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

[wk057]

Dear Tesla Motors,

Over the past couple of years I've called Tesla out several times for misleading or flat out falsely advertised specs. The 691 "HP" issue, the 285 miles of range on a P85D, the 81 kWh 85's, etc. Well, adding another one to the pile:

Upgrading a software limited "60" to a to "75" actually buys you 10 kWh, not 15 kWh.

See this photo of a section from Tesla's own dev/diagnostics screen of a brand new 60D with < 30 miles:

So, you pay Tesla a huge amount of money for your 15 kWh upgrade and you end up really getting a 10 kWh upgrade because the "60" already included more capacity than it should have, presumably to keep a reasonable range value > 200 miles.

Honestly, basically no one should buy a 75. Charging a "60" to 100% is basically like charging a 75 to 86%... that's only 4% off of the 90% most people will charge to anyway. Seriously, charge your software limited 60's to 100% all the time and you're not hurting anything. For now we'll ignore the fact that a 75 only gives you 72.6 kWh (only 5 kWh less than an "85"), but, that's another story.

Anyway, Tesla, just give us the real damn numbers. Stop making up horsepower numbers. Stop making up capacity numbers. Stop making up range numbers. Just give us REAL specs.

I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that is sure to consume this thread, but if there are tech related inquiries relevant to the topic I will try to reply.
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.

-wk

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I don't know about nonsense, but why do we have another "*" thread the same day a previous "*" thread is settled?

Not that I don't appreciate he information, just curious of the timing.

 

[wk057]

I don't know about nonsense, but why do we have another "*" thread the same day a previous "*" thread is settled?

Not that I don't appreciate he information, just curious of the timing.

Found info just now, and you got it as I got it. Timing is irrelevant. Facts are facts.

 

[jeffro01]

At some point some of you are going to have to understand the difference between marketing and technical specifications...

Jeff

 

[anticitizen13.7]

This should be good. I'll be in the lunchroom making popcorn!

Is the nominal full figure of 72.6 kWh the actual battery capacity or just the usable capacity?

 

[3Victoria]

How many decimal points should be included on the badge?

 

[wk057]

This should be good. I'll be in the lunchroom making popcorn!

Is the nominal full figure of 72.6 kWh the actual battery capacity or just the usable capacity?

Usable. does not include 2.4 kWh unusable bottom capacity. (4 kWh on 85/90)

 

[wk057]

How many decimal points should be included on the badge?

None. Chop the decimal. The "75" should be a 72, the new "60" should be a 62, the old "60" should be a 58, the "85" should be a 77, and the "90" should be an 82. (No data for "100" yet, but I'd bet my car it's not 100 kWh.) Even rounding only works for the 60.

Honestly, the new "60" is the best deal since it's the only one that rounds down from real capacity, and charging a new "60" to 100% is the same as charging a "75" to 86%...

 

[SageBrush]

How dare Tesla offer 62 kWh in a car labeled 60 kWh. Anything higher than 57 kWh is unacceptable and an outright lie!

 

[wk057]

At some point some of you are going to have to understand the difference between marketing and technical specifications...

Just... stop. lol.

For those just tuning in, I'll point out that "kWh" is a technical specification with a specific and unambiguous definition.

 

[wesley888]

Thanks for the info wk057. Most of us already suspected that 60 is the software top end cap from 75. You just confirmed it. Making the 60 the best buy of all.

 

[SageBrush]

Just... stop. lol.

The useful point for me as a consumer from this graphic is that the upgrade cost will add 41 miles of EPA range.

 

[chillaban]

The useful point for me as a consumer from this graphic is that the upgrade cost will add 41 miles of EPA range.

It will not. It adds "UP TO" 41 miles of EPA rated range. For example, my 70 (SW locked 75) was "up to 239 miles", and it came from the factory only charging to 235 or 236, and I was told that was within normal variance.

Those numbers don't mean much for comparison purposes.

 

[ecarfan]

So, you pay Tesla a huge amount of money for your 15 kWh upgrade and you end up really getting a 10 kWh upgrade because the "60" already included more capacity than it should have, presumably to keep a reasonable range value > 200 miles.

So you are saying that every "60" Tesla has ever sold has had a bit over 62kWh "full pack energy" so that Tesla could achieve and EPA mileage rating of just over 200 miles but that Tesla deliberately chose to market that battery as a "60" and that is somehow a problem that is worthy of outrage because the "75" is really only 72.6. So you are demanding that Tesla change the labels on the car to 62 and 73. Okay, carry on...

At some point some of you are going to have to understand the difference between marketing and technical specifications...

Touche.

 

[SageBrush]

it came from the factory only charging to 235 or 236, and I was told that was within normal variance.

Variance has a plus AND a minus.

The 41 miles is the average.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Usable. does not include 2.4 kWh unusable bottom capacity. (4 kWh on 85/90)

72.6 + 2.4 = 75 kWh. Then what is the problem? You get a better deal on the 60kWh, but that doesn't make the 75 kWh a lie.

Pretty much all manufacturers advertise the battery capacity based on the total pack capacity, not the actual usable capacity.

If I remember correctly, your previous beef with the 85kWh was that total you measured for your specific pack was 81 kWh and 77 kWh usable. This is a distinction that should be made clear to readers here, or it will be very confusing for people new to this.

 

[Vitold]

Dear Tesla Motors,

Over the past couple of years I've called Tesla out several times for misleading or flat out falsely advertised specs. The 691 "HP" issue, the 285 miles of range on a P85D, the 81 kWh 85's, etc. Well, adding another one to the pile:

Upgrading a software limited "60" to a to "75" actually buys you 10 kWh, not 15 kWh.

See this photo of a section from Tesla's own dev/diagnostics screen of a brand new 60D with < 30 miles:

So, you pay Tesla a huge amount of money for your 15 kWh upgrade and you end up really getting a 10 kWh upgrade because the "60" already included more capacity than it should have, presumably to keep a reasonable range value > 200 miles.

Honestly, basically no one should buy a 75. Charging a "60" to 100% is basically like charging a 75 to 86%... that's only 4% off of the 90% most people will charge to anyway. Seriously, charge your software limited 60's to 100% all the time and you're not hurting anything. For now we'll ignore the fact that a 75 only gives you 72.6 kWh (only 5 kWh less than an "85"), but, that's another story.

Anyway, Tesla, just give us the real damn numbers. Stop making up horsepower numbers. Stop making up capacity numbers. Stop making up range numbers. Just give us REAL specs.

I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that is sure to consume this thread, but if there are tech related inquiries relevant to the topic I will try to reply.

-wk

1) It is silly to expect (demand?) for prices to scale linearly with battery capacity.
2) Nominal Full Pack is just that - in name only - you have not proven anything with that screenshot.
3) Many people cannot handle the truth and get easily confused - as a proof I refer you to recent elections

 

[nagypite]

72.6 + 2.4 = 75 kWh. Then what is the problem? You get a better deal on the 60kWh, but that doesn't make the 75 kWh a lie.

Pretty much all manufacturers advertise the battery capacity based on the pack capacity, not the actual usable capacity.

agree

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

Good to know the exact specs. I always thought 100% charging the 60 was the best value kWh/$

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Given battery degradation, and given that they don't warranty degradation, the initial usable capacity doesn't mean that much anyway. The only thing that's vaguely fixed is the capacity.