Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

[dennis_d]

I wonder if Auto Pilot hardware consumption is included, based on the article PX2 consumes roughly 250W

 

[Doubletap67]

This is a great thread. It's very interesting to see that the usable capacity in a new 60 pack is 62.5kWh

Using trip meters in my X60D does not seem to jive with that. I charge to 100%(200 miles):
When I have 150 miles remaining range(75% battery remaining), the trip meter tells me that I've used 14.1kWh.
When I have 100 miles remaining range(50% battery remaining), the trip meter tells me that I've used 28.2kWh.

Extrapolating, that seems to mean that when I hit 0 miles remaining range(0% battery remaining), I will have used 56.4kWh. That doesn't jive with the 62.5kWh number. I definitely don't think wk057 is wrong, just trying to figure out where the disconnect may between what the trip meter says that I've used vs. what the battery is capable of.

This seems to be a bit of a hazy mystery, I posted something similar to the above when I first got my car, using consumed battery percentage and kWh used to work out the capacity of my battery resulted in capacity of 55 kWh or so.

 

[whitex]

I think the meter just look at how much you used to go a certain miles. It cpuls be that the climate is included but I know others are not included.

There are definitely things not included. Back in 2014 I setup a time lapse camera recording the usage screen on a trip once, then punched the data into excell, and realized there appears to be an average battery drain that was not included in the Wh/m. Basically it boils down to the fact that the rated range is dropping faster than (miles driven x Wh/mile) would suggest. If I remember correctly it averaged to be ~1500W draw which could be consistent with climate control.

After some conversations with service and even engineering, it turns out not all power usage is accounted for, but also the fact that the estimation is how much power is left in the battery can never be 100% accurate. Why? Because the amount of energy you can pull out of a battery at known SoC depends on things like battery age, temperature and how much power you are drawing (how fast are you are taking the energy out of the battery). As an electrical engineer this makes sense to me, but if you are not, one good example is this: when you draw a lot of power (current) from the battery (accelerating quick), the internal battery resistance causes some of the power to dissipate in the battery (causing the battery to heat up) and therefore it's power lost that can never be measured outside of the battery, so it cannot be accounted for unless Tesla was to build some super complex system to measure all the heat generated inside the battery.

 

[TJtv]

Basically it boils down to the fact that the rated range is dropping faster than (miles driven x Wh/mile) would suggest.

That's what I tend to think too. Although that in itself is a bit scary. Intuitively you'd think that if you drove at the rated Wh/mi (which I believe is ~310 for MX60D), that you would get the rated range. But your intuition would be wrong.

 

[whitex]

That's what I tend to think too. Although that in itself is a bit scary. Intuitively you'd think that if you drove at the rated Wh/mi (which I believe is ~310 for MX60D), that you would get the rated range. But your intuition would be wrong.

I think it's just an unfortunate fact of driving EV's
1. The amount of energy left in the battery is always an estimate, therefore there is some error possible.
2. The energy in the battery can never be 100% utilized because some of it is wasted in battery's internal loses and that loss depends on battery age, temperature and how fast you're pulling this energy out. The harder you accelerate, not only are you using more energy to do that, you also waste more energy inside the battery, which in turn may require the cooling system to work harder and use even more energy.

More accurate modeling could improve both of the above, but I bet it's low on the priority list of any EV maker today. Another solution is to underestimate remaining energy and report less miles remaining just in case, but no manufacturer wants to do that.

 

[BLUEBOLT X]

Dear Tesla Motors,

Over the past couple of years I've called Tesla out several times for misleading or flat out falsely advertised specs. The 691 "HP" issue, the 285 miles of range on a P85D, the 81 kWh 85's, etc. Well, adding another one to the pile:

Upgrading a software limited "60" to a to "75" actually buys you 10 kWh, not 15 kWh.

See this photo of a section from Tesla's own dev/diagnostics screen of a brand new 60D with < 30 miles:

So, you pay Tesla a huge amount of money for your 15 kWh upgrade and you end up really getting a 10 kWh upgrade because the "60" already included more capacity than it should have, presumably to keep a reasonable range value > 200 miles.

Honestly, basically no one should buy a 75. Charging a "60" to 100% is basically like charging a 75 to 86%... that's only 4% off of the 90% most people will charge to anyway. Seriously, charge your software limited 60's to 100% all the time and you're not hurting anything. For now we'll ignore the fact that a 75 only gives you 72.6 kWh (only 5 kWh less than an "85"), but, that's another story.

Anyway, Tesla, just give us the real damn numbers. Stop making up horsepower numbers. Stop making up capacity numbers. Stop making up range numbers. Just give us REAL specs.

I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that is sure to consume this thread, but if there are tech related inquiries relevant to the topic I will try to reply.
EDIT: Seems I've failed in the above and will be ignoring this thread further. Please direct any relevant inquiries to me directly via PM, my twitter, or my site, since it's obvious no useful discussion can happen here on this topic.

-wk

Well, Tesla is a car company, after all. They are allergic to the truth as are all ICE dealers. Grow up! Elon loves to BLAHG" emphasis on the BLAH.

 

[lolachampcar]

acceptance is a pitiful thing