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

[Dolemite]

Edit: OK, sorry about that. I missed seeing/reading the chart that shows 0-100 times at various higher SOC. If this information is accurate and applies to all 2021’s, then I agree that would be a significant drop in performance during more normal driving conditions (i.e. higher SOC). Hope Tesla can/will address this with a software update for 2021 owners.

Yeah, losing 1+ second to 60 between 100% SoC & 40% SoC is unacceptable for a performance car meant to compete with the best of ICE vehicles, IMO. Imagine buying a GT4 and losing to a Civic Type R because you happened to be at 2/5 of a tank. :/

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think I saw 81.2kwh as most, might give 511km range If the BMS says the same again.

Dont know for the EPA test of the Performance refresh, how much they actually did draw in the test?

There may be a hard limit to how many rated miles are displayed, even if you have a few km more energy (that is how it has worked in the past). Would have to see what one of these packs with ~81.5kWh says, but they are so rare it is difficult to get reliable reports.

The EPA test used just under 81kWh.

 

[AAKEE]

There may be a hard limit to how many rated miles are displayed, even if you have a few km more energy (that is how it has worked in the past). Would have to see what one of these packs with ~81.5kWh says, but they are so rare it is difficult to get reliable reports.

The EPA test used just under 81kWh.

I guess I could ”force my BMS pack data” to over 81 again.

my pack was 80.6 when I first connected SMT. It slowly increased to 80.8, and after leaving the car at lower SOC for some hours and also charging to 90% and left it there for a couple of hours I got 81.1 or so, after that I did a full charge abd got 81.2kwh.

From that I’ve mostly commuted to work( 100km round trip) and mostly charged to 70%. I did see 80.3kwh about a week ago and 80.6 yesterday. My guess is that the BMS would get over 81 kwh if I did the same procedure. I dont think there really is any degradation from the initial battery state yet, even though SMT reports 1.83% degradation it is relative to the marked batttery size 82.1kwh, which wont happen until Tesla set the charging limit to 4.20V.

From what I have seen with other Litium (lipo) batterys they wake up and get better and better during the first 10 cycles( if done correctly).
SMT says 15 charge cycles so far, so I guess it is on the top of its ”life cycle” about now.
Might do a 90% balancing during the weeekend and top it of before going to work next week, just to see.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My guess is that the BMS would get over 81 kwh if I did the same procedure.

Would be interesting to see if you got to over 508km if you were able to get over 81kWh. This “capping” was something they did on 2018 vehicles heavily, but it’s not clear to me how it works now.

The core question here is whether a brand new vehicle can ever display more than the EPA rated range (which would be 507km) - so it appears the answer is now yes (since you see 508km displayed in the car, I think?). But it is really close so would be more definitive if you charged to 81kWh and got 510km (for example - not sure exactly what the number would be, might be 509km).

On 2018s they were really hard capped as far as I can tell, to 310 rated miles, even if energy far exceeded the 76kWh (245Wh/rmi*310rmi) that that number implied for that vehicle. (Those vintage vehicles also started with 77.8kWh AFAIK, according to SMT.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

GeenHokie,

I mostly drive between two spots that are 100 miles apart. I don't have charing possibility on the second spot, so I will be driving home mostly with an SoC of 50% or lower, coming home with 10-20% SoC.
The way between is Autobahn and rural roads where you would have to pass trucks (they drive slower than cars in Europe). It is a security concern, when I need lets say 3 seconds to pass a truck on my way from home (90% SoC), and 10 seconds on my way to home (20% SoC) just because the battery is empty.

Any SR+ has more power with 30% SoC as 2021 performance, thats sad!

As noted upthread, it has more to do with the extremely low battery temp than the SOC. The SR+ in the same conditions likely would be even slower.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Would be interesting to see if you got to over 508km if you were able to get over 81kWh. This “capping” was something they did on 2018 vehicles heavily, but it’s not clear to me how it works now.

The core question here is whether a brand new vehicle can ever display more than the EPA rated range (which would be 507km) - so it appears the answer is now yes (since you see 508km displayed in the car, I think?). But it is really close so would be more definitive if you charged to 81kWh and got 510km (for example - not sure exactly what the number would be, might be 509km).

On 2018s they were really hard capped as far as I can tell, to 310 rated miles, even if energy far exceeded the 76kWh (245Wh/rmi*310rmi) that that number implied for that vehicle. (Those vintage vehicles also started with 77.8kWh AFAIK, according to SMT.)

Just from memory, Teslas have always been able to display higher than EPA range. The rated range number is just a multiplier (with reserve left out). There was a period I have been gone from here, so I was not aware of particular models that may have had a hard cap.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

ust from memory, Teslas have always been able to display higher than EPA range. The rated range number is just a multiplier (with reserve left out). There was a period I have been gone from here, so I was not aware of particular models that may have had a hard cap.

Again, 2018 vehicles were an exception to this. And 2019 too. If you can link to documented evidence showing otherwise (wouldn't be too surprised for 2020 onwards), would appreciate it.

Specific example: 2019 vehicles well documented to have 77.8kWh battery (many SMT captures viewable in public domain) when new. They maxed at 310 rated miles (I'm not aware of any reports of mileage exceeding this on a 2019). With a verified constant of 245Wh/mi. That's 76kWh. So that extra ~1.8kWh gets hidden (I suspect by making rated miles more energetic initially but it's very hard to verify this was how it worked - especially now with all vehicles long since degraded to below 76kWh - I base this supposition on my own experience with the car from 2018).

So it's not a hard cap in the sense that miles are stuck at max for a while when you start driving. They start going down right away, just a couple % more slowly than you might expect.

Anyway, as I said, no idea how it works for 2020 and 2021. Very limited data and hard to acquire all the relevant pieces of info (requires SMT plus a very energetic battery when the car is new, and a carefully documented 100% charge - pictures from SMT and the vehicle - it's hard to get all these factors to come together simultaneously).

 

[MasterC17]

Depends on where you live in North America I would expect... Florida is different than Alaska
Anyway MasterC17, thats good news. At what temperatures did you make the tests?

About 30f. The battery was up to temperature, to be clear.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I will post a graph up tonight, but it was still reasonably fast at 20% SOC. I have not driven it below 20%.

It doesn’t appear to be the case since MasterC17 has a 2021 Performance and does not experience the same results as Bjorn.

Would be great to get some sort of quantitative data on this posted. I suspect there are differences in how this behaves, between the US & Europe (this is only based on @MasterC17's comments as compared to European users of Performance vehicles). If I had to guess it's conservative programming from the LG battery in Europe "leaking up" to the Performance battery behavior. Why Tesla would do this I have no idea but if it's not a problem in the US eventually it will not be a problem in Europe, I hope. Though maybe they have plans to introduce lower quality batteries into Performance vehicles in Europe (there is that single example of a weird code - so maybe there are different batteries in Europe, even on Performance - which would explain the difference, possibly - -P variety) ?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Again, 2018 vehicles were an exception to this. And 2019 too. If you can link to documented evidence showing otherwise (wouldn't be too surprised for 2020 onwards), would appreciate it.

I haven't been following in the period, so I'm not disputing they may have put a hard limit on the 2018/2019 or changed the way they calculated. It's mostly from memory that back when I was still active in the forum there were people that would get higher than the EPA range.

Just doing a quick search, when the Model S just came out in 2012/2013 (and there was still "ideal range") people can get much higher numbers than EPA. The "rated range" for example you can see people got 277 to 280 (for reference the EPA rating for the 85kWh Model S back then was 265 miles).
310-mile Ideal Range! Can you top that?
Another example with 268 miles.
Power drain while idle (Vampire Load)
Basically back then it's not unusual to see higher than EPA.

This post from the stickied thread did indicate highest range was slightly higher than the 310 expected of a 2018 P3D. From the same thread however, given the balancing differences between Model 3/Y and Model S/X (Model 3 is approximately 10x slower) I would imagine the likelihood of a Model 3/Y showing a higher number than EPA is far lower than it would be for Model S/X even if the formula remained the same.
How I Recovered Half of my Battery's Lost Capacity

The post linked from the same thread says battery retention is calculated just as rated range new and current and a percentage.
Reduced Range - Tesla Issued a Service Bulletin for possible fix

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This post from the stickied thread did indicate highest range was slightly higher than the 310 expected of a 2018 P3D.

Thanks for the historical data. Would not be surprised if the way this is handled has changed over the years; I'm only cognizant of a narrow slice of time from 2018 through now. (And I don't know how it works on current vehicles, circling back to the start of this discussion.)

For this projection from TeslaFi you linked, I'm not surprised it exceeds the 310 value, as it can be extrapolated. And the deviation from 310 is so small it's not really that significant (a 77.8kWh battery would give 317.5 rated miles of range and I've never seen any report on a 2018/2019 Model 3 with anything even remotely close to that, for a non-projected number - in fact I've never seen a single report or picture from within the vehicle, for 2018/2019 Model 3s, of anything more than 310 rated miles being displayed - and I think 500km (310.7 miles) was the max in Europe, though it may have been 499km, not sure).

The post linked from the same thread says battery retention is calculated just as rated range new and current and a percentage.
Reduced Range - Tesla Issued a Service Bulletin for possible fix

Yes, not surprised by this, as it would give Tesla a little bit of additional cushion, in this case.

 

[Punkabilly]

Not sure if this is related/relevant to the discussion at hand, but my Model 3P is as of yesterday when I updated to 2021.4.3 predicting over 310 miles of range at 100% (according to Teslafi w/ ~1800mi on odo). Doing a full charge currently as i will have errands to run later to see if it displays 310 or something higher as predicted..

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not sure if this is related/relevant to the discussion at hand, but my Model 3P is as of yesterday when I updated to 2021.4.3 predicting over 310 miles of range at 100% (according to Teslafi w/ ~1800mi on odo). Doing a full charge currently as i will have errands to run later to see if it displays 310 or something higher as predicted..

Yes, that's because ~256Wh/mi will give ~80.6kWh of capacity at the EPA rated range of 315 miles (the rated range for your vehicle, which is now displayed correctly rather than the prior ~309-310 rated miles you saw - which apparently came from ~80.6kWh/77.8kWh *299 rmi = ~310rmi - just a guess though).

Depending on vehicle age, mileage, and temperature, you may not see the 315 rated miles but hopefully you do.

 

[MasterC17]

Here is the graph showing Speed and Power (kW). 0-60 was 3.9 seconds, 3.6 seconds with 1ft rollout.

23% SOC, 326kW peak power.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here is the graph showing Speed and Power (kW). 0-60 was 3.9 seconds, 3.6 seconds with 1ft rollout.

23% SOC, 326kW peak power.

View attachment 636261

I don't know about you, but 400+HP is simply not enough for my daily driving.

Seriously, it seems a bit different than what has been reported in Europe!

 

[MasterC17]

I don't know about you, but 400+HP is simply not enough for my daily driving.

Seriously, it seems a bit different than what has been reported in Europe!

It seems the people that are having problems are driving around with a very cold battery pack (the one in Bjorn's video was nowhere near hot enough for full power at low SOC). Pre-heating the car on a charger (even just a UMC) should resolve the majority of the concern. Maybe most people in Europe don't have home charging? I doubt there is a cell or software difference for the EU cars. Either that, or the ambient temps in the EU right now are just much colder in comparison and the battery is having trouble maintaining high cell temps.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I doubt there is a cell or software difference for the EU cars.

I would have doubted it too, but there definitely are different batteries in Europe, so it makes one wonder. People have been complaining about this for a while and it seems like some of the time it's in the midst of a long trip where you'd think the battery would have warmed up a bit (people have been blaming the heat pump for sucking energy away from the pack of course).

I haven't seen the Bjorn vehicles - my comments are based on a vague recollection of all the complaints here.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Devils son]

I don't know about you, but 400+HP is simply not enough for my daily driving.

Seriously, it seems a bit different than what has been reported in Europe!

Not true. I am in Europe, it is freezing here and I too get good results around 20% SOC.

From below 10% SOC the car is sluggish, so definitely room for improvement there. But nowhere near as bad as Bjorn has been reporting.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not true. I am in Europe, it is freezing here and I too get good results around 20% SOC.

From below 10% SOC the car is sluggish, so definitely room for improvement there. But nowhere near as bad as Bjorn has been reporting.

Cool. Interesting. No idea what to make of the reports. So hard to know, with a lot of drama involved. Maybe it is different in different cars - and of course we have the LR vs the Performance difference as well. Maybe there is really no issue with Performance?

 

[AAKEE]

( I might have already posted this)

This is values I got with Scan My Tesla:
It was -25C outside and I only had the car inside the garage for about one hour before this test, after a 50km drive from work.
The power is the actual battery power (power delivered from the battery) according to SMT. The Max discarge power seems to shows a lower value.

M3P refresh 2021:
30% SOC = 292hp /215kW (battery +6C)
25% SOC = 245hp /180kW (battery +8C)
20% SOC = 210hp /150-160kW( battery +10C)

I didnt test power below 20% SOC as I know from other lithium battery implementations that that is a hard hit on battery life.
In the other implementation which use high power we know for sure that going below 20% drastically reduces the battery life.
I do not need a lot of power below 20% SOC, as I wont use it.