Battery health tracking SS

[AAKEE]

Not really, My numbers are better than AAKEE and I don't pamper my battery.

Then , would you take a photo of the energy screen, also covering the SOC calue at the same time?

My statement is that batteries do follow the laws of physics. Your battery also do that.
Which means it will not stay better for han any other battery if you keep it regularly at 80%.

 

[AAKEE]

So, my MSP (99.4 full pack when new) now is close to 200 kWh capacity.

No, it is not. And that statement has no value if not backed up by a credible source like a picture showing that it is correct.

@ewoodrick sorry, but your statement has no value to me until you have shown a credible source that that is correct.
This do not mean that I am calling you a liar - but it means that I know that many people judging their own degradation do not really know what they are doing, using the wrong data or base for their calculation.
There is only one credible way for you to do this - it is buy showing the energy graph picture incliding the SOC.

 

[flixden]

Then , would you take a photo of the energy screen, also covering the SOC calue at the same time?

My statement is that batteries do follow the laws of physics. Your battery also do that.
Which means it will not stay better for han any other battery if you keep it regularly at 80%.

I'd like to see the same. More data helps.

 

[ewoodrick]

Then , would you take a photo of the energy screen, also covering the SOC calue at the same time?

My statement is that batteries do follow the laws of physics. Your battery also do that.
Which means it will not stay better for han any other battery if you keep it regularly at 80%.

As many of the newer battery chemistries and construction techniques are showing, it's not physics. The assumption that all batteries are the same is just ludicrous. I know that I've got an older battery technology in my car that has been optimized since my pack was created, but in the whole swing of things, it is a newer pack for which Tesla has explicitly optimized for EVs. The battery is expected to get a useful life of about 300,000 miles and Elon has indicated that their sampling is providing those numbers.

No, I'm not going to go out and take my battery through some cycles to get the BMS to indicate max range. But I did provide this to you a few months ago when I was running my charge to 100%.

There have been many things that physics said couldn't be done. But Elon and others have proven the premise to be wrong. It's not that's physics is wrong, it's people interpretation of physics is often wrong.

AFAIK, there is absolutely nothing that says that a battery can't be left at 80% for 10 years and maintain it's capabilities. What does exist is that some chemistry and construction techniques make it hard for it to happen.

 

[ewoodrick]

And foremost, as I and others have mentioned in this thread, the numbers and concepts that @AAKEE and @AlanSubie4Life only scare the crap out of owners.
And I have yet to see where the degradation actually has an impact, especially on resale.

I really loved @AlanSubie4Life comment that it allowed him to skip a charging stop. Really? You've got stops every 20 miles?

Tesla built the batteries so that it doesn't matter, and nothing that I've seen has indicated that it matters.

If it matters, the car will tell you so.

I trust the minds at Tesla MUCH more than the anyone here.

 

[flixden]

@ewoodrick :
Why don't you just post the screenshot that @AAKEE is asking for, to back up your claim from post #52 above? I don't think there is any need to charge to 100%, just go out and take a pic of your energy screen, also showing the current SOC.

Not really, My numbers are better than AAKEE and I don't pamper my battery.

 

[msinfo]

And foremost, as I and others have mentioned in this thread, the numbers and concepts that @AAKEE and @AlanSubie4Life only scare the crap out of owners.

FYI Personally, I strongly disagree with anything that sounds like "ignorance is bliss". I think many people here clearly stated thirst for knowledge and expressed zero fears some ppl keep trying to insist on. But everyone is free to learn or not, and use their cars the way they see fit YMMV

 

[zoomer0056]

The battery is expected to get a useful life of about 300,000 miles and Elon has indicated that their sampling is providing those numbers.

Mileage is just a single factor and by itself does not define "useful life". Age and degredation are also needed.

 

[ewoodrick]

@ewoodrick :
Why don't you just post the screenshot that @AAKEE is asking for, to back up your claim from post #52 above? I don't think there is any need to charge to 100%, just go out and take a pic of your energy screen, also showing the current SOC.

He and I have talked in the past and I believe that I posted it to him.


But since you don't believe me, that's fine. It's up to the reader to decide if they are going to trust Tesla or some random people.

And the energy screen, AFAIK, gives the current answer based upon the current BMS guess. And that's not valid. I saw another post recently where someone posted their estimated range over a few years. It was obviously impacted by the BMS, because it varied over 10%. True 100% charge range doesn't vary like that.

 

[zoomer0056]

It's up to the reader to decide if they are going to trust Tesla or some random people.

Tesla has changed their recommended daily charge from 90% to 80%. Pampering? They've been listening to the discussions from "random people" on TMC.

 

[ewoodrick]

FYI Personally, I strongly disagree with anything that sounds like "ignorance is bliss". I think many people here clearly stated thirst for knowledge and expressed zero fears some ppl keep trying to insist on. But everyone is free to learn or not, and use their cars the way they see fit YMMV

You know, if it was indeed ignorance is bliss, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here. The case is misinterpretation of the data. Most everything that people use is based upon the current BMS guess. The BMS guess varies. The reality is that the data that people are using is pretty naive. The reality is much more complex than what is being used.

Reality is that making decisions based upon numbers that change isn't the smartest thing to do.

Just recently I've seen an actual charge to 100% and sitting there for a day indicate about 293 miles. That's down from my original 311 rating. Right now , looking at current SOC and range says that I've got about 284 miles. And I know that is just the guess of the day.

 

[ewoodrick]

Tesla has changed their recommended daily charge from 90% to 80%. Pampering? They've been listening to the discussions from "random people" on TMC.

I will guarantee you that's not the case. If Tesla were to change the numbers, they'd change it based upon the millions of cars worth of data that they are receiving.

But I just looked at my app

Charge Tip
90% recommended for daily driving.

Both an early Model 3 and early Model Y say the same thing.
And before you go there, it says it both on an iPhone and Android.

 

[msinfo]

You know, if it was indeed ignorance is bliss, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here. The case is misinterpretation of the data. Most everything that people use is based upon the current BMS guess. The BMS guess varies. The reality is that the data that people are using is pretty naive. The reality is much more complex than what is being used.

Reality is that making decisions based upon numbers that change isn't the smartest thing to do.

Just recently I've seen an actual charge to 100% and sitting there for a day indicate about 293 miles. That's down from my original 311 rating. Right now , looking at current SOC and range says that I've got about 284 miles. And I know that is just the guess of the day.

I think you are making a very good point - we don't know what we don't know ... I want to learn but remembering this is a fairly new and dynamic field is also true.

PS Does not change that I appreciate people sharing their knowledge based on the studies and data available ... even if some of it will change based on more knowledge and data available tomorrow. Progress and staff like that, right?

 

[zoomer0056]

I will guarantee you that's not the case.

I agree, Tesla does not depend on TMC alone.

Tesla also decided to give S buyers an option between yoke and wheel based on TMC discussions.

What year is your car? What version of software does it have?

 

[ewoodrick]

Two different cars, one a 2018 the Model Y a 2020. Both on current FSD 2023.7.30.

Android 4.24.0-1925
iPhone 4.24.0-1911

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

What year is your car?

one a 2018

He has a 2018 LR RWD Model 3. The rated miles at 100% will not apparently be divulged. But it is alleged to be better than @AAKEE 's projection.

I'd guess he's around 295 rated miles at 100% (11%).

EDIT: never mind, missed a post from earlier. Looks like 293rmi...I assume that was for the Model 3? (I don't know of a vehicle that started at 311 but don't track the Y carefully.). Anyway, the LR RWD started at 325rmi, after adjustment, and that was only for 76kWh, so vehicles effectively started at about 333 rated miles with 78kWh (they would only show 325 of course), which actually aligns fairly well with the EPA result of ~335rmi (EDIT: actually 330rmi) (voluntarily reduced to 310rmi or 325rmi depending on the day).

Anyway, 293rmi at 100% for Model 3 LR RWD is 293rmi*234Wh/rmi = 68.6kWh. So starting at 77.8kWh or higher, per the EPA, that means 12%, which is quite decent and probably aligns fairly well with the model (we'd need more info of course).

 

[ewoodrick]

He has a 2018 LR RWD Model 3. The rated miles at 100% will not apparently be divulged. But it is alleged to be better than @AAKEE 's projection.

I'd guess he's around 295 rated miles at 100% (11%).

EDIT: never mind, missed a post from earlier. Looks like 293...I assume that was for the Model 3? (I don't know of a vehicle that started at 311 but don't track the Y carefully.)

Anyway, 293 at 100% for Model 3 LR RWD is 293rmi*234Wh/rmi = 68.6kWh. So starting at 77.8kWh or higher, per the EPA, that means 12%, which is quite decent and probably aligns fairly well with the model (we'd need more info of course).

So guesser of reality, if I completely pampered my battery, what would I expect?

I can absolutely guarantee you that a March 2018 Model 3 did not come with a 332 mile range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I can absolutely guarantee you that a March 2018 Model 3 did not come with a 332 mile range.

Don't have to believe me. Just check the datafile for 2018.

Download Fuel Economy Data

Fuel economy Fuel Economy Datafiles (1978-present), Fuel Economy Guides (1996-present)

www.fueleconomy.gov

I apologize, I misremembered - it was actually 330, not 335 as I said above. (345 city, 311.7 highway). These are official EPA numbers and cannot be fudged (only voluntarily lowered).

Max display in the car is 310 or 325 depending on the date. But none of that matters to available energy (which was over 78kWh per the EPA test).

So guesser of reality, if I completely pampered my battery, what would I expect?

It seems the best case would probably be a few % better, most likely. Maybe 8-9%? You're in a warmer area, so it's tough. My pack of similar age recovered a bit since I started using lower SOC for storage (and seems to have stayed there for over a year) to about 295rmi (from 285rmi minimum), but whether that was software or the usage change I obviously have no idea (I suspect software).

Anyway 295rmi @ 245Wh/rmi is 72.3kWh or about 7.3% loss from 77.8kWh (not from 310rmi or from 76kWh). Pretty good, but a minor difference.

I can't make it to Inyokern SC from my home in San Diego starting at 100%, without a stop at Hesperia in most cases. It's close though. I'd rather try it with 72kWh than with 69kWh, though - getting stuck in the Mojave Desert is not ideal.

In a few more years it will no longer be a temptation, of course. And hopefully they'll have a Supercharger at Kramer Junction by then. Getting more NACS plugs can't come soon enough.


I should mention the 30% loss on the Chevy Spark is probably primarily because it doesn't allow a lower storage charge (you can only store it at 100%!).

Of course, it wouldn't be all that useful to be able to select 55% for that vehicle...just would be too painful to manage and keep track of. Tesla is a different story though - managing 55% is pretty easy in most cases and for my particular use case works fine (won't apply to everyone).

 

[zoomer0056]

Two different cars, one a 2018 the Model Y a 2020. Both on current FSD 2023.7.30.

Android 4.24.0-1925
iPhone 4.24.0-1911

Tesla changed recommended max daily charge for some vehicles from 90% to 80% in software update 2023.26. Check that out on NotATeslaApp. It seems some on FSD don't know about the new recomendation.
Edit: ha, I just noticed they're showing the car's charging screen in French. Quotidien is daily.

 

[AAKEE]

No, I'm not going to go out and take my battery through some cycles to get the BMS to indicate max range. But I did provide this to you a few months ago when I was running my charge to 100%.

No need to drive or even charge it.

Just take a picture of the energy screen+ SOC after a regular charge you would do anyway.
This will sort out any initial range or changed constant issue.

Very easy, very concrete.

AFAIK, there is absolutely nothing that says that a battery can't be left at 80% for 10 years and maintain it's capabilities.

Yes it is.

For now all chemistries of lithium batteries behave quite close when it comes to calendar aging.
If we have hundred of research reports showing a very similar degradation vs SOC and temperature, its very very probable that our car will follow this closely.

We have examples not too old of actual tesla cells being taken iut of cars, showing the same thing.

I bought Panasonic 2170 ( ~ model 3 cells) cells from two batches and did run them for 1.5 years calendar aging from early 2022. Cycled and measured the capacity each two months.
Initially I planned to make a own chart but there is no need to, as my result fits very very close to all the existing ones.

What does exist is that some chemistry and construction techniques make it hard for it to happen.

Even if they improve the cell chemistry with things that reduce the rate of degradation the basic behavoiur is only slowed down but still happening in the same chrmical physical way.

80% causes about the same degradation as 100% as calendar aging is concerned.

All this is facts, from a lot of research.
If you state that you can keep it at 80% with very low degradation you’d better show data for it, and sources for such a statement.

A good thing to start with would be your varas data on a picture.