Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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

They do if the complaint has not yet been filed. It appears that they have decided to pursue an alternate remedy through the courts instead of the consumer council because they perceive that the council was a waste of time due to its limited enforcement capability. You may choose to believe that instead they thought it was unlikely that they would prevail, but I have found Dennis87 to be generally honest about the process and see no reason to disbelieve him now.

In terms of the success of their legal action, time will tell. Eventually, the details of the case will indeed be public, as you stated. Although sometimes litigants like Tesla find that they are more amenable to a settlement once there is an actual court case.
 
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.
They do if the complaint has not yet been filed. It appears that they have decided to pursue an alternate remedy through the courts instead of the consumer council because they perceive that the council was a waste of time due to its limited enforcement capability.
Step two of the Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet, step two called Consumer Dispute Committee) is able to make a binding decision (aka meaning it has the force of law). Of course after that either side can appeal that decision by going to an actual court.

The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman (Forbrukerombudet) that targeted the fuel issue is a different group that has no enforcement ability. I forgot the exact name, but in Norwegian it is not the same. I will have to dig up the older posts where someone explained this.

Edit: links
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page252?p=1273281&viewfull=1#post1273281
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page251?p=1272744&viewfull=1#post1272744

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.
This should really be in the HP thread, but thank you for the reminder of the deadline. It seems like complainants dropped their case with the Consumer group if there is no news at all about it after almost two months past the deadline.
 
Last edited:
To my knowledge about 70 individual norwegian P85D-owners have gone together and hired lawyers to protest the ridiculous response from Tesla about the HP and 0-100claims for the P85D.

Remaining population of complaints, including myself, are still pursuing the non-court option.

And @Auzie the complaint was far from dropped. The council just commented that Tesla had no intent of meeting us half way and sent the case to the next and final step in the non-court part of the norwegian consumer system.

The others didnt want to put this in the hands of this voluntary and _free_ system and hired lawyers instead.

I know because I was, along all other who complained, asked to join the suit, but I opted for the free option that ends up in a binding decision for both parties(at least in theory). Now it is up to Tesla to respond if they dare go that route. They have already complained to the consumer council that some of the remaining complaints are more detailed than the one they originally cherrypicked in the first round. Go figure;)

This is far from over. I have no real hope of anything here to be honest, but Teslas responses and attitude in this case made me complain out of spite... The ones lawyring up though seems to have a nice case based on Teslas last complaint to the consumer council since it honestly makes them look scared and somewhat panicking.

- - - Updated - - -

This should really be in the HP thread, but thank you for the reminder of the deadline. It seems like complainants dropped their case with the Consumer group if there is no news at all about it.
Incorrect, Tesla has actually asked for more time in order to answer other and more detailed complaints. Tesla also complained because they believed that they were done after the first round. No deadlines have passed. New deadline for the ones complaining is the 7th of march to decide if they want to continue to the last step.

The ones who are "suing" Tesla has chosen to do so under the radar so far. I assume in order to give Tesla an option to settle in silence before the case actually goes to court.
 
To my knowledge about 70 individual norwegian P85D-owners have gone together and hired lawyers to protest the ridiculous response from Tesla about the HP and 0-100claims for the P85D.

Remaining population of complaints, including myself, are still pursuing the non-court option.

And @Auzie the complaint was far from dropped. The council just commented that Tesla had no intent of meeting us half way and sent the case to the next and final step in the non-court part of the norwegian consumer system.

The others didnt want to put this in the hands of this voluntary and _free_ system and hired lawyers instead.

I know because I was, along all other who complained, asked to join the suit, but I opted for the free option that ends up in a binding decision for both parties(at least in theory). Now it is up to Tesla to respond if they dare go that route. They have already complained to the consumer council that some of the remaining complaints are more detailed than the one they originally cherrypicked in the first round. Go figure;)

This is far from over. I have no real hope of anything here to be honest, but Teslas responses and attitude in this case made me complain out of spite... The ones lawyring up though seems to have a nice case based on Teslas last complaint to the consumer council since it honestly makes them look scared and somewhat panicking.
So you are saying that the complainants decided to continue to step two (Consumer Dispute Committee)? Any links to this in the news? I thought the case was dropped given there were no further updates on this (I asked couple of times in the other thread).
 
So you are saying that the complainants decided to continue to step two (Consumer Dispute Committee)? Any links to this in the news? I thought the case was dropped given there were no further updates on this (I asked couple of times in the other thread).
Yes, and I am one of them personally. Deadline to decide is 7th of march for the complainants. I stopped reading the other thread to save my sanity;)

- - - Updated - - -

The number is much more than 70 ;)
Damn, sort of regret not joining if that is true:(
 
Yes, and I am one of them personally. Deadline to decide is 7th of march for the complainants. I stopped reading the other thread to save my sanity;)
I see your update to the comment. I posted before that. So I guess that it isn't in step 2 yet, but deadline extended because Tesla had to answer other complaints (I thought the Consumer Council allowed them to consolidate it into one response and step 1 was ended from what was reported originally, but I guess not).
 
Last edited:
I see your update to the comment. I posted the before that. So I guess that it isn't in step 2 yet, but deadline extended because Tesla had to answer other complaints (I thought the Consumer Council allowed them to consolidate it into one response and step 1 was ended from what was reported originally, but I guess not).
That is appearantly what Tesla believed as well. In "round 2" it seems they have to respond to each individual complaint and they soon realised that the one they originally answered most likely was one of the most poorly written ones.

Personally I am just following the motions to be honest. Dont really care anymore, but want to show Tesla that I dont approve a the same time. Thus the free option and no law-suit from me.

PS! Been reading this thread mostly out of entertainment-value and because wk057 keeps making my day with his nerdking-skills:) 85kwh is something I personally wont say influenced my decision to by the car even though I did believe total capacity was actually 85.. I just thought the bricking-protection accounted for the rest.
 
+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.

The 85kwh rating is in no way a scam. That is below the true rated capacity. While Wk can claim to be Tesla battery expert, he is in no way a Tesla cell expert. He is the most valuable member on the forum, and the information he is providing is very valuable, but be careful interpreting what he is reporting.

Anyone familiar with NCA cells would know that the fact he is measuring/calculating ~81kWh on a pack over 6 months old (guessing roughtly from time of cell mfg+transport+testing+install+whatever) is actually showing Tesla has the best cells on the market. Remember Tesla's Panasonic cells are actually made by Sanyo Automotive & Industrial Systems Company. If you look at any Sanyo NCA cell data sheet you will see they only guarantee a 80% recoverable capacity with the following conditions:

1) less than one month if stored from -20 to 50C
2) less than 3 months if stored from -20 to 40C
3) less than 1 year if stored from -20 to 20C

An absolutely shite guarantee right? An that is ONLY if you store the cells at exactly the right voltage and exactly the right humidity. Yes that is the present state of the art! A one month old cells stored at 50C could lose 20% of its capacity and still be within spec!

Again ~81 kWh that Wk is measuring/calculating is phenomenally good. If the pack was brand new it would actually measure closer to 86 kwh. Wk is really doing disservice spreading misinformation by jumping to conclusions, but his cell testing cycle data will show the best thing about NCA cells is the degradation starts to level out, making them the only cells that can last ~20 years in an automotive application (estimated 70% capacity after 20 years).

Again this is how the game is played. All ebikes, power tools, golf carts, and other EV's rate their battery pack based on the rated capacity of the cell given on the cell's datasheet. Typical capacity is higher than the rated capacity.

Again the more information the better, but please don't scare people into thinking they have been scammed!

Tesla's only obligation is to rate the pack at or below rated capacity of the cells. In case of the 60 kWh model they underrated the battery for two reasons:

1) to get more people to upgrade to the 85 kWh pack (duh)

2) the smaller pack needs more leeway to ensure long life as the pack capacity will be utilized more fully more often. Tesla is hoping the packs will hit 80% (worst case usage) after 8 years for both the 85 and 60 packs. Remember the goal with the roadster was 70% after 8 years (best case usage) so this is a big jump in lifespan.
 
Last edited:
Again ~81 kwh that Wk is measuring/calculating is phenomenally good. If the pack was brand new it would actually measure closer to 86 kwh. Wk is really doing disservice spreading misinformation by jumping to conclusions, but his cell testing cycle data will show the best thing about NCA cells is the degradation starts to level out, making them the only cells that can last ~20 years in an automotive application (estimated 70% capacity after 20 years).

Then why don't they sell the 60 kWh pack as a 65 kWh? Since he measured/calculated that pack to be 61 kWh.
 
Then why don't they sell the 60 kWh pack as a 65 kWh? Since he measured/calculated that pack to be 61 kWh.


Tesla's only obligation is to rate the pack at or below rated capacity of the cells.In case of the 60 kWh model they underrated the battery for two reasons:

1) to get more people to upgrade to the 85 kWh pack with a larger difference "on paper" (duh)

2) the smaller pack needs more leeway to ensure long life as the pack capacity will be utilized more fully more often. This is why the 40 pack was actually a 60. Tesla is hoping the packs will hit 80% (worst case usage) after 8 years for both the 85 and 60 packs. Remember the goal with the roadster was 70% after 8 years (best case usage) so this is a big jump in predicted lifespan.
 
Last edited:
2) the smaller pack needs more leeway to ensure long life as the pack capacity will be utilized more fully more often. This is why the 40 pack was actually a 60.

While I'm of the opinion that the "leeway" idea has some merit in this discussion, I point out that this is not why the 40's were actually de-rated 60's.

The 40's were ordered in such small numbers, that maintaining a separate model no longer made sense, and Tesla discontinued the 40. In order to fulfill existing reservations, Tesla just derated the 60KW packs and called it a day. But they were originally going to be be physically built at 40KW capacity... no "leeway" was built in to them.
 
While I'm of the opinion that the "leeway" idea has some merit in this discussion, I point out that this is not why the 40's were actually de-rated 60's.

The 40's were ordered in such small numbers, that maintaining a separate model no longer made sense, and Tesla discontinued the 40. In order to fulfill existing reservations, Tesla just derated the 60KW packs and called it a day. But they were originally going to be be physically built at 40KW capacity... no "leeway" was built in to them.

That is wrong. The 40 was discontinued for two main reasons:

1) It didn't feel like a Tesla when Elon drove it. It was too slow (based on the max allowable amp draw on each cell that would still yield on long life 40 pack)
2) They could not guarantee the pack would not rapidly degrade given how a 40 pack would likely be used (full range charge down to 0 often, higher average amp draw on each cell).

The 3rd reason you gave was another reason they did it but not the main reasons. Even with the 60 pack there is a good chance it might drop below 80% after 8 years worst in worst case usage conditions. It is going to be close. Funny thing about electric cars is the larger the pack the less the mfg has to worry about warranty concerns or simply looking bad in the public eye (like the Leaf). Larger pack is less likely to be fully utilized and remember when you double the size of any battery pack you half the amp draw on the the cells (given system voltage and power draw held constant). Average power draw is actually rather independent of which pack size you have.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure they tossed the 40 because it was ordered in insufficient quantities to have it produced. That is my recollection from the earnings call in the day.

Of course, that could have just been for the financial community's consumption but the company was reasonably accurate in their statements back then.
 
I'm pretty sure they tossed the 40 because it was ordered in insufficient quantities to have it produced. That is my recollection from the earnings call in the day.

Of course, that could have just been for the financial community's consumption but the company was reasonably accurate in their statements back then.

""When we were testing the 40 kWh pack, it was kind of a sluggish car. It didn't feel good. It didn't feel like a Tesla.""

-Elon
 
""When we were testing the 40 kWh pack, it was kind of a sluggish car. It didn't feel good. It didn't feel like a Tesla.""

-Elon

That's SAME INTERVIEW goes on to say:

" Few had shown interest in that most accessible version, which accounted for only about 4 percent of total orders, but there was more to it than that. "Customers recognized that it was really a hobbled car, the equivalent of a hobbled horse," Musk tells us. He believes that people want the Model S to be their primary car, and a car with such limited range wouldn't fill that role."

None of which supports your claim that the 40KWh packs were actually originally going to be software-limited 60's. As a matter of fact, if they were going to be the same cell format as 60's all along, then the current draw could have been identical to the 60's as well.

If anything that article argues against your assertion the 40's were originally 60's in disguise.

And then there's the fact that if you google "Tesla 40KW cancelled" you get a zillion hits with some variation of this Wired article:

"The decision to eliminate the Model S with the 40 kWh battery was based purely on demand"
 
it is not a claim. that is the reason I have been told in person

the article we both linked to says as much in print if you read between the lines

"there was more to it than that"

meaning the demand wasnt the reason the 40 was canceled.

The 40 kWh tier was unceremoniously killed on April Fools' Day. Few had shown interest in that most accessible version, which accounted for only about 4 percent of total orders, but there was more to it than that. "
 
Last edited:
Say flathill is right and poor longevity of 40kWh pack was the main reason for cancellation.
Only a fool would admit this out loud and offer bigger pack made of same (now seen as poor) cells.
This would be one marvelous company suicide.

There are many fools out there, not so many working at tesla motors. Even when you are humble and honest, fools misunderstand and run crusades.
 
Say flathill is right and poor longevity of 40kWh pack was the main reason for cancellation.
Only a fool would admit this out loud and offer bigger pack made of same (now seen as poor) cells.
This would be one marvelous company suicide.

There are many fools out there, not so many working at tesla motors. Even when you are humble and honest, fools misunderstand and run crusades.

it wasnt that they couldnt make a long life 40 pack it is just performance and pack life are intertwined

Tesla chose the less profitable route that was best for its customers
 
Last edited: