looks like you apply your low SOC theory to your cell phone battery as well
-
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 SR+ LFP Battery Range, Degradation, etc Discussion
- Thread starter Baluchi
- Start date
It all depends on your usage and charging pattern. I took my new Jun 2023 Model 3 on a cross country cannonball run (so SuC). Within the first 3 mo, I went down from 272 new to 263. It is now 9 mo from new and charged mostly DCFC (tend to be in the range of 40-72 kW) and L2, still 263. I only recently signed up with Recurrent Auto and enrolled my M3 LFP... wished I had sign up when it was new.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Started at 262 miles. About 54.7kWh degradation threshold with about 55.1kWh full pack when new.
Energy screen drive versus consumption inconsistency
Probably started around 424 km with the 55kWh LFP Pack. The picture is for 2021 Model 3 SR+ LFP
From memory there was both 55 and 60 kWh during that year. This might explain the two batches of starting ranges…?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
There was an SR+ NCA (263 miles) and SR+ LFP 55kWh (262 miles (253 miles initially)). I thought the ~60kWh LFP was concurrent with switch to RWD name. Would have to go back. Don’t remember whether there were exceptions.
Of course TeslaFi may not be able to distinguish them for whatever reason.
I don’t present the below as fact - it’s a tabulation of what I recall/know - anyone is welcome to make corrections to below, so we could actually get all the correct numbers in one place.
Battery estimated capacity question
I have the 55 kWh version and I only charge it at home and rarely to 100%, not as Tesla advises.
The question is whether to book a service appointment?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Seems like you are doing great with 6% or so. Run at 55-60% (EDIT: see below, below about 65-70%) or whatever it is for LFP as is well known and discussed everywhere, if you want to optimize further.
Last edited:
I would guess: No, no need. They will not act on this as it is well below 30%.
Whats your normal charge ?
I would guess the BMS could be off, as the car has been driven very little from a time perspective.
Also, using 80-90% might not be better than 100%, so to actually make a difference 70% or below should be used.
Recurrent Auto dings your battery life for being below 30%. Maybe their programming is based on NMC cells and does not give a free pass to LFP for having longer life by being stored below 30%.
Due to the flat voltage curve of LFP batteries, a BMS on an LFP battery may get inaccurate regarding state of charge and capacity if it always stays in the flat part (~20% to 99%).
You’re gonna need to supply data for that statement.
First of all, I would not think there are many EV’s spending most of the time below 30%, so I wouldn’t think recurrent really have data on this.
There’s no support in the research that supports any of NCA, NMC or LFP degrading faster below 30%.
Actually its the other way around - its better for all these, in all research.
How the cells age from calendar aging doesn’t matter if they are in a pack with a BMS or by them self.
Was’nt it also recurrent that said that fast charging doesnt degrade the batteries?
I can add that my M3P 2021 spent lot of time below 30% during my 2.5 years with it - still having among the best capacitys/lowest degradation in teslafi etc.
Same thing for my 23 Plaid. Not that old, reaching one year from build in a couple of weeks. Still full range and 2% degradation from the full pack when new - most S-packs do not go higher than my pack still is (nominal full pack 97.4, out of 99.4 full pack when new). This car doesnt have the same amount of low SOC time (changed job, and different travel schedule) but still its not that uncommon. Normally below 20% for one week at work once a month.
Except for the published reports, I bought 35 panasonic 2170 NCA model 3 cells and did calendar aging tests for a little over 1 year. Its a copy paste of the research reports. 0% is best.
Last edited:
I would love to see the degradation tests go further, say 3+ years. 9 months from new results in highest calendar ageing regardless of the SOC. It would be interesting to see very long term storage at high SOC for LFP cells to see how much difference it really makes. I hope somebody is doing this 
However such studies are probably not very useful as it doesn’t represent the normal usage pattern of the car.
However such studies are probably not very useful as it doesn’t represent the normal usage pattern of the car.
There is tests showing >three years.I would love to see the degradation tests go further, say 3+ years. 9 months from new results in highest calendar ageing regardless of the SOC. It would be interesting to see very long term storage at high SOC for LFP cells to see how much difference it really makes. I hope somebody is doing this
(Still same principle).
The researchers have gotten a good grip on how and why calendar aging happens. Its well known facts which makes the long term effects and degradation quite easy to understand.
The calendar aging reduces the rate with the square root of time. This because the increasing thickness of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase also avts as a protection layer that reduces the build up of SEI.
Using the time line as a square root of time should present a straight line, and it actually does:
Calendar aging is the degradation that comes from time. Doesnt time happen in your usage pattern?
Calendar aging happens all the time for the cells. The research community normally split it like calendar aging is what happens during ”no usage times” of the car and cyclic when driving and charging.
Even with the research definition your or the average car is not in use for ~ 18-20 hours a day. Then they ages from calendar aging.
It is possible to judge the degradation or remaining capacity quite precise on a Tesla just by using data for average SOC and the climate abd the cars age.
We could try that on your car.
Just a heads up about Recurrent since they keep coming up. My '21 LFP had a starting range of 253 miles, and I noticed Recurrent was treating it like it was supposed to have a 263 mile range. I emailed them two years ago and got a response saying that they go by the window stickers for that model year, even though it's incorrect for my car. Consequently, Recurrent always showed my car as having a lot more degradation than it actually has. So I stopped using them. Just something to consider if you have a car that doesn't align with the common spec from your model year.
This is the response from Recurrent:
This is the response from Recurrent:
Just installed the "scan my Tesla" app and an OBDII dongle in my Model 3 (delivered Nov 2021, one of first 60kwh LFP cars). According to the app, battery was 60.5 kwh when new, and is now 56.5 kwh. Mileage is 29,915. I believe the app is just reporting numbers from the car's CAN bus, so this is what the car believes the battery capacity is. Nearly 7% degradation in almost 2.5 years. From the graph posted by @AAKEE a few posts up, that's slightly better than expected.
Similar threads
