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

[conv90]

Yes it was supercharging V3 , It was charging at about 45 kW at 90% , I was with 93% limit .
yes I am with SMT 2.01 Beta tester version BUT it's with 3 digits after comma.
Here the screens when I reached 4.200 mV and AFTER when I disconnected (went down to 4.150)

About Nominal Full pack value , I had for 2 yars a LR awd and I was always with varying values . Here with the 2021 P I started with 79,6 (where I saw people starting with 80,5-80,6 and ramping up to 81,xx after about 1000-1500 km or few cycles of charge.) Me, I'm experiencing NO changes of values. Never charged to 100% yet and only 650 km odometer.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Never charged to 100% yet and only 650 km odometer

If you care to find out about your capacity you should do that. There is no need though.

Here the screens when I reached 4.200 mV and AFTER when I disconnected (went down to 4.150)

First image suffered a bit but this seems totally normal. 40kW at 400V is 100A. 96cells*50mV/cell is 4.8V.

4.8V/100A is 50mOhm. I am not saying that is the internal resistance (no idea what it is), but it is not zero and it is probably that order of magnitude.

So to me it seems kind of reasonable.

You could compare to the voltage drop observed when accelerating with 150kW use or something, if you can capture that (has been posted elsewhere in this thread though I think). That does give you another data point for internal resistance.

At the 350kW peak power (approx), 1000A, 50mOhm would give a sag of ~50V which seems sort of reasonable too. I’m sure people have logged this.

 

[EvanLin]

Does anyone have idea about SR+ pack?

An owner here in Taiwan just replaced his pack and reported a part number of 1104428-00-T.
Can I know it's 2170L or not?

 

[FredMt]

Does anyone have idea about SR+ pack?

An owner here in Taiwan just replaced his pack and reported a part number of 1104428-00-T.
Can I know it's 2170L or not?

(P) 1104429-00-T, 2170L cells, is confirmed on SR+2021.
(P) 1104423-00-P, 2170 cells, is confirmed on LR before 2021.

At pack level, i don t know for 1104428-00-T, it s Panasonic for sure, i would say near "29", 2170L is possible.

On SR+, range on screen in car should be about 423km EPA for 2170L (E1LR).
It's ~409km EPA for 2170/2170C (E1R/E1CR).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

1104429-00-T, 2170L cells, is confirmed on SR+2021.

Can you remind me why we know for sure these are 2170L cells? I know the pack capacity is slightly larger by 1kWh, but it’s possible to get that by stretching voltage limits.

I just can’t remember- is it called out in the CoC?

 

[AAKEE]

Can you remind me why we know for sure these are 2170L cells? I know the pack capacity is slightly larger by 1kWh, but it’s possible to get that by stretching voltage limits.

I just can’t remember- is it called out in the CoC?

Isnt these already charged to 4.200V at 100% SOC? 5% more capacity equals about 0.05V.

I dont think anyone goes above 4.200V /cell without having other cells/other chemistry to allow higher voltages.
Its possible to go above 4.200 and increase the capacity but for regular NCA not safe and would cause a lot of wear.

 

[kadettilac]

The results are in on the new battery pack - it looks to be the T; I picked the car (LR 2021 built Nov '20) up this morning and have driven nearly 400km since with 2 supercharging stops (v2 and v3).

A the service center, it was hooked up to a SuC, so I preheated it and set the charge level 100% shortly before I went there. First results from SMT when I got in the car at TSC Amsterdam:
UI said 100%

SMT said 91.8% SoC

With 79,6kWh nominal full and 73,4 nominal remaining (82,1 full pack when new). So it's nurtured, just like the previous 78 pack I had. Cell temp was 36c while outside it was about 3c.

Then for charging, I made a brief stop at a V2 SuC with 12% remaining and cell temp mid at 40c: 133kW (max of the V2 SuC I believe?) for the 5 mins I charged there.

On to a new V3 close to my home. Arrived with 2% and 33,7c cell temp: Shot up to 233kW and stayed there, went under 100kW at 53/54%. By then the cell temp was well over 50c, maxing out around 55c. In total it took 31 mins from 2% to 81%, not bad. The previous pack was slower in my experience. (I recorded the complete 31 min charging session for those interested, or any other SMT info from the sessions. Just let me know)

233kW

at 52% (UI, not the real SoC by a long shot...)

at 56% dropping under 100kW with SMT battery stats

I'm now charging to 100% (UI) again at home so see if there's any change from this morning since the pack was brand new. It appears to keep about 8%(!) of the pack as an unused/empty buffer. At least I won't have to worry about degradation deceasing my range anytime soon PS SMT states SOC UI at 76.5% while the car indicates 80%:

Last thing to do is get under the car to check the pack sticker to confirm the pack. Will do that in the next few days.

So far I didn't notice much difference in the driving experience. Max power draw remains at 337kW, although it feels like the power builds up/is released a tiny bit slower. But that might be me.

One unrelated note: I looked under the car when I picked it up at the service center to check if all was well and 2 plastic clips were hanging open. Not very good QC on repairs before delivery. I closed them and went in to tell the staff who picked it up as a memo to the workshop chief. If I hadn't checked, they would have remained open for months - until the winter tyre change. At least the jack points looked nice and tidy.

 

[eivissa]

The results are in on the new battery pack - it looks to be the T; I picked the car (LR 2021 built Nov '20) up this morning and have driven nearly 400km since with 2 supercharging stops (v2 and v3).

A the service center, it was hooked up to a SuC, so I preheated it and set the charge level 100% shortly before I went there. First results from SMT when I got in the car at TSC Amsterdam:
UI said 100%
View attachment 653120

SMT said 91.8% SoC
View attachment 653122

With 79,6kWh nominal full and 73,4 nominal remaining (82,1 full pack when new). So it's nurtured, just like the previous 78 pack I had. Cell temp was 36c while outside it was about 3c.
View attachment 653123

Then for charging, I made a brief stop at a V2 SuC with 12% remaining and cell temp mid at 40c: 133kW (max of the V2 SuC I believe?) for the 5 mins I charged there.

On to a new V3 close to my home. Arrived with 2% and 33,7c cell temp: Shot up to 233kW and stayed there, went under 100kW at 53/54%. By then the cell temp was well over 50c, maxing out around 55c. In total it took 31 mins from 2% to 81%, not bad. The previous pack was slower in my experience. (I recorded the complete 31 min charging session for those interested, or any other SMT info from the sessions. Just let me know)

233kW
View attachment 653126

at 52% (UI, not the real SoC by a long shot...)
View attachment 653124

at 56% dropping under 100kW with SMT battery stats
View attachment 653125

I'm now charging to 100% (UI) again at home so see if there's any change from this morning since the pack was brand new. It appears to keep about 8%(!) of the pack as an unused/empty buffer. At least I won't have to worry about degradation deceasing my range anytime soon PS SMT states SOC UI at 76.5% while the car indicates 80%:

View attachment 653130View attachment 653131

Last thing to do is get under the car to check the pack sticker to confirm the pack. Will do that in the next few days.

So far I didn't notice much difference in the driving experience. Max power draw remains at 337kW, although it feels like the power builds up/is released a tiny bit slower. But that might be me.

One unrelated note: I looked under the car when I picked it up at the service center to check if all was well and 2 plastic clips were hanging open. Not very good QC on repairs before delivery. I closed them and went in to tell the staff who picked it up as a memo to the workshop chief. If I hadn't checked, they would have remained open for months - until the winter tyre change. At least the jack points looked nice and tidy.

View attachment 653136

I believe you are the first model 3 Long Range driver to get a 82kWh Pack...even with the circumstances this took!

I think this is big news indeed! Good for you

Btw: can you show your cell voltage at 100%

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Isnt these already charged to 4.200V at 100% SOC? 5% more capacity equals about 0.05V.

We are looking for 2% more capacity (53.5kWh vs 52.5kWh).

I have no idea what the voltage limits are on the 2020 SR+ or the 2021 SR+. However, it’s true that with 31 parallel cells rather than 46, you’d expect 77.8kWh to only go to 52.4kWh (31/46*77.8). So going to 53.5 kWh, which is currently observed, would be a stretch.

However, it could potentially come from the low end too. I have no idea how much margin they actually have to give there.

I was just wondering what specifically we have to point to which is saying 2170L for 2021 SR+ (because I can’t remember - I assume it had been covered here). I’m not saying it doesn’t have 2170L.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

At least I won't have to worry about degradation deceasing my range anytime soon

Great info. Congrats on the Performance pack.

Sadly, if you lose 5% of your pack capacity, you will lose ~5% of your current usable capacity. Since that is how Tesla operates currently. For example, SR vehicles lose range starting immediately, even though they are using only 92% of their SR+ battery capacity.

EDIT: This is probably a bit pessimistic - see discussion in post below. END EDIT.

You always just get your designated % of the current full pack capacity. There’s no “top margin lockout” that gets eaten into, or at least that is how things have operated so far.

EDIT: See discussion below for my understanding of top buffer - again, a bit too pessimistic here - you may have a small buffer before capacity loss starts. Not sure.

 

[eivissa]

Great info. Congrats on the Performance pack.

Sadly, if you lose 5% of your pack capacity, you will lose ~5% of your current usable capacity. Since that is how Tesla operates currently. For example, SR vehicles lose range starting immediately, even though they are using only 92% of their SR+ battery capacity.

You always just get your designated % of the current full pack capacity. There’s no “top margin lockout” that gets eaten into, or at least that is how things have operated so far.

Are you really sure about that? So in the old Pansonic, when you are voltage limited to 4.15V initially, then is is a floating limit with degradation? I didn't know about this, but I find this hard to believe.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Are you really sure about that? So in the old Pansonic, when you are voltage limited to 4.15V initially, then is is a floating limit with degradation? I didn't know about this, but I find this hard to believe.

Thanks for asking - I think to some extent you’re right and my post above is (slightly) pessimistic.

It isn’t quite as rigid as my prior post made it seem.
There may be some initial top buffer if initially “nominal full pack” exceeds the “full pack when new” value, but when you start dropping nominal full pack below the “full pack when new” value, you start seeing those miles come off. In this case we have the deviation of the max charge level (73.5kWh) from “nominal full pack” (79.6kWh) but we know Tesla does not allow use of that extra capacity (think of the SR analogy).


So, it’s not a rigid “there is zero top buffer” sort of thing. Because you could start out with a very good battery. I just meant in this specific case, having 8% capacity which is not accessible does not mean you can have 8% of degradation of the pack before you see any loss.

And in this specific case, it’s possible that Tesla is using 77.8kWh as the “onset of degradation” level (not ~79.6kWh), because other AWD are coming with that original Panasonic pack with the lower FPWN, and that is what they would use. So the new replacement pack could help him a couple % in that way - you are right.

For example, if nominal full pack degrades to 75.6kWh (5% from 79.6kWh), that takes it to 2.9% below 77.8kWh. So I think you’d expect to see 100% SoC go to 97.1% of 73.5kWh, or 71.4kWh. But I am not sure in this specific case exactly how it will work.

Let’s say it degrades all the way to 73.5kWh...using above formula, I’d expect 5.5% capacity loss (to 69.4kWh) at least for that 7.7% pack loss. That was my original point. I just stated it a little too pessimistically.

I guess we will see. If someone (you?) religiously tracks cell voltages and new capacities on these packs maybe you could make a better guess about exactly how it will behave. Specifically: Not having the 73.5kWh full charge (UI, not SoC) level reduce at all as the pack capacity decreases from 79.6kWh to 77.8kWh would require an increase in cell voltage at 100% UI (not SOC) to achieve 73.5kWh over that time interval. That is possible, but how exactly is it managed, and what is the max voltage allowed to achieve 100% UI (not SOC) (after you hit that you will start seeing capacity loss)?

 

[AAKEE]

Are you really sure about that? So in the old Pansonic, when you are voltage limited to 4.15V initially, then is is a floating limit with degradation? I didn't know about this, but I find this hard to believe.

If the voltage limit is fixed( for example 4.15V), the capacity probably will reduce as degradation occurs. I dont know how they handle it, maybe they try to make the Panna C and LG as similar as possible so it really doesnt matter for the customer if he get the LG or Panna.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If the voltage limit is fixed( for example 4.15V), the capacity probably will reduce as degradation occurs. I dont know how they handle it, maybe they try to make the Panna C and LG as similar as possible so it really doesnt matter for the customer if he get the LG or Panna.

The only clear analogy we have really are the SR vehicles and other Tesla vehicles that do not use the entire pack capacity. And on those vehicles they (with the rather extensive and complicated caveat described above) degrade as soon as the actual full pack capacity degrades below any "degradation threshold" that might exist.

 

[kadettilac]

I believe you are the first model 3 Long Range driver to get a 82kWh Pack...even with the circumstances this took!

I think this is big news indeed! Good for you

Btw: can you show your cell voltage at 100%

Thanks, although with @AlanSubie4Life 's remark on how degradation is dealt with I'm not sure what the benefit is of this pack over my 'old' 77.8 pack. Is there a benefit? Or maybe a future benefit when they figure out how to better utilise the cells at lower SOC and low temps?

Below the voltages at 100% SOC UI this afternoon, so 4.12V average at 92.0% actual SOC (and 100% in UI). The individual cell numbers might be off though, as they are definitely lower than the reported average. I also have SMT on an Android phone so I could double check, but I doubt it shows individual cells.

 

[FredMt]

FredMt said:
1104429-00-T, 2170L cells, is confirmed on SR+2021.

Can you remind me why we know for sure these are 2170L cells? I know the pack capacity is slightly larger by 1kWh, but it’s possible to get that by stretching voltage limits.

I just can’t remember- is it called out in the CoC?

Information is included in reference of the variant of the car, in France it's in "gray card " document (identification of the car and the owner of the car)

For SR+ Q12021, it s : "E1LR ... "
E :model 3
1 : SR
L : 2170L
R: RWD

(For SR+ 2170C it s : "E1CR ...")

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Is there a benefit?

Yes, there is. For one, as mentioned in the circuitous explanation above, it may be that you get some degradation for "free," depending on how Tesla exactly decides to set that degradation limit, and how they manage this. Always good to start with a juicy pack, in any case. To be honest, I don't know exactly how this works (it's an enduring mystery (for me) because I haven't seen the continuous data from a new car all the way through to degraded, including the displayed rated miles in the car), but you will be able to figure it out, definitively, since you have this initial data. (And others may already know.) Just continue to track nominal full pack kWh, UI 100% charge energy, UI 100% rated km, cell voltages at 100%, etc., over time (and if Tesla does any capacity unlocks on Performance packs over time, you'll have to account for any impact those may have, as well).

The other benefit is that when you're charged to 100% you aren't charging the pack to 100%. So: 1) you'll get better regen at 100% than someone with a smaller pack, all else being equal, and 2) you'll put less stress on the pack (causing less capacity loss, in theory) when charging to 100% (UI).

so 4.12V average at 92.0% actual SOC (and 100% in UI). The individual cell numbers might be off though, as they are definitely lower than the reported average.

That's some weird data. Seems like something is being reported wrong (or in a confusing fashion), if I know anything about how averages work . Maybe someone familiar with SMT could elaborate on what the problem is.

For SR+ Q12021, it s : "E1LR ... "
E :model 3
1 : SR
L : 2170L
R: RWD

(For SR+ 2170C it s : "E1CR ...")

Thanks, seems fairly definitive. I'll keep in mind that 1104429-00-T pack info.

 

[FredMt]

Last thing to do is get under the car to check the pack sticker to confirm the pack. Will do that in the next few days.

CB 1104423-00-T ?

 

[FredMt]

but they'll be installing this part no: 1104423-00-T. So the T version instead of the P I have now in my LR.

Is the T the 81/82kWh one in the performance cars as mentioned earlier in this thread, or the same 77,8 as the P battery?

I confirm that 1104423-00-T is a reference of a "82 kWh" pack identified in model 3 Performance

 

[kadettilac]

I confirm that 1104423-00-T is a reference of a "82 kWh" pack identified in model 3 Performance

Cool, 1104423-00-T is the same number as on the final invoice I received after the work was completed. I’ll get under the car tomorrow and take a pic of the sticker to complete the identification!