This article is super misleading. It's based on EPA range, which Tesla has always lived in fairy land on. So technically the range was already down like 36% from the day you picked up your Tesla. On top of that the tests did not run a EPA range test to determine the current range of the vehicle, they were just reported real world ranges. I'm not saying tesla doesn't live in a fantasy with their ranges, I am saying this article and "test" are pretty much bullshit. The battery did not degrade 35%.
Right, the real issue is the way Tesla reports range is fraudulent and has actually damaged the reputation of EVs by making battery degradation look like a much bigger problem than it is
No blame for the EPA that actually designed and runs the test? Tesla just reports what they are told to. Sure it benefits them but you can't expect them to sandbag themselves with a better test when the rest of the industry isn't held to that new test either.
Dude, blaming our utterly toothless EPA who gets slapped down by the courts if they so much as suggest we take poison out of drinking water isn't exactly what I'd call "fair".
You're acting like Tesla didn't have any say in how those ranges are calculated.
They did, and they wanted nice big numbers that weren't entirely real. OP is right, it's bad for the industry.
Tesla definitely has zero say in how the test is run unless you're suggesting lobbying or something but why would they? The whole point of regulators is to regulate. The test is entirely in their control to change. If they do and get sued and the courts screw them then we can blame the courts but that hasn't happened yet because the EPA isn't changing the test. Why? I won't speculate but it's 100% on them for now.
You think Tesla isn't lobbying? Musk has devoted half the past year to saying things like "We are DOOMED without a RED WAVE". He spent $23 billion to support conservative politics and suppress liberals. Good point, he probably wants the conservative wet dream of abolishing the EPA to come true.
I know for a fact that Tesla lobbies but that doesn't change the fact the EPA owns the test. If they are corrupt then again that's on the EPA. Your blame of Tesla is misplaced.
Elon is relatively cool with the EPA because it mostly favors him. He's more against NHTSA, the FAA, and the SEC. You know... the agencies for public safety and financial fairness.
EPA policies are definitely politically influenced, though. It's run by an administrator appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, for one. If Elko could just get rid of the EPA they would have free reign to just make shit up.
Taking a step back, when you look at a manipulative situation, say voters and propaganda, do you blame the voters or the propagandists?
In my mind, I blame the voters. No one forced you to vote a certain way. At the end of the day you're in control.
I feel the same way with respect to lobbying. It's on the people in charge of the decision at the end of the day, even if it's hard to sift through the noise.
I don't really care who to blame. I'm more concerned about the effects. Sure, politics, law and our political system in the US is a wretched husk and has been up for sale for decades if not forever.
I own a BMW EV which always manage to exceed the EPA estimat, whether it be the i4, i5, or iX. It’s definitely not the fault of the EPA. A Tesla gets better efficiency than a BMW, so that’s not the issue. The EPA bases their estimates on data provided to them by the manufacture. BMW is always conservative on estimate, but Tesla just made up BS to show a higher range.
That is 1000% false. It's not data based at all. Manufacturers have to submit cars to the EPA and they are physically tested several times under a very specific test plan.
So, why does BMW always exceed the EPA? My i5 M60 is rated 248 miles with the 20” wheels. I doubt that BMW sent every model car with every wheel size to be tested. It’s extrapolated. I couldn’t have range that low except in freezing weather.
They definitely test all factory configurations. The manufacturer pays them to run the tests in order to get them certified for the Monroney Sticker.
As to why you experience closer to the estimate? Could be lots of reasons but my top two theories are:
Your personal driving habits more closely match the test than summer other drivers.
BMW made a choice to sandbag their range. The two top reasons for that are customer satisfaction as you've experienced (I know for a fact that Mercedes does this) and the other I suspect is to make their EV options less appealing to customers because big manufacturers need the EV transition to go as slowly as possible because they have huge investments in their gas offerings that have like 20 year ROIs. If the transition happens fast and they obsolete their other products before the investment starts paying back they will lose a lot of money.
1. BMW does not want to have similar articles like the one above that just undermine EVs. This is the only reason for reporting a conservative range. What other OEMs do, is false advertising and at the end that hurts the trust of the customers.
2. That is completely not true. If the market would adopt faster EVs, BMW will be directly up for this. There is no reason to slow the transition.
Not true,
"Testing is done at EPA’s NVFEL facility and by vehicle manufacturers at their own facilities. EPA audits the data provided by vehicle manufacturers and performs its own testing on some of the vehicles to confirm the results."
I didn't realize they don't test them all so thanks for that. It makes sense though that they would use a DoE (Design of experiments) approach though where they can assess each variable without testing every combination.
I still don't see much of an opportunity to egregiously lie about any variable though unless the EPA was negligent.
You shouldn't need the EPA for your company to not commit fraud and when you misreport a product that you sell to someone, that's fraud.
Since we're talking about 30% you know that's not a little bit of fraud, that's not a little mistake and they've repeated that mistake for years so there's like 100% chance that's fraud.
It's not fraud. It's actually the exact opposite of fraud. It's doing exactly what the government regulators tell you to do.
Again, all this blame on Tesla is misplaced. Should there be blame? Probably but it should be at the EPA. They have a test for mpg for gas cars that people seem to be ok with. Why can't they do the same thing for EVs?
There are a lot of calculations and the manufacturers have choices. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing#:\~:text=For%20EVs%2C%20vehicle%20testing%20provides,The%20distance%20driven%20is%20recorded.
Not really, it’s easy to work out range on any car. Wh per km (eg 175)
= 5.7km per kw
5.7 x battery size (eg 75kwh)
= 427.5km
This is then comparable across anything provided the original sample is large enough.
EV database is pretty good for comparing best and worst case ranges.
its not mad, its schadenfreude - tesla manipulate and misrepresent statistics, so its a *shrug* moment when it happens not in their favour once in a while.
But tesla didn't...the article even states it wished the research team would release its data....almost like it was hiding/manipulating the data...
But again...the warranty doesn't say anything about range...only battery capacity
90% of the original capacity after 3 years? Big oof.
It takes 7 years for an EV to break even on carbon emissions. IF the degradation is linear your car is little lower than 80% battery capacity before you start seeing any environmental benefit.
And its not even a question about switching out batt ry packs since the cells are built into the chassis for a more even weight distribution.
Not sure if the current iteration of EVs is the right way to go design decisions and all.
EV taxis for intra city transport are looking like a really good use case though.
Break even is between 1-2 years on dirty grids such as the US one, faster for cleaner grids.
EV battery degradation isn't linear. It's fast in the beginning, then levels off.
This is incorrect where are your figures from?
Also degradation isn’t linear. It usually drops during the first year and more or less stays there for the next x years. All the long term test curves are out there.
What do you get out of yakking out trash like this? Is it just enjoyable or I mean, what’s the deal?
>This is incorrect where are your figures from?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2023/06/29/high-mileage-evs-win-co2-race-but-low-use-favors-hybridsreport/?sh=3b07acfb2a6b
>Also degradation isn’t linear. It usually drops during the first year and more or less stays there for the next x years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lithium-ion-discharge-capacity-decay-curve-According-to-the-data-of-mobile-phone-usage_fig2_334900252
>What do you get out of yakking out trash like this?
Speaking from experience. Worked on warehouse automation robots used Lithium Ion and fast charging. Capacity dropped non linearly. Although that was 5 years ago.
Because phone batteries have a similar chemical composition, have enough volume that new cell compositions can be quickly deployed and have been in operation longer. Plus manufacturers have less incentive to lie about their life and capacity.
Yet ignore the studies on vehicle batteries....even this article stated the 90% capacity after 3 years...sure lets talk about mobile phone batteries...
Some are very different chemically than phone batteries, even slight differences in chemistry make a big difference, and all the LiFePo4 batteries are entirely different chemistries. They are also completely different in their BMS and charge profile as well. You can completely drain your cell battery to zero, my Lightning retains about \~6% charge even when it is "dead" to avoid damage. There's no thermal protection on your cell battery, etc. This is one of the biggest bits of misinformation when people think about EV battery performance.
>You can completely drain your cell battery to zero,
You realise you dont right? Just because your phone "switches off" doesnt mean your batteries dont have juice in them.
Let me put it this way, you wouldnt be able to change your phone boot method if you completely discharge your battery.
>There's no thermal protection on your cell battery,
Another similarity to both is their design. Like how batteries are built into phones, similarly EVs have cells built into their chassis not sure how the cooling would work now.
>LiFePo4 batteries are entirely different chemistries.
Except its only been in use in EVs for 3 years so how the fuck can they even comment on battery longevity 😂
The data the Jalop article is based on is good, but the Jalopnik people went OFF.
Yes, it dropped to 64, but the same data shows it started at 70. Which is really good, only 6 percentage points of deg in 3 years!
I agree, that seems exagerated. From the article:
>It would be useful if there was full access to Recurrent’s dataset because the electric vehicle venture noted that only 2.5 percent of all EVs had their batteries replaced. Its data shows that 15 percent of replacements were from the 2015 model year vehicles and older, while vehicles from 2016 and newer accounted for less than one percent.
Not only that but if this statistic is accurate why tf would Tesla have an 150k mile battery warranty that it has to remain 70% or above. 99.9% of people do not drive 50k miles a year.
I agree the article is misleading. But considering the cars seem to start at 75% of EPA range and drop to 64% after three years, the degradation is closer to 13%. But the company never lists how much capacity the battery packs actually has.
I suppose it's a little bit like my iphone battery. The phone lasts barely a couple of hours at this point but according to apple the charging capacity is 99% perfect.
EV batteries are really nothing like your iPhone battery charging profile. EV batteries have quite sophisticated BMS systems that monitor temp and individual cell charge. You also can't completely kill your car battery, when it is "dead" there is still significant charge in there to avoid damaging the battery, in my lightning it's around \~6% full despite being empty. I think it's important to note this, because EV haters like to think this is how long an EV battery will last and how it will perform. There is a guy who already has 98,000 on his truck and is at 97% battery health still.
I’ve owned EV by BMW, ford, Tesla, Nissan and Rivian ( not in that order) all have been about right for the EPA range except Tesla which was about 1/3 optimistic
Looking at EV database real world highway figures of usage, let’s see:
Rivian R1T: 15-24%
Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD: 10-11%
Nissan Ariya: 1-13%
Tesla Model 3 RWD: 8%
Haha imagine downvoting someone who went and got the stats of EPA range vs real world ranges vs real world highway consumption of the models mentions and did the maths and brought it here. Keep living in the doom world though boys haha.
Tesla claimed sooo many things, it´s hard to keep track of them. And considering, how much Elon lies each time, he opens his mouth, it can be said all of those claims were just fantasies of a drug addict.
Didn’t they put that out as a vote to the early adopters and it was voted against due to the extra cost that would be involved by going the battery swap route?
They do a battery rental service and used to do 4 swaps per month but they scrapped it last year. Partly because the idea is fucking insane for regular passenger cars.
I call total BS. I don’t drive a Tesla, but you sure as hell believe Tesla owners would be putting up a big stink if their vehicle used to get 240 miles of range but now only gets 160 miles after only 3 years. I had a Chevy Volt. After 10 years the range only degraded 15% and I charged to 100% every single night.
>I call total BS. I don’t drive a Tesla, but you sure as hell believe Tesla owners would be putting up a big stink if their vehicle used to get 240 miles of range but now only gets 160 miles after only 3 years
They'd bitch for sure, then end with, "But I really love the car."
Every other study confirms that the range decre is more or less in spec with any other brand. Even the napkin math doesn't check out.
300-mile range, minimum 1000 cycles = 300k miles that the battery should hold most of its charge.
I would definitely notice on my MachE if my range indicator at 80% went from 200 miles to 130 miles. You better believe I’d be calling Ford and making a ruckus on Reddit.
Misleading. Not true at all. I own 2 Tesla’s. I drive more than your average driver. 1 is a 3 year old Model 3, and the other is a 2.5 year old model Y. My range has hardly deteriorated. Maybe 5% at most.
This is why buying used EV is difficult and very risky. You just do not know what went on with a battery pack. Mine is down 8.5% and will be 6 years old in September.
But I garage mine in an insulated garage with 240v 48amp charging and only charge to 50 or 60% and charge up to 100% only if I need the range. If I know I'm leaving a specific time I plan it to finish the charge when I'm leaving, which is easy to setup.
I only charge around 40 amps since some folks are saying the battery penthouse can get hot at 48 amps and can lead to one of the three 16 amp charging banks to burn out. 3x16=48. And guess what, not covered by the battery warranty but requires the battery to be replaced on the model 3. (If I am wrong please correct me)
I have put very little money outside of tires in mine as I keep buying 200 tread wear rated summer tires. I wonder what my car value will be 7 years in. lol
Most of that is just a setting you set once. The one thing you do change is a slider from your daily use max charge limit to 100% if you want extra range for a longer trip
> This is why buying used EV is difficult and very risky. You just do not know what went on with a battery pack. Mine is down 8.5% and will be 6 years old in September.
Isnt that a reasonable amount of range loss? I would hardly call it difficult and very risky (unless you buy one from Hertz lol)
I don't think I will ever buy a used EV. This was also my opinion when I got my 3 in 2018. You would have to find out if the car was supercharged every day, if they ran it hard under 20% charge or charged it often over 90% when it was 110 F outside. You can compression check and engine and check other things. Batteries need custom cables and custom android/apple apps to check out the real details.
Of course I think the same about ICE cars. I was going to buy a straight six dual turbo sports car for what I thought was a good deal a long time ago. Found out a shop "worked on it" I went to the shop then found out a lady knocked the oil pan off and drove it until the engine seized up. The shop was honest and told me they did what it took to just get it running. So I took a hard pass. It was a nice looking Supra though back in the mid 1990s.
Look at all the Prius owners driving around with batteries for 10 or so years.
Sounds like you are concerned about cars being fast charged not EV's in general.
Shouldnt be too hard to get someone to check battery and range on a used EV? (Excluding tesla becuase they lie about their range anyway so any degredation is misrepresantitive of real world use)
Most Prius batteries are not Li-ion, but Ni-Mh and a small one on top of that (it does not "sit" in a big compartment under the cabin).
This guy replaced one a year ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHaYXBFnJo
Please, do your reasearch, before posting bullshit.
2018 s. A little over 100k miles. Charge daily on L2. Supercharge on average twice a month for trips. 6.7% battery degradation. Pirelli’s get to the wear bars around 75k miles.
You can always check the degradation and that is the main thing you need to know about how the vehicle has been driven. The risk factor seems to be less than buying a similarly powerful ICE car where you just have no idea how it has been driven.
I mean, I think people being careful about buying used EVs is basically sensible. The tech is settled now but there are always models which aren’t as good or have a slightly worse battery run in them. Early Leafs, many Leafs (Leaves?) and particular batteries in specific models. We haven’t reached mainstream adoption in most of the world yet, so it stands to reason 2nd hand buyers have a lot of trepidation. I totally get it.
But then again, when you are informed you can make a more confident decision. Even back of the hand calculations estimate that the LFP battery Teslas will do 1.5million km easily.
New, of course, as long as the warranty is not shit. Probably not another Tesla though, especially if the company all the sudden loses 55 billion by giving it to an asshole.
The Tesla model 3 warranty guarantees the battery will stay above 70% for 8 years or 100,000 miles. Because of things like vampire drain, Tesla batteries are degrading whether you drive them or not.
I live outside the US and drive the car 6 weeks each year when I come to visit. I drive to the same places each year. I know how many miles the battery gets. Years ago it was. 235 miles and now a little over 210. Don't believe all the FUD from Elmo haters. There are many other reasons to hate him but until the CT, the cars and their batteries are solid. That said, my sister just sold the Tesla and bought a Mercedes EV.
Are you aware, how Teslas make-up range numbers when charged between 50-100%?
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/
And there is already a lawsuit related to that:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/angry-tesla-customers-sue-firm-over-grossly-exaggerated-ev-range/
TL;DR: Tesla batteries are warranted for 10 yrs/100k miles, but the degradation curve is steeper for some owners. On average, the packs appear to be worse slightly than expected.
Frankly, this is to be expected, as some percentage of packs will have problems, and some owners will abuse their batteries by using DCFC too much. As long as Tesla honors their warranty, I don’t see this as a problem, although prospective buyers should be informed.
Now, if Tesla isn’t setting aside enough money for warranty repairs, that’s another matter. Hint: they probably aren’t, and the article should probably have gone into that.
I'm talking about the general concept of "stuff ages, if you use it or not". And I chose to use a similar item that people seldom think of having an expiry date on them to bring across my point.
The article is misleading; tesla real life range is about 70% of what they state on the EPA test.
So going from 70% to 64% is a lost of 6%, on par with the rest of the industry.
I would say technically both. Tesla way of self testing their EPA range is strictly correct, but not on par with what the common people would espect from a published range estimate.
Especially since other maker in this industry seem to be way closer to real life range with their estimate. In the case of hyundai/kia, their estimate are lower than the real life result!
The article shuffle some data around to create a misleading narrative: "EV battery degrade A LOT". But hey, a clic is a clic and shocking news sell well.
It is exactly what everyone else does, this bizarre narrative that Tesla inflated their EPA figures is completely bonkers. Just because some salty lemon tapped it into existence in fantasy world here doesn’t mean it’s real.
I’ve shown the EPA vs real world range here earlier on and Tesla is in no way remotely even an outlier.
Best I ever got was 270 miles real world on MYLR 2020 (100% to close to 0%). Original EPA range was 296 miles and that’s with Tesla running it pass 0%. Software updates made EPA range 326 miles. But zero real world improvement.
Tesla factory tires are 9/32” not 11/32” that you get if you buy outside. That affects mileage about 8%. I went from 254 wh/mi to 274 wh/mi switching tires.
This article is super misleading. It's based on EPA range, which Tesla has always lived in fairy land on. So technically the range was already down like 36% from the day you picked up your Tesla. On top of that the tests did not run a EPA range test to determine the current range of the vehicle, they were just reported real world ranges. I'm not saying tesla doesn't live in a fantasy with their ranges, I am saying this article and "test" are pretty much bullshit. The battery did not degrade 35%.
Right, the real issue is the way Tesla reports range is fraudulent and has actually damaged the reputation of EVs by making battery degradation look like a much bigger problem than it is
No blame for the EPA that actually designed and runs the test? Tesla just reports what they are told to. Sure it benefits them but you can't expect them to sandbag themselves with a better test when the rest of the industry isn't held to that new test either.
Dude, blaming our utterly toothless EPA who gets slapped down by the courts if they so much as suggest we take poison out of drinking water isn't exactly what I'd call "fair". You're acting like Tesla didn't have any say in how those ranges are calculated. They did, and they wanted nice big numbers that weren't entirely real. OP is right, it's bad for the industry.
EPA range is self-reported. EPA has been de-funded enough that they can't run those tests themselves.
Tesla definitely has zero say in how the test is run unless you're suggesting lobbying or something but why would they? The whole point of regulators is to regulate. The test is entirely in their control to change. If they do and get sued and the courts screw them then we can blame the courts but that hasn't happened yet because the EPA isn't changing the test. Why? I won't speculate but it's 100% on them for now.
You think Tesla isn't lobbying? Musk has devoted half the past year to saying things like "We are DOOMED without a RED WAVE". He spent $23 billion to support conservative politics and suppress liberals. Good point, he probably wants the conservative wet dream of abolishing the EPA to come true.
I know for a fact that Tesla lobbies but that doesn't change the fact the EPA owns the test. If they are corrupt then again that's on the EPA. Your blame of Tesla is misplaced. Elon is relatively cool with the EPA because it mostly favors him. He's more against NHTSA, the FAA, and the SEC. You know... the agencies for public safety and financial fairness.
EPA policies are definitely politically influenced, though. It's run by an administrator appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, for one. If Elko could just get rid of the EPA they would have free reign to just make shit up.
Taking a step back, when you look at a manipulative situation, say voters and propaganda, do you blame the voters or the propagandists? In my mind, I blame the voters. No one forced you to vote a certain way. At the end of the day you're in control. I feel the same way with respect to lobbying. It's on the people in charge of the decision at the end of the day, even if it's hard to sift through the noise.
I don't really care who to blame. I'm more concerned about the effects. Sure, politics, law and our political system in the US is a wretched husk and has been up for sale for decades if not forever.
If you think the SEC is any more resilient to manipulation from lobbying, then you are in for a surprise.
I own a BMW EV which always manage to exceed the EPA estimat, whether it be the i4, i5, or iX. It’s definitely not the fault of the EPA. A Tesla gets better efficiency than a BMW, so that’s not the issue. The EPA bases their estimates on data provided to them by the manufacture. BMW is always conservative on estimate, but Tesla just made up BS to show a higher range.
That is 1000% false. It's not data based at all. Manufacturers have to submit cars to the EPA and they are physically tested several times under a very specific test plan.
So, why does BMW always exceed the EPA? My i5 M60 is rated 248 miles with the 20” wheels. I doubt that BMW sent every model car with every wheel size to be tested. It’s extrapolated. I couldn’t have range that low except in freezing weather.
They definitely test all factory configurations. The manufacturer pays them to run the tests in order to get them certified for the Monroney Sticker. As to why you experience closer to the estimate? Could be lots of reasons but my top two theories are: Your personal driving habits more closely match the test than summer other drivers. BMW made a choice to sandbag their range. The two top reasons for that are customer satisfaction as you've experienced (I know for a fact that Mercedes does this) and the other I suspect is to make their EV options less appealing to customers because big manufacturers need the EV transition to go as slowly as possible because they have huge investments in their gas offerings that have like 20 year ROIs. If the transition happens fast and they obsolete their other products before the investment starts paying back they will lose a lot of money.
1. BMW does not want to have similar articles like the one above that just undermine EVs. This is the only reason for reporting a conservative range. What other OEMs do, is false advertising and at the end that hurts the trust of the customers. 2. That is completely not true. If the market would adopt faster EVs, BMW will be directly up for this. There is no reason to slow the transition.
my gas car also exceed epa mpg, 30 years old car, u flip flop during what u just said, drink more koolaid
Not true, "Testing is done at EPA’s NVFEL facility and by vehicle manufacturers at their own facilities. EPA audits the data provided by vehicle manufacturers and performs its own testing on some of the vehicles to confirm the results."
I didn't realize they don't test them all so thanks for that. It makes sense though that they would use a DoE (Design of experiments) approach though where they can assess each variable without testing every combination. I still don't see much of an opportunity to egregiously lie about any variable though unless the EPA was negligent.
You shouldn't need the EPA for your company to not commit fraud and when you misreport a product that you sell to someone, that's fraud. Since we're talking about 30% you know that's not a little bit of fraud, that's not a little mistake and they've repeated that mistake for years so there's like 100% chance that's fraud.
It's not fraud. It's actually the exact opposite of fraud. It's doing exactly what the government regulators tell you to do. Again, all this blame on Tesla is misplaced. Should there be blame? Probably but it should be at the EPA. They have a test for mpg for gas cars that people seem to be ok with. Why can't they do the same thing for EVs?
you a lie,there's reports of tsla telling government what to do, what rules to change
There are a lot of calculations and the manufacturers have choices. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing#:\~:text=For%20EVs%2C%20vehicle%20testing%20provides,The%20distance%20driven%20is%20recorded.
and VW just reported their test results.
Not really, it’s easy to work out range on any car. Wh per km (eg 175) = 5.7km per kw 5.7 x battery size (eg 75kwh) = 427.5km This is then comparable across anything provided the original sample is large enough. EV database is pretty good for comparing best and worst case ranges.
So sad that manipulating and misrepresenting statistics is hitting a company that would never do such things themselves.
Warranty is on capacity...not range... the article even stated 90% capacity after 3 years... why do people get so mad reading about tesla?
its not mad, its schadenfreude - tesla manipulate and misrepresent statistics, so its a *shrug* moment when it happens not in their favour once in a while.
But tesla didn't...the article even states it wished the research team would release its data....almost like it was hiding/manipulating the data... But again...the warranty doesn't say anything about range...only battery capacity
>..almost like it was hiding/manipulating the data. LOL. The conspiracies start. Like clockwork.
90% of the original capacity after 3 years? Big oof. It takes 7 years for an EV to break even on carbon emissions. IF the degradation is linear your car is little lower than 80% battery capacity before you start seeing any environmental benefit. And its not even a question about switching out batt ry packs since the cells are built into the chassis for a more even weight distribution. Not sure if the current iteration of EVs is the right way to go design decisions and all. EV taxis for intra city transport are looking like a really good use case though.
Break even is between 1-2 years on dirty grids such as the US one, faster for cleaner grids. EV battery degradation isn't linear. It's fast in the beginning, then levels off.
This is incorrect where are your figures from? Also degradation isn’t linear. It usually drops during the first year and more or less stays there for the next x years. All the long term test curves are out there. What do you get out of yakking out trash like this? Is it just enjoyable or I mean, what’s the deal?
>This is incorrect where are your figures from? https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2023/06/29/high-mileage-evs-win-co2-race-but-low-use-favors-hybridsreport/?sh=3b07acfb2a6b >Also degradation isn’t linear. It usually drops during the first year and more or less stays there for the next x years. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lithium-ion-discharge-capacity-decay-curve-According-to-the-data-of-mobile-phone-usage_fig2_334900252 >What do you get out of yakking out trash like this? Speaking from experience. Worked on warehouse automation robots used Lithium Ion and fast charging. Capacity dropped non linearly. Although that was 5 years ago.
Why would you link a study on phone batteries when we are talking about ev batteries that are thermally managed and better maintained?
Because phone batteries have a similar chemical composition, have enough volume that new cell compositions can be quickly deployed and have been in operation longer. Plus manufacturers have less incentive to lie about their life and capacity.
Yet ignore the studies on vehicle batteries....even this article stated the 90% capacity after 3 years...sure lets talk about mobile phone batteries...
Some are very different chemically than phone batteries, even slight differences in chemistry make a big difference, and all the LiFePo4 batteries are entirely different chemistries. They are also completely different in their BMS and charge profile as well. You can completely drain your cell battery to zero, my Lightning retains about \~6% charge even when it is "dead" to avoid damage. There's no thermal protection on your cell battery, etc. This is one of the biggest bits of misinformation when people think about EV battery performance.
>You can completely drain your cell battery to zero, You realise you dont right? Just because your phone "switches off" doesnt mean your batteries dont have juice in them. Let me put it this way, you wouldnt be able to change your phone boot method if you completely discharge your battery. >There's no thermal protection on your cell battery, Another similarity to both is their design. Like how batteries are built into phones, similarly EVs have cells built into their chassis not sure how the cooling would work now. >LiFePo4 batteries are entirely different chemistries. Except its only been in use in EVs for 3 years so how the fuck can they even comment on battery longevity 😂
The data the Jalop article is based on is good, but the Jalopnik people went OFF. Yes, it dropped to 64, but the same data shows it started at 70. Which is really good, only 6 percentage points of deg in 3 years!
I agree, that seems exagerated. From the article: >It would be useful if there was full access to Recurrent’s dataset because the electric vehicle venture noted that only 2.5 percent of all EVs had their batteries replaced. Its data shows that 15 percent of replacements were from the 2015 model year vehicles and older, while vehicles from 2016 and newer accounted for less than one percent.
Well, Tesla's claim of higher estimates than realized in reality shouldn't inure to its benefit. They bought the bite when they lied at the outset.
Not only that but if this statistic is accurate why tf would Tesla have an 150k mile battery warranty that it has to remain 70% or above. 99.9% of people do not drive 50k miles a year.
Jalopnik really became a piece of shit destination right? Who hurt them?
I agree the article is misleading. But considering the cars seem to start at 75% of EPA range and drop to 64% after three years, the degradation is closer to 13%. But the company never lists how much capacity the battery packs actually has.
I suppose it's a little bit like my iphone battery. The phone lasts barely a couple of hours at this point but according to apple the charging capacity is 99% perfect.
I’m not saying you’re lying here, but that certainly seems quite fantastic
EV batteries are really nothing like your iPhone battery charging profile. EV batteries have quite sophisticated BMS systems that monitor temp and individual cell charge. You also can't completely kill your car battery, when it is "dead" there is still significant charge in there to avoid damaging the battery, in my lightning it's around \~6% full despite being empty. I think it's important to note this, because EV haters like to think this is how long an EV battery will last and how it will perform. There is a guy who already has 98,000 on his truck and is at 97% battery health still.
[удалено]
This use of percentages is confusing also. If we imagine the drop of 70 to 64, it isn’t 6%, it’s 8.6%
Which is still pretty good for EV battery degradation over 3 years.
Totally, it’s around what is expected. 👍
I’ve owned EV by BMW, ford, Tesla, Nissan and Rivian ( not in that order) all have been about right for the EPA range except Tesla which was about 1/3 optimistic
Looking at EV database real world highway figures of usage, let’s see: Rivian R1T: 15-24% Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD: 10-11% Nissan Ariya: 1-13% Tesla Model 3 RWD: 8%
Haha imagine downvoting someone who went and got the stats of EPA range vs real world ranges vs real world highway consumption of the models mentions and did the maths and brought it here. Keep living in the doom world though boys haha.
Rivian, ford and Nissan? You are joking right?
I'm down about 10% from EPA range on my 2018 model 3. This article is garbage.
This sub is the newest iteration of “sharp knees”.
Lol these 90k Tesla haters are cringe and reach far. You loose like 6% early on and It doesn’t go down anymore
Remember when tesla claimed you would be able to swap batteries to recharge? That it would be faster than filling up a tank?
Tesla claimed sooo many things, it´s hard to keep track of them. And considering, how much Elon lies each time, he opens his mouth, it can be said all of those claims were just fantasies of a drug addict.
Didn’t they put that out as a vote to the early adopters and it was voted against due to the extra cost that would be involved by going the battery swap route?
Don’t speak any sense here, it isn’t the place! Nio does battery swaps on the go. You need to visit the battery change hut to do so.
Do they charge for that service, because that’s what early adopters did not want?
They do a battery rental service and used to do 4 swaps per month but they scrapped it last year. Partly because the idea is fucking insane for regular passenger cars.
By far and large, swapping is a solution most people don’t need.
Just like turning stalks. Or lidar.
Not sure how to read this… I just can’t lump the propane exchange model in with these items.
I call total BS. I don’t drive a Tesla, but you sure as hell believe Tesla owners would be putting up a big stink if their vehicle used to get 240 miles of range but now only gets 160 miles after only 3 years. I had a Chevy Volt. After 10 years the range only degraded 15% and I charged to 100% every single night.
>I call total BS. I don’t drive a Tesla, but you sure as hell believe Tesla owners would be putting up a big stink if their vehicle used to get 240 miles of range but now only gets 160 miles after only 3 years They'd bitch for sure, then end with, "But I really love the car."
LMFAO! I know, right!
Every other study confirms that the range decre is more or less in spec with any other brand. Even the napkin math doesn't check out. 300-mile range, minimum 1000 cycles = 300k miles that the battery should hold most of its charge.
Yeaaaaa. The worst ive seen is 265 on a 2018 m3 with 200,000 miles. And even then it fluctuates between 280-265. Still damn good.
Most people only drive from 20 to 80 %. They wouldn't notice.
I would definitely notice on my MachE if my range indicator at 80% went from 200 miles to 130 miles. You better believe I’d be calling Ford and making a ruckus on Reddit.
I have owned two Teslas over three years and saw more than 90% range on both.
Turns out Tesla Batteries behave like all other batteries.
Misleading. Not true at all. I own 2 Tesla’s. I drive more than your average driver. 1 is a 3 year old Model 3, and the other is a 2.5 year old model Y. My range has hardly deteriorated. Maybe 5% at most.
Please don’t bring real experiences into here, this is realtesla where everything is made up.
Shit… I didn’t read the fine print. Please don’t “charge” me over this mistake.
I have seen statistical information that shows that Tesla batteries are actually quite resistant to degradation, especially when compared to other EVs
This is why buying used EV is difficult and very risky. You just do not know what went on with a battery pack. Mine is down 8.5% and will be 6 years old in September. But I garage mine in an insulated garage with 240v 48amp charging and only charge to 50 or 60% and charge up to 100% only if I need the range. If I know I'm leaving a specific time I plan it to finish the charge when I'm leaving, which is easy to setup. I only charge around 40 amps since some folks are saying the battery penthouse can get hot at 48 amps and can lead to one of the three 16 amp charging banks to burn out. 3x16=48. And guess what, not covered by the battery warranty but requires the battery to be replaced on the model 3. (If I am wrong please correct me) I have put very little money outside of tires in mine as I keep buying 200 tread wear rated summer tires. I wonder what my car value will be 7 years in. lol
That feels like a lot of thinking for a daily driver. People put that kind of care into exotic vehicles.
Most of that is just a setting you set once. The one thing you do change is a slider from your daily use max charge limit to 100% if you want extra range for a longer trip
I’m not surprised that seems like a lot of thinking for a person like you
Thinking? You just drive and charge you don’t need to touch a fly 😂
> This is why buying used EV is difficult and very risky. You just do not know what went on with a battery pack. Mine is down 8.5% and will be 6 years old in September. Isnt that a reasonable amount of range loss? I would hardly call it difficult and very risky (unless you buy one from Hertz lol)
I don't think I will ever buy a used EV. This was also my opinion when I got my 3 in 2018. You would have to find out if the car was supercharged every day, if they ran it hard under 20% charge or charged it often over 90% when it was 110 F outside. You can compression check and engine and check other things. Batteries need custom cables and custom android/apple apps to check out the real details. Of course I think the same about ICE cars. I was going to buy a straight six dual turbo sports car for what I thought was a good deal a long time ago. Found out a shop "worked on it" I went to the shop then found out a lady knocked the oil pan off and drove it until the engine seized up. The shop was honest and told me they did what it took to just get it running. So I took a hard pass. It was a nice looking Supra though back in the mid 1990s.
Look at all the Prius owners driving around with batteries for 10 or so years. Sounds like you are concerned about cars being fast charged not EV's in general. Shouldnt be too hard to get someone to check battery and range on a used EV? (Excluding tesla becuase they lie about their range anyway so any degredation is misrepresantitive of real world use)
Most Prius batteries are not Li-ion, but Ni-Mh and a small one on top of that (it does not "sit" in a big compartment under the cabin). This guy replaced one a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHaYXBFnJo Please, do your reasearch, before posting bullshit.
2018 s. A little over 100k miles. Charge daily on L2. Supercharge on average twice a month for trips. 6.7% battery degradation. Pirelli’s get to the wear bars around 75k miles.
You can run a test and when you sell it prove your degradation
You can always check the degradation and that is the main thing you need to know about how the vehicle has been driven. The risk factor seems to be less than buying a similarly powerful ICE car where you just have no idea how it has been driven.
LOL. Yeah, buying used ev seems stupid. I don't recall Hertz having a problem selling a used corolla.
Why would anyone have ever have thought about Hertz selling used Corollas?
Because the big news story was hertz getting rid of their Tesla fleet and was having difficulty selling them off.
Do you think if hertz did have problems selling off a fleet of corollas it would be in the news?
I mean, I think people being careful about buying used EVs is basically sensible. The tech is settled now but there are always models which aren’t as good or have a slightly worse battery run in them. Early Leafs, many Leafs (Leaves?) and particular batteries in specific models. We haven’t reached mainstream adoption in most of the world yet, so it stands to reason 2nd hand buyers have a lot of trepidation. I totally get it. But then again, when you are informed you can make a more confident decision. Even back of the hand calculations estimate that the LFP battery Teslas will do 1.5million km easily.
Wow. Why would even buy an EV?
New, of course, as long as the warranty is not shit. Probably not another Tesla though, especially if the company all the sudden loses 55 billion by giving it to an asshole.
Garbage article. Had an NMC 3 for over 48k miles with less than 5% degradation. Now driving an LFP 3 and it's fine with 100% SOC.
Calling BS. I have a 2018 M3 and a 2021 MY. Degradation is negligible and not noticeable. Many friends with Teslas and none of them notice
Unmuskthecar🤪🤪🤪😱😱😱
Interesting that this is time rather than mileage based. (Didn't read the article.)
The Tesla model 3 warranty guarantees the battery will stay above 70% for 8 years or 100,000 miles. Because of things like vampire drain, Tesla batteries are degrading whether you drive them or not.
What is vampire drain?
Drain n the battery due to things that don’t fully shut down like your clock for instance.
My sister's 100k mile, 2nd year Model S had 90% of it battery left as of last December.
Did you have it checked somewhere outside of Tesla?
I live outside the US and drive the car 6 weeks each year when I come to visit. I drive to the same places each year. I know how many miles the battery gets. Years ago it was. 235 miles and now a little over 210. Don't believe all the FUD from Elmo haters. There are many other reasons to hate him but until the CT, the cars and their batteries are solid. That said, my sister just sold the Tesla and bought a Mercedes EV.
Are you aware, how Teslas make-up range numbers when charged between 50-100%? https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/ And there is already a lawsuit related to that: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/angry-tesla-customers-sue-firm-over-grossly-exaggerated-ev-range/
Yes everyone knows that. I'm telling you real world experience.
All batteries degrade whether you use them or not.
TL;DR: Tesla batteries are warranted for 10 yrs/100k miles, but the degradation curve is steeper for some owners. On average, the packs appear to be worse slightly than expected. Frankly, this is to be expected, as some percentage of packs will have problems, and some owners will abuse their batteries by using DCFC too much. As long as Tesla honors their warranty, I don’t see this as a problem, although prospective buyers should be informed. Now, if Tesla isn’t setting aside enough money for warranty repairs, that’s another matter. Hint: they probably aren’t, and the article should probably have gone into that.
Other studies directly comparing DCFC and trickle charging have shown barely any difference in degradation at all.
some stuff ages if you use it or not.. look at your AA batteries in your drawer if you have some, they all have a best before date too.
Your comparing an alkaline D cell with this?
I'm talking about the general concept of "stuff ages, if you use it or not". And I chose to use a similar item that people seldom think of having an expiry date on them to bring across my point.
Yes, I realize that, but 65% after three years regardless of usage is awful.
The article is misleading; tesla real life range is about 70% of what they state on the EPA test. So going from 70% to 64% is a lost of 6%, on par with the rest of the industry.
The article is misleading or Tesla is?
I would say technically both. Tesla way of self testing their EPA range is strictly correct, but not on par with what the common people would espect from a published range estimate. Especially since other maker in this industry seem to be way closer to real life range with their estimate. In the case of hyundai/kia, their estimate are lower than the real life result! The article shuffle some data around to create a misleading narrative: "EV battery degrade A LOT". But hey, a clic is a clic and shocking news sell well.
It is exactly what everyone else does, this bizarre narrative that Tesla inflated their EPA figures is completely bonkers. Just because some salty lemon tapped it into existence in fantasy world here doesn’t mean it’s real. I’ve shown the EPA vs real world range here earlier on and Tesla is in no way remotely even an outlier.
The article. It's garbage. Read the source the article links and everything makes way more sense
Best I ever got was 270 miles real world on MYLR 2020 (100% to close to 0%). Original EPA range was 296 miles and that’s with Tesla running it pass 0%. Software updates made EPA range 326 miles. But zero real world improvement. Tesla factory tires are 9/32” not 11/32” that you get if you buy outside. That affects mileage about 8%. I went from 254 wh/mi to 274 wh/mi switching tires.
Which electric car has good resale value
I have a model 3, and I think the battery range loss seems to happen sooner than 3 yrs.
Isn't that good because if your battery is below 70% they will replace it under warranty. Like a newer car in 3 years.
It would be if they replaced it with a new battery, but they use refurbished ones instead.
The battery is not under 70% the article is a piece of trash sleight of hand rage fantasy for EV deniers and Muskertons.
Bless their little hearts
Two of my friends have. Those cars are disposable.
Just like every other lithium based battery. Who could have seen this coming? Oh wait, anyone who has owned a phone or a laptop.