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

[ran349]

So, I guess the "constant" can change? 81400wh/506.835(315mi) = 160.6wh/km in my case this day ?

That's an interesting constant. It seems somewhere between 258 and 259 Wh/mile, real close to 258.5.
Could you post a readout of SMT for your car in a static condition (no charging going on), at some charge level less than 100%? And also include the matching car screen readout in km and miles, like in your video.
I am just curious if an exact value can be established for your baseline constant.

 

[AAKEE]

That's an interesting constant. It seems somewhere between 258 and 259 Wh/mile, real close to 258.5.
Could you post a readout of SMT for your car in a static condition (no charging going on), at some charge level less than 100%? And also include the matching car screen readout in km and miles, like in your video.
I am just curious if an exact value can be established for your baseline constant.

These was all taken with the car standing still at the same time.

 

[Stan930]

My dongle arrives tomorrow night a day early. Hopefully I can get everyone a screen shot.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

These was all taken with the car standing still at the same time.

Thanks. This shows:

70.4kWh / 458rkm / 0.955 = 161Wh/rkm. (259Wh/rmi)

(Or alternatively, (74.1kWh - (1-0.904)*3.7kWh) / 458rkm = 161Wh/rkm). (Can also rewrite as (Usable+SoC%*Buffer), (70.4kWh + 0.904*3.7kWh).)

And from the energy screen (as expected since those values are scaled by the quantity 80.6/81.6 (CapPack / NominalFullPack) for @AAKEE since his energy exceeds the cap by that amount in these captures. - Quick crosscheck: 144Wh/km*506km * 81.6/80.6 = 73.77kWh = 74.1kWh - (1-0.904)*3.7kWh = 73.75kWh):

144Wh/km*506km / 458 rkm = 159Wh/rkm (It's probably slightly lower than this, maybe 158.5Wh/rkm). (Remember the energy screen only shows a portion of the buffer energy -> SoC%*Buffer, so this matches the form of the formula above.)


And this 159Wh/rkm is what the first calculation will converge to as @AAKEE's battery degrades below 80.6kWh. It's the fundamental charging constant from 80.6kWh/508.5rkm. (158.5Wh/rkm, 255Wh/rmi). 508.5rkm = 316rmi and @AAKEE has shown the car will display 316 rated miles max (rather than the 315 rated miles expected). So at least 316rmi is the max, since 509rkm (at least 508.5rkm) also is displayed.

I'm using 80.6kWh here but that's probably between 80.55kWh and 80.65kWh and we can't be more precise.

Whether the scaling is CapPack/NominalFullPack, or CapPack/MaxNominalRemaining (higher than NominalFullPack for @AAKEE) is also a bit ambiguous to me. But it also is close enough so it doesn't really matter.

It really is a beautiful way of hiding variable initial pack capacities amongst many vehicles. Nearly everyone starts at 508.5rkm, but not everyone has exactly the same energy.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Random? When you open those specs

It lists the Model 3 AWD as 70kWh, 480km WLTP range and 560km/hr charge rate. And there is not a single correct value in that list. If it is your website, do vetter, if not - don't recommend it.

 

[TimothyHW3]

My dongle arrives tomorrow night a day early. Hopefully I can get everyone a screen shot.

Do you have the BT adapter and app ready? If you can use Android, it is better and more accurate.

 

[thinger]

It lists the Model 3 AWD as 70kWh, 480km WLTP range and 560km/hr charge rate. And there is not a single correct value in that list. If it is your website, do vetter, if not - don't recommend it.

Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor

All details and specs of the Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor (2020-2022). Compare price, lease, real-world range and consumption of every electric vehicle.

ev-database.org

Pls read this.

 

[Stan930]

Do you have the BT adapter and app ready? If you can use Android, it is better and more accurate.

Yes, Have been using leafspy for for past four years

 

[Stan930]

ABR lists 82kwh now.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

These was all taken with the car standing still at the same time.

Adding: would be great to see these exact captures a couple times over the next year or so, as your pack capacity reduces to below 80.6kWh. Just to confirm the hypothesized behavior.

ABR lists 82kwh now.

Kind of messed up because unlike their other vehicle models, they're ignoring the buffer in these beta models: 5%->65% extrapolates to 82kWh (when it should extrapolate to at best 78kWh because of the buffer). And their beta 2021 non-82kWh also extrapolates to 79kWh rather than 75kWh.

So these models will be fantastically optimistic with current assumptions - shows I can get from San Diego to Kettleman City in a single charge at 108% reference speed, 278mi, avg speed of 70mph, 295Wh/mi (remember to set degradation to 0% before routing). Or you can set degradation to 5% for a brand new vehicle to correct for their error and get the right answers.

Their other 2018-2020 vehicle models are correct. But don't choose 5% degradation there. Just pick what you actually have.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Pls read this.

And?! Still false, LG has 580km WLTP and 75kWh usable. Go back to page 1 of this thread and make sure to only comment once you read everything...

 

[TimothyHW3]

ABR lists 82kwh now

But just LR, not P? I am pretty sure the charge curve estimate will not be optimal yet.

 

[ran349]

Thanks. This shows:

70.4kWh / 458rkm / 0.955 = 161Wh/rkm. (259Wh/rmi)

(Or alternatively, (74.1kWh - (1-0.904)*3.7kWh) / 458rkm = 161Wh/rkm). (Can also rewrite as (Usable+SoC%*Buffer), (70.4kWh + 0.904*3.7kWh).)

And from the energy screen (as expected since those values are scaled by the quantity 80.6/81.6 (CapPack / NominalFullPack) for @AAKEE since his energy exceeds the cap by that amount in these captures. - Quick crosscheck: 144Wh/km*506km * 81.6/80.6 = 73.77kWh = 74.1kWh - (1-0.904)*3.7kWh = 73.75kWh):

144Wh/km*506km / 458 rkm = 159Wh/rkm (It's probably slightly lower than this, maybe 158.5Wh/rkm). (Remember the energy screen only shows a portion of the buffer energy -> SoC%*Buffer, so this matches the form of the formula above.)


And this 159Wh/rkm is what the first calculation will converge to as @AAKEE's battery degrades below 80.6kWh. It's the fundamental charging constant from 80.6kWh/508.5rkm. (158.5Wh/rkm, 255Wh/rmi). 508.5rkm = 316rmi and @AAKEE has shown the car will display 316 rated miles max (rather than the 315 rated miles expected). So at least 316rmi is the max, since 509rkm (at least 508.5rkm) also is displayed.

I'm using 80.6kWh here but that's probably between 80.55kWh and 80.65kWh and we can't be more precise.

Whether the scaling is CapPack/NominalFullPack, or CapPack/MaxNominalRemaining (higher than NominalFullPack for @AAKEE) is also a bit ambiguous to me. But it also is close enough so it doesn't really matter.

It really is a beautiful way of hiding variable initial pack capacities amongst many vehicles. Nearly everyone starts at 508.5rkm, but not everyone has exactly the same energy.

I agree with you that his constant calculates out to 259 Wh/mi or approx. 161 Wh/km, but I don't follow the logic after that.
You are thinking that his constant will drop to 255 Wh/mi as his pack degrades down to 80.6 kWh? Where did you get that 80.6 value and 255 Wh/mi.?
Sorry, I haven't been following along that closely so I might have missed it or just don't remember.

In any case, I'm glad we have @AAKEE to follow along as a good test case.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I agree with you that his constant calculates out to 259 Wh/mi or approx. 161 Wh/km, but I don't follow the logic after that.
You are thinking that his constant will drop to 255 Wh/mi as his pack degrades down to 80.6 kWh? Where did you get that 80.6 value and 255 Wh/mi.?
Sorry, I haven't been following along that closely so I might have missed it or just don't remember.

In any case, I'm glad we have @AAKEE to follow along as a good test case.

The 80.6kWh value is from the energy screen calculation of the full pack energy.
Divide it by the rated miles (315, or maybe 316), to get the constant. You can also always calculate the constant from the energy screen when in distance display mode. It’s always the same value, even for brand new cars.

I’ll admit I am biased because I have thought for a long time that it works this way. The logic, though:

1) On a vehicle showing lower than the original rated miles, have we ever seen such a mismatch on the SMT read back and the Energy Screen (corrected for the partial buffer inclusion if calculating current available energy, or projected to full pack, if doing that calculation)? (Not to my knowledge.)

2) How else to explain how all Model 3 vehicles start ticking off rated miles right away, even when new, when we know their capacities differ somewhat? Yet somehow they all display the same range!

3) How to explain that 2018/2019 Model 3 vehicles showed zero degradation for a long while, then showed it? (76kWh cap with a 77.8kWh FPWN capacity I suspect.)

There are probably other circumstantial pieces of evidence I am forgetting to list here.

Here is data from another performance owner:
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc

@conv90 has lower than max range at 100% (about 502km I think). In this case, the discrepancy does not exist. The energy screen calculation implies 118Wh/km*367km/0.543 = 79.8kWh. (Could be 54.4%, 79.6kWh.)

SMT says 79.6kWh. There is no significant discrepancy....

His constant calculates to 158.6Wh/km on the energy screen. Not enough info to say for 100% certain what SMT would imply...but I expect it to calculate to (from his screen captures) 41.5kWh/(502rkm*0.546)/0.955 = 158.6Wh/rkm

I think that is pretty conclusive.

More data points would be good but “I’ve seen enough.”

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You are thinking that his constant will drop to 255 Wh/mi as his pack degrades down to 80.6 kWh?

Sorry I did not answer this directly: yes, this is exactly what I think will happen.

1) If full pack energy exceeds the energy screen display cap, the rated mile energy content gets inflated from the baseline value, to ensure that you do not ever display more than maximum allowed rated miles, while maintaining the behavior where rated miles immediately start getting used when starting driving (no “pinning” of rated miles at the cap value).

2) When your full pack energy drops below the display cap, the constant stops changing, and stays in perpetuity at the default of (display cap / vehicle rated miles when new). At this point you start losing rated miles as capacity loss continues.

3) The display cap can be calculated approximately by calculating the constant from the energy screen in distance display mode (Energy Screen Product / Rated Range Remaining), and multiplying this by the original rated range of the vehicle before capacity loss. (Obviously if Tesla mucks around with constants as they sometimes do to match EPA results, you have to take all that scaling into account, but this is easy to deal with.)

4) Determining by how much full pack energy exceeds the display cap can only be done by careful trip meter observation (to measure your rated mile energy content as described earlier), or by using a tool like SMT. Obviously if your miles/km at 100% do not reach the EPA value, then your nominal full pack pack does not exceed the cap, and then no need to do any measurements or use SMT (for this purpose).

5) Corollary to above: the energy screen method to calculate capacity (Energy Screen Produce / SoC%) will only work when the full pack capacity is below the cap, otherwise it just returns the cap value.

I think that’s the best I can do to summarize my understanding of how this works. In the end, it is pretty simple, it seems.

 

[Stan930]

Yippee! 82KWH!
Vin 965 44x

If you gained anything from this info please share some love with some super charger miles….. I don’t have many.
Use my referral link to receive 1,000 free Supercharger miles with the purchase and delivery of a new Tesla car, or earn a $100 award after system activation by purchasing or subscribing to solar panels:
sandra49233


Earn Free Supercharging Miles or a $100 Cash Award

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yippee! 82KWH!
Vin 965 44x

If you gained anything from this info please share some love with some super charger miles….. I don’t have many.
Use my referral link to receive 1,000 free Supercharger miles with the purchase and delivery of a new Tesla car, or earn a $100 award after system activation by purchasing or subscribing to solar panels:
sandra49233


Earn Free Supercharging Miles or a $100 Cash Award

You can see from your SMT screen captures (I'm not sure why they use 567rkm but a minor detail) that your current charging constant is:

42.0kWh/(0.550*568rkm)/0.955 = 140.8Wh/rkm (227Wh/rmi)

(Can also calculate as: 79.9kWh/(353rmi*1.6093rkm/rmi)) = 140.6Wh/rkm)

If you use your energy screen, you'll probably calculate:

77.8kWh/(568km) = ~137Wh/rkm. (~220Wh/mi)

And your rated line is probably right around ~140Wh/rkm. (Will be hard to tell; wouldn't bother.)

(This energy screen has been provided earlier in this thread by other owners, but let me know if that's wrong for your vehicle, since you have a new one with a new pack type...perhaps the cap is different now...and the only way to know is from what the energy screen projects as your full pack energy. Just the three numbers, two pictures, one in % and one in distance mode.)

Anyway, assuming 77.8kWh is the display cap:

Unless Tesla provides a software update which increases your range (they could claim 370 rated miles if they really opened things up), I don't expect you'll see any indicated range loss until you reach 77.8kWh full pack, even though at that point you will have lost 2.1kWh of capacity (2.5%).

At that point rated km will be ticking off 2.5% faster than they are for you currently, for a given consumption level.

 

[travis3000]

Seeing some solid proof that the North American LR's are indeed 82kwh. That's 2 now which have confirmed it. My VIN is 979 , if 965 has the 82 then mine should be the same I imagine.

Like mentioned above, Tesla could either unlock the extra capacity to give the user an extra 40KM or if they never do the degradation will be much slower on these models. If the battery is 82 but it's capped at 77.8 , you will have an extended period of time where you simply don't lose any capacity. Smart if you ask me!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If the battery is 82 but it's capped at 77.8 , you will have an extended period of time where you simply don't lose any capacity. Smart if you ask me!

To be clear: you will lose capacity, and range, starting whenever your battery begins to lose capacity, but your rated miles will not change. The rated miles are just “deflating.” Think of each km/mile as little overinflated units of energy, and then as the car ages, they deflate, until they get to the baseline constant “inflation level.” That is less energy. And then, if you go below 77.8kWh, units of energy start disappearing.

In SMT, you’d see 78kWh, a real loss of 2kWh, but your rated miles would not change in count - they change in size.

The degradation really isn’t slower - at all. Unless the 2170L cells have different characteristics.

Starting with 80kWh rather than perhaps 78kWh is better though!!!

 

[jvoisin]

To be clear: you will lose capacity, and range, starting whenever your battery begins to lose capacity, but your rated miles will not change. The rated miles are just “deflating.” Think of each km/mile as little overinflated units of energy, and then as the car ages, they deflate, until they get to the baseline constant “inflation level.” That is less energy. And then, if you go below 77.8kWh, units of energy start disappearing.

In SMT, you’d see 78kWh, a real loss of 2kWh, but your rated miles would not change in count - they change in size.

The degradation really isn’t slower - at all. Unless the 2170L cells have different characteristics.

Starting with 80kWh rather than perhaps 78kWh is better though!!!

Is the chemistry of the 87kw batteries the other cells? I'm assuming they are just different cells of the same type and not LFP. (sorry if this is a dumb question, I have only been kinda 1/2 following this since it's been too busy at work)

I have the OBD2 adapter already.. it showed up really fast.. don't even have the car yet.