Model 3 SR+ LFP Battery Range, Degradation, etc Discussion

[blackT3$!@]

Very rare that ICE vehicle engines last to 300,000 mi without major maintenance to the engine core or essential supporting components. Assuming that the drive motors are good for 500,000 mi that Tesla claims, I would say that even if I had to replace a $16k battery pack at 300k miles, it would still be cheaper than a new or used Tesla 3LRAWD.

 

[karlos22]

I found the actual research white paper comparing LFP with Nickel chemistry cells (and others) degradation vs max cycling, but now I can find the link! Still searching… Here is what led me to search…

The Puzzling Reason Why Tesla Misleadingly Recommends Charging the LFP Batteries to 100%

When Tesla started deliveries of the Model 3 RWD with lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) batteries, it made a strange recommendation on its website and in the ...

www.autoevolution.com

That article you linked is exactly what started this whole debate about charging LFP's to 100% and just about every YouTuber has run with it. It is total garbage.

Data so far suggests that LFP degradation is almost the same for EVERYBODY, regardless of number of cycles or how often the battery is charged to 100% - that strongly suggests that calendar degradation is the main driver of range loss. For example, I charge to 100% once a week and typically my SOC hovers between 40-80% and lives in a cool climate, always undercover. I would expect my degradation to be lower than someone who charges to 100% daily in a hot climate. It isn't.

Tesla would not recommend charging your car to 100% daily if it was known to cause excess degradation. True, due to the flat voltage curve it is difficult for the BMS to accurately determine SOC and therefore the car uses a method known as "coulomb counting". Having said that, charging to 100% once a week should be sufficient unless you are driving an extreme amount. I have at times not charged to 100% for many weeks and have found that the reported SOC was off only by a few percent.

There simply is not enough data to conclusively determine that charging to 100% is damaging to the CATL LFP battery - it is anecdotal at best. At 8 months/15,000km, my range counter today says 426km at 100% (438km new) and it varies wildly. Last week it said 430km. It is not accurate and should not be relied upon for anything really. In fact I believe that Tesla should remove it.

Furthermore, Tesla will have a LOT of data (millions of cars worth) to draw conclusions from, which we do not have access to. If their data showed a massive and unexpected increase in degradation due to frequent charging to 100%, I would expect them to change their advice or even do something via a software update. LFP is not a new technology and I suspect that what we are seeing it completely normal.

The voltage drop between 97% and 10% is so small that I find it hard to believe that high SOC would be so extremely damaging, especially when you compare it to NCA chemistry. Data on non Tesla LFP batteries shows that they last for thousands of cycles even at 100%. For example, home solar storage.

I am sorry, but you simply do not have any credible evidence to back up your claim that charging to 100% is damaging the LFP battery. It all started with that article and has been repeated by every YouTuber that has no idea what they are talking about. Please stop repeating it.

 

[dho112]

That article you linked is exactly what started this whole debate about charging LFP's to 100% and just about every YouTuber has run with it. It is total garbage.

Data so far suggests that LFP degradation is almost the same for EVERYBODY, regardless of number of cycles or how often the battery is charged to 100% - that strongly suggests that calendar degradation is the main driver of range loss. For example, I charge to 100% once a week and typically my SOC hovers between 40-80% and lives in a cool climate, always undercover. I would expect my degradation to be lower than someone who charges to 100% daily in a hot climate. It isn't.

Tesla would not recommend charging your car to 100% daily if it was known to cause excess degradation. True, due to the flat voltage curve it is difficult for the BMS to accurately determine SOC and therefore the car uses a method known as "coulomb counting". Having said that, charging to 100% once a week should be sufficient unless you are driving an extreme amount. I have at times not charged to 100% for many weeks and have found that the reported SOC was off only by a few percent.

There simply is not enough data to conclusively determine that charging to 100% is damaging to the CATL LFP battery - it is anecdotal at best. At 8 months/15,000km, my range counter today says 426km at 100% (438km new) and it varies wildly. Last week it said 430km. It is not accurate and should not be relied upon for anything really. In fact I believe that Tesla should remove it.

Furthermore, Tesla will have a LOT of data (millions of cars worth) to draw conclusions from, which we do not have access to. If their data showed a massive and unexpected increase in degradation due to frequent charging to 100%, I would expect them to change their advice or even do something via a software update. LFP is not a new technology and I suspect that what we are seeing it completely normal.

The voltage drop between 97% and 10% is so small that I find it hard to believe that high SOC would be so extremely damaging, especially when you compare it to NCA chemistry. Data on non Tesla LFP batteries shows that they last for thousands of cycles even at 100%. For example, home solar storage.

I am sorry, but you simply do not have any credible evidence to back up your claim that charging to 100% is damaging the LFP battery. It all started with that article and has been repeated by every YouTuber that has no idea what they are talking about. Please stop repeating it.

Whoa! Easy there We're all Tesla owners

My thread was merged into this one by the Admin, so it might seem more abrupt and jarring and contradictory than as I posted it independently as a solo thread

I wasn't targeting LFP batteries and saying that charging them to 100% everyday was destroying them, but only, as the articles/materials I've read/seen so far simply indicated that ALL Lithium Ion batteries of every type suffer from accelerated degradation from full charging as simply a matter of physics and chemistry. Some may be a bit more or less resistant to this kind of cycling abuse, but in the case of Tesla LFP batteries, it seems more than likely they opted for the negative effects of constant full charging as a compromise to the potentially very bad press of their cars reporting inconsistent range. Would you rather have customers reporting, and posting, that they were stranded by their Teslas despite the car reporting far more range than necessary to reach their destination? or Customers who were simply left wondering why their cars, "didn't quite go as far as it used to before", but with accurate range reporting? In the end. I wasn't saying LFP batteries are in some way deficient compared to the alternatives, but simply the advice to fully charge them regularly seems more like a business/marketing decision, than one based on the preserving the battery health above all else. I would actually love to know the production cost of an LFP battery pack vs others. LFP batteries being far less expensive to produce and using far more readily available raw materials would also bolster the "marketing" argument; choosing a lower current delivery, and more complicated BMS challenge, (and safety)) over performance and cost. Bottom line, in an LFP car, you would notice inaccurate range data FAR sooner than you would any significant range degradation, no matter the cause.

Now I may be WAY of the mark, but from excerpts from the actual Tesla manual for LFP equipped cars, there are indications spelled out that their directions and recommendations for full charging on a regular basis is to address and mitigate the possibility of bad range data.

I've had experience with rechargeable cells of many types, from NiCads, to Nickel Metal Hydride, to LiPo, Lithium ion etc... yes, my experience may be limited to the hobby industry, but in no case have I run into ANY rechargeable cell chemistry of any type that reported that regular full charging was necessary for battery health, or that it was particularly resistant to the effects of that. NiCads with their cell "memory" might be an exception in terms of alleviating THAT effect with full charging and discharging, but it was always stated that it was a compromise as full charging generated heat, and heat is not a friend of NiCads.

I think the major issue in this discussion is that because of the way Tesla states that "LFP batteries are required to be charged to 100% daily" to an audience that may not be as familiar as you with battery chemistry, it sounds very much like if you do as they say, that is the "best thing" for battery life, that it makes the batteries "better over time" or last the absolute longest time, like taking vitamins, but this is simply not the case. Higher voltage kills ALL Lithium rechargeable cells, the LFP cells simply withstanding this abuse over time better than Ni Manganese because of their lower voltage levels.

In the end, is this a major issue? probably not. Is Tesla telling customers to always charge LFP to 100% misleading? Yes and No, But I agree with the Tessie apps conclusions that the LFP batteries show much faster degradation to their "levelling off" state of slowed degradation compared to the other chemistries, because they are being more often charged to 100% (perhaps academic as all the battery chemistries will get to this point eventually), and this is based on hundreds maybe thousands of data sources and not just a small cross section of owners on a forum saying "Mine is perfectly fine" it's more feasible that every single one of the glowing reports on this website of LFP batteries not affected in any way by constant full charging are due to exceptional quality battery samples, rather than hundreds or thousands of data sets from Tessie being universally incorrect.

 

[3sr+buyer]

In the end, is this a major issue? probably not. Is Tesla telling customers to always charge LFP to 100% misleading? Yes and No, But I agree with the Tessie apps conclusions that the LFP batteries show much faster degradation to their "levelling off" state of slowed degradation compared to the other chemistries, because they are being more often charged to 100% (perhaps academic as all the battery chemistries will get to this point eventually), and this is based on hundreds maybe thousands of data sources and not just a small cross section of owners on a forum saying "Mine is perfectly fine" it's more feasible that every single one of the glowing reports on this website of LFP batteries not affected in any way by constant full charging are due to exceptional quality battery samples, rather than hundreds or thousands of data sets from Tessie being universally incorrect.

But what is the magnitude of this measured degradation in the Tessie fleet average for LFP batteries? Web searching does not seem to bring up anything on that (forum anecdotes seem to be mostly in the range of 2-4% first year degradation for LFP batteries, versus 5-10% for NCA batteries). One thing that did come up in a web search was a Reddit thread where it was mentioned that Tessie at first did not correctly account for the 2021 SR+ with LFP battery having a slightly lower initial rated range (253 miles instead of 262 miles), resulting in those 9 miles being seen as "3.5% degradation" in addition to any actual degradation.

 

[karlos22]

Whoa! Easy there We're all Tesla owners

My thread was merged into this one by the Admin, so it might seem more abrupt and jarring and contradictory than as I posted it independently as a solo thread

I wasn't targeting LFP batteries and saying that charging them to 100% everyday was destroying them, but only, as the articles/materials I've read/seen so far simply indicated that ALL Lithium Ion batteries of every type suffer from accelerated degradation from full charging as simply a matter of physics and chemistry. Some may be a bit more or less resistant to this kind of cycling abuse, but in the case of Tesla LFP batteries, it seems more than likely they opted for the negative effects of constant full charging as a compromise to the potentially very bad press of their cars reporting inconsistent range. Would you rather have customers reporting, and posting, that they were stranded by their Teslas despite the car reporting far more range than necessary to reach their destination? or Customers who were simply left wondering why their cars, "didn't quite go as far as it used to before", but with accurate range reporting? In the end. I wasn't saying LFP batteries are in some way deficient compared to the alternatives, but simply the advice to fully charge them regularly seems more like a business/marketing decision, than one based on the preserving the battery health above all else. I would actually love to know the production cost of an LFP battery pack vs others. LFP batteries being far less expensive to produce and using far more readily available raw materials would also bolster the "marketing" argument; choosing a lower current delivery, and more complicated BMS challenge, (and safety)) over performance and cost. Bottom line, in an LFP car, you would notice inaccurate range data FAR sooner than you would any significant range degradation, no matter the cause.

Now I may be WAY of the mark, but from excerpts from the actual Tesla manual for LFP equipped cars, there are indications spelled out that their directions and recommendations for full charging on a regular basis is to address and mitigate the possibility of bad range data.

I've had experience with rechargeable cells of many types, from NiCads, to Nickel Metal Hydride, to LiPo, Lithium ion etc... yes, my experience may be limited to the hobby industry, but in no case have I run into ANY rechargeable cell chemistry of any type that reported that regular full charging was necessary for battery health, or that it was particularly resistant to the effects of that. NiCads with their cell "memory" might be an exception in terms of alleviating THAT effect with full charging and discharging, but it was always stated that it was a compromise as full charging generated heat, and heat is not a friend of NiCads.

I think the major issue in this discussion is that because of the way Tesla states that "LFP batteries are required to be charged to 100% daily" to an audience that may not be as familiar as you with battery chemistry, it sounds very much like if you do as they say, that is the "best thing" for battery life, that it makes the batteries "better over time" or last the absolute longest time, like taking vitamins, but this is simply not the case. Higher voltage kills ALL Lithium rechargeable cells, the LFP cells simply withstanding this abuse over time better than Ni Manganese because of their lower voltage levels.

In the end, is this a major issue? probably not. Is Tesla telling customers to always charge LFP to 100% misleading? Yes and No, But I agree with the Tessie apps conclusions that the LFP batteries show much faster degradation to their "levelling off" state of slowed degradation compared to the other chemistries, because they are being more often charged to 100% (perhaps academic as all the battery chemistries will get to this point eventually), and this is based on hundreds maybe thousands of data sources and not just a small cross section of owners on a forum saying "Mine is perfectly fine" it's more feasible that every single one of the glowing reports on this website of LFP batteries not affected in any way by constant full charging are due to exceptional quality battery samples, rather than hundreds or thousands of data sets from Tessie being universally incorrect.

My apologies, my post wasn't an attack but I did take it a bit out of context as it was merged. I didn't see your original post. The fun of the internet

I mostly agree with what you said above and it does agree with Tessie's data, with one exception: I think that data from Tessie (and what your car reports at 100% in km mode) should be taken with extreme caution. Ultimately nobody but Tesla engineers know how the BMS calculates battery health (I haven't even been able to check service mode because it is still geofenced for me) and determining degradation is really difficult by reference to that range counter alone. For all we know that number could be total BS, mine started at 438km and now fluctuates between 426 and 432 for no apparent reason at all. I have let the car sit at 8% overnight, I have charged it to 100%, nothing seems influence that number.

I guess if you want to be prudent you could leave your battery below 70% wherever possible, but honestly if we are talking a difference of 5% degradation in 10 years time then the question is "is it really worth the hassle"? Where I have fallen with my charging habits is to charge to 100% if I know I will likely need to run below 20%, so I would like the estimate to be accurate. Charging daily to 100% seems unnecessary, even if convenient to do so.

What I find interesting is that almost everybody is reporting the same range loss regardless of charging habits. Like I said, I live in a cold climate and charge to 100% every 1-2 weeks. I know of people who do it daily and have identical numbers, I would expect after almost 12 months to see a larger difference based on those lab tests. But they are just that, lab tests - a good gauge but there are just too many variables in real life use.

 

[jjrandorin]

My thread was merged into this one by the Admin, so it might seem more abrupt and jarring and contradictory than as I posted it independently as a solo thread

Because there is a 45 page discussion already on this topic, with an active discussion. Posting it separately doesnt make it any more or less valid than if it is in another thread. Its the same amount of contradictory, or not contradictory.

 

[dho112]

Because there is a 45 page discussion already on this topic, with an active discussion. Posting it separately doesnt make it any more or less valid than if it is in another thread. Its the same amount of contradictory, or not contradictory.

I’m very new to the forum and just getting my sea-legs. You might even see my posts where I accidentally multiple quoted the same post…

 

[Epradox]

I found the actual research white paper comparing LFP with Nickel chemistry cells (and others) degradation vs max cycling, but now I can find the link! Still searching… Here is what led me to search…

The Puzzling Reason Why Tesla Misleadingly Recommends Charging the LFP Batteries to 100%

When Tesla started deliveries of the Model 3 RWD with lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) batteries, it made a strange recommendation on its website and in the ...

www.autoevolution.com

Feel like most articles I’ve read from auto evolution are anti ev/anti tesla. I blocked it from Google amp news page because it was just pure hatred. Just Google “autoevolution.com tesla” and you’ll see it’s just mainly AP crash stories and how the car is unsafe.

Edit: here is the white paper the article is referring to. https://www.researchgate.net/public...ge_for_Large-Format_LiFePO4Graphite_Batteries

Which looks at degradation when cycling at both extremes vs in between. Question is, are the tesla LFPs charging to absolute 100% battery capacity or is there a buffer that charges it to like 95% of absolute capacity to prevent degradation? Seems like most people are reporting equivalent degradation regardless of how they’re charging it so tesla is doing something with their bms to regulate degradation.

 

[inigoml]

Hi everybody.

Some hints about LFP batteries after testing for 9 months my 55kWh LFP Model 3 SR+. Unfortunately I'm replacing this model with a 82kWh NCA Model 3 Performance, and so I won't post any more in this thread. By the way, I'm fan of LFP batteries. In general, very happy with them. Cheaper, more secure and harder than NCx... less energy density (but enough for most, including travelling) and less efficient in cold weather.

In general with LFP, M3 BMS works properly. However, based in my experience, BMS drifting happens more when reaching low SOC. In my test, heavy drifting happens after leaving car for several hours with battery under 15%. Good for degradation, bad for BMS. This range lost can be recoverered by loading to 100%, but sometimes full recovery is not reached.

When dealing with low SOCs (I've tested up to -0.4%), SMT info form "full range" (that is instant BMS calculations) varies a lot. For example, with 60% SOC full range is -+ 2km, depending mainly if you are recovering energy (going downhill) or wasting (accerelerating). As soon as SOC goes lower, this variation goes higher. At 5% I've seen variations of +-15km range.

If you plug just after arriving, BMS does not drift. But if you leave car resting for several hours, BMS takes new values as "right value" and your range drops. It cannot be recovered by loading up to 80, 90 or 95%. You have to charge up to 100% due to Nominal Full Pack drops.

In my understanding, BMS works dynamically with "full range", and updates Nominal Full Pack when resting (deep sleep) if there is a significant variation. So, leaving car resting with low SOC provokes inacuracy.

My advice:
- If you want to minimize BMS drifting, do not let car rest with SOCs under 20%
- If you lost range after letting car resting with low SOC, charge to 100%. Once is enough, but twice probably will help.
- From time to time, 100% full load. I think that once a week is not needed if not resting under 20%. Once a month could be enough.

 

[Sandy eggo]

I got my first Tesla, a Model 3 RWD, just a few days ago on Saturday. Wow, I am going down the rabbit hole and found myself on page 45 of a battery thread! I’m having to google a lot of acronyms, you guys are pretty knowledgeable here.

I am charging with a 5-15 (15Amp) mobile charger at home. I have a 12 mile commute, but don’t otherwise drive it too much. SDGE charges me 39 cents per kWh regardless of time (I am installing solar in a few months and will be forced to TOU). So, I can get to 100% easily every day by plugging it in after I get home, and it might be 100% by the time I go to bed or soon thereafter.

After what I’ve been reading so far, I might not charge it every day so it goes down a little bit. I also avoid having it cycling tons and being 100% every day and possibly degrading a little bit more over time. I’ll just make sure I do it once a week and I will probably charge it up if I see it getting close to 60% or so.

I have 273 miles range, which I think sounds pretty good. Hopefully it doesn’t drop too quickly.

I am having a hard time with the Tesla Owner’s manual, it feels a little contradictory to say “The most important way to preserve the high voltage Battery is to LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE PLUGGED IN when you are not using it.” And then later on the page to say “Tesla recommends that you keep your charge limit set to 100%, even for daily use, and that you also fully charge to 100% at least once per week.” So…is it every day, or every week? I agree that it seems mainly about the BMS, but it’s all a little confusing.

I don’t want to “LEAVE [MY] VEHICLE PLUGGED IN when [I’m] not using it” because it seems like this would be problematic with phantom energy. This article mentions it can lead to 10% of a home’s energy usage. I bet it would be higher for a home with EV’s sitting plugged in 12 hours a day. Is it drawing power every hour or so to run the diagnostics, keep the low voltage battery juiced, and to maintain that 100% charge? I think it would be best to NOT LEAVE MY VEHICLE PLUGGED IN, but sure, I’ll charge it to 100% every other day or so, but definitely every week.

 

[jjrandorin]

I got my first Tesla, a Model 3 RWD, just a few days ago on Saturday. Wow, I am going down the rabbit hole and found myself on page 45 of a battery thread! I’m having to google a lot of acronyms, you guys are pretty knowledgeable here.

I am charging with a 5-15 (15Amp) mobile charger at home. I have a 12 mile commute, but don’t otherwise drive it too much. SDGE charges me 39 cents per kWh regardless of time (I am installing solar in a few months and will be forced to TOU). So, I can get to 100% easily every day by plugging it in after I get home, and it might be 100% by the time I go to bed or soon thereafter.

After what I’ve been reading so far, I might not charge it every day so it goes down a little bit. I also avoid having it cycling tons and being 100% every day and possibly degrading a little bit more over time. I’ll just make sure I do it once a week and I will probably charge it up if I see it getting close to 60% or so.

I have 273 miles range, which I think sounds pretty good. Hopefully it doesn’t drop too quickly.

I am having a hard time with the Tesla Owner’s manual, it feels a little contradictory to say “The most important way to preserve the high voltage Battery is to LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE PLUGGED IN when you are not using it.” And then later on the page to say “Tesla recommends that you keep your charge limit set to 100%, even for daily use, and that you also fully charge to 100% at least once per week.” So…is it every day, or every week? I agree that it seems mainly about the BMS, but it’s all a little confusing.

I don’t want to “LEAVE [MY] VEHICLE PLUGGED IN when [I’m] not using it” because it seems like this would be problematic with phantom energy. This article mentions it can lead to 10% of a home’s energy usage. I bet it would be higher for a home with EV’s sitting plugged in 12 hours a day. Is it drawing power every hour or so to run the diagnostics, keep the low voltage battery juiced, and to maintain that 100% charge? I think it would be best to NOT LEAVE MY VEHICLE PLUGGED IN, but sure, I’ll charge it to 100% every other day or so, but definitely every week.

So, Ignore the article on phantom energy as it pertains to this, since the car is going to slowly lose battery charge whether you plug it in or not, and that is going to have to be replenished whether you do it every day, or every other day or whatever. There is no benefit whatsoever in not plugging it in if you can. If you choose not to, then you do you, its your choice. People way way way way way way way way (way way way way way) overthink all this stuff, as evidenced by not only this 45 page thread, but the 260+ page one on degradation on non LFP cars.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, go for it (you already are it looks like) but know that none of that is necessary to drive the car.

 

[lowercase]

Hello I am just here to check in, what is the verdict? Charge to 100% or no? It's a long thread and I'm not sure about the consensus.

 

[jjrandorin]

Hello I am just here to check in, what is the verdict? Charge to 100% or no? It's a long thread and I'm not sure about the consensus.

There never is a consensus on battery threads here.... if there were they wouldnt go on for so many pages. With that being said, these two threads discuss the question you are asking, and are only a couple of pages long, perhaps try looking through them to form your opinion:

LFP to 100% Each Week—Assumptions?

Tesla suggests charging the LFP Model 3 to 100% at least once a week to balance voltage and recalibrate range and charge readings. But I wonder whether this recommendation is based on an assumption of how many miles a typical owner is likely to drive per week. For example, if someone only...

teslamotorsclub.com

Confusion on keeping the charge limit at 100% and charge fully once per week

Hi all, I need some advice on the wording in the Tesla app (not on how to charge as this has been answered in other threads). I've got a 2021 Model 3, Standard Range Plus, which has an LFP battery based on Control > Software > Additional Info. My charging limit bar is a 0 - 100 where you can...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[Sandy eggo]

@jjrandorin , so leaving it plugged in won’t cause more functions to happen and more energy to draw? I’m not sure if I should be going into the Safety tab in the car, scrolling to the bottom, and selecting ‘power off’ each time I get home and am done with the car for the day?

 

[DuncanM]

@jjrandorin , so leaving it plugged in won’t cause more functions to happen and more energy to draw? I’m not sure if I should be going into the Safety tab in the car, scrolling to the bottom, and selecting ‘power off’ each time I get home and am done with the car for the day?

In my experience no. If you turn off sentry mode and leave it plugged in, energy use is minimal once the car has reached it's charge limit.

 

[jjrandorin]

@jjrandorin , so leaving it plugged in won’t cause more functions to happen and more energy to draw? I’m not sure if I should be going into the Safety tab in the car, scrolling to the bottom, and selecting ‘power off’ each time I get home and am done with the car for the day?

Once its asleep its going to use the same energy whether its plugged in or not plugged in.

 

[AAKEE]

Edit: here is the white paper the article is referring to. https://www.researchgate.net/public...ge_for_Large-Format_LiFePO4Graphite_Batteries

That research report is dated 2013…?
That means that it is dated.

There have been a tremendous development in LFP batteries so the data
from that time is not valid anymore.
I didnt bother reading it at all, as…. Its dated.

There are some LFP reports from about 2015-2016 or so thst clearly is dated also.
Looking at resent research on LFP they can do very many cycles and they are not sensitive to large cycles like 100-0%, they
still do very many at 100-0%.

Tesla use only bottom buffer, no top buffer

 

[AAKEE]

Teslalogger.de has data for LFP separate.
This is 2021 SR+ LFP.

We can se two starting ranges, 423 km and 440 km all datapoints ( not the average blue).
We see that the follow quite close and after 40000km ( about two years for the average car?) they seem to loose about 10km or 2.5%.

Not a problem to use as Tesla say you should. We have also shown that 100% isnt that bad for LFP…can not remember if ot was in this theead though.

If there is some people that claim that the LFP’s degrade quickly from the 100% charging….they probably are…wrong.



[Edit]Just adding the SR+ with the old school NCA for comparison.
LFP is a good choice for shorter range cars that need to utilize large cycles, and need to charge to high SOC to cover the day.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Teslalogger.de has data for LFP separate.
This is 2021 SR+ LFP.

View attachment 877927

We can se two starting ranges, 423 km and 440 km all datapoints ( not the average blue)

Looks like this reflects the change to the slightly larger capacity LFP battery. In the US, this happened when the switch to the 2022 model year happened. Did it happen during the 2021 model year elsewhere?

 

[m2gmoi]

Now that LFP batteries have been operating for a couple months in the US, I thought it would be useful to start a thread for people to post their experiences with degradation of LFP batteries. A major benefit of these batteries is supposed to be resistant to degradation, so let's test that claim here with our own observations.

I'll kick it off with my SR+ LFP, which just passed 3,000 miles today. I use Tessie, and as of today it shows a battery capacity of 54.6 kWh (out of 55), and a max range of 253 miles. So at 3,000 miles I've had no noticable degradation, and in fact you can see the trend lines have been rising.

One more calculation... I'm averaging 207 wh/m over the life of the car. Assuming I could yap into the full 54.6 kWh battery, that gives me a range of 263.7 miles.

Hope to see more examples from LFP owners. I'll try to update my stats at significant mile markers.

Please tell me how you calculate or where did you get the battery capacity value ?