Someone in the home solar/battery business told me how elevation affects battery performance and life. Knowing I had a Tesla, they pointed to Tesla as an example and emphatically claimed that's why Tesla does not warranty batteries over 6000 Ft. I live at 6800 Ft in Colorado. I don't believe them, but can find nothing to confirm or deny what they claimed. Anyone ever heard anything like this?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Batteries at High Altitude?
- Thread starter ColoradoDave
- Start date
I think that is why so many EVs are taking part in that crazy Pikes Peak race nowadays. They have better performance all the way up.
Your source is the New Vehicle Warranty which includes the battery warranty language. Nothing in that document mentions elevation. There is also nothing in the Powerwall warranty either.
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Tell that person to prove it. And until then, ignore everything they are telling you.
There's an old saying. "No one can speak with greater authority or forcefulness on any given subject than he who is not inhibited by the facts."
There's an old saying. "No one can speak with greater authority or forcefulness on any given subject than he who is not inhibited by the facts."
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
What? Where do people come up with this stuff. Maybe it is a problem on the car that Elon launched into orbit 
Better not have them do any home solar for you
Better not have them do any home solar for you That must be it! If the altitude is too high, the battery will degrade from excessive exposure to cosmic rays.What? Where do people come up with this stuff. Maybe it is a problem on the car that Elon launched into orbit
Tam
Well-Known Member
Is that why they took the main battery pack away from the Roadster that's still flying in the space
Last edited:
dhrivnak
Active Member
Total garbage. And in fact EVs outperform ICE vehicles at high altitudes as they do not rely on the thin air to burn.
Maybe the colder temperatures often at high elevation would be a factor, but I can't come up with any evidence that there is any truth to the idea. As stated above, there is certainly nothing in the battery warranty, one way or the other.
chinokie
Member
What? Where do people come up with this stuff. Maybe it is a problem on the car that Elon launched into orbit
I was just wondering yesterday what Elon's Wh/m is for that roadster.
swaltner
Active Member
For the OP, as others stated, if the person is so adamant that the warranty excludes use above a certain altitude (it doesn't), it should be incredibly easy for them to provide documentation to that fact. Links to the abbreviated and full warranty are:
Vehicle Warranty
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf
A couple google queries come up with the following inputs:
Energy content of kerosene (RP-1 is refined kerosene): 42.7 MJ/kg
Total RP-1 burned by Falcon Heavy: 403,010 kg
Distance travelled by Roadster: 547,657,000 miles
Energy content in fuel that was burned:
403,010 kg * 42.7 MJ/kg * 277 Wh/MJ = 4.767 * 10^9 Wh (ie: 4.767 GWh)
Efficiency:
4.767 * 10^9 Wh / 547,660,000 miles = 87 Wh/mile
Of course, no additional energy is being spent, so the efficiency gets better over time. Check back next in another year and the calculation will yield something like 45 Wh/mile.
Lots of assumptions in here, but the calculation should get you in the ballpark.
Being able to do a calculation like this is why I'm a stickler for people using proper units here. kW vs kWh, etc... If you use the proper units, answers to questions like the one you asked are simply a matter of converting the units.
References for numbers used:
Energy Density of Aviation Fuel - The Physics Factbook
How much fuel does the Falcon Heavy use? What is the price RP-1?
Where is Starman? Track Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster in Space! · Where is Starman?
Vehicle Warranty
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/tesla-new-vehicle-limited-warranty-en-us.pdf
A couple google queries come up with the following inputs:
Energy content of kerosene (RP-1 is refined kerosene): 42.7 MJ/kg
Total RP-1 burned by Falcon Heavy: 403,010 kg
Distance travelled by Roadster: 547,657,000 miles
Energy content in fuel that was burned:
403,010 kg * 42.7 MJ/kg * 277 Wh/MJ = 4.767 * 10^9 Wh (ie: 4.767 GWh)
Efficiency:
4.767 * 10^9 Wh / 547,660,000 miles = 87 Wh/mile
Of course, no additional energy is being spent, so the efficiency gets better over time. Check back next in another year and the calculation will yield something like 45 Wh/mile.
Lots of assumptions in here, but the calculation should get you in the ballpark.
Being able to do a calculation like this is why I'm a stickler for people using proper units here. kW vs kWh, etc... If you use the proper units, answers to questions like the one you asked are simply a matter of converting the units.
References for numbers used:
Energy Density of Aviation Fuel - The Physics Factbook
How much fuel does the Falcon Heavy use? What is the price RP-1?
Where is Starman? Track Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster in Space! · Where is Starman?
"how elevation affects battery performance"
Trying to make sense out of what your were told, my suspicion is that that is not referring to high elevation itself but to the loss of range (kwH/mile) that occurs due to gravity when climbing to a high elevation.
The loss of range when climbing a mountain becomes particularly important because remote mountains tend to have fewer nearby superchargers.
When descending, by contrast, there is a gravity assist and range increases.
Trying to make sense out of what your were told, my suspicion is that that is not referring to high elevation itself but to the loss of range (kwH/mile) that occurs due to gravity when climbing to a high elevation.
The loss of range when climbing a mountain becomes particularly important because remote mountains tend to have fewer nearby superchargers.
When descending, by contrast, there is a gravity assist and range increases.
SSonnentag
埃隆•馬斯克
According to a Wartime Report by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, published in 1943, altitude has negligible effect on air cooling all the way up to 30,000 to 40,000 feet. So I doubt any liquid cooling is affected in a measurable way while driving or living on planet Earth.
digital.library.unt.edu
The effect of altitude on cooling
Report presenting variables that control the cooling of liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines and then to show by illustrations how either engine may be cooled at any desired altitude. Cooling was found to not be the limiting factor in the design of high-altitude airplanes and was also not found...
digital.library.unt.edu
According to a Wartime Report by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, published in 1943, altitude has negligible effect on air cooling all the way up to 30,000 to 40,000 feet. So I doubt any liquid cooling is affected in a measurable way while driving or living on planet Earth.
The effect of altitude on cooling
Report presenting variables that control the cooling of liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines and then to show by illustrations how either engine may be cooled at any desired altitude. Cooling was found to not be the limiting factor in the design of high-altitude airplanes and was also not found...
This isn't quite correct, or at least I don't think this analysis applies to modern cars, and I think I know why.
First off, air cooling is directly impacted by air density, and at 6000', air density and corresponding heat capacity are reduced by 20% - a significant amount indeed. You might be saying "but our cars are liquid cooled" - yes, but heat is extracted from that liquid with an air exchanger (radiator) so ultimately we need air cooling. You can find more info if you search for "derating heat pumps for altitude". Here's a link to a quick chart - you can see by 8000ft, we've lost a quarter of our cooling capacity.
I think I see why this appears to contradict the document you referenced - the engine design. The one with the thinnest air fins (.75 inches!) is the most affected by altitude. Our modern vehicles has cooling fins an order of magnitude thinner than that. But the jist of the paper is the cooling system should be designed for the intended altitude, and it's safe to say out cars, heat pumps, etc, are designed for sea level.
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
No, our cars are not designed for sea level, at least according to the Panasonic battery designers at the GF and the car designers. Not sure where that sea level quote came from.
As for me, I live at 5200 feet. I wouldn't call that a very high altitude, but even so, I don't notice hardly any difference in the performance of my car than when I am in San Francisco at practically sea level.
As for me, I live at 5200 feet. I wouldn't call that a very high altitude, but even so, I don't notice hardly any difference in the performance of my car than when I am in San Francisco at practically sea level.
Similar threads
