bhuwan
Active Member
right.Yeah, I just did the same calc. 70% life after my 125K miles in 6 years sounds tough to hit using that measuring stick.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
right.Yeah, I just did the same calc. 70% life after my 125K miles in 6 years sounds tough to hit using that measuring stick.
Don't assume it's linear. I remember reading somewhere that this type of chemistry drops a few percent quickly, then levels out for a very long time. (I'm sure the source is on this forum...)
Indeed. My recollection is "assume it's very non-linear." There have been forum discussions in the past that the future storage capability of a used 85 kWh @ 60 kWh should exceed that of a new 60 kWh. Unless I'm misremembering...Don't assume it's linear.
Yeah, I just did the same calc. 70% life after my 125K miles in 6 years sounds tough to hit using that measuring stick.
I'm confused. I mean, people already mentioned it was non-linear, but even if it was linear 3% after 12.5K miles would predict exactly 30% after 125K miles. I've always understood degradation to be much more related to mileage (i.e. number of complete recharge cycles) than time.
They aren't going to provide any hard numbers, because they know owners will hold them to those numbers immediately after they provide it (as we have seen in previous posts about other issues). I doubt they will provide any hard numbers unless they decide to provide a degradation warranty instead of a defect based one (no need given the demand, and despite some owners complaining about degradation, the rate is still not enough for alarm, unlike the Leaf's case, which had cars under 70% capacity and a handful approaching).I've tried asking ownership about what precisely they consider to be excessive losses given different conditions (charge and discharge rates, average temps, etc...), and I've gotten nothing back, which doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence.
Here is the explanation of "Why do Li-ion Batteries die? And how to improve the situation?"
That's probably likely, but it's a big reservation I have when purchasing a new MS. The fact that other manufacturers like Mitsubishi provide a warranty (10yr/100k/70% capacity I think) with a much smaller pack that isn't liquid cooled may speak to some lack of confidence on Tesla's part.They aren't going to provide any hard numbers, because they know owners will hold them to those numbers immediately after they provide it (as we have seen in previous posts about other issues). I doubt they will provide any hard numbers unless they decide to provide a degradation warranty instead of a defect based one (no need given the demand, and despite some owners complaining about degradation, the rate is still not enough for alarm, unlike the Leaf's case, which had cars under 70% capacity and a handful approaching).
This might be a noob question, but is the battery degradation issue must be why the battery swap wasn't practical, right?
This might be a noob question, but is the battery degradation issue must be why the battery swap wasn't practical, right?
I'd suggest:
1. Battery swap is practical for commercial use where the cost of vehicle downtime is high.
2. Tesla is still in the beta stage for battery swap.
3. If battery swap is the only source of income for a company, it's not practical due to the capital layout. As an "advertising expense" and being revenue neutral (or close) it can be an advantage.
DC Quick charging (vs AC) slightly degrades capacity of Leaf packs over 50,000 miles tested.