TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

3.0 Battery Longevity

Discussion in 'Roadster 2008-2012' started by bolosky, Feb 14, 2017.

Tags:
  1. ion_1

    ion_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2016
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    NJ
    Just to reiterate what dhrivnak mentioned, NMC is widely used in the market today. Known* users are i3, 400e, soul EV, forttwo eV, focus ev, and the vast majority of the PHEV cars (BME/Porsche/Merc/Volt/Hyundai/Ford). Although we don't know the exact type of NMC (composition, which changes and continues to change) or electrolytes used, it is a well known robust positive electrode. Just thought this would be worthwhile to mention so all those who purchased a 3.0 don't freak. Powersource has a concern as no one else has used NMC in small format cells (18650) for ev, I don't know anything about that, could be.

    PowerSource makes a case for a discussion relative to the original LCO cells for lifetime. These were quite good/amazing and were a very well known and tested chemistry before introduction. The only thing that catches ones eye on the new HG2 cells is the use of small amounts of Si(O) in the negative. Others are doing this now to increase energy so it is not totally uncommon. I am not sure if LG uses it in the new ford. Regardless, we need to move forward and vast amounts of testing has been done, but there does not exist the depth of "real" calendar life as with the panasonic lco cells as these are relatively new, and it is difficult to be fully convinced. There are ways to accelerate the testing and LG/Tesla has likely examined the data carefully.

    I personally like 18650 vs pouch for EV for many reasons. The Tesla 21700 cell is a newbie, certainly interesting to see the performance of these cells, but very glad they are not pouch.

    Regardless of all discussions, very pleased that Tesla is supporting the roadster community.

    Personally:

    1) I would be happy as part of the roadsters to purchase replacement batts with new chemistries and assist Tesla with data (with a good warranty on the batt..)

    2) It would be great if we could get a "lifetime" mode for the charge cycle for the higher capacity batteries that have excess miles that are not needed in normal commute.

    3) Most ideal (and unrealistic): offer two battery packs, one super robust but lower capacity with much longer warranty, and one that is optimized for capacity/miles. I'm not talking two sized batteries as the lower capacity one would just be stressed more, but with respect to chemistry. It's like choosing different ICEs when buying a car (except for the warranty part).



    * Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 164 (1) A5019-A5025 (2017)
     
    • Like x 1
  2. PowerSource

    PowerSource Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Tesla will likely make re-manufactured (current production) Model S/X packs at the GF, so this gives hope that the 18650 form factor will still live on for some time and might translate over to the Roadster packs.
     
  3. BTO84

    BTO84 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
     
  4. eljf

    eljf Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Hi guys,

    any conclusions on the 3.0? Sounds strange to sell a product that degrades to a lower baseline spec.

    Admittedly I'm so un-technical that I can't figure out how to upload a profile pic to TMC. But was DC charging or ChaDeMo really out of this planet as an upgrade? I bet some of you techcy wiz folks would have found a way.

    ian m
     
  5. thefortunes

    thefortunes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,072
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    • Like x 2
  6. eljf

    eljf Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Awesome. Thanks 'thefortunes'. I was going to look this up.

    Still keen to hear updated views on 3.0 upgrade.

    The original Tesla post Roadster 3.0 claimed a new aero-kit + wheel system. I haven't heard anyone comment on this?

    ian m
     
  7. hcsharp

    hcsharp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,370
    Location:
    Vermont
    It's kind of a sore subject. Tesla promised an aero kit, wheel bearings, tires, and brake caliper mods. They even tested them on a trip of just under 400 mi.Then they dropped the ball. They never promised a completion date so maybe they'll still release the other improvements.
     
    • Like x 2
  8. eljf

    eljf Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I feel like a part of the Technical community now: the Henry Sharp has replied to my post :D

    I bought your CanJR, and then ur CanSR came out, so I got that too. Expensive way to do things, but must be your good karma helping us all out (was just messaging Mark Sanders UK saying discussing this).

    Another one to the list of sores suffered by Roadster owners ;) Most will know what I mean. Still loving the car itself thou.

    Still keen to hear updated views on 3.0 upgrade.
     
    • Like x 1
  9. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    I suspect that what's happening is none of the three options in my post that started the thread.

    I while back I decided to range charge the car every day for a week, thinking that maybe it just couldn't balance properly with the new, lower standard charge. So, I did that, but it seemed to quit balancing pretty quickly, unlike when I'd gotten a new original battery years ago. However, what I saw was that the CAC steadily went up every day in the week from roughly 201 to 205.

    Since then, it's gone back down on a steady decline, kind of like what it was doing when I first looked at it.

    I suspect that what's wrong is that the CAC determining algorithm can't deal with the lower standard charge limit, and it (greatly) overestimates the rate of battery degradation. So, the car is confused, but the cells themselves are (probably) fine.

    I guess the right thing to do it to watch it for another six months or so and see what happens.
     
    • Informative x 2
  10. gregd

    gregd Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,524
    Location:
    CM98
    Can you post an updated graph of the CAC trend? This may be a significant revelation.

    I've been wondering about the lower standard charge SoC limit, and what that might do to balancing and so forth. In theory, keeping the battery at the lower SoC should be good for it, so the possibility of an actual deterioration was very disturbing and caused me to back off the ""buy" button. My original battery is otherwise in good shape, but I may go for the upgrade now.
     
  11. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    Roadster 670 CAC vs Mileage after 3.0 Upgrade.jpg
    Here is the graph showing what happened to the CAC when I range charged it every day for a week, then went back to normal. When it was range charging it didn't balance all that much, so I don't think that that was the problem, which is why I suspect that it's just doing a really bad job of computing the CAC when the battery just doesn't charge full. It's telling that the slope after the range charge is pretty much the same as before it. It didn't drop faster to get back onto the same line.

    I'm not sure what the end game of this is. It seems like after a year or two the CAC will be so far off the actual battery that the car will have a completely wrong idea about how much charge it has. I wonder what will happen then (maybe Tesla will just fix the software).

    (BTW, this graph is a little different from the previous ones Dave and I posted, because it's a scatter graph with the odometer on the X axis rather than date. This probably doesn't make much difference for this graph, but since battery capacity seems to go with miles driven more than calendar time it seems like right thing to do.)
     
    • Informative x 3
  12. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    Oh, and IIRC the little bump at 115,500 miles was also a range charge.
     
  13. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    @bolosky thanks for posting that graph. Very interesting. I don't have any CAC numbers for 3.0 battery, but can say that for the first 6-8 months of ownership (got it June 2016) on a standard charge it would display about 236 miles of Ideal range, if I recall correctly. Then over the past 3 months I've noticed that number declining steadily and it is now at 225-226.

    I range charge only occasionally. I have not tried range charging for multiple days in a row, as I've never been convinced that accomplishes anything lasting. When my 3.0 battery was new it range charged to the mid 350's like others have posted about (if I recall correctly). The last time I range charged was about a month ago and it stopped at 346. I expect some battery degradation over time, of course, and am willing to accept a 2-3% drop in the first year, but don't want more than that! After the first year I expect maybe 1% decline. I hope.

    Your theory that the software is incorrectly calculating the CAC of the 3.0 battery is intriguing.
     
    • Like x 1
  14. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    If you send me your log file, I'll be happy to make a graph like that for you. PM me and we'll figure out how to transfer the file if you're interested.

    Your charge numbers are much higher than mine. My highest charge was in the 340s (344 or 346 IIRC), and standard charge started at 225 and then declined to maybe 218-219 after ~7.5K miles.

    It would be interesting to see if you have the same or a different slope of CAC decline from me and Dave.
     
    • Like x 1
  15. ion_1

    ion_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2016
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    NJ
    Interesting, many thanks showing plot.The next 10% or so of fade will be telling. Similar chemistries show a decent fade upfront but then are rock solid (but as discussed, this one is slightly different beyond NMC). I assume you have done a long drive between charges bringing it down to low SOC. Then the CAC should correct itself unless there is something seriously wrong with the algorithm. Obviously at that point there is very little calculation as actual Ah and V that has passed through the system can be measured directly. Probably many eyes are on this thread (or should be). I'm certain Tesla will be feeding in and watching the 3.0 data carefully as it will factor into chemistry decisions moving forward. Maybe a sticky with semi-frequent CAC updates by 3.0 members?
     
  16. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    BTW, this offer is open to anyone. It might be interesting to do a big graph with lots of CAC vs. mileage curves for the original and 3.0 batteries, both.
     
    • Like x 1
  17. ion_1

    ion_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2016
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    NJ
    That is a good idea and would be really useful to the entire community, even if just for 3.0.
    CAC as a function of time would be good as a contrast. With the two then we can can extract whether charge/discharge (which somewhat scales with mileage) or calendar life is more of an issue with 3.0 chem or cell construction.

    The trends are most important, so plots are really useful to extract the best info.
     
  18. gregd

    gregd Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,524
    Location:
    CM98
    So, I have my 2.0 (original battery) in the shop right now for it's yearly de-leafing, and have printed out @bolosky's graph in order to have a chat with the techs when I pick it up tomorrow. Staring at it, I realized that the CAC at 115,500 and 118,500 are about the same. If the reduction in CAC were real, then why would the battery have the same CAC after 3k miles have been added to it?

    The slope of the decline after the range charging is maybe slightly higher than before. Perhaps it will take a bit longer than 1.5k miles to settle down to the original trend line, but that little tail at the end suggests otherwise. So, the overall conclusion is that what we are seeing is a drift in the CAC estimate. Then again, the ambient temps are starting to increase (presumption... Where are you located?), which usually causes CAC to drift a bit higher. Hard to know which we are seeing...
     
  19. bolosky

    bolosky Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    I'm in Seattle, and it's been a cool spring. I saw a piece on TV saying that we've set the record for the latest first 60 degree day (which usually happens Feb 27 and hasn't happened yet).

    I only know of two reasons for the CAC to go up: better balancing the battery (which is why I started range charging it) and the CAC algorithm making adjustments.

    One thing that really stood out to me is the big jump up at 111,000 miles. The car takes one measurement every day, so you can tell that I drove a long way before that happened, since that dot is far to the right of the previous one. If it's what I think, then I both range charged it and drove it nearly to empty. This should give the CAC algorithm much better data to work with. The same thing happened around 116,500 miles with the same result. All of that makes me think that Tesla just screwed up the algorithm and that the car has no realistic idea of how much battery capacity it has.

    And that make me feel much better, since it's not nearly the problem that actual battery capacity declining at that rate would be.

    Plus, maybe it's an excuse to drive the car on some longer trips, which is always a lot of fun.
     
  20. DaveD

    DaveD EVs Kick Gas!

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    642
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    It's not nearly as much fun to drive long trips in a Roadster when it's cold and rainy. Spring/Summer here in the PNW can't come quick enough for me! :D
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC