Here are my notes from the UI on a 0-100 supercharge. Cell voltage and Amp calculate by dividing by 96 and 74
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
vitaliy
Member
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure the answer to that is one of the things wk057 is trying to determine, and will be able to once he gets to log a 90.
pupik
Member
The highest I've ever seen was 267 miles. And the rated consumption is closer to something like 312 Wh/mi, not that I've ever achieved anything close to it, my actual lifetime usage is 50% higher. Does this disagree with a P85D?
Justicepool
Member
Wow, what a thread. Jason has way too much time on his hands. Good for him. I have way more important things to worry about in life than a marketing claim that has no effect whatsoever on the intended use of the product. As others have already stated numerous times in this thread, the important numbers for 99.99% of Tesla consumers is range, range, range. (And safety of course). It is utter nonsense to suggest that Tesla has some sinister motive for badging the Model S 85Kw vs. 81Kw.
I have no reason to doubt Jason's numbers are close to accurate, but are they 100% accurate, of course not because they were not replicated under the exact same conditions as Tesla and/or Panasonic. Does it matter, of course not. It is marketing pure and simple.
To those of you that get sooooo upset and claim Tesla somehow owes you a refund, get a life. Many people have tried to inject reasonable opinions in this thread, but reasonableness is not easy to find these days. This is marketing pure and simple. Now, if they misrepresented the range achieved under EPA testing methods, then one would have an issue. If they misrepresented safety ratings, then one would have an issue. I have had consultations with clients that want to sue a person, a group, or a company because they have been "wronged". One of the initial questions is "ok, what are your damages?.....Well they lied to me. Ok, what are your damages?......Well they were wrong......Ok, what are your damages?, etc., etc.,"
I have no reason to doubt Jason's numbers are close to accurate, but are they 100% accurate, of course not because they were not replicated under the exact same conditions as Tesla and/or Panasonic. Does it matter, of course not. It is marketing pure and simple.
To those of you that get sooooo upset and claim Tesla somehow owes you a refund, get a life. Many people have tried to inject reasonable opinions in this thread, but reasonableness is not easy to find these days. This is marketing pure and simple. Now, if they misrepresented the range achieved under EPA testing methods, then one would have an issue. If they misrepresented safety ratings, then one would have an issue. I have had consultations with clients that want to sue a person, a group, or a company because they have been "wronged". One of the initial questions is "ok, what are your damages?.....Well they lied to me. Ok, what are your damages?......Well they were wrong......Ok, what are your damages?, etc., etc.,"
If any measurement claims are to be taken seriously and given credibility, then some measurement method validation process needs to be followed. Publishing something on an internet forum simply lacks this validation process.
The usual way of separating weed from the chaff is to get the results submitted to a peer review and get it published. Perhaps the subject of this thread falls far below the threshold of any journal publication and peer review.
Then some other sort of validation process is required before anyone can make any credible claims. Just saying 'I have done such and such on my measurement jig on my car/garage and gotten these results' is an interesting fun topic for discussion, but it is no more than that. It is unsubstantiated to claim to be more than that.
It is unsubstantiated to make claims about Tesla battery pack capacity or anything else just by doing few measurements, but it certainly draws traffic to this thread.
The usual way of separating weed from the chaff is to get the results submitted to a peer review and get it published. Perhaps the subject of this thread falls far below the threshold of any journal publication and peer review.
Then some other sort of validation process is required before anyone can make any credible claims. Just saying 'I have done such and such on my measurement jig on my car/garage and gotten these results' is an interesting fun topic for discussion, but it is no more than that. It is unsubstantiated to claim to be more than that.
It is unsubstantiated to make claims about Tesla battery pack capacity or anything else just by doing few measurements, but it certainly draws traffic to this thread.
Last edited:
Can any one explained this ? ( I dont require the answer to be verified by peer review )
The picture shows the "Energy/Trip" -line on the GUI. I switched Range Mode on and off.
It looks like I gain some extra capacity in Range Mode... ie it jumps between different percentages instead of charging the tilt of the line as is it would have done if the constant for Typical or Rated had been changed.
Is it possible that by using Rang Mode you reduce the bricking protection from 4% to 3 % ?
The picture shows the "Energy/Trip" -line on the GUI. I switched Range Mode on and off.
It looks like I gain some extra capacity in Range Mode... ie it jumps between different percentages instead of charging the tilt of the line as is it would have done if the constant for Typical or Rated had been changed.
Is it possible that by using Rang Mode you reduce the bricking protection from 4% to 3 % ?
You just confirmed the validity of peer review process by asking peers on this forum to answer your question
Nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite
If anyone wishes to publish their work and make some sort of claims, even if that is only on the internet, then peer review is simply a quality control process.
Everybody separates their weed differently, but its always better to remove seeds and stems...
As far as your peer review and procedures comment, it is reductio ad absurdum--if nobody can post results and findings without being peer-reviewed first, then nothing will ever be discovered.
Other folks have measured cell capacity and posted on this and other internet forums with exactly the same results within significant figures. The methods and procedures for testing and making voltage and current measurements are well known and commonly established and practiced by those skilled in the art.
Last edited:
Well strictly speaking the UK launch cars (and any EU car sold in 2014) should have a * against the EuroNCAP tests. Without "Emergency Braking Assist" they are not 5 star cars.
My view is this is why AP hardware was rushed out well before the AP software was ready. It was needed to get top marks in the European safety rating system
CO2CLEAN
Olivier Willemsen
Well strictly speaking the UK launch cars (and any EU car sold in 2014) should have a * against the EuroNCAP tests. Without "Emergency Braking Assist" they are not 5 star cars.
My view is this is why AP hardware was rushed out well before the AP software was ready. It was needed to get top marks in the European safety rating system
Or (from a more positive perspective) the hardware was already built in cars, when they knew what hardware they needed, to (later on) also provide the AP features to buyers in 2014.
If you were in the first batch of buyers having waited years for a car with a big deposit down, only to have it almost immediately outdated and residuals reduced by Tesla's own valuation formula, such a positive spin is hard to swallow
I get why they did it, they set the goal of 5 stars both sides of the pond, which is a rare achievement. The timing sucked for the early UK adopters though, and not all were particularly pleased with the approach.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
AFAIK, there is only one other person who measured cell capacity and they did it with a 10A high power discharge (they weren't trying to get true capacity, but rather doing a power test). Someone linked it up thread, but I am a bit lazy to dig it out.
To be fair to wk057, he has offered to do a data dump (which is what peer review would involve), but his hands are tied because he is using some special equipment that he can't readily release data from for commercial reasons (for the same reason he can't disclose the details of the equipment he used).
islandbayy
Active Member
If anyone is willing to send me a single cell, I have a special charging station that will discharge, measure, and then recharge, measure, the capacity of 18650 cells. I use it when rebuilding packs for e-bikes, laptops, scooters etc...
It would be awesome if I could keep the cell too ;-) but I will return it if requested. PM me if you are interested.
It would be awesome if I could keep the cell too ;-) but I will return it if requested. PM me if you are interested.
I have some still mostly untouched cells (only to free them from their module and bring them to a good storage SoC) that I've had stored in my solar equipment room at 64F for a while. They're all from a D pack that had ~3k miles or so. I could send you a couple if you want to try them out on your charger (PM me an address). However, I probably have something similar (I have two of these: Amazon.com: FMA PowerLab 8 v2: Toys Games ), but I found they always register a lower capacity reading than my other equipment anyway. You'll also need a safe way to hook up to them with low resistance (the cheap 18650 holders will not do) to get a good reading safely. These cells have no protective wrap, so the +/- terminals are very close together at the positive cap side and are easily shorted out when putting them into cheap holders. And don't try soldering to them either. They explode.
I don't need them back, but I don't have very many left either, so, can't send them to everyone.
Last edited:
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I find it interesting that when Auzie makes a point that is accepted across many industries, you respond with this. Most research is able to stand up to peer review.
Why would you feel a need to take a pot shot at Auzie's post?
Doesn't that cut both ways, as most of the claims by Tesla themselves are little more than this.
In fact, the teardown and subsequent CAN hacking provide a good indication that consumers are in fact peer reviewing Tesla's own published "findings". So far finding them lacking, and still without rebuttal.
Similar threads
- Question
