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

[eivissa]

"I don't agree with you, here is data to support my position"

This was the question:

Are there still limp mode issues on low SoC on M3P 2021 with version 2020.48.35.5 ?
Is the heat pump diversion issue solved?

Again, no offense, but...as someone who:
-doesn't drive that exact car.
-doesn't drive a car with the same cell chemistry and BMS limitations.
-got his information on this scenario from a video of someone driving that car on a different software version.
...I really wouldn't bother answering this question at all.

You do anyway, well...

Also the 80kW is what SMT shows, but I can pull more.

could do 80kW if I kicked it.

Disagree, I was at 1% at 55kW max kW shown on SMT (but when I kicked it it went to 90kW)

Reading your lines you must be talking about the smt value "battery max discharge".
Why would you even do that? That value is completely wrong on the Model 3 Refresh.
The SMT developers are aware of this and are working on inserting new tables.

"here is data to support my position"

You were talking about the left value, I was talking about the right value Battery Power at 100% throttle. No less.

"here is data to support my position"

So you cant "disagree" and then talk about completely different values. I was talking about your "when I kick it" values all along and that was 78hp / 58KW at 12% SoC and 16°C Cell Temp Mid...reaching 135kph eventually.

Maybe the Performance suffer a bit too much because of the wheels and the added weight.

SMT / battery power doesn't know what wheels are fitted to the car.
Added weight??? The Performance is 1Kg heavier than the LR...1KG.

So as a general rule of thumb, just don't go expecting highway speeds at below 5% with a P in cold conditions

Again, I could barely maintain highway speeds at 12%SoC where with my 2020 Performance I was never stopping at Superchargers before reaching 5% with no heavy power reduction like the refresh is suffering at the moment.

This can be fixed with software, surely, but the question was...has it yet? The answer is...sadly...No.

 

[TimothyHW3]

-doesn't drive a car with the same cell chemistry and BMS limitations

I will have to disagree here. We don't know that. The capacity is bigger as the cars sold before and the charging curve is similiar to the P. So we don't really know what chemistry they are using and how the BMS reacts.

Reading your lines you must be talking about the smt value "battery max discharge".

I am talking about both - max discharge AND F. power + R power. The one you posted - battery power - is irrelevant and not that accurate because of the way SMT updates.

The max discharge is not completely wrong - it has it merits and is a good orientation. But it is not absolute accurate. I am talking about the R and F power when I kick it. This was about 80kW-90kW at around 10% and around 60kW-70kW at about 5% or below.

"here is data to support my position"

You just said "bat max discharge" is flawed and then posted a reading "to support your position" from scan my tesla from "bat max discharge", the very "data" you just said is flawed? Can't follow.

You should read the F + R powers, they are more accurate.

Like I said - it is indeed sluggish at 60kW, but I didn't feel like I can't keep the speed of 130km/h or so. There are cars with less kW that can drive 140 on the highway.
Maybe we have a different understanding of "speed" I drive at chill mode anyways. Maybe Tesla just doesn't want you to push it at 5%.

 

[eivissa]

The capacity is bigger as the cars sold before and the charging curve is similiar to the P. So we don't really know what chemistry they are using and how the BMS reacts.

The long range does not have the same battery and cells, nor the same charging curve, nor the same bms limitations -> Power @ given SoC / Temp. I am sure it can be limited at low SoC in a similar way, but that is not the point.

You just said "bat max discharge" is flawed and then posted a reading "to support your position" from scan my tesla from "bat max discharge", the very "data" you just said is flawed? Can't follow.

You have seen SMT before I asume, so you know the value on the left and you know the value on the right. You also know that the additional values on the right show the MAX/MIN value of the current session. Now you say:

max discharge is not completely wrong - it has it merits and is a good orientation

Now you compare the left value with the MAX value of the right side...up to 125KW difference. Not what I call "a good orientation" as you never know if this value is wrong by 20KW or 150KW. Obviously less with less SoC.

battery power - is irrelevant and not that accurate because of the way SMT updates.

You should read the F + R powers, they are more accurate.

It is the exact opposite. The power is always limited by the battery/BMS in every Tesla. The motors can always do more and adding them together is never accurate for the exact reason that you metion "because of the way SMT updates".
The motor values are updated in sequence. Their peaks dont happen at the same time, therefore their power can not be added together. The effective power going to the motors is the maximum value from battery power and nothing more (only power source).

We all want to come to the root of this issue, but I dont see the point of discussing this matter any further without a new update or with users that dont drive the exact car to experience the problem first hand.

 

[AAKEE]

Again, I could barely maintain highway speeds at 12%SoC where with my 2020 Performance I was never stopping at Superchargers before reaching 5% with no heavy power reduction like the refresh is suffering at the moment.

This can be fixed with software, surely, but the question was...has it yet? The answer is...sadly...No.

when I took delivery of my ’21 M3 Performance the day before new years eve, I drove home 950/590 miles. At one supercharhing session I arrived with 6% SOC. It was highway 110km/h( about 70mph) all the way to the charger except the last km off from the highway. About -3C. I had the supercharging session in the route planner so I did get preheating before.
I didnt have any problem keeping 110km/h all the way to the intersection to the SUC.

As I have been using Lithium batts in other applications, for about 15 years and I know they take a big hit if they have to deliver high currents at low SOC, so after 20% I didnt try to use the power more than needed. By the way I wont ever torment the battery during low SOC.

Did get a question in a swedish forum yesterday, so I did a test down to 20% SOC with Scan my Tesla. At 30, 25 and 20% SOC I did small power bursts to record the allowed battery power:

30% SOC = 215kW (battery +6C)
25% SOC = 180kW (battery +8C)
20% SOC = 150-160kW( battery +10C)

Even these tests didnt feel like how I regulary will treat my battery but I only used the power for 1-2s to get a reliable power value and I thought twice before deciding to do this test.

It was quite cold at home ( -25/-26C) and I just had the car in the garage for an hour after one complete day out at work. Battery temp slowly increased as I drove. Started driving at some 38% so roughly 15minutes before reaching 30%.

I clearly see the need to limit power at very low SOC due to the nature of lithium batteries. Specially together with low battery temps which we get in the M3 refresh as it sucks heat from the battery.

I dont have a problem with low power at low state of charge as long as I can keep highway speeds. Even if Tesla have limited the power at low SOC and low batt temps, I think I wont use the available power more than absolutely needed below 20% SOC.

For me this is an non issue and I see it as a good sign of Tesla taking the care of the battery so that the customer doesnt need a battery engineering degree to use the car without damaging the battery.

 

[AAKEE]

As fot the discussion about to read battery power or F+R engine, the values I get is very close. If you add heating power and the metabolic power it probably ad upp perfectly.

The value I found not really correct is the reported ”max discharge power” of something like that. I did read that max discharge to about 170kW but I still did get 250kw battery power and F+R power did come in about just 3-4kw below( heating etc).

 

[TimothyHW3]

I didnt have any problem keeping 110km/h all the way to the intersection to the SUC.

I think it is easily possible that not all Performance are delivered with the same batteries. See the different serial numbers from the French forum.

 

[AAKEE]

I think it is easily possible that not all Performance are delivered with the same batteries. See the different serial numbers from the French forum.

You mean some didnt get the new 82.1kwh battery (2170L cells) ?
I have that one.

I dont read/speak french, and I dont know the forum adress...perhaps a link ?

 

[emmz0r]

I would say the two questions belong together.

I've got the 2020.48.35.5 on my car for seven days now and this is my drive data from that time frame...

My "negative" record so far has been 78hp and just about 130kph at full throttle in the Refresh Performance...way to go!

And sorry, but no!
-You can't "overtake plenty" with 78hp full throttle. You can barely maintain German Autobahn speed...I have tried.
-You can still drive at 150km/h...I could not.
-little less power / about 80kW...less than that as shown above.
-enough for every situation...I tend to disagree.
-I don't think it is resolved yet...true
-might be battery related...true
-the LGs don't do that bad...true

Oh wow, that's horrible. That makes me scared to go below 20%. That rules out a more charging stop I could have taken...

 

[TimothyHW3]

new 82.1kwh battery (2170L cells) ?

It was linked somewhere in here either in this or the other thread. There are two serial numbers and I believe some got 0L and some 00 T variants.

 

[eivissa]

The upper one is a Model 3 Performance Refresh delivered in Dec. 2020 to Europe. _E3D-Pp2s5N
The lower one is a Model 3 Performance Refresh on delivery in Feb. 2021 to Europe. E3LD-PGp2s5N

Position Description Value
9 Check Character 1

L = 2170L cells
G = 003 DU Cat. I

Otherwise the COC's of 2020 and 2021 match in every number.

 

[AAKEE]

L = 2170L cells
G = 003 DU Cat. I

What does the 003 DU cat.1 mean?

I think the new E3LD is only a change to increase the clarification about which battery is mounted. In Germany there was a lot of confusion about which battery was mounted, the papers seem to mostly have been wrong/random.

As you can see in your post: MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 and differences from 2020 there is two versions of the battery

3C ( The old 2170 cell = C?)
3L ( 2170L cell, we know from the document header)

The G into the version number can be used on all versions and all batterys, even the SR with the LG battery so it sure doesnt look to be coupled to the battery type.

I have a M3 Performance, built in november, delivered in late december. Its E3D, PP2S5N and I have a battery with ”branded size 82.1kWh ( most probable the new 2170L cell)

 

[eivissa]

What does the 003 DU cat.1 mean?

Model 3 Drive Unit Category 1? I am guessing this is just a placeholder for major changes in the drive train.
Like the Model S Plaid getting a major change in its rear axle with two motors instead of one.
In that scenario the Refresh Model S LR is G = 00S DU Cat. I and the Plaid is H = 00S DU Cat. II (2).
...just a theory!
As you mention, the letter G applies to all Model 3 variants and is therefore not too interesting right now.

I think the new E3LD is only a change to increase the clarification about which battery is mounted.

I agree 100% and I am sure that the drive-train/battery of all refresh Performance Model 3's is absolutely identical from late October 2020 up to today and all delivery's to come in the next months.

In Germany there was a lot of confusion about which battery was mounted, the papers seem to mostly have been wrong/random.

You can say that!
-The Performance M3 refresh E3D was initially almost only designated with 77KWH in the papers. Turned out this was wrong every time.
-The Long Range E3D was sometimes classed as having 79KWH and in other cases 82KWH. All read 77.8KWH in SMT. This is still something open for discussion and not 100% clear. My guess is, that they are all the old 79KWH batteries that show as 77.8KWH.
-People who had their papers changed to include a tow hitch, also got their battery capacity changed from 79 to 82KWH...ridiculous!
German Forum members then contacted the "German Federal Traffic Agency" to clarify and indeed they found at least to wrong links in their databases. One was the 77KWH for the Performance.

3C ( The old 2170 cell = C?)
3L ( 2170L cell, we know from the document header)

My take on this is the following:
When the Refresh was announced the EU type certificate was updated to v13. The changelog of v13 included the following

We all assumed that the introduction of the 2170L cells would bring an increased capacity of around 5%. This then turned out only to be the case for the Performance, although Long Range drivers claimed to have the same battery, because their German papers said so. Only when reading these batterys with SMT...only 77.8KWH Full Pack When New was shown. P Refresh was always 82.1KWH FPWN!

Then we got another update of the type certificate. V14 now had the following updates declared

It clearly reads to me like the 2170L cell was previously not available in the Long Range Model 3, but now will be available. Though no one saw one yet. All deliveries so far are E5D (LG) and E3CD.

Also the fact that the 2170C variant is not mentioned anywhere before and also not introduced in this v14 version, is a good indicator that this indeed are the old cells that have been in the Model 3 from the start.

Last but not least, in v14 it also says that the new (fourth) digit was introduced to show the drive unit category (more clearly). I am sure this wasn't done voluntarily by Tesla, but actually a demand by the Dutch / EU authorities...this again is me guessing, but Tesla didn't seem too fond of communicating clearly about this topic in the past.

To end this with another confusing anecdote:
We read of the first registered Model 3 Long Range E3CD (2170C / Old / assumed 79KWH) car today and the German Authorities put 82KWH in its papers. Not saying this figure is valid...just interesting.

 

[AAKEE]

Good post eivissa, and a good sum up !

iI think it was TimothyHW3 that had a LR and did read only 4.15v/cell att full charge. 4.15V is supposed to be close to 95% of the capacity of a li-ions normally full 4.20v. Its possible that this means it would store "marked size" 82kwh if charged to 4.20v.
What in that case doesnt ad up is that the 2170L cell is added to the LR as late as v14 of the document.

 

[Npap]

Indeed very informative post eivissa!

Do we know if this update mentioned in v.14 about the drive unit will be installed in Performance or LR as well?

 

[eivissa]

iI think it was TimothyHW3 that had a LR and did read only 4.15v/cell att full charge. 4.15V is supposed to be close to 95% of the capacity of a li-ions normally full 4.20v. Its possible that this means it would store "marked size" 82kwh if charged to 4.20v.

Owning the Performance model myself I havent paid too much attention to this issue. I guess there is a possibility that this is still a 79KWH 2170C battery that has been "nerf'd" to a smaller size and not the 82KWH 2170L. At least in that scenario it still all makes sense.

Do we know if this update mentioned in v.14 about the drive unit will be installed in Performance or LR as well?

I can't follow. Can you be more specific?

The "update v14" really is just the last two digits of the EG type certificate that have been changed. This type certificate applies to the Model 3 and all its versions. In the "Reason for testing" / "Reason for extension" aka "changelog" they describe the changes to each version of the Model 3. I have just cut it down to the essential parts of this discussion.

Also I have tried to mark clearly what parts are my theories and what is clearly there in writing on an official document.

 

[Npap]

I thought a new drive unit was being introduced.
Now I see that they just introduced a new digit to differentiate between the existing ones I guess.

 

[eivissa]

We read of the first registered Model 3 Long Range E3CD (2170C / Old / assumed 79KWH) car today and the German Authorities put 82KWH in its papers. Not saying this figure is valid...just interesting.

Second E3CD registered in Germany now has 79KWH in the papers. This sounds about right, but mainly it shows that there are still errors in the database that Tesla provides to the authorities.

 

[TomaGo]

For sure 82kWh for E3CD was an error and 79kWh is the good value but is it still software locked to 74,5 kWh ?

 

[FredMt]

There are two serial numbers and I believe some got 0L and some 00 T variants.

I confirm reference on sticker battery pack of a E3D ( 003E3DPp2s5N) 2021 model3 performance delivered end 2020 in France is

CB 1104423-00-T

Capacity ~ less than 79kWh, not verified by SMT, but based on car range.

(All others Performance : CB 1104423-0L-P)

 

[AAKEE]

I confirm reference on sticker battery pack of a E3D ( 003E3DPp2s5N) 2021 model3 performance delivered end 2020 in France is

CB 1104423-00-T
View attachment 633072
Capacity ~ less than 79kWh, not verified by SMT, but based on car range.

(All others Performance : CB 1104423-0L-P)

If you have more than 50% SOC and use the energy app multiplying values within the energy app: consumtion with range and then divide with SOC, what is the sum ?
I have so far done this at > 20 times and it always add up very close to SMT nominal battery capacity.

Example:
262x251/ 0.82 ( divided by 1000 to get kWh) = 80.2 kWh