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

[TimothyHW3]

Yesterday i've got by chance the two lines of the average and rated consumption perfectly superimposed @142 Wh/km.
The constant is absolutely confirmed @139 Wh/km, see graph

Have a look at the video. The constant is not 139, but 142. This is the constant Tesla uses to calculate your ranges.
In the case of the LG battery you have about 74kWh full. So 74/14.2 is exactly 521km. But the car reports more than 530 when full.
This why Tesla inflates the range. To have the reported 535km, you have to have about 76kWh, but you don't... (76/5.35)

By the way, I can easily proove that from your picture.

I assume you have around 74kWh (some come with 73.5 some with 74.5, very bad degradation on these LG batteries from the factory).
So 74*64.5% is 47,8kWh remaining.
47.8/14.2 gives you 336.6km. or exactly 337km. Hence we have proven that
A) You have 74kWh battery
B) The constant Tesla uses for the 337km calculation is 142
C) Tesla is sneaky and lies about the full range of 535km or it uses a totally different constant for that (around 13.8 , whereas normally it used the same on the old cars )

This is where the diference right and left above the battery comes from. Tesla is doing some sort of math gymnastics with these LG batteries, to make sure it reports more range than it is available. There is also a thing about the buffer that tesla hides every 100km, but that is irrelevant here and will only confuse you.

Have a look at this video of an old 2019 Model 3. See how the lines converge at around 152-153 (probably 152.5). This is the correct constant and when these match, both ranges match too. On the new cars with LG batteries (the Panasonic ones don't have that behaviour) they don't match, because Tesla is being Tesla again...

Look at the video to see how it works
imgur.com

 

[TimothyHW3]

Question: where i can find some label/code of the battery on the car? Ready to do some removal.

The label is in the front, under the protection cover over the motor. You have to remove it from below the car and then look for a sticker that says BB or BA in big letters.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You see how the 337km and 344km diviate where usually they should match like on the previous models?

Dude, where’s your car? It has ALWAYS worked this way. If you don’t believe me, drive your current vehicle, that’s why I asked where it is, (2019 AWD?) to 157Wh/km. That is where the lines align. And the range and projected range will differ! See pictures from my 2018 AWD. In this it happens to be ~7km but the difference depends on how much range you have left. It will be about 2%.

What you are saying about the lines is simply incorrect. You can verify that it is incorrect on your own older vehicle assuming you still have it.

Please, can you verify it and we can stop quibbling over this point? The way the screen works has not changed, other than the value of the constant and the position of the line (the constant is still ~3Wh/km lower than the line). The constant is still used for the calculation. If you don’t believe me, try it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

B) The constant Tesla uses for the 337km calculation is 142

See his picture:

142Wh/km*337km / 139Wh/rkm = 344rkm

This does NOT use the constant value of 142Wh/rkm. (Current efficiency is 142Wh/km but that is coincidence and has different units.)

Don’t believe me? Plug this formula (with your constant, 3Wh/rkm lower than the line in your car) into your energy screen results. Or see my pictures, which provide two such opportunities.

Tesla is doing some sort of math gymnastics with these LG batteries, to make sure it reports more range than it is available.

No. It is not. The battery currently has lower unlocked capacity than prior model years. All other functionality appears to be the same.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The label is in the front, under the protection cover over the motor. You have to remove it from below the car and then look for a sticker that says BB or BA in big letters.

Narrator voice: You probably do not have to remove the cover. Though that does make it easier to take the picture.

2021 Model 3 - Proposed Battery Label Capture Procedure

Telling people they must remove the cover makes it less likely we will get pictures. I got a picture of mine. Part number is now conveniently high on the label so it will likely be visible now. Someone should try! Phone cameras are really good now. A flashlight is helpful to allow autofocus, unless perhaps if you have lidar, it may be unnecessary. But the flashlight stuffed in there pointed at the middle front of the battery will make it easier to find the label with your phone camera.

 

[TimothyHW3]

And to that dude that I have blocked and is clueless. The video you requested has been posted multiple times - my own car, click and watch:
https://imgur.com/ a/ 2KIffrk
LR, 2019 with every software this was with V9 same with V10 etc. The values match at 152.5 Wh/km and this is the exact constant the cars use- visible perfectly in the video. At least AWD 2019-2020 models in Europe.

Also visible in this video I posted with V10 and has been viewed 10,000 times...

And no, the "battery doesn't currently have lower unlocked capacity", there are 2 or 3 variants of these batteries 1 or 2 from Panasonic (supposedly the newer P ones with more capacity, and the old ones with 77.8kWh) and 1 from LG from Korea, the 74.5 like the one in this thread.

I have a friend who just received the 2021 model and has 77.8kWh available. Another person received the LG one with 74.5. The LG battery quoted here is just lower capacity, because LG can't fit so many kWh into the Tesla pack.

Last time I answer you...It is amazing how you can be so clueless and not even know it...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In response to this picture, @TimothyHW3 says:

The constant is not 139, but 142

Note that the lines align perfectly. But the range does not. Because the constant is ~139Wh/rkm.

It's important to distinguish between rated/range km (rkm) and actual km to avoid confusion here.

For a 2018/2019 vehicle:

The values match at 152.5 Wh/km and this is the exact constant the cars use- visible perfectly in the video.

By "values" here, @TimothyHW3 is getting confused. The range values match at 152.5Wh/km on 2018/2019 AWD vehicles. But the lines do not. Consistent with the first picture.

Here is a screen capture from his video. The lines do not align (as expected; the current efficiency is about 3Wh/mi less than the line). But the range does align (very close anyway - it's not exact).

Clearly, the lines do not align, and the range does. The line is at about 156Wh/km, and the constant is about 3Wh/km lower (so will match when recent efficiency is at 152.5Wh/km - the slight discrepancy from 153Wh/km is why the projected and rated range do not exactly match).

It's important to note that I pretty much agree with everything else Timothy is saying here. His calculations of capacity appear to be basically correct. I do not understand why he disagrees with me on this, since he has multiple times said exactly what I am saying.

It's a little upsetting to me that we have so much noise on this point. It's not a complicated calculation, and it isn't mysterious, and the behavior of the Energy Consumption screen has not changed (other than the value of the constant!). Hopefully this thread is still useful even with the argument back and forth here. I apologize to those reading. This will be my last attempt to come to an agreement with @TimothyHW3 (who unfortunately apparently has me blocked).

B) The constant Tesla uses for the 337km calculation is 142

Again, it's not. You can see this from the plot. At any point, the calculations on the efficiency screen, at the current time, for the 2021 AWD, are:

Projected Range = Rated Range Remaining * Constant / Recent Efficiency.

So, specifically:

Projected Range = 344rkm * 139Wh/rkm / 142Wh/km = 337km

Timothy can verify this himself (and has in the past!!!), but it appears he will not.

I will have to notify my wife that someone is wrong on the Internet!

"battery doesn't currently have lower unlocked capacity",

We'll see. It does currently have lower unlocked capacity. It may well remain that way. I have no idea. Just because I said "currently" does not imply that I expect that it will get unlocked. It is just a possibility with what we know now. It may be an impossibility as far as Tesla is concerned (they know!). I would only observe that it is odd to provide two substantially different capacity batteries to end customers for the same price. Fortunately this is not happening in the US.

 

[EV Promoter]

Note that the lines align perfectly. But the range does not. Because the constant is ~139Wh/rkm.

It's important to distinguish between rated/range km (rkm) and actual km to avoid confusion here.

Projected Range = Rated Range Remaining * Constant / Recent Efficiency.

So, specifically:

Projected Range = 344rkm * 139Wh/rkm / 142Wh/km = 337km

Self-evident, you're right, thanks.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

to 157Wh/km. That is where the lines align.

I apologize: I meant to say 156Wh/km here (for the line position, on 2018/2019 AWD). And it's likely closer to 155.5Wh/km, but it doesn't display fractional values, so the lines merge at 156Wh/km. It's a very small difference, but when quibbling over a 3Wh/km difference (to ~152.5Wh/rkm, the constant for 2018/2019 AWD), I just wanted to clarify to avoid confusion.

Since this is not a discussion of 2018/2019 AWD vehicles, I'll close with (again), the more relevant info for this thread:

2021 AWD (EU & US)
Line: ~142Wh/km
Constant: ~139Wh/km

...supported by the pictures graciously posted by @EV Promoter above, and @kxts as well.

 

[TimothyHW3]

The values that you are quoting from the Youtube video in the first picture do not match, because, if you actually watched the video, you will see that there is a discrepancy between nominal full and expected nominal full in SMT(I explained this, 0.2kWh) because my car has slight imbalance at 99%(doesn't charge to 100%). Further down the video the values match perfectly. Plus the difference is 2km, not 8 like in his screenshot.
If you look at the imgur video, which is more important, you will see that both the values AND the lines converge at around 153. Also, the rated range in the battery and the range on the right do not refresh at the same time so you have to drive consistently at constant speeds holding the constant for about 30 seconds to observe that.

You kind of ignore that video, because it doesn't fit your narrative, even though you have been asking for exactly that video. How convinient.

The only reason @Ev-promoter has a discrepancy is because of the LG battery and I will prove it fairly shortly.(we have some screenshots from 2021 Panasonic cars where the values match like they did on all the other Panasonic cars)...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

See how the lines converge at around 152-153 (probably 152.5).

If you look at the imgur video, which is more important, you will see that both the values AND the lines converge at around 153.

You kind of ignore that video, because it doesn't fit your narrative. How convinient.

 

[EV Promoter]

@AlanSubie4Life , one more question.

If i understand correctly, at 100% the rated range of 534 km is related to 74,5 (approx) kWh.
It means it does includes the extra 3,5 kWh buffer, from 71 kWh to 74,5 kWh (your 0,955 coefficient).
But the 0% charge left should appear after only 71 kWh are consumed and the rest are "hidden miles" with 0% charge left on the screen.
Is it correct?

If it's so, the rated range shown on screen is distributing the 534 km on 71 kWh rather than on 74,5 kWh, causing a variable error (in %, not absolute), with a maximum at full charge, depending on SOC, is'nt it?

 

[Skatebambi]

I'm not going to pretend that I've read the full thread here, and maybe this is irrelevant, but my 3 day old 21 LR now shows 592 km on the "Car screen" not the 580 it showed on Monday...

 

[TimothyHW3]

shows 592 km on the "Car screen" not the 580 it showed on Monday...

Do you have a screenshot of either 592km and/or 580km? That would be a first...

 

[Skatebambi]

There you go

 

[BPeter]

There you go

That is your odometer

 

[Skatebambi]

That is your odometer

Haha lol what a noob!

 

[Skatebambi]

Haha lol what a noob!

It was on 580 this morning before I did the school run....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@AlanSubie4Life , one more question.

If i understand correctly, at 100% the rated range of 534 km is related to 74,5 (approx) kWh.
It means it does includes the extra 3,5 kWh buffer, from 71 kWh to 74,5 kWh (your 0,955 coefficient).
But the 0% charge left should appear after only 71 kWh are consumed and the rest are "hidden miles" with 0% charge left on the screen.
Is it correct?

If it's so, the rated range shown on screen is distributing the 534 km on 71 kWh rather than on 74,5 kWh, causing a variable error (in %, not absolute), with a maximum at full charge, depending on SOC, is'nt it?

Yeah. Not sure I quite follow your last sentence though. It is a bit confusing but is pretty simple. For purposes of battery size calculations, the charge constant * rated km @100% gives you that - matches BMS read back from SMT (when your battery energy is at or below (not above!) the degradation threshold anyway, which is ~74.5kWh for you). But that is the wrong formula to use for *remaining* energy at anything other than 100%. (The error from that calculation would go from 0 at 100%, to maximum, with error equal to buffer size, at 0%+ (+ means limit approach from right).)
Each displayed rated mile actually contains 95.5% of the energy that the charge constant would suggest (about 133Wh in your vehicle right now). Again, assuming you are at or below the degradation threshold, not above, where they might each contain a little more energy.

 

[Nuukkuun]

I found a European with a 2021 Performance on Reddit. I tried to coach him as well as you have with some of us, but he didn’t follow my guidelines as well as I would have liked. But here is his results with 54 % SoC