Yeah, I don't put too much stock in this report. 3000 cycles would take over 2 years of continuous charge/discharge cycling at 0.25 C which is the avg rate at which a Model 3 LR discharges.
Note: 4 hrs to charge @ 0.25C, 4 hrs to recharge gives 3 cycles per day. 3000 cycles takes 1000 days. That's 2.75 years for a realistic full test to 3000 cycles as they claim.
But the very first Model 3s are now just 1.75 years old. This report is fudging something.
I'd be more swayed if this report included a graph of
Cycles vs Capacity, but all they offer is financial cost comparisons to diesel. Or if the author provided a link to the actual study instead of just
"The reports are available at WirtschaftsWoche." Unconvincing.
So I'll stick with Dr. Jeff Dahn's results from Dalhousie University: 1500 cycles to 80% capacity was acheived with Tesla's new battery chemistry within a year after his testing contract begain in 2015. I'm confident current Model 3s and S/X is using that chemistry, until evidence indicates otherwise.
BTW, 1500 cycles is in line with the real-world results being achieved by Tesloop, the California/Nevada ride operator with its high duty cycle fleet:
"Between 194,000 and 324,000 miles Tesloop experienced battery degradation of ~22% (see below for details)"
Note thats approx. 1200 cycles to 22% degradation, the typical end-of-life capacity, but Tesloop was charging to 100% instead of the recommended 90%. Still not 3000 cycles:
Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM)
Unfortunately, the article you link to provides no evidence, it just cites an unreferenced report to support its other claims. Rating: Dubious.
Cheers!
