-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range
- Thread starter Kevin Sharpe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster
Me too. If Tesla's 'ideal miles', however impractical, still cover your trip then you are good to go.
You obviously bought the wrong car for this trip. Anyone who did a little research before buying a $120,000 car like this could have told you that a 180 mile trip at 65-70mph speeds would be an issue at some point.
With your EVSE company are you not able to install an EVSE at your destination or somewhere you can stop for 30 min to make it home?
The Roadster was a big unknown expensive experiment. If Tesla had put degradation in the warranty and guessed wrong, it would have sunk the company. There would be no Tesla anymore and no Model S or Model X. Is that your goal Kevin? In time with more data I bet Tesla will address this. My advice to you is sell the Roadster and buy a Model S or simply an ICE and stop this sad PR campaign.
You obviously bought the wrong car for this trip. Anyone who did a little research before buying a $120,000 car like this could have told you that a 180 mile trip at 65-70mph speeds would be an issue at some point.
With your EVSE company are you not able to install an EVSE at your destination or somewhere you can stop for 30 min to make it home?
The Roadster was a big unknown expensive experiment. If Tesla had put degradation in the warranty and guessed wrong, it would have sunk the company. There would be no Tesla anymore and no Model S or Model X. Is that your goal Kevin? In time with more data I bet Tesla will address this. My advice to you is sell the Roadster and buy a Model S or simply an ICE and stop this sad PR campaign.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Frequent range charging and frequent full cycling of the pack just might have something to do with it....
Here's a rough diagram showing how changing the charging voltage (standard vs range mode charge) affects battery life in similar cells. I am not sure what Range Charge is but it may be 4.2V. Standard mode is 4.05V (not shown on chart, but line is nearly flat for a real battery.) Frequent use of range mode (more than 2/3rds pack usage) could easily explain your range loss Kevin...
Another aspect is the deep discharges. Initially, if one would use 85% of the battery pack for the trip, you would charge to 100% and return home with 15% remaining. But after 5% capacity loss, you would return home with 10% remaining, and after 10% capacity loss, you would return home with 5% remaining. Using the last few percent on the battery leads to increased degradation.
I would expect this to explain most of the observed effect, where battery degradation was low at first and then started accelerating. I think it's unlikely that it's related to the repair. If Tom has the logs, I'm sure he will shed some more light on the situation.
I would expect this to explain most of the observed effect, where battery degradation was low at first and then started accelerating. I think it's unlikely that it's related to the repair. If Tom has the logs, I'm sure he will shed some more light on the situation.
Chickenlittle
Banned
wiztecy
Active Member
I don't do Range charges all that often which I believe Kevin regularly did for his commute. I also suspect he was pulling the pack down to its lower 5-20% SOC regularly, another thing that the pack does not like. Also add that the pack most likely was heated up without any cool-down. Any of these three of these by itself, but worse when combined, Lithium Ion batteries don't like at all. I did my research before buying my Roadster, I understood the risks and faults. Any 1st generation product you buy is a HUGE risk, even if it succeeds, the 1st gen product will always be ground zero for where technology grows for that innovative product.
Whoever uses Range Mode on the Tesla Roadster understands and *agrees* to the stated Risks! When you click OK for the pop-up message Tesla displays to the user, you the owner of the car is *agreeing* to Tesla's terms and agree to it. By clicking "OK" and charging with Range Mode to access the upper/lower 15% of the battery Pack, you the user has agreed to have a shorter life of your battery pack and should not argue after using this feature that your battery pack does not have the same Range as others in a Survey who don't have the same charging habits which are known to be harmful to the battery pack.
The Range Mode agreement that you as the user clicks on to charge the battery pack fully reads:
=================
Range Mode limits
Power. Frequent use will
reduce long-term battery
life. Continue?
(Exit) (Ok)
=================
Notice the *strong* word of **will**, Tesla did not use a word like *may*. The word "will" is a purely definitive word, period. The word "may" relays that there possibly could be bad outcome, possibly there may be no harm. Tesla did not use the word "may". Note that cigarettes use the word may, Cigarettes "may" cause cancer. I don't smoke, but I take may as there's a risk of having cancer. I don't want to take the chance. But the word "will" says confidently that damage is going to occur for the long term health of the pack. Possibly cigarettes need to have the same "strong" wording of "will". I know they "will" cause cancer over time. Hence why I stay away from it as much as possible, both Range mode charging and smoking. I understand fully what this message is trying to relay to me from Tesla, I don't see how anyone can mis-understand it and the clear message it's conveying. Seems very clear about the risks of using Range Mode charging to me. This should not come to any surprise if you click "Ok". You / Every user does have the option to click "Exit" and not acknowledge this agreement. The same agreement / risk is also stated for Performance Mode charging.
Kevin, was this made clear to BBC? If not that's wrong and should be brought up and an addendum made to the Radio show, or else it is very inaccurate reporting and both BBC and their source (you!) should be held accounted for inaccurate information. This is called slander/defamation and punishable by law. BBC is know for defamation, so its not new to that news outlet.
I would like to contact, and recommend others where my post makes sense, to contact the BBC and inform them of this agreement Tesla makes on Range mode charging. To strongly state their radio show does not convey accurate information on what they're reporting.
Also I don't want Tesla to nanny me where I can't access the upper and lower 20% like GM does to preserve the pack. I paid for this pack and its capacity, why are you ripping me off where I can't use it. Personally I won't buy a car that does this. I'm an adult, tell me the risks and if I acknowledge / agree to the risks then I understand. This protects the consumer and also allows the consumer who is educated and understands technology to use it to its fullest potential.
Over time this won't even matter, battery capacity will be so large, range will be so great that people won't need to do "full" charges all that often. Also as capacity of the pack increases, there's less stress on the cells of the pack so longevity is greater.
Hence why I see Kevin's PR route against Tesla as going backwards for all of EV technology, it shows a pure lack of understanding of any technological advancement, it has evidence of swaying the story one direction to support his needs, and most importantly is by far detrimental to all of the EV community for that new/uneducated people who don't understand technology now see EVs as something unreliable product that does not scale.
For a person who has access to installing a charge network, why didn't you install a charge station part-way or at the destination of your work place? That would have been the 1st thing I would have done if I came across this problem, especially with that resource readily available at my fingertips. For sure many Leaf users do this, why didn't you?
My Roadster was my first EV. It inspired and moved me, still does today and is the best thing I've every owned to this day. From the Roadster's inspiration I then bought 2 Zero EV motorcycles, my 1st one was a 2010 DS that I rode for 2 years, recently (2 months ago) a 2013 FX. My DS in no way as reliable, as powerful, as robust and durable as my '13 FX. I understand that, I understand evolution. I voted for this technology because I *believe* in it and *passionate* about it. I feel you took your passion in the wrong direction Kevin. I also own 2 Electric Skateboards made by Metroboard. I love them, Lithium Ion Batteries. If I complained and PR'd Zero or Metroboard, this love and passion of mine won't reach others nor will it improve or exist in the future for myself or others. I know that these engineers/designers and the person/people who started the company are trying to do a good thing, and with that I agree and vote for it personally by buying more of this technology for that I know that's the only way it'll be advanced and be improved upon.
As an EV owner, I understand risks currently about this technology. I'm very happy to take even more risks, that's who I am about things/concepts I believe in. As a company grows I however will hold a higher bar for quality.
Really? Are you serious? Yes *I* blame you as the owner/driver of a Tesla Roadster for that you acknowledged and clicked "OK" on the risk and harm to your battery pack when you did your what I classify as "frequent" Range mode charges. I can't believe you said that. You of all people should recognize this! The first time that I came across the Telsa Range mode "agreement" that states you'll have shorter battery life, I took this as not to do them unless you really need them. Translated to me, I took it that I should only do 2 Range mode charges at most 4 per year. I took it very *seriously* since they used the word will, that is a word that says it is going to occur. Kevin, do you understand the word and full definition of "will"?
But in no way will I talk smack about a company's first released product, especially if I sway the topic to try and get what I personally want. Especially if I failed to share that I strictly acknowledged to Tesla's contract / agreement that Range mode charges will reduce long-term battery life which conclusively happened to you.
I personally have lost *all* respect and creditability of Kevin Sharpe and the BBC news outlet. How can you have a signature of "Founder and Patron for UK registered charity Zero Carbon World. Founder and Chairman Mainpine Group" when you're so far off of concrete data of Lithium batteries and their chemistry as well as longevity based upon charge and use habits? I wouldn't buy a single thing off you! Don't you know the technology you are so called supporting but now dissing? This is odd in my opinion.
Definition of "frequent":
fre·quent
adjective
adjective: frequent
ˈfrēkwənt/
1.
occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession.
"frequent changes in policy"
synonyms: recurrent, recurring, repeated, periodic, continual, one after another, successive; More
many, numerous, lots of, several
"frequent bouts of chest infection"
antonyms: few
(of a person) doing something often; habitual.
"a frequent visitor to New England"
synonyms: habitual, regular
"a frequent business traveler"
antonyms: occasional
found at short distances apart.
"frequent army roadblocks"
Medicinedated
(of the pulse) rapid.
verb
verb: frequent; 3rd person present: frequents; past tense: frequented; past participle: frequented; gerund or present participle: frequenting
frēˈkwent/
1.
visit (a place) often or habitually.
"bars frequented by soldiers"
synonyms: visit, patronize, spend time in, visit regularly, be a regular visitor to, haunt;
informalhang out at
"he frequented chic nightclubs"
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense ‘profuse, ample’): from French, or from Latin frequens, frequent- ‘crowded, frequent,’ of unknown ultimate origin.
frequent - Google Search
Possibly someone needs to step down in what they think they're representing their doing good, but in effect, doing more damage. First of all one needs to identify, understand, and take the full responsibilities of the vocabulary that is defined for their given language. From what I understand now, Kevin does not understand what "frequent" or "will" means. If I frequently smoke I know that personally I understand the risk of cancer and that do to my frequent habit I may have cancer and as a result die. I hope you don't smoke Kevin.
Whoever uses Range Mode on the Tesla Roadster understands and *agrees* to the stated Risks! When you click OK for the pop-up message Tesla displays to the user, you the owner of the car is *agreeing* to Tesla's terms and agree to it. By clicking "OK" and charging with Range Mode to access the upper/lower 15% of the battery Pack, you the user has agreed to have a shorter life of your battery pack and should not argue after using this feature that your battery pack does not have the same Range as others in a Survey who don't have the same charging habits which are known to be harmful to the battery pack.
The Range Mode agreement that you as the user clicks on to charge the battery pack fully reads:
=================
Range Mode limits
Power. Frequent use will
reduce long-term battery
life. Continue?
(Exit) (Ok)
=================
Notice the *strong* word of **will**, Tesla did not use a word like *may*. The word "will" is a purely definitive word, period. The word "may" relays that there possibly could be bad outcome, possibly there may be no harm. Tesla did not use the word "may". Note that cigarettes use the word may, Cigarettes "may" cause cancer. I don't smoke, but I take may as there's a risk of having cancer. I don't want to take the chance. But the word "will" says confidently that damage is going to occur for the long term health of the pack. Possibly cigarettes need to have the same "strong" wording of "will". I know they "will" cause cancer over time. Hence why I stay away from it as much as possible, both Range mode charging and smoking. I understand fully what this message is trying to relay to me from Tesla, I don't see how anyone can mis-understand it and the clear message it's conveying. Seems very clear about the risks of using Range Mode charging to me. This should not come to any surprise if you click "Ok". You / Every user does have the option to click "Exit" and not acknowledge this agreement. The same agreement / risk is also stated for Performance Mode charging.
Kevin, was this made clear to BBC? If not that's wrong and should be brought up and an addendum made to the Radio show, or else it is very inaccurate reporting and both BBC and their source (you!) should be held accounted for inaccurate information. This is called slander/defamation and punishable by law. BBC is know for defamation, so its not new to that news outlet.
I would like to contact, and recommend others where my post makes sense, to contact the BBC and inform them of this agreement Tesla makes on Range mode charging. To strongly state their radio show does not convey accurate information on what they're reporting.
Also I don't want Tesla to nanny me where I can't access the upper and lower 20% like GM does to preserve the pack. I paid for this pack and its capacity, why are you ripping me off where I can't use it. Personally I won't buy a car that does this. I'm an adult, tell me the risks and if I acknowledge / agree to the risks then I understand. This protects the consumer and also allows the consumer who is educated and understands technology to use it to its fullest potential.
Over time this won't even matter, battery capacity will be so large, range will be so great that people won't need to do "full" charges all that often. Also as capacity of the pack increases, there's less stress on the cells of the pack so longevity is greater.
Hence why I see Kevin's PR route against Tesla as going backwards for all of EV technology, it shows a pure lack of understanding of any technological advancement, it has evidence of swaying the story one direction to support his needs, and most importantly is by far detrimental to all of the EV community for that new/uneducated people who don't understand technology now see EVs as something unreliable product that does not scale.
For a person who has access to installing a charge network, why didn't you install a charge station part-way or at the destination of your work place? That would have been the 1st thing I would have done if I came across this problem, especially with that resource readily available at my fingertips. For sure many Leaf users do this, why didn't you?
My Roadster was my first EV. It inspired and moved me, still does today and is the best thing I've every owned to this day. From the Roadster's inspiration I then bought 2 Zero EV motorcycles, my 1st one was a 2010 DS that I rode for 2 years, recently (2 months ago) a 2013 FX. My DS in no way as reliable, as powerful, as robust and durable as my '13 FX. I understand that, I understand evolution. I voted for this technology because I *believe* in it and *passionate* about it. I feel you took your passion in the wrong direction Kevin. I also own 2 Electric Skateboards made by Metroboard. I love them, Lithium Ion Batteries. If I complained and PR'd Zero or Metroboard, this love and passion of mine won't reach others nor will it improve or exist in the future for myself or others. I know that these engineers/designers and the person/people who started the company are trying to do a good thing, and with that I agree and vote for it personally by buying more of this technology for that I know that's the only way it'll be advanced and be improved upon.
As an EV owner, I understand risks currently about this technology. I'm very happy to take even more risks, that's who I am about things/concepts I believe in. As a company grows I however will hold a higher bar for quality.
Really? Are you serious? Yes *I* blame you as the owner/driver of a Tesla Roadster for that you acknowledged and clicked "OK" on the risk and harm to your battery pack when you did your what I classify as "frequent" Range mode charges. I can't believe you said that. You of all people should recognize this! The first time that I came across the Telsa Range mode "agreement" that states you'll have shorter battery life, I took this as not to do them unless you really need them. Translated to me, I took it that I should only do 2 Range mode charges at most 4 per year. I took it very *seriously* since they used the word will, that is a word that says it is going to occur. Kevin, do you understand the word and full definition of "will"?
But in no way will I talk smack about a company's first released product, especially if I sway the topic to try and get what I personally want. Especially if I failed to share that I strictly acknowledged to Tesla's contract / agreement that Range mode charges will reduce long-term battery life which conclusively happened to you.
I personally have lost *all* respect and creditability of Kevin Sharpe and the BBC news outlet. How can you have a signature of "Founder and Patron for UK registered charity Zero Carbon World. Founder and Chairman Mainpine Group" when you're so far off of concrete data of Lithium batteries and their chemistry as well as longevity based upon charge and use habits? I wouldn't buy a single thing off you! Don't you know the technology you are so called supporting but now dissing? This is odd in my opinion.
Definition of "frequent":
fre·quent
adjective
adjective: frequent
ˈfrēkwənt/
1.
occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession.
"frequent changes in policy"
synonyms: recurrent, recurring, repeated, periodic, continual, one after another, successive; More
many, numerous, lots of, several
"frequent bouts of chest infection"
antonyms: few
(of a person) doing something often; habitual.
"a frequent visitor to New England"
synonyms: habitual, regular
"a frequent business traveler"
antonyms: occasional
found at short distances apart.
"frequent army roadblocks"
Medicinedated
(of the pulse) rapid.
verb
verb: frequent; 3rd person present: frequents; past tense: frequented; past participle: frequented; gerund or present participle: frequenting
frēˈkwent/
1.
visit (a place) often or habitually.
"bars frequented by soldiers"
synonyms: visit, patronize, spend time in, visit regularly, be a regular visitor to, haunt;
informalhang out at
"he frequented chic nightclubs"
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense ‘profuse, ample’): from French, or from Latin frequens, frequent- ‘crowded, frequent,’ of unknown ultimate origin.
frequent - Google Search
Possibly someone needs to step down in what they think they're representing their doing good, but in effect, doing more damage. First of all one needs to identify, understand, and take the full responsibilities of the vocabulary that is defined for their given language. From what I understand now, Kevin does not understand what "frequent" or "will" means. If I frequently smoke I know that personally I understand the risk of cancer and that do to my frequent habit I may have cancer and as a result die. I hope you don't smoke Kevin.
Last edited:
Tesla battery range degradation forcing return to gas
And there you go. He did more range charges than others. He clicked 'ok' to that warning multiple times a month. He just doesn't agree with their term 'frequent'. What is Tesla supposed to say, 'range charging an average of 2.87 time a month or more will harm the pack'? I doubt they had that level of data to support anything other than 'frequent'.
And there you go. He did more range charges than others. He clicked 'ok' to that warning multiple times a month. He just doesn't agree with their term 'frequent'. What is Tesla supposed to say, 'range charging an average of 2.87 time a month or more will harm the pack'? I doubt they had that level of data to support anything other than 'frequent'.
Last edited:
pharma5
Roadster F#25, Model 3 #36xx
Good to see that. Thank you.
Not mixed up at all - I may have driven a Roadster once or twice before.
:biggrin:I should have been more explicit.
This was a paraphrase of your statements in explaining what the drop to 199 ideal miles (range-mode charge) really means. You translated it into real miles as follows:
"What that means realistically is that I can no longer use the car for doing my 180 mile roundtrip"
And then to Samantha's query on how much range was lost, in those terms:
"20 to 25 real miles I think would be a realistic number."
It may have been covered elsewhere, and I apologise in advance if I have missed it - at the time of purchase, how much of the original range of the car were you expecting it to retain at say 50,000 miles (or whatever mileage/timeframe was used for your buying decision - and assuming you did not encounter the service concerns you've described)?
(This is a sincere question - in my own decision, I had to consider std mode vs. range mode, ideal miles vs. real miles, and then potential capacity loss. For the "long" trips that I make, it was still a no-brainer. I'd hardly expect members of the mass market to have to do that in the future for a Model 3, but I imagine you had to weigh several factors carefully years ago on the Roadster...?).
tomsax
Member
Looking at the other Roadsters on the survey (sorted by odometer), Kevin's Range mode ideal range does seem unusually low compared to others at about the same number of miles. From looking at the report details of the comparable vehicles, his use of Range mode charges is not unusual.
When Tesla was selling the Roadster, they did push the 244-mile range pretty hard, so it seems more than a little disingenuous to then put a notice which you don't see until after you purchase the car that says basically: if you "frequently" use the full advertised range of your car, you'll degrade your long term battery life while offering no guidance on what frequently means.
The only guidance we have, the A Bit About Batteries blog, indicates that the firmware is very nice to the batteries even doing range mode charges, with further reduction (i.e., Standard mode) having a "much smaller benefit."
At the same time, they disclaim any warranty on capacity and give no guidance on what they consider grounds for replacement for defects.
While it's easy to say the Roadster was an early product, they are doing the same thing to Model S owners. They brag about the unlimited miles warranty and have stated that Model S owners can't do anything (short of intentional abuse) to hurt the battery, but again they are offering no warranty on battery capacity. If you do a lot of Supercharging, will it ruin your battery? Tesla says no. Will it degrade your long-term range? They say nothing and offer no capacity warranty.
When Tesla was selling the Roadster, they did push the 244-mile range pretty hard, so it seems more than a little disingenuous to then put a notice which you don't see until after you purchase the car that says basically: if you "frequently" use the full advertised range of your car, you'll degrade your long term battery life while offering no guidance on what frequently means.
The only guidance we have, the A Bit About Batteries blog, indicates that the firmware is very nice to the batteries even doing range mode charges, with further reduction (i.e., Standard mode) having a "much smaller benefit."
At the same time, they disclaim any warranty on capacity and give no guidance on what they consider grounds for replacement for defects.
While it's easy to say the Roadster was an early product, they are doing the same thing to Model S owners. They brag about the unlimited miles warranty and have stated that Model S owners can't do anything (short of intentional abuse) to hurt the battery, but again they are offering no warranty on battery capacity. If you do a lot of Supercharging, will it ruin your battery? Tesla says no. Will it degrade your long-term range? They say nothing and offer no capacity warranty.
wiztecy
Active Member
I agree with improving things, having discussions to make things better. To make a big PR attack is wrong.
Yes, Kevin did multiple Range mode charges that he knew and agreed upon that would cause a shorter battery life. He got close to the 245 mile rated range I'm sure for some time. But how long did he expect that to last with the continual messages saying his battery pack will have shorter life which he was agreeing to for his commute?
However if I buy a performance ICE car, I know it won't have the same performance as it ages, especially when I use it to its extremes. Floor an ICE car every day and run it to extremes, will it last like someone who takes care and understands the technology? No. Heat kills ice engines, excessive RPMs will kill an engine due to stress and heat. Remember "break in periods" of a new engine, if you floored the ICE engine/car when brand new it was known it would not last all too long. So a message is explicitly given to a user of an electric car, but they selectively ignored it and the consequences that were communicated by the manufacturer of using it often. ICE cars don't have that convenience and never seen a pop up come up from an ICE vehicle stating that what I am doing in terms of choice or a pro-long behavior will negatively affect the life of the product I purchased.
That's my point. Batteries are no different. Kevin knows the technology but fails to acknowledge the agreement he accepted by clicking "OK" for the Range mode charging. If he chose "Exit" I think he'd have a very strong point, but I don't agree at all with him since he clicked on "OK" and accepted the terms and conditions stated in the agreement very often.
Kevin should have been very pleased that Tesla replaced his first sheet under these charging habits that he acknowledged would be detrimental to his pack. To come back a second time and then use a PR campaign is over the top. Am I missing something from the message Tesla displays with the Range mode charges?
Did Kevin ever mention the agreement he agreed to with an "ok" to BBC or in the Radio show as well to his other social media posts?
I hope he knows the risks of his reputation if facts are not fully placed on the table.
Its one thing to voice your concerns/opinions which should be respected, but if you go balls out on the line with a large news outlet and major social media / forums to spread your message, then you understand the risk you are taking with your reputation, and if you fail to share the facts of your true habits, it eventually bubbles up and will come back to you.
Yes, Kevin did multiple Range mode charges that he knew and agreed upon that would cause a shorter battery life. He got close to the 245 mile rated range I'm sure for some time. But how long did he expect that to last with the continual messages saying his battery pack will have shorter life which he was agreeing to for his commute?
However if I buy a performance ICE car, I know it won't have the same performance as it ages, especially when I use it to its extremes. Floor an ICE car every day and run it to extremes, will it last like someone who takes care and understands the technology? No. Heat kills ice engines, excessive RPMs will kill an engine due to stress and heat. Remember "break in periods" of a new engine, if you floored the ICE engine/car when brand new it was known it would not last all too long. So a message is explicitly given to a user of an electric car, but they selectively ignored it and the consequences that were communicated by the manufacturer of using it often. ICE cars don't have that convenience and never seen a pop up come up from an ICE vehicle stating that what I am doing in terms of choice or a pro-long behavior will negatively affect the life of the product I purchased.
That's my point. Batteries are no different. Kevin knows the technology but fails to acknowledge the agreement he accepted by clicking "OK" for the Range mode charging. If he chose "Exit" I think he'd have a very strong point, but I don't agree at all with him since he clicked on "OK" and accepted the terms and conditions stated in the agreement very often.
Kevin should have been very pleased that Tesla replaced his first sheet under these charging habits that he acknowledged would be detrimental to his pack. To come back a second time and then use a PR campaign is over the top. Am I missing something from the message Tesla displays with the Range mode charges?
Did Kevin ever mention the agreement he agreed to with an "ok" to BBC or in the Radio show as well to his other social media posts?
I hope he knows the risks of his reputation if facts are not fully placed on the table.
Its one thing to voice your concerns/opinions which should be respected, but if you go balls out on the line with a large news outlet and major social media / forums to spread your message, then you understand the risk you are taking with your reputation, and if you fail to share the facts of your true habits, it eventually bubbles up and will come back to you.
Last edited:
I'd be more interested in the frequency of deep discharges. There can't be very many Roadster owners who have a commute requiring a deep discharge several times a week. Reducing depth of discharge is as known one of the most significant ways of maximizing battery life.
As Sharpe said previously, as the range decreased, he adjusted his driving habits to the reducing range. Considering that he made the trip hundreds of times, it would surprise me if he weren't able to consistently run the battery down to almost 0% SOC every time. His incentive to run the battery down as far as possible is that he wouldn't need to hypermile as much, which is an understandable goal, especially in a sports car.
Other Roadster owners, I imagine, would tend to range charge when they feel they need the extra buffer, without actually using the bottom 10-20% very often. As such, I can certainly see that Sharpe's use pattern could be unusual, and he might become an outlier in the statistics.
Anyway, this is a bit beside the point, as long as the Roadster battery ESA doesn't apply to battery degradation (or anything short of a complete failure), and even if it did, the battery still hasn't degraded below 80% or 70%, which are pretty much the only standard figures used anywhere for li-ion.
It's important for any car buyer to read the fine print. The Roadster isn't any better than it is. Sharpe could have walked away from the purchase at any time.
I agree that at some point in the future Tesla will really need to define this stuff. It's probably not critical until the Model 3, though.
Very interesting about top-charging. But it doesn't seem like even Tesla employees are careful with using top-charging:
A Tesla employee here rented my Roadster. I told him very clearly (and wrote in the contract) to never top-charge the car. The first thing he did was to top charge, and did it several times...
There was no reason for this top charge since he was not going to drive more than 100 km. The only benefit for him was that he could charge for free at work, and could skip charging at home when he did the top charge at work.
He didn't let the car sit for more than 2-3 hours after his top-charges (which is good), but not sure if this was for battery-health reasons, I stopped the rent as soon as I found out what was going on.
When confronting him with this he said that the battery would not take any damage from this. So according to him, the "will damage"-warning does not apply in this case....
I reported this story before:
Best way to charge for battery health? - Page 7
A Tesla employee here rented my Roadster. I told him very clearly (and wrote in the contract) to never top-charge the car. The first thing he did was to top charge, and did it several times...
There was no reason for this top charge since he was not going to drive more than 100 km. The only benefit for him was that he could charge for free at work, and could skip charging at home when he did the top charge at work.
He didn't let the car sit for more than 2-3 hours after his top-charges (which is good), but not sure if this was for battery-health reasons, I stopped the rent as soon as I found out what was going on.
When confronting him with this he said that the battery would not take any damage from this. So according to him, the "will damage"-warning does not apply in this case....
I reported this story before:
Best way to charge for battery health? - Page 7
wiztecy
Active Member
Hate to say this, but when you rent you have to assume damages to you property. Even if he was an engineer, its not his car! If it was his Roadster I'm sure his habits would be different.
Personally I would not rent out my Roadster, nor anything I own I truly care about. I don't even let others drive it! Its not covered under my insurance also. So I hope you read your policy in case your Roadster was a total loss from a person who didn't take full respect of it like it was his/her own.
Physical facts and research are definitive, opinions are not.
Zero motorcycles wants everyone to keep their Zero motorcycles plugged in at 100% charge. They have the majority of people believing it.... Why, to protect them from liability due to people who don't understand the technology which prevents any issue from bricking packs and keeps them balanced all the time. Tesla did this statement as well for the same reason. Well, I don't do that, why, well multiple data sources shows 50-60% SOC is where the pack wants to be for the lithium ion battery chemistry that does not stress the cells while sitting idle. I also understand the technology and how to balance them. So in essence, an uneducated person complaining has caused the masses to have their battery packs to unnecessarily degrade for no reason because they don't understand it. Hello people, do you light a flame next to your car when you fill it up with gasoline, same thing. Understand fully the chemistry and characteristics of the things you use. As technology evolves and matures I won't have to care about keeping my pack at 50-60% SOC due to capacity and technological advancements in that sector.
So again, before using, buying into technology please understand it first.
One thing to look in retrospect, Tesla had bricking of the Roadster ESS pack due to people ignoring the car uses energy over time to run its computer system, cooling pump, etc. These people never understood you can't leave a Roadster sit for months without being plugged in and were "surprised" the pack bricked from not being charged for months. Well Tesla listened and improved with the Model-S. Another sign of technological advancements and Tesla making improvements in the EV industry.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The difference is between "damage" (as used by many people here) and "reduce long-term battery life" (as written in the warning). Doing a full charge, it does not "damage" the battery, but it does wear it faster. Damage means it will cause the battery to fail, which is not what a full charge does. It will however reduce the life of it.
There's two factors at issue. One is keeping the car at high SOC for long periods of time. The other are deep cycles.
On 1st November 2011 Tesla sent me the following email;
"We have notice that a component within your battery has started to work outside the recommended parameters and as a consequence we would like to replace it at your earliest convenience."
IMO this qualified as a battery 'fault' and was identified by Tesla using their remote monitoring system.
My range degradation today is clearly abnormal for a Tesla Roadster. I believe this is the result of a long term 'fault' with the battery, not normal wear and tear.
What is very unclear is whether the battery repair by Tesla in November 2011 had any impact on the 'fault'. Maybe it made it worse? Maybe the attempted repair was unsuccessful? We just don't know today and that's why I've requested a full service history and logs from Tesla.
The point I think many people miss is that my battery was faulty in 2011... focusing on the word 'degradation' today simply masks this fact and allows Tesla to claim this is "expected degradation".
- - - Updated - - -
As stated above, the range mode charging hypothesis doesn't stand up because the degradation was already significant in 2011. Indeed, I have some circumstantial evidence that my range was depressed before Tesla repaired the battery in November 2011 (maybe that's why they repaired the battery?). I hope Tesla will release the early logs so that we have a full history of the car from new.
"We have notice that a component within your battery has started to work outside the recommended parameters and as a consequence we would like to replace it at your earliest convenience."
IMO this qualified as a battery 'fault' and was identified by Tesla using their remote monitoring system.
My range degradation today is clearly abnormal for a Tesla Roadster. I believe this is the result of a long term 'fault' with the battery, not normal wear and tear.
What is very unclear is whether the battery repair by Tesla in November 2011 had any impact on the 'fault'. Maybe it made it worse? Maybe the attempted repair was unsuccessful? We just don't know today and that's why I've requested a full service history and logs from Tesla.
The point I think many people miss is that my battery was faulty in 2011... focusing on the word 'degradation' today simply masks this fact and allows Tesla to claim this is "expected degradation".
- - - Updated - - -
Let's stick with the facts shall we? My trip is made twice a month, so in total I could have required 96 range mode charge cycles. However, in reality I made the trip less times and at one time the end location had 32A charging negating the need for a range mode charge.
As stated above, the range mode charging hypothesis doesn't stand up because the degradation was already significant in 2011. Indeed, I have some circumstantial evidence that my range was depressed before Tesla repaired the battery in November 2011 (maybe that's why they repaired the battery?). I hope Tesla will release the early logs so that we have a full history of the car from new.
Last edited:
Sorry. I had convinced myself that the figure was 196. Either way it's a significant figure. You made the trip dozens of times and were probably well accustomed to returning with an almost empty battery. I'm sure you can tell us what your SOC would usually be after returning from one of your trips.
According to the logs in the original post, you had around 7% capacity loss in December 2011. This was after 1.5 years of ownership, and probably around 20k miles. The expected average capacity loss according to the battery study would be around 3.2%. Is that 3.8% additional capacity loss "significant"? I'm inclined to say no.
Since then you've had an additional 12% capacity loss, while the expected capacity loss would be 5.6%.
Basically, according to the data provided, in the period from purchase until December 2011, your battery has degraded at 2.19 times the expected rate, and since then, your battery has degraded at 2.14 times the expected rate. The rate of gradual degradation is thus fairly consistent. Why does your battery degrade at a faster than average rate? My money is on the deep discharges.
If you provide data showing that before the defect and repair in 2011, your battery was in line with the average losses, with various bricks as the weakest link, and then suddenly the trend changed at the point of repair, I may be inclined to change my view. But not until then.
I do not have logs before the repair in 2011. I do have some evidence that suggests the range was already lower than 'normal' prior to the repair and we are reviewing that together with evidence from other cars. I hope Tesla will release the early logs and service history as requested.
Remember that during the whole period from new until 20th August 2014 (when we turned it off for legal reasons) Tesla had remote access to my car. They used this access to identify the battery fault in November 2011. At no time did Tesla suggest that my ownership behaviour (charging, driving, storage, temperature, etc) was having any detrimental impact on my battery.
- - - Updated - - -
Please provide evidence from Tesla that this is "significant". As I have said many times, Tesla did not raise any concerns about my ownership behaviour and while I respect your opinion, it's just that, opinion.
It's to be expected that your car would have less than "normal" range prior to the repair. If the gradual degradation has been consistent throughout the entire ownership of the car, like it has been within the time periods where there is data, you would have had around 3.5% capacity loss after 10k miles and about 5% capacity loss after 15k miles. If this were the case, this wouldn't in any way help your argument. It would point to the root cause being your usage of the battery, or variance in the li-ion cell production. The former would be entirely your fault, and the latter would be unfortunate, but not covered under warranty.
Commercial li-ion LiCoO2 cells of the type found in the Roadster are expected to last around 500 complete cycles before they are at 70%. So, these 96 cycles with close to 100% DoD should be expected to reduce the capacity by about 6%. Is that significant? I would say yes. On top of this comes the remaining 38k miles which is expected to reduce the capacity by another 6%. I don't know why you are at 19% capacity loss instead of 12%. It may be that the number of full cycles has been underestimated. It may be that you received a batch of li-ion cells with sub-par quality. It may be that there are other factors in the picture that have affected battery degradation, like deep cycles combined with the right temperature or something.
That Tesla hasn't raised any concerns about your ownership is understandable. You are fully within your rights to use the Roadster in a manner which degrades the battery faster than average. And your Roadster is in no way unusable; the battery might last until 100k miles before it is down to 70%, defined as end-of-life by most battery experts. 100k miles is an acceptable lifespan for an experimental vehicle where the warranty covered 36k miles.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Every single one of those ~90 occasions you did a range charge charge they warned you and required you to acknowledge the warning, which you then did acknowledge by clicking "OK". I'm not sure what you expected Tesla to do after warning you ~90 times? I don't think this "I did it but Tesla didn't stop me..." argument helps your case in the court of public opinion or in a court of litigation.
