-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Interesting ... your numbers match exactly my current range for a June 2015 Model S 70D
236/212 miles @100/90%These plots are inaccurate. I can post a real degradation data from Tesla DB( what BMS reports to Tesla), but I need a permission from @wk057. I can say that 90 packs go below 90% well below 50k miles, the same will hold true for 75kWh packs. The chemistry in those pack is much worth then in 85 packsI agree ... Tesla owners seem too concerned about extreme battery degradation that the data does not support
The data clearly shows that for the first 50,000 miles (100,000 km), most Tesla battery packs will lose about 5% of their capacity, but after the 50,000-mile mark, the capacity levels off and it looks like it could be difficult to make a pack degrade by another 5%. The trend line actually suggests that the average battery pack could go another 150,000 miles (200,000 miles total) before coming close to 90% capacity.
Last I heard all the chemistries in the S and X (all sizes) were the same.
"The chemistry used in the batteries utilized in the company’s plug-in electric vehicles is nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), while the chemistry used in its energy storage products is nickel manganese cobalt (NMC). The 21700 cells are currently being used exclusively in the Tesla Model 3 and in energy storage products. They come with a large improvement over the 18650 form factor cells with regard to energy density (by as much as 30%, reportedly) and packaging possibilities. The 18650 form factor battery cells are still being used in the Model S and the Model X"
Tesla Batteries 101 — Production Capacity, Uses, Chemistry, & Future Plans | CleanTechnica
I'd love to see that data however, and recall, for it to be correct and accurate, a full balance must be accomplished with a full charge to 100/empty/charge to 100 cycle for the vehicle algorithms to accurately display it's best guess at range.
"The chemistry used in the batteries utilized in the company’s plug-in electric vehicles is nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), while the chemistry used in its energy storage products is nickel manganese cobalt (NMC). The 21700 cells are currently being used exclusively in the Tesla Model 3 and in energy storage products. They come with a large improvement over the 18650 form factor cells with regard to energy density (by as much as 30%, reportedly) and packaging possibilities. The 18650 form factor battery cells are still being used in the Model S and the Model X"
Tesla Batteries 101 — Production Capacity, Uses, Chemistry, & Future Plans | CleanTechnica
I'd love to see that data however, and recall, for it to be correct and accurate, a full balance must be accomplished with a full charge to 100/empty/charge to 100 cycle for the vehicle algorithms to accurately display it's best guess at range.
Didn't read the whole thread, but was asked to chime in.
I have information that shows definitively that the early 75 and 90 packs degrade much more quickly than the original 60 (not software limited packs), 85, and 70 (not software limited) packs.
@dennis_d I'd prefer you keep those plots I shared to yourself for now. I'm going to open that full can of worms sometime in the next month or so with a full write-up on this situation. I've reached out to Tesla directly with a summary of my upcoming write-up asking for any official comment, but haven't heard anything back as of yet.
Suffice it to say it's not going to look good for Tesla when I show that a huge percentage of 90 pack owners have less rated range available than similar or higher mileage 85 pack owners. Data is similar with 75/70/60s. The degradation trend lines for the two cross very early on with 90/75 owners having a higher percent degradation than 85 owners at about ~10000 miles, and 90 pack owners having less rated range than their 85 counterparts before 50,000 miles (with a lot of overlap before this).
Overall, I believe Tesla did a huge disservice to customers with the 75/90 chemistry, and all of the restrictions placed on supercharging rates and peak power have been to cover their a** due to the accelerated degradation.
I have limited data on the 100 packs, but they seem to follow a degradation trend much closer to the original 85s.
I have information that shows definitively that the early 75 and 90 packs degrade much more quickly than the original 60 (not software limited packs), 85, and 70 (not software limited) packs.
@dennis_d I'd prefer you keep those plots I shared to yourself for now. I'm going to open that full can of worms sometime in the next month or so with a full write-up on this situation. I've reached out to Tesla directly with a summary of my upcoming write-up asking for any official comment, but haven't heard anything back as of yet.
Suffice it to say it's not going to look good for Tesla when I show that a huge percentage of 90 pack owners have less rated range available than similar or higher mileage 85 pack owners. Data is similar with 75/70/60s. The degradation trend lines for the two cross very early on with 90/75 owners having a higher percent degradation than 85 owners at about ~10000 miles, and 90 pack owners having less rated range than their 85 counterparts before 50,000 miles (with a lot of overlap before this).
Overall, I believe Tesla did a huge disservice to customers with the 75/90 chemistry, and all of the restrictions placed on supercharging rates and peak power have been to cover their a** due to the accelerated degradation.
I have limited data on the 100 packs, but they seem to follow a degradation trend much closer to the original 85s.
Just a suggestion -- @wk057 is busy and can't spend time following every thread. If you want him to respond to a question, you would stand a better chance by either quoting his post or tagging him as I did above (just @ and start typing his name, then select from the list of users). That way he gets a notification and is more likely to check.
Are you saying that the newer 90 kWh packs don’t exhibit excessive degradation? Going off of your earlier post I was under the impression that (most likely) all 90 kWh share the same cells:
Last edited:
Newer 75 packs, around the time of the "uncorking" stuff, *appear* to be using the same type of cells as the 100 packs... but I don't have enough information to confirm this 100% yet.
Sorry for ambiguous wording. Should read as "early 75 packs" and "all 90 packs".
@wk057 would it be fair to assume the 90 packs being built today as replacement packs for 85s use the same chemistry as the newer 75 and 100 packs? It would seem inconceivable that Tesla would still be building bad 90 packs. I'm guessing they still build 90 packs as that's the largest pack non-facelift Model S were crash tested with and they need those as warranty replacement for 85s and 90s.
Unsure. Would it make sense? Yes. But so far Tesla's methodology on many things doesn't follow a logical path.
jeffro01
Active Member
@wk057 I'm torn here...
Part of me wants you to do your thing but the other part of of me wants to ask what are you trying to gain out of it? Just being honest...
If the average owner is fine with how their car is performing and how their battery is holding up, like me for instance with my 90D that I know hasn't held up quite as well as it "should", then whats the point of making another big scene like you made with the capacity findings? It just seems like it's unnecessary.
Then there is the other side of the coin about truth and holding corporations accountable... I don't know... For me, if the average owner is happy then I tend to lean towards what's the point of making a huge issue out of it?
Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of dislikes for this post (or at least I expect I will) because I just can't sit here and hop on board the bash Tesla bandwagon... I just don't see the point, don't see the end game, and think that it's just being punitive and petty. No one here doubts your talents, your technical expertise, your honesty, or your integrity. I know anything you put forth will be as accurate as you know it to be so I want that to be very clear. I'm not in ANY way accusing you of falsifying anything at any level, at any detail.
In the end, I just don't see the point in making a huge scene about something the average owner will never even notice because it's not that significant of an issue to begin with. Yes I know my 90D (237 at 90%) isn't where it "could" or perhaps "should" be, but that hasn't even remotely impacted my Tesla buying decisions going forward... So again, from my perspective, whats the point?
Just being honest, dislike away...
Jeff
Part of me wants you to do your thing but the other part of of me wants to ask what are you trying to gain out of it? Just being honest...
If the average owner is fine with how their car is performing and how their battery is holding up, like me for instance with my 90D that I know hasn't held up quite as well as it "should", then whats the point of making another big scene like you made with the capacity findings? It just seems like it's unnecessary.
Then there is the other side of the coin about truth and holding corporations accountable... I don't know... For me, if the average owner is happy then I tend to lean towards what's the point of making a huge issue out of it?
Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of dislikes for this post (or at least I expect I will) because I just can't sit here and hop on board the bash Tesla bandwagon... I just don't see the point, don't see the end game, and think that it's just being punitive and petty. No one here doubts your talents, your technical expertise, your honesty, or your integrity. I know anything you put forth will be as accurate as you know it to be so I want that to be very clear. I'm not in ANY way accusing you of falsifying anything at any level, at any detail.
In the end, I just don't see the point in making a huge scene about something the average owner will never even notice because it's not that significant of an issue to begin with. Yes I know my 90D (237 at 90%) isn't where it "could" or perhaps "should" be, but that hasn't even remotely impacted my Tesla buying decisions going forward... So again, from my perspective, whats the point?
Just being honest, dislike away...
Jeff
It's really just a matter of getting the information out to the people who do care. Personally, if I were you, and my 90D which had an advertised range of ~290 miles or so already has less range than a regular RWD 85... I'd be a bit irritated and want to hold Tesla accountable. Just because you don't doesn't mean others won't.
Tesla also dances around the fact that supercharging and high-rate discharge of the 90-type packs causes accelerated degradation, but doesn't have anywhere near the same effect on the 85-type packs. I love the dodgy non-answer wording in their older FAQ on the topic that went something like, "Will supercharging frequently hurt my battery?" "Supercharging frequently does not affect the battery warranty." ...... Since the warranty explicitly disclaims degradation....... yeah, of course it wouldn't affect the warranty.
I personally have a huge problem with anyone who misrepresents a product... and Tesla is currently the king in this area. Performance specs, Autopilot capabilities (v1 and v2), actual pack capacities, time lines for literally everything, advertised features and improvements that have not nor are likely to ever come to fruition, etc etc etc... all examples. This is just another thing to add to the pile. And really, there can't be any blame placed on me for anything bad that becomes of providing data and insight. If Tesla had been honest about things from the start, there would be no problems. Unfortunately, Tesla has been so incredibly dishonest about so many things over the past few years it's amazing they're still both playing the same game and getting away with it.
The lawsuits in Norway seem to be the only things actually holding Tesla accountable for any of their false marketing. I really hope they stop with the misleading and outright false claims on things at some point... but probably won't until after they're forced to in court somewhere along the lines.
In any case, I'm giving Tesla more than enough notice and opportunity to get out in front of this and do the right thing by their customers. All I'm doing is providing data. The fact that the data shows that Tesla pretty much screwed 90/75 folks isn't my fault.
jeffro01
Active Member
My only reply back to that and I'll bow out is to say, ALL companies do these things but you seem to be laser focused on Tesla's shortcomings... Does that make them right? No. But this idea that only Tesla does these things is disingenuous at best...
Do what you will, I'll be reading it and learning just like everyone else. However, I'd advise you to be a bit careful with your ideological witch hunt...
Jeff
As an affected owner, I'm of course very interested in the data and what to expect over my car in the long run. I bought this car with the intention of keeping it a long time - through the 8 year battery and drivetrain warranty. My expectations of longevity and range were set based on the performance of the earlier battery packs, and I'm rather disappointed that something appears to have changed for the negative.
Of course things like this are bound to happen as technology (mostly) progresses and new materials or chemistries are tried in production that ultimately don't meet expectations. I understand that. However, I also think it's Tesla's responsibility to acknowledge this shortcoming and be forthcoming about what they're seeing and what to expect over the long run. The right thing to do here would be to modify the S/X battery warranty to include a reasonable capacity guarantee over some period of time and fix the cars that are experiencing the worst issues.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
@wk057 Keep up the good work, ignore the people who cannot accept the fact Tesla has missold/lied to them.
I love our 75D X, its the best car I have ever owned. But am under no illusion about how the real world works.
Without people like your self big business will think they can get away with anything......Lets not all forget just badly wrong it can all go if no one is there to keep a check on coporate greed.
Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia
I love our 75D X, its the best car I have ever owned. But am under no illusion about how the real world works.
Without people like your self big business will think they can get away with anything......Lets not all forget just badly wrong it can all go if no one is there to keep a check on coporate greed.
Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia
Had to chuckle at this as my dieselgate TDI was the catalyst for buying a Tesla.
I would be surprised that the battery part numbers didn't change. Seems like we have had much less significant battery changes that resulted in part number changes.
Similar threads
- Poll
