I do not know if its getting better or worse, the conflicting info.
I took al battery care data from the latest Tesla Model 3 manual:
It can be a good idea to read these tips from Tesla. If there would be a big no-no, Tesla would say.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hearing super conflicting advice about battery charging levels
- Thread starter PizzaDispenser
- Start date
I took al battery care data from the latest Tesla Model 3 manual:
It can be a good idea to read these tips from Tesla. If there would be a big no-no, Tesla would say.
Low self discharge is not zero self discharge. If the car is in this state at 0%, how long can it last parked unplugged before self discharge can cause battery damage?
For a single cell, at 0% SOC the self discharge is very very low.
At 100% its very much higher than at 0%.
We do not know exactly. We do not need to know either as we should not let the car discharge to the level that the battery disconnects. There is No reason, and the low volt lead acid get damaged.
The battery cells was lying about 2-3 months each sub test at 0% and they had the least degradation of the different tested SOC’s. This is the same in other research tests also. The 2-3 months was to get data about the degradation progress.
There probably is other thests that actually left the cells much longer.
This is a side track anyway.
Main point is: it is safe to drive down to 0%, the battery do not get damaged.
The bad below 20% is a myth.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Driving down to 0% SoC is 4.5% of maximum usable + anti-brick buffer.
Much more important than whether the battery is brought down to "0%" SoC is not leaving it there.
Thank You AAkEE. You validate much of what I have found out regarding DJI Drone batteries. Their chargers have a storage voltage feature that maintains them at 70 % when not in use. Once the Tesla arrives I will do most of the charging max at 65% being it has a near 5% reserve when at 0% on display. Long distance drives will go to 100% on such occasions. Having a $2000 Drone fall out of the air, or have to hike in the grand canyon to pick it up has always been a range worry issue among drone enthusiasts.
I can't find the post, but there was a bunch of data posted by the developer of the Stats app. Basically it said that all the cars they monitored that there didn't seem to be any difference on the battery degradation based on the charge level. For example cars that were frequently charged to 90% or had high supercharger use didn't seem to have any difference than those like me who keep it about 50% other than when needed. This is counter to everything I have read on the subject. I'll see if I can find the post and reference it here.
Here was is the reference I mentioned in my previous post. Seems counter to everything else I've read.
What Does Mr. Data Have to Say About Tesla Battery
What Does Mr. Data Have to Say About Tesla Battery
Undecided_2
Member
Undecided_2
Member
I personally don’t worry about the SoC. We keep it around 60% for daily use and 95% for long trips once every three/four months. We don’t worry about degradation as we’ll sell/trade the car before the warranty expires. If it drops some range it wouldn’t make a difference for 90% of our driving habits and even then I can’t see 20 miles less range impacting us on a along journey in the U.K.
Ha, it was a twitter conversation I had with the Stats developer, and my data, that triggered him to look at his huge database to see if there was any conclusions one could draw about SOC levels.
There's lots of battery research and rational theories on charging strategy, but sadly the data doesn't seem to show much rhyme or reason on how best to preserve one's battery. The only way seems to be to win the battery lottery.
With all due respect to the author of Stats, he is a software developer focused on the very small subset of sensor data that Tesla chose to expose in the API they built for their remote app. And since that remote app was intended to operate a very few basic functions, by ordinary users, I would caution against drawing too many conclusions about the state of one's battery from that simplified data set.
Tesla EV's have numerous sensors and produce voluminous amounts of data - data that is accessible to a motivated user. There are some surprises to be found there, for those who choose to look.
It's also wise to bear in mind that Tesla's own guidance on various aspects of EV ownership and lithium battery maintenance is driven more by their own, larger business imperatives than by our own, individual ownership experience.
An example is DC fast charging. If longevity of our battery pack was the overarching objective, there would be no such a thing as Supercharging. The scientific literature is quite unambiguous that the high temperatures and high currents associated with DC fast charging promotes SEI layer formation and particle cracking. It's simply not good for our battery pack.
And yet who among us would buy an EV if there was no way to charge it, reasonably quickly, while out on the road?
We should remember that the goal of transitioning to a world of sustainable energy is a collective goal, with the broader benefit (getting everyone into an EV) trumping our individual needs and concerns.
All that said, as individuals many of us are very interested in making these remarkable, amazing vehicles - a very expensive stretch for many of us - last for as long as possible. The OP's interest is clearly shared by many.
The good news is that the real truth is out there. A few hours perusing peer-reviewed scientific literature on lithium-ion behavior and lithium-ion degradation can be most revealing. Google is your friend.
Tesla EV's have numerous sensors and produce voluminous amounts of data - data that is accessible to a motivated user. There are some surprises to be found there, for those who choose to look.
It's also wise to bear in mind that Tesla's own guidance on various aspects of EV ownership and lithium battery maintenance is driven more by their own, larger business imperatives than by our own, individual ownership experience.
An example is DC fast charging. If longevity of our battery pack was the overarching objective, there would be no such a thing as Supercharging. The scientific literature is quite unambiguous that the high temperatures and high currents associated with DC fast charging promotes SEI layer formation and particle cracking. It's simply not good for our battery pack.
And yet who among us would buy an EV if there was no way to charge it, reasonably quickly, while out on the road?
We should remember that the goal of transitioning to a world of sustainable energy is a collective goal, with the broader benefit (getting everyone into an EV) trumping our individual needs and concerns.
All that said, as individuals many of us are very interested in making these remarkable, amazing vehicles - a very expensive stretch for many of us - last for as long as possible. The OP's interest is clearly shared by many.
The good news is that the real truth is out there. A few hours perusing peer-reviewed scientific literature on lithium-ion behavior and lithium-ion degradation can be most revealing. Google is your friend.
I do not believe in battery lotteries.
Maybe slightly difference in starting capacity is a part of that but I think this can be BMS induced values as well. Might be a more even starting value than we see or think.
For degradation, research shows that different lots, even lots with clear difference in capacity behave the same.
Calendar aging is the same (% wise)
Cyclicg aging is the same (% wise).
A lot of people tell me in different threads about the BMS. “The BMS handles the battery and then the battery is cared so degradation is less than the research”
But its really not. The BMS can not change the temperature over long time.
The stored cells in tests are put in boxes keeping the exact temperature for calendar aging tests.
Cyclic tests at very high C-rate where the cell temp jumps because no active cooling is there IS affected but these tests do not have any direct coupling to Tesla battery usage so these are void anyway.
Which is why, until about 4 days ago, I put all threads created on this topic into one single thread so people could search / peruse it if desired. Otherwise it turns out exactly like this one does, with the exact (exact) same discussion points repeated ad nauseum in thread after thread after thread on this topic.
The only reasons I stopped, were the fact that Its a never ending thing (people post 2-3 threads with this same basic question every day), and its not as aligned with the other vehicle car subforums, whose mods dont feel as strongly as I do about taking the time to do it.
Steve446
Dusty Crophopper, M3 LR 2021 Midnight Silver
Regards your comments - might it be useful (?) to create a (sticky(?) master post like the, "Calculating Your Battery's Estimated Capacity Using the Car's Energy Screen"? Authored by @AAKEE and/or @AlanSubie4Life ? If they are willing. As you mention, the same topic comes up again and again. A standing reference would be helpful and avoid AAKEE reposting his (very famous) relative capacity versus %SoC chart over and again
Roger that, @jjrandorin. It's a dilemma, for sure. You see it on every single Internet forum, of every conceivable interest. Certain topics just naturally beg to be talked about... and so they pop up daily, if not hourly. If you pull them all into a single, coherent thread, that thread soon becomes massive. Pointing someone to it is like pointing them to an encyclopedia. I read through the entire "How I Recovered Half of my Battery's Lost Capacity" thread a few months ago and it took many hours. Diving into one of those is kind of like diving into a book... it requires a modicum of commitment.
Most people don't want to spend that much time and energy.
The flip side is you just shrug and move on, knowing that the same subjects are going to keep coming up in countless, very similar, threads.
I'm not sure there's a good answer. Maybe sticky those threads you think hold particular value. Otherwise, just accept that trying to bring coherence to the countless threads people create is kinda like pissing in the wind.
Thanks for all you do here. Both for your steady hand as moderator as well as your cogent, thoughtful replies in trying to help people.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Perhaps not ideal, but I favor a TMC faq sheet for each of these these incessant topics. Refer them to the first post, and let them add a comment if they think they are a special snowflake.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I don’t feel I know the definitive answers about what is “best” on this topic, so I don’t think I would want to write something up. Maybe @AAKEE since he has a lot of info on this matter and maybe he is confident enough, I can always help proof-read or whatever via PM.
It’s a bit different than the BMS capacity estimate sticky, which is MUCH more deterministic and well established and immediately verified (via SMT, etc.) than (very educated) guesses about what will eventually prove optimal for capacity loss.
Definitely a FAQ or tutorial would be useful in general for these cars, people always ask the same questions. Lots of work to put into that. But people would still ask stuff that is covered in the FAQ, of course.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
As you should. The navel gazing and constant dissection of this topic is so very over the top.
As a “bad” Tesla owner that has constantly flogged his battery by doing the things people in this thread think are catastrophic like:
* Charging to more than 0% (90% even, or - gasp - 100% over a hundred times!)
* Letting my car exist where it is hot
* Liberally using superchargers
… my observed degradation over 5.5 years and 150,000 miles of actual driving (more than almost anyone participating in this thread will actually drive in their cars) is quite in-line with other cars of my vintage.
Just plug it in and drive.
Similar threads
