Keep in mind I'm not arguing the overall capacities with my opening post, only that upgrading to 75 from 60 is misleading. Amusing how quickly deniers derail the topic, and I'm once again reminded not to bother posting here.
-
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.
Gerasimental
Member
Don't mind the noise. Please keep posting any information you find. 'Good' or 'bad'
Not really. You're arguing that 75kWh model is a bad deal. Getting 20% more range for less than 10% more money seems pretty reasonable. Not to mention that 75kWh model is closer to optimal 250mile range.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I should note that the 40kWh also had better capacity/range numbers when out of factory than expected (this may just be factor of the software limiting giving more leeway). Many people started a few miles above 140 miles, even though EPA was 139 miles (40kWh eq) vs 208 miles in the 60kWh.
This had 144 miles (41.5 kWh eq):
First Impressions of my Model S (40 kWH)
This 40kWh started with 147 miles (42.4 kWh eq) and dropped to 130 mi (37.5kWh eq) with age and subsequent software updates (owner suspects software updates have more to do with it):
how much range did 40kwh model s have?
From this thread most seemed to have dropped to 130 by now.
Poll on 40KW battery actual rated range vs age(miles) of car
Looking at the details, it seems in 2014, Tesla issued an update that made a hard cap at 140 miles of range (so no one can get better) and then in 2015, appeared to be an update that scaled capacity by pack degradation. Tesla can do the same here (just make a hard cap at 60kWh) to address the concern by wk057 that software limited 60kWh owners got more than they bargained for.
This had 144 miles (41.5 kWh eq):
First Impressions of my Model S (40 kWH)
This 40kWh started with 147 miles (42.4 kWh eq) and dropped to 130 mi (37.5kWh eq) with age and subsequent software updates (owner suspects software updates have more to do with it):
how much range did 40kwh model s have?
From this thread most seemed to have dropped to 130 by now.
Poll on 40KW battery actual rated range vs age(miles) of car
Looking at the details, it seems in 2014, Tesla issued an update that made a hard cap at 140 miles of range (so no one can get better) and then in 2015, appeared to be an update that scaled capacity by pack degradation. Tesla can do the same here (just make a hard cap at 60kWh) to address the concern by wk057 that software limited 60kWh owners got more than they bargained for.
Last edited:
You didn't exactly help yourself with your headline.
They could have called the "new 60" a 65 (which would reflect usable + low buffer), but given that the "new 60" is a pre-Model-3 filler to boost sales, not intended to be a permanent item, I think that they just reused the 60 to say "range like the 60".
I think it was just a marketing simplification.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Huh. I thought he was whining about the 60 kWh model.
The 75 kWh model is exactly as expected: a 75 kWh nominal pack with about 72 kWh maximum useable.
The 60 kWh model (with the software lock) is the odd one, because it seems to offer 62 kWh useable.
People have conjectured that the 60 kWh model was built with a 75 kWh pack for a variety of reasons related to manufacturing efficiency but I'm now more inclined to think that OP is correct and Tesla found that a nominal 60 kWh pack was not enough to provide the range they wanted to market. One thing is for sure: if the extra ~ 41 miles of range that a model D 75 kWh offers over a software limited 60 kWh model can be skipped, the latter is a much more attractive deal. A long thread discussed the benefits, but in summary:
- Faster SC'ing
- No worries about charging to 100% and causing accelerated battery degradation
- A 'free' 4-5 kWh useable over expected from the marketing amount
Last edited:
pilotSteve
Active Member
Note to Tesla: Don't pi$$ off a man with a meter. Wk07 has share more hard data about what owners can expect to achieve with their vehicles (range, acceleration, how autopilot is implemented, feasibility of upgrades, etc.) than anybody on this forum IMO.
Don't bash the messenger. I say BRAVO for telling the measured/observed/discovered facts as *facts*. We can cut Tesla some slack with marketing but they have unfortunately proven to "round up" waaaaaay too often for it to be a simple mistake or miscalculation. They have demonstrated a deeply imbedded cultural need to over promise.
Grow up Tesla. We love your cars. We buy your cars (many many of us more than one). So go slap the marketing folks around a bit and commit to honest marketing.
Don't bash the messenger. I say BRAVO for telling the measured/observed/discovered facts as *facts*. We can cut Tesla some slack with marketing but they have unfortunately proven to "round up" waaaaaay too often for it to be a simple mistake or miscalculation. They have demonstrated a deeply imbedded cultural need to over promise.
Grow up Tesla. We love your cars. We buy your cars (many many of us more than one). So go slap the marketing folks around a bit and commit to honest marketing.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Actually, in this case, the complaint is that they rounded down for the software limited 60kWh. If you look at the details, the 75kWh followed the same industry convention Tesla had followed previously (advertising the actual pack capacity rather than usable).
I don't think that's really an argument as much as a mathematical conclusion if dollars per usable kwh is the metric…
With that said, I've stood proudly by a lot of my buying decisions that are arguably "bad deals" from a strictly dollars and cents perspective.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
He wasn't "whining" about anything.
He was trying to point out, for anyone considering paying for the upgrade from a 60 to a 75, that they would be gaining about 10 kWh, not about 15 kWh.
That seems pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.
jgillispie
Member
I was going to say the same thing. Adding in trickle charging time to 100% for the 60 isn't very effective compared to the 75 charging to 85-90%.
Don't forget about degradation, that should sweeten the deal for the 60.
I have some bad news there: On my 70 (75), degradation appears proportionally scaled. No free lunch there
I have some bad news there: On my 70 (75), degradation appears proportionally scaled. No free lunch there
Then you would think you would get 80% degradation on a 60.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I supposed that's true from a $/kWh perspective, but then the approximate relative range you are gain didn't change (39 miles from 210 vs 249).
Do note Tesla advertises the upgrade in terms of miles of you gain, not the amount of "kWh," (they don't actually say you get "15kWh" more) which is relatively meaningless given the marketing convention Tesla uses to name their packs (5kWh increments with rounding up or down as fit for marketing purposes).
Tesla — 75 kWh Battery Capacity Upgrade
And back to the question of overall capacity, I guess it goes to the question of is it fair game for Tesla to under-advertise their base model. The core issue here is they marked the software limited "60kWh" as 60kWh rather than 65kWh (if following same usable convention as other models). This makes it so the "60kWh" got more kWh than they bargained for (while "75kWh" got exactly what they bargained for), but I don't think most people would find this unacceptable.
This is a different situation from if the 60kWh followed previous usable conventions (for example 57.6 kWh usable, 2.4 kWh reserve), but the 75kWh didn't (for example actually 67.6 kWh usable and 2.4 kWh reserve). In this situation Tesla would have over-advertised the 75kWh and more people would find this situation unacceptable.
The distinction between the two situations may be somewhat subtle (and would be unclear to new people where that haven't followed previous discussions on capacity), but I think it's an important one.
Last edited:
Just... stop. lol.
For those just tuning in, I'll point out that "kWh" is a technical specification with a specific and unambiguous definition.
EPA ranges are estimates based on government defined criteria and Tesla measurement and may not accurately reflect actual range just like the cars shown range is an estimate determined by computer programs to measure a number of different values that can and do vary by a number of factors. My point is they are all estimates and probably should not be used as strict numerical measurements.
YMMV doesn't apply when you buy a gallon of gas. It better be a goddamn gallon.
Similar threads
