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

[TimothyHW3]

Does anyone have idea about SR+ pack?

An owner here in Taiwan just replaced his pack and reported a part number of 1104428-00-T.
Can I know it's 2170L or not?

Yes, the SR+ from fremont with the 54kWh pack is 1104428-00-T TC, see here.

 

[mrdoubleb]

V18 is online...

-New 5,0Ah LG cells -> Should be a simila 82kWh pack. Certified currently only for the Long Range.
-New Accelerator pedal, which finally might be physically insulated from the brake pedal, so Auto Hold is not noticed with a kick anymore.
-R138 AVAS approval.
-Active hood? Is this pedestrian protection or an Automatic Frunk incoming? The latter would be nice!

View attachment 682644View attachment 682645View attachment 682646
View attachment 682653

Thanks, that's great data!

According to the latest info, the new Shanghai produced Model Y SR has a new 60 kWh LFP battery, which explains how in the world it can have higher range than the LFP Model 3. IT will be interesting to see if they will keep producing a separate pack for the Y SR, or, if the Modell 3 SR+ will also get the 60 kWh pack. I am getting mine delivered in September, so it would be great if that was the case.

 

[eivissa]

Thanks, that's great data!

According to the latest info, the new Shanghai produced Model Y SR has a new 60 kWh LFP battery, which explains how in the world it can have higher range than the LFP Model 3. IT will be interesting to see if they will keep producing a separate pack for the Y SR, or, if the Modell 3 SR+ will also get the 60 kWh pack. I am getting mine delivered in September, so it would be great if that was the case.

Thats funny!

I have made a guess as to what data would go into the certification documents for the Model Y and my best guess for an E6LR was 60kWh. Seen here by LFP60:

 

[eivissa]

Made an attempt to charge the 00-T to 100% this morning, but had to leave early.
The Charge rate was just above 1KW, so not much more to be expected.

• 60% SoC limit would not go above 80,0kWH.
• At 101% it would go to 80,7/80,8kWH Nominal Remaining and 507km.
• Nominal Full Pack would correct its-self upwards to 80,4kWh, but drop again to the old value (80,0kWh) after a couple of hours.
• 00-T and 0L-P would go around 0,5kWh above Nominal Full Pack when fully charged.
• 00-T and 0L-P peak at 4,2V, so I guess no SW lock to be expected.
• Very small sample size, but pretty much all 00-T Performance drivers report lower ranges (495km-507km) than the 0L-P drivers who are almost always at the peak 508km-509km. Also some Q2/2021 LR drivers with SMT all report values in the 79-80,0kWh Range.

Still a chance, that the 00-T can slowly calibrate upwards to match the 0L-P, but I will be honest. I am starting to doubt it.

View attachment 679611View attachment 679612
View attachment 679610

Made my second attempt on charging the 00-T Panasonic to 100% this morning and failed again ;-)

I had to leave sooner and had to stop the charge just before finishing.

• Nominal Full Pack went up from 80.8 to 81.5 and stayed there.
• Nominal Remaining went up to 81,9 but the car was still charging at 1,5KW so 82,0 was highly probable!
• Certainly this pack performs just as good as the 0L-P I had before.
• Overall my pack capacity raised from just above 79kWh to 82kWh within its first 1400km since delivery.
• Charging was limited to 60% SoC since day one with three short SuC sessions to test the 250KW plateau and two (almost) 100% charges.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Made my second attempt on charging the 00-T Panasonic to 100% this morning and failed again ;-)

I had to leave sooner and had to stop the charge just before finishing.

• Nominal Full Pack went up from 80.8 to 81.5 and stayed there.
• Nominal Remaining went up to 81,9 but the car was still charging at 1,5KW so 82,0 was highly probable!
• Certainly this pack performs just as good as the 0L-P I had before.
• Overall my pack capacity raised from just above 79kWh to 82kWh within its first 1400km since delivery.
• Charging was limited to 60% SoC since day one with three short SuC sessions to test the 250KW plateau and two (almost) 100% charges.

View attachment 684416

Good to see confirmation that you really do have to charge to 100% to see the true max capacity of the pack and get the BMS to figure that out. And also that you really can get very close to 82kWh on these packs….

I wonder if you would get the same results charging to 100% from the wall? I know the pack temp would be much lower but in summer I wonder whether it matters much for the result from the BMS.

 

[Dave EV]

Thanks, that's great data!

According to the latest info, the new Shanghai produced Model Y SR has a new 60 kWh LFP battery, which explains how in the world it can have higher range than the LFP Model 3. IT will be interesting to see if they will keep producing a separate pack for the Y SR, or, if the Modell 3 SR+ will also get the 60 kWh pack. I am getting mine delivered in September, so it would be great if that was the case.

I would be very curious to see a teardown of both of the LFP packs, I'm not sure if anyone has done one and posted the results yet.

I think the rumor was that the LFP packs were using a completely different assembly method using prismatic cells where CATL did the integration/design. I find that somewhat hard to believe since Tesla is so vertically integrated, but maybe Tesla did this new design and figured out how to fit more cells into the same space. Or maybe the LFP cells in the 60 kWh pack are cells from EVE who was rumored to have signed an agreement with Tesla to supply cells?

Either way, getting 60 kWh of LFP is a good improvement - the cost should be better than the NCA high energy density cells. I wonder if/when Tesla would start using LFP in the Fremont manufactured cars...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

three short SuC sessions to test the 250KW plateau and two (almost) 100% charges.

charging to 100% from the wall?

I guess now that I re-read your post, it's not 100% clear to me whether your latest 100% attempt was from the Supercharger or from the wall. I think from the SuC, but not sure.

 

[eivissa]

I guess now that I re-read your post, it's not 100% clear to me whether your latest 100% attempt was from the Supercharger or from the wall. I think from the SuC, but not sure.

In my case there is no "wall". My car is always parked in public. Usually at a local charging park nearby, were I can leave the car overnight. My 100% charging attempts are always done on one of those 11kw AC chargers. The SuC sessions were separate and only to test / write a charging curve into my Teslalogger.

Today I did 380km at high speeds in rain over the autobahn and arrived back home with a new KW coilover suspension kit and 13% SoC left. The 2021 is just crazy efficient.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In my case there is no "wall". My car is always parked in public. Usually at a local charging park nearby, were I can leave the car overnight. My 100% charging attempts are always done on one of those 11kw AC chargers. The SuC sessions were separate and only to test / write a charging curve into my Teslalogger.

Today I did 380km at high speeds in rain over the autobahn and arrived back home with a new KW coilover suspension kit and 13% SoC left. The 2021 is just crazy efficient.

Thanks. Makes sense. Glad to see your pack is just as good as the previous one! Still wonder about these other users who have tried to get to 82kWh with 100% charges and fallen far short. We don't seem to have the answer on whether it is pack variability or BMS needing to understand the upper limit (I still tend to think the former, based on the multiple attempts by those users...).

Also wondering how @AAKEE is doing with his pack these days.

 

[AAKEE]

Also wondering how @AAKEE is doing with his pack these days.

Just got home from a trip, did the forst complete 100% charge to stop today.

The NFP started to crawl back up again about a week and a half or so, was 79.5 and got about 0.1 higher /day. Did a trip a few days ago, the plan was to charge to full but a change in the plan got us on the roll with 98%. NFP was 80.5 before and 80.0 the day after. It started to increase again and I had 80.2 before todays charge, at the end of the charge the NFP lowered to 79.7 and the nominal remaining was 80.1.
I had 8mv imbalance after the charge just stopped at 100% SOC which I think is a fairly good value.

I dont think theres a such big difference in the real capacity as 2kWh over only 2000km and less than a month. Specially when I more or less only charged to 55-60%, with small dept of discharge( mostly about 15-20%) The normal degradation for this time/cycles is quite small. My guess is that this is due to imperfections in the BMS software.
Maybe the real capacity was newer 82.0kWh despite showing this, or maybe it underread now.
Not writing this to make myself less unhappy

Just as I wrote before, the cars only showing 79.5 when new probably have a higher true capacity than the NFP shows.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I dont think theres a such big difference in the real capacity as 2kWh over only 2000km and less than a month.

Agreed, likely not that much change. The estimation is an estimation with errors around the mean, that’s all. Trend line is what matters. The estimation will jump around due to various factors. They’re really trying to detect capacity loss so it’s normal for their algorithms to pick up shifts that turn out to not be real (due to noise and other one-off factors).

When you start to see numbers in the 78 (not cold) range I think you’ll be comfortably able to say you’re finally seeing the expected shift.

Not writing this to make myself less unhappy

No reason to be unhappy with a couple kWh capacity loss (if that) over several months! Perfectly normal and expected. Very curious to see how these new packs progress, though! Everything seems fine.

Just as I wrote before, the cars only showing 79.5 when new probably have a higher true capacity than the NFP shows.

Would need a lot of datapoints over time with efforts to charge to 100% from those specific cars to say one way or the other.

 

[AAKEE]

Agreed, likely not that much change. The estimation is an estimation with errors around the mean, that’s all. Trend line is what matters. The estimation will jump around due to various factors. They’re really trying to detect capacity loss so it’s normal for their algorithms to pick up shifts that turn out to not be real (due to noise and other one-off factors).

When you start to see numbers in the 78 (not cold) range I think you’ll be comfortably able to say you’re finally seeing the expected shift.


No reason to be unhappy with a couple kWh capacity loss (if that) over several months! Perfectly normal and expected. Very curious to see how these new packs progress, though! Everything seems fine.


Would need a lot of datapoints over time with efforts to charge to 100% from those specific cars to say one way or the other.

Charge full, drive until it stops and then charge to full would probably show the capacity directly.

I had a NFP of 80.1 to 80.2 the middle of february to beginning/middle of april, when it climbed about 0.1 per day until 81.4. Topped 81.6 at a 100% supercharging session.

The NFP actually hovers around the same NFP now as it did for a long time.

 

[Jejunjm]

Already bothered @AAKEE about this.
Can anyone explain these strange (to me?) scan my tesla numbers? I had not looked in a few weeks and I saw these

nominal remaining 20.6 (while expected remaining is 41.3). SOC 11.6% while SOC expected is 42.5?


Cell imbalance was only 4...

 

[eivissa]

Already bothered @AAKEE about this.
Can anyone explain these strange (to me?) scan my tesla numbers? I had not looked in a few weeks and I saw these

nominal remaining 20.6 (while expected remaining is 41.3). SOC 11.6% while SOC expected is 42.5?


Cell imbalance was only 4...

There are more puzzling numbers in that Screenshot... Energy buffer of 12.8??? That battery pack is pretty much always at 3.6kWh without significant Degradation/Calibration issues.

 

[Jejunjm]

There are more puzzling numbers in that Screenshot... Energy buffer of 12.6??? That battery pack is pretty much always at 3.6kWh without significant Degradation/Calibration issues.

Sorry where did you get 3.6kwh? And how are you commenting on calibration/degradation? Genuine questions, I'm trying to understand the data. This car lives in Arizona (hot!) And generally is only charged to 60ish%. I've supercharged twice and once to 99 or so for data generation.

 

[eivissa]

Sorry where did you get 3.6kwh? And how are you commenting on calibration/degradation? Genuine questions, I'm trying to understand the data. This car lives in Arizona (hot!) And generally is only charged to 60ish%. I've supercharged twice and once to 99 or so for data generation.

I meant 12.8! It's corrected now. The buffer is usually 4,5% of the usable capacity. The 82.1kWh battery pack is always showing an energy buffer of 3.6kWh. Yours is showing a significantly higher value of 12.8kWh.

The last time I saw a much higher energy buffer, was when the SR+ LFP pack was released and Tesla had issues with measuring the usable remaining capacity. To be on the safe side they initially had a very high energy buffer / unshown capacity below 0%.

This is not an answer to your initial question, but maybe a hint that many values on your screenshot are off for some reason and maybe not trustworthy at all.

I suggest you get a new reading after a fresh start. Maybe reinstall SMT and reboot your car. Just to be sure...

 

[AAKEE]

I meant 12.8! It's corrected now. The buffer is usually 4,5% of the usable capacity. The 82.1kWh battery pack is always showing an energy buffer of 3.6kWh.

I had a buffer of 3.7kWh for a long time, as you get that with a high NFP enough.
Id say it’ll be 3.5 if the NFP is low enough.
Not that this helps jejunjm…

Charge full, drive it as low ad one dares and charge full again ?

The idea would be to use up most of the buffer.

 

[Jejunjm]

For your amusement. Reset it last night drove to work today (more nonsense numbers).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

For your amusement. Reset it last night drove to work today (more nonsense numbers).

I have no idea with SMT, but these values were gathered with the car in drive, etc.? I got the impression that with the car in parked the data may not be able to be trusted (as I said - no experience - I just know some have said that SMT can produce garbage data).

Is it possible the install is messed up somehow?

 

[ran349]

For your amusement. Reset it last night drove to work today (more nonsense numbers).

Almost certainly a bug in the app when reading the data. Try switching to a different tab like the "All" tab and give it time to refresh the readings.