacity bars after 100K miles, assuming that the same algorithm of 15.5% loss holds true for the 2016 cars. So if you know that 20% capacity loss in 100K miles for the 30kwh pack is your worst cast scenario, you can assume that you'd see no more than 10% capacity loss over 100K miles with a pack of double the size. This means that they have almost no fear that any person who drives a Leaf 2 (with a 60kwh pack) even in a hot climate, would ever lose their first capacity bar by 100k miles. So basically if a TMS costs you an extra $500-750 per car, why would you pay to install one if you were Nissan. Sure, the TMS would likely increase the longevity of the battery pack, but if you examine the cost to include it and the desire to stay competitive with Tesla and Chevy on price, you can't afford the extra expense.

Unless I missed something, the warranty is 8yrs (not 80%)/100k mi for the 2016 30kwh pack until you lose the 4th bar. That is down to 66% by 100k, not 80%. So that is quite a difference from the calculations above...

you didnt. mileage and time changed but percentage loss did not
 
Back
Top