Is your US made SR+ LFP charging to 253 or 262?

[AlanSubie4Life]

In the European LFP vehicle, I understand that the rated energy per mile is essentially identical to the US NCA vehicle. So I do not believe there is any reason to believe that the US LFP vehicle will be different. It appears the US and European vehicles both already have the increased capacity resulting from Tesla reducing the bottom end buffer. The European vehicles simply have had an update that permits the display to indicate 262 miles at a full charge.

Have not been following this closely.

1) I’d love to see a screen shot of energy screen which will show the energy per mile.
2) I don’t know what the comment about the bottom end buffer means. Is it less than 4.5% now?
3) Europe: What’s the degradation threshold for LFP (use energy screen on a brand new car, %)? What’s the constant (use energy screen, km display mode)?

 

[ErikJupiter]

Have not been following this closely.

1) I’d love to see a screen shot of energy screen which will show the energy per mile.
2) I don’t know what the comment about the bottom end buffer means. Is it less than 4.5% now?
3) Europe: What’s the degradation threshold for LFP (use energy screen on a brand new car, %)? What’s the constant (use energy screen, km display mode)?

In answer to question (2), it is reported elsewhere (and I believe there is at least one YouTube link above) that the buffer is now less than 4.5%. That buffer reduction is believed to be the reason recent buyers (including me) got stickers showing a range of 262 miles, in contrast to the 253 miles indicated on the inventory listing when the car was reserved.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In answer to question (2), it is reported elsewhere (and I believe there is at least one YouTube link above) that the buffer is now less than 4.5%. That buffer reduction is believed to be the reason recent buyers (including me) got stickers showing a range of 262 miles, in contrast to the 253 miles indicated on the inventory listing when the car was reserved.

Changing the buffer size would not have an impact on rated range since the entire buffer is used during the test. The buffer size (it could be 20%, as an arbitrary example) would not change the achieved rated range. It’s just bookkeeping and does not change the energy available. It only changes the energy available above 0%.

Now: buffer to true pack “bricking” is a different matter and could be changed and it would have an impact on range. Different buffer.

The link above is broken.

Anyway, some of the specific data would be interesting from those with LFP packs.

 

[ErikJupiter]

Changing the buffer size would not have an impact on rated range since the entire buffer is used during the test. The buffer size (it could be 20%, as an arbitrary example) would not change the achieved rated range. It’s just bookkeeping and does not change the energy available. It only changes the energy available above 0%.

Now: buffer to true pack “bricking” is a different matter and could be changed and it would have an impact on range. Different buffer.

The link above is broken.

Anyway, some of the specific data would be interesting from those with LFP packs.

I was referring to what you describe in the second paragraph as the buffer above "true pack bricking." According to the EPA, a battery is "discharged" when "the vehicle can no longer follow the city driving cycle." The manufacturer determines at what level of discharge a vehicle will be unable to "follow the city driving cycle." It is unlikely any production vehicle can be operated until true complete battery discharge ("bricking"), as doing so could permanently damage the battery. A manufacturer can increase the range of the vehicle under EPA standards by permitting the vehicle to continue to operate when the battery is at a lesser state of charge. Such a modification would result in a greater range under EPA testing, as you suggest in your second paragraph. Based on what I have been seeing elsewhere, that is exactly what Tesla has done with Model 3 SR+ LFP vehicles in Europe.

The link below is to the EPA testing criteria for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

manufacturer can increase the range of the vehicle under EPA standards by permitting the vehicle to continue to operate when the battery is at a lesser state of charge. Such a modification would result in a greater range under EPA testing, as you suggest in your second paragraph. Based on what I have been seeing elsewhere, that is exactly what Tesla has done with Model 3 SR+ LFP vehicles in Europe.

I'm familiar with the testing criteria.

As I said, have not been following this closely - was just commenting that actual data would be great to see in this thread if people want to know the actual answers and understand how much energy they are getting with their new vehicles relative to prior vehicles. I know you mentioned you have seen stuff elsewhere - would be great to see the links to other posts here (again, haven't been tracking down every thread myself), or to other places where this information is covered. As we know, the rated miles are somewhat decoupled from this energy value (a 4% decrease in rated miles might mean ~0%-8% decrease in energy, very roughly, depending on the situation - hard to know without data).

It's not clear to me how a user or anyone would determine that the margin between bricking and vehicle shutdown had been adjusted for the LFP packs. (Specifically, how it would be quantified.) In general, you'd expect that margin to be different for LFP and the older chemistry, because it's different chemistry, and the margins and risks of bricking very likely are a bit different.

In the end I don't care about that margin, anyway - I was just curious what the usable (including buffer, but not including the anti-brick buffer) capacity of the pack was relative to the earlier 2021 SR+ (the older chemistry, with 263 rated miles), which is completely separate from this "anti-brick buffer" discussion.

This can all be determined without additional tools by any owner in possession of the vehicle.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

Unfortunately, I can't go into Dyno Mode with "dynotest" password on LFP SR+.

ScanMyTesla app reports the buffer to be 2.5 kWh while the nominal full as 55.1 kWh. Full charge range shows 253 miles.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Unfortunately, I can't go into Dyno Mode with "dynotest" password on LFP SR+.

ScanMyTesla app reports the buffer to be 2.5 kWh while the nominal full as 55.1 kWh. Full charge range shows 253 miles.

So... actually more energy than the earlier 2021 SR+ (Which had around 53.5kWh nominal full pack typically (FPWN was 55.4kWh I think))!

Buffer is the standard 4.5% (not that it really matters at all for any of this).

Don't need dynomode for what I was suggesting. Sounds like you have SMT, and in addition you can take a picture of the energy screen. It won't help you calculate capacity since you're above the degradation threshold, but it will tell us the degradation threshold and help us establish what Tesla is targeting (and tell us the constant currently in use).

So, based on your info, 253 miles (In this case) appears to mean more energy than the old 263-mile cars (not to be confused with the 262-mile cars being sold on the website).

So seems like they'll likely adjust the constant in the near future to move the 253 miles up to 262 miles. Maybe. It's not clear to me why they display 253 miles right now, where that value.

Figuring out the constant and degradation threshold would fill in the missing pieces and help predict the future.


Would be cool to see a screen capture from SMT and a couple of energy screen pictures (% & km/miles) from the same vehicle.

 

[RLEE]

So... actually more energy than the earlier 2021 SR+ (Which had around 53.5kWh nominal full pack typically (FPWN was 55.4kWh I think))!

Buffer is the standard 4.5% (not that it really matters at all for any of this).

Don't need dynomode for what I was suggesting. Sounds like you have SMT, and in addition you can take a picture of the energy screen. It won't help you calculate capacity since you're above the degradation threshold, but it will tell us the degradation threshold and help us establish what Tesla is targeting (and tell us the constant currently in use).

So, based on your info, 253 miles (In this case) appears to mean more energy than the old 263-mile cars (not to be confused with the 262-mile cars being sold on the website).

So seems like they'll likely adjust the constant in the near future to move the 253 miles up to 262 miles. Maybe. It's not clear to me why they display 253 miles right now, where that value.

Figuring out the constant and degradation threshold would fill in the missing pieces and help predict the future.


Would be cool to see a screen capture from SMT and a couple of energy screen pictures (% & km/miles) from the same vehicle.

This is correct. 253 was because originally the car had a 5kwh buffer rather than 2.5kwh. SMT indicated this. The Europeans already went through this months ago with the same battery pack and have shown data on this battery pack. Pre- 11.103 version all lfp had a 5kwh buffer. Verified by the one guy in us that got an lfp early by accident and by the Europeans (see bjorns video). Driving tests also confirm all the numbers. With the 11.103 update (us current) the buffer dropped to 2.5 and usable capacity increased and was above that of the nca sr+. This was confirmed with SMT by the early lfp owner in us and by Bjorn. It's also well published in mic sr+ vs Fremont sr+. Europeans already have the 24.4 update which updates the range displayed to 262. Driving tests in us confirm the increased usable range (down to 0pct not past 0pct.... which may not have been any different). Bjorn also demonstrated this. Once the buffer dropped to 2.5kwh, the real range did increase regardless of the displayed range.

So in the us, we are just waiting for the new software to bump our displayed range. Our usable capacity should already match the Europeans and the 262 indicated on the monroney sticker... the screen just won't display it until the update.

I'm not affiliated with bjorn... but his videos are pretty good.

 

[PHBRuns]

Got my M3 a week ago and I'm charging to 253 and also on 2021.11.103. Ive heard that it can take weeks to months for your first update so I'm hoping it will bump up after that first update, whenever it comes.

Mine is exactly the same as this. Anxious for the update to arrive and am curious if range is boosted. As an aside, absolutely love the driving experience! Does anyone know if the performance is any different from the other battery configuration?

 

[ErikJupiter]

This is correct. 253 was because originally the car had a 5kwh buffer rather than 2.5kwh. SMT indicated this. The Europeans already went through this months ago with the same battery pack and have shown data on this battery pack. Pre- 11.103 version all lfp had a 5kwh buffer. Verified by the one guy in us that got an lfp early by accident and by the Europeans (see bjorns video). Driving tests also confirm all the numbers. With the 11.103 update (us current) the buffer dropped to 2.5 and usable capacity increased and was above that of the nca sr+. This was confirmed with SMT by the early lfp owner in us and by Bjorn. It's also well published in mic sr+ vs Fremont sr+. Europeans already have the 24.4 update which updates the range displayed to 262. Driving tests in us confirm the increased usable range (down to 0pct not past 0pct.... which may not have been any different). Bjorn also demonstrated this. Once the buffer dropped to 2.5kwh, the real range did increase regardless of the displayed range.

So in the us, we are just waiting for the new software to bump our displayed range. Our usable capacity should already match the Europeans and the 262 indicated on the monroney sticker... the screen just won't display it until the update.

This is an excellent summary of what I have been trying to say.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

Would be cool to see a screen capture from SMT and a couple of energy screen pictures (% & km/miles) from the same vehicle.

Here you go. That’s a week of driving and I will be charging back to 100% this weekend.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

253 was because originally the car had a 5kwh buffer rather than 2.5kwh.

Ah, I see. Makes sense. So they reduced the size of the buffer (used to be 9%!), but increased the constant at the same time, so it didn't result in more rated miles.

This is an excellent summary of what I have been trying to say.

I think my confusion here was just a question of terminology being used. In any case, seems clear enough now. I mostly just wanted to know how much energy was available! The rest is just bookkeeping.

I will be charging back to 100% this weekend.

Great, if you could do one more picture of the energy screen capturing the battery icon (one in % and one in miles, tap next to the battery icon to swap) that would be good for final documentation of where things were at before a software update blows it all away.

Looks to me like the degradation threshold is around 55kWh right now so the constant is currently about 217Wh/mi. And if they adjust the vehicle to 262 rated miles it'll drop to ~210Wh/mi.

For comparison, the old SR+ had a constant of about 203Wh/mi. Now, the LFP battery may be less efficient in some way (and the car is likely quite a bit heavier), so it's not going to be as efficient as that vehicle presumably.

But anyway, if you did have the same efficiency (which it won't), the rated range would be 55kWh/203Wh/mi = 271 rated miles.

So in high energy conditions where the weight and other efficiency factors don't play as large a role, this SR+ may end up having a bit more range than the prior one. And maybe it will lose capacity more slowly (TBD), and you can charge it to 100% all the time, from what I understand. Advantages all around I guess, other than the weight. (Wonder what the weight difference is?)

Anxious for the update to arrive and am curious if range is boosted.

It doesn't sound like it matters at all based on the above screen captures. Your available energy to 0% will remain unchanged at this point, even if the rated range increases. Just bookkeeping, it sounds like. If it happens as described above, if they give you more miles, they'll click off slightly faster. So nothing changes.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

40% was showing 102 miles, also shown in SMT screen as Rated Range.

SMT shows Usable 21.5 kWh with Rated Range of 102 miles. That calculates to 210 wh/m.

55.4kWh Nominal - 2.5kWh Buffer / 252 Rated Range = 210 wh/m as well.

 

[ErikJupiter]

Ah, I see. Makes sense. So they reduced the size of the buffer (used to be 9%!), but increased the constant at the same time, so it didn't result in more rated miles.

I think my confusion here was just a question of terminology being used. In any case, seems clear enough now. I mostly just wanted to know how much energy was available! The rest is just bookkeeping.


Great, if you could do one more picture of the energy screen capturing the battery icon (one in % and one in miles, tap next to the battery icon to swap) that would be good for final documentation of where things were at before a software update blows it all away.

Looks to me like the degradation threshold is around 55kWh right now so the constant is currently about 217Wh/mi. And if they adjust the vehicle to 262 rated miles it'll drop to ~210Wh/mi.

For comparison, the old SR+ had a constant of about 203Wh/mi. Now, the LFP battery may be less efficient in some way (and the car is likely quite a bit heavier), so it's not going to be as efficient as that vehicle presumably.

But anyway, if you did have the same efficiency (which it won't), the rated range would be 55kWh/203Wh/mi = 271 rated miles.

So in high energy conditions where the weight and other efficiency factors don't play as large a role, this SR+ may end up having a bit more range than the prior one. And maybe it will lose capacity more slowly (TBD), and you can charge it to 100% all the time, from what I understand. Advantages all around I guess, other than the weight. (Wonder what the weight difference is?)



It doesn't sound like it matters at all based on the above screen captures. Your available energy to 0% will remain unchanged at this point, even if the rated range increases. Just bookkeeping, it sounds like. If it happens as described above, if they give you more miles, they'll click off slightly faster. So nothing changes.

The vehicle weight difference is 212 lbs. This was confirmed on another thread.

I note that the Monroney stickers indicate that the LFP vehicle is very slightly less efficient. It shows one MPGe less in each category compared to the NCA vehicle. This would be ballpark consistent with your estimate.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

Great, if you could do one more picture of the energy screen capturing the battery icon (one in % and one in miles, tap next to the battery icon to swap) that would be good for final documentation of where things were at before a software update blows it all away.
Took two more pictures.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@USBSSeawolf2000. Thanks. To clarify, since you said you were charging to 100%, I meant after you charged to 100%.

But anyway, these captures show that the constant is around 215Wh/mi (product on energy screen divided by rated miles remaining - but only two significant figures since you're not charged up too high). If you switch to km you'll have three significant figures but it doesn't really matter; 215Wh/mi or so is about what we'd expect (it's a little low; 215Wh/mi*253mi = 54.3kWh). But again, significant digits limit this (hence charging to 100% or at least 80-90% for better accuracy).

When the software update comes along, we'll see this constant value drop to about 210Wh/mi most likely.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

@USBSSeawolf2000. Thanks. To clarify, since you said you were charging to 100%, I meant after you charged to 100%.

But anyway, these captures show that the constant is around 215Wh/mi (product on energy screen divided by rated miles remaining - but only two significant figures since you're not charged up too high). If you switch to km you'll have three significant figures but it doesn't really matter; 215Wh/mi or so is about what we'd expect (it's a little low; 215Wh/mi*253mi = 54.3kWh). But again, significant digits limit this (hence charging to 100% or at least 80-90% for better accuracy).

When the software update comes along, we'll see this constant value drop to about 210Wh/mi most likely.

Here you. Still not sure how you are getting the “product on energy screen).
SMT said 52.7 kWh Usable with 253 miles rated range.

 

[USBSeawolf2000]

Forgot to attach and I can’t edit previous post.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Forgot to attach and I can’t edit previous post.

Thanks. NFP is 55.1kWh. Nominal Remaining is 55.2kWh.

The product is Wh/mi (recent) * Projected Range. At 100% charge this value will be the minimum of the (degradation threshold, nominal remaining).

The product is 115Wh/km*476km = 54.7kWh. This suggests to me the degradation threshold for the vehicle is about 54.7kWh (so you won't start showing loss of range until your NFP drops below this value).

And that also means that the charging constant (the actual constant value - it's a bit larger for you right now) is 54.7kWh/253rmi = 216.2Wh/rmi. This is the value that's used on the display to convert between kWh and miles added, display how many miles you are charging per hour, etc.

Right now your actual energy content per rated mile (not the displayed miles though) is 55.2kWh/253rmi = 218Wh/rmi.

However, due to the buffer, for each DISPLAYED rated mile, the energy content of those miles is currently 95.5% of that, or 208Wh/rmi (displayed). (And the plateau constant value will be 216.2Wh/rmi*0.955 = 206.5Wh/rmi (displayed). )

When they adjust the rated miles on the car, all these constant values will drop by ratio of 253/262, so:

Current, after adjustment to 262 rated miles:
210.5Wh/rmi. (For 262 rated miles at full charge, and NFP of 55.2kWh)

Final, after capacity loss and adjustment to 262 rated miles:
208.6Wh/rmi (For 262 rated miles at full charge, with NFP lower than 54.7kWh)

Again, when looking at the displayed rated miles, and calculating requirements for "parity" (rated-mile-per-mile-traveled rolloff), you will need to do 4.5% better than this (multiply values by 0.955).

Values may not be exact but they should end up pretty close with your data, since it's very good data.

Thanks for providing the values for posterity on your 2021 SR+ LFP before the update to your range!

SMT said 52.7 kWh Usable with 253 miles rated range.

Just to clarify: Usable does not include the buffer. So you have to divide 52.7kWh by the 208Wh/mi value above (the 95.5% scaled value) to get 253 rated miles.

You'll be able to do this, using a progressively smaller Wh/mi value, until you get to ~54.7kWh NFP, at which point you'll see a reduction in your rated miles at 100%, and the Wh/mi value will plateau.

(Obviously the numbers will change when the range update occurs as described above.)

 

[WhereMahTessy?]

Took delivery of my Model 3 SR+, LFP battery pack and I am also charging up to 253 miles each time.