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

[Canuck]

I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that is sure to consume this thread,

In other words, you will ignore people who disagree with you and, even before hearing their argument, you will label it "nonsense".

I'm once again reminded not to bother posting here.

But we know you will be back, thin skin and all. Just like when you said you would never buy another Tesla product and then did. If only you were a man of your word.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Er, you did mean that as a compliment, right?

It's hard to tell these days.

This thread is WINNING WINNING WINNING!

 

[tomas]

This thread is WHINING WHINING WHINING!

let me fix that for you

 

[SageBrush]

But we know you will be back, thin skin and all. Just like when you said you would never buy another Tesla product and then did. If only you were a man of your word.

I'm glad that he owns Teslas, hacks the code, and reports findings, although I agree with you that his hubris is poor form which is why I mocked him earlier.

Ah well. No one is perfect

 

[brkaus]

Good information to know.

Wonder if some of the reason is to match the range of a true 60, one that wouldn't have the extra weight of the additional batteries to carry around.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

let me fix that for you

LOL.

SO MUCH MONEY. INCREDIBLE BATTERY CAPACITY. JUST INCREDIBLE. YOU WON'T BELIEVE IT.

 

[SageBrush]

Good information to know.

Wonder if some of the reason is to match the range of a true 60, one that wouldn't have the extra weight of the additional batteries to carry around.

Good thought!

Anybody know what the older Model 60 range was ?

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

It's certainly a lot closer to the advertised total capacity than either the 85 or the 90.

By itself it's not worthy of being mentioned. It's only interesting because the 60's useable capacity is over the amount advertised. So you're getting more with the 60. But, you were already getting more in a way that the average buyer might not understand. Someone getting a 75 might not realize you spend the vast majority of time only charging to 90% so they're not really going to be able to use what they spent all that extra money on.

Personally I think this demonstrates why SW limiting is better approach. You get the advantage of being able to charge quickly (since you're only going to approx 90%), and it's easier to set it exactly where you want it in terms of EPA miles. To do an occasional full charge they could do like a one a month bonus to charge to 100%.

 

[SageBrush]

Personally I think this demonstrates why SW limiting is better approach. You get the advantage of being able to charge quickly (since you're only going to approx 90%), and it's easier to set it exactly where you want it in terms of EPA miles. To do an occasional full charge they could do like a one a month bonus to charge to 100%.

Since this is my birthday, I'll just take the 100 kWh pack for the price of the 60 and we can call things all square.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

EDIT: Seems I've failed in the above and will be ignoring this thread further. Please direct any relevant inquiries to me directly via PM, my twitter, or my site, since it's obvious no useful discussion can happen here on this topic.

Umm, you posted this at around 8:00am, and edited it at 2:30pm.

So those of us that actually work for a living are irrelevant? Now I'm not saying I had anything of value to add, but just that I couldn't have said anything within your very narrow window of time.

 

[FlatSix911]

• 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

Keep up the good work ... looks like the original 60/70 and new SW limited 60 are the best value

 

[brkaus]

Good thought!

Anybody know what the older Model 60 range was ?

Just did some googling. Looks like the official EPA range of the original s60 was 208 miles, based on reviews I found searching for "2013 tesla model s 60". The current S60 is showing an EPA Est. Range of 210 miles. Not sure what the "Est" means in this case? Perhaps my lucky guess has more truth to it than I expected.

BTW, I do agree with others that say the s60 the best value. Faster supercharging, charge to 100%, etc. But if it doesn't have the range one needs, it doesn't have the range one needs. And it can make a difference for the true long distance drivers. Example: Austin, Tx -> Des Moines, IA. A trip that I used to do in an ICE frequently, thank goodness I don't do it anymore!!! The online trip planner puts it at 22 hours including charging in an s60, 18 hours in a s90d.

 

[FlatSix911]

Just did some googling. Looks like the official EPA range of the original s60 was 208 miles, based on reviews I found searching for "2013 tesla model s 60". The current S60 is showing an EPA Est. Range of 210 miles. Not sure what the "Est" means in this case? Perhaps my lucky guess has more truth to it than I expected.

BTW, I do agree with others that say the s60 the best value. Faster supercharging, charge to 100%, etc. But if it doesn't have the range one needs, it doesn't have the range one needs. And it can make a difference for the true long distance drivers. Example: Austin, Tx -> Des Moines, IA. A trip that I used to do in an ICE frequently, thank goodness I don't do it anymore!!! The online trip planner puts it at 22 hours including charging in an s60, 18 hours in a s90d.

Here are the Tesla range specs for all past and present models .... Tesla Model S - Wikipedia
It would be interesting to graph the EPA numbers along with the usable kWh and see the relationship.

 

[wk057]

I guess we have a different definition of the term "unusable". Mine is the dictionary one which is: "not fit to be used".

The bottom capacity of my 85 battery, that is preventing it from being bricked, is being used and it is "fit to be used". It may not be propelling the vehicle, heating the cabin, etc. but it is being used. You can call it unusable and call people or a company "liars" over things like this, or rounding issues, or marketing matters, but it doesn't make it true. It makes it your opinion only.

In my opinion, calling out publicly: "liar" carries with it a heavy onus of proof and should not be done over trivial matters of opinion.

In other words, you will ignore people who disagree with you and, even before hearing their argument, you will label it "nonsense".



But we know you will be back, thin skin and all. Just like when you said you would never buy another Tesla product and then did. If only you were a man of your word.

I'll come back just for you!

First, unusable is unusable. The "anti-brick" nonsense is made up BS. The BMS consumes basically no power once the pack reaches this point. It can sit for decades and still be used. The capacity is left unused and unusable for any practical purpose because, based on my own testing, if it were used the pack would degrade at an exponentially faster rate than it does without using it. Plain and simple. Any other explanation is FUD.

Further, with regard to the "85" packs which you used in your example, I have data from over 20 cars ranging from 15 miles to 140,000 miles on the odometer as well as thousands of hours of cell cycling capacity testing data (some cells approaching ~500k equivalent miles now), all which come to the same conclusion: The facts show that the total new capacity of the pack is just over 81 kWh. 4 kWh of this is locked away leaving just over 77 kWh of usable capacity in a new 85. In no world does 81 mean 85. SAYING THE CARS WITH "85" BADGES HAVE 85 kWh OF BATTERY IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. PERIOD. You can spin that however the hell you want, but at the end of the day the numbers are the numbers and that is how it is. No 85 has 85 kWh of capacity no matter how you measure it, and honestly Tesla should be held accountable for that false specification.

The fact that the 15 kWh upgrade from 60 to 75 is only 10 kWh is also simple math. When Tesla says you're getting an additional 15 kWh of capacity they are lying. Sorry, numbers don't lie.

As for buying another Tesla product, please back up this claim. I've bought no cars from Tesla. Please show me the MVPA's for the vehicles I've purchased from Tesla since I said I was not purchasing any more of their products. Please show me receipts for Powerwalls or Powerpacks or a solar roof from Tesla. Until then, seriously, your childish attempts to slander and belittle me can stop. Bring facts to the table, not name calling and personal attacks.

 

[pilotSteve]

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).

Not so for the 85, 90 and 100 packs. 60s are the outlier that benefits.

 

[SageBrush]

OP came back to rate a post of mine a moment ago.

I'm honored.

 

[Canuck]

I'll come back just for you!

I knew you always had a soft spot for me. Now when do I get that AP retrofit to my non-AP car? We can now skip AP1.0 and go right to AP2.0 ...

The capacity is left unused and unusable for any practical purpose because if it were used the pack would degrade at an exponentially faster rate than it does without using it.

Therefore it is being used for a purpose and thus is clearly not "unusable". It is being used -- to prevent my battery from degrading faster. That sounds like a damn good use to me.

SAYING THE CARS WITH "85" BADGES HAVE 85 kWh OF BATTERY IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

No it's not. It's called rounding up instead of down.

The fact that the 15 kWh upgrade from 60 to 75 is only 10 kWh is also simple math. When Tesla says you're getting an additional 15 kWh of capacity they are lying. Sorry, numbers don't lie.

No it's not. It's giving the 60 more to start with since it's carrying more weight of unused batteries then rounding numbers when going from 60 to 75 after crediting back what was given to the 60 to account for extra weight. There's no lie at all. Just because you have a difference of opinion doesn't mean you should be calling Tesla a liar.

But this is the worst part of your post:

As for buying another Tesla product, please back up this claim. I've bought no cars from Tesla. Please show me the MVPA's for the vehicles I've purchased from Tesla. Until then, seriously, your childish attempts to slander me can stop. Bring facts to the table, not name calling and personal attacks.

Calling me a slanderer! How dare you! If it wasn't so funny, I might be upset and offended. But let's take a little trip down memory lane, after which I will accept your apology...

Wait a minute, he says this: "Now, I know the next big question: How much did it cost? Well, not counting my own labor, all together the project cost less than $9,000. That includes costs for parts from Tesla..." Isn't that buying "another retail product" from Tesla? I win!

Autopilot Retrofit on Classic P85 - Done by wizkid057!

lol. I guess parts would be a grey area. They're not really a retail product, per se. Most of the parts came from salvage cars, though, anyway. And I'm not doing any more retrofits... my back is still aching from doing this one.

<Little OT>

I guess you "win" anyway, since I reserved two Model 3.

Autopilot Retrofit on Classic P85 - Done by wizkid057!

How's that for "bringing facts to the table"? YOU said I WON! It doesn't get any better than that! ha!

I'm waiting on my apology. Or, better yet, I'll take it all back and say you win in exchange for the AP2.0 retrofit!

 

[PowerSource]

Therefore it is being used for a purpose and thus is clearly not "unusable". It is being used -- to prevent my battery from degrading faster. That sounds like a damn good use to me.



No it's not. It's called rounding up instead of down.



No it's not. It's giving the 60 more to start with since it's carrying more weight of unused batteries then rounding numbers when going from 60 to 75 after crediting back what was given to the 60 to account for extra weight. There's no lie at all. Just because you have a difference of opinion doesn't mean you should be calling Tesla a liar.

This is mildly similar to the BMW I3 2.4 gallon vs 1.9 gallon gas tank scenario. They limited the tank size and marketed the vehicle as 1.9 gallons vs 2.4. They did not market the vehicle with the same REX range as the Euro ones (with the 2.4 gallon tank). If this is the case the 60kWH cars should be marketed as 75 (because that is the true battery capacity);

Vehicle should be marketed with the correct specs (especially when Tesla is offering an expensive battery upgrade for the 60kWh vehicles). At the very least they should clarify this on their website.

 

[wk057]

I knew you always had a soft spot for me. Now when do I get that AP retrofit to my non-AP car? We can now skip AP1.0 and go right to AP2.0 ...

Just... no. lol.

Therefore it is being used for a purpose and thus is clearly not "unusable". It is being used -- to prevent my battery from degrading faster. That sounds like a damn good use to me.

"Man, this gold bar makes an awesome paperweight." Being "used" I suppose... but a battery's use is to be discharged for power and recharged. Idle capacity simply is not used.

No it's not. It's called rounding up instead of down.

Since when does 81 round up to 85? I mean, it's been a while since I went to school and all... maybe this is part of "common core" or something?

No it's not. It's giving the 60 more to start with since it's carrying more weight of unused batteries then rounding numbers when going from 60 to 75 after crediting back what was given to the 60 to account for extra weight. There's no lie at all. Just because you have a difference of opinion doesn't mean you should be calling Tesla a liar.

This is, admittedly, the best argument I've heard in this thread. Kudos. However, the math still doesn't actually work in this way. The added weight vs the original 60 is something like 90 lbs. 90 lbs is not going to cause a 4 kWh overuse from 0 to 100%, assuming they set the capacity to ~58 kWh like the original 60.

But this is the worst part of your post:

Calling me a slanderer! How dare you. If it wasn't so funny, I might be upset and offended. But let's take a little trip down memory lane, after which I will accept your apology...

Autopilot Retrofit on Classic P85 - Done by wizkid057!
Autopilot Retrofit on Classic P85 - Done by wizkid057!

I'm waiting on my apology. Or, better yet, I'll take it all back and say you "win" in exchange for the AP2.0 retrofit!

Actually, I cancelled those reservations. Took 6 weeks to get a refund check. Thus, have still not purchased any Tesla products. Regardless, your entire post there was a personal attack and had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Name calling isn't helpful, and implying I'm a liar without facts to back up such claims in an effort to discredit me is the very definition of slander.

Anyway, I've posted my final thoughts on this topic elsewhere. I'll share the main point here:

So what gives?

Honestly, I don't know. If people didn't care about the capacities and only cared about range, why not advertise the actual capacities or the rounded down capacities instead of making up numbers? Tesla doesn't HAVE to lie about these things to sell cars. It just makes them look bad when people call them out on it and does them no good. And really, this is worse than the false advertising of the P85D horsepower since it affects a huge percentage of Tesla customers.

I'm not against Tesla. On the contrary, I want to see them succeed.... which is why they need to stop with these misleading and shady practices that can do nothing but bite them in the ass later.

 

[Canuck]

This is, admittedly, the best argument I've heard in this thread. Kudos.

Thanks.

Just... no. lol.