GaslessInSeattle
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 2:15 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 850

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

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 wrote:
QueenBee wrote:
opossum wrote: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...
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.
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.
Gasless: Silver 2012 SL, traded in for Lease on 1/13
Tesla S P85, Gray, pano, carbon fiber, took delivery: 2-9-13... LOVE this car!
9.8 kW PV Solar installed 9/12, http://www.westseattlenaturalenergy.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
palmermd
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:19 pm
Delivery Date: 31 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 1100011011
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

opossum wrote: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)."

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;
Last edited by palmermd on Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael

Leaf from 31 March 2011 - Traded 18 April 2019 for Tesla Model 3 Unicorn
Driving electric since 1996


Leaf Bar Loss
edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

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.
Image

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OrientExpress wrote:
Herm wrote:
OrientExpress wrote: 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.
Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.
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.
No doubt.
no condition is permanent
Herm
Posts: 3765
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 3:08 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Aug 2012
Location: Timbuktu, Mali

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

So now we know what Nissans response will be, GW messed up our testing..
scottf200
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2011
Location: In my Volt VIN 01234 <actual>
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

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/nissa ... ty-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)
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
100K EV miles and 80% EV usage
'17 Tesla Model X 100D 'used' self | RIP '16 P90DL Sig self |
'18 Tesla Model 3 LR kid1 |
'11 Volt kid2 | '16 Volt for wife | '12 Volt kid1's spouse
azdre
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:28 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

edatoakrun wrote: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.
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).
phxsmiley
Forum Supporter
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:33 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 7837
Location: Chandler, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

azdre wrote:
edatoakrun wrote: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.
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).
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.
Glacier Pearl SL-e, Delivered Aug 26th, 2011
Current Miles: 94,000 Miles (Aug 31st, 2017); Capacity Bars: 12/12;
EV Project; EVSE Upgrade Rev2
edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

"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...
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.
Last edited by edatoakrun on Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
no condition is permanent
Stoaty
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

edatoakrun wrote: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.
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.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet
User avatar
vrwl
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:16 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 8597
Location: Northeastern PA/Poconos

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

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

Image
Last edited by vrwl on Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vicki
2011 Silver SL-Mfg 8/11-Purch 6/12
34000 miles

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”