Tesla is fast...

[Flyguy]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won\'t get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
I\'m glad I don\'t live in Canada.

Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It\'s nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it\'s mostly not really different from US driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can\'t drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that\'s not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it\'s not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It\'s no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is inconsequential.

I\'ve discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it\'s very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work.. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

I find it is the people who don\'t have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla\'s software factors that in. You can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

Another factor that I didn\'t mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla\'s battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.
Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I\'ve explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better attention in class.

You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn\'t available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

The point that Flyguy can\'t get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can\'t deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

Sorry, that is not correct. The energy content of a battery changes when the temperature changes.
Not a lot. And there\'s no chemical reaction going on driven by the temperature change, so when you warm the battery up again it is still storing the same amount of energy as it was before it got cooled.
As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn\'t make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

This is overstated. A battery will self warm, but in my car, for example, it can take an hour to fully warm the battery. In the meantime, much of the power has been drained with the battery at sub-optimal conditions resulting in a poor efficiency.
Being cool doesn\'t drain energy out of the battery. Using a lot of energy out of the battery to warm up the battery, will use up some energy, but not much compared with the energy they can and do store.
Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn\'t going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

No it won\'t because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes away.

The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn\'t. And this continues as you are driving.

The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn\'t big.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 15:41:58 UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection. It\'s also not
resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated,
and generally not good automobile engineering.

Some Tesla models have simple wire fuses at the cell level.

At the battery level there are additional protections including a pyrotechnic fuse to get fast response.

kw

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

> But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won\'t get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
I\'m glad I don\'t live in Canada.

Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It\'s nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it\'s mostly not really different from US driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can\'t drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that\'s not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it\'s not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It\'s no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is inconsequential.

I\'ve discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it\'s very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

I find it is the people who don\'t have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla\'s software factors that in. You can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

Another factor that I didn\'t mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla\'s battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.
Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I\'ve explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better attention in class.

You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn\'t stop at every charger along the route! In fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn\'t available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
I\'m not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don\'t know what he did and I don\'t care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I\'m not worried about some guy who can\'t provide his info.
The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
Yes, the key word there is \"extreme\".
Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can\'t you read?
But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I\'ve already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
No, that is right out of Tesla\'s operating manual.

Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.

Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.

Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other \"extreme\" cases do you wish to address?

So what other mistakes have you made?
None.
Other than the ones I\'ve caught you in.

The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that\'s some serious range degradation.

Why can\'t you admit your errors?

--

Rick C.

+++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).

I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.

--

Rick C.

++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.

....
The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.

If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.

Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.

kw

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

Heck,

The word is hell. Or are you a religious nut?

No, I said exactly what I meant. Why do you think you need to change what other people say to suit your preferences? That\'s very egotistical.

I change nothing, I use the original word. You disguise hell because it offends your antiquated religion.

even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don\'t like the conditions, I\'m free to leave. I\'m not chained up am I?

If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I\'m ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don\'t want to work in those conditions.
I never said they had to did I?

I\'m saying they have to because of the economic results. Please read what I wrote, it\'s all there. If you don\'t understand, ask a friend to help you read it with comprehension.
I\'m saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that\'s all they\'re able to do? Please read what I wrote, it\'s all there. If you\'re going to poke fun at me, make sure you\'re not doing the same thing yourself.

I know exactly what you are saying, but you ignored what I wrote. You still don\'t understand that. Most likely you will *never* understand what I wrote, as is the issue that prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people.

The economic results of cheap labour are China. The world leader in everything.

What prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people is you\'re so vague. You never make your point directly, you just hand wave at it then claim people have ignored you.

If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won\'t* have a choice.
If you\'re good enough to get better work, you do so. If you\'re not good enough, it\'s better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

Hmmm... there\'s a glimmer of understanding, but not enough to actually, get it. Ok, we\'ll leave this one since you are having so much trouble with it. Maybe this can be your post graduate work.
I notice you have no reasoning available for your viewpoint.

I have explained it. You fail to understand. You seem to think that all jobs will be available to suit anyone looking for work. If you work for substandard wages, that eliminates jobs utilizing the same skills which pay better. A person doesn\'t have the choice of taking a job that is not available. As a society, we feel it is in *everyone\'s* interest for *everyone* to be paid a decent wage.

Even when they aren\'t worth it? Let\'s make this simple for your little brain. A small country has 10 jobs available, and 10 people to do them. Job 1 requires great intelligence, and pays a lot. Job 2 requires strong muscles and pays a lot. They pay a lot so they\'re guaranteed the best 2 workers. The other 8 jobs are just little tasks like bin collection. They pay fuck all because they know they\'ll get somebody to work for them because anyone can do it. If those 8 people want to be rich, they have to get as good as the 2 that are.

> If you wish to work for lower wages, please take the job that pays better, and then donate the unneeded money to a charity.

I have never said I want to work for lower wages, you\'re putting words into my mouth. I\'ve said if I can\'t get a job that pays more, that means I\'m not worthy of earning more.

> Don\'t deprive others of a living wage by undercutting everyone else and driving wages so low, it is hard to survive. We live in a society where we all impact one another if you think so or not.

If you have everyone in society earning a reasonable wage, there\'s no incentive for people to do well. That\'s why everyone who works for the government sector is shite at their job. They can\'t get fired, they can\'t get into trouble, they can twiddle their thumbs.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).

No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

> For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection.

But there\'s a hundred of those protectors then.

> It\'s also not temperature-range rated,

Yes, it sense temperature.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 03 May 2022 02:45:10 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 15:41:58 UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection. It\'s also not
resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated,
and generally not good automobile engineering.

Some Tesla models have simple wire fuses at the cell level.

At the battery level there are additional protections including a pyrotechnic fuse to get fast response.

They ought to have protection in single cell batteries aswell - https://youtu.be/PrdKgdPg1ZY?t=23

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:01:30 AM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content..

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.
...
The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.

You need to read what I wrote. I didn\'t say the internal resistance doesn\'t matter. I said, \"The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance\". Until you understand what I wrote, there\'s no point in discussing this further. Let me know when the light bulb comes on for you.


> If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.

If you review the graphs, you will understand... possibly. The point is that Amp-hours are not affected by the resistance. The series resistance causes a drop in voltage, and so reduces the power output. It won\'t change the number of coulombs coming out of the battery.


> Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.

Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

--

Rick C.

----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:59:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

Yes, the key word there is \"extreme\".
Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can\'t you read?
But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I\'ve already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
No, that is right out of Tesla\'s operating manual.

Not that you can tell us which one, or how - precisely - you have misunderstood what you have read (because you always do and can never be made to realise it).

Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.

Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.

Canadian parking lots already have sockets for your car\'s radiator warmer. The cost of the power is covered by the parking fee.

So what other mistakes have you made?

None.

None that he has enough sense to notice. Flyguy\'s conviction that he is infallible is one of the more obvious bits of evidence that he far gone in senile dementia.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

No it won\'t because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

Getting the same battery warm again isn\'t using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn\'t the situation I was talking about

Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes away.

The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn\'t. And this continues as you are driving.

Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn\'t big.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn\'t have anywhere to put it. I don\'t know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either misunderstood when you first heard, or now remembering incorrectly, but you\'ve clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won\'t ever be able to realise it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.

Okay, I\'m confused. Mainly, why isn\'t \'amp-hours\' a quantity of countable electrons, and
NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
\'normal\' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn\'t fully convert the
chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That\'s not variable
battery capacity, that\'s stupid-charger algorithm failure.

The constant-temperature test procedure doesn\'t appear to fully charge and/or fully
discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:01:57 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I\'m saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that\'s all they\'re able to do? Please read what I wrote, it\'s all there. If you\'re going to poke fun at me, make sure you\'re not doing the same thing yourself.

I know exactly what you are saying, but you ignored what I wrote. You still don\'t understand that. Most likely you will *never* understand what I wrote, as is the issue that prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people.

The economic results of cheap labour are China. The world leader in everything.

Cheap labour helps, but you need educated labour to be a world leader in anything. China sends a lot of it kids overseas to get educated. Quite a few of them never go back, but enough of them do to let the Chinese generate useful innovations, and to recognise other people\'s useful innovations and exploit them on a large scale.

Chinese solar cells are now cheaper and better than anybody else\'s. They are cheaper because they invested a lot in setting up to manufacture them in ten times the volume that anybody else was doing, but they are better because they chose mass produce devices that exploited some clever work done at the University of New South Wales in S.ydney

> What prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people is you\'re so vague. You never make your point directly, you just hand wave at it then claim people have ignored you.

That the sort of thing that people who are thick as brick tend to say.

<snip>

I have explained it. You fail to understand. You seem to think that all jobs will be available to suit anyone looking for work. If you work for substandard wages, that eliminates jobs utilizing the same skills which pay better. A person doesn\'t have the choice of taking a job that is not available. As a society, we feel it is in *everyone\'s* interest for *everyone* to be paid a decent wage.

Even when they aren\'t worth it?

The proposition that it pays society to create jobs that even the most inept can do, because that keeps the inept off the streets and keeps them under the eye of more competent coworkers, If you don\'t do that you have to pay competent people to do nothing except looking after the inept, which is more expensive.

>Let\'s make this simple for your little brain. A small country has 10 jobs available, and 10 people to do them. Job 1 requires great intelligence, and pays a lot. Job 2 requires strong muscles and pays a lot. They pay a lot so they\'re guaranteed the best 2 workers. The other 8 jobs are just little tasks like bin collection. They pay fuck all because they know they\'ll get somebody to work for them because anyone can do it. If those 8 people want to be rich, they have to get as good as the 2 that are.

The two that are good are good in different ways. There are rather more ways of being good than just being clever or just being strong.

If you wish to work for lower wages, please take the job that pays better, and then donate the unneeded money to a charity.

I have never said I want to work for lower wages, you\'re putting words into my mouth. I\'ve said if I can\'t get a job that pays more, that means I\'m not worthy of earning more.
Don\'t deprive others of a living wage by undercutting everyone else and driving wages so low, it is hard to survive. We live in a society where we all impact one another if you think so or not.

If you have everyone in society earning a reasonable wage, there\'s no incentive for people to do well.

You mean an adequate wage. It\'s reasonable to pay people doing more demanding work more than people who are doing less demanding work, and that does motivate people to improve themselves to point where they can do more.

> That\'s why everyone who works for the government sector is shite at their job.

Actually, they aren\'t. That\'s just Thatcherite propaganda, and was part of her regimes desire to privatise everything. which was more about selling off public assets cheap to friends of the regime. Putin takes it further, but it is the same idea.

> They can\'t get fired, they can\'t get into trouble, they can twiddle their thumbs.

They can get into trouble and get fired but it takes a real effort. Jonathan Aitken was bit further up the pecking order than regular civil servants, so it got into the newspapers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk

Twiddling your thumbs gets very boring very quickly. Thatcher\'s privatisation mania privatised a whole lot of stuff that had started off privately run under Queen Victoria, but hadn\'t worked all that well, and worked a whole lot better when run by the state or by the municipality. Natural monoplies don\'t work all that well when privately owned. Contrast and compare Microsoft and Linux. And look how well the UK\'s privatised contact-tracing service did at slowing down Covid-19.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

I\'m congenitally leery of simple explanations -

It\'s like what people said about Saabs: Great car, between fires.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:30:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content..

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.
Okay, I\'m confused. Mainly, why isn\'t \'amp-hours\' a quantity of countable electrons, and
NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
\'normal\' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn\'t fully convert the
chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That\'s not variable
battery capacity, that\'s stupid-charger algorithm failure.

The constant-temperature test procedure doesn\'t appear to fully charge and/or fully
discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.

I\'ve always been a bit confused by this as well. Talking about Gibbs free energy doesn\'t explain what is happening in a battery at the atomic level. You would expect that N electrons going in produces N electrons coming out, indeed.

The idea of getting different results by charging at different temperatures is hard to reconcile as well.

Even though I passed P-Chem, it has been too many years for me to be able to unravel this mystery. Bill should be able to explain the results, but he keeps repeating the same stuff about Gibbs free energy without providing any insight.

I wills say that it is entirely possible for stored energy to leave the battery as temperature drops, just as it would in a pressure based system. Maybe a question to Quora or another web site would provide some insight. I forget the name of the one that is all about answering questions with info provided by some very knowledgeable people. I\'m drawing a blank at the moment, something exchange. (maybe I\'m getting old?)

--

Rick C.

----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:53:29 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:30:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.
Okay, I\'m confused. Mainly, why isn\'t \'amp-hours\' a quantity of countable electrons, and
NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
\'normal\' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn\'t fully convert the
chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That\'s not variable
battery capacity, that\'s stupid-charger algorithm failure.

The constant-temperature test procedure doesn\'t appear to fully charge and/or fully
discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.
I\'ve always been a bit confused by this as well. Talking about Gibbs free energy doesn\'t explain what is happening in a battery at the atomic level. You would expect that N electrons going in produces N electrons coming out, indeed.

At the atomic level that\'s exactly what should happen. You start off with lithium metal, and up with a lithium ion. That\'s one electron per atom.

The voltage generated depends on the relative concentrations of uncharged lithium atoms and lithium ions (and the concentrations of the charge sink atom in the battery).

The energy you extract is product of the charge you move around - which is one electron per lithium atom - and the output voltage at the instant you moved it - and that goes down as you discharge the battery, and will vary (a bit) with temperarture.

> The idea of getting different results by charging at different temperatures is hard to reconcile as well.

You are changing one pair of chemical compounds into a different pair chemical compound. The electrical power you get out is the energy difference between the two sets of molecules.

The energy content of all four compounds depends on their temperature and their concentration. The dependence on temperature isn\'t dramatic, since it depends on the entropies of the four compounds involved - which is what is brought out in the Gibbs free energy equation. The dependence on concentration is what\'s meant by charging a battery. It isn\'t linear.

> Even though I passed P-Chem, it has been too many years for me to be able to unravel this mystery. Bill should be able to explain the results, but he keeps repeating the same stuff about Gibbs free energy without providing any insight.

Explaining the result in chemical terms does depend on the supplier being explicit about the chemicals present in a charged battery, and the uncharged battery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

is explicit about one sort of lithium battery - one that uses lithium loaded graphite as its anode (LiC6), and cobalt oxide as its anode.

LiC6 + CoO2 <=> C6 + LiCoO2

The lithium moves through the battery, and and the electrons move through the electrical circuit.

Getting insight into what is going is pretty much second year university chemical thermodynamics, which is hard to get to grips with. This kind of forum doesn\'t lend itself to delivering the weeks of lectures that I had to sit through (and the stack of problems that I had to work through (twice as it turned out because once I\'d got a proper grip of the subject, I realised that my first pass through the problems hadn\'t actually solved what I should have been solving for).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 22:13:08 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:01:30 AM UTC-4, ke...... wrote:
On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
That\'s not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
and isn\'t a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
battery will).
I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

About a third way down the page.
...
The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.
You need to read what I wrote. I didn\'t say the internal resistance doesn\'t matter. I said, \"The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance\". Until you understand what I wrote, there\'s no point in discussing this further. Let me know when the light bulb comes on for you.
If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.
If you review the graphs, you will understand... possibly. The point is that Amp-hours are not affected by the resistance. The series resistance causes a drop in voltage, and so reduces the power output. It won\'t change the number of coulombs coming out of the battery.
Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.
Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

--

Rick C.

----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.
You need to read what I wrote. I didn\'t say the internal resistance doesn\'t matter. I said, \"The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance\". Until you understand what I wrote, there\'s no point in discussing this further. Let me know when the light bulb comes on for you.

I read that perfectly well and understand what is happening and it is constant with my writing. You did not read or understand my text.

Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.
Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

It is not the battery that is changing the measured Ah (Coulombs) out of the battery it is the test conditions that limit it.

At low temperatures the test is terminated before the battery is discharged because the terminal voltage reaches the 2.5V limit. If the test could be continued for longer more capacity would be obtained.

However that is not possible because the voltage gets to such a low level that other secondary reactions occur that compromise the cell. In some cases these secondary reactions can even cause permanent damage.

If a lower current is used so the voltage drop in the internal resistance does not cause premature termination more capacity would be measured.

The main problem is caused by the low diffusion speed of the lithium ions at low temperatures.

Of course because of the lower terminal voltage there is less power and energy that can be extracted from the battery so the energy efficiency at low temperatures is low.

kw

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection.
But there\'s a hundred of those protectors then.

It\'s also not temperature-range rated,

Yes, it sense temperature.

No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can\'t help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.

kw

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won\'t get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
I\'m glad I don\'t live in Canada.

Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It\'s nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it\'s mostly not really different from US driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can\'t drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that\'s not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it\'s not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It\'s no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is inconsequential.

I\'ve discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it\'s very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work.. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

I find it is the people who don\'t have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla\'s software factors that in. You can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

Another factor that I didn\'t mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla\'s battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.
Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I\'ve explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better attention in class.

You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn\'t stop at every charger along the route! In fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn\'t available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
I\'m not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don\'t know what he did and I don\'t care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I\'m not worried about some guy who can\'t provide his info.
The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
Yes, the key word there is \"extreme\".
Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can\'t you read?
But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I\'ve already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
No, that is right out of Tesla\'s operating manual.
Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.
https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/faq#:~:text=off%20the%20battery.-,What%20percentage%20should%20I%20charge%20the%20battery%20to%3F,from%20the%20charge%20settings%20menu.
Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.
Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other \"extreme\" cases do you wish to address?
What if your \"home\" is an apartment, dude?
So what other mistakes have you made?
None.
Other than the ones I\'ve caught you in.
That would be NONE!

The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that\'s some serious range degradation.
Oh, now it is 200 miles. I providede a reference that indicated the average distance is 150 miles (223 miles max). You have provided, as usual, NOTHING.

Why can\'t you admit your errors?
I haven\'t made any - but you HAVE!

--

Rick C.

+++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209