diamond.g
Active Member
As a customer, no it probably isn't reasonable. As a shareholder, depending on if you are a long or short, it could be reasonable.
-
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.
As a customer, no it probably isn't reasonable. As a shareholder, depending on if you are a long or short, it could be reasonable.
As a customer, no it probably isn't reasonable. As a shareholder, depending on if you are a long or short, it could be reasonable.
Well, at least that is a pretty brutally honest way of looking at it.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It was called a joke but I know some conservatives lack a sense of humour. Lighten up for heaven's sake. Your guy won! Celebrate and calm down with the lashing out. The anger on the right after a win would be funny if it wasn't so revealing. Can you imagine if Hillary won after Russia hacked the RNC and Trump got far more votes? Then you could be angry.
There's also no tears here -- just laughing at PE and his many supporters who lack a basic sense of humour, let alone being able to laugh at themselves. Trump says Alec Baldwin does a lousy impression of him? Ha! I can't watch Trump without thinking he is doing an impression of Alec Baldwin doing an impression of him. I think Baldwin got inside his head with that spot-on impression!
Not to mention my location in BC.
Last edited:
You are correct. Our Constitution didn't expect to dilute the educated vote, either, but that's what has happened. The more educated you are, the less your vote counts - this is statistically true in our current setup. Mostly, that's because educated people tend to move to urban areas in states where the electoral college doesn't count their vote proportionately.
An informed electorate is the foundation of democracy. Diluting the educated vote? That doesn't seem like a way forward.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Many on the right, like @hockeythug, think the constitution is set in stone. They have no idea that the Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations.
I have no idea what Bolt has got to do with this thread, but I certainly concur examining its promised vs. delivered kWh would be an interesting topic in another thread/place. I look forward to seeing that in the future.
But none of that changes the fact that wk057 posted a discrepancy in Tesla's advertised vs. nominal kWh, resulting in the low-end actually looking like much closer to the high-end than has been marketed.
It looks like the 85 kWh battery actually is 81 kWh (78 without buffer) and 90 kWh is an 86 kWh (82 without buffer). Rounding to the closest five would make those 80 and 85 kWh respectively, not 85 and 90...
Unless wk057 is wrong, of course. Possible.
jgillispie
Member
While anything is possible, the strange thing here is that the same software is delivering such different "roundings" for different battery sizes. Low-end batteries seem to be rounding down as they should, e.g. from 61 kWh to 60 kWh, but high-end batteries look inflated from 81 to 85 kWh and from 86 to 90 kWh. I am talking of the nominal/total kWh, the buffer is included.
Would these numbers be easily explained by a software quirk? I guess anything is possible, but is it plausible?
Tesla should advertise usable capacity. Usable means what you can draw from the battery using the car (so the anti-bricking/degradation buffer, while useful, is not usable). It is irrelevant how large the anti-bricking/degradation buffer is -- the important part is that it does it's job. Usable capacity is what is relevant to the customer.
If the battery capacity is an a number that doesn't lend itself to a model number (like 62 or 72) then Tesla should round down. If actual capacity is 62kWh, call it 60. No one will complain they got more battery than advertised. There is no reason to round up. All it does is open the window for customer complaints and reduced satisfaction. The product is already outstanding, no reason to exaggerate, or to introduce avenues for disappointment.
If the battery capacity is an a number that doesn't lend itself to a model number (like 62 or 72) then Tesla should round down. If actual capacity is 62kWh, call it 60. No one will complain they got more battery than advertised. There is no reason to round up. All it does is open the window for customer complaints and reduced satisfaction. The product is already outstanding, no reason to exaggerate, or to introduce avenues for disappointment.
If wk057's numbers are correct, it seems Tesla advertised (a normally rounded) buffered kWh for the low-end batteries - nominally slightly over the advertised number, usable still mostly a little less. New 60 kWh is an exception in that its usable kWh exceeds the advertised.
More troublesome is the suggestion by wk057's numbers that for the high-end batteries (85 and 90 tested here), they are not reaching (not even using common rounding) even the nominal kWh number, let alone usable. As in 85 kWh is actually 81 kWh total and 78 kWh usable.
Personally, I'm fine with a non-usable buffer being included. If it was and the numbers were consistent among the models (including showing the real kWh difference between new 60 and new 75), I'd have no problem with the buffer being included.
The problem was at the very beginning, and Tesla's choices later on just made it even more of a mess.
They took Panasonic's 3200 mAh NCR18650BE cells, took the nominal voltage which was 3.7 volts, and get 11.84 watts each. Multiply by 7,104, and you get 84.1 kWh. They then rounded it to 85 kWh. However, Tesla knew that there was no way to get 84.1 kWh out of those cells in their application. Enough so that the BMS actually treats them as 81 kWh. So right there, Tesla was off, and for no real reason. It wasn't like people would not have bought the P80 or S80 because they weren't P85's or S85's. They have the same performance and the same lead all this time.
But then, they really screwed the pooch when they weren't consistent with the 60. Consistency is the key.
Ironically, the 75 is probably the most accurate. I think they are within reasonable marketing ethics to use the anti-brick buffer as part of their specs. After all, we are buying that. We do use it by not using it, since it improves cycle life. If we actually bought 72.4 kWh of batteries, we would still have to put in a anti-brick buffer below that. Also, c-rates are based on the entire pack, including the anti-bricking buffer.
So now, Tesla was accurate with the 75 but lied that the 60 is actually better than a 60. Yeah, it causes more distortion since the distance between the two is much smaller... again, consistency rules. Tesla should learn from this. But the 85 and the 90's are really stretching it... I think they should not have used Panasonic's marketing numbers since they weren't true wrt to Tesla's application of those cells. Not that those markings were really true of those cells anyways, but, ironically, Panasonic is probably one of the least worse at cell spec marking. But once they marketed the 85, what were they going to do with an actual 85? Call it a 90. Again, using Panasonic's marketing numbers (3.4 x 3.7 x 7104 = 89.3 kWh), so there's a smidgen of justification, but not really. We would like to think Tesla is better than this.
They took Panasonic's 3200 mAh NCR18650BE cells, took the nominal voltage which was 3.7 volts, and get 11.84 watts each. Multiply by 7,104, and you get 84.1 kWh. They then rounded it to 85 kWh. However, Tesla knew that there was no way to get 84.1 kWh out of those cells in their application. Enough so that the BMS actually treats them as 81 kWh. So right there, Tesla was off, and for no real reason. It wasn't like people would not have bought the P80 or S80 because they weren't P85's or S85's. They have the same performance and the same lead all this time.
But then, they really screwed the pooch when they weren't consistent with the 60. Consistency is the key.
Ironically, the 75 is probably the most accurate. I think they are within reasonable marketing ethics to use the anti-brick buffer as part of their specs. After all, we are buying that. We do use it by not using it, since it improves cycle life. If we actually bought 72.4 kWh of batteries, we would still have to put in a anti-brick buffer below that. Also, c-rates are based on the entire pack, including the anti-bricking buffer.
So now, Tesla was accurate with the 75 but lied that the 60 is actually better than a 60. Yeah, it causes more distortion since the distance between the two is much smaller... again, consistency rules. Tesla should learn from this. But the 85 and the 90's are really stretching it... I think they should not have used Panasonic's marketing numbers since they weren't true wrt to Tesla's application of those cells. Not that those markings were really true of those cells anyways, but, ironically, Panasonic is probably one of the least worse at cell spec marking. But once they marketed the 85, what were they going to do with an actual 85? Call it a 90. Again, using Panasonic's marketing numbers (3.4 x 3.7 x 7104 = 89.3 kWh), so there's a smidgen of justification, but not really. We would like to think Tesla is better than this.
Last edited:
jgillispie
Member
That's the crux of the argument in the thread I suppose. Personally I disagree. You pay for overhead in all sorts of services and goods and it's included in the total.
Regardless of that, it really comes down to range. 60D has 218miles of range, 75D has 259, that's the number the average customer wants to know. Joe Blow couldn't care less what the kwh is.
Maybe I missed something. This thread is about the 60 and 75, no? And the 75 is exactly 75 kWh. Yes, you are correct that the 85 is actually 81 kWh, but that is a different topic and not being discussed here.
I am not sure that is the crux of the argument, though.
I think there has evolved three different cruxes of the argument, so to speak:
1) wk057 expressed that representing a 62 kWh usable new 60 kWh model was misleading, when the 75 kWh model is only unde 73 kWh usable. The difference of an upgrade thus is not 15 kWh as advertised, but a little over 10 kWh.
2) Some have expressed questions/have issue over high-end batteries seemingly (if wk057 is correct) being marketed with inflated kWh figures: 85 kWh being actually 81 kWh (of which 78 usable) and 90 kWh being 86 kWh (of which 82 is usable). If wk075 is right, it would have been more in line to advertise these models as 80 and 85, instead of 85 and 90.
3) And yes, some have expressed dismay over the usable kWh being less in most of the Tesla models compared to the advertised or total kWh. Personally I don't have issue with this, though I would like it to be consistent. As I suggested, new 60 kWh should really be advertised as 65 kWh to be consistent with the other models, if wk057's info is correct.
A fair assessment of the different issues being discussed? But I do not think it is just one issue, anyway.
Well, I would argue the topic did evolve into Tesla's communications on the batteries in general - already in OPs first post.
But speaking of 60 kWh vs. 75 kWh, even that is represented in a problematic manner because while 75 kWh is 75 kWh in total, it is only under 73 kWh usable. While 60 kWh is 62 kWh usable. That makes the difference between these models much smaller than advertised in usable kWh, so while 75 kWh may be nominally right, 60 kWh is not - making the upgrade product between them a potential issue, if people are thinking they are buying 15 kWh...
Tesla is advertising total capacity because it's what everyone else does. If you really believe that they should advertise usable, then great, but get the other manufacturers to play by the same rules.
But apparently Tesla is not advertising total capacity for 85 kWh or 90 kWh, if wk057 is right? Their total of 81 kWh and 86 kWh would round to 80/85 kWh.
As the thread continued on, the discussion expanded to discuss the accuracy of the "rating" for many of the models, as was outlined in post 65:
wk057 said:
And the concern about it that was subsequently discussed in a number of posts:
wk057 said:
Similar threads
