Someone posted on another thread that 6.0 was rolling out to beta testers this week. My question, are those beta testers under NDA? And as a result, prevented from posting new, improved features and functions up here?
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.
Someone posted on another thread that 6.0 was rolling out to beta testers this week. My question, are those beta testers under NDA? And as a result, prevented from posting new, improved features and functions up here?
I want to be a beta tester, doing 288 (minimum) miles every day I think I would find issues. I already have many suggestions on changes, but don't we all.
That's what I want to know!you drive at least 288 miles per day and you got a 60kW??? why did you not get the 85?
I want to be a beta tester, doing 288 (minimum) miles every day I think I would find issues. I already have many suggestions on changes, but don't we all.
It makes sense until you consider the battery warranty implications. Battery Warranty gone in year 2 isn't something to take lightly.Makes sense to me. He would still have to take a mid-day charge either way. And the 60 is cheaper. Note that he is an HPWC and SC-enabled 60, what I would call a super 60.
Exactly. And Tom's presentation at TMC Connect would seem to indicate the high cycle count will make that car particularly susceptible to pack degradation over time, which makes the loss of warranty even worse.It makes sense until you consider the battery warranty implications. Battery Warranty gone in year 2 isn't something to take lightly.
I was merely pointing out Tom's findings from TMC Connect (can be seen here: http://www.pluginamerica.org/surveys/batteries/model-s/reports/Battery-Longevity-16x9.pdf). Essentially, this shows that the absolute number of cycles is the most important metric affecting battery degradation among the evaluated Li-Ion EVs, especially on the Model S, which isn't affected by climate. Of particular note is the graph around page 20 that shows the steeper curve of the 60 for a given number of miles, which is a factor of pack cycles and efficiency.He's not necessarily cycling the battery in any bad way. If he charges up to, let's say 180 miles at home (not a full charge) and then supercharges when he gets down to 30 to add another 150, that's a total of 330 miles of charge and he's only using 300ish so I see no problem with that cycle. He's not going from 100% down to 0% and back to 100% which is a full charge cycle of which the battery supposedly can handle 1,000's of cycles.
One thing to remember is that Tom's Model S survey is flawed. Most of the firmware revisions calculate rated range differently, and then there is the pack balance issue. Without presenting that information, that survey is very misleading.I was merely pointing out Tom's findings from TMC Connect (can be seen here: http://www.pluginamerica.org/surveys/batteries/model-s/reports/Battery-Longevity-16x9.pdf). Essentially, this shows that the absolute number of cycles is the most important metric affecting battery degradation among the evaluated Li-Ion EVs, especially on the Model S, which isn't affected by climate. Of particular note is the graph around page 20 that shows the steeper curve of the 60 for a given number of miles, which is a factor of pack cycles and efficiency.
In any case, the assertion given the data collected so far is that a 60 driven exactly as efficiently as an 85 for the exact same number of miles will suffer greater battery degradation as a percentage of initial capacity due to the increased number of cycles on its pack. So I merely pointed out that coupling this effect with the reduced warranty period of the smaller battery is particularly concerning for 60 owners driving lots of miles.
It was a really interesting presentation. Check it out when the video gets posted.
One thing to remember is that Tom's Model S survey is flawed. Most of the firmware revisions calculate rated range differently, and then there is the pack balance issue. Without presenting that information, that survey is very misleading.
While range charges are more accurate, it still takes a bunch of them in a row to bring the display back to where the true capacity is measured.That question came up, and is supposedly the reason firmware revision is one of the questions. Further, pack balancing supposedly occurs during a range charge, which is what the survey asks for.
So I think everything needed to account for both of those situations is already in the data. User-reported data is always going to have a degree of inaccuracy associated. More data points certainly help, though short of getting access to the service menus, I think it's about as good as the community can do.
it would be nice to have 2 "scheduled" charges, a minimum charge then by a certain time charge the rest of the way and have it ready when you need to leave. That way when you get home it charges to a set milage in case you need it (emergencies do happen) and then later on in the night/morning it'll charge to what you need for your daily trip.
Agreed, I have thought about this as well. It would be useful to have an "everyday" charge schedule setting, start time and percentage of total capacity, and then be able to also schedule a "top up" charge that would complete just before you planned to leave. That way the car doesn't sit at max charge very long.
When I need to max charge for a long trip, right now I do that two-stage charging routine manually. My EV electrical utility rate plan has the lowest rate from midnight to 7am. So for example, I set the car to charge to 80% starting at 0005 (5 after midnight). Then if I am planning on leaving home at 0730, when I wake up at 0600 I use the iPhone app to set the charge percentage to 100% and I start it charging and I look at the display to see what the estimated charge time is and then adjust it so it will finish charging shortly before I have to leave.
But of course the car firmware could figure that out for me if it had a "top up" charge feature that told me that "based on starting from an 80% SOC it will take X minutes to charge to 100% so if you want to start driving at 0730 tomorrow I will start the 'top up' charge at 0642 and allow 15 minutes for load balancing. Okay?".
Now that would be cool.