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

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yeah but this seems to only apply to some batteries. Namely, so far, the ones reported from Europe. Have not seen a low report (yet) from the US.

Would be great to have more reports but we have almost none to help us understand the current limits. 336 miles is 540km which did not align with what people were getting, either (closer to 534km observed). And the 343 miles in the tweet is of course still 10 miles short of the final goal.

I guess we will see.

 

[khelge]

@AlanSubie4Life I just got a notice for update 2020.48.12.1. Anything you would find interesting to know before I update? To like compare before and after

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@AlanSubie4Life I just got a notice for update 2020.48.12.1. Anything you would find interesting to know before I update? To like compare before and after

Sure! Charge to 80-90% or so. Take a picture of the Energy Consumption screen, capture: Remaining Range (next to battery), Projected Range, Recent Efficiency. And then switch to Display-> energy mode display for range and record your % SoC.

So four numbers. Before and after for all four numbers.

 

[EV Promoter]

The Kona and Bolt EV vehicles in question use NMC622 cathodes, not NMC811.

My bad, you're right. The problem is that NMC811 (the 8) contains the highest available Nichel content in the current battery production, which is known (you can find many sources and studies) to have the highest risk of fires. And the first mass production of NMC811 by CATL has given cars on fires. I'm with you that fires depends by many reasons, but for that matter the 811 are the worst.
I do really hope will not be the case of Tesla (my own car), but it's already known from China (Moneyball article i've posted here) that testing has been not extensive.

 

[EV Promoter]

Tesla_Adri on Twitter is charging an E5D with LG after receiving the update 2020.48.12.1 that has been mentioned here.
The 551 km /343 mi Greentheonly found as limit in the software, seems to be real.

PS: the shitty 45 kW @65% copes well with my measure at supercharger with my E5D, 34 kW max @65%, 56 km before charging, even if is a non systematic and appriopriate measurement.
Unfortunately my SMT harness is due to arrive not before 1 jan.

I didn't got the update yet, as soon as i get it i'll post the relevant screen according to @AlanSubie4Life instructions.

 

[TimothyHW3]

just got a notice for update 2020.48.12.1. Anything you would find interesting to know before I update? To like compare before and after

Make sure to match the two lines the straight and your avg consumption for the last 5-10 miles under energy and take a picture that holds both the estimated range and the battery range. Make sure to change the slider to avg not current consumption.

This before and after the update. This will confirm wether they changed the constant, the value you will see when you match both lines(it should be somewhere around 224Wh/m beforehand)

But I assume that you have the bigger battery (either the old Panasonic or new one) so I don't expect it to change much. I expect it to go to 135-137 Wh/km on E5D LG cars in Europe, from around 142Wh/km beforehand.

If you have scan my tesla also see if the nominal full changed.

 

[Jibjab]

Really interesting and informative thread. I have a UK long range, I’ll post some data as soon as I can. Suffice to say it looks like an LG battery that I have.

It’s obviously slightly good news that the displayed range has increased with the most recent update, I’m still on 2020.44!

Will the range on the LG battery ever match the 353 for the long range do we think? I imagine that’s only leaving a small buffer below zero if it does?

 

[TimothyHW3]

Basically you have to take a video or a picture of the energy tab like this one, before the update and after the update:

imgur.com

See how the lines converge around 152.5Wh/km and then both the range on the right and the battery range converge to the same value? This is the value we need before and after the update.

It’s obviously slightly good news that the displayed range has increased with the most recent update, I’m still on 2020.44!

Will the range on the LG battery ever match the 353 for the long range do we think? I imagine that’s only leaving a small buffer below zero if it does?

No, it is not good news, not even slightly. Displayed range is irrelevant. The only thing it is useful for is to track degradation, but if Tesla keeps changing the constant and moving the range - this is actually bad news, because it hides degradation. This is the same thing that happened to RWD people in 2018 who to this day think they have "5%" degradation, because Tesla just moved the goal post by decreasing their consumption constant (the straight line I show in the video above) - whereas their real degradation is more lilely in the 10% area.

Early indications, 2019 vs 2021 driven one after eachother with the heating off, show that there is no efficiency gained between the 2019 and 2021 motors and it is all range numbers manipulation (I will have a more definit answer very soon).

Basically, if Tesla "increases" the range without any significant motor efficiency, this is just moving the theoretical consumption lower - has no implications for you in real life.

They also in the past for 2019 models, purposely reduced the displayed range, so that they can increase it later. In the 2019 models they calculated 76.5kWh for capacity, even though the batteries were 77.8kWh.

Now, they simply use the whole capacity and don't care about initial degradation (of 1-2kWh in the first few thousand miles)

This is like in an ICE car - if you have one with 50litres and one with 55litres of tank, otherwise absolutely identical, but both show the same range because the car on the left has a theoretical lower consumption (but they are absolutely the same cars, even the weight is the same, because the tank on the 50 litre car is more heavy has the same volume - basically LG batteries - same weight, less capacity)

Hope this makes it more understandable.

 

[Jibjab]

Basically you have to take a video or a picture of the energy tab like this one, before the update and after the update:

imgur.com

See how the lines converge around 152.5Wh/km and then both the range on the right and the battery range converge to the same value? This is the value we need before and after the update.



No, it is not good news, not even slightly. Displayed range is irrelevant. The only thing it is useful for is to track degradation, but if Tesla keeps changing the constant and moving the range - this is actually bad news, because it hides degradation. This is the same thing that happened to RWD people in 2018 who to this day think they have "5%" degradation, because Tesla just moved the goal post by decreasing their consumption constant (the straight line I show in the video above) - whereas their real degradation is more lilely in the 10% area.

Early indications, 2019 vs 2021 driven one after eachother with the heating off, show that there is no efficiency gained between the 2019 and 2021 motors and it is all range numbers manipulation (I will have a more definit answer very soon).

Basically, if Tesla "increases" the range without any significant motor efficiency, this is just moving the theoretical consumption lower - has no implications for you in real life.

They also in the past for 2019 models, purposely reduced the displayed range, so that they can increase it later. In the 2019 models they calculated 76.5kWh for capacity, even though the batteries were 77.8kWh.

Now, they simply use the whole capacity and don't care about initial degradation (of 1-2kWh in the first few thousand miles)

This is like in an ICE car - if you have one with 50litres and one with 55litres of tank, otherwise absolutely identical, but both show the same range because the car on the left has a theoretical lower consumption (but they are absolutely the same cars, even the weight is the same, because the tank on the 50 litre car is more heavy has the same volume - basically LG batteries - same weight, less capacity)

Hope this makes it more understandable.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, very useful. So with regard to the most recent update ‘unlocking’ circa 13 miles on a long range, what have Tesla actually done to achieve this? Allow more of the battery capacity to be available? Using the tank analogy do they all of a sudden open up a valve to allow the ‘tank’ to be filled more? Or simply skewed the figures?

 

[TimothyHW3]

Tesla actually done to achieve this? Allow more of the battery capacity to be available

No, there is no more battery. Most likely moved that lane in my video lower.

This is what we are trying to understand, by asking for that video below the line and above the line and at the line.

 

[EV Promoter]

Early indications, 2019 vs 2021 driven one after eachother with the heating off, show that there is no efficiency gained between the 2019 and 2021 motors and it is all range numbers manipulation (I will have a more definit answer very soon).

Care to prouve it?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Minor bookkeeping corrections:

This will confirm wether they changed the constant, the value you will see when you match both lines(it should be somewhere around 224Wh/m beforehand)

As documented earlier in this thread, the constant (not the line) is currently 139Wh/km (224Wh/mi), on these 2021 AWDs.

And it is really important to get the point right, already discussed, to avoid confusion: the line is ~3Wh/km HIGHER. ~142Wh/km, 229Wh/mi.

Anyone with one of these vehicles can easily verify this - constant has been calculated earlier in this thread, but the line position was not checked. It’s not needed, but maybe someone can put this one to bed? It’s kind of frustrating to have to keep coming back to it. It’s not something to argue about - it is either true, or not true. It will be obvious what the answer is when the lines completely merge (moving dotted line disappears).

Make sure to match the two lines the straight and your avg consumption for the last 5-10 miles under energy and take a picture that holds both the estimated range and the battery range.

You do not need to match the lines for figuring out the constant - it is only needed to verify what I said above (line position and constant do not match).

You just need to take the described pictures at high SoC. Calculations are described at the beginning of this thread.

I expect it to go to 135-137 Wh/km on E5D LG cars in Europe, from around 142Wh/km beforehand.

I expect no change to the constant and line position for this update. It is a soft lock, so I expect for the LG batteries they will just be increasing available capacity (by about 1.5kWh), but we will see.

I DO expect a constant update eventually, to about 137Wh/km. But not for this update, if it is not providing ~568km on the Panasonic vehicles.

If Panasonic vehicles ALSO increase in range with this update (to about 568km!), that WOULD be a constant update (and no increase in capacity for LG or Panasonic as @TimothyHW3 says). But I do not expect that at this time.

We’ll see. Could go either way, but it being called a “soft lock” by Green implies a capacity limit that is being adjusted, to me.

Looking forward to the pictures, before and after! We need more data in this thread!

 

[TimothyHW3]

Care to prove it?

Yes, next week.

 

[TimothyHW3]

And it is really important to get the point right, already discussed, to avoid confusion: the line is ~3Wh/km HIGHER

I would ignore the nitpicking here of pixels and design decisions and whatnots, again, and just point to this video below on imgur - what we need is the value shown next to the line when the two values converge - rated range and expected range.
In the video it is @ 152.5Wh/km (or between 152 and 153) preferrably in wh/km, because miles has rounding errors.

Depending on your view point the lines will match. That is all we need - before and after the update.

imgur.com

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In the video it is @ 152.5Wh/km (or between 152 and 153) preferrably in wh/km, because miles has rounding errors.

I refer you to:
2021 Model 3 - Charge data

The line is clearly at 156Wh/km in that video.

Feel free to check when you get your car - if they do not change the position in an update before them (I do expect a one-time adjustment), you will find in 2021 it is at ~142Wh/km (constant is at 139Wh/km)

. That is all we need - before and after the update.

Basically I agree with you! However, rather than focusing on the line position, let’s PLEASE just get the data outlined earlier, before and after, at high SoC, 4 data elements:
1) Remaining rated range
2) Recent Efficiency
3) Projected Range
4) % SoC

In km is good.

You do not have to align the lines to determine the constant. (And it is a pain to do so, so why discourage people from gathering the very easy-to-gather pictures above?)

 

[EV Promoter]

Got this afternoon the SMT harness, 12 days before the expected, from USA. Curious to have a look.

@AlanSubie4Life , can i ask you if the ratio btw SMT' entries "Nominal full pack" and "Full pack when new" gives a reliable indication of the degradation? I'm new to this.

Just hours ago, on the german forum someone posted a reading of an LG 2021 with 2300 km: no degradation at all shown, good:

Übersicht 2021 LR / P Batteriekapazität Fahrzeugschein

 

[khelge]

So I just updated and it went from 507km to 514km next to the battery. The typical line on energy was at 143, and it still is after update. In the app it went from 539 full to 546 when placed at 100%

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@AlanSubie4Life , can i ask you if the ratio btw SMT' entries "Nominal full pack" and "Full pack when new" gives a reliable indication of the degradation? I'm new to this.

In this case, with a pack that is likely software limited, it probably does.

But in general it is harder to say. The Performance shows 82kWh for full pack when new but we have not seen a full pack with that energy so it is questionable in that case.

Historically, the full pack when new number has been pretty close to the correct value, though, so not bad as a guide. The exception right now seems to be the 2021 Performance, but it could be a temporary software limit.

It will be interesting to see if this full pack when new value changes with software updates. It does make me wonder if the LG packs are permanently limited! Definitely I could be wrong about that.

This software update should show us, though: is it a constant adjustment, or it is a capacity unlock? If capacity is unlocked, it may show up in this full pack when new value. Or, it may be that Nominal Full Pack goes to 76kWh while Full Pack when new just stays at 74.5kWh. Those are the two possibilities.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So I just updated and it went from 507km to 514km next to the battery. The typical line on energy was at 143, and it still is after update. In the app it went from 539 full to 546 when placed at 100%

Thanks! Did you get the pictures, too? Those Energy -> Consumption screen pictures are very definitive.

If the constant (139Wh/rkm, line at 142/143rkm) did not change, this is a capacity unlock, as I expected:

I expect no change to the constant and line position for this update. It is a soft lock, so I expect for the LG batteries they will just be increasing available capacity

The easy way to tell whether the constant definitely did not change is the pictures, all 3 numbers required for constant calculation; 4 numbers needed (add %) if you want to know your full pack capacity too. Don’t worry about the exact line position, it is not needed for the calculation as long as you capture all three numbers as described.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Got this afternoon the SMT harness, 12 days before the expected, from USA. Curious to have a look.

If you experience the same as @khelge, I expect you to see about 76kWh Nominal Full Pack after the update, and Full Pack when new will show 74.5kWh (or maybe 76kWh if they decided to change that - might be hard coded). For -2% degradation.

Give it a couple more weeks and you’ll be at 77.5kWh with -4% degradation, maybe! Think of it as an Elon Christmas present, where he gives you something you already paid for.