Title is good. And yes Model numbers should not be fuzzy kWh. Either make it consistent for all batteries or drop it and call them something generic. e.g S400, S600, S750, S850, S900, S1000. You can still list the precise Battery specs for those that care; just highlight the EPA range as its consistent per model. Does Tesla have a Marketing section or is it Elon late at night making the calls?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)
- Thread starter wk057
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drama Tesla Inc.
I agree with this thread. Model numbers can be whatever they want and need not be consistent. The tech specs should absolutely be consistent and accurate.
It would be good to have an EPA (or other agency) standard on this - as you presently have for for mileage/range - that you require manufacturers to follow when publishing battery specs. Simply define what "usable capacity" is, and require that they disclose that.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I prefer public shaming over government regulation. Let's just insist that Tesla does the right thing; lord knows they are smart enough.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I understand that you are qualifying your posts with "if wk057 is right" because you want to make sure it is understood that you personally can't confirm the data, and presumably don't want to jump to conclusions. There's nothing wrong with that.
I just want to point out that unless I am mistaken, even wk057's harshest critics aren't calling into question the validity of the data he has presented. He has, rightly or wrongly, been criticized for his presentation of the data, the tone he has used (now and in the past), and even whether or not his data is relevant, but again, unless I am mistaken, even with all that criticism, I don't believe anyone (or at least anyone with any credibility) has questioned the actual data.
Last edited:
No doubt. But even if Tesla decides to start presenting accurate usable capacity in their specifications, that doesn't mean that other manufacturers will. All of these standards exist for a reason. It's because there is a YUUUGE incentive to let the BS fly, and a general public that doesn't spend a lot of time confirming the accuracy of claims.
I agree, I don't believe anybody has issues with either what the BMS says, or what individual cell tests have revealed.
In another thread long ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was some discussion as to if the actual battery rating by the manufacturer (Panasonic) was used for the pack rating, as techmaven earlier discussed HERE.
Although we don't know 100% for sure that the Tesla cells are NCR18650BE cells, or some variation thereof, we do know that Panasonic does indeed make some 3.7v 3200mAh cells, and that renders a 84.1kWh pack, if they were used. Now in testing with (almost) brand new Tesla cells it appears it's difficult to get that amount of energy out of one of the cells.
So the questions then become:
1) Is that the actual manufacturer rating?
2) Is it possible under some ideal lab test conditions to obtain that amount of energy, even if not a real world result in an EV application?
IF the answer to either of the above is "yes", then I'm less inclined to blame Tesla here. Things are rated "ideally" all the time, and specific application plays a part. I think it reasonable for Tesla to "pass on" the manufacturer specifications for their own product.
If the answers to BOTH questions is "no", then I agree that Tesla is not being as upfront as I would like about pack specs.
Last edited:
Well, I do understand your point - and I know wk057 has a formidable reputation and I doubt anyone doubts the accuracy of his numbers or his capabilities, let alone his trustworhiness. But I do think the source of the data, the BMS, is not necessarily the definite answer. I'd say we would need more data to know for sure. Some has been pointed to earlier in this thread (experimental data for example), but I think a more comprehensive review is needed.
After all, there is a pretty strong implication here in this thread, namely that of Tesla falsely advertising an 81 kWh (78 usable) battery as 85 kWh as well as an 86 kWh (82 usable) battery as 90 kWh for the past three-four years.
I definitely don't want to jump conclusions until we understand the relevance of wk057's numbers better.
jeffro01
Active Member
I think the easiest way to explain this to you is, almost NO ONE cares about the battery capacity. Almost EVERYONE cares about how far they can go on a charge...
Jeff
There are different standards at play. If Tesla is using the manufacturers spec for the 85 and 90 models, they are most certainly not using it for the 75. This is evidenced by diagnostics which show "real world" capacity at 75 kWh and less than 85 and 90 kWh for the other models.
Or maybe that is just Tesla getting their act together and trying to either accurately rate or under-rate their capacities going forward (as many on this forum are calling upon them to do). There's nothing that they can do about the 85 or 90, as those name-plates are long public.
The outliers to this theory are the 70s and 100s, which are about same vintage as 60/75, and were introduced over-rated.
Certainly seems that way.
Although I suppose you could suggest that if the manufacturer's rating is what Tesla used for the 85, despite the BMS not being able to get that ideal capacity out of the cells, then the 75 may be under-spec'd for those applications, assuming the manufacturer ratings are similar.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Same with me. I'm pretty sure almost all the dislikes on my profile right now is from this thread. Luckily I'm not one phased by dislikes (I know some people are very sensitive about these and get offended). And I roll my eyes on the suggestion that the dislikes are because I'm off topic. I feel the posts I made are more on topic than most posts here, given AFAIK I'm the only one that actually linked the ad in question and am directly discussing it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I guess I didn't make the argument clear. What I'm saying is that the 60 or 70 kWh Model S here is also used as a model designation for the pack configuration in this context (being used to describe S 60, S 60D, S 70, S70D). It's not used as a technical spec.
In other words, when they say 60 kWh Model S, it's proper shorthand for Model S 60 and Model S 60D. Same with the 70kWh Model S being short hand for Model S 70 and Model S 70D.
If they dropped kWh, you end up with this:
"Increase the battery capacity of your 60 or 70 Model S with an over-the-air upgrade to 75 kWh".
Then that sounds like it's only for the S60 or S70. Adding the kWh makes the it clear it applies to all Model S with that pack configuration, even though it can be more misleading depending on how you interpret it.
Personally I would phrase it like this to eliminate the ambiguity, even though it's not as clean (not in plain spoken English and longer):
"Increase the battery capacity of your Model S 60/60D/70/70D with an over-the-air upgrade to 75 kWh".
@FredLambert, I have read your article and I think it misses the point. The issue is, the way different models are advertised makes it look like the lower end models are worse and the top end models are better than they are. This is similar to how S85D 0-60 time was initially advertised as 5.2s. This topic on Reddit was created while the website still showed 5.2s for S85D.
In other words, the 0-60 time and the horsepower of the P85D were advertised in a better light than the S85D. Also, the battery capacity of 85 kWh versions should have been advertised as 80 kWh. The issue here is increasing the differences between trim levels by using creative advertisement.
In other words, the 0-60 time and the horsepower of the P85D were advertised in a better light than the S85D. Also, the battery capacity of 85 kWh versions should have been advertised as 80 kWh. The issue here is increasing the differences between trim levels by using creative advertisement.
Last edited:
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Incorrect, almost everyone cares about battery capacity as proven here ...
Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs
Like most automakers, Tesla measures the battery capacity of their electric vehicles by the total energy potential of the pack rather than the total usable capacity. For example, the original Nissan LEAF’s 24 kWh battery had a usable capacity of about 21.3 kWh. What is particular to Tesla is that the company uses the battery capacity in its branding – a Model S 75 has a 75 kWh battery pack, but as we previously reported, those are rarely perfectly representative of the pack’s usable capacity. We now have more details on the actual usable battery capacity of each of Tesla’s battery packs, which highlights some better bargains and some options to avoid for Tesla shoppers.
Jason Hughes, a Tesla owner and hacker tinkerer, was the first to reveal the discrepancy in Tesla’s advertised battery capacity versus the actual capacity in the pack and the available capacity. He did it through a tear down of the since discontinued 85 kWh battery pack of a Model S. He found that the 85 KWh battery pack actually only had a capacity of up to 81 kWh and ~77 kWh usable capacity. At the time, a Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement:
“The battery pack in Model S is designed to meet everyday driving needs as well as provide long range for road trips. The total available energy from a battery depends greatly on conditions and can vary based on factors such discharge rate and temperature. It is very difficult to replicate the exact discharge profile at home to extract the maximum available energy in a battery pack.” That’s fair enough, but Hughes, who is well-known for his hacking achievements with Tesla vehicles, has since gained access to Tesla’s battery management system, which he tested on several vehicles, including a brand new Model X 60D:
Now the data is directly from Tesla’s software and not a calculation based on the capacity of cells from a tear down of a pack. He gathered similar data from other Tesla models. Here’s a list he sent to Electrek:
- Original 60 – ~61 kWh total capacity, ~58.5 kWh usable.
- 85/P85/85D/P85D – ~81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable
- 90D/P90D – ~85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable
- Original 70 – ~71.2 kWh total capacity, 68.8 kWh usable
- 75/75D – 75 kWh total capacity, 72.6 kWh usable
- Software limited 60/60D – 62.4 kWh usable
- Software limited 70/70D – 65.9 kWh usable
But as Hughes points out, Tesla’s BMS shows a software-limited capacity of 62.4 kWh and if you decide to get the upgrade, it goes up to 72.6 kWh since that’s the usable capacity of the pack. That’s only a 10.2 kWh difference. To be fair, Tesla advertises the upgrade as a 25% range improvement and not a 15 kWh increase – even though it’s very much implied. It’s something that we already reported when Tesla first announced the software-limited Model S 60, but it’s now even more clear with Hughes findings: the “75 range upgrade is just not a good deal, but the Model S 60 is a bargain.”
It’s not good for your battery pack to charge it daily at 100%, but charging a Model S 60 at 100% is not a problem since it’s like charging a Model S 75 at 86%. It also increases your charging speed since you will always have at least a 10 kWh buffer even at a higher state of charge. In other words, you get almost the exact same car as a Model S 75 for daily driving, but your top speed is 10 mph slower and you are short 30 miles for the few occasions when you charge your car to 100%. That’s for a $6,500 difference at the purchase – ~$10,000 after tax if updated after delivery.
Thank you wk057 for the data. This just further proves my point about Tesla being a hype machine. Right now most people, including myself, give them slack for all these false advertisements because they are the only player in town. Once the competitors catches up, and they will, I'm sure Tesla will have to play more fairly.
Like others have said don't be deterred by these fanboys here on the forum. Keep those data coming. You are doing the world a huge favor by revealing important numbers. Sadly I can say the same for your detractors.
Like others have said don't be deterred by these fanboys here on the forum. Keep those data coming. You are doing the world a huge favor by revealing important numbers. Sadly I can say the same for your detractors.
Yinn
Active Member
I care about range, degradation, and lifestyle impact. If you can get me 400 miles consistently out of a single AAA battery for the next 10 years; I'll take it - I have no idea what the kwh capacity of a AAA is.
The nerd in me finds this helpful and informative. I'm very interested in the last part - could I (definitively) charge to 100% w/o degradation on a 60?
The ranting side of me just shrugs this off, possibly because I have a 60 and am a the gainer in this. But marketing happens across all auto manufacturers. For example:
We know a Model S60 stands for 60 kwh battery.
We also a BMW 330i used to stand for a 3 (series,) 3.0 (liter) inline (engine). Should we be up in arms that they offer both a 320i and a 330i that both use a 2.0 liter engine? If we get into "power" they'll both also dyno at different numbers with different % of drive-line losses compared to their marketed hp numbers....does it matter?
<shrug>
not sure, but nerd in me appreciates your info.
The nerd in me finds this helpful and informative. I'm very interested in the last part - could I (definitively) charge to 100% w/o degradation on a 60?
The ranting side of me just shrugs this off, possibly because I have a 60 and am a the gainer in this. But marketing happens across all auto manufacturers. For example:
We know a Model S60 stands for 60 kwh battery.
We also a BMW 330i used to stand for a 3 (series,) 3.0 (liter) inline (engine). Should we be up in arms that they offer both a 320i and a 330i that both use a 2.0 liter engine? If we get into "power" they'll both also dyno at different numbers with different % of drive-line losses compared to their marketed hp numbers....does it matter?
<shrug>
not sure, but nerd in me appreciates your info.
jeffro01
Active Member
Exactly what huge favor is he doing? It's one thing to provide the inner working data that he's done as most of us don't care enough to hack our own cars to grab that same data, at least I sure don't. Some of the data is quite interesting to read but for me interesting is where it stops. What amazes me is some of you read his posts like they're gospel and immediately believe everything he presents represents the full story. Only it doesn't. To be clear, I'm not for one second disputing the data or calling Jason a liar. I believe everything he presents is absolutely true from his point of view based on the data he has access to. However, it would be a bit naive of me to assume thats all there is to the data without a comparable response from Tesla. Seeing as how Tesla has much more important things to do than dispute some kWh ratings posted online, I don't think we'll get the full picture here one way or the other.
Furthermore, at least for me, I couldn't possibly care less. I don't understand why some of you here can't grasp the concept of a marketing term and decision versus engineering specifications. They almost never, EVER, line up. This happens across all industries for all reasons... I can cite, and others have in this thread, a huge number of examples of this from engine displacement sizes, to MPG, the list goes on... Why is it that some of you have your pitchforks out at Tesla over kWh numbers when you've likely given far more egregious errors made by other companies a pass because it was just a "marketing term"?
Last, but certainly not least, calling some of us "fanboys" is absolutely unnecessary and childish. Specifically speaking for me, I just don't see what the big deal here is, at all... As I've said before, the majority of people care about one thing and one thing only, how far can I go on a charge when looking at the various options? The rest is just noise.
Jeff
Personally, despite the fact that Jason craps on every post I make in these threads, I'm glad that he and others have surfaced the discrepancy. Fact is, some people view it as a capital offense, while others (including me) view it as annoying but typical of the auto industry - in fact of industry in general. I don't believe it is either @jeffro01's "almost no one cares" or @No2DinosaurFuel's "almost everyone cares".
I grew up in the 60's era of sticking it to "the man". This approach of corporate watchdog via social media, whistleblowing on dodgy advertising, etc. is very consistent with my beliefs in that era and my ethics today. What I learned later in life when I became "the man": It's hard to always get it right, and yet harder to fix when you get it wrong. Yep, no doubt, Tesla is inconsistent and misleading on their battery kWh labels, and other things as well. That started with the first Model S cars shipped - the 85s. Looking at it from their end, it is hard to break out of the initial error. You could not go back and rebrand the 85. Anyone who doesn't understand that, please PM me, and we'll have a discussion about corporate legal concerns. 90 had to be more than 85. 100 had to be enough more than 90. Now that they seem to be settling on 2 packs (75 with software limited variants, and 100), they have a 75 that is accurate (including buffer), and with the next cell upgrade they will probably get 100 to 100. So, they are within a year maybe of fixing this going forward... if they want to. I hope they do.
Tesla made their breakthrough using social media rather than advertising, just as Trump staged his campaign using social media and rallies rather than advertising and traditional retail politics. You might almost say Musk proved the model that Trump later used. Strange bedfellows, but both have been guilty of making "fantastic" statements to attract attention.
FWIW, I do not see Tesla as a "hype machine", and I have a different view regarding giving Tesla slack. At every turn, this company has stayed true to their strategy and the ideals of propagating sustainable transport, and now solar energy. They have delivered what they said they would so far (though not always exactly when they said or with numbers that match). If they had not done that, and also produced an amazing, home run car as their first mass production product (the S), I'd wager there would be few, if any, BEV cars on the market today. And, given the track record, prior public statements, and inclinations of the new US cabinet, Tesla's success of propelling BEV into market viability in their largest market (US) just could not have happened 4 years later. It's a good thing they did it when they did. That earned them a lot of slack with me. For members of this forum who are just "car guys" or gals who don't care so much about BEV, this may not be important, and they cannot understand the perspective. Fine, we should appreciate different viewpoints.
Do I hope Tesla navigates to accurate kWh, HP, and other ratings? Yes. Do I expect them to just switch overnight? No. Do I see them as any worse ethically than the rest of the auto industry? Nope. Do I appreciate their achievements and continue to support them? Yes. Will I look at competitive cars when the market heats up in 2020? You bet. But I will have a predisposition for Tesla due to their courage to make the market.
Similar threads
