I don't know what your printed owner manual says but this downloadable owners quick guide copy says on page 19:
https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_owners_guide.pdf
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New 60 can be charged to 100% daily without harming long-term battery
- Thread starter MountainRoad
- Start date
https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_owners_guide.pdf
If a 60 really has a 75Kwhr battery, then charging the 60 to 100% is really only charging the battery to 80%.
Since for most daily driving, you only charge to 90%, then a 60 is effectively a 66...
Since for most daily driving, you only charge to 90%, then a 60 is effectively a 66...
For those who thinks the new 60D is actually top limited and assuming the regen still works. So if you live up on a hill, you can actually have more than 60KWh because you just regen the whole way down after charging 100%. This might be the exploit for someone too cheap to pay for 75KWh unlocking but want something more. Just regen the extra KWh. LOL
deonb
Active Member
If the 60 works like the 40 did, then charging to 80% is still charging to 80%.
You just can't move the slider higher than 80%, until you unlock it.
I think people that got a 70 with a 75 battery in have already said that their slider goes all the way to 100%, so Tesla is doing more behind the scenes now than they did with the 40. (I sort of wonder if a software update won't do the same thing for the 40s in the future.)
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
The point of my post was that Tesla's batteries are very robust, as proven by folks like myself who have been stress testing with salvage packs. I am not sure why that gathers so much dislike.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
I feel for sure the 20% limitation has to come from the top of the battery rather than the bottom. In other words, charging to "100%" on a 60/60D equals 80% charge state of the 75 kWh battery.
Software-limiting the top of the battery just limits the range that the vehicle can travel.
But I cannot fathom that Tesla would software-strand someone in the middle of nowhere when the battery actually had 20% charge left in it. That's a gigantic PR nightmare and lawsuit waiting to happen.
Software-limiting the top of the battery just limits the range that the vehicle can travel.
But I cannot fathom that Tesla would software-strand someone in the middle of nowhere when the battery actually had 20% charge left in it. That's a gigantic PR nightmare and lawsuit waiting to happen.
For the best battery life they would probably make the 60s use 10%-90%. (You don't get to the bottom or top of the battery where things go bad.)
And they could potentially remotely unlock that remaining 10%, just like they would unlock Supercharging, a single time, on Model 60s that hadn't purchased Supercharging to get them out of a pickle.
Vic4Model3
Member
What is the 100% charge Votage on the 60 versus the 75.
If the 60 is less Voltage, then the top end is limited, if not, then it is the bottom.
If the 60 is less Voltage, then the top end is limited, if not, then it is the bottom.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't actually buy this being a lawsuit issue. BMW shuts off the i3 REx's fuel pump when you use 1.9 gallons (even though the tank is actually 2.4 gallons, so it still has fuel left). This is to get them into the BEVx category for CARB ZEV credits. However, I don't see there being a successful lawsuit issue.
Another example: the Volt limits you from using the lower end of the battery pack as well as upper end (21% to 86% range). You can conceivably get into a situation where you are out of gas, but still have battery left. So far no one has sued GM for it.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
I didn't say the lawsuit would win.
But filed, yes.There is a difference between there being an undefined amount of charge left in the battery that can't be used because it would destroy the battery, and intentionally preventing the owner from using what is otherwise perfectly available energy. No matter who would be right or how it would be handled, the press from such a thing would be overwhelmingly negative and not at all worth the risk of designing the system that way.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
They can make the same claim that it is for the health of the battery (as well as to provide baseline performance: the lower SOCs have lower performance). The Volt limits both the lower and upper levels of the pack for the same reason (it is not undefined, people who have accessed the CAN bus have seen the hard limits).I didn't say the lawsuit would win.
There is a difference between there being an undefined amount of charge left in the battery that can't be used because it would destroy the battery, and intentionally preventing the owner from using what is otherwise perfectly available energy. No matter who would be right or how it would be handled, the press from such a thing would be overwhelmingly negative and not at all worth the risk of designing the system that way.
I just don't see a practical difference between limiting top or bottom PR-wise. The customer knows they are getting a discount for having a limited pack. I'm not seeing how limiting the bottom will be a PR disaster, while the top would be perfectly fine.
That would be a hard argument because I could pay the $9k to upgrade my 60 to a 75 and be able to use that energy at the bottom just like all the other 75s on the road.
I don't think it's that straightforward as I think Tesla would limit regen for the 60 at the top as well. An easier programming scenario for the battery management software would to be to limit the battery's maximum charge regardless of power source (e.g., regen braking).
Odebek
Don't Panic
I didn't say the lawsuit would win.
There is a difference between there being an undefined amount of charge left in the battery that can't be used because it would destroy the battery, and intentionally preventing the owner from using what is otherwise perfectly available energy. No matter who would be right or how it would be handled, the press from such a thing would be overwhelmingly negative and not at all worth the risk of designing the system that way.
Not with Li ion batteries
There is no concensus standard for what is a top of charge.
There is no concensus standard for what is a bottom of charge.
There is not even a consensus standard for what is the discharge/charge rate to use.
Except for LiFePO4, (which is forgiving for over and undercharge), even the very idea that a Li ion battery is fully charged is subject to so many caveats.
From a distance, A battery is a fuel tank,
Close up, A battery is not a fuel tank.
At a Tesla store, I was told by two employees that the new S-60 indeed disallows regen at the top end. This point is significant for me because I live high up in the mountains. On a positive note, I'd expect the regen to be quite good just below the 60 kWh cutoff. So it might work well to charge to 90%, or even higher, just before descending the mountain. The goal would be to arrive at the bottom with the full 60 kWh, something that's not generally practical to attain with an old S-60, at least without having to ride the friction brakes.
Chopr147
Active Member
It took me 7 pages to find this post Lawsuits in this country can be filed for anything! One reason lawyers get a bad rap. So i'm stucl in the desert between LA and Vegas because of poor planning and decide it's Tesla's fault. If it were me I would call Tesla and say OK i'll take the 75kwh now, charge my credit card
Lawsuits in this country can be filed for anything! One reason lawyers get a bad rap. So i'm stucl in the desert between LA and Vegas because of poor planning and decide it's Tesla's fault. If it were me I would call Tesla and say OK i'll take the 75kwh now, charge my credit card Similar threads
