Anyone LR AWDs Showing 322 Miles Fully Charged?

[AKinDC]

Excellent explanation! Thank you. I wasn't too concerned but decided to check with Tesla service where they did a remote battery check. When they told me I didn't have the new battery I was confused. I do have the 18" selected. Thanks again

Do they do that remotely, or do you need to be at a service station?

 

[mmurphy]

Do they do that remotely, or do you need to be at a service station?

They did it remotely. This is the text that I got back from them

“Okay, so the battery healthcheck came back - no issues found. Also, I ran a quick Battery Warranty Test (where the retention is compared to analyze whether the degradation meets warranty replacement guidelines) - this also came back with excellent battery retention and no replacement needed.”

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Wow, it looks like Tesla picked up a few of the old Nissan Leaf techs. Your battery could be dripping Li-ion goo, and you would get a 5 star rating.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

with a guy who I am pretty sure basically baby sits the car and most likely doesn't supercharge that much and is only at 17k miles, then this is def not normal.

Babysitting: I drove the car 1080 miles (1750km) yesterday. Lots of V3 supercharging stops. Multiple draw downs to around 7-10%. Of course no significant change in the estimated energy (285-290 rated miles). Totally normal. Still charges at 250kW no issues (I saw brief excursions to 254kW). I’ve hit 4 V3s now - Kettleman, Williams, Red Bluff, Las Vegas.

 

[TimothyHW3]

I am still at 75,1kWh nominal full at 14 months, so... Just did a longer trip where I had to full charge a couple of times. I am at 9km down from brand new at 22,000 miles.

Maybe this can help you.

How I Recovered Half of my Battery's Lost Capacity

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I am still at 75,1kWh nominal full at 14 months, so... Just did a longer trip where I had to full charge a couple of times. I am at 9km down from brand new at 22,000 miles.

Maybe this can help you.

How I Recovered Half of my Battery's Lost Capacity

I think you'll see that I've already contributed quite a bit to that thread. The battery is what it is. Sometimes they lose capacity; typical and expected, I'm well within the distribution (probably in the 10-20th percentile?). It's not like there's some magic I need to conduct or some sort of careful procedure I need to follow to bring it back to 50th percentile. Just random variation amongst batteries.

I just did 2k miles of driving, multiple cycles down to around 10%, lots of 250kW Supercharging (definitely preferentially visit those ones, they are so great). Started with a full charge to 100% where I let it sit overnight. During the week where it sat halfway through the trip, it did a lot of slow 120V charging to 90%, and was left to sit and balance with no Sentry or any of that going on. Routinely loses 4-5 miles overnight after a charge when at 90%. Often gains 2-3 miles if it's left to sit at 50%. Perhaps due to rebalancing as well; I have no idea - depends on the details, or it could just be rebound of the battery capacity overnight. 2-3 miles is nothing of course, just noise.

It's fine. Solidly at 288 rated miles (no changes during my trip at all). Sitting happily at 90% right now, 259 miles. It's in great shape. Looks like the CAC got updated around 17k miles; everything is good. The loss of capacity is real, of course; monitoring my energy consumption it could not be more quantitatively clear that there is less available than there used to be. Super easy to see it is not an estimate. (I may post these details in a trip summary at some point, though I missed a couple datapoints on my way up. Got it all for the return though.)

Less energy available; no problem. Normal stuff, so far. (Note this is a 2018 3P+ - not a 2020 AWD that is the primary topic of this thread, for the purposes of converting these rated mile quotes to kWh using the appropriate constant.) I have just 4.5kWh less energy than you, but also an older battery, so we'll see in about 8-10 months where you are at.

 

[Phlier]

I wonder how many calls Tesla would NOT get if they just sucked it up and put a "we think your battery has the capability of currently holding xx kW/h" gauge on the display.

Telling us what the capacity was when new, and allowing us to monitor its actual capacity, would prevent soooo much of this, and prevent so many calls to customer service.

Yes, such a number would still be subject to the limitations of the BMS's ability to guesstimate capacity, but since it's doing that anyway, why not just let us see the stupid number?

It's like having a gas tank where we can see how full it is as a percent, but can't see the actual number of gallons of gas the tank will hold. Yeah, I know you can go find your vehicle's constant, and all that, but you shouldn't have to. Just tell us how many kW/h of energy we have, already.

 

[camalaio]

I wonder how many calls Tesla would NOT get if they just sucked it up and put a "we think your battery has the capability of currently holding xx kW/h" gauge on the display.

Telling us what the capacity was when new, and allowing us to monitor its actual capacity, would prevent soooo much of this, and prevent so many calls to customer service.

Yes, such a number would still be subject to the limitations of the BMS's ability to guesstimate capacity, but since it's doing that anyway, why not just let us see the stupid number?

It's like having a gas tank where we can see how full it is as a percent, but can't see the actual number of gallons of gas the tank will hold. Yeah, I know you can go find your vehicle's constant, and all that, but you shouldn't have to. Just tell us how many kW/h of energy we have, already.

That would not have really worked for 2018/2019 models (310mi) due to the inflated miles at new (@AlanSubie4Life's theory) because you'd get funny results with displayed range and kWh not matching at the top end, but works better for how we understand the 2020 models (322mi) to work. That said, the 2020 models already tell you your kWh by the range display since there appears to be a linear relationship. The "at new" capacity is known (advertised range). And people inherently understand rated distance far better than kWh, even EV owners.

Unless you're highlighting that it's hard extrapolate the 100% capacity from a given state of charge, then yes it would be nice if that was more obvious since the car has all the information to display that more accurately. The app tries using the API data, but makes the same rounding error mistakes that third party services do.

I think the biggest problem they're facing is that the 2020 models seem to show any degradation immediately.

This graph from TeslaFi has some interesting takeaways (just look at the green line - it's for the fleet)

1. You can see the part where for 2018/2019 models, Tesla "hid" the initial capacity reduction. This is shown by the flatter section at the start followed by the steeper decline.
2. The jaggier bit at the end is probably due to less vehicles at that point - they will be the part of the heavier used Model 3s out there. Interestingly, they seem to have less degradation, but this is likely not statistically significant due to low number of samples.
3. If you factor in the hidden part of capacity reduction, Model 3 is down nearly 8% already at 30,000mi (the 2019 Impact Report [link, pg 13] shows only a similar median hit only after >100,000mi for Model S/X, and less than 5% at the same 30,000mi mark. This data aligns with third party reports as well). If the Wh per rated distance were constant, I'd expect the initial value to be around 315 and not 310 (by extraordinarily helpful fluke, that would be the top of the Model 3 graph).

The third point is especially interesting to me. Of course, we expect (and see via the above graphs) the decline in retention to slow down and plateau a bit. We must also recognize there are issues with TeslaFi's data specifically (if nothing else, it could easily be a biased sample), but their medians should be a decently accurate representation of the fleet despite the issues they face while extrapolating any particular individual's 100% range.

• Primary point: Model 3 might actually be having less retention over time than Tesla expected. This is absolutely a risk they took with a completely changed design, and should be acknowledged. Equipping customers with more forward data on losses might be shameful as a result, so they might not want to just hand you those numbers in plain sight. However...
• 2020 Model 3s should make this steeper retention loss more honest than previous models. In a couple years if we graph just 2020 retention, I expect it will look worse than 2018/2019 despite probably having the same battery (chemically/electrically).
• As a result of the above point, Tesla is probably fielding a lot more calls about degradation. They had to know this would happen, so they probably did it with purpose despite the risk.

This isn't some conspiracy that Telsa's pulling the wool over our eyes, especially with 2020 models. They're being perhaps a bit too honest about battery capacity for their own good - more calls regarding degradation, looks like more degradation than before, and so far data suggests it's doing worse than Model S/X.

Anyhow. That's my take on showing actual capacity (or retention). tl;dr: it probably wouldn't look good if they made it more obvious, but they sort of did that anyways for 2020 (322mi LR AWD) via the range gauge, which has actually resulted in more complaints (at least on this forum) due to retention loss being more obvious. The unit (rated distance or kWh) wouldn't change that, I don't think.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That would not have really worked for 2018/2019 models (310mi) due to the inflated miles at new (@AlanSubie4Life's theory) because you'd get funny results with displayed range and kWh not matching at the top end, but works better for how we understand the 2020 models (322mi) to work. That said, the 2020 models already tell you your kWh by the range display since there appears to be a linear relationship. The "at new" capacity is known (advertised range). And people inherently understand rated distance far better than kWh, even EV owners.

Unless you're highlighting that it's hard extrapolate the 100% capacity from a given state of charge, then yes it would be nice if that was more obvious since the car has all the information to display that more accurately. The app tries using the API data, but makes the same rounding error mistakes that third party services do.

I think the biggest problem they're facing is that the 2020 models seem to show any degradation immediately.

This graph from TeslaFi has some interesting takeaways (just look at the green line - it's for the fleet)

1. You can see the part where for 2018/2019 models, Tesla "hid" the initial capacity reduction. This is shown by the flatter section at the start followed by the steeper decline.
2. The jaggier bit at the end is probably due to less vehicles at that point - they will be the part of the heavier used Model 3s out there. Interestingly, they seem to have less degradation, but this is likely not statistically significant due to low number of samples.
3. If you factor in the hidden part of capacity reduction, Model 3 is down nearly 8% already at 30,000mi (the 2019 Impact Report [link, pg 13] shows only a similar median hit only after >100,000mi for Model S/X, and less than 5% at the same 30,000mi mark. This data aligns with third party reports as well). If the Wh per rated distance were constant, I'd expect the initial value to be around 315 and not 310 (by extraordinarily helpful fluke, that would be the top of the Model 3 graph).

The third point is especially interesting to me. Of course, we expect (and see via the above graphs) the decline in retention to slow down and plateau a bit. We must also recognize there are issues with TeslaFi's data specifically (if nothing else, it could easily be a biased sample), but their medians should be a decently accurate representation of the fleet despite the issues they face while extrapolating any particular individual's 100% range.

• Primary point: Model 3 might actually be having less retention over time than Tesla expected. This is absolutely a risk they took with a completely changed design, and should be acknowledged. Equipping customers with more forward data on losses might be shameful as a result, so they might not want to just hand you those numbers in plain sight. However...
• 2020 Model 3s should make this steeper retention loss more honest than previous models. In a couple years if we graph just 2020 retention, I expect it will look worse than 2018/2019 despite probably having the same battery (chemically/electrically).
• As a result of the above point, Tesla is probably fielding a lot more calls about degradation. They had to know this would happen, so they probably did it with purpose despite the risk.

This isn't some conspiracy that Telsa's pulling the wool over our eyes, especially with 2020 models. They're being perhaps a bit too honest about battery capacity for their own good - more calls regarding degradation, looks like more degradation than before, and so far data suggests it's doing worse than Model S/X.

Anyhow. That's my take on showing actual capacity (or retention). tl;dr: it probably wouldn't look good if they made it more obvious, but they sort of did that anyways for 2020 (322mi LR AWD) via the range gauge, which has actually resulted in more complaints (at least on this forum) due to retention loss being more obvious. The unit (rated distance or kWh) wouldn't change that, I don't think.

Thanks for the summary. Agreed on basically everything.

I'd add that I suspect that even 2020s may have some very small mile inflation initially, at least for some lucky owners starting at closer to 78.5kWh rather than the 77.6kWh threshold. I have no data on this though. I just have no idea how else they would account for variable initial battery capacity.

I think (Theory! Wild guess! May be wrong!) they were able to get tighter initial capacity control (so in the range of 77.6kWh to 79kWh) on 2020s rather than the wider range of 76kWh to 79kWh on 2018/2019 Model 3.

So the energy per rated mile expansion before hitting the threshold is smaller for 2020 (if it exists).

But for sure, if TeslaFi allows plotting a similar plot to yours above for just 2020 vehicles, I'd expect it to look more linear at the beginning, just as you said. It's such a small energy per mile expansion on 2020s (if any) that basically they're going to start showing mileage loss nearly immediately. They will have a much shorter plateau...

But as you say, if the energy per rated distance expansion is really a thing, this doesn't mean that the 2020s are actually losing capacity faster than the 2018/2019s (I'd be a bit surprised if they were).

I heard on Model S that new vehicles just stayed pinned at their max rated miles for a few miles when the car was new, after you started driving (so they had kind of a hidden extra bit of extra capacity "above" the maximum initially - but no energy per unit distance expansion). Model 3 definitely has never done this. I'm not sure whether this is true about Model S - I just read it here somewhere at some point. It's a different way to treat and deal with variable initial capacities. But it would also hide some degradation, too. I'm not sure what the TeslaFi curves look like for Model S/X. If they did actually have this hidden upper buffer, I'd expect them to also have a flat degradation curve at low mileage.

 

[camalaio]

I heard on Model S that new vehicles just stayed pinned at their max rated miles for a few miles when the car was new, after you started driving (so they had kind of a hidden extra bit of extra capacity "above" the maximum initially - but no energy per unit distance expansion). Model 3 definitely has never done this. I'm not sure whether this is true about Model S - I just read it here somewhere at some point. It's a different way to treat and deal with variable initial capacities. But it would also hide some degradation, too. I'm not sure what the TeslaFi curves look like for Model S/X. If they did actually have this hidden upper buffer, I'd expect them to also have a flat degradation curve at low mileage.

Hmm. Yeah, the whole time I was writing that post I was wondering how they do this for S/X, because that impacts the comparison I made greatly. I've heard the same as what you said (the miles just don't tick down at the top), but I'm not sure when that came into effect, if it still does that, by how much it did that, how much it impacted both Tesla's and third party graphs, at what date in the past those graphs may have changed due to such behaviour, etc.

The third-party graphs I've seen for Model S/X don't have an initial plateau though, which suggests they don't have any sort of capped or augmented range at the top of the charge (on average). This is why I didn't bring it up specifically (and in hindsight I should've mentioned that, as it gives credit when comparing it to Model 3 capacity retention), but I do find that weird given there are observations about that pinning behaviour.

Btw, the TeslaFi plot is not mine, I found it on another thread in this forum. I should've just linked and credited, whoops :S it was the highest odometer reading graph I could find.