Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
That sounds both very likely.
  • EM has stated very clearly in the past the LFP is the future for the standard range cars.
  • LG in Poland can probably provide the new LG 5L packs for Giga Berlin in the initial phase.

That also allows them to free up cells to go in LR vehicles, Powerwall and Megapack. The big question mark is how these LFP packs perform in the winter.

Does the Polish LG plant produce cylindrical cells?
 
Last edited:
Did you get into the service center yet to have them take a look?
My appointment is for next week. So not yet.

Meanwhile I did a 2700 km roadtrip last week with lots of Autobahn and supercharging. SMT now shows around 74.1 kWh Nominal full pack and 543km of Full Rated range. I also consistently arrived at Superchargers with more SoC than what Tesla navigation and ABRP (which doesn't know anything about my car, except that it is a 82kWh model) were predicting. Fair amount of roadworks and soms traffic jams though. CAC is now 213 (min), 217 (avg), 218 (max) [Ah], cell imbalance 4 mV.

These are the best numbers I have seen so far. I'm curious to see whether full nominal pack will ever reach 80 kWh... So far so good though.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for the fast reply.

I have not thought about this approach. Something to test apparently. I'll set my max charge to 60% for the next couple of weeks then ... the vacation is over and 60% should be plenty for my daily needs. Should I let it go down to 40% or less before charging it back to 60%? Or just charge it when I get home no matter the SOC?
Charge daily.

Besides that the BMS showing low on NFP when regularly charging to high SOCs, smaller Depth of Discharge is better for the battery longlivety. Charging to a lower SOC is also better for the battery.

SOC above 60% cause more calendar wear.
I use the sceduled charging for daily driving when not preheat is needed. So I set the charge to start at 3 AM or so, making it only sit at 60% (or what SOC I choose) for a couple of hours.

All other procedures( except the ”just charge to 50-60% daily”), like trying to ”up” the NFP will in most cases cause more ”real” wear on the battery. If you feel a high Nominal Full Pack is important and its worth causing a little unnecessary wear, use the procedures. Otherwise, accept a slightly lower NFP and use the battery by the best practise to minimise degradation. In the long run the latter will be better.
 
My appointment is for next week. So not yet.

Meanwhile I did a 2700 km roadtrip last week with lots of Autobahn and supercharging. SMT now shows around 74.1 kWh Nominal full pack and 543km of Full Rated range. I also consistently arrived at Superchargers with more SoC than what Tesla navigation and ABRP (which doesn't know anything about my car, except that it is a 82kWh model) were predicting. Fair amount of roadworks and soms traffic jams though. CAC is now 213 (min), 217 (avg), 218 (max) [Ah], cell imbalance 4 mV.

These are the best numbers I have seen so far. I'm curious to see whether full nominal pack will ever reach 80 kWh... So far so good though.
Make sense that Tesla Navigation would underestimate if the pack has more capacity than it thought.

Anyway, well that's good news. 14kWh regained. Clearly something very confused with the BMS at first. At least you have decent capacity now, though 6+% of capacity loss in a couple months still leaves a bit to be desired.

Maybe it'll keep on creeping up? It seems like maybe with CAC it's kind of a rate-limited process of adjusting it upwards or downwards...

Very strange that this happened in the first place, though. I assume they'll reset it next week and then it'll end up higher for a while - the question is whether it iterates downwards towards 74kWh or stays at 79kWh. All depends on what the actual capacity is.

Thanks for keeping us informed. Would be great to continue doing so until the pack situation stabilizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ylannl
All other procedures( except the ”just charge to 50-60% daily”), like trying to ”up” the NFP will in most cases cause more ”real” wear on the battery. If you feel a high Nominal Full Pack is important and its worth causing a little unnecessary wear, use the procedures. Otherwise, accept a slightly lower NFP and use the battery by the best practise to minimise degradation. In the long run the latter will be better.
Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I could not care less about the actual NFP value.

The car is a leasing that will be refreshed anyway in 3 years so, technically, no matter what I do, unless the car explodes or something, will not shred the battery into pieces ... it will still work fine after 3 years and about 60-70.000 Km with about 10% wear probably.

The thing is, I'm a geek and I have to understand what's going on. My OCD makes me do this :)

Today after getting home I tried calculating the battery capacity by following a suggestion from another topic here on the forum (A*B*100/C = battery NFP w/o buffer in Wh):
abc.JPG


Well ... it comes out as 76kWh ... so, adding the low buffer it will take that value to a NFP of about 79kWh ...

Using other readings, later in the evening, with the battery at 70%, it comes out roughly the same.

Still, SMT shows now NFP 76.1 kWh ... Now I'm even more confused. The car still behaves and drives as it should though.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1819.jpeg
    IMG_1819.jpeg
    247.4 KB · Views: 93
  • IMG_1820.jpeg
    IMG_1820.jpeg
    290.5 KB · Views: 80
  • IMG_1821.jpeg
    IMG_1821.jpeg
    291.1 KB · Views: 195
Well ... it comes out as 76kWh ... so, adding the low buffer it will take that value to a NFP of about 79kWh ...

This value INCLUDES THE BUFFER.

If you just do the straight calculation of the kWh "remaining" from this screen, and just multiply projected range by recent efficiency, without scaling it up by the SOC (dividing by SOC % as you did above), THAT result includes only a PORTION of the buffer, that portion/% being equal to the SoC %. So for example at 70% SoC, the value so calculated includes 70% of the buffer.

So, when you divide by SoC %, that takes care of that, because (Buffer*SoC%) / SoC% = Buffer.

This all only applies when the capacity is below the degradation threshold (this is the case in your situation; your threshold is 77.8kWh (not the ~80.7kWh of the Performance)). (Otherwise, everything just gets capped by that threshold on the energy screen as proven earlier here.)

The Projected Range * Recent Efficiency = "Usable Remaining" + Buffer*SoC%. (Usable Remaining = (NominalFullPack - Buffer)*SoC%) )

So (Projected Range * Recent Efficiency) / SoC% = ((NominalFullPack - Buffer) * SoC% + Buffer * SoC% ) / SoC% = NominalFullPack.


And for the record, NFP - Buffer = NFP - 0.045*NFP = 0.955*NFP. So Usable Remaining at 100% SoC is 95.5% of the NFP value.

Your car should display ~557km at 100%, instead of ~568km. You have about 72.7kWh of "usable" energy. With a 76.1kWh full pack.

(A*B*100/C = battery NFP w/o buffer in Wh):
Can you link to the post where you saw this? I know we have the sticky post but pretty sure it makes clear that this includes the buffer. (Hmm...it is ambiguous, but it doesn't say it does not include the buffer.)
 
Last edited:
Well ... it comes out as 76kWh ... so, adding the low buffer it will take that value to a NFP of about 79kWh ...

Using other readings, later in the evening, with the battery at 70%, it comes out roughly the same.

Still, SMT shows now NFP 76.1 kWh ... Now I'm

That Energy screen calculation includes the buffer. So you cannot ad it to the calculstion.

The reason for the buffer to be included is that the range indication is per EPA and includes the buffer. As an example, my M3P ’21 has 315mile/507km EPA. The range indication shows [normally*] 507km at 100% SOC, and that includes the buffer.
(The buffer is ”hided” progressively at lowe SOCs)

So your calculation and the NFP is spot on for the above reason. Your NFP is 76.1 at the moment.

I did a lot of energy screen calcs in the beginning of my time with the M3P. I did get SMT from day one so I always could compare the values. Mostly really close, but when my NFP rockeded to 81.4-81.6 the energy screen value was capped/stayed at about 80.8-81kWh (I think it was).

Im currently at 80.0, back from holiday trips etc. with varying SOC, lot of SuC.
My NFP was down to 79.5, and it did climb to 80.0, now it may have stopped about there. Just started working with the usual 55-60% charge and smaller DoDS. I’ll just wait and see, but I dont expect it to shoot very high again.

My M3P is 8 month old, 21000km/13000mi so the expected degradation from calendar aging with my use is:
-About 1.5-2% from calendar aging( average SOC when the car not used about 40%).
- About 0.5% from the 64 charge cycles reported from SMRT( FCE, full eqvivalent cycles).
Expected total degradation is 2-2.5% so I should have 80.0-80.5 kWh Capacity remaining at this time with my mileage and my charging scheme.

If I had charged to 90% every day, and had it standing with high SOC (80-90%) a lot of hours every day, I could have expected about 4% calendar aging plus the same 0.5% from cycling. This would put my expected capacity to 78.4kWh.

Calculations by the values for calendar aging and cycling found in research reports, and not used very precise for these calcs, but to get a idea of what to expect. I used the Full pack when new value as the starting point( I did see NFP 81.6, and nominal remaining 82.0) so 82.1 as the new value seems fair.
I don know for the cars that never seem to reach even 80kWh, if the starting value should be lower because of (maybe packs that somehow has a lower starting capacity?).
 
This value INCLUDES THE BUFFER.
I thought that the car is showing the estimated distance till 0% is displayed on screen. From that point further you should have the "reserve" .. bottom buffer of 3.5 kwh. The tests performed so far (that I read about online) are showing that after the car shows 0% (and 0Km), you still have about 40Km (25 miles).
This means 100% battery and projected distance, is w/o the buffer. I might be wrong though.
Anyway, I will not be performing a 0% battery test on my car :) ...
.it is ambiguous, but it doesn't say it does not include the buffer
the buffer thing was my own "creation" .. because I consider it logical not to include the buffer in any data shown to the user. The user should drive based on a battery w/o a buffer, like in an ICE car where the "empty tank" indicator means empty , even if you still have few litters left for an extra distance to be able to limp to a refuelling station.
That Energy screen calculation includes the buffer.
There is a saying in my home country: "When 2 persons tells you you are drunk, you are probably drunk" .... so I'll drop my conclusions and go with yours :) ... I have to admit it is logical and complete, even if I have the tendency to argue against it.

On another note, if I'm to embrace totally the electric future, then I expect the electric car (including this M3LR) to serve me, not the other way around .. so I will not stress at all the charging habits. I'll charge when I need, for as much as I need and just live my life. It looks like these endless calculations I'm being pulled into just take away from the joy of owning this nice car. I'll peek every now and then into SMT to check the state of the battery ... as long as it will stay above 70kWh it will probably be fine.

Many thanks guys (I still cannot give likes, which is a bummer).
 
I thought that the car is showing the estimated distance till 0% is displayed on screen.

Not exactly. I can't speak to Tesla's decisions on this screen (I think it's kind of silly and they should display things as you have described), but you see the formulas above; they are correct, and you can verify them if you wish. (Since you have SMT.)

The meaning of this screen is really quite confusing. To get the "projected range" it displays, it first appears to calculate the remaining rated range * the charging constant, to get the energy remaining value. So it comes up with a value, as indicated above, which DOES NOT MATCH the actual remaining energy in the pack (it's off by (1-SOC%)*BufferSize). You can verify this, just calculate the product from the screen and compare to SMT nominal remaining. It won't match; it'll be off by that amount (exact match at 100%, off, and too HIGH, by ~3.4kWh for your pack at 0%).

So, it comes up with an energy which includes some of the buffer, so inherently it will give you an estimate of range to 0% which is too optimistic. For example, if it says you have at 471km of range with 126Wh/km efficiency, you could drive 126Wh/km but you will NOT be able to drive 471km at that consumption to 0%. It's calculating 59.3kWh remaining, but actual remaining to 0% is 0.78*(76.1kWh*0.955) = 56.7kWh (check SMT, you can verify this, look at usable remaining or whatever the parameter is), and the "nominal remaining" including the buffer is 56.7kWh+0.045*76.1kWh = 60.1kWh. So to 0%, at 126Wh/km, you could only do 56.7kWh/126Wh/km = 450km. But the good news is that to a completely empty pack, you might be able to do 60.1kWh/126Wh/km = 477km.

The closer you get to 0%, the less optimistic the estimate. For example, at 10% SoC with 126Wh/km, you'd have 76.1*0.955*0.1 = 7.3kWh to 0%. The energy screen would think you have ~7.6kWh left (add 0.1*3.4kWh). But you'd actually have 7.3kWh+3.4kWh left, so 10.7kWh. So it would say you could do (at 126Wh/km) 60km, you could actually do 58km to 0%, and to an empty battery you could do 85km.


The tests performed so far (that I read about online) are showing that after the car shows 0% (and 0Km), you still have about 40Km (25 miles).
This means 100% battery and projected distance, is w/o the buffer. I might be wrong though.
The first part is correct, the second statement is not. As you can tell from the formula and SMT, these calculations of full capacity (dividing by SoC%) give a result that includes the buffer. The energy screen does not include the buffer when you get to 0%, and it includes the entire buffer when you are at 100%. That's why dividing by SoC% works. (Since SoC% never reflects the existence of the buffer.)

It looks like these endless calculations I'm being pulled into just take away from the joy of owning this nice car. I'll peek every now and then into SMT to check the state of the battery ... as long as it will stay above 70kWh it will probably be fine.

Yeah, since it's a lease I definitely wouldn't worry about it. Trust the science here though, on the formulas. Haha.

The default prior, in terms of expectations, is about 10% capacity loss over three years. So I'd expect that. We don't know whether these 2170L packs will do better (they might).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ro_explorer
Hello Guys,

Following the last information here is an update of my 2 batteries tables.
Thank you @eivissa for the homologation documents, it's precious !

Where are you getting the charge times for 10-80% from for the E3LD packs? Because they do not match what eivissa has shared before regarding them. I get it to be around a 5 minute difference in 10-80% between E3LD and E3D. That would also mean the difference to the E5D matches the differences that has been shown as well because in your table it doesn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomaGo
Hello Guys,

Following the last information here is an update of my 2 batteries tables.
Thank you @eivissa for the homologation documents, it's precious !
I believe some stuff doesn't need a question mark:
  • SR+ E6LR is confirmed with WLTP 491km.
  • SR+ E6LR is, according to the docs, confirmed with 60kWh.
  • LR E5LD is confirmed with WLTP 614km.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomaGo
The Model 3 LR and Performance estimated delivery dates have now moved from September to November in the UK.

SR+ is still September.

I am hoping this means that they are expecting a delay in delivery due to switch to E5LD from the current E5D. The configurator still says 360mi, however - which is E5D (580km).
 
Any real world feedback on the the hairpin Rev II drive unit?

just got a MIC SR+ allocated with 8th digit A so first gen - wondering if I should try to get reallocated. Thanks
Its blurry. Users are reporting a stronger punch, but the Tesla API loggs consistently 20KW less power. We have no Scan My Tesla values yet. I wouldnt wait for it I guess. They are surely not gonna make it more powerful as long as Fremont isnt using this drive unit.

Since it is supposed to replace it, there is hope that it is more efficient / producing less heat.
 
Its blurry. Users are reporting a stronger punch, but the Tesla API loggs consistently 20KW less power. We have no Scan My Tesla values yet. I wouldnt wait for it I guess. They are surely not gonna make it more powerful as long as Fremont isnt using this drive unit.

Since it is supposed to replace it, there is hope that it is more efficient / producing less heat.
Interesting thanks. Are those users doing a like for like MIC vs MIC or previous had Fremont cars? In which case the power difference could be down to the 800a performance motor or correlate with flatter power curve at all SOCs with LFP?
 
I ordered a model 3 SR+ which originally would have been delivered in time for my daughter's 16th birthday (end of October).

Yesterday I got an email stating that due to battery issues the delivery has been postponed now to end of December or January (which is still not guaranteed).

I was given the option to have a faster delivery which would likely make it in time for the birthday so I am torn.

The battery option is the LG battery from Europe/Asia. It has a stated decreased 10 mile range (253 vs 263).

I did some research and it looks like it is iron based instead of nickle (and people stated that iron can be charged to 100% without much degradation (and also longer battery life I think).

I was curious what thoughts are on this. Would you wait for the Panasonic Nickle batteries if they are better (I'm not even sure if they are better or not) but hate to lose the 10 miles of range.

The price was quoted as the same for both options.

Thanks