"Something" covers quite a lot of ground.
Including stock manipulation?
There's another thread which claims Significant Engineering Issues with Model 3 with evidence provided by "some folks".
Follow the money?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"Something" covers quite a lot of ground.
Including stock manipulation?
There's another thread which claims Significant Engineering Issues with Model 3 with evidence provided by "some folks".
Follow the money?
Intuitively you'd think that, but it turns out that supercharging X kWh is probably less damaging than charging at 40 amps the same X kWh.
See this thread:
Does Repeated Supercharging Shorten Life of Battery Even at 90%?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Now that thread I find humorous. I have no concerns there I expect that kind of talk. But in the end I expect the physical/structural issues to be resolved.
Battery degradation and technical issues related to such I'm more willing to look at data about. The chemistry and heat management don't have a single best answer and we are always having to wait years and years after the change to see if we made the right one. It's just one issue that always needs to be taken seriously and have data gathered no matter who brings it up.
No not really. You can rapid cycle electrical systems and expose them to extreme conditions just like mechanical systems.
Nothing special.
Hugh Mannity
Mediocre Member
Quite a few of us have been reporting a slow down in SC rates over the past while regardless of car age. Old, new it seems to be an across the board slowdown.
I read the referenced post. I charge at home and at 40 amps the battery hardly ever gets above 35 C (even in the summer). In contrast, supercharging most often results in the battery riding at 45 C. I understand the claim you are making, but in my experience the battery runs much warmer after supercharging compared to L2.
Thanks for your contribution
As I wrote in my initial post it seems to be the new battery chemistry introduced in the first 90Ds where the most significant changes in peak are registered.
It will be interesting to see if we can see some patterns when we have more data.
@islandbayy has an original 90D and in one of his videos he discusses the supercharger rate declining dramatically after a firmware update. It was about 6 months ago or so that he posted it.
strider
Active Member
Yeah, I think this is going to be a tough nut to crack. Unlike the launch mode counters the "code" for this is in the SC and we don't have access to that. Also an SC can limit charging for a ton of reasons, temp (battery and the SC itself if it's hot outside), SOC, etc. But I'm also wondering if Tesla is being crushed with demand charges from the local power companies and are trying to manage that by keeping SCs from spiking too high in certain cases where they may be subject to a demand charge.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
It's not an electrical system we are cycling, it's a chemical system.
Heat x time are the two key factors and you can find some things out by increasing heat and hoping its the same as a lower heat x a longer time but you can't increase time and sometimes time is the difference maker.
For a purely unrelated example leaf or piece of paper ages differently at different temps but you can't simulate 10 years in a day by making it 3650 times hotter because it'll catch fire and that isn't aging, not even close to the same result. Even getting it close to ~451F changes the nature of the situation too much to allow any huge amount of time compression.
Similar things with battery chemistry. Heat and time interact but you can't simulate everything without just waiting. You can do hot box tests but they only predict a trend and that prediction can be wildly inaccurate.
Last edited:
strider
Active Member
Your statement makes no sense. Tesla can, and does, change the code in our cars regularly. Restricting power based on launch counters was not there one day and the next day it was. Tesla could have (and they HAVE done this) added code in a recent update to temper charging for certain packs in certain instances because they have seen something in their testing. That's what happened w/ the launch counters. They were seeing some bad things happening to packs and they added code to try and mitigate the damage. Also they could have added code to the SC in which case the usual suspects wouldn't have been able to see the code.
One could argue (and there's plenty of it in the launch counter thread) over whether the launch counter thing was them trying to save themselves from warranty repairs or that they were genuinely trying to protect the cars. Since they changed tack I think it was the latter so I'm inclined to think that if Tesla did this they did it for a reason. And if it means your battery lasts longer, what's an extra 5-10 mins at an SC?
Again, I have no dog in this fight. I have an "A" pack so I'm already limited to 90kW. But I just don't see the harm in collecting data. If Tesla's share price can be brought down by some random people posting in forums then that stock is valued based on rainbows and unicorn farts and not the fundamental performance of the business.
Last edited:
3Victoria
Active Member
Jeff Dahl has done a lot of work on fast characterization of cells, so it is possible to get answers faster than the usual cycling.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
It's possible to get approximations faster than usual. but only time will give you actual real life results.
I'm not downplaying his or anyone elses work, it's just the nature of the beast. You can't fake time. You can fake aging but it's synthetic and isn't 100% the same as the real aging that will happen in the car over years and years time.
My classic 85 with an A pack and 47K miles charged at 89 kWh (90 kWh is it's theoretical max) and seemed to taper LESS slowly charging at several SCs this past week.
I call BS, too. Seems we have several new threads started by folks with low post numbers claiming potentially damaging information to scare off new owners and shareholders.
It is funny how the OP has been planning to troll this forum since Feb 1, 2017 (for those of you that can't tell that was sarcasm).
Link to the original Danish forum topic
Tesla Forum - Alt om Tesla Model S / Tesla Model X - Teslaforum.dk
and Microsoft English translation
www.teslaforum.dk/forum/topic/4872 - Translator
It is pretty clear from the posts some people are only reading the title. Based on that the title of this thread should be changed to "Data needed: Evidence of slower supercharging on higher mileage 90 kWh cars".
Link to the original Danish forum topic
Tesla Forum - Alt om Tesla Model S / Tesla Model X - Teslaforum.dk
and Microsoft English translation
www.teslaforum.dk/forum/topic/4872 - Translator
It is pretty clear from the posts some people are only reading the title. Based on that the title of this thread should be changed to "Data needed: Evidence of slower supercharging on higher mileage 90 kWh cars".
Mark Z
Active Member
I am pleased to report that my 2009 Escalade still fills up in about the same time as when it was new. The 6 minutes it took to wash the window was longer than the fill, so the 17 stops during a round trip between LA and PA took less than two hours.
There is never a wait at home for the Tesla, it has a 90% SOC every morning. It gets driven far more miles than the cross country ICE SUV.
There is never a wait at home for the Tesla, it has a 90% SOC every morning. It gets driven far more miles than the cross country ICE SUV.
3Victoria
Active Member
What matters is how close the approximation is. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate.
And if Tesla diversifies into making cheese or fine wine, that would be important.
There are plenty of people working on accelerated ageing of battery systems for both BEVs and hybrids:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64171.pdf
http://webfiles.portal.chalmers.se/et/Lic/JensGroot.pdf
Development of a lifetime prediction model for lithium-ion batteries based on extended accelerated aging test data
http://web.mit.edu/bazant/www/papers/pdf/Pinson_2012_JECS_capacity_fade.pdf
https://www.test-navi.com/eng/report/pdf/Lithium-IonSecondaryBatteryAcceleratedTesting.pdf
http://www.batteries2020.eu/publications/201509EPE15/Ageing.pdf
http://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/2/2/13/pdf
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:716986/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01363521/file/doc00025693.pdf
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f15/APR13_Energy_Storage_e_IV_Battery_Tstg_Design_2.pdf
et al.
Here's the link to the supercharging-may-not-be-as-damaging-as-previously-thought article from Sept 2014.
Since then, we've seen the launch of Powerpack.
Maybe Tesla just need to install more of these at Superchargers to iron out supply fluctuations. Like they did at Gilroy.
Since then, we've seen the launch of Powerpack.
Maybe Tesla just need to install more of these at Superchargers to iron out supply fluctuations. Like they did at Gilroy.
Similar threads
- Question
- Article
