The Lies Marketing Tells

How long will electric car batteries REALLY last? Study claims Teslas lose just 1% performance every year caused by repeat charges

Various surveys have highlighted the many hurdles still standing in the way of UK drivers making the switch to electric cars.
High upfront cost, a lack of charging infrastructure, comparably stingy government incentives and range anxiety are among them.
As is the lifespan of the batteries and cost to replace them if they degrade.
But according to a recent US study of Tesla battery performance, each year of use and repeat charges results in just a 1 per cent loss in capacity, suggesting a Model 3, Model S or Model X purchased today will have 90 per cent battery efficiency by 2030.

Who did this survey, what are their qualifications, and note the word "suggesting" is being used so when their batteries don't live up to their claims they cannot be sued.

Demand for electric vehicles - on the face of things - is currently surging.
Sales of new models were up by 229 per cent in November and are ahead of last year by 136 per cent for 2019 so far.
However, despite this recent uptake, pure electric models still only represent 1.5 per cent of all new cars that have hit the road this year as concerns - and lack of supply - continue to restrict sales.

Sales of electric cars are NOT surging, in point of fact many manufacturers are not set to recoup their investment costs, so on what face is this claim being portrayed, the town hall clock?

One major issues is - and has always been - the longevity of electric car batteries and the cost to replace them.
But drivers shouldn't be as concerned as they are about replacing expensive battery packs, a new US report says.
The research, carried out by Plug In America and analysed by NimbleFins, reviewed the condition of a typical Tesla Model S battery.
It claimed that after seven years of use - and repeat charges - the batteries will have 93 per cent of its original capacity remain after seven years, suggesting it loses just one per cent a year.

So, what expertise and engineering expertise do these people have, and why have they had a second company to analyse their data? actually they have no expertise as any reputable organisation would publish their own data for scrutiny and wouldn't pay for a second company to scrutinise it unless they were scamming and trying to make it look legitimate. In point of fact, any battery expert would tell you that you cannot ever charge any battery to its full capacity, so basic error here, and the current best is around 93% of its full capacity. In point of fact any manufacturer of battery powered equipment actually over rate their batteries and this is explained simply, if you want a 100 Kw/h battery you ask your battery supplier to build an over rated battery of 110Kw/h battery so when it is tested it actually produces 102.3Kw/h when new and in pristine condition and if they didn't provide the stated 100Kw/h then the US courts would be full of claims against the manufacturers for misrepresentation.

To review the condition of batteries, researchers downloaded owner-submitted information for around 500 Tesla Model S cars.
This also included the purchase date, battery size, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) range and, for the date of submission, the odometer reading.
It had to use both full-range and partial-range estimates to take into account that some owners do not charge the vehicle's battery to 100 per cent capacity.

Now the truth is revealed, researchers downloaded owner submitted information, so unqualified owners making at best, guesses, are being taken by a company and passed through another company and then through a third company to manipulate unquantifiable data, and no actual research is actually undertaken and nobody with any credibility has any input, yet independent experts with real qualifications and many years of experience claim they will last around 5 years.

Owners of Jaguar I-Pace models will get more range from their electric SUVS - and it's all thanks to the brand's single-make race series.

No it isn't, its due to the fact that Jaguar put a larger capacity battery in and have better in driving charging systems to replace some of the power being used, such as regenerative braking which turns the starter motor into a generator as it rolls downhill and stores it back in the battery.

Data obtained from the first season of the I-Pace eTrophy - a support series for the Formula E championship - found that the car's performance could be improved.
The minor tweak adds an extra 12 miles to the I-Pace's range.
New models from now will have the software already installed while existing owners can visit their local dealer to have the upgrade for free.
The marginal adjustments to car’s battery, cooling system and energy recovery system have increased its efficiency by eight per cent under everyday driving conditions, Jaguar claims.
The study found that battery degradation is impact by the number of charges it endures and higher mileage models - which would have been plugged in more often - had reduced capacities.
The research reveals that the average Tesla Model S battery provides more than 90 per cent of its original range up until around 150,000 miles.

The alleged research from a customer feedback form, the research with no credible sources ever being involved, the same research which is unsubstantiated and alreeady under attack as misleading and spin by real experts with qualifications.

However, beyond that mileage the range starts to noticeably drop off.
NimbleFin's report said: 'It's interesting to see that a car with unusually high mileage for the age (over 143,000 miles for a car less than 5 years old) has more significant battery deterioration than a typical car of the same age.
'This shows that mileage is also a considerable factor in how quickly a battery deteriorates—this makes sense, as more miles driven means more charge cycles, and it's mostly the charge cycles that reduce a battery's usable capacity.'
This isn't likely an issue for a UK driver, though.

Isn't it, I drive 60-80'000 miles per annum and no electric car is as efficient or practical as my diesel engine as it takes 5 minutes to refuel and not hours to charge.

With the average motorists mileage being 7,600 miles, an owner wouldn't notice a cliff-edge deterioration in battery capacity until they'd owned a Tesla for almost 20 years.
A vast proportion of cars with conventional engines are scrapped when they reach the milestone of two decades.
The vehicle with the highest mileage of all in the survey sample was a Model S 85P with 232,442 miles on the clock.
Even after that duration of ownership, mileage and recharges, it was found to still be able to cover 220 miles on a single charge, which works out at 83 per cent of its original 265-mile range.

Huge contradiction with this claim as 83% is not 90% and it doesn't say if it is its original battery or not.

Unfortunately, the study only looked at the lifespan of Tesla batteries.
That said, other manufacturers' warranties suggest battery capacity shouldn't be an issue for the first average decade of ownership.
For instance, Nissan's Leaf comes with eight-year 100,000 cover for the batteries while the Hyundai Kona Electric warranty is for eight years or 125,000 miles of usage.
If batteries are found to have dropped below a certain performance level, the manufacturer is responsible to replace it with a new one at no cost.

This is why you have to pay a monthly charge and you actually rent the batteries, this is why Renault charge £49 per month if you cover less than 4500 miles per annum, cover average mileages and look at the monthly rental charges rise sharply so the manufacturer doesn't actually pay for the replacement batteries, you the customers do and in the case of Renault the monthly rental charges pays for a new battery after 31 months of rental fees.

New insurance package for Tesla models
By Miles, a pay-by-mile car insurance provider, has announced the launch of the world’s first connected car insurance policy available to Tesla owners.
It takes information directly from Teslas and uses information about the distance covered - but not the way the car is driven - to price insurance.
It is the first car insurance policy in the world to take data directly from the car without any ‘black box’ GPS tracking device.
The insurer claims any motorists doing less than 7,000 miles a year will save money on premiums by using the service.
Tesla owners have limited options when it comes to getting insured, and premiums are expensive due to the high cost associated with repairing cars or writing off vehicles due to damage to the batteries in a collision.
This has seen annual quotes from major providers reach prices of more than £2,000 for the Model 3, which is the most affordable Tesla available.

Say no more?


Here we have a classic demonstration of bullsh*t to manipulate and persuade people by posting pure unadultarated cr*p and trying to make it look legitimate.

whilst having seen the rhetoric around electric cars, I do not follow too much the politics & sales patter surrounding this, I do NOT beleive for 1 minute THEY have the environment or our interests at heart. There has been over 100 years development of the internal combustion engine. There are alternative fules for both, why not simply carry on as is.... using cleaner fules?


(1015)

Considering the fact that only one actual credible research project has been undertaken and its conclusions were irrefutible in showing that electric cars are actually the most polluting to build, run their lifecycle, and recycle at the end of their life and that the often villified large 4X4 in diesel form was the least polluting says it all. How many people noticed that Government wording changed from vehicle emissions to tailpipe emissions????????????

What came out of this was a campaign to villify the 4X4 so why; this was then followed by the closure of many large UK industries such as coal mining, steel, railways, and most traditional heavy industries, but why? because coal was the prime target and EU environmental legislation was used to close this industry, Maggie Thatcher, merely a scapegoat, Scargill, merely a useful tool, tool being the operative word. Why coal? because coal produced many products, steam for electricity, gas in the form of town gas, petrol and diesel for vehicle use, oils for industrial use, and most commercial gases could also be produced from coal, so with coal mining the UK would be self sufficient in fuels and the EU couldn't control us Point of Ayr was the NCB built plant dedicated to producing these fuels and oils and during wages negotiations there were plans to build other such plants and miners would be allocated free fuels for their vehicles in lieu of their mileage payments they received for travelling to work.

A company called Century oils were the main lubricant supplier to British Coal as they also had these technologies and were producing oil from coal, they supplied powerdraulic for all hydraulic systems, powergear for all gearboxes, engine and transmission oil for surface plant. Century bought coal and turned it into oil, they were the sole supplier to British Coal for several years under a simple agreement, they bought British coal and turned it into oil and sold it back to the coal mining industry, a very lucrative business partnership; Century were based at Hanley, Stoke on Trent and were bought out by Fuchs, a German company.

Environmental legislation pushed up the price of British steel and made them uncompetitive in the world market, losing mining was a large hit to the industry and the loss of home produced steels hit many other industries and virtually wiped out most heavy industries, so why target the UK? Because the EU set the import tariffs and could suddenly make money from the UK importing steel and could control the UK industry to a degree.

Many of these industries moved or relocated to third world countries and many others closed, but why? profiteering, remember Bopal, if not look it up; cheap labour with a who cares if several people die attitude, cheap overheads for land and eletricity and gas, and very few safety regulations to contend with.

Now we have another EU agenda called climate change, didn't it used to be called global warming before records showed the climate was actually cooling, and again this is being used to villify diesel engines and diesel engines to the current RDE2 standard are actually cleaner than petrol engines, so why villify them. In my own testing of fuel consumption where comparable petrol and diesel engines were tested side by side, I found petrol engines consumed 3 times more fuel than diesel engines, so every lorry, van, tractor, bulldozer and working vehicle consumes much more fuel when under load, so where does the money aspect enter the equation? by doing away with diesel and replacing it with petrol you lose some diesel taxation, but replace it by selling three times more petrol to every haulier, heavy plant user, and anyone else using heavy equipment; not a hard sell to any countries treasury.

Superb article Assassin.

Just off on a slight tangent, I run a 4x4 Mitsubishi L200 . I get about 30+ mpg .Being old school ,when
I was younger diesel engines were low revving ,they only needed to be as thats the range where they
produce the most power . Nowadays folks are not taught and do not differentiate between diesel & petrol
engines & as a consequence drive them exactly the same. A case in point, When I was working with my son
I was getting 20%-25% better consumption from the same vehicle.
Whilst I may now be an old fart, I am not one of those who creep along the road. However I find there is
no need whatsoever to use more than 2000 rpm .Maybe 2500 on a motorway,anything more is just wasting
fuel.

Not off tangent Dave and I drive a Mitsubishi Shogun and get around 28 MPG tootling around, more with cruise control on if using motorways.

Nothing to do with power as diesel engines produce torque at low revs which is why they are used in everything from tractors through to lorries and larger 4X4's as opposed to the Cheasea tractors which never go off road unless you call bumping up a grass verge off roading. Put a petrol engine in them of similar power and to get similar torque you need large petrol engines, usually a V8 or a V6 to compete, it is merely a lack of understanding.
BHP is merely a theoretical figure and in simplified form is torque X revs and if you have similar petrol and diesel engines producing equal torque then the power of the petrol is always higher because the diesel may rev to 4000 RPM and the petrol may rev to 6000 RPM and will theoretically be 50% more powerful, but drop 3.5 tonnes on the back then you understand the difference, which is why all lorries are diesel.
Diesel engines also produce full power immediately after a cold start and this means low emissions from the beginning, petrol engines take anywhere between 10-20 miles to fully warm up which means they are on choke to some degree and are producing much higher emissions until they are fully warm. If you have a commuter petrol engine and do 5 miles to work your engine is never running totally hot and you are producing much higher emissions in your trip to work and polluting the environment much more than any diesel engine ever would, and by fully warm I mean actual engine working temperature and not a gauge reading.

Diesel engine manufacturers are trying to make high speed diesels and this is a major problem, ask any Mercedes diesel engined vehicle owner, notoriously unreliable by making them rev to 5200 RPM and people do drive them like petrol engines and then destroy them in the process. Ask any Mercedes van fleet manager and they will all say the same thing, con rods snapping, pistons destroyed, and the offside of the engine block trashed with a con rod and piston through it, and yes I have seen a large number of Merc engines with the con rod through the side of the block, so not rare occurences.

I am often asked why I don't have a Range Rover and my answer is simple, unreliability, and their next question is usually (through indoctrination) well, RR are the best off roaders and my retort is simple, it doesn't matter how good it is off road if the flywheel isn't turning as the superb off road systems ae not getting power to them.

My last Shogun was recently written off because an idiot in a company van drove into it, I owned it for 10 years and in that time it had three track rod ends at £8 each (with grease nipples) its orginal battery lasted for nearly 15 years, and as a precaution I changed the front crankshaft pulley as they are a known weak point due to age, their rubber bonding between the two halves deteriorates, apart from that it was brake pads all round, a pair of front discs, and ATF fluid changes every 5 years, not bad for 10 years of use where around 1/3rd of this was spent off road.