Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

[Mike K]

The burden of proof is on Tesla for making the original statement that their pack is 85kWh. They never did, so wk057 is fact checking Tesla Tesla's claims and so far they are not holding up. You may also have missed the other thread (parts on the bench) were a substantial part of wk057s research has been independently duplicated and validated (notably the cell voltages at different charge states). So if you want to be pedantic about it all, the right statement to make is that there is currently no evidence that the packs sold as 85kWh actually have said capacity.

No, the accepted conclusion is that the battery pack is 85kwh. wk057 challenged this assertion and thus the burden of proof lies on him, not Tesla. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong just that he is the one that needs to prove his claim. If you run around telling everyone I'm only worth a couple McDonalds cheeseburgers and whatever change is on the side of my seat it's on you to back that claim up. Otherwise people could just nitpick every little detail and force an explanation/ proof from anyone about anything.

Now people can either accept his data or not. That's up to them. Personally I think there are entirely too many gray areas for this to be as black and white as some want to make it. I also don't see what they had to gain from intentionally misleading which leads me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[schonelucht]

No, the accepted conclusion is that the battery pack is 85kwh

Not by the rigorous standards that Auzie wants us to apply.

 

[Auzie]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

That's not an argument.

Tesla already backed down on the HP issue, but the apologists keep swimming upriver?
.......................

My understanding is that people that pursued legal avenue against Tesla on hp issue backed down.

Norwegian owners lost in the first round. The details are in the relevant thread on the topic, but the most relevant article on the matter is here

Few more details in this post, courtesy of Yggdrassill

The first step mediation put the onus on the owners to prove their case if they wished to appeal to a step 2 body. Norweigan owners had a deadline to appeal to a higher body by 12.15.2015, reference here

We have not heard on the forum that anyone followed up to a step 2 complaint, most likely because no one did. They backed down because they have no case. People that have a strong case do not back down.

- - - Updated - - -

Not by the rigorous standards that Auzie wants us to apply.

These rigorous standards apply to any legal manufacturer or they are not allowed to legally trade.

 

[schonelucht]

These rigorous standards apply to any legal manufacturer or they are not allowed to legally trade.

That's just not true in my jurisdiction. You don't need to show or even do peer-reviewed research before making a claim as a company in the Netherlands. I know of no actual jurisdiction where this is true in general, unless we are talking specific conformity testing (which is not applicable for battery capacity). Can you point me to specific laws or regulations that would prohibit making a claim without having gone through the full peer-reviewed+publish cycle? In fact, if so, I would be very interested in the peer reviewed studies Tesla, as a legal trading company, must have published according to you with regards to battery capacity. Let me know where I can find them.

 

[smac]

That's not an argument.
My understanding is that people that pursued legal avenue against Tesla on hp issue backed down.
...
These rigorous standards apply to any legal manufacturer or they are not allowed to legally trade.

And I guess this ties in to what Schonelucht is saying.

Unless something is subject to regulatory standards (i.e. EPA ratings, CE approval, etc.) then marketers will stretch the figures as best they can to enhance perception of the value proposition of the product. (And in the case of regulated figures engineers do the same, just look at NEDC mpg figures, or how many products nowadays are beat to scrape by minimum standards, lots of modern stuff while cheaper is cr@p quality). Sometimes they go too far.

To counter this in our "civilised society", the first backstop is stuff like the advertising standards agency (in the UK) or consumer council (in Norway). Both of which requires consumers to initiate a complaint, rather than being actively policed.

I guess the ultimate backstop is then civil legal proceedings.


We've already seen that enough people were upset enough over one of Tesla's claims to call on this sort of consumer protection. There is nothing stopping them doing the same over this issue.

Agree with their decision or not, it's a headache for Tesla. (Esp. when it comes to battery measurement claims, the EU is stricter than the US, in what is deemed acceptable practice.)

 

[Auzie]

That's just not true in my jurisdiction. You don't need to show or even do peer-reviewed research before making a claim as a company in the Netherlands. I know of no actual jurisdiction where this is true in general, unless we are talking specific conformity testing (which is not applicable for battery capacity). Can you point me to specific laws or regulations that would prohibit making a claim without having gone through the full peer-reviewed+publish cycle? In fact, if so, I would be very interested in the peer reviewed studies Tesla, as a legal trading company, must have published according to you with regards to battery capacity. Let me know where I can find them.

Not sure I fully understand your comment but I will give it a go at responding, or clarifying my previous statement.


Manufacturers are not subject to peer review but to country regulations and to applicable industry standards.


Compliance requirements and auditing bodies vary from industry to industry and from country to country. Netherlands is a developed country and as such legal requirements apply to all manufacturers.


If you are curious about automotive industry applicable standards and compliance requirements in your country, google is your friend.


Peer review is the widely accepted established validation process that helps validate research, method and findings. Most people rely on peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of their work.


On a personal note, I get peer review done even on emails, if they deal with a particularly tricky issue. It helps me not to make a fool of myself. That said, sometimes peer review falls short

- - - Updated - - -

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.

smac I admit that such situation really sucks from your perspective

We just have to deal with the cards we are dealt, and your cards ain't all that bad :smile:

 

[schonelucht]

Not sure I fully understand your comment but I will give it a go at responding, or clarifying my previous statement.

Thanks for your clarification. Now let me clarify my position. When wk057 reviews claims by Tesla, you reject conclusions based on that review as unsubstantiated, since they've only been done by one person. Yet the million times someone on this forum has taken the claim that there is actually 85kWh capacity in the battery at face value, never once was there a suggestion that maybe we shouldn't accept that number since it hasn't been reviewed or verified (if there are in fact regulatory bodies that have done that review I repeat my interest in them). That just feels not right by me.

I stand by my rephrasing for the 'technically correct is the right correct crowd' : there is no evidence whats-o-ever available that supports the claim that there is 85kWh of capacity in that battery. At least one serious experiment to find that evidence failed.

 

[smac]

We just have to deal with the cards we are dealt, and your cards ain't all that bad :smile:

Of course not. I'm well aware I'm fortunate to be able to afford any Tesla, whilst billions in the world cannot.

Doesn't mean I have to like their aloof approach to customers though

 

[Auzie]

Of course not. I'm well aware I'm fortunate to be able to afford any Tesla, whilst billions in the world cannot.

Doesn't mean I have to like their aloof approach to customers though

I find their aloof approach understandable and wise. Imagine if they drop their aloofness and show how they really feel about (some of) their customers

 

[Laserbrain]

"Maybe" but Tesla lost credibility with the HP issue. The rating was clearly BS from the beginning, it just took a long time to wade through the sea of apologists for an official answer.

The damage is already done. My willingness to recommend or talk about Tesla with other people has already been severely limited. I can't give them any honest numbers, from horsepower, to quarter mile times, to supercharge times, to battery size and range.

edit - To the bigger picture, Tesla is failing to cross the hump from early adopters who will put up with any amount of BS just because it's new and the only worthwhile electric car, to mass adoption.

+1

But maybe there is an explanation to the missing kWh - like there are explanations in Tesla's horsepower and rollout scam.

You can get the advertised BS horsepower, when you attach a power cable from a nuclear power plant to the motor and avoid the battery bottle neck.

You get the advertised 0-60 mph times when you measure the 5-60 mph time and simply define this to be the 0-60 mph time - or by testing in proximity of a black hole in space while the clock to measure the 0-60 mph time is on Earth.

And maybe you get the advertised kWh under a a certain special condition, too - maybe at a special temperature in a climate chamber at a discharge level which minimizes the internal resistance. It could be a discharge level which is so low that it cannot even power an electric bicycle - but maybe it gets you the 85 kWhs.

 

[MuppetOwl]

That's not an argument.



My understanding is that people that pursued legal avenue against Tesla on hp issue backed down.

Norwegian owners lost in the first round. The details are in the relevant thread on the topic, but the most relevant article on the matter is here

View attachment 110906

Few more details in this post, courtesy of Yggdrassill

The first step mediation put the onus on the owners to prove their case if they wished to appeal to a step 2 body. Norweigan owners had a deadline to appeal to a higher body by 12.15.2015, reference here

We have not heard on the forum that anyone followed up to a step 2 complaint, most likely because no one did. They backed down because they have no case. People that have a strong case do not back down.

- - - Updated - - -




These rigorous standards apply to any legal manufacturer or they are not allowed to legally trade.

We did not loose the first round. It was just not a case for the consumer council since Tesla did just reject all complaints. And I can promise you this case is not dead. We have hired advocates in consumer rights and this is going to court. We are just not sharing anything with anyone that have not paid to take this case to court in Norway.

 

[lolachampcar]

This thread echos the HP thread which is really no surprise. What has become clear to me is, without regard to which side is correct, there is now a discussion about Tesla's credibility where in the beginning there was not. Time will tell if it does or does not have an effect on the company.

We can discuss the battery issue further but, if the HP thread was any indication, most people staked out their positions within the first thirty pages with few moving any if at all beyond that. Proceeding from here would seem to only serve sharpening your debating skills but I doubt any hearts or minds will be changed.

From my perspective, I suspect Tesla has way more to fear from the Model X release then from their marketing gymnastics.


Look, a squirrel....

Better yet, look, Trump won NH.

 

[Auzie]

We did not loose the first round. It was just not a case for the consumer council since Tesla did just reject all complaints. And I can promise you this case is not dead. We have hired advocates in consumer rights and this is going to court. We are just not sharing anything with anyone that have not paid to take this case to court in Norway.

Consumer council found that there was no case and dropped it. Had they found otherwise, they would have taken it further on behalf of customers.

The fact that customers had to hire lawyers and pursue their own case rather than have the Council do it on their behalf looks like a loss for customers to me, in that first step.

Judging by your statement, the case has not gone to court yet. That means that the appeal to the Consumer's Dispute Commission has not been lodged as the deadline for that was 12.15.2015.

 

[MuppetOwl]

Consumer council found that there was no case and dropped it. Had they found otherwise, they would have taken it further on behalf of customers.

The fact that customers had to hire lawyers and pursue their own case rather than have the Council do it on their behalf looks like a loss for customers to me, in that first step.

Judging by your statement, the case has not gone to court yet. That means that the appeal to the Consumer's Dispute Commission has not been lodged as the deadline for that was 12.15.2015.

Trust me, I know very much about this case The consumer council did not dropp the case. We as a group did dropp to use the consumer council because they are slow and not much to any help when the other part don't want to negotiate. We are a large group of owners and we have hired lawyers as a group, so we have not hired each or own lawyer. Im not able to say more as we don't share any more information outside our group.

The consumer Council did for over 1 year ago try to force Tesla to stop the pricing including fuel savings ++. Tesla have still not done anything about that and the Consumer council have not been able to do any more. They don't have any real "power" and the cases must go to court if one of the sides don't agree. So to not waste any more time we did follow up this case as a group with our own lawyers.

 

[rns-e]

maybe the missing 5 kWh will come as a mobile range extender?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/te...obile-batteries-as-range-extenders-2016-02-04

 

[Auzie]

Trust me, I know very much about this case The consumer council did not dropp the case. We as a group did dropp to use the consumer council because they are slow and not much to any help when the other part don't want to negotiate. We are a large group of owners and we have hired lawyers as a group, so we have not hired each or own lawyer. Im not able to say more as we don't share any more information outside our group.

The consumer Council did for over 1 year ago try to force Tesla to stop the pricing including fuel savings ++. Tesla have still not done anything about that and the Consumer council have not been able to do any more. They don't have any real "power" and the cases must go to court if one of the sides don't agree. So to not waste any more time we did follow up this case as a group with our own lawyers.

Thanks

If you have gone to court as a group and hired lawyers privately, I find it is strange that there is no mention of the court case in media. Court cases are public and difficult to hide from media. Customers have nothing to gain by being secretive about their court case

 

[JRP3]

edit - To the bigger picture, Tesla is failing to cross the hump from early adopters who will put up with any amount of BS just because it's new and the only worthwhile electric car, to mass adoption.

On the other hand the general public has no idea how large their ICE is, it's HP rating, or the actual size of their gas tank. I think it's more of the early adopters and enthusiasts who really care about such details. As long as the vehicle performs pretty much as advertised I don't think most people will sweat the details the way we do. Certainly I hope Tesla will be more accurate in the future, I like "under promise and over deliver" myself, but I'm not sure it will really affect the brand if things are slightly off. "Your mileage may vary" is generally accepted as part of life.

 

[jaguar36]

On the other hand the general public has no idea how large their ICE is, it's HP rating, or the actual size of their gas tank.

It depends on who you are talking about. Most folks who buy a Camry or a Fusion, sure. However I bet anyone who's got a Mustang GT or a Camaro SS know exactly how much HP it has and how big the engine is. Now they might not know what the torque curve looks like and how that effects their performance, but I bet they know those headline numbers.

I also bet that if it turned out that either one of those cars was making 5% less HP at the crank than what was advertised there would be a giant stink about it.

 

[JRP3]

I'm more referring to the high volume Model 3 buyers who just want to get a really good EV with enough range at a reasonable price.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

Thanks

If you have gone to court as a group and hired lawyers privately, I find it is strange that there is no mention of the court case in media. Court cases are public and difficult to hide from media. Customers have nothing to gain by being secretive about their court case

You need a peer review of your stated facts... I do not think any that know the issue will do... So you are back to pure speculation.