Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by iheartmemcache 3464 days ago
(old-ish study, apologies, but was cutting edge circa 2010, but still stands re: LiFePO2 which I'm betting your '14 production car is using) -> http://ecec.mne.psu.edu/pubs/2010-zhang-jps.pdf Page 2, Column 2, Figure 1, Top chart. 300 deep-cycles @ ~92%, 600 @ 74%.

If you're the average SV guy who 'daily drives' his Tesla 20 miles from Oakland to his lofted startup where there's 220 to full-charge before you go home, you'll get 2%. Johnny in Kentucky working the coal miles doesn't have that luxury and will certainly enter into 'deep charge' consumption. (600 cycles -> ~75%, with 2nd deriv of batt life w/r/t cycle being negative, i.e., progressively decreasing losses).

Again, not in the field professionally, but these opinions are consistent with my friends who are working at the forefront (albeit, a statistically small sample space, I openly concede !)

2 comments

Tesloop, the transport company that'll shuttle you between LA and Las Vegas via Model S, has only seen 6% degradation over 180k miles on their vehicle; this is with ignoring Tesla's advice not to charge to 100% every time at Superchargers.

Your pack longevity math is grossly inaccurate.

If by daily driver you mean weekly 300mi weekly roundtrip that usually ends around 5-10% and ~30 miles a day otherwise then sure.

My numbers line up with what most Tesla owner experiences. If your friends are at the forefront of the profession then I'd be a bit worried about whoever they're working for.