-
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.
If Dennis has time one day I`ll be able to meet up to get a new readout of the 90-pack after 10.000 miles / 9 months (the exact car from the readout). Original readout was done a few miles from Teslas delivery center in Drammen/Norway with just a fem miles on the odo.
Or maybe I should just buy cables/software so I can do readouts myself
wk057's claim is that the nominal/total amount includes the brick, he says this outloud in the first four pages of this thread very clearly. And also why else would he have provided total-brick=usable numbers for usable anyway. How he came to that conclusion, I am not sure is explained in this thread but is based on his earlier work.
I have no way of knowing if he is right or wrong, of course, I understand Dennis87 made the opposite claim that the brick amount would be added on top of the nominal value, which would make the original 60 kWh as actually a 63.4 kWh and the 75 kWh as actually a 77.4 kWh for example. I am not sure that can be supported by anything seen here either, no proof was posted for this type of reading into the images.
So, experts feel free to chime in, because this interpretation is not proven in this thread either way IMO.
"And here is what I've gathered so far:
- 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
In post #7 he states the opposite.
He is asked if the nominal full pack number is total battery size or useable size. wk057 answers that nominal full pack number is usable and does not include brick.
He is asked if the nominal full pack number is total battery size or useable size. wk057 answers that nominal full pack number is usable and does not include brick.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You seem to be failing to understand that Dennis is seeing different numbers on some cars.
So the highest he's seen an 85 with 79 usable, (which is close to wk's 77.5), + the brick = 83, and the highest 90 he's seen is 85 usable, + the brick = 89. So both his numbers and wk's could be valid for those specific vehicles.
I disagree. Message #7 is not being correctly interpreted.
In #7 wk057 answers this question:
"Is the nominal full figure of 72.6 kWh the actual battery capacity or just the usable capacity?"
This is not a nominal full figure at all! That is the usable figure for a 75 kWh battery from which the 2.4 kWh brick buffer is deducted.
So understandably wk057 answers. He does not correct the posters assertion of 72.6 kWh being "nominal full figure", he simply states it is usable capacity instead:
"Usable. does not include 2.4 kWh unusable bottom capacity. (4 kWh on 85/90)"
wk057 does NOT claim "nominal full figure" does not include 2.4 kWh buffer. He claims 72.6 kWh is not a "nominal full figure" at all - but usable figure - and thus does not include the 2.4 kWh buffer.
Besides, in #65 he spells out it very clearly that his total numbers, e.g. 81,5 kWh for 85 kWh and 75 kWh for 75 kWh does include the brick buffer.
Again, all this of course assuming wk057 is right.
wk057 claims the data to have come from many packs, so not just single measurements - and with his track-record I am inclined to believe this.
I read post #65 again. He speaks only of nominal capacity in post 7 and photo-documentation in post 1.
No mention of nominal in post 65, only total. In my opinion he does not state that total equals nominal.
This is also documented in post 1 where he shows a nominal full pack number. He later adds brick to this number.
Long story short - nominal excludes brick. Total capacity includes brick.
My pack is 84,9 nominal + 4 brick. 88,9 total.
No mention of nominal in post 65, only total. In my opinion he does not state that total equals nominal.
This is also documented in post 1 where he shows a nominal full pack number. He later adds brick to this number.
Long story short - nominal excludes brick. Total capacity includes brick.
My pack is 84,9 nominal + 4 brick. 88,9 total.
Last edited:
Seeing somewhat different numbers on different cars is of course expected. Many of the expert comments on this thread certainly suggest a significant-enough variance between new vehicles even - let alone used ones through degradation.
I have no problem if someone says they've seen a 90 kWh with 85 usable + the brick = 89. If so, fine. However, to me the suggestion in the message was instead: 85 total + brick = 89... and that is where at least wk057 seems to have disagreed. The 85 total would include the brick buffer.
Edit: See #369 correction. I thought the "total" figures of #65 were claimed to not include brick buffer (which they do). There does not seem to be such a disagreement after all, which I'm happy got clarified.
Last edited:
1st post he shows picture of nominal pack size. wk057 adds brick to that number.
Then again in post 7 he repeats the claim that nominal does not equal total pack size. Brick is added to nominal value.
Then again in post 7 he repeats the claim that nominal does not equal total pack size. Brick is added to nominal value.
OK, now I get what you're aiming at. I agree the Nominal Full Pack energy does not include the brick buffer in that image. I took the nominal full reference in #7 question to be of total, which I agree it was not.
Added confusion came from my impression that the total values of #65 were claimed not to include brick buffer, which I guess we both agree they do include the brick buffer. Sorry about any misunderstanding.
I agree Dennis87 has found two cars with higher than otherwise Nominal Full Pack.
Last edited:
As English isn't my native language, and the 84,9 + brick pack is my own car, I could misunderstand posts and be biased at the same time Appreciate my claims being challenged as it made me study wk057 posts more closely.
Appreciate my claims being challenged as it made me study wk057 posts more closely.
A good chunk of the posts here were really on a different topic, so I'm breaking it out to Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
As English isn't my native language, and the 84,9 + brick pack is my own car, I could misunderstand posts and be biased at the same time
Thank you @Oyvind.H and @Dennis87, your measurements added a valuable new layer to the conversation. Good of you to persist too Oyvind.H until it was understood by thick skulled people like me.
Conversation win!
HyperMiler
Member
A key question from my perspective is should the market (and then, legislation) require that a stated pack capacity in kWh should be usable for the consumer, and should he/she should be allowed to determine how many miles to turn that into? I think yes. If the kWh are not there, as in coming out of the cable leaving the battery, one should be allowed to return the product as defective.
As in the ICE industry, such key performance indicators should be available on an OBD plug.
The ICE industry has gone down the path of promising performance and range a normal customer could never reach with that product. And has cheated in many other ways.
EV makers once promised they would be different. We should hold them to it.
As in the ICE industry, such key performance indicators should be available on an OBD plug.
The ICE industry has gone down the path of promising performance and range a normal customer could never reach with that product. And has cheated in many other ways.
EV makers once promised they would be different. We should hold them to it.
On one hand I prefer knowing the exact amount of usable energy. On the other hand, if focus is on useable energy the result could be that manufactures reduce buffers/brick protection to boost numbers.
Yeah, IMO the brick protection buffer is not the problem. That's fine as long as it is something reasonable and not like 50%...
The discrepancy between total and advertised kWh would be a might bigger problem IMO, if there is no way the car has the kWh being advertised even in theory...
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm fine as long as it applies to the whole industry, since the current convention is the total number.
I would argue for both numbers to be published, the total number is not "useless" because it gives you the true SOC range the battery is operating in, and that has consequences for battery longevity. So in a way you are still using the "unusable" capacity.
Similar threads
