You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think its down to software the numbers are far too consistent on displayed range to be genuine, other side of the planet 16,000 klms 2022 LFP RWD same numbers 438 new, 420 now.......no complaints it does what is says on the label.2022 m3 LFP RWD
70,000 kms (43,500 miles) in 18 months. 438 km(272 miles) range when new now at 420km (261 miles)
This is my hypothesis too, I noticed no difference in displayed range across a number of cars despite various charging habits - frequent supercharging, or charged at home to 100% daily V’s only once a week or less often. Plus no noticeable difference for the km’s travelled, just the age of the car is the only constant. Either LFP is largely immune to charging habits and number of cycles (which well might be the case) or the reduction in range is somewhat ‘software based’. (possibly even pre programmed)I think its down to software the numbers are far too consistent on displayed range to be genuine, other side of the planet 16,000 klms 2022 LFP RWD same numbers 438 new, 420 now.......no complaints it does what is says on the label.
It's probably the first. Everyone is seeing just calendar aging. LFP is very resistant to cyclic degradation---you need many many cycles, like a full cycle every day as is used in battery energy storage.This is my hypothesis too, I noticed no difference in displayed range across a number of cars despite various charging habits - frequent supercharging, or charged at home to 100% daily V’s only once a week or less often. Plus no noticeable difference for the km’s travelled, just the age of the car is the only constant. Either LFP is largely immune to charging habits and number of cycles (which well might be the case) or the reduction in range is somewhat ‘software based’. (possibly even pre programmed)
Just that calendar degradation is the main mechanism, as our member AAKEE has taught us over and over. When the cars are 10 years old then cyclic effects will start to be noticeable. calendar aging goes as sqrt(time) but cyclic will go linearly with time.I’ve seen the same ‘degradation’ on a car the same age but with 230,000km on the clock. This is what lead me to start wondering whether the indicated range at 100% is just being reduced over time on these cars and has nothing to do with mileage, charging habits or perhaps even the actual battery health. (As in, maybe the car doesn’t even know the SOH) Plenty of folks report that the range ‘plateaus’ for quite a long time however, so this might be one argument against my theory.
It could also mean Tesla has been adapting VW's diesel emissions tweak to range estimates and putting it down to the BMS algorithms.It's probably the first. Everyone is seeing just calendar aging. LFP is very resistant to cyclic degradation---you need many many cycles, like a full cycle every day as is used in battery energy storage.
There is a little bit of cyclic aging but as LFP battery Teslas are pretty new most people are seeing just calendar aging effects. No I don't think there is any pre-programmed software range reduction---makes no sense.
If everyone is seeing the same thing it means the quality control in the CATL LFP cells is superb and there is little pack to pack variability. Even battery research papers show a fairly wide spread of aging rates from supposedly identical cells.
That's a good point. Probably most LFP owners follow the charge to 100% frequently enough the top voltage is well calibrated but only discharge into somewhere into the flat SoC vs voltage portion, so the capacity becomes very hard to measure.As we know the BMS has a hard time measuring SOC exact, it would be hard to measure and estimate the capacity with a high precision.
It is possible that the degradation (present capacity) is calculated partly different compared to NCA/NMC.
However, the stated rated range at 100% did not seem to change on my car after a road trip that started at 100% and dipped below 15% frequently (and below 10% a few times), where the voltage - SoC curve is non-flat.That's a good point. Probably most LFP owners follow the charge to 100% frequently enough the top voltage is well calibrated but only discharge into somewhere into the flat SoC vs voltage portion, so the capacity becomes very hard to measure.
So perhaps there really could be an 'assumed' calendar degradation curve applied between times when the true capacity could be adequately estimated. With aging the voltage vs SOC curve might shift a bit as well.
You would need to let the car sleep at low SOC. Only having low SOC driving and charging asap will not show the true SOC to the BMS.However, the stated rated range at 100% did not seem to change on my car after a road trip that started at 100% and dipped below 15% frequently (and below 10% a few times), where the voltage - SoC curve is non-flat.
Yes! Absolutely.@AAKEE : Are you talking about M3 SR+ LFP?
That's what this topic is about...
Again identical numbers, has to be software I doubt the batteries are that universally consistant with so many variables.2022 SR+ (438km new)
17months old
33,000km, sitting at 420km @100%
Strictly home charging to 100% at least once a week.
The car will cool of the battery if needed.2023 RWD, 8 months old, ~3500 miles, kept SOC as low as possible and only charge to 100% about once per month. 266 miles at 100% currently. Not as good as I hoped, but one thing I have working against me is living in a fairly warm climate... my car is garaged, but the garage gets up around 90 F on most days in the summer, which probably isn't great for the battery.
So with a fairly low mileage after 16 months it still shows similar degradation to the rest of us.Looks like similar results to others. charged to 100% every 2-4 weeks always at home, only once @ supercharger for 20 mins.
2022 SR+ (438km new) 16months old
15,000km, currently 420-421 @100%