-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
MarcG
Active Member
Possible. Elon did mention that they started using a bit of silicon in the anode when introducing the 90 kWh packs last July.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
My apologies if you misinterpreted my original post (um #2 in the 590 previous on this thread) that said I respected and wanted additional peer review of the differing data and said I respected what you were saying, rather than opine in an attempt to tone down flathill's attempted rhetoric. The intent was to get back on track and allow me to continue reading and understanding.
I'm not sure why the need to call this out considering this was post #2 in the thread from me, perhaps it was that you misread what I wrote, or mistakenly believed I was attacking you in some way. I thought my question was valid considering your original post said you were sure you could get 11.9Wh out of the battery, though a quick area under the curve of your previous graph didn't align, so I though you were presenting additional data somewhere I couldn't find (eg on the other forum).
I also disagree that I'm a contributor to wk unsubscribing, considering my post #1 was after he said he had unsubscribed - it was attempting to have him continue to contribute... So riddle me confused
Even so, there are significantly more frequent posters here with pure opine. My belief was that not calling them out would help them self-identify. Public shaming is one form of bullying I don't believe in nor agree is acceptable.
As to me "not being technical" that's an interesting supposition based on a public forum posting... An amusing one by all accounts. Of course if you say I'm not as educated as yourself, Jason, et al on this I would agree. However, (what I believe as legitimate) requests for additional clarity bring met with ire is disappointing.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The other speculation is they are GAs which have slightly higher capacity than the BFs.
Side note: if the Model S cells really are BEs, that would seem to disprove the previous arguments that it is a Tesla only cell (or at least it is no longer true). I remember there were heated arguments over this back then.
It seems to me that you equate having a technical skill to having credibility. My view is that the bar for credibility is much higher than that.
Here is the main reason why I can not take the claims made in this thread as credible:
The OP made serious public allegations against the third party (Tesla). These statements already damaged Tesla's reputation with some customers. The OP seems indifferent to the inflicted damage and refuses to substantiate his claims by providing his data and methodology for peer review.
The OP backed out of the discussion when challenged, rather than responding to challenges.
That said, I am not talking about who is wrong or who is right in the case of battery capacity. I'd like to think that everyone, including Tesla, deserves a fair trial, not a lynch by a mob. A fair trial implies civilized discussion and a peer review process when it comes to technical matters.
My read of this thread:
1. Measuring cell capacity is a non trivial measurement.
2. If a Model S were driven continuously on a flat road in warm, sunny weather, with a max power output of 5 kW, then perhaps it *might* be possible to get something around 85 kWh.
3. On the other hand, if the S is driven in everyday conditions the pack is more like 81 kWh with 77 kWh available to the driver. This statement is supported by data straight from Tesla's own BMS, something a lot of folks are overlooking, IMO.
Doubtful since the BF has the same Wh capacity as the B.
1. Measuring cell capacity is a non trivial measurement.
2. If a Model S were driven continuously on a flat road in warm, sunny weather, with a max power output of 5 kW, then perhaps it *might* be possible to get something around 85 kWh.
3. On the other hand, if the S is driven in everyday conditions the pack is more like 81 kWh with 77 kWh available to the driver. This statement is supported by data straight from Tesla's own BMS, something a lot of folks are overlooking, IMO.
Doubtful since the BF has the same Wh capacity as the B.
islandbayy
Active Member
I got two cells from wk057 today. I am starting with my own series of tests. I don't have all the high-end equipment like some of you do, I do have one automated benchmark test her for 18 650 sell high-end equipment like some of you do, I do have one automated benchmark tester for 18650 cells and will be doing a series of low discharge rate tests.
i'm starting tonight off with a full charge and discharge at 200 mA, as that is the lowest setting for my benchmark tool. I will charge it discharge so many times, I won't show all of them on camera, as that would take absolutely forever but will still record the numbers. I am doing my first test on camera and then I will be doing a whole video series on the cells. I will also report back here with my findings. I will also be benchmarking discharge and recharge rate 200 mA, 300 mA, 500 mA, and 700 mA. I will also be doing a test with discharge, at 50 mA, using a LED, And recording both voltage and amperage draw overtime from full two dead. Like I said I don't have the equipment some of you do, but one thing I have is time and persistence.
i'm starting tonight off with a full charge and discharge at 200 mA, as that is the lowest setting for my benchmark tool. I will charge it discharge so many times, I won't show all of them on camera, as that would take absolutely forever but will still record the numbers. I am doing my first test on camera and then I will be doing a whole video series on the cells. I will also report back here with my findings. I will also be benchmarking discharge and recharge rate 200 mA, 300 mA, 500 mA, and 700 mA. I will also be doing a test with discharge, at 50 mA, using a LED, And recording both voltage and amperage draw overtime from full two dead. Like I said I don't have the equipment some of you do, but one thing I have is time and persistence.
Like wk, I see how pointless it is to continue in this thread....
I will add this - we went ahead and pulled apart the 70D. We pulled the pack apart and it does have 14 full modules. So the pack is ~74.37kWh per Tesla's original rating.
I will have another fun post in a new topic soon
- - - Updated - - -
Correct. The 90 pack is mostly likely NCR18650GA's which do have silicone nano particles in the anode.
The 70 pack (at least the one we just pulled apart) is the same old BE's - 14 full modules - so rated capacity of about 74 kWh. if you use 85*14/16.
I will add this - we went ahead and pulled apart the 70D. We pulled the pack apart and it does have 14 full modules. So the pack is ~74.37kWh per Tesla's original rating.
I will have another fun post in a new topic soon
- - - Updated - - -
Correct. The 90 pack is mostly likely NCR18650GA's which do have silicone nano particles in the anode.
The 70 pack (at least the one we just pulled apart) is the same old BE's - 14 full modules - so rated capacity of about 74 kWh. if you use 85*14/16.
my issue with tesla on this, the 0-60 performance and others is not what the truth is in all its technical detail, it's the relative specification between models. If you can make out an 85 is an 85, then using the same assumptions, cell voltages and whatever was the 60 a 60 or 61 or 65 or what? What's a 70? What's a 90? My BMW had a 2998cc engine and they called it a 3 litre - it's not the same as that, this is more significant.
Most people make a decision to buy a tesla then work out which model taking the relative performance aspects and price differentials into account, as, let's face it, there's virtually no difference in anything else. When half of that equation, namely what extra performance and range you get for your cash is dubious it's just wrong.
It just boggles me how people contentiously fail to understand.
There are new cells and there are aged cells - calendar life.
There are uncycled cells and there are cycled cells - cycle life.
There is "high-C" discharge and there is "low-C" discharge - power profile.
There is continous discharge and there is intermittent discharge profile - power profile.
There is temperature and there is production variation - life.
Is it BF, BE or it isn't... years ago it was established that chemically, those cells are similar to what panasonic sells to general market. What those cells lack is internal protection as it is supplemented by pack services. This affects cell weight and thus cell energy density. And they probably have some additive that helps prolong performance after years of usage.
It is dead easy to measure, and kid can do it. It is hard to understand the measurements, implications and circumstances that affected them.
Anyone who feels the need to call someone apologist, fanboy has already failed in understanding.
Repeatedly demonstrated agenda of the OP is evident, one google search away.
"I didn't receive what I pay for" is pure BS. You bought a car, not a truckload of cells.
There are new cells and there are aged cells - calendar life.
There are uncycled cells and there are cycled cells - cycle life.
There is "high-C" discharge and there is "low-C" discharge - power profile.
There is continous discharge and there is intermittent discharge profile - power profile.
There is temperature and there is production variation - life.
Is it BF, BE or it isn't... years ago it was established that chemically, those cells are similar to what panasonic sells to general market. What those cells lack is internal protection as it is supplemented by pack services. This affects cell weight and thus cell energy density. And they probably have some additive that helps prolong performance after years of usage.
It is dead easy to measure, and kid can do it. It is hard to understand the measurements, implications and circumstances that affected them.
Anyone who feels the need to call someone apologist, fanboy has already failed in understanding.
Repeatedly demonstrated agenda of the OP is evident, one google search away.
"I didn't receive what I pay for" is pure BS. You bought a car, not a truckload of cells.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usa...
Isn't that exactly the problem? Whilst the total capacity of the individual cells may add up to somewhere around 85kWh, we didn't buy a truckload of cells. We bought a car, and the car as a whole only has 81kWh (as reported by its own systems).
Isn't that exactly the problem? Whilst the total capacity of the individual cells may add up to somewhere around 85kWh, we didn't buy a truckload of cells. We bought a car, and the car as a whole only has 81kWh (as reported by its own systems).
CO2CLEAN
Olivier Willemsen
The problem is that most (if not all) people buy the car based on the testdrive, range and power (both range and power can be tested during testdrive). The range is as advertised, the acceleration is as advertised. The only "problem" I see is some people getting worked up about a technical specification that is not of any interest to most buyers and does not influence the capabilities of the car.
I do however, find this thread interesting for the information on batteries. So therefore I would like to thank all those who contributed useful information to this thread.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Makes sense that they just filled in the empty spaces in the 60 to get the 70 instead of using the newer cell chemistry. Sounds as if the 70 will have close to 70 actual, just as the 60 had slightly over 60 actual. (I'm using "actual" to differentiate from manufacturer cell rating). Very interested to see what the 90 has and what the cells turn out to be.
jcaspar
Member
The new cell capacity rating is 85KWh, that's how Tesla rated it. How would you rate the battery then? 81KWh because after the first few months they test at 81KWh? What about after a year? It will be less. Will those owners be entitled to whine that their P81D only has 80KWh now and should be rebadged a P80D? Maybe you are suggesting that each car should be tested at time of sale and badged based on the exact capacity at that time, maybe a P82.5D. How about a LED digital display for the badge that could test the battery every day and display it on the side, maybe P82.123D??
All these arguments show how silly the whining on this thread is.
Let go through it, What was I told and what did I get?:
A battery rated at 85KWh, got that
An EPA range of 265, got that
What possible reason would Tesla have to try and deceive people that their 85KW battery was really only newly rated at 81KW?!?! So it looks much better against the competition like the BMW i8 with its massive 7.1KW battery?? (which would probably only test to 6.5KW with an amateur testing it) While the battery testing is interesting, It really has nothing to do with the new cell rating specification which the battery rating is based on. Show me a reference that the exact cells Tesla uses are RATED by the manufacturer at a value such that the pack makes less than 85KWh. Then this discussion will have some merit.
All these arguments show how silly the whining on this thread is.
Let go through it, What was I told and what did I get?:
A battery rated at 85KWh, got that
An EPA range of 265, got that
What possible reason would Tesla have to try and deceive people that their 85KW battery was really only newly rated at 81KW?!?! So it looks much better against the competition like the BMW i8 with its massive 7.1KW battery?? (which would probably only test to 6.5KW with an amateur testing it) While the battery testing is interesting, It really has nothing to do with the new cell rating specification which the battery rating is based on. Show me a reference that the exact cells Tesla uses are RATED by the manufacturer at a value such that the pack makes less than 85KWh. Then this discussion will have some merit.
Thanks for getting into the 70 and finding out about the pack--everybody has been dying to know.
So the M70 cell count would be 14 x 444 = 6216.
70,000 Wh/ 6216 cells = 11.26 Wh/cell
85,000 Wh/ 7104 cells = 11.96 Wh/cell
60,000 Wh/ 5376 cells = 11.16 Wh/cell
Somebody better peer-review my math--my sliderule is getting rusty and hard to read
oops sorry, left out the 90
90,000 Wh/ 7104 cells = 12.67 Wh/cell
That is what's being disputed by some people in this thread.
The number that the car's internal system reports, the first time it's charged to 100% at the factory after being assembled, rounded down to a nice round number. If say all cars have approximately 81kWh capacity, maybe plus or minus 0.x kWh due to variance, then round it down to 80.
No, so it looks better against the 60/70/70D.
This thread has merit precisely because the cell specifications are not publicly available. If they were, we wouldn't need to rely on testing by forum members.
If there are cells similar to NCR18650GA in the 90kWh pack, then the asterisk is also necessary, but it would not be so big as with the 85kWh one.
Under the nominal conditions from datasheet: 0,5C charge / 0,2C discharge I have achieved best result (four cell samples) of 3385mAh and 12,23Wh. So yes, there is possibility to get close to 3450mAh (typical capacity) with lower currents but still it will be under the required 12,67Wh for 90kWh pack. My guess is 12,4Wh as maximum for this Sanyo cells.So you blindly trust numbers from manufacture? This is the point of this thread saying the numbers are funny. I guess ignorance is a bliss for some.
- - - Updated - - -
This is very short sighted. Not everyone is like you. There are legitimate people who bought the car for the specs as well as the car.
- - - Updated - - -
Like wk, I see how pointless it is to continue in this thread....
I will add this - we went ahead and pulled apart the 70D. We pulled the pack apart and it does have 14 full modules. So the pack is ~74.37kWh per Tesla's original rating.
I will have another fun post in a new topic soon
- - - Updated - - -
Correct. The 90 pack is mostly likely NCR18650GA's which do have silicone nano particles in the anode.
The 70 pack (at least the one we just pulled apart) is the same old BE's - 14 full modules - so rated capacity of about 74 kWh. if you use 85*14/16.
Thanks, finally some expert comment here. Please report back on the 70kwh.
Sure there are people who bought the car just to tear out the cells and build stationary storage out of them.
The exact cell specs are important to them so they don't burn the whole house to the ground by over-stressing the cells.
What is short sighted is testing OLD, USED and CYCLED cells with non-representative procedure and proclaiming the result to be bona-fide proof of anything.
Did anyone disassembled a tesla cell and compared physical internals with off-the-shelf cells?
Did anyone measured the weight and volume of "the beef" (storage material) from both cells, preferably both new and undamaged?
A little knowledge is much more dangerous than no knowledge.
Random data point - Eligible Electric Vehicles, the latest Ontario, Canada rebates page, lists the capacity as 80kWh. Of course, government web sites are not necessarily the source of truth.
Personally, I don't actually care one bit about what the capacity is, I'm happy with the range.
Personally, I don't actually care one bit about what the capacity is, I'm happy with the range.
Similar threads
- Question
