Model 3 Performance Battery Degradation One Month (Story)

[RyanT]

I will probably try a 100% charge. Not sure if it's better to discharge to some very low state (10 miles!?) first or what. Thoughts?

Go for it! You’re not going to hurt the pack. 10 miles might be pushing it, but 10% or less would probably get the job done : )

 

[VT_EE]

While I appreciate the "Unknown Tech" input I really would feel a lot better following advice that percolated out of official channels.

Is this truly a case where the manual is "Less Right" than the physics? This could be a case where the manual instructions are better for Tesla than the consumer.

For instance, an easy solution like "always plug in" might give 95% of the good effect that tesla wants, but the 5% (maybe charging longer than strictly needed) is better than the alternative of dealing with several thousand confused customers who aren't looking to tweak things, just looking for an easy rule to follow.

For the other people who really want to discuss 0.5C vs 1C vs 2C charge rates and the various degradation, and benefits from occasional deep discharges and 100% recharges, it would be nice if there were advanced instructions that were official.

FWIW, I also did a deep discharge (56 miles available) and 100% range charge during my first 2 weeks of ownership. I got 309 Miles from my first 100% charge.

I did two 800 mile, 1-day road trips last week. The battery was well below 20% before each Supercharging session. 100% charge was 309 at the start of the first leg. On the way back, the max charge was 313. The cycling definitely added a few miles. FYI, my car has 4000miles on the odometer and was a June RWD build.

 

[JeffnReno]

My P3D+ was built 7/21 and delivered 8/28. I have 1300 miles so far. I have always charged to 90% every night using NEMA 14-50. Never supercharged. I tend to drive 30-40 miles/day most days, and 60-80 once a week. I don't think I've been below about 160 miles of remaining range.

Initially, 90% showed 278-279 miles, about a month ago it was 276, in the last week or two, it has dropped off quite a bit to 265 today. So, barring some issue with my pack, 90% daily is not enough to fix the calibration. Maybe my pack is unbalanced. I will probably try a 100% charge. Not sure if it's better to discharge to some very low state (10 miles!?) first or what. Thoughts?

I'm still following the recommendations that the Tesla tech I spoke with gave me and my extrapolated range came back to normal in a very short time but everyone has different charging needs so YMMV. You can look up thread to see what has been discussed so far on this issue.

 

[JeffnReno]

I did two 800 mile, 1-day road trips last week. The battery was well below 20% before each Supercharging session. 100% charge was 309 at the start of the first leg. On the way back, the max charge was 313. The cycling definitely added a few miles. FYI, my car has 4000miles on the odometer and was a June RWD build.

Mine is also a June RWD build and I have 3750 miles so we are tracking pretty close. Mine has only been supercharged 1 time to 100% and once at home on the UMC plugged into a NEMA14-50. Both times it charged to 310 miles but I was starting to have some of the same issues as others here have stated until I started following the advice the Tesla tech gave me. The long time Tesla owners will tell us newbies to just plug in and charge nightly to 90% and quit worrying about it but as you can see from this thread, that doesn't satisfy some.

 

[bradhs]

Remote S for me displays 74.7 kWh. August 2018 build P3D+.

 

[jgrgnt]

Adding another data point:

August 2018 P3D+
current capacity shown in Remote S: 75 kWh
range @ 90%: 269mi (down from 279mi when new)

I have never charged past 90%, so perhaps I should attempt my first 100% charge.

 

[bradhs]

My 90% was 275 miles the past few days, prior to that it was 270. I'm pretty sure this range is tied to driving style.

Adding another data point:

August 2018 P3D+
current capacity shown in Remote S: 75 kWh
range @ 90%: 269mi (down from 279mi when new)

I have never charged past 90%, so perhaps I should attempt my first 100% charge.

 

[RyanF]

My 90% was 275 miles the past few days, prior to that it was 270. I'm pretty sure this range is tied to driving style.

I’m starting to think this as well. I know the standard answer is that it isn’t related to driving style. I sent a message over a week ago to Tesla asking about my listed range but never heard back.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm pretty sure this range is tied to driving style.

It's not.

 

[FSKT]

It's not.

What MP3Mike said. It just is not, at all, tied to your driving style

The range displayed next to the speed indicator is indisputably the Rated Range, and it's based on measured capacity divided by a *constant* of around 242 wh/mi. That 242 wh/mi never changes in the calculation - ever, even if you're actually driving like a miser and getting 150wh/mi or driving like you stole it and you're pushing 500 wh/mi.

It's pretty straightforward now, with Ver. 9, to prove this is correct: Go to your energy app (Ver. 9), where the car does in fact explicitly estimate your remaining range based on your past 5/15/30 miles of driving (looking at the ave. wh/mi used in each of those three trailing mileage brackets). *AND* they provide your rated range estimate as well, to compare *against* the three "driving style" energy usage estimates (5/15/30 miles). The estimate based on your actual wh/mi used for the 5/15/30 brackets is rarely if ever the same range you see stated as the Rated Range in those three energy estimates (and note that the "rated range" indicated on those estimates is *always* *exactly* what's displayed to the right of your speed indicator)

With Ver. 9's energy app for the trailing 5/15/30 miles remaining range estimates (and the instant range estimate, which estimates remaining range based on your current/instant energy usage), I think we're done arguing about this driving style v. rated range argument. It's rated range, and there's definitive proof of this right in the car.

PS - Before Ver. 9, there was room to argue that maybe the stated range number was based partly on some sort of "driving style" because there was just that one range number available. But now, with the car explicitly giving you *separate* estimates based on driving style (or, rather, the resulting wh/mi used as a result of that style), and then even comparing it with another number in each instance, actually called "rated range", which number always corresponds to the number you see next to your speedo number, the game is truly over.

I believe Model S/X owners have had this sort of info available to them for a long while before Ver. 9 brought it to the 3, which is probably why they keep "SMH" when they saw us new 3 owners trying to figure this out. With Ver. 9, I see the light, mostly because it's so explicitly set out right there in the energy app, which the 3's never had before Ver. 9.

 

[FSKT]

I’m starting to think this as well. I know the standard answer is that it isn’t related to driving style. I sent a message over a week ago to Tesla asking about my listed range but never heard back.

Nope. See my post I just posted. It is unequivocally not based at all on driving style.

What *is* (are) based on driving style, are the 5/15/30 trailing miles range estimates in the Energy App. Even those three "driving style" estimates each give you the same "rated range" number, to compare your driving style-calculated range against the rated range number, and which rated range number is always (always) the exact same range number you see next to the speedo display.

 

[SigNC]

mine is 298 miles, less than 1000 miles

 

[Dannno]

I just returned from the Cherry Hill, NJ SC. I had been getting [email protected]% charge. They are replacing my battery.

The gentleman I spoke with was insistent that the miles displayed was based on driving habits. I told him that was 100% wrong, and he claimed the software was updated at some point to include driving habits. I realize it is an easy way for them to close out an issue, but they really need to stop, or become better informed.

After waiting for maybe 5 minutes he comes to tell me I'm getting a new battery. He said it came up for replacement when they pulled up my VIN. So it was decided even before I came to the apt (would have been nice to know before making the trip to the SC, as I have a 2 week wait). They did not indicate there was an error with my battery. I got the impression that they were replacing it to take the pack and see what was going on with it.

 

[Dr. J]

I just returned from the Cherry Hill, NJ SC. I had been getting [email protected]% charge. They are replacing my battery.

The gentleman I spoke with was insistent that the miles displayed was based on driving habits. I told him that was 100% wrong, and he claimed the software was updated at some point to include driving habits. I realize it is an easy way for them to close out an issue, but they really need to stop, or become better informed.

After waiting for maybe 5 minutes he comes to tell me I'm getting a new battery. He said it came up for replacement when they pulled up my VIN. So it was decided even before I came to the apt (would have been nice to know before making the trip to the SC, as I have a 2 week wait). They did not indicate there was an error with my battery. I got the impression that they were replacing it to take the pack and see what was going on with it.

This is very interesting, and I hope you tell us how it turns out.

 

[FSKT]

The gentleman I spoke with was insistent that the miles displayed was based on driving habits. I told him that was 100% wrong, and he claimed the software was updated at some point to include driving habits. I realize it is an easy way for them to close out an issue, but they really need to stop, or become better informed.

That's interesting. Hard to know if it's simply another mis/under-informed Tesla employee (my guess) or whether they really did this. It would be the first I've heard of it, and if so, I'd like to know how they've been incorporating driving habits and how that compares with the Ver. 9 energy usage app.

In fact, he may also have been confusing Ver. 9 update, which introduced the 5/15/30 mile trailing range estimator to the Model 3. In that sense, he's correct that for the 3, the software was recently updated to include driving habits, though not as it pertains to the Rated Range number we all see to the right of our speedo . . . .

 

[FSKT]

As an update, I'm currently at 6,500 miles, and I have been charging to 90-ish% daily lately (past 5 or 6 days), and my calculated total range has moved up from 288 to around 295-300 lately. And this morning, I had a rated range indication of 267 miles, at 88% (tried to get the slider to exactly 90 for charge limit, but apparently failed / came up short). The math on this latest reading (267 divided by .88) yielded 303.409 miles calculated range . . . . happy camper here . . .

Point of reference: I had been charging to 70-ish% and my range was falling, down to 287 at it's lowest, until I switched to the 90-ish% charge limit, when it started to go up per the above.

 

[Dr. J]

As an update, I'm currently at 6,500 miles, and I have been charging to 90-ish% daily lately (past 5 or 6 days), and my calculated total range has moved up from 288 to around 295-300 lately. And this morning, I had a rated range indication of 267 miles, at 88% (tried to get the slider to exactly 90 for charge limit, but apparently failed / came up short). The math on this latest reading (267 divided by .88) yielded 303.409 miles calculated range . . . . happy camper here . . .

Point of reference: I had been charging to 70-ish% and my range was falling, down to 287 at it's lowest, until I switched to the 90-ish% charge limit, when it started to go up per the above.

I imagine a little elf in Fremont that monitors capacity and sends out individual OTA updates to change the calculus so it comes out closer to 310. Busy little sucker.

 

[Vines]

As an update, I'm currently at 6,500 miles, and I have been charging to 90-ish% daily lately (past 5 or 6 days), and my calculated total range has moved up from 288 to around 295-300 lately. And this morning, I had a rated range indication of 267 miles, at 88% (tried to get the slider to exactly 90 for charge limit, but apparently failed / came up short). The math on this latest reading (267 divided by .88) yielded 303.409 miles calculated range . . . . happy camper here . . .

Point of reference: I had been charging to 70-ish% and my range was falling, down to 287 at it's lowest, until I switched to the 90-ish% charge limit, when it started to go up per the above.

Great to know! Happy that for you at least there seems to be resolution for your indicated range drop.

 

[SigNC]

What MP3Mike said. It just is not, at all, tied to your driving style

The range displayed next to the speed indicator is indisputably the Rated Range, and it's based on measured capacity divided by a *constant* of around 242 wh/mi. That 242 wh/mi never changes in the calculation - ever, even if you're actually driving like a miser and getting 150wh/mi or driving like you stole it and you're pushing 500 wh/mi.

It's pretty straightforward now, with Ver. 9, to prove this is correct: Go to your energy app (Ver. 9), where the car does in fact explicitly estimate your remaining range based on your past 5/15/30 miles of driving (looking at the ave. wh/mi used in each of those three trailing mileage brackets). *AND* they provide your rated range estimate as well, to compare *against* the three "driving style" energy usage estimates (5/15/30 miles). The estimate based on your actual wh/mi used for the 5/15/30 brackets is rarely if ever the same range you see stated as the Rated Range in those three energy estimates (and note that the "rated range" indicated on those estimates is *always* *exactly* what's displayed to the right of your speed indicator)

With Ver. 9's energy app for the trailing 5/15/30 miles remaining range estimates (and the instant range estimate, which estimates remaining range based on your current/instant energy usage), I think we're done arguing about this driving style v. rated range argument. It's rated range, and there's definitive proof of this right in the car.

PS - Before Ver. 9, there was room to argue that maybe the stated range number was based partly on some sort of "driving style" because there was just that one range number available. But now, with the car explicitly giving you *separate* estimates based on driving style (or, rather, the resulting wh/mi used as a result of that style), and then even comparing it with another number in each instance, actually called "rated range", which number always corresponds to the number you see next to your speedo number, the game is truly over.

I believe Model S/X owners have had this sort of info available to them for a long while before Ver. 9 brought it to the 3, which is probably why they keep "SMH" when they saw us new 3 owners trying to figure this out. With Ver. 9, I see the light, mostly because it's so explicitly set out right there in the energy app, which the 3's never had before Ver. 9.

Agreed but considering my P3+ shows 256wh/mile rated I don't' see how it would ever show 310 miles. 75/.256 = 292.97

 

[NewTMSMan]

That's interesting. Hard to know if it's simply another mis/under-informed Tesla employee (my guess) or whether they really did this. It would be the first I've heard of it, and if so, I'd like to know how they've been incorporating driving habits and how that compares with the Ver. 9 energy usage app.

In fact, he may also have been confusing Ver. 9 update, which introduced the 5/15/30 mile trailing range estimator to the Model 3. In that sense, he's correct that for the 3, the software was recently updated to include driving habits, though not as it pertains to the Rated Range number we all see to the right of our speedo . . . .

It's not using driving habits. Easy to prove, find just one Model 3 where that display shows significantly more that 310 miles. Good luck there are no pics of that and we already know there are people hypermiling the 3 and getting below 200 WHr/mile, so where are the pics of that display showing 370+ miles at 100% charge?????