Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • The final cut of TMC Podcast #27 is available now with topics time-stamped. We discussed: Consolidation in LiDAR manufacturers; Volvo EX90 shipping with LiDAR; FSD Beta Full Release in N.A.; FSD detecting autopilot cheats, Gwen Shotwell directly overseeing SpaceX Starship; and more. You can watch it now on YouTube. We should have it published to podcast networks shortly.

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

SageBrush

REJECT Fascism
May 7, 2015
13,728
18,930
New Mexico
FWIW, my arithmetic says that the software 60 kWh Model gives 61 kWh useable and not 62 as OP posted:

Both cars are the same and should have the same EPA consumption.
The software unlocked 75 kWh model travels 259 EPA miles on 72.4 kWh, or 3.57 miles per kWh
The software limited 60 kWh model is rated 218 EPA miles, and by calculation then uses 218/3.57 = 60.94 kWh
 

SageBrush

REJECT Fascism
May 7, 2015
13,728
18,930
New Mexico
I think the point that you guys miss is that while this may not be a surprise to people who scour TMC, and really like to dig into the data, it probably is new information for the more casual observer, and for the more casual Tesla customer. It is those people who will be helped the most by wk057 spelling things out in simple terms.
I'm hesitant to pigeon-hole the 'casual' observer but I'll guess that person picks a model by range and cost, not car label and cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgillispie
The non-software limited "70" packs are 14 modules the same as the "85" packs. That makes it ~71.2 kWh total capacity with about 68.8 kWh usable.
Thanks for calling this out. I saw your earlier post referencing the other battery sizes but was curious how my 70 non-D fell into this. I guess the difference is less than the other sizes so yay for me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wk057

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
6,158
14,851
Hickory, NC, USA
This conversation reminds me of how hard drive manufacturers measure disk space.

Not the same, yet this is brought up as a defense every time someone calls Tesla out on this sort of thing.

There is no ambiguous definition of kWh. 1 kWh is 3.6 megajoules.

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
Edit: 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) is NOT usable for driving or other purposes.

In only a few cases do the packs actually have the advertised total capacity, and in no case is the advertised capacity the usable capacity. None of the higher capacity models match or exceed their badged capacity by any metric. This should be wholly unacceptable, yet people continue to make lame excuses as to why we should accept this as it is. I do not.
 
Last edited:
There's no ambiguous definition of a MB either, it's a defined number. Companies are allowed to to change the definition by claiming it's easier for the consumer to understand what they are buying.

I'm not completely dismissing your point but what is your other option? Buy a 68.8D? Exactness has some sort of breaking point.
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
13,003
9,244
Not the same, yet this is brought up as a defense every time someone calls Tesla out on this sort of thing.

There is no ambiguous definition of kWh. 1 kWh is 3.6 megajoules.

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
Edit: 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) is NOT usable for driving or other purposes.

In only a few cases do the packs actually have the advertised total capacity, and in no case is the advertised capacity the usable capacity. None of the higher capacity models match or exceed their badged capacity by any metric. This should be wholly unacceptable, yet people continue to make lame excuses as to why we should accept this as it is. I do not.
Actually a better analogy is the lawsuit about usable capacity for 16GB iPhones and iPads (this was not about GB vs GiB, but rather about OS overhead).

Apple sued for shrinking storage space on 16GB devices thanks to iOS 8 | The Verge

There's also file system overhead that makes it so you can't actually store 16GB of data in 16GB drive even if there was no OS and no GB vs GiB conversion.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: wk057

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
6,158
14,851
Hickory, NC, USA
There's no ambiguous definition of a MB either, it's a defined number.

Actually there are two definitions that are equally valid for MB. There is the numeric representation (which better fits marketing) which is mega(one million)byte = 1,000,000 bytes. There's the other definition that is based on powers of two and unrelated to the actual word prefix "mega" equal to 2^20 bytes or 1,048,576. Personally, I find the actual definition of mega and use of it in a numeric sense to make the most sense, and it is marketed as such. The fact that computer science folks redefine this prefix to mean 1048576 instead of 1000000 doesn't make the real definition of the word less valid. Considering the competing definitions, MB is definitely ambiguous... although considering a megagram is not 1048576 grams and a kilogram is not 1024 grams.... I'm going with the 1,000,000 definition, personally.

kWh has no such competing definitions.

So, TLDR: MB is ambiguous, kWh is not. Please let's not try to use this useless comparison further.
 

tomas

Out of warranty...
Supporting Member
Oct 22, 2012
4,345
4,264
Santa Barbara/New York
YMMV doesn't apply when you buy a gallon of gas. It better be a goddamn gallon.

If you don't believe there are "acceptable tolerances" for gas pumps, well... you must be breathing exhaust! Legally allowable tolerance is .3% Actual tolerance? Well, how often do you think each pump is checked?

All of the arguments here (on both sides) have already been made in the 85kwh dispute thread... by mostly the same people. Everyone knows where everyone stands, so I just cannot believe this thread is up to 4 pages in a day.

Isn't there some exciting fake news to read somewhere rather than rehashing this same debate?
 

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
6,158
14,851
Hickory, NC, USA
Actually a better analogy is the lawsuit about usable capacity for 16GB iPhones and iPads (this was not about GB vs GiB, but rather about OS overhead).

Apple sued for shrinking storage space on 16GB devices thanks to iOS 8 | The Verge

There's also file system overhead that makes it so you can't actually store 16GB of data in 16GB drive even if there was no OS and no GB vs GiB conversion.

If there is a defined amount of bytes or bits available to the device, be it in MB or MiB or whatever number system you choose to use, that storage exists. If it is a 1,000,000 byte device, then 1,000,000 bytes can be written to it. Whether some of that amount is used by the filesystem or the OS is not the concern of the device manufacturer. The spec is still X bytes and X bytes can be read/written.

Tesla has defined the kWh capacity of these vehicles AND the parts themselves (on the actual battery packs) and have defined it unambiguously in kWh. Even if we allow them some allowance for "OS overhead" and "filesystem formatting" (ie, the bottom locked buffer) then they still fall short on all of the higher models. There is no ambiguity here and I fail to see a purpose in anyone defending this or comparing it to hard drives. It's absurd.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THE THREAD, I WILL REITERATE:

60D has 62.4 kWh of usable capacity. 75D has 72.6 kWh in usable capacity. 75 - 65 = 15. 72.6 - 62.4 = 10.2. For those still with me, 10.2 is not equal to 15. I mean, seriously, HOW CAN THIS BE ARGUED? I just don't get it. Math is math. 10.2 != 15. Tesla is selling "60 kWh to 75 kWh" upgrades. Whether they used a buffer/lockout of some kind is irrelevant. If you pay them for 15 kWh, you get 10 kWh. I find it completely ridiculous that anyone can try to dispute this.

I'm done. I'm changing my TMC password to the unknown output of cat /dev/urandom | base64 | cut -b1-32 | head -1 and logging out. I seriously can't deal with this forum anymore. I tried, hoped for an intelligent conversation on the topic, and this is what happens: a thread with 70 replies in just a few hours with no substance whatsoever and basically nothing even remotely on topic.
 
YMMV doesn't apply when you buy a gallon of gas. It better be a goddamn gallon.
Agree but electricity is not the same. It is measured using algorithms and computer programs taking into consideration a number of imprecise variables. You cant weigh it like you would gas. I wish you could. You have probably noticed your range change with some of your downloads from Tesla. This is in part due to changes in their computer programs and algorithms. You have probably also noticed your WH/mile is very high and inaccurate when you first start a new drive. Again this is because of difficulties in measurement accuracy variables.
 

chillaban

Active Member
May 5, 2016
3,723
6,599
Bay Area
Actually there are two definitions that are equally valid for MB. There is the numeric representation (which better fits marketing) which is mega(one million)byte = 1,000,000 bytes. There's the other definition that is based on powers of two and unrelated to the actual word prefix "mega" equal to 2^20 bytes or 1,048,576. Personally, I find the actual definition of mega and use of it in a numeric sense to make the most sense, and it is marketed as such. The fact that computer science folks redefine this prefix to mean 1048576 instead of 1000000 doesn't make the real definition of the word less valid. Considering the competing definitions, MB is definitely ambiguous... although considering a megagram is not 1048576 grams and a kilogram is not 1024 grams.... I'm going with the 1,000,000 definition, personally.

kWh has no such competing definitions.

So, TLDR: MB is ambiguous, kWh is not. Please let's not try to use this useless comparison further.

It ends up being more complicated than that. It also depends on MB or kWh of what. One horrible thing with hard drives / flash is that even on a 1 (decimal) TB drive, some or many of the blocks may be reserved for bad-block remapping, or may be defective and upon first access to the block, gets added to the defect map and subtracted from your actual capacity.

Another good example is wifi advertising: We hear "AC1200" (1200mbit/s) wifi a lot. Technically the PHY data rate of 3-stream 802.11ac wifi at 80MHz is 1200mbit/s, but they are measuring 1200 million bits of wifi signalling in the air per second, not 1200mbit of user observable throughput. In wifi world, the MCS rate that corresponds to 1200mbit uses 2/3 coding (every 2 bits of data takes 3 bits to transmit in the air), so even ignoring any noise or retries or packet overhead, the available throughput to the user is 66% at most. The fallacy here is they just say "1200mbit/s". And the user assumes it means 1200mbit/s of throughput for me, "just like ethernet", except ethernet is over 90% efficient in terms of bits on the line vs bits of your data… but wifi is half as efficient.

Anyone remember 56K modems? Where in reality FCC regulations on the frequencies allowed on the line really make it a 53.3K modem max, even ignoring any real-world noise losses?



Bottom line is, even when using "real" units, the industry at large has loved to play with what the term really means, versus what the user expects the term to mean. wk057's criticism is perfectly valid though. When Tesla says 60, 75, and 85kWh, consumers have an expectation of:

(1) What "kWh" means in terms of the accessible capacity of the pack.
(2) The relative difference between the tiers in accessible capacity is proportional to the advertised capacity. For example, 70 as a number is 25% greater than 60. But purchasing the upgrade does not get you 25% more accessible capacity, and that's regardless of pack-to-pack losses / manufacturing variance. Based off the numbers wk057 collected, it seems virtually impossible for any pack to exist in the wild where purchasing the upgrade results in 25% more capacity.



It is correct that a lot of other items in the world are marketed in the same way with the same axioms of unfairness as above. Doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.
 

anticitizen13.7

Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Dec 22, 2012
3,638
5,870
United States
60D has 62.4 kWh of usable capacity. 75D has 72.6 kWh in usable capacity. 75 - 65 = 15. 72.6 - 62.4 = 10.2. For those still with me, 10.2 is not equal to 15. I mean, seriously, HOW CAN THIS BE ARGUED? I just don't get it. Math is math. 10.2 != 15. Tesla is selling "60 kWh to 75 kWh" upgrades. Whether they used a buffer/lockout of some kind is irrelevant. If you pay them for 15 kWh, you get 10 kWh. I find it completely ridiculous that anyone can try to dispute this.

I'm done. I'm changing my TMC password to the unknown output of cat /dev/urandom | base64 | cut -b1-32 and logging out. I seriously can't deal with this forum anymore. I tried, hoped for an intelligent conversation on the topic, and this is what happens: a thread with 70 replies in just a few hours with no substance whatsoever and basically nothing even remotely on topic.

You haven't been to Macrumors recently ;). There is similar debate as to whether the IP67 rating on iPhone 7 and 7 Plus means the phone is really waterproof or not, whether Apple's marketing on the IP67 feature is deceptive, and why Apple won't warranty liquid damage to IP67 rated devices.

Several people have water-damaged iPhones that allegedly encountered conditions less than the IP67 certification test. The question is whether IP67 actually means anything.

Sorry for going off topic.
 

malcolm

Active Member
Nov 12, 2006
3,072
1,759
Looks like we're always going to have to live with inaccessible kWhs.

Since we're stuck with an inaccessible 4kWh or 2.4kWh bottom end to protect against bricking, I think it would be great to extend the idea and make all packs software limited.

An inaccessible top end could provide two things:

1) full regen even when "fully" charged (assuming warm battery)

2) the top end software limit could adjust over time to maintain X kWh at X kWh i.e. it automatically compensates for the effects of calendar life (and even temporary pack unbalance)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOEV1

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top