Who said range isn't different? Are there side by side comparisons that show us range is exactly the same between an early production 'heavy' car and a later production 'light' car? Have we discounted all possible other absorbers of range? For example, a heavier spinning component in the a later build of a drive unit that has a slightly larger friction surface and therefore resistance. Etc. etc. wk057 has tested the cells from an early sig and later cars and they are identical. He already confirmed your hypothesis is wrong.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Who said range isn't different? Are there side by side comparisons that show us range is exactly the same between an early production 'heavy' car and a later production 'light' car? Have we discounted all possible other absorbers of range? For example, a heavier spinning component in the a later build of a drive unit that has a slightly larger friction surface and therefore resistance. Etc. etc. wk057 has tested the cells from an early sig and later cars and they are identical. He already confirmed your hypothesis is wrong.
I am absolutely puzzled by the people who 'don't care' that the specifications as given by their supplier are wrong. I am even more puzzled by those who say 'others do it too'? So not only are you fine being lied to when you make a significant purchase, but you even more or less expect it? Really? Wasn't the big draw of getting rid of the dealer network that we'd also get rid of the dishonest, sleazy, sales and marketing tactics to get you to buy something based on a picture of not quite the reality? It was to me. Seems that the smoke-and-mirror dealer has been replaced with a smoke-and-mirror manufacturer.
To drive that point home : I could get into my neighbour's Volkswagen today, cover the vents and what not and drive the exact same testing cycle which would make the engine control software trigger the 'emission testing' profile and the car would actually emit exactly according to the emission standard and specifications. No one does, but it is physically possible. With my Tesla on the other hand it is impossible to ever have a total charge of 85kWh in my car. I can cover vents any way I like it, it is simply not going to happen. I could even have wk057 hack the car, replace the electronics to overcharge the car and well before we'd hit 85kWh of total charge cells would start exploding. That's the physically observed reality (unless you want to claim that wk057 is lying or incompetent in his testing). Sorry, but there is no other way to see that Tesla's lie is the bigger one. Luckily the impact is less, but the lie is still bigger than Volkswagen's.
To drive that point home : I could get into my neighbour's Volkswagen today, cover the vents and what not and drive the exact same testing cycle which would make the engine control software trigger the 'emission testing' profile and the car would actually emit exactly according to the emission standard and specifications. No one does, but it is physically possible. With my Tesla on the other hand it is impossible to ever have a total charge of 85kWh in my car. I can cover vents any way I like it, it is simply not going to happen. I could even have wk057 hack the car, replace the electronics to overcharge the car and well before we'd hit 85kWh of total charge cells would start exploding. That's the physically observed reality (unless you want to claim that wk057 is lying or incompetent in his testing). Sorry, but there is no other way to see that Tesla's lie is the bigger one. Luckily the impact is less, but the lie is still bigger than Volkswagen's.
I think the big question is what had the planned for the future back in 2012. Was they 70D planned a lot earlier than we knew from the beginning? AWD was most likely considered from the beginning. Was the 40/60kWh dead in the water from the start and they only kept them to keep their original price promise?
Did they use 60 and 85 to make the 85 look much better than 65 vs. 80?
When you look at the current line-up 70-85-90 vs. a 70-80-85 or 70-80-90 then I would say from a marketing perspective the current kWh numbers are a much easier sell.
85kWh sounds like great value and people who really want it can get the 90kWh. On the other hand if Tesla charges 10k more for 70->80 and then just $3000 for the 90 upgrade that would be strange. It would make much more sense to have $6500 steps then, at which point the 90 upgrade becomes pretty bad... $6500 for a few extra miles? (85D vs 90D? Upgrade worth $3,500?) On the other hand a 80kWh would sound much better for just $6500, but that would obviously hurt Tesla's margins compared to what they sell today.
Obviously this is a lot of WAG since we don't have the numbers for the other packs, but I could certainly see how marketing could have been a factor.
Did they use 60 and 85 to make the 85 look much better than 65 vs. 80?
When you look at the current line-up 70-85-90 vs. a 70-80-85 or 70-80-90 then I would say from a marketing perspective the current kWh numbers are a much easier sell.
85kWh sounds like great value and people who really want it can get the 90kWh. On the other hand if Tesla charges 10k more for 70->80 and then just $3000 for the 90 upgrade that would be strange. It would make much more sense to have $6500 steps then, at which point the 90 upgrade becomes pretty bad... $6500 for a few extra miles? (85D vs 90D? Upgrade worth $3,500?) On the other hand a 80kWh would sound much better for just $6500, but that would obviously hurt Tesla's margins compared to what they sell today.
Obviously this is a lot of WAG since we don't have the numbers for the other packs, but I could certainly see how marketing could have been a factor.
+1
Which was actually one of the main complains of some people regarding the 690HP. Because they assumed that would get x-amount of performance more for their money, but got far less. Especially in Norway 99.99% of buyers were probably set on a Model S (most people there can't afford any other car with that much HP) and were just debating if the upgrade was worth it.
pupik
Member
EU media comments...
Kunde rechnet nach: 85 kWh-Akku von Tesla Motors offenbar nur 81 kWh › TeslaMag.de
Kunde rechnet nach: 85 kWh-Akku von Tesla Motors offenbar nur 81 kWh › TeslaMag.de
So I just read through this thread and I didn't see anyone mention the known discrepancies between Panasonic's datasheets and their tested outputs. For that matter, everyone's datasheets and their tested outputs.
okashira on this forum (and others) had tested the Model S cells before and he says they are NCR18650BE:
Tesla Model S 18650 Cell Test Data
And Overclocker on candlepowerforums forums tested the NCR18650BE:
KeepPower 18650 3200mah (new Panasonic NCR18650BE cell) quick review
Note this part:
It's hard to find an original NCR18560BE datasheet, but the NCR18650B is easy to find. Later in that thread, is the "seller" post of a portion of the NCR18650BE datasheet:
This is a nominal 3200 mAh cell. The datasheet says 3180 mAh typical capacity, 3.6 volts nominal. But if you take the nominal capacity, that's 3200 mAh * 3.6 volts = 11.52 watts. 7104 x 11.448 = 81,838 kWh. However, NCR18650B datasheets often use 3.7 volts as the nominal voltage. So at 3.7 volts * 3200 mAh = 11.84 watts. 7104 x 11.84 = 84,111 kWh, which in marketing speak is 85kWh.
Panasonic literature now will more likely use 3.6 volts nominal instead of 3.7 volts, but sellers sometimes still use the old rating:
Panasonic Super Max 3.7V 3400mAh Rechargeable Li-ion Battery - Black + Green (2 Pieces)
Likely, Panasonic sold to Tesla that the NCR18650BE is a 11.84 watt cell, and Tesla turned around and sold it as a pack of 11.84 watt cells and rounded to 85 kWh. After all, that's what's on the spec sheet. However, we all know that what you can actually draw from it is very different. There is probably some laboratory test that can draw 11.84 watts from the cell and therefore Panasonic can claim that. Likely you need to be at over 25 degrees C and draw at a low current level.
Current NCR18650B datasheet:
https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/sites/default/pidsa/files/ncr18650b.pdf
Output improves with both going to 40 degrees C over 25, and 0.2 C discharge over 1C (640 mAh). Combine both, and we might get something closer. Certainly, it was interesting that Panasonic used to use 3.7 volts as nominal. For everyone actually engineering with the cells, the curves themselves and not the nominal values are of value.
okashira on this forum (and others) had tested the Model S cells before and he says they are NCR18650BE:
Tesla Model S 18650 Cell Test Data
And Overclocker on candlepowerforums forums tested the NCR18650BE:
KeepPower 18650 3200mah (new Panasonic NCR18650BE cell) quick review
Note this part:
It's hard to find an original NCR18560BE datasheet, but the NCR18650B is easy to find. Later in that thread, is the "seller" post of a portion of the NCR18650BE datasheet:
This is a nominal 3200 mAh cell. The datasheet says 3180 mAh typical capacity, 3.6 volts nominal. But if you take the nominal capacity, that's 3200 mAh * 3.6 volts = 11.52 watts. 7104 x 11.448 = 81,838 kWh. However, NCR18650B datasheets often use 3.7 volts as the nominal voltage. So at 3.7 volts * 3200 mAh = 11.84 watts. 7104 x 11.84 = 84,111 kWh, which in marketing speak is 85kWh.
Panasonic literature now will more likely use 3.6 volts nominal instead of 3.7 volts, but sellers sometimes still use the old rating:
Panasonic Super Max 3.7V 3400mAh Rechargeable Li-ion Battery - Black + Green (2 Pieces)
Likely, Panasonic sold to Tesla that the NCR18650BE is a 11.84 watt cell, and Tesla turned around and sold it as a pack of 11.84 watt cells and rounded to 85 kWh. After all, that's what's on the spec sheet. However, we all know that what you can actually draw from it is very different. There is probably some laboratory test that can draw 11.84 watts from the cell and therefore Panasonic can claim that. Likely you need to be at over 25 degrees C and draw at a low current level.
Current NCR18650B datasheet:
https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/sites/default/pidsa/files/ncr18650b.pdf
Output improves with both going to 40 degrees C over 25, and 0.2 C discharge over 1C (640 mAh). Combine both, and we might get something closer. Certainly, it was interesting that Panasonic used to use 3.7 volts as nominal. For everyone actually engineering with the cells, the curves themselves and not the nominal values are of value.
Last edited:
That's fine, but why did they sell the smaller pack as "60kWh", when it should be 65kWh according to that calculation? And I assume the S70 should be S75…
The way it looks right now, they either under-rated the small packs or over-rated the big packs. I wouldn't expect that from a trustworthy company.
that is a good point you brought up there.
However, then that would mean the 60KWh version is 63.7KWh using those numbers.
This issue could very be a Panasonic issue, but given Tesla's engineering capacity, I highly doubt tesla's engineers "over-looked" this detail on negligence. Even if they were negligent and didn't test the cells and took Panansonic's word for it, that doesn't mean Tesla is not culpable. They should've call Panasonic out on it now the cat is out of the bag.
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Exactly. Downplaying the "60" and overrating the "85" to justify the price difference. Elon and JB are both too smart and knowledgable to claim innocence or ignorance on this one.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Even if this were true, that doesn't absolve Tesla of any wrong-doing.
If this is what happened, Tesla may or may not have a legitimate beef with Panasonic. That is between Panasonic and Tesla. That doesn't change the fact that Tesla sold many thousands of Tesla customers 85 kWh batteries that in all likelihood were really something significantly less than that. That's just wrong!
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Being a top rated electrical engineer and the second kahuna a Tesla motors doesn't seem to help a lot when it comes to these calculations
It is quite linear. My app uses range data and performs linear regression on the data to provide estimated rated miles at a given percentage. It's always been accurate to within a couple miles.
No, these 11.84 watt cells that Tesla is buying according to Panasonic's spec sheet and turning around and selling to you. In the end, the discharge curves under normal conditions still points to 77-78 kWh of typical useable capacity. There is likely a set of parameters that does make these 11.84 watt cells nominal. The higher amperage you discharge the cells, the less actual capacity you get. The nominal voltage is a big part of this, and I don't get how companies decide the nominal voltage.
As for the 60's, it could be that they thought they were going to set up the pack in a certain way and they chose not to... but they already had the marketing for the 60's so they stuck with it. It could be that they couldn't figure out how to get 208 miles of range w/o putting in more cells, or that the production made more sense that way. No one really complains if they got more than expected.
Last edited:
I agree... I spoke to the issue of this likely being a manufacturer rating situation in my earlier POST:
scaesare said:
Lesifass said:
Again, as I addressed earlier:
scaesare said:
Andyw2100 said:
If this is the case of using the manufacturers rating for the cell, as techmaven and I are suggesting it may be, then the total pack rating may be somewhere in the neighborhood of 84.1KWh. Not sure how much "wrongdoing" is really there at that point...
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usa...
The analogy would be "motor horse power" rating. I.e. a rating of the battery cell under some theoretical ideal conditions that yields a performance that is absolutely unattainable in any real world application.
They could then go on and claim that even though the battery pack will never output 85 kWh that due to it having this theoretical rating it can achieve the other metrics, such as discharge peak power, cycle life etc.
Edit: my point is that even though total energy storage capacity (kWh) is the most important metric (and the one advertised), it's not the only metric that matters. Just as with the motors where power is important but torque not without importance.
The analogy would be "motor horse power" rating. I.e. a rating of the battery cell under some theoretical ideal conditions that yields a performance that is absolutely unattainable in any real world application.
They could then go on and claim that even though the battery pack will never output 85 kWh that due to it having this theoretical rating it can achieve the other metrics, such as discharge peak power, cycle life etc.
Edit: my point is that even though total energy storage capacity (kWh) is the most important metric (and the one advertised), it's not the only metric that matters. Just as with the motors where power is important but torque not without importance.
Last edited:
Have those couple miles always been positive? If so, it's not linear
My 90% was 218, my 100% was 245. Assuming it was linear, my 100% should've been 242.
My 90% was 214, my 100% was 240. Assuming it was linear, my 100% should've been 237.
My 90% is 208, my 100% is 234 (maybe 233? I can't remember). Assuming it was linear, my 100% should've been 231.
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
That display does not include energy used while the car is "off." Vampire drain, preheats via the App, etc while the car is "off," could account for the missing energy.
This makes a whole lot of sense to me. I'm not in the camp that thinks that there is something nefarious going on here. I suspect that the marketing was underway while the engineers were still going great guns, trying to make this all work - and possibly even still expecting to achieve close to 85kwh capacity.
In any case, nobody should be surprised by the usable battery capacity. My car shows 403 km rated at 100% charge, and I need to run 188 wh/km to achieve rated. 403 * 188 = 75.8 kwh.
Similar threads
- Question
