Plug In America Tests Older Tesla Roadsters, Finds Battery Durability Better Than Promised

by TTAC Staff

Published: July 16th, 2013

plug in america tests older tesla roadsters finds battery durability better than

Tesla Roadster battery pack – Tesla Photo

One drawback to cars that run on batteries is that over time and multiple charge/discharge cycles, batteries will lose capacity. Individual cells start to fail to meet specifications and when enough cells go bad, it’s time for another battery pack. Since capacity is directly related to range and since battery packs are expensive to replace, how quickly batteries deteriorate is an important factor in the overall cost and practicality of EVs.

When Tesla first announced their Roadster EV in 2006, the company said that due the company’s proprietary battery management system and design of their lithium-iom battery packs, would ensure that after five years or 50,000 miles, the Roadster’s battery pack would still have 70 percent of it’s rated capacity when new, 53 kWh, enough electrons for a 244 mile range ( 2006 statement on battery age by Tesla founder Martin Eberhard here). The Tesla Roadster went on sale in 2008, which means there are now roadsters that have been on the road for as long as five years, and I’m sure many that have reached or exceeded 50,000 miles of use. It’s now possible to test Tesla’s claims regarding battery durability. A standard from the laptop industry is that lithium-ion battery packs are still serviceable above 80% capacity.

The independent EV advocacy group, Plug In America (PIA) decided to do just that and their chief science officer, Tom Saxton has reported the results of an owner-reported survey of Tesla battery packs, based on a sample size of 4% of all 2,500 Roadsters made. Plug In America discovered that the Tesla battery packs are performing much better than advertised. After 100,000 miles, double the advertised 70% capacity life, the battery packs have an average capacity of 80-85%.

PIA also tested for climate differences because PIA’s earlier first ever survey of EV battery life involving owners of Nissan Leafs showed measurable declines in battery capacity in hot climates. The Leaf has a much simpler battery heat management system than used by Tesla. A surveys of first generation Toyota RAV4 EV owners, which was on sale from 1997 to 2003, in order to measure performance in batteries at least 10 years old, is also underway, as is a survey of Tesla Model S owners but it’s too early for any real meaningful data to be obtained on that car.

#BatteryCapacity #BatteryLife #PlugInAmerica #TeslaRoadster

TTAC Staff

More by TTAC Staff

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 67 comments

JD321 on Jul 17, 2013

Honda has a great lease deal on their Fit EV so if you are self-limiting to a 35 miles radius, then this is the EV you you! You don't have to own an expensive battery pack and they install a home charger for free.

Like Reply
BobSmith on Jul 29, 2014

The ICE has been built and refined in large numbers for over 100 years. The BEV only has about 10 years of reasonably small production. Tesla model S with 250+ miles of range certainly makes a great day car. Most people could live with it. There are already battery advances on the horizon that will increase capacity, decrease cost and increase durability. With a battery that had a 500 mile range, lower cost and 10,000 cycle life - the ICE will look like expensive old technology.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.