Calendar aging is not the primary contributor to degradation. Using the battery by running it through cycles, putting extra load on it, etc. is what really degrades it the most. Hot temperatures for instance in a battery will degrade it far quicker than colder temperatures however as we know if you want more performance, you want it warmer.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 Highland Performance/Plaid Speculation [Car announced 04.23.2024]
- Thread starter Daniel L
- Start date
Yes agree, the stock brakes on the Plaid are very good for normal use.
If using the car on the track the minimum you have to do is replace the DOT3 brake fluid with high performance DOT4 like Motul 660 or similar and better brake pads. Or upgrade to the track pack carbon brakes.
But those brakes have other issues for normal use, like longer stopping distance when cold. You get a warning on the display informing about possible longer stopping distance when cold/winter when carbon brakes track pack is installed.
To compare the brakes with Model 3 performance Model S Plaid did stopp faster than Model 3 in this test from 100 mph. See from 9 minutes. This is with the stock black brakes before they started deliver the Plaid with red brakes that have better pads.
This is the sensation that a lot of drivers confirm from feeling how the car is driving. Though the Model 3/Y formula of constant current is valid for all versions. Meaning a Long Range without boost will always limit to 980A, with Boost go to 1255A and a Performance will use 1350A. So with constant current, but voltage depending on SOC and Cell temperature. The power will drop with every % and °C/°F in the pack, whichever version of the car you are driving. Even the LFP packs use fixed 700A if they dont have performance motors, though with their flat voltage curve, the power is not much affected from SOC. See blow the current curve, which is pretty much steady from 100% down to 15%. This is then multiplied with the voltage under load, were the baseline is set by the SOC and the drop by the cell temperature, resulting in A long range with full/hot pack doing 325kW, but dropping its power with every % as well. It is just not that noticeable as the power is lower to begin with and current limits are hit later.
Yes, that seems to be the case. My survey with now 1400 rows confirms this theory so far. I've excluded the MIC M3P from the Performance calculation, because its degradation values are bad pretty much overall and it would lead to wrong conclusions...so its getting its own graph bar.
I know Jon from Teslainfo, we've done some very productive work with option codes / battery packs / motors in the past and I've used TeslaInfo as a resource extensively. There are still a couple of issues with these kind of evaluations:
- The degradation treshold of the battery pack is not taken into account. The API is not able to provide information of the actual capacity when the battery was new. Resulting calculations are therefore usually too low.
- Every charge, be it from 51% to 55% or 85% to 100% is taken into account and when the charge is stopped an estimation of 100% range (full capacity) is sent via the API. This value, when the charge is stopped below 80% can be very inaccurate. It will still show up as datapoint.
- The API does not know which wheel is selected in the car. Since a fair bit of cars are changing their consumption constant when you change the wheel in the service menu, the resulting 100% range estimation can be off by up to 8%.
- The evaluation by year is highly inaccurate in regards to identifying a battery pack. Look at Europe 2021. In that year alone we had five different long range packs, which four different chemistries from two different Gigafactories. A mess!
- All these evaluations are using odometer/mileage for the X-axis, though it is showing that calendar degradation is much more relevant when tracking degradation. The API doesn't know when the car was produced or delivered, therefore it cant accurately use time for the X-axis.
Completely disagree. Read the battery thread where there is a mountain of evidence that calendar aging is a much bigger contributor to overall degradation than cyclic degradation.
Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health
i bought my model 3 in aug 2018. After the software upgrade I only got 316 miles when charged to 100%. Last night I got only 312 miles from 5% SOC to 100%. A 4% degradation within 10 months? Have others degraded similarly?
teslamotorsclub.com
Most of the people that report lower degradation have an average SoC ~50% or less because calendar aging is much less reduced with lower SoC.
How are they measuring degradation?Completely disagree. Read the battery thread where there is a mountain of evidence that calendar aging is a much bigger contributor to overall degradation than cyclic degradation.
Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health
i bought my model 3 in aug 2018. After the software upgrade I only got 316 miles when charged to 100%. Last night I got only 312 miles from 5% SOC to 100%. A 4% degradation within 10 months? Have others degraded similarly?
Most of the people that report lower degradation have an average SoC ~50% or less because calendar aging is much less reduced with lower SoC.
Most of it is lab tests on SoC over time vs. cycles in scientific papers. The thread is a great read and gives really good guidance on maximizing longevity for batteries.
I could understand those that heavily track their car to have bigger degradation than average users but people mostly don't track their cars and only use the full power of the M3P in extremely short bursts. The vast majority of these drivers won't degrade their batteries any faster than a regular Model 3 user.
I'm not reading a 300+ page thread that when I look at the end is talking about tyre efficiency of the Highland...Completely disagree. Read the battery thread where there is a mountain of evidence that calendar aging is a much bigger contributor to overall degradation than cyclic degradation.
Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health
i bought my model 3 in aug 2018. After the software upgrade I only got 316 miles when charged to 100%. Last night I got only 312 miles from 5% SOC to 100%. A 4% degradation within 10 months? Have others degraded similarly?
Most of the people that report lower degradation have an average SoC ~50% or less because calendar aging is much less reduced with lower SoC.
It will depend a bit depending on how you use the car. If you never drive it then you calender aging is going to cause the degradation. Leave it at 100% and worse hot temps and it'll degrade super quickly.
However if you actually drive the car and keep it at sensible states of charge I think cycles will degrade it more. I mean how are the people in your thread coming to the conclusion that age is degrading their cars mors than cycles?
Also if you was to read this thread you'd probably come away thinking the new Ludicrous is going to be like 2.3 - 2.5 seconds to 60 but doesn't mean it's true
Your going away from my point which is the Performance cars degrade their batteries more than the Long Range. That's born our in both the video I posted and also evissia's chart. It's not a small difference in my opinion.
I'm not reading a 300+ page thread that when I look at the end is talking about tyre efficiency of the Highland...
It will depend a bit depending on how you use the car. If you never drive it then you calender aging is going to cause the degradation. Leave it at 100% and worse hot temps and it'll degrade super quickly.
However if you actually drive the car and keep it at sensible states of charge I think cycles will degrade it more. I mean how are the people in your thread coming to the conclusion that age is degrading their cars mors than cycles?
Also if you was to read this thread you'd probably come away thinking the new Ludicrous is going to be like 2.3 - 2.5 seconds to 60 but doesn't mean it's true
Your going away from my point which is the Performance cars degrade their batteries more than the Long Range. That's born our in both the video I posted and also evissia's chart. It's not a small difference in my opinion.
I'm not saying cycles won't degrade it more but calendar aging has a bigger effect on overall degradation than merely using cycles. Most of the scientific evidence says below 55% SoC will half the degradation rate and the degradation rate between cycles is much less than vs. time. If you aren't going to look into it, then we'll agree to disagree.
My point is that a Performance owner that has a lower average SoC will probably have much less degradation than a LR owner that keeps the car at a high SoC.
cptnslo
Member
So anywho haha anyone seen any news that I didn’t see
P-Lo801
Member
Just so i'm clear, you're saying that it's better to keep the SoC to a minimum of 55% or below to minimize degradation and thus maximize longevity of the battery?
Yes and my point is how can we tell which affects the car more when at least on the degradation charts I showed it's only got miles and not time. One person could do 50k miles in 1 year, another might only hit that after 5 years. As you say SOC and temperature affects calendar aging, it neither gets all that hot for the most part nor all that cold really in the UK. It's probably a completely different ball game to someone that mostly has a car parked out in Las Vegas sun.
I agree with your later point. Maybe we can agree to say it just depends.
Maybe we can agree also that a Performance does degrade more than a Long Range? Even if they aren't driving if hard, it's less efficient so for the same amount 50k miles the battery will have had to go through more cycles.
Maybe all a bit off topic here but just something to bear in mind when picking between the two models. For me I probably need to know the following:
When can I get a Ludicrous in the UK delivered, too far out it's a no go for me as I need a car soon.
What's the comfort like on the adaptive dampers, less interested in the Sport setting as would use it but not that often.
What are the seats like, can the side bolsters be adjusted or are they fixed? Are they uncomfortable on long trips, especially for larger folks.
What's the efficency / range on 19's.
Last is probably the price.
Yes I want to know what the 0-60 is but I'm fine with the existing one so frankly even if it was still 3.1 second it wouldn't make a difference to my decision.
Well you don't want to go too low. If you had it at 55% what's it going to drop to in driving? Say you go from 50 to 40% then charge that would be quite ideal. But how much percentage do you need day to day and what if an emergency came up, can you cover that say with a super charger nearby or would if leave you in a bind.
Being practical I'd probably say 60% might be more thr sweet spot to charge to if you can live inside 20 - 30% most days.
Yes but as FastLaneJB said, you don't want to compromise useability. I don't need the entire battery most days so I charge enough to maintain battery to about ~50% majority of the time. I leave home with about 55% and use about 20-30% on most days. If I need more, I charge higher but my days are predictable.
I'm not expecting miracles for the Ludicrous but if they deliver a fatter powerband up top with improved freeway pulls and the price is below $60k, then its a great bargain still. Of course, the higher the price, the bigger the expectation. If they get to $70k, I'd like to see both 0-60 drop to 2.7 and the car get into 10s in the 1/4th (and trap 125mph).
P-Lo801
Member
Does this to apply to BEVs in general? I don't mean to derail the thread further, but I'm only asking because I always thought 80% soc and keeping it plugged in as often as possible was what I was led to believe was ideal. But for my use case, I can actually keep it to 55% soc on a daily based on my daily commute and then charge at home overnight back to 55. But on Friday evenings, I can charge it to 80% in anticipation of weekend outings.
Tha_Ape
Active Member
Porsches are track cars, not drag cars. Their allure is how they look and drive, not their acceleration numbers (though those are good too)
Maybe its a later version with better pads and fixed abs program. Anyway, they still feel terrible and overheat easily.
Weight doesn't influence braking distance as long as brakes and tires are not overheating.
Also, better brakes dont stop car any faster than any other functional brakes. They might have a better feel, longevity, outlook, but any stock brakes can lock any tires, so braking is defined by the tires (and abs program)
I made a whole post with calculations to answer this question on how you can do it with battery limit.
Model 3 Highland Performance/Plaid Speculation
You’re suggesting they are intentionally sand bagging the car. That happens say when you have a higher end model you don’t want to get too close to but this will never get close to the Plaid. So why would they make it slower on purpose? My opinion is what they announce and you can get will be...
teslamotorsclub.com
Battery voltage influences the power, but not as much as torque limiter and motors back emf from speed.
Empirical data without understanding of the mechanism behind is alchemy. M3 doesnt take all that the battery can provide.
M3P motors different from LR only in hardware torque limit Of invertor - that only matters until the peak power speed.
And certainly when you riding on a direct voltage from the pack - you will be limited by that voltage, so if it drops, your power drop too. That doesn't mean you've got everything from the battery. In fact it means that you take less and there is still plenty of power available.
