AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It wasn’t average consumption. Just the rated constant (which is 5Wh/mi below the rated line).how you can calculate my average consumption
Constant = Degradation threshold / EPA rated miles
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It wasn’t average consumption. Just the rated constant (which is 5Wh/mi below the rated line).how you can calculate my average consumption
I agree it will never be 100% accurate, no matter how you measure it. If you compare two data points they need to be taken at the same battery temperature, too. I once decided to precondition the car before connecting it to a level 2 charger. While the car was standing and not connected to the charger, the SoC and the remaining miles actually went up at first. I had several instances of phantom gain instead of phantom drain, too.In the old days, the best way to determine the degradation was to deplete the battery from 100% to 5% or lower and register the kWh used and compare them to either the posted usable battery capacity or to other readings previously taken. Nowadays everyone is using tools that are more or less perfect. And many people consider degradation based on the range @ 100%, which is misleading. Why ? Tesla take the EPA rating (the official energy consumption figures per mile from regulatory testing) and assume that a mile requires that much energy. The battery management system (BMS) works out how many kwh of energy are available and converts that to miles or km using that official efficiency figure. Problem is, the BMS in time, can have errors in reading the lowest and the highest voltage of the cell pack, especially when people are driving usually no more than 20-30% SOC in a day.
As it is a facelift, Id say no M3P facelift was soldxeith the old battery, so all should have 82.1 if nit any wicked battery change was done?The reason for the 82.1 <> 77.8 initial capacity discrepancy is Tesla recently reclassified some of the energy efficiency labels in the firmware, and now there are two different batteries using the same internal label. You'd either have the 82.1 pack or the 77.8 pack.
Initial capacity is the max range/energy reported by cars in the real world at ~0 mi odometer with your model/trim/efficiency label. Usually it works super well but if you've got a pack with duplicate labeling you might need to set your own. Hopefully they separate out the labels in the future or there becomes some way to identify packs with 100% certainty remotely.
So when Tessie set my Model Y to 78.5 by default, is that detecting the 82.1 and setting a start point?The reason for the 82.1 <> 77.8 initial capacity discrepancy is Tesla recently reclassified some of the energy efficiency labels in the firmware, and now there are two different batteries using the same internal label. You'd either have the 82.1 pack or the 77.8 pack.
Initial capacity is the max range/energy reported by cars in the real world at ~0 mi odometer with your model/trim/efficiency label. Usually it works super well but if you've got a pack with duplicate labeling you might need to set your own. Hopefully they separate out the labels in the future or there becomes some way to identify packs with 100% certainty remotely.
Tessie can't see or know the buffer. I regularly see that low value reported as well, but those are outliers - it's rare to post questions about being perfectly average, which is logically where most people are.I regularly see way to low initial value, and the owners think ”its the net value, without the buffer”
78.5 is what other cars with the same config reported at 0 mi odometer. Hard to tell if you won the battery pack lotto or if there's something different with your battery versus other owners with that config.So when Tessie set my Model Y to 78.5 by default, is that detecting the 82.1 and setting a start point?
TBH, I've been trying to follow but still have no idea how I can get my current rough degradation in Tessie At around 3200 miles (car purchased in Feb 2023), I'm seeing 0% default and 4.1% when set to 82.1.
When using the charged energy as the source for capacity, the buffer will be included.It is the net value without the buffer. Tessie can't see or know the buffer. I regularly see that low value reported as well, but those are outliers - it's rare to post questions about being perfectly average, which is logically where most people are.
It's also made more confusing by the fact there's a top-end and low-end buffer, and it's also not always 4.5%, and you can keep driving past 0% even though you're not supposed to, so what is usable is really fuzzy. The whole thing is kind of a mess and Tessie tries to make the best thing possible out of it. For lack of a better option, we use what the car reports for your 0-100% energy. I dream for a global standard and to be able to provide a breakdown!When using the charged energy as the source for capacity, the buffer will be included.
When charging 1km or mile, the ”added” energy for this is value is slightly higher than the real value, by the factor of the buffer (4.5% of the total capacity).
A 82.1 kWh battery in model 3 performance most often start at 80.5 kWh or so, according to the BMS.
78.8 kWh would imply a gross capacity of 82.5 kWh, so thats far of. If ot was met capacity it could not go above 78.4kWh, and in most cases it should read 76.9 kWh net. The 77.8 kWh battery, that is 77.8 kWh gross capacity, including the buffer.
The usable capacity is also gross capacity including the buffer. Checked with Scan
my tesla from the BMS, the energy graph and also the rated range at 100% x the constant. They all match, so the usable capacity is quite nice calculated but it also includes the buffer.
When the car reports charging from 0-100%, the buffer is included in that number. So, the energy is exaggerated by the buffer number (4.7%, as in 1/0.955). This means, using this number as the base for the calculations, we get the gross capacity, including the buffer.It's also made more confusing by the fact there's a top-end and low-end buffer, and it's also not always 4.5%, and you can keep driving past 0% even though you're not supposed to, so what is usable is really fuzzy. The whole thing is kind of a mess and Tessie tries to make the best thing possible out of it. For lack of a better option, we use what the car reports for your 0-100% energy. I dream for a global standard and to be able to provide a breakdown!
Tesla use a limit for the displayed range thats the EPA number, and in several vehicles this range limit is reached before a new fresh battery is full (Named degradation treshold here on TMC, after @AlanSubie4Life’s term for this). In many cases the ”margin is about 2%.
I do not know is you possibly refer to this as a top buffer?
When the battery has a capacity above that limit (degradation threshold), each km or mile will have a higher energy content and the full range will be reached at 100%.this range limit is reached before a new fresh battery is full
I live in the northern part of Sweden but its fairly flat. There are a lot of smaller mountains but the roads go mainly around them. In general, the 10% regen or so seems very standard in Sweden when we look at SMT screenshots.View attachment 938240
Very informative! Just looking at your numbers, I was wondering does the amount of Regen relate to your general topography? So, that someone living in a hillier area would have higher Regen relative to the total than someone living in a geographically flatter area? Seems intuitively to make sense, but I was just wondering if that is indeed the case, more so, than any driving style influence.
The reason I ask, is I know my data shows Regen to be about 25% of Drive total, but I live in a hilly area, and I try not to regen more than braking to a stop, since I think that's an inefficiency. Anyway, just wondering.
Okay, found it:View attachment 938244
I'm showing way higher percentage of Regen relative to Drive total, and I presume that's because of my topography, as opposed to my driving style, or at least I hope so!
View attachment 938240
Very informative! Just looking at your numbers, I was wondering does the amount of Regen relate to your general topography? So, that someone living in a hillier area would have higher Regen relative to the total than someone living in a geographically flatter area? Seems intuitively to make sense, but I was just wondering if that is indeed the case, more so, than any driving style influence.
The reason I ask, is I know my data shows Regen to be about 25% of Drive total, but I live in a hilly area, and I try not to regen more than braking to a stop, since I think that's an inefficiency. Anyway, just wondering.
Okay, found it:View attachment 938244
I'm showing way higher percentage of Regen relative to Drive total, and I presume that's because of my topography, as opposed to my driving style, or at least I hope so!
A high regen number of course depends on the conditions. For the same conditions a high regen should be good as it saves energy and also reduces the mean cycles size. Less energy on each trip = smaller cycles.As I may have mentioned, I think using regen for braking is a great feature; but driving smoothly is best for efficiency, so you want to minimize the stop-start driving style as much as possible; so higher regen figures "might" indicate a less efficient driving style, unless you live in a hilly area where you're going to naturally get more regen due to lots of downhills, etc. So, I was trying to figure out if my higher regen %age was due to inefficiency or just topography.
Basically, we don't know if a high regen number is good or not, without context, so that's why I asked aakee about his topography.
I supposed one could intuit the answer by looking at the car's total driving efficiency, to decide whether the regen number was good or not. That is, if you had a bad driving efficiency figure, but high regen, then maybe one's driving style was too stop-n-go, while if you have a good driving efficiency figure and high regen, then it's likely due to topography. That sort of thing.
...
I supposed one could intuit the answer by looking at the car's total driving efficiency, to decide whether the regen number was good or not. That is, if you had a bad driving efficiency figure, but high regen, then maybe one's driving style was too stop-n-go, while if you have a good driving efficiency figure and high regen, then it's likely due to topography. That sort of thing.
I have always used limited regen power in most deccelerations, not released the pedal completely. Having high regen (like 85kW) on a cold battery didnt feel nice in the "engine/motor ears" so I have reduced it. Having the screen with the battery power in front of the steering wheel sure helps seeing the unnsessesary high regen power. I think it was about one year ago when Tesla reduce the regen power with cold battery or high SOC, that felt good in the lithium heart.
So yesterday I drove enough to use the numbers;It is the net value without the buffer. Tessie can't see or know the buffer.
Taken from the description in the official vendors thread.Correct - the capacity matches what the car calculates as added when you charge from 0% to 100%. It's made more complicated by the fact you can keep driving past 0%.
Used:25.16 kWh Added: 23.83 kWh Efficiency: 94.7% |