-
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.
I don't think you read back far enough. In short, there's missing capacity in 85 and 90 offerings AFTER briking is taken into account. It's not even open to interpretation. Nobody wants a freebie, they just want the actual kWh they paid for.
I feel like this thread's been taken over by people who've only read the last page or so.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. My refreshed 70D came with 235 miles and is now down to 230. Nothing about that seems to say that it's achieving EPA promised range, which seems a tiny bit bothersome knowing they intentionally locked away capacity to give the appearance of this rating.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Yeah, it didn't make any difference. I wonder if rebalancing is at all effective since I can only charge to 90% or so of the underlying pack.
Batteries lose capacity as they are used and age. There are several threads tracking this on TMC. 2%loss the first year is typical with 1% a year thereafter. Exactly the same is true of your phone. Early Leafs often lost 20+ % in a year or two. Gm has published that Bolts may lose 40% by 100,000 miles. Advertised capacity is capacity at origin wether it is in miles or hours or what. also, do you expect an ice to get the epa rating? Few do in the real world. While a 75 has a rated range of 249, I am at 245 currently and often see 260+ in the real world. don't get too wrapped up in numbers. There is one guy pushing 300 mi range on a 75. I don't know how he does it but the screen shot is on this site.
I completely understand that batteries degrade over time. My beef is with the initial trimming of the software-locked capacity.
At time of purchase, the 70D was advertised as 240 rated miles. Having it be delivered with 236 rated miles is unnecessarily evil when there is plenty of reserve capacity to trim it properly to 240 rated miles.
It would have been nice for the reserve capacity to have been used to offset range degradation over time, but I don't expect that kind of goodwill, especially since it detracts from the range unlock purchase option.
But still, if the car is advertised as having 240 miles, I'd like to see every one of them delivered with at least 240 rated miles on a full charge.
Right, that is exactly the value add. But it is a high price for something you would rather rarely use. Rarely, because:
- if you do frequently long trips and the 86% charge (62,4kWh of 60 / 72,6kWh of 75) is not sufficient but you need to charge frequently close to 100%, then I think the 90D would be the better option. Because with degradation over time (5 to 8%) you will not have the initial range (and with that the needed extra range) anymore and charging close to 100% will even increase degradation and causing also much longer charging time. Of course the 60 degrades as well, I just want to say if charging a 75 to 86% causes already frequent trouble to get to your destination, then it will get worse over time with degradation and the 90 would be the better option (also as with bad weather your range is significantly reduced as well)
- if you seldom do long trips then you pay actually a high price for skipping one charging station
- the network of superchargers as well as of normal and destination chargers is increasing, so charging the smallest car will become less and less troublesome over time
- and for really long trips you typically charge only enough (except for the first charge) to make it to the next supercharger which for most will be more around 50 to 80% charge. And then again the 90 would be of benefit again because charging (to make it to the next supercharger) will be faster
- upgrade from 60D to 75D is $6500 and with the 90% charge you just get 3kWh more (62,4kWh of 60 vs. 65,3kWh = 90% of 75). So $2167 per typically used extra kWh
- upgrade from 75D to 90D is $10000. I haven't seen figures for the real capacity of the 90. If it has 3% spare like the 75 then it would be 87,3kWh. But let's assume worse and has only 85kWh. 90% gives 65,3kWh for the 75 and 76,5kWh for the 90. Then you pay "just" $900 per extra typically used kWh. Even if you don't take the dual motor and save $5000 on the 75 (not available for the 90), it is still only $1350 extra and with that less (per extra kWh) than for the upgrade from 60 to 75.
Dan43
Member
@Testwas thanks for the explanation.
To add, if charging to 100% is considered bad battery form and that all 60 owners charge to 90% as was/is instructed by most then a 60 at 90% = 54kW v 65,3kW of the 75, a 11,3kW difference.
The argument assumes all 60 users at all times charge to 100% and all 75 users to 90%, due to the extra headroom in a 60 v none in a 75.
So all 60 users are degrading their battery by charging to 100% all the time, while 75 users are not by only charging to 90%
Is this a reality or just my skewed reading of the information at hand on the forum, is this a real issue is all I am asking. My S75 arrives this week and I will need the full 100% charge at least once a week, the rest can be 80%.
Interesting thread though really got me thinking.
To add, if charging to 100% is considered bad battery form and that all 60 owners charge to 90% as was/is instructed by most then a 60 at 90% = 54kW v 65,3kW of the 75, a 11,3kW difference.
The argument assumes all 60 users at all times charge to 100% and all 75 users to 90%, due to the extra headroom in a 60 v none in a 75.
So all 60 users are degrading their battery by charging to 100% all the time, while 75 users are not by only charging to 90%
Is this a reality or just my skewed reading of the information at hand on the forum, is this a real issue is all I am asking. My S75 arrives this week and I will need the full 100% charge at least once a week, the rest can be 80%.
Interesting thread though really got me thinking.
If the 60 was really a 60kWh pack, or if the unusable area was at the bottom, you'd have a point.
Since the 60 is really a 75 kWh pack with the top blocked off, charging it to "100%" is physically only charging the cells to ~83% - less impact on aging than the real 75 kWh charging to 90%.
If you're expecting to *need* 100% of rated range once a week, you should seriously consider paying for a larger battery. There will be days where weather and circumstances make achieving rated range difficult, and you don't want to live with range anxiety that often.
Dan43
Member
@Saghost
The S75 should cover my once a week round trip, but I will need the extra and happy with that.
If 100% of a 60 is really only 83% of the 75 it really has, is there then any issue of always charging to 83% all the time, won't the uncharged 17% deteriorate if not ever charged/used, won't those uncharged battery cells essentially 'die' leaving any upgrade a mute point?
Or does the battery charge in a random fashion using any cells it feels like randomly thus making this point mute?
The S75 should cover my once a week round trip, but I will need the extra and happy with that.
If 100% of a 60 is really only 83% of the 75 it really has, is there then any issue of always charging to 83% all the time, won't the uncharged 17% deteriorate if not ever charged/used, won't those uncharged battery cells essentially 'die' leaving any upgrade a mute point?
Or does the battery charge in a random fashion using any cells it feels like randomly thus making this point mute?
Nothing is unused. All the cells are charged and discharged simultaneously, and nominally to the exact same extent (in practice slight differences in internal resistance mean some cells discharge a little more; the BMS compensates to level wear and maximize capacity.)
The unused 17% is just the car stopping the charging at an earlier point and lower voltage on every cell, exactly the same as if you set the charge limit on a 75 kWh pack to 83% on the center console.
No, because Li-ion cells don't need to be charged to 100% like NiMh or NiCd cells to overcome some memory effects. But Li-ion need to be balanced once in a while which happens charging close to 100%. Balancing means that some cells got discharged to e.g. 9% and other cells to 10%. Now after charging 90% the first cells would be at 99% charging state while the other ones would be already at 100%. So balancing kicks in to switch off the 100% cells for charging and charges the remaining cells from 99% to 100%. These unbalanced cells are normally not a problem, but can become a problem if you discharge close to 0%: while some cells still might be slightly above 0% the other cells might be at a killing 0% level.
Somewhere I read that this balancing seems to be managed for the 60kWh setup as well.
Chopr147
Active Member
I was going to give a long winded answer but these guys answered it better and more detailed than I could. So, thanks
#333Testwa,
#332Saghost,
Evil!? A tad dramatic but yes you should expect a full 240 at 100% when new. I wonder if you spoke with the rep. when you picked up car. I have noticed full charges for me sometimes give different rated miles. Usually 219 for my 60D but then full charge a week later may give 216. Sometimes it's 220. IDK why this is but it's not something I'm worried about. I have never had severe range anxiety so a few miles don't make a difference
Maybe I'm being a little dramatic, but the point still remains that it's a zero-cost (to them) software change to trim the car to 240 miles at delivery.
I did not discover this at time of delivery, because the car was delivered to me with 20% charge. They didn't have any supercharger slots at Fremont and the DS said it came from the factory with low charge. It wasn't until a few days later that I discovered it only charged to 236 or 234, and I have spoken with them several times since (including at my latest service appt, when it would charge to 229) and been told it's within spec every time.
But yeah, congrats. You now have a 60D that cost $6000 less than a 70D but gets within 20 miles of my range
. I wouldn't be upset either! I'm more jealous the 60D was not an option during the few weeks I ordered my car.NO they overdelivered 2kwh at one end and undelivered 3kwh at the other - giving you only 10kwh for the price of your 15. THEN the car (AND service engineers) will recomend you only charge to 90% most of the time... giving you a measly 4% gain (90% charge of a "75"). Your 60kWh can be 100% charged as you apparantly are physically charging to only about 83%
Also you are paying Tesla for a 15kwH "software" upgrade. ZERO cost to them if you don't upgrade. $6500 or 7500 to you. And that price per kwh is actually VERY high! $650 / 750 - especially as Tesla is at the low end of the $100-150 kWh. To the people saying that's not much for the price of the car difference - it is. The battery is 1/3 the cost of the car.
Yes, Tesla has lied about the HP - that's why they got their a*** sued in Norway in a class-action suit and lost and are paying P90 owners about £5000 each in compensation.
I'd also say well done to the muppets on here who've defended Tesla on this and not at least acknowledged WK's point. He's the one "hacking" around with Tesla software - giving you something like mole inside information for free - not opinion - actual facts that'll help people's buying decisions. He's not asking for badge changes - just honesty in the specification. That Tesla maybe somewhere should report the software limited (both ends) and usable / max capacity of the battery if they're going to state a kWH.
60 to 90 is $22,500 on the build site. That is one third the price of a 60. Yes unlocking a 60 costs Tesla very little, but THE PRICE OF A 75 HASNT CHANGED. Wether you buy it piecemeal or all at one time, you basically pay the same price. Tesla basically gave you something to spur sales.with the 60. If you want to change the deal, you have to pay the regular price. You got a bargain, why not enjoy it? Satisfied 60 to 75 owner.i'm not going to complain about the price if I decide to upgrade to Autopilot. All this was on the site when you ordered.
Dan43
Member
Have Tesla then messed up their trading in a 60 and we will upgrade it to a 75 and charge more CPO thingy??
I believe it is partly a coincidence that the EPA rating matches the rating given by Tesla to the driver. EPA does a certain test cycle that might require a different consumption to what Tesla believes is realistic for EV user behavior. This becomes more obvious if you take the European NEDC rating which doesn't match realistic driving at all. Neither for ICEs nor for EVs and especially not for Hybrids. According to NEDC the range of the 60 is above 400km (250mls), around 20% more than according to EPA. And that is the value you see on the website / design studio. That would relate to 150Wh/km (240Wh/mile), so I rather prefer to see a more realistic rating of Tesla over some unrealistic brochure values according to some outdated test cycles. So US buyers are lucky that EPA rating matches Tesla rating and realistic consumption pretty well.
Similar threads
