Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

[Canuck]

4. The title could be less sensational and more referable. There are many news blogs that publish Tesla-related news but with a title like this, it is less likely that somebody would write a news article with a link to this thread.

Isn't that a positive?

 

[wk057]

Well they don't directly tell you or refer to how much kWh you actually gain in usable capacity (similar to my Surface example from 32GB to 64GB, where if you did the math yourself, you would expect 32 GB more capacity, but actually you only get 29 GB more).

They do however tell you how much approximate range you gain.

In this case, the bolded part is used as shorthand for the model designation (60 or 70 kWh Model S = Model S 60, Model S 70, Model S 60D, or Model S 70D), while the latter is referring to the capacity you end up with (75kWh = final actual total capacity of pack, which appears to be the correct actual capacity, at least for this specific pack):
"Increase the battery capacity of your 60 or 70 kWh Model S with an over-the-air upgrade to 75 kWh".
They don't actually refer to how much usable (or total) capacity the 60/70 Model S has.

If they said:
"Increase the usable battery capacity of your Model S from 60 or 70 kWh to 75 kWh with an over-the-air upgrade".
Then that would more directly imply you are gaining 10 or 5 kWh of capacity (usable capacity specifically if usable is included). Of course, saying that would make the range numbers inconsistent.

So, first people say that the badge values don't mean kWh... then the order page where this is shown in kWh doesn't matter to people defending this and is ignored. Then someone points out directly that Tesla refers to the 60 and 70 numbers as kWh directly as a reference to upgrading to 75 kWh... and that's still not enough and still you make excuses for them. I find that quite amusing, honestly.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[tomas]

Tried to go through and quickly "Dislike" every off-topic post here...

Maybe mods could move the political "discussions" elsewhere?

Hmmm. You did not! You "loved" a blatant and inflamatory political post by @hockeythug and then "disliked" my response calling it out as unwarranted and political. You will "dislike" this post of course, but any member can go back and see the facts.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

So, first people say that the badge values don't mean kWh... then the order page where this is shown in kWh doesn't matter to people defending this and is ignored. Then someone points out directly that Tesla refers to the 60 and 70 numbers as kWh directly as a reference to upgrading to 75 kWh... and that's still not enough and still you make excuses for them. I find that quite amusing, honestly.

Actually I do agree with this. There would have been no harm in the original Model S 85 being a Model S 80. The sequence of 40, 60, and then 80 kWh would have worked just fine. I don't think Tesla ever needed to fool around with making the numbers represent something they didn't exactly represent, although it doesn't particularly bother me either.

You can lead a horse to water...

You can lead an iPhone 7 to water, but does the IP67 rating actually mean IP67 to Apple? This question has been bothering me for 3 months.

 

[ohmman]

Tried to go through and quickly "Dislike" every off-topic post here...

Maybe mods could move the political "discussions" elsewhere?

Wait, I just checked the dislikes.. so many are not political. Constructive criticism - check. Unconstructive criticism - check. Vague disagreement - check. Politics that don't agree with yours - check.

Oh, now I get it. This hat must be too tight. That took a while.

edit to say: Thank you, @wk057 for disliking this. Talk about a glorious conclusion to the post.

 

[Canuck]

I don't think Tesla ever needed to fool around with making the numbers represent something they didn't exactly represent, although it doesn't particularly bother me either.

How can it not bother you when the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, this issue?

 

[wk057]

How can it not bother you when the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, this issue?

So because some people don't understand the meaning of the spec, Tesla is allowed to fudge it?

I've got some blinker fluid and canooter valves to sell those folks.

 

[Canuck]

So because some people don't understand the meaning of the spec, Tesla is allowed to fudge it? I've got some blinker fluid and canooter valves to sell those folks.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point. He said it "doesn't particularly bother" him. I responded, sarcastically, that it's surprising that something the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, doesn't bother him. You pipe up to say that because people don't understand it, Tesla can fudge it. Now, if you understood my sarcastic retort, your response should be that he should be bothered by it -- not that it should be allowed since I never said that -- but that he should be bothered just like he should be bothered by people selling things like blinker fluid and canooter valves -- because we all know that's exactly what Tesla is doing...

But it is nice having you back. My "dislike" numbers are taking a real hit though. I think you, and others agreeing with you, have now given me almost more in this thread alone than I accumulated in total since the new forum started allowing them to be handed out -- but I'll take them if that's the price of having you back. It's made this place a lot more interesting.

Welcome back.

 

[PRJIM]

Reading comprehension is not your strong point. He said it "doesn't particularly bother" him. I responded, sarcastically, that it's surprising that something the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, doesn't bother him. You pipe up to say that because people don't understand it, Tesla can fudge it. Now, if you understood my sarcastic retort, your response should be that he should be bothered by it -- not that it should be allowed since I never said that -- but that he should be bothered just like he should be bothered by people selling things like blinker fluid and canooter valves -- because we all know that's exactly what Tesla is doing...

But it is nice having you back. My "dislike" numbers are taking a real hit though. I think you, and others agreeing with you, have now given me almost more in this thread alone than I accumulated in total since the new forum started allowing them to be handed out -- but I'll take them if that's the price of having you back. It's made this place a lot more interesting.

Welcome back.

Everytime you get caught in a sticky predicament you claim that it is humor or sarcasm. You have a very strange sense of humor.

The facts are that the numbers stated by Tesla are not the true numbers. They should not be referring to those numbers as kWh but merely model numbers (i.e. mercedes SL550 etc) with no correlation to the kWh as they do not relate. If you are buying a product that has a finite amount of something it better have it or that is a lie.

Let me guess this is another sarcasm drill.

 

[Canuck]

Everytime you get caught in a sticky predicament you claim that it is humor or sarcasm.

What are you talking about? You really think I need to "claim" this is sarcasm:

How can it not bother you when the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, this issue?

This comment reeks of sarcasm but for people like you I even added a wink at the end -- and you still didn't get it. Talk about having no sense of humour. But, right, I claimed it was sarcasm after the fact. That makes sense given the wink and all.

As to your "everytime" - please point to one other post because I can go through every one of my posts in this thread and it's very clear when it's sarcasm or humour and when it's not. No one has caught me in any "predicaments". If anything, it's the opposite -- I proved that WK057 said I "won" in relation to a bet we had. Now, he said after I pointed that out, that he cancelled his Model 3 reservations, but that was after I caught him! (Not to mention that he bought other items from Tesla after he said he never would again.)

But you are right, I do have a very strange sense of humour. Fortunately, others here do too -- go back and see the number of "funny" ratings I have got in just my posts in this thread alone. It's a lot more than the "1" you have for all of your 291 posts combined. Now there's a sense of humour! Please teach me how to be funny!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

How can it not bother you when the vast majority of Tesla owners do not understand, let alone even care about, this issue?

I would guess a part of the issues is that it actually comes as news to a lot of people that the 85s are actually 81 kWh and 90s are actually 86 kWh. I think I've followed Tesla fairly closely and I did not know the P85 outside is actually 81 kWh. (Assuming wk057 data is correct.)

I remember a lot of folks saying Tesla used to exceed their specs prior to the P85D debacle. We did not know they seem to have not been meeting the kWh spec even back then, so a praise was sung that was not actually accurate. (Assuming wk057 data is correct.)

It will probably take a while to sink in. Still, what people care about or do not is subjective and varies.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It really does play into the same logic, although not as badly as on the 85/90 kWh level, that lowest-end is better than advertised, and higher-end is worse than advertised.

This is a marketing tactic we have seen from Tesla before. ... Tesla used 1-foot roll out when specifying the original P85D 0-60 time of 3.2 seconds. They had never used 1-foot roll out when specifying 0-60 times previousy, and didn't state anywhere that they had made this change. So the difference between the non P85Ds and the P85Ds appeared greater than it was, by about .3 seconds.

That is a fair point.

A very unfortunate, but a fair point.

It certainly does seem like Tesla has not been trusting their high-end to seem high-end enough (a need for an artificial demand lever?) compared to their low-end. The discussion that Tesla may have been downlisting non-P high-end model range so that the P model does not look so bad would play into the same idea as well.

• 81 kWh battery represented as 85 kWh (while 61-62 kWh battery represented as 60 kWh)
• 86 kWh battery represented as 90 kWh (while 75 kWh battery represented as 75 kWh)
  
• P85D (and still today P100D) acceleration shown deducting 1-foot roll out (lower-end: no deduction)
• 90D range shown as notably less than it should be, compared mathematically to the P90D range (Model X)

All these step, even back in the S85/P85 days if the 81 kWh total battery info is right, seem to point to one thing: Tesla seems to have been inflating the value of their higher-end offering by making them look better than they are, while making their low-end look worse than they are?

If so, what a terribly unnecessary - and unnecessarily terrible - thing to do.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The facts are that the numbers stated by Tesla are not the true numbers. They should not be referring to those numbers as kWh but merely model numbers (i.e. mercedes SL550 etc) with no correlation to the kWh as they do not relate.

I agree that - assuming wk057 data is right - if Tesla called the 85 an 85 and listed in specs the battery as 81 kWh, I would have no problem with that and it would be in line with industry practice. We would simply have decoupled the model number from the actual battery size even in the conversations on this forum, I'm sure.

The Mercedes example is a good one and there are many more. But they do tell you the actual spec in the specifications, i.e. we know the current S550/S500 is 4.7L. What we did not know is that the 85 Tesla is allegedly an 81 kWh and a 90 Tesla is allegedly an 86 kWh. As an anecdotal thought, I knew about the Merc and I don't even have one nor have any interest in one, but I did not know this about my Model S P85 until wk057 posted about it.

 

[dandurston]

The capacity is left unused and unusable for any practical purpose because, based on my own testing, if it were used the pack would degrade at an exponentially faster rate than it does without using it. Plain and simple.

Tesla should advertise usable capacity.

I much prefer that manufacturers advertise total capacity, because if manufacturers advertised useable capacity, then there would be the temptation to cut the buffer and sacrifice longevity for a short term range boost that aids marketing.

If a competitor has a 20kWh pack with a 3 kWh buffer and they advertise it as a 17 kWh, then the next company also with a 20 kWh pack might be tempted to slash that buffer to 1 kWh so they can advertise a 19 kWh and woo buyers. Nissan basically did this with the Leaf vs Chevy Volt. The Volt was something like 14kWh with 9 usable (60%), while the leaf was 24 kWh with 22 useable (91%). By slashing the relative size of the buffer from 40% to 9%, Nissan was able to make the range difference way larger than it would have been from just the pack difference alone - and we all see how that turned out the Leaf's sky high degradation (although the Volt probably was too conservative).

In other words, if companies advertise total capacity, then manufacturers can do whatever they think is best with that capacity. They'll choose an optimal amount of buffer. If companies advertise useable capacity, then there's the marketing temptation to make the buffer as small as possible. With that said, customers focus more on rated range anyways, so the temptation to slash the buffer is still there.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I much prefer that manufacturers advertise total capacity, because if manufacturers advertised useable capacity, then there would be the temptation to cut the buffer and sacrifice longevity for a short term range boost that aids marketing.

That is a fair point, though of course to note, if wk057 is right Tesla has not been advertising total capacity for 85 (total 81 kWh is less) or 90 (total 86 kWh is less) or any of the 60 kWh models (total/usable exceeds advertised total). Only for 75 kWh have they advertised the total capacity. (The 100 being unknown.)

 

[FlatSix911]

Thank you wk057 for the interesting data. The line-up would look much more consistent like this:

- 60 kWh (orig) was 61 kWh total, 59 kWh usable
- 80's (renamed 85) were 81 total, 78 usable
- 85's (renamed 90) are 86 total, 82 usable
- 70 (orig) was 71 total, 69 usable
- 75's are 75 total, 73 usable
- 60 (new 60) are 62 usable
- 65 (new)(renamed 70) are 66 usable

I would agree with your rebranding recommendation if the new numbers always rounded down.
The conservative approach would be more honest with consumers and build trust in the Tesla brand.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

FlatSix911: The slight problem with your added suggestion is that the usable kWh no longer lines up, but your post does point out the problem when the kWh number advertised is based on nothing really. This is especially evident on the software-limited models. It would be better if Tesla was more logical/more upfront about it, it seems - assuming wk057 is correct.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Dear Tesla Motors,

Over the past couple of years I've called Tesla out several times for misleading or flat out falsely advertised specs. The 691 "HP" issue, the 285 miles of range on a P85D, the 81 kWh 85's, etc. Well, adding another one to the pile:

Upgrading a software limited "60" to a to "75" actually buys you 10 kWh, not 15 kWh.

See this photo of a section from Tesla's own dev/diagnostics screen of a brand new 60D with < 30 miles:

So, you pay Tesla a huge amount of money for your 15 kWh upgrade and you end up really getting a 10 kWh upgrade because the "60" already included more capacity than it should have, presumably to keep a reasonable range value > 200 miles.

Honestly, basically no one should buy a 75. Charging a "60" to 100% is basically like charging a 75 to 86%... that's only 4% off of the 90% most people will charge to anyway. Seriously, charge your software limited 60's to 100% all the time and you're not hurting anything. For now we'll ignore the fact that a 75 only gives you 72.6 kWh (only 5 kWh less than an "85"), but, that's another story.

Anyway, Tesla, just give us the real damn numbers. Stop making up horsepower numbers. Stop making up capacity numbers. Stop making up range numbers. Just give us REAL specs.

I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that is sure to consume this thread, but if there are tech related inquiries relevant to the topic I will try to reply.
EDIT: Seems I've failed in the above and will be ignoring this thread further. Please direct any relevant inquiries to me directly via PM, my twitter, or my site, since it's obvious no useful discussion can happen here on this topic.

-wk

Agree could be clearer but don't forget gas mileage figures vary even further from reality.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Agree could be clearer but don't forget gas mileage figures vary even further from reality.

Gas mileage would be more comparable to discussing range, though, which as an average metric certainly is subject to interpretation.

Battery capacity is more comparable to discussing fuel tank capacity or perhaps also engine displacement. While ICE manufacturers are known to use misleading model names, they do report the actual engine displacement in the specs - and of course report fuel tank size accurately. If Tesla is calling an 81 kWh battery as 85 kWh battery, that would certainly be fudging a hard spec, not an average metric.

Of course we do not know if wk057 data is correct.

 

[malcolm]

@wk057 I'm sorry that you have spent a great deal of time in technical research (thank you for this, btw), posted it here only to be met with the usual TMC response spectrum of "that's appalling", through "meh", to "what time's lunch?"

I find that quite amusing, honestly.

Which is the best attitude to adopt. TMC is a broad church