Needsdecaf

I agree 100%. I haven't watched this whole video (I really need to) just snippets, but what I've found is that the body and interior parts are just not very high quality. They aren't ****, but they are not Porsche level, or even Acura level. They are Honda / Chevy level. Here is what I wrote yesterday on a Tesla forum. We were discussing the "flufferbot" where Elon decided he was going to dispense with the robot putting foam between the rear floorpan and the battery, resulting in oilcanning when charging and a very hollow sounding floor. Dumb move by Elon.

The build quality of the actual parts in the Model 3 and the way they are attached is not up to par of what you would expect on a $60k car. I'm fairly adventurous when it comes to taking my cars apart...I'll do most everything except suspension and actual engine work. So I've removed and re-assembled a fair share of interior trim, seats, panels, etc. for one project, repair or maintenance work or another. In general, the pieces that make up the Model 3 are on par with a mid-range Japanese car, IMO. Kind of one step below my '07 Acura, which was one step below my '04 Volvo. Small trim pieces like the ones under the trunk lid above the tail light are flimsy and not held on well. The trim pieces at the end of the dash are not that well held on. The seat adjuster panel is not solidly secured. The side panels of the center tunnel by your feet are hollow and not as stiff as in a higher end car. Things like that, if you know what you're looking for and have some basis of comparison, you can see where the $ was saved. A major manufacturer never would have allowed Elon to fire the flufferbot and compromise something like the rear floor sounding hollow in the way that he did. Not until an alternative was in place. There is definitely a lot of compromise in the car.

Having said that, I understand where the $$ DID go. Into the best batteries and most efficient motors in the marketplace. Into the best adaptive cruise / lane keeping on the market. Into funding constant software development and OTA updates. Into the best aerodynamics of any sedan on the road. Into 5 star safety. We're paying for all of that. We're also paying for Tesla's learning curve as they ramp up to be a more volume manufacturer and as they gain more pricing power with suppliers.

And I'm ok with that. I went in eyes wide open knowing all of the faults and foibles that I would have to live with. So far the driving experience has lived up to my expectations and my desires of why I bought the car in the first place. Face it, even though Tesla is massively expanding, we are still all early adopters. Not counting the roadster, Tesla has been selling volume cars for only 8 and a half years. They are in pretty good shape and I expect as the Model 3 gains volume, and then the Model Y which is 75% a Model 3 starts selling, the company will find its way out of the weeds. Production issues will go down, parts quality will go up as costs of materials go down with volume, etc. We're all paying the "gotta have one now" tax and we'll all look back in 5, 10, 20 years and wonder how we put up with this crap. But we'll be glad we did to insure the future of the company.

And at the end of the day, I did go eyes wide open. I hesitated pulling the trigger on a Tesla because I KNEW these things going in (Dave was instrumental in getting me to swap). But I have to say having put nearly 5,000 miles on it since delivery on 12/28, it really has relaxed me and made my long commute less stressful. My wife even commented that I'm not cranky when I come home. Now, I could have got a barca-lounger of a car to be comfy like a Lexus ES (I had a GS before) and that would have been better than my GTI, but that would have sacrificed dynamics. In the Tesla, I have the best of both, although the ride is on the firm side. And the seamlessness of an EV powertrain cannot be understated. But I digress.

I wish more Tesla owners were pragmatic, and not these pie-eyed espousers like that nut Greg Wester on twitter. It would lead to greater acceptance of the brand and the product. I realize that people love it, but the product is not infallible. There ARE compromises and shortcomings. You can love it and evangelize about it, but don't go all full vegan crossfitter on us.

Needsdecaf

The Tesla forum is awful. There are other forums (Tesla Motors Club, Model 3 Owner's Club) which are active and MUCH better. Much like the level of Rennlist.

The Tesla forum is full of a handful of bullies and if you say one negative thing about Tesla, you're spreading FUD or a FUDster. They will attack with the herd mentality of Tesla is completely free of issues and you should be blessed to be driving them. Honestly, Tesla should kick these guys off the forum. I have a pretty thick forum skin and I can't stand it over there. If you skim through any thread that has a title with a problem description, you can pop in and see the same three or four posters coming to attack after not too long.

You cannot get any useful information about Teslas from that forum. If you are really interested in knowing what real owners are going through with their cars, both positive and negative, I'd suggest Model 3 Owner's club. Seems to be more active than the Model 3 section on TMC. It's a much better resource to learn about the car and what to expect.

Lorenfb

Considering that entire thread, one can hardly conclude that it has any real technical merit, much less from any single poster.

acoste

Thanks, Expat, appreciate it.

Speaking of batteries, I wanted to add some details about the battery, Jack Rickard who is an authentic source explained Lithium ion batteries in very high details. And also made a comparison between the old and the new Tesla battery. He found out that there is minimal, if any energy density difference between the two.
And surprise!!!! The video got removed.


There is one still there, talking about Maxwell and showed that the current Tesla battery can handle higher charge rates




And here is the equivalent off the shelf Panasonic battery: https://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/NCR18650B.pdf

.

acoste

The results are still readable right there:
18650: 240 Wh/kg
2170: 247 Wh/kg

in the recent video he corrected the 18650: 240 Wh/kg to 243 Wh/kg

wogamax

I think that may be a little strong, as far as the other models go. In the past few years, I'm finding posters with few posts, recently registered, are more the problem for just about any internet site. It feels easier to be cynical, that active interest in destroying places like TMC is among the culture that posts.

Politics are adversarial, and it's starting to infest car brands, threatened industries, etc.

Lorenfb

Another perspective on the 18650 vs the 2170;

Lorenfb

Instead of wasting 2 hrs watching a poorly presented "2170 battery test", which basically only concluded that 2170 can charge at a higher rate than the 18650, read here;
https://www.tongfamily.com/2018/05/t...18650-vs-2170/
Note: In that video there's no actual comparative 18650 test, relative to energy density.

And here; https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla...cks-more-power
At least give Tesla credit where credit is do.

acoste

Many people, even the authors of those articles have very little idea about batteries. And this generates all kind of fake news.

Let's check the articles, but first correct you
"which basically only concluded that 2170 can charge at a higher rate than the 18650"
No it can not. It is just a bigger cell so it can handle more current but charge rate has not increased. Maximum charge rate means max current / total capacity.
For example if a 3200mAh battery is rated at 2C charge current, that means it can be charged by 2x3200mA =6.4A.
If I connect 2 of these batteries in parallel, now I can charge them by 12.8A. Has the charge rate increased? No because the capacity doubled as well. 12.8A / 2x3200mAh = 2C
The new cell is basically just a larger version of the previous with 246/243 = 1.2% energy density improvement.

So the first "Tongfamily" article

"As an aside each battery has a maximum charging voltage and a maximum amperage. This is 4.2V and 2A. This sets a hard limit for Tesla charging (you want more cells so the 2A is the limit). "

They are mixing Amper with Charge rate. Charging the old cell with 2A is less than 1C. 2A / 3200mA = 0.625C. The charge rate limit is definitely higher than that. Could be 2-3C but I'm not sure about the exact number. The max charge rate is a soft limit. The higher the max charge rate, the shorter the battery life is. The battery manufacturer sets a limit based on cycle life degradation.

"The Model 3 uses a different battery, handily this isn’t standard but is 21mm x 70mm so larger and they are about 10-15% more efficient and 46% bigger. "

How can they be 10% more efficient if the density improved 1.2% only? Yes, they improved by volumetric measures due to the different form factor.

"Also the rumble is that these New batteries have a custom formulation. One thing is that they use very little cobalt (2% vs 8%) and that’s not only expensive but has all kinds of issues with how it is mined."

I hope the cobalt content reduction rumor is true. BUT. Elon confused people on purpose. He said: "We use less than 3% cobalt in our batteries"
Another source said: "Panasonic has already significantly reduced cobalt content, to about 10 percent in its nickel-cobalt-aluminium cathode chemistry."
Do you get the difference? Apples to oranges. Elon compares the cobalt content to the total battery weight and says it's less than 3%. Industry always talks about the cobalt content compared to the !cathode's weight! not the battery! Comparing cobalt content to battery weight makes very little sense, except creating fake marketing. The author fell for the trick.

On the positive side: Panasonic and everyone else are heavily investing in technologies with less cobalt content: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKCN1IV14Y
It is however super difficult. Cobalt provides longevity and safety to the battery cell. As you decrease the amount of cobalt in a cell, you reduce the life cycle of the cell and increase the propensity for the cell to overheat, which can lead to combustion.

Second article Evannex:
" The 2170 cell is around 50% larger by volume than the 18650, but it can deliver almost double the current (the 18650 delivers 3,000 mA, and the 2170 has been tested at 5,750-6,000 mA)."

No. 18650 is not limited at 1C (=3A). If you click on this again: https://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/NCR18650B.pdf in the bottom right corner they are discharging it at 2C (=6.4A).

The video in the article is complete bs, random data from random battery technologies that aren't the Tesla cells.

groundhog

Actually acoste has made some good points - I don't own a Tesla but am fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the product, the company and CEO as are many others. Have a discussion about the comments not about the man.

So lets keep it real. On a volume basis Tesla is a minnow and on a cost per unit basis they are expensive and there man hours per unit of production are high. Moreover they are expensive for the fit and finish they have (they are not a luxury car - if you think they are you have never been in a real one) and have performed poorly in large scale reliability tests in both Europe and the US. Mr Musk has been found wanting by the Securities Exchange Commission (which is serious) as has Tesla itself. Both were fined and the Board had imposed on it a forced restructure.

There is no such thing as the "legacy auto industry" - all auto manufacturers continue to evolve with the market, thats smart business and thats why there's a variety of choices out there for different needs and different budget - something Tesla doesn't really offer.

Lorenfb

You obviously missed the point being made in your video, that the 2170 can be charged at a higher rate that can the 18750. The guy states that! This is the point also being
made in the video I posted about Tesla. In that video, an engineer indicates that the charging cables (orange) on the M3 were larger than those used on the MS/MX allowing
for a greater charging rate (current per time) with the 2170 battery. Elon in the video discusses that too.

Presently on most BEVs, the max charge rate is 2C, which means that the battery's total energy capacity in kWhrs can be replaced in 30 about minutes. Since the charging
voltage is maintained at about 400 volts, the charging current per unit of time (a rate) is varied to achieve the desired time to fully re-charge the battery. If a battery were
capable of a 10C charge rate, that battery could be fully charged in about 6 minutes. Since the time to re-charge a BEV battery is one of the factors which limits the appeal
of a BEV versus an ICEV, it's desirable to reduce the charging time. Tesla with its 2170 battery plans on updating the SC network to allow a greater charge rate to benefit
the M3 with the 2170 battery. Since MS/MX uses the 18750 battery, they won't benefit from the SC modification. Porsche with the Taycan plans on using a 800V system versus
Tesla's 400V, which will reduce the typical re-charge times by 50%.

You fail to understand what determines a battery's efficiency. All types of batteries, whether Li-Ion or another chemistry, are characterized by the battery's; output voltage,
Ahr rating, its short current capability, and its internal resistance. Its internal resistance (IR) is the key factor which determines the battery's efficiency. The 18750 has
about 100 milli-ohms (.100 ohms) resistance at 70F, and varies with temperature. If one assumes that a Tesla MS use 100 amps while cruising, the battery would be consuming
about 1,000 watts (I^2 X R), given the resistance of .100 ohms internal resistance. So by using different battery chemistries, a battery's internal resistance can be reduced
resulting in a more efficient battery.

Telsa has many problems, designing batteries with the help of Panasonic and Jeff Dahn is presently not one of them!

doshc

I couldn't stomach to watch the entirety of that 2 hour battery video, especially as he manually switches between CC to CV charging. Does he ever bother to measure IR of the cell? There are basic computer controller chargers obtainable within the last decade that will auto cycle, measure and graph temp, current, voltage and IR. But he spends 2 hours doing it like it was the 80s.

IR also dictates charge speeds and degradation. Charging is not necessarily voltage limited today but heat limited from rising temp & IR. This is why Porsche charging quicker will result in higher degradation, without a true breakthrough in chemistry there is no free lunch here.

Lorenfb

Exactly! That's one of the reasons Tesla uses TMS (thermal mgmt system), i.e. to prevent excessive battery heat while charging. The Leaf with their 40 kWhr (~ 140 mile range)
model has to significantly reduce successive re-charging rates on a long trip to limit excessive heating of the battery, since the Leaf lacks TMS. That's become a very problematic
issue for many Leaf owners.

acoste

He never says that the 2170 cell can be charged at a higher rate than the 18750.
at 1:08 he specifically says that the limiting factor is not the battery cell, but everything else around it
at 1:25 he says these battery cells may be good up to 3C charging rate
at 1:48 he says the Model S wiring can't handle higher charge, batteries are not a problem

Elon is not a reliable source of information.


No. The older models don't have thick enough cabling. Battery cells are not a problem.
I believe back then they didn't have enough information about degradation caused by high charge rates but now they have so it's ok to increase the limits.

0.1mOhm internal resistance, Let's say it's charged to 4V and delivers 4A. Load resistance = 4V/4A = 1Ohm. Battery efficiency = ~91% assuming your internal res number is correct. How are you going to increase the efficiency by 10-15%. Since it doesn't make sense I tried to interpret it in a different way because the author clearly didn't understand what he was talking about.

acoste

His method is very accurate. He also explains why he doesn't use automation.

He does measure the battery temperature during charging and if you watched the video you would realize that the temperature can be easily controlled by a cooling system at 2.2C (he charged around that speed).

You are just speculating on Porsche. Same current flows through in the Porsche, just the system voltage is double. 350kW/2. It is equivalent to charging a Tesla by 175kW. He just charged it at an equivalent of 160kW so the Porsche data isn't much of a stretch.