Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

3.0 Battery Longevity

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
So here's a hypothesis. The CAC algorithm doesn't get any data unless you range charge the car or run it to very low SOC. Otherwise, it's a complete guess based on what the engineers thought when they wrote the code. When you DO range charge or run to low SOC, it gets some data, but it averages that in with what it already thinks (which may be based on old data, or may be based on lots of guessing).

The guesses that it makes are essentially just drawing a line from when it was new to the current time. However, when it gets new data from a range charge, it not only adjusts the CAC, it adjusts its estimate of the slope of the line. So, range charging not only increases the CAC, it decreases its rate of decline. Again, this isn't saying that it helps the cells (it almost certainly doesn't), it's that it helps the estimate.

As evidence of this, I made the following chart. It's really simple. I just pulled the CAC-vs-miles chart for my car (#670). Then, I chose four range charges that I did (usually really several in a row) that made the CAC go up. Then, I drew straight lines from the starting CAC and 0 miles through the peaks. The fact that the CAC more-or-less follows the lines until I start range charging again fits the hypothesis reasonably well.

So then that lets us ask what the real degradation curve looks like. For that, I just drew a smoothed line through the same peaks. This gives the second graph. And *that* graph shows a strong suggestion of the degradation rate slowing down. Of cells that lose some capacity and then stop getting worse for a while. This, of course, is only one car with four data points. Furthermore, I range charge much more often than I run the battery down to low SOC, so the algorithm is only seeing the top of the battery, and we're not all that sure what's happening with the bottom. Still, less discouraging than news usually is in this thread.

This should also make it obvious why I really want someone else who's got a car with low CAC and range charge it for a number of days in a row, until the CAC stops climbing. If it winds up somewhere near my smoothed curve, then maybe we're on to something. You don't have to drive the car too much, just let it range charge a number of times in a row. It didn't kill my battery, it probably won't kill yours. :)

linear.jpg
knee.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: dhrivnak and JRP3
To accurately determine the CAC you need to get to the bottom of the charge. Everything else you are just wasting your time. Range charging uses a rough guess at capacity based on AH required to raise the voltage from the middle 3.7V to 4.2V. But the actual capacity is determined by when the lowest brick gets to the min voltage. Since the majority of the useable AH is in the range where little voltage change occurs, there is no way of accurately determining the actual capacity. Using the upper part of the charge you are relying solely upon what was programmed, not actual measurements (just one end of the scale). CAC is "calculated", not actual.

Range charge it and run it to almost empty. Read the AH used and you have your actual capacity. If someone would do that you would be able to tell if this is an actual capacity loss or just a math error. Anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: miimura
Updating with data from slcasner #33, and a most recent few weeks of my car.

#33 did multiple range charges and has its CAC jump up a few Ah. Then a long drive and it went right back down to where it was.

I looked in his log by hand (usually I just use software to generate the graphs), and I found something extremely interesting. The log reports the brick min Ah, which is the CAC. It also reports the brick average Ah. For my car, the min is 188.7 and the ave is 192.9, so several Ah off but not totally crazy. For #33, the min is 183.7, but the average is 200.3. There's a 17Ah difference in the bricks. That is, #33's battery is grotesquely out of balance.

Standard mode charges only get up to ~80% SOC. I suspect that this is not high enough to effectively balance. It may be that if you never (or rarely) range charge, or if you don't let the car sit with a full charge for a long while to let it balance, it gets way, way out of whack.

When I got my second (replacement original) battery, it hadn't been installed in a car for a long while and it was also really out of balance. Tesla service told me to range charge it and let it sit at full charge for at least a week to get it balanced. I verified with the debug screen that it really took that long, and in fact the CAC and ideal miles climbed while it was balancing. It might be worth doing that with #33 to see what happens.

I might check some of the other lower mileage cars to see how unbalanced their batteries are. The only other one I've checked so far is Dave Denhart's #181, which seemed to be pretty in balance for the latest log I have for it, which is kind of old now.

I d
CAC vs. Mileage.jpg
CAC vs. Days.jpg
id two long drives in a row with my car earlier this week, but it didn't seem to do much. It's still holding steady just under 190Ah like it has been for months.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: dhrivnak
Here's a chart of #33's battery balance (ave brick - min brick, 0 is perfect) over time. You can see right at the end that it drops a little, presumably because of the range charge, and then spikes back up, maybe from the low-ish SOC after the long drive. Mostly, though, it seems to have been steadily accumulating over the life of the battery.


33 balance.jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: dhrivnak
Do you have access to the brick voltages? Obviously the car balances by the voltage difference, not the Ah. So if the voltages are within the .03V spec for balance then you know there is actually a cell degradation issue. If the bricks are actually out of balance, then a firmware update to the balancing algorithm might solve this issue. Balancing on a non 3.0 stops around 79% SOC, so if the standard charge has been reduced to 80% from 83% without also lowering the cutoff point, (it is actually the voltage not SOC that controls those points) that would explain the problem.
 
@bolosky You might want to look at mine, too. 537. I very rarely range charge, and when I do it's because I am going to drive it straight away. When I come home tonight, I'll range charge it and let it sit for as long as I can (a few days), then send you new logs.

From the last log I have for you, you're at 195.9 avg, 192.5 min, so not nearly as far off as #33.
 
It's also possible that #33 actually has a bad brick, and it's a special case. I should look at more cars and see how their balance is, but of the four I've checked (33, 181, 537, 670) only 33 is way out of balance.
 
@bolosky, thanks for doing the additional analysis on my battery. I have not monitored the balancing action after charging. Currently the balancing page shows all zeros, but I understand that is always the case except right after a charge completes. I will make a point to monitor the balancing screen after a range mode charge. Right now we are having a heat wave, so I'm reluctant to leave the battery sitting at full charge.

@MLAUTO, my battery voltage numbers are Vmin: 4.04 (#20), Vmax: 4.07 (#1), and Vave: 4.06. That is within the 0.03 spec that you mentioned. So does this mean my battery really is not out of balance? Or do I need to look at those voltages under some other conditions than the car sitting idle after a standard mode charge a few days ago.
 
@MLAUTO, my battery voltage numbers are Vmin: 4.04 (#20), Vmax: 4.07 (#1), and Vave: 4.06. That is within the 0.03 spec that you mentioned. So does this mean my battery really is not out of balance? Or do I need to look at those voltages under some other conditions than the car sitting idle after a standard mode charge a few days ago.

Yes, your battery is balanced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhrivnak
Did anything come of that letter and petition?

No.

The UK contact said on May 14th, "I have asked the service team to give you an update as quickly as possible". I politely suggested that the matter was not for service but for engineering to address, as it was affecting most, if not all cars with the 3.0 battery. That was the last I heard. My car is going in for annual service at the end of this month (postponed from last week) so if I do not hear by then I will chase it.

The version of the letter we sent to the VP of Engineering after meeting him went into a black hole.
 
My car (#707) is in the shop. Took them 2 days to diagnose a "short" in the battery.
Maybe want to look back into my logs, I will send you the same one I sent Antonio
in Torrance 2 weeks ago.
They can't even give me an estimate beyond "3 to 6 months," LOL.