If you look at my rated range and seasonality thread, you'll see I'm not afraid to range charge and will occasionally have it left at 100 pct after a trip. I'm not religious about leaving within 30 seconds of it completing the range charge our anything like that. Bottom line is that it takes a lot of long term abuse before you materially impact the battery pack, at least from what I'm seeing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Late to thread and apologize if this has been mentioned already. Went through maybe 10 pages and not interested in reading all of it. At the most, I find it mildly interesting, if it's even true. If you're going to give up on your Tesla, you may as well give up your Mac, PC, smartphone or ICE. You will have to boycott a lot of producers to get this kind of thing accurate- actually it's impossible.
I am typing this on my iPhone 6 Plus 128GB. The actual capacity of the drive is 113GB. My available is much less (given usage, photos, etc.). In my entire computing life, never once has the actual capacity of a hard drive matches its advertised capacity. If you're going throw out Tesla, throw everything out sans measuring cups. It's completely unfair and dramatic to single out Tesla.
If the battery packs have been reduced in size due to weight decreases, kudos to Tesla for finding a way to improve performance and revenue. It is an intelligent strategy. Elon/Tesla owes no explanation.
I am typing this on my iPhone 6 Plus 128GB. The actual capacity of the drive is 113GB. My available is much less (given usage, photos, etc.). In my entire computing life, never once has the actual capacity of a hard drive matches its advertised capacity. If you're going throw out Tesla, throw everything out sans measuring cups. It's completely unfair and dramatic to single out Tesla.
If the battery packs have been reduced in size due to weight decreases, kudos to Tesla for finding a way to improve performance and revenue. It is an intelligent strategy. Elon/Tesla owes no explanation.
Last edited:
pupik
Member
My measured data...
( for current < 20A )from Tesla UI power meter
100% = 4.18 - 4.2V
90% = 4.09 - 4.11V
70% = 3.86 - 3.88V
Last edited:
pupik
Member
I normally go from 80% -> 60% in any one day (maybe even less).
I had concerns about my range displayed, so did a full cycle (driven non stop from the moment the 100% had stopped to exactly 0% ), then let the car sit for a week.
Result one mile of range lost in the display at next 100% charge.
I wish I had my logger back then, because I would have been able to see if the reported BMS usable had changed, I know mine says now 59.8 (which is pretty good), but what did it say before? Is the "range algo" just this multiplied by a factor, and it's actually the SoC tracking that needs a full cycle to re-calibrate and gain accuracy?
+1
Any specification Tesla puts out can be heavily scrutinized. Each specified parameter is dependent on a number of variables and any deviation in these variables will yield different results. Hence, parameters or specifications are correct only under a narrow set of conditions.
It follows that each condition needs to be set and measured accurately before testing (or measuring) the parameters. That is almost impossible to carry out outside of strictly controlled laboratory conditions. Every instrument must be calibrated (certified) prior to use if used for verification purposes. No professional would disregard these requirements and claim to produce reproducible accurate results.
I find this discussion quite interesting and educational, as long as posters focus on technical details only and refrain from unfounded character accusations thrown at (Tesla) engineers. Some (not many) people seem to be bent on assigning malicious intentions to Tesla regarding specifications.
jpet
Jan P.
My measured data...
from Tesla UI power meter
100% = 4.18 - 4.2V
90% = 4.09 - 4.11V
70% = 3.86 - 3.88V
Hehe, thanks.
Looks like 75 to 80% is the sweet spot to charge your car to on a daily basis. 70% is not even necessary. I will adopt my charging habit accordingly. Great!FTFY
In all seriousness, I find what the engineers have done remarkable! The Model S is a technical tour de force.
It's the disconnect between the techies and the sales people that I feel is behind all these asterisk style threads. It's constructive criticism to ask for them to close this gap for the long term strength of the company, I wouldn't class that as malicious.
jpet
Jan P.
I have indeed tested this 3 times by doing 2 to 3 range charges back-to-back. You can find the results in the MaxRange Tesla Battery Survey. My max range increased every time but only by 1 km. The lowest I went was 8% SoC and will do some deeper cycling when the opportunity arrises. To be honest, I don't really care about the Tesla algo. The cells are the cells and we now know we have 77 kWh available in a "85 kWh" pack. You can use your foot to select the Wh/mi or Wh/km you need and you will get the range you want.
I have been thinking about the 85 vs 81 spec these last couple of days. Is Tesla using 3.6 or 3.7 nominal voltage for its spec? Both the NCR18650A and NCR18650B are 3.6V. wk057 has tested the capacity and the CAN message is clear so there's not much debate really but maybe Tesla used 7104 x 3.2 Ah x 3.7V = 84.111 kWh?
My measured data...
from Tesla UI power meter
100% = 4.18 - 4.2V
90% = 4.09 - 4.11V
70% = 3.86 - 3.88V
Thanks for this! 80% seems about right then
I will try to get the same % to V map for my 60 pack.
Lack of understanding can easily result in assigning malicious intentions
My view is that all these asterisk threads reflect more on this forum than on Tesla marketers
As for the long term, no matter what Tesla does, there will be people who will search for 'gaps' and assign malicious intentions to 'gaps'.
I see that phenomenon daily, it is far from unique to Tesla. Been there, done that.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
The 85 is removed from the design studio, apparently.
So let's get the true capacities of the "70" and "90" and proceed with the discussion accordingly
(Reported range figures and real word achieved range with 70/90 cars doesn't suggest Tesla has changed their labelling to something closer to "the truth", which is maybe not as clear cut an entity as some would have it).
So let's get the true capacities of the "70" and "90" and proceed with the discussion accordingly
(Reported range figures and real word achieved range with 70/90 cars doesn't suggest Tesla has changed their labelling to something closer to "the truth", which is maybe not as clear cut an entity as some would have it).
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
"My view is that all these asterisk threads reflect more on this forum than on Tesla marketers"
I agree. There are many on this forum that pay attention and form their own opinions. Some of these people have determined that the hype != reality and are pointing it out. In some cases, I feel there is enough evidence to point to intent (HP, 1 foot roll out). In the end, these are all just opinions.
I agree. There are many on this forum that pay attention and form their own opinions. Some of these people have determined that the hype != reality and are pointing it out. In some cases, I feel there is enough evidence to point to intent (HP, 1 foot roll out). In the end, these are all just opinions.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
For me the issue is, (and it's a minor one), why did they accurately label the 60 packs but not the 85 packs, and, more importantly, will other packs be accurately labeled going forward?
That's a pretty succinct conclusion. I don't think any of us are dissatisfied with the car. It does what it claims (when is not cold). But Tesla didn't need to fudge the numbers in the first place. There really does seem to be a disconnect between divisions. But certainly not malicious.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm fine with 80%, but that's actually what I've been using to charge for 16 months, and I think it really throws the estimated range algorithm off. So much so I had to change the display to %.
This is the issue for me as well. Considering the 85 to 90 is a 6% increase in capacity, and the estimated range of the 90 is also only 6% more, presumably the 90kWhr pack is over specced as well.
Its such a bizarre thing, Tesla would not have been hurt in the slightest if they called the 85 an 80. Nobody is comparing its battery capacity to anyone else's. The only thing it did was push some people who were on the fence between the two packs to go to the 85. Which I guess makes Tesla a bit more money, but it doesn't seem worth the effort.
My measured data...
from Tesla UI power meter
100% = 4.18 - 4.2V
90% = 4.09 - 4.11V
70% = 3.86 - 3.88V
Hmm. So the difference between 100% and 90% is only 0.1 V? That makes 90% daily charging not look so great. I thought the difference was greater, like 0.15 V.
jpet
Jan P.
Everything above 4.10V is considered high voltage for a Li-Ion cell so daily charging to 90% SoC, if you need the range, is still a defendable choice.
Similar threads
- Question
