That Motor Trend 1 foot rollout

[stopcrazypp]

I don't want to argue, just really curious about your point of view on how exactly did you interpret the spec below as being met with an 81KWh battery (only 77KWh usable, but let's count the whole battery)? Are you in the camp that argues that 81 rounds up to 85, or that the battery casing is capable of 85KWh, or that it doesn't matter since 85's are no longer sold, or some other interpretation I have not yet heard? Note that I am not talking about the model number, I am specifically talking about Tesla saying the car has an 85KWh battery. I won't try to change your mind, just like knowing how people explain things like that.

View attachment 242955

If you want to open that can of worms again, here's my last comment on that thread:
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)
Basically a lot of people take the 81kWh as gospel, but that is only from a few samples (which may not necessarily present the best results from a new pack). The brand new rated miles numbers of people suggest something closer to 84 kWh.

As for the number Tesla uses, it's very clear Tesla rounded up to nearest 5kWh. My personal theory from a while back was the cell nominal voltage * nominal capacity * 7104 will give a kWh number that rounded to nearest 5kWh would be 85kWh.

This post was getting close to get a cell only number, but he didn't have a new cell to test (only used ones). The poster never returned with new numbers.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

However, he does say the cells match the characteristics of the NCR18650BE most, which others have tested here:
Test: Basen 18650 3200 mAh (Panasonic NCR18650BE) | BudgetLightForum.com

I note here that the test conditions necessary to simulate various EPA drive cycles.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

By taking area under the curve of the NCR18650BE tests.

0.5A (~C/6 AKA 6 hr discharge) for EPA HWFET:
2.8V cut off 11.44Wh (x 7104= 81.27 kWh)
(note this is very close to the 11.36Wh average, 11.42Wh wk057 got under the same C/6 discharge).
2.5V extrapolated 11.59Wh (82.34 kWh)

0.2A (~C/16 AKA 16 hr discharge) for EPA UDDS:
2.8V cut off 12.09 Wh (85.89 kWh)
2.5V extrapolated 12.14 Wh (86.24 kWh)

So it appears possible to get 85 kWh out of new cells if discharged slower to minimize IR effects.

 

[whitex]

If you want to open that can of worms again, here's my last comment on that thread:
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)
Basically a lot of people take the 81kWh as gospel, but that is only from a few samples (which may not necessarily present the best results from a new pack). The brand new rated miles numbers of people suggest something closer to 84 kWh.

As for the number Tesla uses, it's very clear Tesla rounded up to nearest 5kWh. My personal theory from a while back was the cell nominal voltage * nominal capacity * 7104 will give a kWh number that rounded to nearest 5kWh would be 85kWh.

This post was getting close to get a cell only number, but he didn't have a new cell to test (only used ones). The poster never returned with new numbers.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

However, he does say the cells match the characteristics of the NCR18650BE most, which others have tested here:
Test: Basen 18650 3200 mAh (Panasonic NCR18650BE) | BudgetLightForum.com

I note here that the test conditions necessary to simulate various EPA drive cycles.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

By taking area under the curve of the NCR18650BE tests.

0.5A (~C/6 AKA 6 hr discharge) for EPA HWFET:
2.8V cut off 11.44Wh (x 7104= 81.27 kWh)
(note this is very close to the 11.36Wh average, 11.42Wh wk057 got under the same C/6 discharge).
2.5V extrapolated 11.59Wh (82.34 kWh)

0.2A (~C/16 AKA 16 hr discharge) for EPA UDDS:
2.8V cut off 12.09 Wh (85.89 kWh)
2.5V extrapolated 12.14 Wh (86.24 kWh)

So it appears possible to get 85 kWh out of new cells if discharged slower to minimize IR effects.

I see, so it's "denial" - those people who got the 81 number from Tesla's own diagnostics just happen to get defective cars (in case of wk057 he got more than one identically defective 81KWhr battery). As for rounding up to the nearest 5k, funny how they wouldn't round up my check to the nearest 5k.

PS) I'm looking forward towards your interpretation of "Full Self Driving" , "ride hailing", " car sharing", "summon anywhere on the property" and other Tesla FSD AP2 promises in a couple of years.

 

[NewTMSMan]

Wow, 1 foot roll out thread becomes a battery capacity debate

1 foot rollout is simple, based on timing lights and is approximately how far the tire needs to roll, because it is round, to trip timing lights that are mounted at ground level. Pretty clear reference here - http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-importance-of-rollout

 

[snd92]

@NewTMSMan, did you even read the thread? Do you think we don't know what 1 ft RL is?

 

[NewTMSMan]

@snd, yes I did read the thread and yes I do think a lot of people do not understand 1 ft rollout. Many people have posted as if this is somehow "gaming the system". It is a very common performance approach for measurement to align track measurement with instrument measurement.

To quote you specifically "1 foot roll outs is total BS. You're actually not measureing 0-60 mph or 0-100 km/h, more like 5-60 or 8-100. "

It has nothing to do with what you are stating and everything to do with harmonizing the data as best as possible regardless of measurement method.

 

[snd92]

Just ask yourself, how did approx 130 owners in Norway get cash/credit/ludi upgrade for free? It has everything to do with 1 ft RL and missing HP. For pre-P85D models Tesla never used RL.

Since they didn't manage to obtain the claimed performance (691 hp) they "cleverly fixed" it by stating battery limited horse power and 0-60/0-100 times with RL.

 

[P85DEE]

Just ask yourself, how did approx 130 owners in Norway get cash/credit/ludi upgrade for free? It has everything to do with 1 ft RL and missing HP. For pre-P85D models Tesla never used RL.

Since they didn't manage to obtain the claimed performance (691 hp) they "cleverly fixed" it by stating battery limited horse power and 0-60/0-100 times with RL.

Tesla settled with 126 owners for approximately $7,700.00 each.

That would be the equivalent of the cost of a good wheel and tire package, and a few shirts, jackets and other paraphernalia from off of their website.

For some real perspective, that sum wouldn't even cover the retail purchase price of 9(nine)P100D
cars.

Tesla's legal team did its job. Settling the matter for a pittance and reducing it to a footnote.

It was a nuisance suit that Tesla made go away by paying out $970,200.00, in cash or retail merchandise. Merchandise that would not cost them nearly that much wholesale.

The killing thing about that, was that using the methods that those complaining used to arrive at the conclusion that they had not gotten their 691hp, even those of that 126 folks after accepting Tesla's "free" Ludicrous upgrade, an upgrade which of course did not cost Tesla $7700.00, as they were doing it in the States for $5,000.00 and still no doubt making money off of that $5K price.....those people still using their prior method of calculating their horsepower and stating that they had been shortchanged, STILL did not have 691hp.

Tesla played that like a boss, making that whole matter go away for $970 grand. $970 grand that they no doubt passed on to customers through either select price increases on certain products, or an across the board increase.

Tesla Settles Car Performance Lawsuit in Norway

 

[NewTMSMan]

Sorry, but the settlement has everything to do with HP as rated by the motors (sum total of HP rating of the motors) as opposed to actual capability of the car to deliver that combined power as stated by Tesla, including the batteries and the inverter and control systems maintaining among other things battery operational temps. You may see that evidenced in the performance of the car, but the actual lawsuit has to do with HP claims and not 0-60 times.

You may feel aggrieved by this situation, but among performance cars it is very typical to rate 0-60 with rollout as again this aims to match track performance with timing lights with electronic measurements.

 

[NewTMSMan]

Tesla played that like a boss,

 

[snd92]

You are almost correct @P85DEE ... Yes, the amount is loose change for Tesla. These were the alternatives the customers could chose from

1) 65 000 NOK in cash
2) 80 000 NOK in Tesla credit
3) Ludi upgrade + 40 000 NOK in cash
4) Ludi upgrade + 55 000 NOK in Tesla credit
5) Ludi upgrade + 21" silver Turbine Wheel package + 30 000 NOK in Tesla credit
6) 21" Silver Turbine Wheel package + 35 000 NOK in cash
or
7) 21" Silver Turbine Wheel package + 50 000 NOK in Tesla credit

As of end of 2016: 1 USD = ~ 8.5 NOK

21": retails for 72 000 NOK
Ludi: retails for 56 100 NOK

... You may see that evidenced in the performance of the car, but the actual lawsuit has to do with HP claims and not 0-60 times.

@NewTMSMan That is wrong. Due to confidentiality of the settlement I cannot go into specifics other than saying "this matter has been resolved", but you are wrong.

 

[NewTMSMan]

"Tesla Motors lost a ruling from Norway's Consumer Disputes Commission over how it lists its electric vehicles' power output and may have to pay vehicle owners about $6,000 per vehicle, Electrek reports. The Norway regulator says that the method in which Tesla disclosed the horsepower output of the two electric motors on its Model S P85D amounted to deceptive advertising. Tesla disputes this claim."

Yeah, ok.... The lawsuit was actually about rollout....

Guess Norwegians can start lining up to sue Dodge for the Demon 0-60 claim of 2.1s.

 

[snd92]

To be exact only 6 people went all the way with Norway's Consumer Disputes Commission. 126 people sued through a private attorney... Tesla wanted to solve the issue as one whole group of 132. These 6 people did not get the same offer as the rest.

Nothing legally wrong with RL, but not mentioning it for up to 1 year after purchase is wrong.

I don't think the Dodge demon is sold in Norway

 

[lunitiks]

126 people sued through a private attorney...

Confirmed. I read the legal documents thoroughly and I'll tell you: That was no slam dunk case in any shape or form. The devil is in the details, in this case: In the technical details. Couple of very good points made by Tesla that I won't bother to dig up again but this is my opinion after following the dispute from the sideline. And don't listen to me, listen to the fact that the buyer's lawyer (and Teslas) recommended them to settle the case

 

[P85DEE]

Confirmed. I read the legal documents thoroughly and I'll tell you: That was no slam dunk case in any shape or form. The devil is in the details, in this case: In the technical details. Couple of very good points made by Tesla that I won't bother to dig up again but this is my opinion after following the dispute from the sideline. And don't listen to me, listen to the fact that the buyer's lawyer (and Teslas) recommended them to settle the case

That this case was settled somewhat quickly and for the amounts stated, told me a lot.

 

[lunitiks]

That this case was settled somewhat quickly and for the amounts stated, told me a lot.

Mjeh, maybe... It wasn't settled that quickly. Actually it was settled less then two weeks before the trial was due.

 

[DarkMatter]

And cases which are rather poorly constructed are often settled because even a simple trial is quite expensive. A quick not particularly big settlement means almost nothing.

 

[lunitiks]

They did choose a very expensive lawyer but they were like 130 ppl.

 

[snd92]

All 126 customers had the choice of taking the offer. Each customer was shown the offer mentioned in post #70. Everyone was satisfied with the settlement, that should tell you a lot @P85DEE. Also, if it did go to court these 126 would receive more or less the same compensation, 1-2 years later, with a small chance of loosing it all.

Only positive scenario of further fighting in court would have been for the 1000 other P85D owners in Norway.

Later we learned that customers who did complain to Tesla AND The Norwegian Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet) about this within reasonable time (Bought the car before RL/battery limitations were mentioned) were obligated a free Ludi upgrade.

 

[P85DEE]

All 126 customers had the choice of taking the offer. Each customer was shown the offer mentioned in post #70. Everyone was satisfied with the settlement, that should tell you a lot @P85DEE. Also, if it did go to court these 126 would receive more or less the same compensation, 1-2 years later, with a small chance of loosing it all.

That part in bold above, is what tells me the most.

"You can take it now, or possibly leave it"; was what it effectively came down to.

That what the plaintiffs got, was about half of what they were asking for, and at the end of the day came down to being a relatively small sum for Tesla, says a lot to me about who came out on top in the matter.

Only positive scenario of further fighting in court would have been for the 1000 other P85D owners in Norway.

Later we learned that customers who did complain to Tesla AND The Norwegian Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet) about this within reasonable time (Bought the car before RL/battery limitations were mentioned) were obligated a free Ludi upgrade.

Which still wouldn't give that subset of owners 691 SAE horsepower.

 

[P85DEE]

And cases which are rather poorly constructed are often settled because even a simple trial is quite expensive. A quick not particularly big settlement means almost nothing.

You must have never dealt with a nuisance lawsuit.

A quick and above all else, relatively inexpensive solution to making something or someone go away, is often times a quite favorable option.

It must have meant something to Tesla.

For the type of money being discussed here, coupled with extremely limited damage to the brand image, it's hard to imagine that Tesla would be anything less than happy with the outcome.

Making this go away by throwing just one million dollars at it, give or take, had to be a win for them.

I've seen personal injury lawsuits fetch more than that.