This is what I was planning to do. Unless someone beats me to it because there should be a flurry of Q2 LR AWD deliveries across North America in the coming month.
-
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
I guess it probably isnt temperature effects?
14C in the garage and earlier 10-12C during the coldest days.
Yesterday the first charging was at home with 11kW WC, and the battery temp was 30.5C and the second one was Supercharging with the bat temp at 53C, and both the NFP and nominal remaining was at the same levels...
TimothyHW3
Active Member
There was one on youtube I quoted before, but it only showed the old rated range before Q2. So not so sure what is going on it is a mystery. I would wait for Tesla to advertise it on their website in Q3.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Most likely explanations are cell temps and manufacturing variability, but as long as they kept the energy available for all owners above the minimum required per the WLTP and EPA tests (likely lower for WLTP), they could have just been constructing a shmoo plot with variable capacities in the fleet to study dependence of charging, degradation, current sourcing, and internal resistance change characteristics, etc., vs. max SoC (or it may be more of an exploration of LOW SoC, if the extra energy is coming from the low end - we haven't really been paying attention to the voltage at 0% SoC here, of course, and whether it varies from vehicle to vehicle) for this new cell type. We've seen some evidence that they've been concerned about low SoC performance with the strict discharge limits for the Performance early on...
We've seen a range of pack energies from 79kWh to 81.5kWh or so as I recall. This 81.5kWh+ seems higher than that, but...
At some point they could decide all is well at low and high SoC, and adjust the available energy (max capacity) up for everyone (to around 82kWh).
Easily disproved though - for example @conv90 had a lower energy pack as I recall. If it's still relatively low energy, probably not related to a software update or any "studies" by Tesla - it's just manufacturing variability or whatever.
Would also be interesting to see if any of the 2021 SR+ are showing higher charge capacity at max SoC now (currently limited to 53.5kWh or so as I recall, even though FPWN is 55.4kWh).
I doubt there is anything fancy like this going on, but it was just a thought.
I am more in to the theory that eivissa have/had and that my current regular charging scedule has the greatest impact.
I would guess that the chance of actually getting all the 4.4K cells in a different state is low. Maybe production date can make a difference but the higher quality of the manufacturing process the smaller differences per day I guess? I hold Panasonic quite high from my earlier experiences of batterys in general. I know that the differences by production date in other lithium battery applications seems quite small for the better brands (Ive seen the opposite as well, but never really from high class products).
I have no data from the first about 1000km as I did drive home before I mounted the ODB to use SMT. But at that time, I had 80.6 the first time which climbed to 81.1 at Almost full charge, and then stayed for a while at that level. After that I had a slow decrease to 80.1, and dureing thos days I charge to 80%, because of the coldest days an using 30-35% going back and forth to the job. I hade it at 70% for a while when it got warmer and then I lowered to 60% and soon after this about 56-57%. I think the inceased NFP came a while after the lowering of the charging level. the car always sat in the garage wich holds 10-12C during the cold period but of course warmer as outsaide temp climbs clopser to that temp.
I also saw a slight decrease in NFP( from 81.4 to 80.9) a couple of times when I charged to 85-95% to get maximum power when demonstrating the electric car ablilities for friends. It always climbed back about 0.1kWh/day afterwards.
So I guess its the charging level that makes the BMS happy. I do not use this charging level to get a high NFP, but I do it as its per my knowledge the best way to preserve the battery. I willry to keep degradation low, but still I wont make it unpleasant to be a electric car owner. Up here, as neigbours to santa claus I think we have quite good conditions to preserve the battery by the cold climate.
My guess is that eivissa that would try the 60% charging level further on also will se a increase.
Another note, yesterday at the supercharger I saw the range indication reach 508km at some nominal remaining at 81.2kwh, after this it looked like it showed 509, for a while, then recalculated and then showed 508 km and after a while that repeated for at least 10 times during the increase from 81.2 to 81.9kwh. When it stayed at 81.9, this 508-509-508-509km continued. It seems like 508km is the max but getting the nominal remaining briefly can make it show 509 before ”detecting and recalculation” the value.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
It's 3 weeks I charge from 25-30% to 55%-60% . My NFP stays at 79,5 kWh. sometimes 79,6 and sometimes even 79,4.
It's 3 weeks. A day yes a day not a day yes and a day not.
Stuck at 79,5kWh. Probably the 60% for me is not working. probably like @AlanSubie4Life said it's just manufacturing variability. Not happy to be in that "low side".
TimothyHW3
Active Member
You should let it get lower before charging. 30% delta is nothing. It doesn't let the BMS do its job. Let it go 10%-65% and see what it does in 4 weeks.
You also gotta let it sit at difference charge levels without stuff like sentry mode or third party services preventing it to sleep properly for a few hours. So if you hit 30% don’t charge directly all the time and so on.
Sure, I had a 2019 LR before this 2021 P3D and I learned many things like the ones you said.
I never use Sentry Mode (at home and when it sleeps) and there is always at least 2-3 times a day where the car sleeps without Sentry mode and withount third party apps sitting at 40% or 45% or 30% for 3 or 4 o 8 hours. I never use third party apps.
Example this night it has slept at 42% all night long. I'll use this morning the car until it's at 35-30% then I let it sleep for at least 4-5 hours and in the afternoon/evening I'll charge. So the last 3 week routine is perfect.
This car is stuck at 79.5kW . I'd be happy to see a regression to 79.00 just to see it move ... it's stuck.
After a charge I always have an unbalance that is NO-more than 4 to 6 mV.
With my old 2019 LR (with E3D Pana batt), I always had a way to recover .5 to 1.0 kWh in a pair (even single) of charges on a particular Fast DC 50kW public charge plug, charghing it to about 85-90-92%.
This kind of plug was able to wake up my battery. SuC's (DC too obviously) was never able to wake up the battery in the same way.
Unfortunately this public 50kW DC public charge plug is no more available, so I can't du comparisions with my new 2021 P3D.
My daily usage is about 100 km each week day. And some shorter fine trips during the weekends. Normally useabout 20% during weekdays. I used more during the cold winter, preaheating plus driving in -15 to -30 so maybe some 25-30%. I charge to about 57% since about two months.
I havent really used up any more before this last week since the easter and It started the increase the NFP from 80.1 kWh to 81.4kWh.
Had one drive last sunday, where I forgot to start the charge before a 180 km drive, so I started with about 55% and was back at home with 10%. And this week I was to the SC and used 100% to 34%, SC had charged to 73% so 73% to 44, and supercharged to 100%, drove home to 60%.
My reason for going lower charge cycles than most other is that I have used other lithium batteries during long time and storage charged them with the chargers, these chargers have a storage program which charge or empty the battery to between about 50 and 55%(3.7 to 3.75V) for lithium ion batteries.
As I see it the aging of the battery is to a quite large part about calendar aging as the car sits for 20 to 22 hours each week day and driven about 1 to 1.5 hours and a couple of hours charging. So as the batteries is in storage for most of the time, why not charge to the best storage level to minimize the calendar aging…
Picture below from a battery research report using NCA batteries, the best storage is below the central graphite peak at about 57 to 60%.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Then I would try to charge to 100% and let it sit there for a while, until the car says stoped charging, not before that, and see what it reports. Drive it down below 5% beforehand, just in case.
Yes, a full charge and read the Nominal remaining would be a better idea.
Im not sure its a good idea to get sour over a low NFP, as it doesnt seem to be a ”true max capacity.
The 2170L cell probably behaves different then the 2170 because of the lower cobolt chemistry, making the BMS calculate the NFP lower than real capacity ?
I made the full charge 4 weeks ago. starting from 10%. Let it util the screen said: "cherge complete" (it needed 50 min after 100%).
I reached 80.1kWh Nominal Full Pack and expected remaining (80,6kWh)
I reached SOC UI 100% and SOC and SOC expected 101%
After 10 min of use (about 6 or 7% less than 100%) I wanted to check again on SMT and NFP returned/were 79.6 kWh.
I reached 80.1kWh Nominal Full Pack and expected remaining (80,6kWh)
I reached SOC UI 100% and SOC and SOC expected 101%
After 10 min of use (about 6 or 7% less than 100%) I wanted to check again on SMT and NFP returned/were 79.6 kWh.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
There you have it, you reached 80.6
So maybe the reading on @AAKEE's car is not correct and the real range is 1kWh less. Either way, 79.6kWh is very nice and will get you anywhere you want to. 1 kWh more is about 1.25% on your SOC scale.
Interesting data, I wonder what the same graph for the various Tesla batteries would result in.
Quite a big jump between 55-60%, and not as big a jump as I would expect at 90%+.
Significant improvements down at 20% and below as well, with 0% being the best for storage, but of course that isn't very usable and then risks over-discharge due to vampire drain.
That picture is for the Panasonic NCR18650PD NCA-cell, I would guess there is only minor differences to the actual model S/X cell. The chemistry probably is what sets the characteristics. I would guess the first model 3 2170 cell behaves very like that also. The new 2170L cell might differ due to lower cobalt level, but still I guess the differences are small due to using the NCA chemistry.
Calendar aging of Lithium ion batteries
What is incorrect ?
There is at least 20-30 research reports on the net that shows that calendar aging is lowest at low SOC( 0%) and increases with the SOC. There is none which I have seen that implies anything else.
Tesla say that you shouldnt leave the car with very low SOC, and my conclusion is that this is because the 12v lead battery doesnt like being discharged, and if SOC goes to low you can’t start the car.
Similar threads
- Article
