Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[Model 3]

That would be too much of a departure from company standards and values. Surely not...?

Kind of... Yes, it is a far way for how it was on the original 85 pack. But some of the SW limited packs had more usable capacity then it was labeled. And on the 100 pack the label is just in between "usable" and "total". And the mass marked they are about to enter will be less forgiving about using numbers that the average Joe will not see. So there is good reasons to move towards labeling based on - or below - actual usable energy.

And it is a solution I do very much prefer above "Elon is lying" or "EPA data from Tesla is false!".

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I say sue the bastard.

Overdeliverin' son of a gun, dagnabit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm pretty sure that lying in any significant way about the product which you are selling is considered fraud whatever the EPA may or may not certify.
That said I don't really think that they have done so regarding the battery size.

There are plenty of examples of wrong specs on the EPA cert shown (for example someone else showed a car listed with AC induction motors actually uses PM motors). The EPA doesn't care about that part, only that the data in the test results are correct.

 

[bak_phy]

There are plenty of examples of wrong specs on the EPA cert shown (for example someone else showed a car listed with AC induction motors actually uses PM motors). The EPA doesn't care about that part, only that the data in the test results are correct.

Sure. But I was referring to lying to the buying public.

 

[Model 3]

Sure. But I was referring to lying to the buying public.

I wounder... Who is going to sue Elon/Tesla for saying "We can not deliver a car with more then about 75kWh battery" and then actually delivers a 80kWh battery - with about 75kWh usable energy?
{ironymode="on"}
Yes, that terrible lie have to be punished hard!
{ironymode="off"}

 

[bak_phy]

I wounder... Who is going to sue Elon/Tesla for saying "We can not deliver a car with more then about 75kWh battery" and then actually delivers a 80kWh battery - with about 75kWh usable energy?
{ironymode="on"}
Yes, that terrible lie have to be punished hard!
{ironymode="off"}

Sure. But I was obviously referring to people's comments about OVERSTATING the usable battery capacity in the past.
That said having read these posts for a while there is really no end to what people get pissed of about.

 

[Cloxxki]

What do you guys think? Is it indeed a permanent magnet motor? That's a lot of rare earth magnet to procure. And the economy of the car looks a bit disappointing from it, weren't Tesla's old motors a bit inefficient?
Is the economy disppointing, or did range at 100% become a guarantee part of the more limited warranty plan? 0% degradation would defeat most of the competition. But it would also not be something to keep a secret...unless a joker to play when the time is more opportune (PR challenges calling for a win).

 

[KarenRei]

And the economy of the car looks a bit disappointing from it,

What about the economy of the car looks disappointing? I ranked the most popular EVs in the US recently based on EPA data, and the only one that came in at a lower Wh/mi was the Ioniq, which is a 4-seater (Prius Prime - also a 4-seater - might also be more efficient, but they didn't report the necessary data to determine it). Model 3 is right near the bottom of the list.

or did range at 100% become a guarantee part of the more limited warranty plan?

Range has never been guaranteed. But it's also always held up very well. Surprisingly well, actually.

 

[stopcrazypp]

What do you guys think? Is it indeed a permanent magnet motor? That's a lot of rare earth magnet to procure. And the economy of the car looks a bit disappointing from it, weren't Tesla's old motors a bit inefficient?
Is the economy disppointing, or did range at 100% become a guarantee part of the more limited warranty plan? 0% degradation would defeat most of the competition. But it would also not be something to keep a secret...unless a joker to play when the time is more opportune (PR challenges calling for a win).

It's the second best EV in efficiency, I fail to see how economy is disappointing?

I don't think any manufacturer is dumb enough to guarantee range. Too many variables that can easily make it go under.

 

[donkemaen]

I do not understand anyone that reacts badly to him "lying", imho he did not.

Also have you considered if it was less, the base model would not have make their 215+ miles goal. Since its two vs three modules.

 

[Cloxxki]

It's the second best EV in efficiency, I fail to see how economy is disappointing?

I don't think any manufacturer is dumb enough to guarantee range. Too many variables that can easily make it go under.

With news that the packs may be larger than expected, efficiency is lower than estimated.
Is there only one EV more efficient? For highway, I can imagine this to be true, otherr manufacturers seem to priotitize building freak boxes rather than getting more range from their batteries. In the city, I bet there are a number of cars that go further on a kWh. Model 3 was professed to be such a light car, but we now know it's just not. 116kg heavier than a Chevy Bolt which has (as it seems) a bigger battery.
I don't like this vagueness about outfitting, options, specs. How hard is it to declare the motor rating and actual+usable battery size, and EPA rateed consumption (ccity, highway, combined)? With earlier Teslas there were wonderful stats published, albeit maybe later in product cycles.

 

[stopcrazypp]

With news that the packs may be larger than expected, efficiency is lower than estimated.
Is there only one EV more efficient? For highway, I can imagine this to be true, otherr manufacturers seem to priotitize building freak boxes rather than getting more range from their batteries. In the city, I bet there are a number of cars that go further on a kWh. Model 3 was professed to be such a light car, but we now know it's just not. 116kg heavier than a Chevy Bolt which has (as it seems) a bigger battery.
I don't like this vagueness about outfitting, options, specs. How hard is it to declare the motor rating and actual+usable battery size, and EPA rateed consumption (ccity, highway, combined)? With earlier Teslas there were wonderful stats published, albeit maybe later in product cycles.

Size of pack can vary independently of efficiency due to brick protection buffer.

It seems you are not aware that the Model 3 Long Range is rated at 126 MPGe (from leaked EPA sticker), second only to the Ioniq EV at 136MPGe.

Long-Range 310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Appears To Return 126 MPGe

Your weight specs also appear to be wrong:
3549 lbs. (Model 3)
3814 lbs. (Model 3 Long Range)
3563 lbs. (Bolt)

14lbs lighter than Bolt, long range version 251 lbs more for about 15-20 kWh more capacity than Bolt.

Highly impressive to me considering the size, cost, equation.

 

[KarenRei]

With news that the packs may be larger than expected, efficiency is lower than estimated.

What's bigger than expected? It's like 2 1/2 kWh larger than Musk said, that's nothing. And Musk said nothing about range at that point in time. The efficiency figures we've gotten are completely independent of that.

 

[KarenRei]

It seems you are not aware that the Model 3 Long Range is rated at 126 MPGe (from leaked EPA sticker), second only to the Ioniq EV at 136MPGe.

Long-Range 310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Appears To Return 126 MPGe

Yep, and SR is a tad more efficient than LR. And dual motor will be even more efficient.

For a five seater with traditional looks, it's a very efficient vehicle. Of course, I'd rather ditch the "traditional looks" and get even more efficiency, but I know Tesla wants to sell 500-700k per year, not 50-70k

 

[Cloxxki]

What's bigger than expected? It's like 2 1/2 kWh larger than Musk said, that's nothing. And Musk said nothing about range at that point in time. The efficiency figures we've gotten are completely independent of that.

Over 5kWh more (filed) than Elon announced to fit (plus or minus whichever metric he was referring to).
Most thought it would be 70kWh or 75kWh (total). And 300+ miles was expected as well, especially after the pic of a 3 supercharging surfaced.
Needing 80 or 81kWh to make it 310 miles is not the stellar economy the fanboys (I suppose I'm one) were expecting. Now the 0.21 C was missed by a good margin (0.23), but aero wheels seem to have been used to come to its EPA rating, being the stock wheels, the only at the bottom price point.

 

[Model 3]

Sure. But I was obviously referring to people's comments about OVERSTATING the usable battery capacity in the past..

No, that was not obviously. You posted this in a thread about if Elon is lying about the maximum battery capacity on the Model 3, in the Model 3 sub-forum. Unqualified claims about Elon is lying is obviously referring to this. Comments about earlier sins on other models should be specified to be just that (in this thread).

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Over 5kWh more (filed) than Elon announced to fit (plus or minus whichever metric he was referring to).
Most thought it would be 70kWh or 75kWh (total). And 300+ miles was expected as well, especially after the pic of a 3 supercharging surfaced.
Needing 80 or 81kWh to make it 310 miles is not the stellar economy the fanboys (I suppose I'm one) were expecting. Now the 0.21 C was missed by a good margin (0.23), but aero wheels seem to have been used to come to its EPA rating, being the stock wheels, the only at the bottom price point.

The only way they can get away with the Aero wheels on their CSI report to the EPA is if at least 2/3rds of the cars they sell have them. My guess is that more than 1/3rd of the cars they sell in the first production run (LR/luxury package) will be ordered with Sport wheels, which means they have to use that car in their CSI submission to the EPA. Unless of course the current CSI submission is for employee only cars, where they can restrict who gets the Sport wheels to keep them under a third of sales. In that case they have to submit another CSI when they start selling to current-owners/line-waiters who will likely have sport wheels on more than 1/3rd of their orders.

 

[SageBrush]

The only way they can get away with the Aero wheels on their CSI report to the EPA is if at least 2/3rds of the cars they sell have them. My guess is that more than 1/3rd of the cars they sell in the first production run (LR/luxury package) will be ordered with Sport wheels, which means they have to use that car in their CSI submission to the EPA. Unless of course the current CSI submission is for employee only cars, where they can restrict who gets the Sport wheels to keep them under a third of sales. In that case they have to submit another CSI when they start selling to current-owners/line-waiters who will likely have sport wheels on more than 1/3rd of their orders.

Don't we know that all the cars attached to the Monroney (and by extension, the CSI) we saw are non-Aero wheels ?

 

[bak_phy]

No, that was not obviously. You posted this in a thread about if Elon is lying about the maximum battery capacity on the Model 3, in the Model 3 sub-forum. Unqualified claims about Elon is lying is obviously referring to this. Comments about earlier sins on other models should be specified to be just that (in this thread).

Please refer to my original post where I quoted omgwtfbyobbq who had claimed that Tesla chronically overstated usable battery. I was pointing out that that would be fraud and that I didn't actually believe that they had done that.
It would seem that once my post was quoted and re-quoted out of context it lost its original meaning.

 

[scaesare]

With news that the packs may be larger than expected, efficiency is lower than estimated.
Is there only one EV more efficient? For highway, I can imagine this to be true, otherr manufacturers seem to priotitize building freak boxes rather than getting more range from their batteries. In the city, I bet there are a number of cars that go further on a kWh. Model 3 was professed to be such a light car, but we now know it's just not. 116kg heavier than a Chevy Bolt which has (as it seems) a bigger battery.
I don't like this vagueness about outfitting, options, specs. How hard is it to declare the motor rating and actual+usable battery size, and EPA rateed consumption (ccity, highway, combined)? With earlier Teslas there were wonderful stats published, albeit maybe later in product cycles.

I gotta say, I came darn close with my prediction, even without a worse total efficiency... just in a different thread!:

I'd bet a shiny quarter that, if it was a 60KWh/240mi car rather than a ~50KWh/220 mile car, the title of this thread would be "Is anybody disappointed the Model 3 is so inefficient with the Wh-per-mile it gets?"