Nissan's battery failures had nothing to do with state of charge. Thermal control is a whole other topic having nothing to do with what I said.
Read the official Ford Mach E specs. Ford Mustang Expands Family: All-Electric Mustang Mach-E Delivers Power, Style and Freedom for New Generation | Ford Media Center The list of big advancements reads like a Tesla list from 3-5 years ago. Seriously. panoramic fixed-glass roof first Ford with OTA updates Phone As A Key technology Navigation system will identify up-to-date public charging locations during trips The batteries are secured inside a waterproof battery case surrounded by crash-absorption protection. They are liquid-cooled to optimize performance in extreme weather and to improve charging times a drainable front trunk storage Oops, that one is new! They can drain the frunk! Mike
If you don't agree with my characterization of "cheating", you should at least admit it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. My friend has a Model 3 long range, and he charges every night at home, The car reports something like a 220-240 mile range when finished charging. That's because he follows the recommendation of only charging to 80% - like everyone else does, and because it's currently winter. And that range is approximately to zero. Sometimes you might have some reserve but I've seen others who saw their range drop from 20 miles to 0 and the car is stopped basically instantly. The range remaining is just an estimate because you can't directly measure the battery state of charge.
Let’s fix what you said earlier to get to the honest answer: FYI, Tesla doesn’t have to cheat on their range estimates for several reasons, including that they have the best battery management, not because of assumptions. If others limit their vehicle charge to less it is because they are worried about preserving their battery longevity and somehow still can’t beat Tesla on this... Don’t need any friends here, I can vouch by personal experience. And this is one of many reasons a Model 3 has been my daily driver for the last year having driven plug-ins for the last 8 years.
Pardon me, I have to drive my Model 3 to the 24 hr Walmart to pickup some stuff for "She who must be obeyed." For those who believe the Tesla are 'death machines,' pray for me. As for everyone else, raise a glass of good cheer. Bob Wilson
Are you sure they aren't related? It seems that properly keeping the battery not too hot and not too cold when charging or otherwise increases the battery longevity. No? This then allows the battery to be have more deeper cycles, when needed. Of course you should do this sparingly. Mike
During my career I designed and built custom automation for the automotive industry. I was installing and commissioning a system in one Ford's assembly lines for heating the bare V8 aluminum engine blocks. This was done so that they could drop the cast iron sleeve's into the cylinders. We would chill the sleeves and heat the block and a robot would drop the sleeves into the bores. During the install, a Ford engineer complained about how difficult it was to reach one of the terminal strips in our electrical control panel. I explained that the arrangement of the components in this 4 door enclosure was reviewed and approved by them before we built it. There isn't a mechanic alive who hasn't complained about how difficult some routine repair was because of the design or location of a component. An example would be spark plugs breaking off in the cylinder heads of the Triton V8 which Ford had made millions of. Ford advertised that the Triton could go 100,000 miles before a spare plug change. The problem was that after 100,000 miles, the plugs welded themselves to the head and would snap off in the head when you tried to remove them. I spoke to a fleet manager who was responsible for over 100 Ford trucks and vans. She said that they justified buying the Fords specifically because the 100,000 mile service interval would save her company money. Her service fleet quickly accumulated 100,000 miles and the spark plug problem became apparent. She said that they got a bulletin from Ford suggesting that they loosen and retighten the plugs every 30,000 miles to prevent the problem. How is that any different that doing the spark plug replacement at 30,000 miles. Ford's better idea.
Yes. True, but that has nothing to do with the maximum float voltage achieved during charging. No, it doesn't. Thermal control to extend battery life is a separate thing from charge control to extend battery life. I feel like that's so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain that they are different. You can have perfect thermal control and still over-charge the battery, and you can perfectly charge the battery and still ruin it with lousy thermal control. They're separate.
No good evidence Tesla remains anything but #1 on battery longevity. They can and should do what ever clever/advanced engineering things they choose regarding thermal management, state of charge, etc. That’s not remotely cheating. The competition wishes they could get more miles/Wh and range and still have Tesla-like battery longevity. That’s bad on the competition, not Tesla. Bizarre how this get spun against Tesla.
If I were designing an electric car, I'd do what Tesla did. I'd prefer it that way. But the fact that some other companies don't trust their customers to understand the downside of charging to 100% is entirely understandable in a world where most people don't understand anything technical at all, and aren't willing to learn. I've read about people who owned Teslas, charged to 100% every day and then went to Tesla for a battery replacement under warranty, only to be told that they abused their batteries. This is the sort of thing that can happen when you trust users to make wise choices, even if you attempt to recommend wise choices and educate your users. I'm just saying their range estimates are not really comparable with everyone else's range estimates just because they allow you to charge to 100% (and recommend against doing it).
They don’t recommend against charging to 100% but recommend against doing it routinely. Naturally doing so often is detrimental to longevity, but this is also not an issue for the layman as Tesla vehicles are intelligent enough to warn the driver against repeatedly doing so. And because very few people need the entire range routinely, this is not a problem. I use the entire range on long trips and have no signs of early battery degradation.
I believe the context makes it obvious that's what I meant. There's nothing natural about that. It's not intuitive to most people used the plugging their phones in and charging them to 100% every night. Other battery chemistries have different causes of failure and thus different methods of treatment. You have to know about this for this particular type of battery, and the vast majority don't know it. I think the person I remember reading about was a Lyft driver, and was driving 300+ miles every day, and always charging at Supercharger stations. There are multiple reasons I think the 100% charging estimate is highly misleading, not the least of which is that it's for "trips" yet most of the time on a trip you're going to be in a hurry to charge (since charging takes so long) and the taper-charge at the end means most people don't charge to 100% anyway unless they are at an over-night destination charger. Waiting an extra 30-45 minutes for those last 20% is not something most people will put up with at a supercharger station anyway, especially if they've already been there for a half hour getting to 80%.
Okay, I think I should take the time to teach you something about engineering and operations - edge cases are EVERYTHING. I wrote a custom controller for a research wind turbine. The actual C-code that controls the turbine is 22 lines long. The other 4,000 lines of code in that program are there to handle edge cases. In addition to that, I engineered an entire separate piece of electronics to monitor the computer and the turbine in case those 4,000 lines of edge-case code fail to properly handle edge cases. The 737MAX debacle is about an edge case - a case where a sensor failure causes a computer to mismanage automatic trim AND the pilots fail to recognize that problem and take over, despite being trained to do exactly that. That particular edge case is going to cost at least 10 billion dollars, kill several hundred people, cost thousands of people their jobs, and inconvenience several million more. Speaking of aviation, pilots learning to fly can often solo in their first hour or two of flying. A friend of mine effectively soloed on his first flight. All the rest of the training, studying, and flying is about handling edge cases. It's often said that any idiot can fly a plane, but only skilled, trained experts can handle in-flight engine failures, control failures, sudden unexpected weather, and all the other edge cases that come up rarely. Dismissing edge cases shows ignorance of the fact that almost all design is about those edge cases. Design for normal, day-to-day duty is easy. Dealing with extremes of vibration, temperature, humidity, loads, electrical surges, overloads, underloads, and all the rest of the edge cases is where engineering is put to the test.
I deal with edge cases as well in my profession and the statistics therein. But thank you for sharing your views, “teacher”.
Maybe another reason why edge cases are important to account for: Report on what cold weather does does to Tesla and other Electric cars range AAA: Cold weather can cut electric car range over 40 percent
They are different parameters that both, combined, affect overall longevity. How is that not obvious? Mike
They're still separate. Whether or not you smoke and whether or not you exercise affect longevity, but one has little to do with the other. You can be doing one, the other or both.
