MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc

[TimothyHW3]

Thanks Alan, precious. The voltage was previously 375 V , now 381 V, so 6 volt increase, and we are still far from 401 V, so giv

The battery V is SOC dependant. You get 400V at above 80%...Again a lot of misinformation thrown your way...
You have to take a screenshot at 100% of cell voltage to see the cell voltage and if it is at 4.2V then you are topped out.

I think it is pretty much confirmed that the LGs are topped out at 74.5, but you can post that 100% cell volt screenshot for confirmation.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Old constant was 153Wh/km actually and the capacity was the same, 77.8

@TimothyHW3 is actually right about this. I said 152Wh/rkm, but it's actually probably closer to 153Wh/rkm. It's actually somewhere in between, I believe. But I think closer to 153Wh/rkm. I'm happy to hear that he's not insisting it is 156Wh/rkm anymore, so that's great!

The V is SOC dependant. You get 400V at above 80%...Again a lot of misinformation thrown your way...
You have to take a screenshot at 100% of cell voltage to see the cell voltage and if it is at 4.2V then you are topped out.

Timothy is right about this too. I thought @EV Promoter had posted a picture of his 100% charge (but he hadn't). So that prior post of mine is wrong. As I asked earlier in this thread, it would be good to see the 100% voltage on that pack. Then it can be compared to known ~77.8kWh pack results.

But anyway. You have 96 bricks in series. SMT is showing you the max and min values. If you just take the average value and multiply by 96 you'll get pretty close to the total. In your particular screen capture, 3.968V*96 = 381V.

You'll just have to see what happens if you charge to a higher SoC, and compare to some of Bjorn's videos or something. At the moment all we can say is that it is TBD (the 381V vs. 375V is wrong, as I said - I thought you were at 100% in both but obviously you were far from that).

Yeah, and now it's 74.6kWh, with about 6 volts more voltage (385V vs. 379V or whatever).

To me, that seems to show conclusively that this pack is currently top-locked.

(Again, these observations are wrong, because the SMT capture was not at 100%. I thought they were, but they're nowhere near.)

As mentioned, the voltage is pretty flat for a wide range of SoC, and then as you get close to 100%, the voltage goes up quite rapidly. The real question is what is it at your 100%, and how does that compare to Bjorn's 100% value (or someone else's).

 

[TomaGo]

Hello Guys, thanks for you information, here is an update for the Long Range :

 

[TomaGo]

Can you help me to finish the Perfomance table ? I'm missing some information.
Thanks

 

[EV Promoter]

I thought @EV Promoter had posted a picture of his 100% charge (but he hadn't). So that prior post of mine is wrong. As I asked earlier in this thread, it would be good to see the 100% voltage on that pack. Then it can be compared to known ~77.8kWh pack results.

Oops.

That was my intention, to test with SMT after the full charge, but the OBDlink stopped working.
With a 20 days lockdown running here, it will pass a month before i can do it.

And in any case i still have conflicts with the OBDLINK, it keeps loosing the pairing with the phone, is driving me mad.
Have to sort out, i need an expert on BT connections....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Can you help me to finish the Perfomance table ? I'm missing some information.
Thanks

View attachment 620391

Perf 2018/2019 153Wh/rkm 76kWh (actually 77.8kWh)

Perf 2020 with 20”: 162Wh/rkm 77.8kWh

Perf 2021 with 20”: ????
We don’t have the data yet. The only capacity reported I have seen has been 80.4kWh. Constant is currently 162Wh/rkm but have not seen the result after the 2020.48.12 update. If it changes (it probably will), we can assume it is the final value - and then multiply that by 507km (315 miles) to get the approximate final capacity limit.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Hello Guys, thanks for you information, here is an update for the Long Range :
View attachment 620389

I can already tell you that the 21 E3D column is not "entirely" correct, but stay tuned for the video - very interesting stuff and a little bit of shady Tesla shenanigans.

 

[Filip K]

Thanks Alan, precious. The voltage was previously 375 V , now 381 V, so 6 volt increase, and we are still far from 401 V, so given that those batteries are in production since just 6 months at the best, it could be a period of evaluation for safety.

Let's hope it gets better, in the meantime that story is going ar

Can you help me to finish the Perfomance table ? I'm missing some information.
Thanks

View attachment 620391

Check the german google doc table, looks like there are LG TM3P also. Or maybe only 77 kWh in the docs. Does anyone here have a 77 kWh TM3P with scanmytesla app?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Does anyone here have a 77 kWh TM3P with scanmytesla app?

We have only seen one SMT report here and it was 80.4kWh or so.

 

[Tslrsx]

 

[ran349]

View attachment 620482

A couple questions:
Do rated km show on this readout? And does it match what the car display says?
It's good to show that on the readouts also.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

View attachment 620482

Wow, that's a really bad report. Only 79kWh. That's far worse than the 80.2kWh (not 80.4kWh as I recalled) referenced earlier here, from Germany.

2021 Model 3 Performance SMT data

I would expect you have about 488rkm at a full charge? Or perhaps now 494rkm or so, if you've done the software update? (No idea.)

If you can report your Energy->Consumption screen at a high SoC as described earlier here (all three critical numbers in a single picture; remaining rated range, projected range, and recent efficiency) & your software version, that would be helpful.

Also the direct rated range readout from SMT (which I believe is included!) as mentioned by @ran349, would be very helpful. Both from SMT and the car would be best.

Worth noting that 79kWh is higher than I've ever seen reported for any Model 3 AWD from prior years, though.

 

[TimothyHW3]

A couple questions:
Do rated km show on this readout? And does it match what the car display says?
It's good to show that on the readouts also.

You mean rated km when full? This is shown always in the app, but this is just a calculation, this is not read out from the Can Bus so you can't rely on it.
And they are unfortunately wrong, but once again, more data coming up

 

[Tslrsx]

The car predicts 489km at 100%, currently installing software

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I would expect you have about 488rkm at a full charge?

The car predicts 489km at 100%, currently installing software

Bingo. (If I had used the earlier report the guess would have been exactly correct.) Yeah, the reported constant was about 162Wh/rkm (looks like it might actually be a hair below that...), so that makes sense. Not sure what @TimothyHW3 is raving about. I'm sure he'll fill us in when he has a chance, in a video.

I'm going to guess that the degradation threshold for 2021 Performance is 80.7kWh, (499rkm * 161.7Wh/rkm), and that after your update, you will (if they update the constant with this update) see a constant of 159Wh/rkm (have to capture the Energy screen to tell), so for you you will see 496rkm @ 100% (other people with Performance, with better batteries, will start with 507rkm). These numbers could easily be a bit off (I could see maybe a slightly higher result for you if the degradation threshold is something like 80.4kWh instead).

Please report back your range at 100% charge (projected from high SoC) after the update, if you can. And the SMT readbacks as well of course. Then we can get rid of the guessing/predicting.

This, however, is informative (I wonder how they stay current with the calculation (would require knowledge of the constant), if indeed it is calculated and not just read back from the car...):

This is shown always in the app, but this is just a calculation, this is not read out from the Can Bus so you can't rely on it.

 

[ran349]

You mean rated km when full? This is shown always in the app, but this is just a calculation, this is not read out from the Can Bus so you can't rely on it.
And they are unfortunately wrong, but once again, more data coming up

No, I don't mean rated miles when full. I know that is just a calculation. I am talking about the rated km value that shows next to the battery icon in the car. That should match exactly what the SMT value gives. But I have seen some strange numbers from SMT on those also.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I am talking about the rated km value that shows next to the battery icon in the car. That should match exactly what the SMT value gives. But I have seen some strange numbers from SMT on those also.

If indeed SMT is calculating the value, and not getting it from the API or CAN bus, then they would have to have knowledge of the constant. Since the constant does change (due to Tesla not being on the ball for the last couple years about having the software ready when the cars are delivered), that would mean potentially some mismatch between SMT and the car, when the constant changes due to a software update, but SMT has not yet been updated. Users should trust the car in such cases, of course - it will be self-consistent.

To be clear to other readers: constants don't change, in general. They are fixed for the life of the car. These changes are only occurring because of "teething" problems where Tesla is lagging on updating their software to reflect the new EPA results. This last (and maybe first???) happened for 2020 Model 3, and has been confirmed to have happened with 2021 Model 3, with the 2020.48.12.x update. The constants won't change again, once they are set so as to provide the declared EPA range for that model year at 100% with a battery above the degradation threshold.

Even for the 2018 LR RWD, which went from 310 to 325 rated miles, the constant did not change (that was a capacity unlock). We might see something similar with the LG batteries in Europe (TBD!).

 

[TimothyHW3]

That should match exactly what the SMT value gives. But I have seen some strange numbers from SMT on those also

And I was talking about the same - the SMT rated km value, at the bottom of the SMT All tab is a calculation.

Yup, and they don't match and there is a very good explanation for this "phenomenon" (the error is with SMT).

New The car predicts 489km at 100%, currently installing software

Yeah, the Performance seem to be capped at 500km still. Could you please charge to 100% and show your cell voltage at 100%? That will be very interesting.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yeah, the Performance seem to be capped at 500km still. Could you please charge to 100% and show your cell voltage at 100%? That will be very interesting.

With the cap being 499/500km, I suspect this is just a function of them using the old 2020 constant of 161.7Wh/rkm. With reports of up to 80.2kWh from SMT (and probably closer to 80.7kWh if we account for reports from the car without SMT), I don't expect a large voltage cap on the Performance.

We definitely should get that data from the Performance, though! It is possible it's a little bit capped - because there was supposed to be a 5% capacity increase, and 80.7kWh vs. 77.8kWh is only 3.7%. So they may be holding back a bit on maximum charge level right now, for safety.

And then we can compare it to the LG Chem 100% voltage, and the Panasonic 77.8kWh battery at 100%.

I'd expect (right now):
Panasonic 77.8kWh -> Highest voltage at 100%
Panasonic 82kWh -> Next highest voltage at 100%
LG Chem 74.5kWh -> Lowest voltage at 100%

 

[Tslrsx]

this is after the update to 2020.48.12.1 (the car wanted to download the software again, but it disapeared again)