It's stated directly in the article that Tesla's study reports vehicles with 200K miles generally retaining 85% capacity. That's nearly 300% better than what you're suggesting.

▲

tonymet 5 days ago | parent [-]

first off that's not the case just check everyone running their battery calibration tests on forums.

And the context above is the warranty not covering long enough durations. 70% or 8 years does not protect the value of the vehicle. Below 70% @ 9 years is a worthless car

▲

foobazgt 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> first off that's not the case

It's objectively the case. They literally have the data to back it up, regardless of what anecdata you might have seen on some forums.

> And the context above

Their fleet data says 85% battery average capacity at 200K mi and that battery degradation slows down over time. That's a far cry from 70% at 9 years.

	▲	tonymet 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not to mention what’s the stddev ? That’s still a lot of write offs even going by their subjective figures
	▲	tonymet 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That’s the opposite of objective.

▲

Sohcahtoa82 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> first off that's not the case just check everyone running their battery calibration tests on forums.

Relying on posts from forums is going to end up with some major selection bias. People who don't have significant battery degradation are less likely to go to forums to see what others have been dealing with.

	▲	tonymet 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		i agree partially. I think both outliers will post. the good ones for bragging rights. But don't be too quick to dismiss. there's an entire industry in tesla battery repair to address the loss in value. That wouldn't exist if the batteries were at the claimed level. and there are many other indications. It's funny how "statistics" from tesla will be taken at face value, whereas other real experiences from owners are dismissed as "anecdotal". They are all just stories. Who do you want to listen to?