Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
Cut through the hype and spin and customers are well below Tesla's share price (and Elon's personal wealth and ego) in the pecking order.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
Cut through the hype and spin and customers are well below Tesla's share price (and Elon's personal wealth and ego) in the pecking order.
You don't know how wrong you are. Anyway all this 40 pack talk is besides the point.
The point is Tesla's 85kWh rating is correct and ~81kWh measured on a relatively new pack is to be expected given the cell chemistry. There is no hype or spin. That is how the industry rates battery packs. No asterisk is need on the 85kWh rating when advertised to the public. What you should do is measure a Leaf or eGolf or BMW i3 or SoulEV or Leaf pack capacity after a few years and compare it to a Tesla of the same age used in the same manner (same pack percentage used on average). Only then will you realize Tesla has the 2nd most honest capacity rating of any EV sold today (relatively). The only car that performs better is the Fit EV but it uses cells with shite energy density (lithium-titanate)
GM is already lobbying for all cars to be advertised with only the usable capacity and that must not include the 100% charge capacity if 100% charge is not the default charge setting, and the buffer cannot be included. What they don't tell you is GM cars use NMC chem which is designed to fail right after the warranty is up (manganese dissolution in electrolyte unstoppable, first principles...) and have a tiny buffer
The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy - IEEE Spectrum
Last edited:
Then please enlighten me on one thing Tesla have done in the last year that has been positive for the customer, not their headlines?
BUMP - hey, can anybody answer my question? WK or anybody who has wallowed in this thread? It seems pretty fundamental data to the assessment.
Nah, I guess y'all would rather just argue.
Last edited:
What are you even getting at. Elon will actually tell you Tesla stock is overvalued when it is overvalued. He cares so much about the mission he often cries. Not a sign of an ego maniac ill bent on pumping up the stock price. You think the Model X design shows profit is the chief concern? Tesla is a labor of love.
Currently the DOE is benchmarking battery life on every EV on the market except the Tesla Model S and X!
Here are the leaf results so far showing calendar aging is dominant (unstoppable) with manganese cells (almost independent of whether you charge at 6.6 kw or using Chademo)
Last edited:
@Flathill, have you ever even been in the same room as Elon, or is this all based on what you have read on the 'Net?
Anyway, this is the same old "The end justifies the means" rhetoric. My point still stands, what have Tesla done in the last year that has been in the favor of their customers?
Anyway, this is the same old "The end justifies the means" rhetoric. My point still stands, what have Tesla done in the last year that has been in the favor of their customers?
It's an honest question as I actually have (twice)... And even I'm still not convinced of the altruistic nature of the business.
That's fine but I'm still not going to answer it. I'm sure others will.
For another reference point let's look at another manganese cell used this time in the Chevy Volt, which only operates over a very tiny ultra conservative charge/discharge band (hybrid).
Here is the Constant Power Discharge Test Results from the DOE showing again why the LG Bolt (Manganese cell) will be a piece of junk:
0 miles = 16.5 kWh
8478 miles = 15.56 kWh (6% change)
23314 miles = 14.27 kWh (14% change)
No matter how much you baby your Leaf (Nissan/NEC Manganese now and LG Manganese next), or i3 (Samsung SDI Manganese), or LG Bolt (LG Manganese) calendar aging is going to get ya
as intended by design,
planned obsolescence
Last edited:
No problem. If you are interested in why a long-term self discharge test is used by Tesla (which actually degrades the cells before they are even built into a pack and is view by bean counters as a "waste" of money)
https://batteryworkshop.msfc.nasa.g...or the Spacesuit Li-Ion Battery_JNeubauer.pdf
Tesla always prioritizes safety above all. That is why the Model 3 is not going to use prismatic packs even though it would be easier/cheaper/denser
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
So the argument is that at some point, as the individual cells came fresh off the line they could (did) together deliver a total if 85kWhs of energy, once?
No it would be more than once if they were brand new, but yes NCA cells rapidly degrade at first whether cycled or not. Again this is industry standard practice to rate a battery pack based on the cell spec. In time you will see that the NCA cells are bested suited for EV use as the calendar aging almost stops at one point and then aging is dependent on how they are used (max charge, temp, how long stored at max charge, etc). Almost all other EV's on the market except the Fit EV use manganese based cells which are designed to fail (calendar aging rate almost constant in some cases, no real pla·teau, in other cases can appear to plateau and then there is sharp increase, non-linear).
Again we have 20 year old SAFT NCA cells in space right now. Tesla is not hoping their models are correct like everyone else. GM is working with LG. The goal of the lifespan modeling is to last the warranty period and then rapidly decline (sharp increase in internal resistance after it appears to plateau)
Last edited:
Why doesn't the range drop sharply in the first few weeks or months of ownership if the cell capacity rapidly drops?
The cells are already months old and used (aka thoroughly tested) before they are built into a pack. And even then with your Model you will notice range degrades more rapidly and then starts levels out (never truly levels out). Tesla also has the ability to change the the usable pack capacity (what 0 miles really means) which they probably won't do. The goal is to deliver 80% of the miles you got when new after 8 years, not 80% of 85kwh after 8 years. It likely will be 80% of 85kwh for most cars, but Tesla again left some leeway for themselves.
None of this is in writing! No one really knows what will happen for sure which is why the Tesla battery guarantee is so ambiguous. All we do know is the first gen Model S cells are performing/aging excellent so far as predicted/modeled by Dalhousie
Wait until you guys figure our that the Model S performance decreases with time as the cells age. Wait my gas car performance never varied with time!!!!Tesla are junk!!! Lithium cells suck right now but Tesla is doing the best it can.
Last edited:
So one person who has been against pretty much everything I've ever posted on this forum comes up with some claim that Tesla does NASA style testing on every cell with no evidence that even remotely backs this claim (I've seen zero evidence of this, nor have I even remotely heard of this with Tesla anywhere before now), posts info not even related to Tesla cells, and a link to some document that doesn't even contain the word "Tesla", let alone relates to anything Tesla does, as "evidence".
One "word": lol.
I guess we'll just ignore everyone else that comes to or has already come to the same or similar conclusions as myself because of this one person. Makes sense to me.
Anyway, I sent off a couple of cells from storage to islandbayy today that I pulled from storage yesterday. While I was at it, I grabbed a random one that I had previously done tests on and threw it on for some slow testing. It had self discharged a little, but nothing major. Did a full charge/discharge cycle on it, thermal controlled, and compared to the data I had for it before. Now, this cell has been sitting in my storage at ~17C for over 6 months. Prior to that it had been removed from a module from a D-pack that sat in storage for several months. Prior to that it was in a late VIN P85 that was in an accident after ~3k miles. It's well over a year old, for sure, probably closer to 2 years than 1 year. Since my last test of it 6 months ago it lost...... *drum roll*..... 11 mWh of capacity. That's miliwatt hours. I mean, that's essentially zero. Most test equipment wouldn't even be able to measure that. The majority of that minuscule loss is just from the cycling I just did to it anyway. That's less than 0.1% capacity loss after 6 months, on a cell that's probably 18 months old and spent most of its life sitting. Oh, and the capacity of this cell measured at 11.33 Wh today. So again, calendar life degradation of these cells is virtually non-existent, for whatever reason, which is impressive.
But this again points out that these cells do NOT follow any of the datasheets available publicly. I think that is one of the most important things to realize here.
Last edited:
So one person who has been against pretty much everything I've ever posted on this forum comes up with some claim that Tesla does NASA style testing on every cell with no evidence that even remotely backs this claim (I've seen zero evidence of this, nor have I even remotely heard of this with Tesla anywhere before now), posts info not even related to Tesla cells, and a link to some document that doesn't even contain the word "Tesla", let alone relates to anything Tesla does, as "evidence".
One "word": lol.
I guess we'll just ignore everyone else that comes to or has already come to the same or similar conclusions as myself because of this one person. Makes sense to me.
Anyway, I sent off a couple of cells from storage to islandbayy today that I pulled from storage yesterday. While I was at it, I grabbed a random one and threw it on for some slow testing. It had self discharged a little, but nothing major. Did a full charge/discharge cycle on it, thermal controlled, and compared to the data I had for it before. Now, this cell has been sitting in my storage at ~17C for over 6 months. Prior to that it had been removed from a module from a D-pack that sat in storage for several months. Prior to that it was in a late VIN P85 that was in an accident after ~3k miles. It's well over a year old, for sure, probably closer to 2 years than 1 year. Since my last test of it 6 months ago it lost...... *drum roll*..... 11 mWh of capacity. That's miliwatt hours. I mean, that's essentially zero. Most test equipment wouldn't even be able to measure that. The majority of that minuscule loss is just from the cycling I just did to it anyway. That's less than 0.1% capacity loss after 6 months, on a cell that's probably 18 months old and spent most of its life sitting. Oh, and the capacity of this cell measured at 11.33 Wh today. So again, calendar life degradation of these cells is virtually non-existent, for whatever reason, which is impressive.
But this again points out that these cells do NOT follow any of the datasheets available publicly. I think that is one of the most important things to realize here.
Which supports what I just wrote a minute ago: "In time you will see that the NCA cells are bested suited for EV use as the calendar aging almost stops at one point and then aging is dependent on how they are used"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Um... you actually just posted the exact opposite of that and of what I just presented. Get your story straight.
Yes to clarify: in the first quote I was reference "calendar aging". In the second quote I was referencing what happens as the cells "age" (in general which includes cycle aging and calendar aging and everything else)
I had it right the first time but if you are being pedantic...
Again you have a noble purpose and it is good to share information, but to suggest Tesla has some sort of nefarious intent with regards to any of their specs is plain WRONG and I will call you out on it everytime
Last edited:
I was going to continue to share data and results from actual Tesla cells, actual Tesla modules, and actual Tesla packs that I've tested personally in an effort to get the thread back on topic... but never mind. I'm not wasting my time.
If one person with no first hand experience with the actual cells and data at hand is able to so badly derail the thread, and even be praised for doing the so, then I'm just wasting my time continuing to provide input here. Definitely have much better things to do. Summary of my findings remains in the first post.
Unsubscribed. You'll find no further posts on this subject from me here.
Similar threads
- Question
