In that case, they would be essentially unlocking the extra capacity for free as your battery degrades to maintain the range. Actually, that might be a good strategy to please customers, but it only works for models where there is higher capacity onboard that is software limited. That would be very expensive for tesla.
-
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.
In that case, they would be essentially unlocking the extra capacity for free as your battery degrades to maintain the range. Actually, that might be a good strategy to please customers, but it only works for models where there is higher capacity onboard that is software limited. That would be very expensive for tesla.
Why would it be ok to get more range than you paid for? Isn't this getting something for free? Does not seem fair.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
It's perfectly fine if a company wants to give its customers more than they paid for. What is unacceptable is when a company actually provides less than what their customers believed they were paying for.
It seems that discussion was about what customers want. I am pretty sure that the company does not want to give customers more than they paid for.
If buy a capacity, you control the range with your usage. Of course many get less that the rated range. Some get even more than the rated range through careful driving behavior. but they all use the same battery capacity. It just now is discovered that that capacity is actually 86kWh despite being advertised as 90kWh.
It seems especially painful if you are upgrading from "60" to "75". It seems like you are paying $9000 for 25% more capacity. In fact, you are getting a 16% increase? That is pretty unacceptable.
It seems especially painful if you are upgrading from "60" to "75". It seems like you are paying $9000 for 25% more capacity. In fact, you are getting a 16% increase? That is pretty unacceptable.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Well, if we're talking about Tesla, you'd be wrong.
Elon Musk has often aid he wants to under-promise and over-deliver.
There are several examples of Tesla doing that. They have, on more than one occasion, improved the specified 0-60 times with software updates. They have provided features in software that were not promised. So Tesla most definitely does, at times, attempt to give the customer more than he or she paid for.
Of course that doesn't, in my opinion, excuse them when they deliver less than what the customer paid for. Their responsibility is to deliver at least as much as what was advertised, and if they want to deliver more, then that is a bonus. They should never deliver less.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I want to thank OP for this thread. It has knocked two full days of the wait for the Model 3.
It should be noted wk057 disagrees with this assessment. The 4 kWh brick is according to wk057 included in the nomimal amount.
I make no claim who is right, but the images posted by Dennis87 do not in any way suggest to me that the 4 kWh is in addition or included in the nominal value, it just lists it separately.
wk057 said:
I would agree 89 kWh (including bricking buffer) would be close enough to call 90 kWh, however it should be noted wk057 does not agree with that claim. He says this of the 90D:
wk057 said:
Here is the original 60 amongst others from early this thread:
wk057 said:
Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood the question.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood. I want to see figures for the software limited 60D but from an older car (as in age). After some degradation has occurred I'm curious to see if the limit is still 62.4kWh
Umm. No he doesn't. Take a look at this post: "Usable. does not include 2.4 kWh unusable bottom capacity. (4 kWh on 85/90)" in that he is answering a question about the "nominal" amount.
On the data I did log from a new 85D and 90D it looks like the 4 kWh should be added.
Example my own car a P85D reports 78 kWh available. 77-78 is the more normal capacity I do read on not so old 85 packs. The 79 was on a very late delivered 85D right before production did end.
If I do not add the 4 kWh I don't get the numbers when driving from 100-0% to add up. As I still have a few KWh available bellow 0.
So the total capacity on my car should be 78 + 4 brick = 82 kWh. That is almost the same as wk057 did write.
When I log the BMS on a 90 pack I think the same should apply. The 90 has 7-8%? more range so 85 kWh should be available for use. So it should be correct to add + 4 kWh brick on the 90 pack to.
Maybe wk057 have forgot to add 4 kWh brick on the 90 pack or the 90 pack readout was on a earlier demo car?
the rest of the numbers for the other batteries looks to be correct.
Last edited:
CuriousG
Active Member
Yes he does. Maybe you are mistaking usable with total? wk057 included the buffer in the total number, not the usable number:
"For clarification, the larger packs use a 4 kWh bottom lockout and the smaller packs use a 2.4 kWh bottom lockout. This capacity (included in the "total capacity" numbers above)"
And the total number, including buffer, were ~81.5 kWh for the "85 kWh" battery and ~85.8 kWh for the "90 kWh" battery. Assuming wk057 is correct of course.
wk057 said:
Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)
wk057 said:
Similar threads
