FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
485km à 100% x 162Wh = 78,570 kWh
167x420 /0,89 = 78,808 kWh with 10 dots regen.
(Don't have other data, car is not mine)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc
- Thread starter EV Promoter
- Start date
485km à 100% x 162Wh = 78,570 kWh
167x420 /0,89 = 78,808 kWh with 10 dots regen.
(Don't have other data, car is not mine)
The values are quite close so probably quite correct. Theres a rounding error in all three variables and SOC in percent may have the largest deviation, but most probable the calculaded result is within 0.5kwh.
From this, we didnt get much wiser...?
Either a 2170L with degradation or BMS calibration showing a bit more than average degradation, or the 2170C (77.8kwh branded) battery with absolutely no degradation. If it is a refresh it should need the 2170L bat to reach WLTP or EPA ratings...
Not related to 2021 (in a way yes because i just bought a 2021 P3D) selling my 2019 LR AWD still in my hands:
How is it possible that my car says I have 247-248 km left at 52% with an average of 153Wh/km and a Typical of 156 (superimposed to average dotted line).
This means I have a constant of 153,xx Wh/km and still 37,9 kWh on my remaining 52% SOC?
SMT non installed in these days i'm selling the car says I have 77,8 kWh on "When New" and 72,2 kW on "Nominal Full Pack"
an it has when in temp 478 km range at 100%.
How is it possible that my car says I have 247-248 km left at 52% with an average of 153Wh/km and a Typical of 156 (superimposed to average dotted line).
This means I have a constant of 153,xx Wh/km and still 37,9 kWh on my remaining 52% SOC?
SMT non installed in these days i'm selling the car says I have 77,8 kWh on "When New" and 72,2 kW on "Nominal Full Pack"
an it has when in temp 478 km range at 100%.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
What exactly is the question here, how you can have 72kWh nominal full?
How should we know? Maybe real degradation maybe BMS imbalance. Read the "How I got my range back"-Thread in this forum and follow the suggestions there.
No BMS imbalance , I read the Post you mentioned many times and I'm in the situation where I leave the car unused for good periods at ALL the SOC's , so the BMS should be OK.
The FACT is that I'm always in the average of 154-153 Wh/km (where the projected range is the same like the rated) and actually I can do the kilometers It says it can do.
The only thing I can add is that
153x247/0,52 = 72,675 That is similar to "nominal full pack " I have on SMT.
The fact is that the projected range says a correct range (until I remain in the 153 Wh/km average) and it goes to ZERO when it is at 0% but we all know that the 72,67 are calculated on Nominal Full Pack so at least a 4,5% UNDER 0% or UNDER 0 km left.
....Because I think the projected range in Energy screen is to reach 0% not to -4,5%
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
As you say, off topic. So last I will say.
Yes this is a well-known observation. But if you observe carefully (look at the trip meter), you’ll find you have to do better on consumption than the energy display would suggest, to have the predictions of the total distance you will travel (to 0%) not change. That resolves the “discrepancy” you are pointing out.
Specifically, for your 247km energy screen prediction above, you need to do:
248rkm(displayed)*~145Wh/rkm(displayed)/247km(projected) = ~146Wh/km (rounded). Just approximate; it is never exact.
To travel 247km by the time you get to 0%.
Try it! Easy enough to verify. Just keep an eye on that trip meter.
All the math works out, and nothing is inconsistent with what we know about the buffer, etc. That consumption projection screen is just super confusing. I recommend using the Trip Planner instead if you want to know how far you can go before hitting 0%. (Consumption screen is very useful for capacity calculations, of course.)
Last edited:
FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
Yes and as you know, Arnaud is sold his car now for new model S... so perhaps we will never know more about it. But i think it s usefull to take picture of pack sticker model 3 model to identifie new references from refresh 14 that going to arrive soon.
Yes, It's not clear to me why you say: ~145Wh/rkm(displayed) . It'a a well know constants? Actually the numbers I posted are 153 Wh/km.
What I wanted to say is that i'll use another red number I have the same results .
248rkm(displayed)*~185Wh/rkm(displayed)/247km(projected) = ~185Wh/km (rounded). Just approximate; it is never exact.
OR
248rkm(displayed)*~245Wh/rkm(displayed)/247km(projected) = ~245Wh/km (rounded). Just approximate; it is never exact.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Just carefully observe the trip meter and compare to the energy consumption screen and you’ll figure it out. The 153Wh/km is a well known constant, but displayed rated kilometers (these are not the same as rated kilometers!) only contain about 145Wh (technically 146Wh but usually you will measure lower). You can measure it using the trip meter. This really will be the last I say on this here - this is extensively covered in other threads - go to the constants sticky if you want to discuss further.
Your calculations for battery capacity are correct. I think you’re just (erroneously but understandably) forgetting that you cannot use the consumption screen to accurately predict your range for a given consumption. An easy mistake to make, since a rational person would expect this to work! But there’s actually nothing unexplained (there is an explained inconsistency).
Mine M3P ’21 refresh says 500km at full when the BMS thinks I have nominal full = 81 kWh or more.
So, 485/500 = 0.97. If* this is a 2170L/ 82.1kwh branded battery, with 3% degradation from the ”full mark” the battery would have 81 x 0.97= 78.57kWh. ( this would probably be reported as about 4.3% degradation in SMT).
As per how the BMS work I guess you could be a bit lower than the real nominal size and higher on degradation in SMT depending on how you use the car( charging schemes).
My degradation was 1.83% the first time I connected SMT and after allowing some time for balancing at 90% and also a rest period at about 35-40% I had increased the SMT nominal size by almost one kWh and ”reduced the degradation” value to less then one percent.
Do we have a odometer value for that car?
I still guess that battery is the 2170L if it is a refresh.
Hello,
Based on your informations and the latest German homologation documents for Model 3 in version 14, I just updated my 2021 EUROPE battery summary
Based on your informations and the latest German homologation documents for Model 3 in version 14, I just updated my 2021 EUROPE battery summary
- The Panasonic 75/78 kWh has been known since 2018.
- The LG is only present on the LRs of 2021 in Europe, not distributed in the USA
- The Panasonic 82kWh is the new one with more capacity available since December 2020 on Performance
- This same Panasonic 82 kWh could one day arrive on the Long Range and far exceed the 600 km WLTP <= It's a guess
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Still a few issues with the table. The max range is around 550km. 5.50*13.7.
Mine was about 549km. Both LG and Panasonics as Panasonic is capped at same max LG capacity.
And 26 mins 10-80% no, I think it is about 30mins on the Panasonics 75
@AAKEE said it pretty much all. That sticker find sure is interesting and should get a closer look. I dont think Tesla is sneaking in 2170C / 77.8 KWH batteries into the refresh Performance, but there is still a small possibility that this has happened.
So this car is either a very well performing 77.8KWH with the Nominal Full Pack overshooting the Full Pack When New value (I have only seen this happen once and only by 0.1KWH) or a badly performing 82.1 KWH pack that should be in there anyhow.
Now the easy step to separate the two should be to charge the car to 100% as the BMS will know which battery is in there and both are capped at showing 500km when fully charged.
-The 77.8 KWH would show 100% SoC and 499km rated range if the Nominal Full Pack was in the range of 78-79KWH as calculated...unlikely capacity for this battery!
-The 82.1 KWH would show 100% SoC and around 487km rated range if the Nominal Full Pack was in the range of 78-79KWH.
Even with the big pack I can't say that the Performance is very efficient or just as efficient as the 2020, but then...apart from Tesla...no authority seems to have claimed that anyway...
FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
Thank you! It s what we saw : near 487km (485km exactly) when car charged at 100%.
Then I am 100% certain, that this car has the 82.1 KWH battery with Nominal Full Pack of 78.5 KWH exactly.
We have seen '21 P models go as low as 479km / 77.5 KWH, but that isn't to say that some "tactical charging" didn't cure these low numbers after a while. I wouldn't worry.
When mine charged to 490 at 100% (calculated by TeslaFi, I tend to charge to 90%) it showed 79.5 kWh with SMT. Now up to 80.1 kWh which now equals 498 km at 100%. So for some strange reason, it isn't linear at all.
It has been kinda cold the last couple of weeks, so I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers will rise in the spring.
Similar threads
- Article
