Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

[chickensevil]

Gah, I actually took Tesla's side on the 691 HP issue, but I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. This might be the first time that I feel like I have to admit to myself and others that Tesla does ****** things... If it doesn't matter than why market it that way? Clearly it matters on some level. At least the range is right, but I almost feel torn that that can't be trusted either because it has to be right due to it being an EPA number pulled from a standard test from a 3rd party source.

I think what we really need to help the situation is some actual competition. It is much harder to cheat out customers when you are actually competing against someone else that your customers will flock to if you betray them.

Right now, if I decide I hate Tesla as a company (and I am not there by any means) I have no competition to take my money to... Let's be honest, once you go full electric you are never going back... And I would happily take a cheaper car if it legitimately was a compelling car and not some compliance thing.

I would like a response from Tesla on this. As that's rather crappy.

Also I have a 90D, and I made the suggestion in another thread, WK, I would be happy to make the trip to come see you so you can look through my 90 all you want and have your answer one way or another.

Note that the car on a full charge claims 282 (although I'm sure that's similar to how a full 85 at new said like 268 or some such). While I have gone empty to full it was over mountains so I can't give you a real range versus advertised on this one. Maybe I can get that answer for you on the Drive to NC!

 

[FlasherZ]

As a possible alternate explanation, is it possible that Tesla had intended to use the higher capacity cells discussed elsewhere in the 85s, but then for whatever reason did not, and just made a bad decision at that point to stick with the 85 model names, instead of switching to the more accurate 80 for the model names? I know, that is probably grasping at straws, attempting not to think the worst of Tesla. This would be bad enough on its face, but not quite as bad as if the plan from the start was to deceive for the sake of deception.

That is also where I was going with my comment on a scrapped 17th module, after all the marketing literature had been done.

 

[SM18]

I'd like to think the 85 badging is similar to the common practice among German cars to use higher engine displacement badging to indicate better performance. There are many such vehicles that have turbochargers/superchargers or just better tuned versions of the same engine in the trim immediately below. They add to the number to represent that difference in power despite having the same displacement. Mercedes-AMG engines are a good example, the newer ones tend to be 5-8 liters lower in displacement than their "63" or "65" badging imply, however they're also more efficient than older iterations and have twin-turbo. Don't forget that the Model S 85 is also quicker than the 60, I think the number may have been boosted to try and convey a bit of that extra value. In any case, I think most just care about the range figures. Details like kwh can be saved for Power Wall customers.

 

[chickensevil]

I don't fault him for buying anything additional from Tesla. As I said, its kinda hard to boycott a company when they are the only company that you can legitimately get what you even halfway want in a product.

It's like the whole Net Neutrality thing where all these corporations signed on against it and the internet was all like "I'm going to boycott these companies" problem is, those companies included such a wide range that it was impossible to boycott them and still *DO* anything... I mean if you want to sit naked in your house staring at the wall... Maybe then you would be OK... But who wants to do that.

Point is, Tesla is the only company realistically to get an EV that is remotely compelling... At least to me. I'm sure some people find the Leaf or i3 compelling, or they wouldn't have purchased it. But I think sales pretty much speaks for itself here that the general market is saying those are not very compelling.

So what are you to do? Go back to ICE? Unthinkable.

 

[llavalle]

Just for the sake of the argument I think this issue should be split into 2 :

1-Total capacity vs usable capacity
2-Total capacity vs advertised capacity

Knowing Tesla, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to spin something for #1 and to be fair to them, no regulations exists right now for that specific case and I think something should be done... So I guess I'm ok with #1 because I expected it.

Now, I come from the airplane world and having a usable capacity spec would be nice.

Correct me if I'm wrong Wk but you feel you got mislead by #2 correct?

I'm on the fence myself about that one. On one side, I have a very visible 85badge at the back of my car. On the other side, I wasn't sold a car using : "85kWh, 180Wh/km of range" calculation... I was sold a 435km car so I don't feel cheated on range (85D here... I actually got the promised range over the RWD version)

But hey, I think we must all agree that Tesla has been deceptive in their marketing material and like WK, I'll never, ever, take then to their word now.

Do I love my car? Absolutely. Would I buy one knowing what I know now : sure.. But I want a long range EV so it's not like I have other options right...

 

[JohnSnowNW]

So what are you to do? Go back to ICE?

Sure, then he could spend the time measuring fuel tank capacity to see if it matches spec. Because we all make purchasing decisions based on non-contextual specifications.

I can understand the outrage if Tesla supplied the EPA with and 85kWh pack, but shipped consumers an 81kWh...otherwise I don't think people made purchasing decisions based on the size of the battery pack...but instead (as any rational person would) based on what a regulatory party validated the pack to allow.

Or, maybe they just like the #85...and not having that numbers irks them greatly...I don't know.

 

[wk057]

Just for the sake of the argument I think this issue should be split into 2 :

1-Total capacity vs usable capacity
2-Total capacity vs advertised capacity

Knowing Tesla, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to spin something for #1 and to be fair to them, no regulations exists right now for that specific case and I think something should be done... So I guess I'm ok with #1 because I expected it.

Now, I come from the airplane world and having a usable capacity spec would be nice.

Correct me if I'm wrong Wk but you feel you got mislead by #2 correct?

I'm on the fence myself about that one. On one side, I have a very visible 85badge at the back of my car. On the other side, I wasn't sold a car using : "85kWh, 180Wh/km of range" calculation... I was sold a 435km car so I don't feel cheated on range (85D here... I actually got the promised range over the RWD version)

But hey, I think we must all agree that Tesla has been deceptive in their marketing material and like WK, I'll never, ever, take then to their word now.

Do I love my car? Absolutely. Would I buy one knowing what I know now : sure.. But I want a long range EV so it's not like I have other options right...

As an example, the Chevy Volt was advertised as having a 16kWh battery with 10kWh usable. In practice between about 9.8 and 10.5 kWh were usable on mine. Works for me. Was pretty clearly spelled out.

For the 85, if it were just a model number, then OK, whatever. They can make up whatever they want for the model number. But it's advertised as the model having an 85 kWh battery pack, which simply isn't the case.

I'm not saying it's a huge deal, I'm just pointing it out because it's yet another thing to add to the list of where Tesla has not been completely honest with customers. It's a recurring theme it seems, and I think people have a right to know these things regardless of whether or not it's a spec that does or doesn't mean something to some people. Some people don't care about horsepower specs, some do. Some people don't care about part specs like the battery, some do.

For example, if it were actually an 85 kWh pack it would actually have some percentage less degradation over time vs reality where it's an 81 kWh pack. Discharge rates are slightly higher, cycles are smaller, etc. It's not a meaningless spec. People like Canuck are going to go out of their way to mock me and attack me for bringing this up, but the point is the spec is simply wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Gah, I actually took Tesla's side on the 691 HP issue, but I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. This might be the first time that I feel like I have to admit to myself and others that Tesla does ****** things... If it doesn't matter than why market it that way? Clearly it matters on some level. At least the range is right, but I almost feel torn that that can't be trusted either because it has to be right due to it being an EPA number pulled from a standard test from a 3rd party source.

I think what we really need to help the situation is some actual competition. It is much harder to cheat out customers when you are actually competing against someone else that your customers will flock to if you betray them.

Right now, if I decide I hate Tesla as a company (and I am not there by any means) I have no competition to take my money to... Let's be honest, once you go full electric you are never going back... And I would happily take a cheaper car if it legitimately was a compelling car and not some compliance thing.

I would like a response from Tesla on this. As that's rather crappy.

Also I have a 90D, and I made the suggestion in another thread, WK, I would be happy to make the trip to come see you so you can look through my 90 all you want and have your answer one way or another.

Note that the car on a full charge claims 282 (although I'm sure that's similar to how a full 85 at new said like 268 or some such). While I have gone empty to full it was over mountains so I can't give you a real range versus advertised on this one. Maybe I can get that answer for you on the Drive to NC!

Well, don't make a special trip... but whenever you're nearby I'd gladly meet up with you to do some tinkering!

But, just based on the range numbers, I highly doubt the 90 pack is really a 90 kWh pack. My money is on ~85kWh, minus a 4 kWh anti-brick buffer, for ~81 kWh usable. (Edit: Reasoning: 85D's are rated at 270 miles, your 90D is showing 282 miles. 282/270 = 1.04444x capacity. 1.04444 * 77 kWh, usable capacity of the "85"'s, = ~80.42 kWh ... + ~4.25 kWh anti brick buffer (guestimate) = ~85 kWh. So, I'm thinking the 90's are actually the true 85 kWh packs)

 

[Benjamin Brooks]

Just for the sake of the argument I think this issue should be split into 2 :

1-Total capacity vs usable capacity
2-Total capacity vs advertised capacity

Knowing Tesla, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to spin something for #1 and to be fair to them, no regulations exists right now for that specific case and I think something should be done... So I guess I'm ok with #1 because I expected it.

Now, I come from the airplane world and having a usable capacity spec would be nice.

Correct me if I'm wrong Wk but you feel you got mislead by #2 correct?

I'm on the fence myself about that one. On one side, I have a very visible 85badge at the back of my car. On the other side, I wasn't sold a car using : "85kWh, 180Wh/km of range" calculation... I was sold a 435km car so I don't feel cheated on range (85D here... I actually got the promised range over the RWD version)

But hey, I think we must all agree that Tesla has been deceptive in their marketing material and like WK, I'll never, ever, take then to their word now.

Do I love my car? Absolutely. Would I buy one knowing what I know now : sure.. But I want a long range EV so it's not like I have other options right...

Yeah, Tesla could say it was truly a 85kWh battery if they charged up to 4.35V per cell and shot the usable cycle life of the pack to hell... specmanship is something marketing departments like to do when they hear from the engineering team numbers they don't really understand, even though no one in the real world will see such parameters...

 

[wk057]

Yeah, Tesla could say it was truly a 85kWh battery if they charged up to 4.35V per cell and shot the usable cycle life of the pack to hell... specmanship is something marketing departments like to do when they hear from the engineering team numbers they don't really understand, even though no one in the real world will see such parameters...

I actually answered the 4.35V thing somewhere else:

Tesla might be using 4.35V cells (instead of standard 4.2V). That is the cell charging voltage the Advanced Automotive Batteries company used to achieve 85kWh from the pack they disassembled (back then I had qualms if it was empirically determined or calculated from assumptions)

Definitely not. Charging these cells to 4.35V causes them to pretty much explode randomly. I've tried it. Not sure who was able to do this successfully, but it doesn't help. When they don't explode, 4.2->4.35V actually seems to cause instant degradation, and the total capacity from 4.35V to 0V ends up being barely more than 4.2V to 0V.

Also, the car charges them to 4.2V at 100% and reports both SoC and USoC as 100% at this point.

Another relevant comment from 5 years ago. The NCR16850A rapidly loses ~3.2% of its capacity within 5 cycles, then the degradation slows down before it hits 300 cycles when there is another slow down in degradation.

I dug that comment out because the 5 cycles you mentioned just gave me some deja vu.

These cells are definitely not NCR18650A, but they're also not NCR18650B either. So, not sure either is relevant. Even 3.2% capacity loss after 5 cycles still leaves a 2% margin with my testing of 5 cycled cells, which is still significant.

 

[FlatSix911]

Interesting information ... do you have any data on the 70 and 90 kWh battery packs?

 

[wk057]

Interesting information ... do you have any data on the 70 and 90 kWh battery packs?

Please read this entire post before commenting. It's likely I've answered your question or countered an argument you'll make already.

*snip*

I'll point out that I have no first hand or otherwise verifiable data on the 70 or 90 packs thus far.

^^^

 

[JohnSnowNW]

For example, if it were actually an 85 kWh pack it would actually have some percentage less degradation over time vs reality where it's an 81 kWh pack. Discharge rates are slightly higher, cycles are smaller, etc. It's not a meaningless spec. People like Canuck are going to go out of their way to mock me and attack me for bringing this up, but the point is the spec is simply wrong.

I would say this needs to be quantified. I mean, if we're going to nitpick these specs, at least give a measure of what we're talking about here as "not meaningless" is, well...you know.

Further, I would say your main issue is that you started this thread with a title that is needlessly inflammatory. I think most of us are aware of the history behind the "asterisk." Then you concluded your initial post with:

"Let's get it on!"

I definitely find the information you're posting interesting, and worth discussing. I just don't feel that a discussion is really what was expected, and is where my initial comment was aimed.

 

[wk057]

I would say this needs to be quantified. I mean, if we're going to nitpick these specs, at least give a measure of what we're talking about here as "not meaningless" is, well...you know.

Further, I would say your main issue is that you started this thread with a title that is needlessly inflammatory. I think most of us are aware of the history behind the "asterisk." Then you concluded your initial post with:

I definitely find the information you're posting interesting, and worth discussing. I just don't feel that a discussion is really what was expected.

I did give several examples of why it isn't a meaningless spec, and then right afterwards pointed out that it wasn't a meaningless spec....?

Obviously the whole "needs an asterisk" thing is homage to the original P85D horsepower discrepancy thread (which apparently a mod renamed and broke all of my bookmarks...): [updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

The final line is me anticipating the war that is already happening here between the people who are going to let Tesla slide and/or defend Tesla to the death, and the people who actually give a damn about real specs. So no, in reality, meaningful discussion is probably 10-15% of what I expected.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I did give several examples of why it isn't a meaningless spec, and then right afterwards pointed out that it wasn't a meaningless spec....?

Obviously the whole "needs an asterisk" thing is homage to the original P85D horsepower discrepancy thread (which apparently a mod renamed and broke all of my bookmarks...): [updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

The final line is me anticipating the war that is already happening here between the people who are going to let Tesla slide and/or defend Tesla to the death, and the people who actually give a damn about real specs. So no, in reality, meaningful discussion is probably 10-15% of what I expected.

No, this is what your wrote:

For example, if it were actually an 85 kWh pack it would actually have some percentage less degradation over time vs reality where it's an 81 kWh pack. Discharge rates are slightly higher, cycles are smaller, etc. It's not a meaningless spec.

You're arguing there will be "some percentage less degradation"...well great...but what does that mean? How is the percentage not meaningless? Are we talking 1% less over 100,000 miles, or what?

 

[wk057]

I did give several examples of why it isn't a meaningless spec

No, this is what your wrote:

(then you quote my examples...)

*scratches head*

You're arguing there will be "some percentage less degradation"...well great...but what does that mean? How is the percentage not meaningless? Are we talking 1% less over 100,000 miles, or what?

We can do some cycle count extrapolation, though, in the absence of a real 85 kWh pack to test with. 100,000 miles in an S85 that gets 265 miles to a charge, at best assuming no degradation and perfect 1:1 rated to real miles (lol!), is going to need at least 377 charge/discharge cycles, not including regen (which does count towards a total cycle life, but we'll ignore that). Now 100,000 miles in the same car with 4 kWh more capacity would be 358 cycles. That's at least 19 cycles less than our 81 kWh packs, or the same as at least 5000 miles more wear on the cells over 100,000 miles vs if it were really an 85 kWh pack. That help? Also keep in mind that the examples assume no degradation at all and full 1:1 rated miles to real miles, so the real cycle counts and cycle count delta between the two will be even higher.

 

[Benjamin Brooks]

Wk is probably right that the useable kWh in a 90's battery is likely only 81 or 82 kWh. Definitely interested to see the BMU reading dump from the car's CAN bus on that. I agree Tesla should be upfront about useable kWh specs, especially when you understand as a consumer the market premiums for $ per kWh.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

(then you quote my examples...)

*scratches head*



We can do some cycle count extrapolation, though, in the absence of a real 85 kWh pack to test with. 100,000 miles in an S85 that gets 265 miles to a charge, at best assuming no degradation and perfect 1:1 rated to real miles (lol!), is going to need at least 377 charge/discharge cycles, not including regen (which does count towards a total cycle life, but we'll ignore that). Now 100,000 miles in the same car with 4 kWh more capacity would be 358 cycles. That's 19 cycles less than our 81 kWh packs, or the same as at least 5000 miles more wear on the cells over 100,000 miles vs if it were really an 85 kWh pack. That help? Also keep in mind that the examples assume no degradation at all, so the real cycle counts and cycle count delta between the two will be higher.

Sure, that's called an attempt to quantify. I'm not sure what the head scratching was about...because whether something is meaningful or not requires it...

Now, that still doesn't tell me the real world implications of the extra cycles...that is...it doesn't translate to a degradation percentage. So, over 500,000 miles the 81kWh battery would have 25,000 more miles of wear...but would that even matter to the owner? I mean, what's the real world effect?

 

[wk057]

Sure, that's called an attempt to quantify. I'm not sure what the head scratching was about...because whether something is meaningful or not requires it...

The head scratching was my confusion at the chain of posts. I post examples, you asked for clarification, I said I had posted examples, you said I didn't, then you quoted my examples... was just confusing. I thought there might be a language barrier at work or something.

In any case, an 81 kWh pack (what everyone with a Model S "85" actually has) will be put under more stress over its lifetime than a true 85 kWh pack would be. I thought that much was obvious.

 

[aus]

My Tesla Model S 85 was advertised as 85kWh. IF it's really 81kWh, that's a BIG deal.
I know Ford and Mazda got in BIG trouble for overstating the horsepower on a couple cars and had to buy the cars back after owner realized the car was not as fast as they should have been.
This is a BIG deal. It just takes a small group of people to start making noise about this and some law firm will pick it up. I'd be very happy with a new battery pack that's really AT LEAST 85kWh, which is what I paid for.

.

 

[wk057]

Now, that still doesn't tell me the real world implications of the extra cycles...that is...it doesn't translate to a degradation percentage. So, over 500,000 miles the 81kWh battery would have 25,000 more miles of wear...but would that even matter to the owner? I mean, what's the real world effect?

You edited your post after I replied...

If I had exact numbers, I would share them. I have some data from my ongoing cell tests, but I'm not going to extrapolate from it until I get more data.

In any case, it is certain that an 81 kWh pack will have more wear over the same mileage than a real 85 kWh pack would. Exactly how much more degradation, I don't know yet. I know with 100% certainty that it's > 0%, though. Will it matter to the owner? I would think so. More degradation = less usable range. That's the real world effect.