Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model S Plaid Battery Details, sourced from EPA Docs, Vehicle Observations, & Supercharging/Charging data

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
This one is doing 54kw (edit: or 56 or 58. low res twitter phottos...)kw at 90%

Still nice to have datapoint. They allow us to push out the location of the envelope, point by point. That's really good.

Until they enable more than 250kW from a V3 (if it is possible), I would roughly expect, from the Model 3 curves, with a direct scaling (V3 Supercharging Profiles for Model 3):

250kW up to about 33% SoC, tapering to about 205kW at 50% SoC, and 46kW at 90%.

Since this one is doing 54kW at 90%, apparently it has more capability than projected (about 17% better than expected). I don't completely understand the reason for that, other than since these cells can be discharged so fast, perhaps they can also be charged a bit faster than the 2170 cells. (This may have always been the case for 18650s (assuming the Plaid pack is 18650s here...), but due to wiring constraints, Supercharging peak currents were limited. I don't have a latest curve (at high SoC) for the prior version of the S, which may be a more appropriate match for doing these projections at the lower currents at higher SoC.)

Anyway, taking that 54kW at face value, and backwards projected, that would add 17% to the scaling (it may not be valid to do this all the way across the SoC range).

So 103kWh/78kWh * 1.17 = 1.545.

So that would taper to 240kW at 50% SoC, and the plateau of 250kW I would expect to end around 45-48% for an ideal charge (rather than my expectation of 33%). (!!!)

That would be pretty nice.

And assuming that 17% adder really holds all the way down the SoC range (this doesn't immediately follow, I think, since at higher SoCs there may be other rate-limiting processes, which the max charge rate at lower SoC, where wiring limits and heat might be an issue, might be decoupled from), that would also add to the 330kW projected peak and potentially mean 385kW or so would be the "actual" peak (I'd guess they'd just make it 350kW). (This "actual" peak gets confusing because we don't really know where the limit is coming from, for Model 3.)

As discussed, though, the actual peak isn't all that important - it's how long that plateau extends. Seems possible that it could extend 350kW up to about 30% SoC, with a SuC capable of it, IF the assumption about scaling high SoC charge rates to low SoC rates actually holds.

Another reason this might be invalid is that 90% SoC may not actually be 90% SoC for the battery, if they have voltage-limited it. We don't know that yet until we get SMT data (really the only way to tell). If they're capping the battery at 95% SoC or so, then 90% UI SoC is more like 85% true SoC. And that would scale to ~60kW "expected" rate. So it doesn't take much of a cap to throw off these projections.
 
Last edited:

rhuber

Member
Jan 15, 2019
385
2,277
Illinois
Still nice to have datapoint. They allow us to push out the location of the envelope, point by point. That's really good.

Until they enable more than 250kW from a V3 (if it is possible), I would roughly expect, from the Model 3 curves, with a direct scaling (V3 Supercharging Profiles for Model 3):

250kW up to about 33% SoC, tapering to about 205kW at 50% SoC, and 46kW at 90%.

Since this one is doing 54kW at 90%, apparently it has more capability that projected (about 17% better than expected). I don't completely understand the reason for that, other than since these cells can be discharged so fast, perhaps they can also be charged a bit faster than the 2170 cells. (This may have always been the case for 18650s (assuming the Plaid pack is 18650s here...), but due to wiring constraints, Supercharging peak currents were limited. I don't have a latest curve (at high SoC) for the prior version of the S, which may be a more appropriate match for doing these projections at the lower currents at higher SoC.)

Anyway, taking that 54kW at face value, and backwards projected, that would add 17% to the scaling (it may not be valid to do this all the way across the SoC range).

So 103kWh/78kWh * 1.17 = 1.545.

So that would taper to 240kW at 50% SoC, and the plateau of 250kW I would expect to end around 45-48% for an ideal charge (rather than my expectation of 33%). (!!!)

That would be pretty nice.

And assuming that 17% adder really holds all the way down the SoC range (this doesn't immediately follow, I think, since at higher SoCs there may be other rate-limiting processes, which the max charge rate at lower SoC, where wiring limits and heat might be an issue, might be decoupled from), that would also add to the 330kW projected peak and potentially mean 385kW or so would be the "actual" peak (I'd guess they'd just make it 350kW). (This "actual" peak gets confusing because we don't really know where the limit is coming from, for Model 3.)

As discussed, though, the actual peak isn't all that important - it's how long that plateau extends. Seems possible that it could extend 350kW up to about 30% SoC, with a SuC capable of it, IF the assumption about scaling high SoC charge rates to low SoC rates actually holds.

Another reason this might be invalid is that 90% SoC may not actually be 90% SoC for the battery, if they have voltage-limited it. We don't know that yet until we get SMT data (really the only way to tell). If they're capping the battery at 95% SoC or so, then 90% UI SoC is more like 85% true SoC. And that would scale to ~60kW "expected" rate. So it doesn't take much of a cap to throw off these projections.
Good general guesstimates here. Looking forward to testing soon, assuming mine is delivered in the next couple of weeks, as they've told me. I already pulled up the service manual and can confirm the CAN busses converge behind the wireless phone charger, so I'll be trying to decode CAN messages moments after the car is in my hands, probably. :)
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
Not exactly Plaid related, and not new info, but just for completeness, posting the key info outlined in the EPA datafile for the new Model S LR. Including a typo on their part.

Note the voltage on the LR pack (this is NOT the Plaid!!!!), and density, is unchanged from prior model (360V nominal).

Note these data are notoriously unreliable (for example the motor kW rating should be taken with a large grain of salt).

So perhaps you could conclude that the LR has the old type of pack configuration (in the same form factor as Plaid?). If you believe this data.

Anyway, this will get filled in further in the next couple weeks, when the Plaid hits the EPA datafile. (And a bit later the full documents will show at the EPA website for lookup, as mentioned in the OP.)

Also the attached contains all the detailed efficiency data (showing the efficiency before and after the scalar/adjustment factor application) for the LR (but not the discharge measurement; that has to be estimated for now). As the picture notes, the 19" and 21" Performance are NOT the Plaid data (nor is the data at fueleconomy.gov, as of this writing)

Screen Shot 2021-06-16 at 5.40.47 PM.png


 

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
Back to the apparent penthouse location…seems a little odd that it is not under the rear seat (wonder what is there, if anything, as someone else was wondering). Looks like this means they will have to drop the pack to service the DCDC, AC-DC, etc. (these fail much more frequently than the pack, AFAIK).

Hopefully they have made pack removal easier than it is on Model 3. But on Model 3 I thought they just removed the rear seat to perform penthouse service.
Considering the rest of the chassis seems to be very similar, dropping the pack probably is still probably pretty easy.
On the original S all the bolts to remove the pack are external since it was made to accommodate a battery swap system. The diagram of the battery in the

If someone has knowledge of what bolts hold the battery up maybe they can figure it out from the EPC diagram
1623897245670.png
 

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
Not exactly Plaid related, and not new info, but just for completeness, posting the key info outlined in the EPA datafile for the new Model S LR. Including a typo on their part.

Note the voltage on the LR pack (this is NOT the Plaid!!!!), and density, is unchanged from prior model (360V nominal).

Note these data are notoriously unreliable (for example the motor kW rating should be taken with a large grain of salt).

So perhaps you could conclude that the LR has the old type of pack configuration (in the same form factor as Plaid?). If you believe this data.

Anyway, this will get filled in further in the next couple weeks, when the Plaid hits the EPA datafile. (And a bit later the full documents will show at the EPA website for lookup, as mentioned in the OP.)

Also the attached contains all the detailed efficiency data (showing the efficiency before and after the scalar/adjustment factor application) for the LR (but not the discharge measurement; that has to be estimated for now). As the picture notes, the 19" and 21" Performance are NOT the Plaid data (nor is the data at fueleconomy.gov, as of this writing)

View attachment 674137


Are you sure this is the refresh long range? And not the pre-refresh 2021 Long Range and 2021 Performance?
Really wish they had just continued to produce them as model year 2020.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
Are you sure this is the refresh long range?
Yes. In the Excel doc it has the start sale date. And it matches the Tesla website which now gives the “EPA est” range.

Would not take too much at face value if it was not measured.
 
Last edited:

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
2021 Datafile, EV tab. I hid about 200 columns or something, haha.
Thanks, found it! Didn't realize there was an EV tab there.

I find this data suspect. For the Long Range line, look at the column "HEV-EV Comments"

4 carlines (Long Range, Long Range Plus, Performance (21" Wheels), Performance (19" Wheels)) are available for 2021 MY Model S vehicles. LR+: Front - 179 kW; Rear - 186 kW Perf: Front - 149 kW; Rear - 276 kW LR: Perf Front - 247 kW; Rear - 247 kW

That's making me think they're mixing in old data with the new.

EPA site also has 2021 Performance data listed, and it's using the photo of the refresh, but data from the late 2020 powertrain update that bumped the Performance up to 387 miles. You also can't find the 2021 pre-refresh Long Range on this page.

1623908151127.png


I think having two sets of 2021 Model S's may have broken something on their database.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
Thanks, found it! Didn't realize there was an EV tab there.

I find this data suspect. For the Long Range line, look at the column "HEV-EV Comments"



That's making me think they're mixing in old data with the new.

EPA site also has 2021 Performance data listed, and it's using the photo of the refresh, but data from the late 2020 powertrain update that bumped the Performance up to 387 miles. You also can't find the 2021 pre-refresh Long Range on this page.

View attachment 674248

I think having two sets of 2021 Model S's may have broken something on their database.
Yep. But the data on rated miles matches the Tesla and EPA website (and all the math works out, and there was no 405-mile vehicle before) so that part is probably right. The rest is just a pure curiosity, as I said. Wouldn’t trust any of it, though it could be right, it could EASILY be a mix in of last year’s data.

The Performance data is obviously old. Only the LR data has been updated. And maybe only partially.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
Considering the rest of the chassis seems to be very similar, dropping the pack probably is still probably pretty easy.
Looks suspiciously similar to the Model 3 packs. And the robust outer frame around the Model S pack that was there before (that probably acted as the carrier) seems to be gone now. (Can compare to old images.)

We’ll see (like with everything in this thread so far…). All those robust looking threaded holes on the top of the pack make me nervous. It is almost like bolts are supposed to go in there!
 

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
Yep. But the data on rated miles matches the Tesla and EPA website (and all the math works out, and there was no 405-mile vehicle before) so that part is probably right. The rest is just a pure curiosity, as I said. Wouldn’t trust any of it, though it could be right, it could EASILY be a mix in of last year’s data.

The Performance data is obviously old. Only the LR data has been updated. And maybe only partially.

Yeah I'm suspicious of the battery specs being exactly the same. But taking a closer look at the line I quoted earlier

4 carlines (Long Range, Long Range Plus, Performance (21" Wheels), Performance (19" Wheels)) are available for 2021 MY Model S vehicles. LR+: Front - 179 kW; Rear - 186 kW Perf: Front - 149 kW; Rear - 276 kW LR: Perf Front - 247 kW; Rear - 247 kW

That is interesting. Is the thought that all the motors are the same? 2x247kW is about 672HP, and 3x247kW is about 1007HP, which is close to the 1020HP of the Plaid. The other kW ratings seem wrong as you mentioned earlier.
 

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
Looks suspiciously similar to the Model 3 packs. And the robust outer frame around the Model S pack that was there before (that probably acted as the carrier) seems to be gone now. (Can compare to old images.)

We’ll see (like with everything in this thread so far…). All those robust looking threaded holes on the top of the pack make me nervous. It is almost like bolts are supposed to go in there!

Take a look at the image in post #17, from the Model X skateboard render. Looks like there are bolts sticking up that would attach into the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
That is interesting. Is the thought that all the motors are the same? 2x247kW is about 672HP, and 3x247kW is about 1007HP, which is close to the 1020HP of the Plaid. The other kW ratings seem wrong as you mentioned earlier.
You could look at the EPA documents for the old 2021 Model S on the iaspub search site and see what they specified there, if you wanted to see what was old and what seemed new. Something should match this spreadsheet…

Personally untangling those numbers (which are always off) isn’t worth it for me at the moment.
 

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
You could look at the EPA documents for the old 2021 Model S on the iaspub search site and see what they specified there, if you wanted to see what was old and what seemed new. Something should match this spreadsheet…

Personally untangling those numbers (which are always off) isn’t worth it for me at the moment.

Comment from that document says this

3 carlines (Long Range Plus, Performance (21" Wheels), Performance (19" Wheels)) are available for 2021 MY Model S vehicles. Base Front - 179 kW; Rear - 186 kW Perf Front - 149 kW; Rear - 276 kW

So looks like they've just added 1 carline, the new Long Range. I guess there wasn't previously a 2021 Long Range, just a Long Range Plus.

Battery numbers also match

1623909747718.png



Considering the columns in the datafile for kW match what they previously had for kW, and those are right next to battery voltage, I think those columns just haven't been updated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
10,020
12,071
San Diego
Considering the columns in the datafile for kW match what they previously had for kW, and those are right next to battery voltage, I think those columns just haven't been updated.
Yep, entirely possible, and not surprising.

That is why I said originally “if you believe these numbers.” It seems like we don’t.

All will become clear when the new documents hit, though! (Actually the data is often still wrong, haha.)
 
Last edited:

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota
Yep, entirely possible, and not surprising.

That is why I said originally “if you believe these numbers.” It seems like we don’t.

All will become clear when the new documents hit, though! (Actually the data is often still wrong, haha.)

Just really need someone to plug ScanMyTesla into a Plaid! Or get a video / multiple data points of charging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

BPeter

Member
Feb 2, 2019
665
953
Minnesota

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top