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

That Little Water Pump

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
ESS cycle-life reduced by pump?

Zak,

Is Martin also accurate in wondering whether the ESS cycle-life/lifetime range will be significantly reduced due to the water pump? That is, does the water pump always pull electricity through the ESS even when the Roadster is plugged-in?

Thanks,

Mark

Martin stated in his blog that:
Let’s do the math. Let’s say these cells are rated for 500 full cycles, and let’s say the car goes 220 miles on a charge. That means that the cells will reach the end of their life in about 110,000 miles. Not perfect, but not bad either. Now let’s load on an additional 22% of energy to run the coolant pump. Now the batteries will only make it 90,000 miles. That little pump will cost me 20,000 miles of precious lifetime driving range for my Tesla! The expensive Tesla ESS will expire a year or two sooner just because of that pump.

And the Zak replied saying:
Martin's information on the behavior of the water pump for the battery coolant is accurate.
 
Last edited:
That is, does the water pump always pull electricity through the ESS even when the Roadster is plugged-in?

Martin may have been talking about a slightly different situation where the pump runs when the car is off charger. For instance he fills it at home, drives to work, and then the pump sits running all day while he is at work. Then he drives back home. The effect of the pump running is in some ways like driving extra miles.
 
Also, does the pump start to discharge the battery as soon as recharging stops?

Suppose you charge from 11 pm till 3am. The pump would have to run from roughly 1am until you unplug the charger drive the car out at, say, 8am. If the pump draws 146 watts, that's just over 1kWh in total.

Once the charging current shuts off at 3am, does the pump start to discharge the battery even though the car is still physically connected to the charger? (It would use 730 Wh from 3 til 8)

Assuming that it does use the battery, this short discharge could accumulate into a significant number of battery cycles if owners adopt this particular recharging habit. However it is easy to minimise; you would just need to ensure that any charging period comes to an end shortly before you intend to use the car.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it may depend on how the charger is set to turn off. One case would be that the car got to 100% full and the charging station "self stopped". Another case would be where the charger is on a timer and has power cut off completely at a certain clock time.
 
According to the user manual, once the car discharges to 50% it will continue to discharge at about 5% per week. However, it's not clear if that's 5% of the original 53kWh or the remaining 26.5

Glad to hear that the pump running will be fixed. (That may result in the car taking three or four weeks to self-discharge from full down to 50% instead of one)
 
Last edited:
From Bill Arnett on Martin's blog:
"...I can confirm that with firmware version 3.1.12 the pump issue seems to have been resolved. My car is completely silent at when charged up to 100% in Standard mode (ie 90% of the full Range mode capacity). ..."

Further confirmation from Jurvetson’s flickr:
“…They just upgraded me to Powertrain 1.5 and firmware 3.1.12
It’s much smoother and has the rail gun torque that I had read so much about. Also, the battery coolant pump now shuts down when parked (an irksome precaution in early models that is no longer needed)…”
 
It would be nice for Martin to redo his calculations now that this issue has been resolved. Definitely good to hear they addressed this though.

-Shark2k
As far as I know, TM still has not performed the upgrade of the drive train or the firmware on Martin's car yet, so you might have to wait a while before Martin can collect fresh data and recalculate the energy usage of his Roadster.

All the best,

Chris H.
 
It's good to see that Tesla Motors has updated the pump's operations. It seemed quite paranoid of them to cool the batteries while parked.

But the engineers must've put in some sort of algorithm where in extreme situations, like after drag racing in death valley, when the pump would continue to cool while parked, right?
 
It's good to see that Tesla Motors has updated the pump's operations. It seemed quite paranoid of them to cool the batteries while parked.

It was probably one of those things where they used some very simple logic because they ran out of time to do anything fancy. "Just run it all the time! It will never overheat that way" -- Somewhat paranoid, but mostly expedient. Once they were able to revisit it with some time, they were able to figure out what was a more sane albeit more complicated scheme.
 
Version 1.0 code tends to accumulate lots of comments:

// REVISIT - This is braindead. We'll fix it if it shows up in the profiles. - Fred

Of course, you usually don't find those comments until version 8, because nobody really schedules in profiling and performance tuning for a 1.0 product.
 
#define DefaultOnState True // Default to on just in case
...
CarIsOn = DefaultOnState; // Was this on or off? Whatever.
...
If CarIsOn RunPump;
...
If KeyRemoved CarIsOn = False; // Everything else dependent better come later
:wink:
 
I remember a year ago, Martin posting on his now defunct TeslaFounders blog about the fridge. I was so impressed that I cut and pasted it into a document that I kept. I thought we had posted it on the TM site too, but there was a time where blogs were being taken down so that might have been a casualty. I noticed that on this blog it was just referenced through a now defunct link. I will repost it here because of the controversy noted in the "How are charging kWh measured?" post under Performance and Technology in the Tesla Motors Owners site in case you are interesting in visiting that. -Ian O:)

Filed under: Energy, General, The Founder's Car — mfeberhard - Oct, 2008

Details matter. You can get a lot of things right, but one seemingly little thing wrong can make a huge difference. Such is true with the energy consumption of my Tesla Roadster. Let me explain.

Soon after I got my car, I noticed a funny thing: the ESS coolant pump seems to run all the time. Even when the car is off. Even if it has been off for a long time. Even when the car is plenty cool. You can hear it run, and many people have commented about the noise of the pump and the noise of coolant gurgling into the overflow reservoir.

The Tesla people tell me that when the battery is half-way discharged, and the car is off, and the ESS is cool, then the pump will shut off. Fine. But my average daily drive is less than 60 miles, and I have only driven far enough to drain half the battery 4 times since I got my car three months ago. So, except a few hours on these four occasions, this poor pump has been running 24 hours per day, 7 days a week for three months solid.

I noticed another funny thing: if I charged the car up and let it sit for a few days without driving, I found that the battery was no longer anywhere near full. I guess that the constantly-running coolant pump, along with its support electronics, is draining the battery.

Curious, I installed a real electric meter ahead of my car’s charging station, as noted in a previous blog. This meter simply accumulates a measure of the energy passing through it on the way to charging my car. It is exactly like the power meters that electric companies use to measure what we use for our electric bills.

I’ve had this meter in place for a month now, and the data it has so far collected is revealing.

How much power does this coolant pump draw? To find out, I charged the car up and read the meter. Then I unplugged the car and let it sit for 4 days. Then I charged the car back up again, and read the meter once more to see how much energy the car had consumed those four days of sitting in my garage.

Whoa! The car consumed a whopping 14 kilowatt-hours in four days, just sitting there! Doing the math, the pump draws about 146 watts all day long, all night long, every day. This works out to 1,278 kWh per year. To put this in perspective, a really nice 26-cubic foot side-by-side refrigerator with an ice maker uses only 618 kWh per year, so this pump is the energy-equivalent of two huge refrigerators!

Okay, so with this pump running all the time, how much energy is my car really using? Since I installed the meter, I have driven 999 miles, and the meter registered 439 kWh consumed. That works out to 439 Watt-hours per mile, way higher than I ever anticipated.

By subtracting out the time that I was actually driving the car, I can calculate how much energy the pump consumed while the car was parked. This works out to 96 kWh of wasted energy in the month since I installed my meter.

Subtracting this wasted energy, the car’s energy consumption at the meter is only 343 watt-hours per mile. A little high, but in the right ballpark. Here is the kicker: 22 percent of the energy consumed by my car happens while my car is parked! Twenty two percent. Imagine that.

(How do these numbers compare to the energy consumption reported by my Tesla’s onboard computer? At the end of each day’s drive, the computer reports energy consumption between 260 watt-hours per mile and 310 watt hours per mile, with an average somewhere around 280 watt-hours per mile. This is a little higher than other drivers might experience largely because I live at the top of a 2,400-foot hill, so every drive includes a decent hill climb. If I subtract the energy wasted by the pump from the meter readings, and compare that to the energy consumption reported by the car’s computer, I conclude that the charger is about 87% efficient. Not great, but not bad either.)

Aside from the shame of wasting 1.3 megawatt hours every year to gurgle fluid through my car, this brings two questions to mind: The first is battery life. 22% of the energy cycled through my Tesla’s battery is not used to propel the car, and the cycle life of the battery is 22% shorter than if this pump did not run when the car is off. As much as I have promoted lithium ion batteries for cars, cycle life is still a difficult problem for batteries.

Let’s do the math. Let’s say these cells are rated for 500 full cycles, and let’s say the car goes 220 miles on a charge. That means that the cells will reach the end of their life in about 110,000 miles. Not perfect, but not bad either. Now let’s load on an additional 22% of energy to run the coolant pump. Now the batteries will only make it 90,000 miles. That little pump will cost me 20,000 miles of precious lifetime driving range for my Tesla! The expensive Tesla ESS will expire a year or two sooner just because of that pump. Ouch!

The second question is the life expectancy of the pump. I expect that Tesla used an automotive-grade pump from a good supplier. I am also sure that no other car leaves a pump running 24/7. Consider a typical car designed to run for 200,000 miles at an average speed of 30 mph. Such a car is designed to run for 200,000 / 30 = 6,666 hours. Let’s say the designers want some room for error, and design the water pump for that car to operate for 10,000 hours without failure. 10,000 hours life expectancy would be a good-quality automotive pump.

Now, let’s run that same pump 24/7 instead of the couple of hours per day it would run in our typical car. Running 24/7, that pump will pass 10,000 hours in only 13 months. That’s all – end of life. Just to make it through Tesla’s 3-year warranty, that pump would need to last 26,280 hours without failure. To last just 5 years, the pump would need to run 43,800 hours. Hopefully, Tesla installed a pump rated for at least 50,000 hours of operation without failure, implying an MTBF of at least 70,000 hours, assuming an exponential failure distribution. Does any automotive parts manufacturer even make such a pump?

Maybe this constantly-running pump is an artifact of the temporary drive train in my car. Maybe it will shut off when not driving after Tesla finally installs my 1.5 drive train. I sure hope so, but the Tesla people have told me that it will run the same way with the 1.5 drive train. What a waste that would be – a waste of energy, a waste of batteries, a waste of reliability.

Still Fun to Drive! --ME :eek: