Model y battery upgrade?

[AlanSubie4Life]

Keep an eye on those CARB results....discussed here.

On-Road New Vehicle & Engine Certification Program

To me it looks like they might have just updated the 5-to-2-cycle scalar to make it look better. They do this on other vehicles too...Model S for example...

I just put in some rough highway results here and then scaled up with the scaling factor to make it match the 315 number. We'll see. If there's yet another CARB updated number, maybe they really did get the efficiency improvement. It's still really good regardless.

This works out to ~245Wh/mi, or 4.08 mi/kWh.


View attachment 505879

SCOOP ALERT! You saw this data here first... (maybe - it's probably already on Reddit but this is independent...)

Model Y Performance:

Range 315 miles (we knew that already - it's voluntarily reduced from 316 miles)

MPGe 129 City /112 Hwy /121 Overall 28kWh (AC) /100mi

Battery size: ~77.6-79kWh (~88.4% charging efficiency)

Fueleconomy.gov entry:
2020 Tesla Model Y Performance AWD

Details:

As suspected, it does look like the scalar was just increased from the Model 3 to get the better results. Again, I do not know why they can do this. But they have done it on Model S before.

The EPA datafile has been published with the Model Y range. I have tried my best to fit the data, however, I am a few miles off of the CARB result in the Executive Order referenced above. So it's close, but the numbers may be off by 1%. I tried hard to get the efficiency numbers to match the datafile exactly, though, and also to match the numbers implicitly included in that datafile.

A couple notes:
1) The battery is about the same capacity as a Model 3 battery - so about 77.6-79kWh when new. The test vehicle had about 77.7kWh capacity, which is a good 2kWh less than some of the Model 3 test vehicles. But there is always some variation from vehicle to vehicle of initial capacity...

2) The scalar from 2-cycle to 5-cycle results is much larger for Model Y than for Model 3. This means that although the Model Y dyno results are considerably worse than Model 3, the scaled results (for the city) are very similar between the two vehicles. I would expect that this will mean that it's harder to get the predicted mileage in a Model Y...

3) The highway range test result is MUCH worse than Model 3, as expected. After scaling, the city mileage is nearly identical between Model Y P (334 miles after derating) and Model 3 P 18" (331 miles after derating). But the highway mileage is a full 20 miles worse (310 for Model 3 P 18" and ~290 for Model Y P).

4) I predict that the discharge constant of Model Y will be very similar to 2018/2019 AWD/P vehicles. The charging constant looks like it will be 246Wh/rmi, BMS constant will be 235 Wh/rmi(displayed). But I think it may be even harder to make that consumption level due to the scalar increase. We'll see.

See attached captures. The first is my spreadsheet and the second is from the EPA Datafile (Download Fuel Economy Data)

Keep an eye out for the Tesla applications for certification to the EPA, which will allow finalizing the numbers in the spreadsheet...

 

[Shayne]

^^^ thanks for the info appreciated. Do not understand all your data but it confused me that the 2018 model 3 performance CARB number was 455.32 with an advertised 310 mi EPA range and the 2020 model Y performance CARB number is 441.91 or 3% lower with a 315 mi EPA.

I also have seen results which tested highway efficiency at different speeds (Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com) which concludes the Model 3 2010 (20" wheels) advertised with a EPA of 310 mi is over stated by 11% and suggests that 280 mi EPA would be more appropriate. Is this advertised EPA range left to the car manufacture and therefore can be inflated to provide a feel good story when one does not exist?

One would think it would be cooler to under state and over deliver. Guess that does not suggest dominance if you were to state 260 as opposed to 315. Really does not matter to me as the model y will fit our needs and no gas and less maintenance costs out weigh going 1000 mi on a single charge, however, I hope Elon keeps dropping in more SC in Canada as it was not even an option for us until Dec 23, 2019. Guess when we pre-ordered our Y.

 

[scubastevo80]

^^^ thanks for the info appreciated. Do not understand all your data but it confused me that the 2018 model 3 performance CARB number was 455.32 with an advertised 310 mi EPA range and the 2020 model Y performance CARB number is 441.91 or 3% lower with a 315 mi EPA.

I also have seen results which tested highway efficiency at different speeds (Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com) which concludes the Model 3 2010 (20" wheels) advertised with a EPA of 310 mi is over stated by 11% and suggests that 280 mi EPA would be more appropriate. Is this advertised EPA range left to the car manufacture and therefore can be inflated to provide a feel good story when one does not exist?

One would think it would be cooler to under state and over deliver. Guess that does not suggest dominance if you were to state 260 as opposed to 315. Really does not matter to me as the model y will fit our needs and no gas and less maintenance costs out weigh going 1000 mi on a single charge, however, I hope Elon keeps dropping in more SC in Canada as it was not even an option for us until Dec 23, 2019. Guess when we pre-ordered our Y.

I would prefer a very standardized measure of real world driving that we could utilize. Instead of saying "25mpg city/30mpg hwy", couldn't electric cars use a standardized measurement that says like 310mi range city / 290mi hwy. The CARB number doesn't help much when Tesla's Model 3 numbers are unachievable in my car and the Taycan gets ~50mi more than the stated EPA number.

 

[Shayne]

The city carb should give an indication with the standardize 0.7. But letting the producer of the vehicle play games appears to be a smoke and mirrors show. Say what you want now and take the heat later. That rep will get out as common knowledge and I understand Kona EV adopters were pleasantly surprised. The other way around will also hold true but may be not pleasantly. Believe I have an understanding of what to expect with eyes wide open. The only thing that I can not get a handle on is cold weather highway and range lose. Our winter roads are something else in Northern Canada and it is dangerous to be stuck in the middle of the bush, nowhere, when it is -25oC. Read on this forum someone toke off into the bush and the hills with the understanding they would have 10% SOC when they get to the next SC. That is just plain inexperience of northern highways in my books and a very trusting soul. Freezing rain, 6" drop in a snow squall, jack knifed transport or a fatality can eat up 10% in a hurry. I will be testing cold range lost when I get my Y and will be filling in gaps that are not currently on online.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Do not understand all your data but it confused me that the 2018 model 3 performance CARB number was 455.32 with an advertised 310 mi EPA range and the 2020 model Y performance CARB number is 441.91 or 3% lower with a 315 mi EPA.

This is due to the 2-cycle to 5-cycle scalar. It is supposed to be 0.7 but apparently Tesla uses different values for different vehicles.

To be honest it seems bad to have higher scalar values. I don’t really understand why this extra freedom is allowed...

 

[johnmodely]

Its been 3 years since M3, kinda disappointed no new battery tech advancements will make it into the Y. Even just a 10% capacity increase with bat chemistry using same pack would have been nice.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Its been 3 years since M3, kinda disappointed no new battery tech advancements will make it into the Y. Even just a 10% capacity increase with bat chemistry using same pack would have been nice.

How many years did the Model S/X have similar packs? Let’s not forget their fuzzy math there also.

 

[Shayne]

Its been 3 years since M3, kinda disappointed no new battery tech advancements will make it into the Y. Even just a 10% capacity increase with bat chemistry using same pack would have been nice.

It also appears to me that it will be status quo on batteries with the rumored March start of delivery. Possibly that is why battery and powertrain investors day has been pushed to April; when they are going to "blow our minds". Who knows they may announce the Y will have a million mile pouch cell battery pack chalked full of cobalt; but I think not. As long as the Y's pack does not get nerfed I will be fine with status quo. Who knows maybe pack swap to solid state 5 to 10 years down the road retiring mine to a wall somewhere. Body and motors are good for a million miles; we will see.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The city carb should give an indication with the standardize 0.7. But letting the producer of the vehicle play games appears to be a smoke and mirrors show.

That's why in my spreadsheet I keep track of the "true DC efficiency" rating of the vehicle. That provides the uniform scalar and takes any charging efficiency differences out of the picture. It is a uniformly scaled number (I use 0.7 for 2-cycle to 5-cycle conversion), based on the number of miles traveled and the kWh consumed during the dyno test. I'll keep doing this until someone explains why it is valid to use a scalar value that is as much as 7% different between vehicles. It doesn't really make sense (it seems to imply that Tesla thinks that the Model Y would "suffer" less than Model 3 if they were actually tested with the 5-cycle test - why would that be? I could see a heat pump warranting a more optimistic scalar, for example...but even in that case it obfuscates the true achievable range in optimal conditions)!

 

[johnmodely]

Its been 3 years since M3, kinda disappointed no new battery tech advancements will make it into the Y. Even just a 10% capacity increase with bat chemistry using same pack would have been nice.

How many years did the Model S/X have similar packs? Let’s not forget their fuzzy math there also.

Yea but with S/X there were constant upgrades available over time...Model S started with a 60kw pack and now we are up to 100kw.

 

[scubastevo80]

That's why in my spreadsheet I keep track of the "true DC efficiency" rating of the vehicle. That provides the uniform scalar and takes any charging efficiency differences out of the picture. It is a uniformly scaled number (I use 0.7 for 2-cycle to 5-cycle conversion), based on the number of miles traveled and the kWh consumed during the dyno test. I'll keep doing this until someone explains why it is valid to use a scalar value that is as much as 7% different between vehicles. It doesn't really make sense (it seems to imply that Tesla thinks that the Model Y would "suffer" less than Model 3 if they were actually tested with the 5-cycle test - why would that be? I could see a heat pump warranting a more optimistic scalar, for example...but even in that case it obfuscates the true achievable range in optimal conditions)!

Alan - am I correct in stating that, if we were to use the .7032 scaler for the Model 3, the Y then gets 312mi City and 272mi Hwy for a combined of about 292mi of range? This is better than the original 280 number they posted, but definitely shy of the new 315 number.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Alan - am I correct in stating that, if we were to use the .7032 scaler for the Model 3, the Y then gets 312mi City and 272mi Hwy for a combined of about 292mi of range? This is better than the original 280 number they posted, but definitely shy of the new 315 number.

Pretty much. With 0.7032, it would get about 311.7 city and 271.5 highway, for a 293.6mi weighted result.

Again, note that the numbers above in "red" are somewhat uncertain - I was looking to align with the latest 447mi CARB UDDS AER result, but I could not quite make the numbers align using the data from the EPA datafile (it contains the efficiencies (AC) and the raw scaled ranges in addition to the final voluntarily reduced ranges - so I made my spreadsheet consistent with all of that - but that meant the miles traveled on the dyno did not quite align). However, the errors are pretty small - on the order of about 1% off I would expect.

 

[Shayne]

That's why in my spreadsheet I keep track of the "true DC efficiency" <snip>

Based on EPA "real life range" to real real life range it is all basically a bit of smoke and mirrors and a sales pitch to me. I do agree with your first post and do question the engineering in arbitrarily increase the 0.7 or weightings. I thought the model 3 carb and model y carb along with the link I provided that the 3 perf is 11% overstated and more like 280 would yield a Y range of 441.91/455.32 x 280 = 270 mi understanding not highway which we assume you have taken that into account. Us northern Canadians are virgins in the SC world (and me to EV's) and we now have SC 200 km apart (sorry Canadian) 125 miles. It is winter that concerns me. As I will not want to run the pack down to 10% knowingly so 90% to 20% is 0.7 with range loss for temp and plowing snow ????? "C". Working backwards 0.7 x C x 270 = 125 and C =0.66. I understand that you can lose 50% but this is only on stop and goes where the car and battery cools down. It would be great and my goal is to ditch ICE and use this new purchase for all my needs. Time will tell. I do not think they would place SC at 200 km spacing right across our tundra and the latest vehicle they produce will not make it in the winter. We have one to the west a 100 km away and to the east 195. I will be going west on cold and snowy days to start and see how things go. Clean power gen here and it is cheap ;-). Looking forward to it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I thought the model 3 carb and model y carb along with the link I provided that the 3 perf is 11% overstated and more like 280 would yield a Y range of 441.91/455.32 x 280 = 270 mi understanding not highway which we assume you have taken that into account.

To help clarify some of these things for you, I link you to my spreadsheet where I track all of this data directly from the EPA. This helps make sense of the 20" Model 3 Performance result.

Remember there are two elements to a range result: the efficiency of the vehicle and the size of the battery in that vehicle - and the size of the battery can vary a significant amount (a couple %) from test vehicle to test vehicle. So I prefer to focus on the true efficiency and generally don't focus on the range too much (since all LR batteries in Model 3 and Model Y are the same nominal size) to make sense of the picture.

2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants

 

[Shayne]

^^ have you came across any graphs on range vs temp for tesla?


Chevrolet Bolt EV Range at Constant Speeds

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

^^ have you came across any graphs on range vs temp for tesla?


Chevrolet Bolt EV Range at Constant Speeds

Nope. I live in Southern California so cold is a very theoretical concept for me.

In any case unless they've gone to a heat pump in the Model Y, I just hand calculate the impact and it tends to be pretty accurate. It all depends on your heat use - obviously the drivetrain is affected as well but in the end the cabin heat is probably the most important.

 

[Shayne]

Nope. I live in Southern California so cold is a very theoretical concept for me.

In any case unless they've gone to a heat pump in the Model Y, I just hand calculate the impact and it tends to be pretty accurate. It all depends on your heat use - obviously the drivetrain is affected as well but in the end the cabin heat is probably the most important.

I understand seat warmer and let the husky stay cool in the back. Hand calculated the impact. Please expand.

 

[SageBrush]

SCOOP ALERT! You saw this data here first

Thanks!

EPA can be an exercise in apples to oranges, so I prefer one of two things:

• US06 raw data
• Dyno coefficients

Here we are interested in Model 3 Vs Model Y so the US06 should give us a pretty good indication of relative highway driving range since the Cd values are about the same and we can calculate the frontal area effect

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks!

EPA can be an exercise in apples to oranges, so I prefer one of two things:

• US06 raw data
• Dyno coefficients

Here we are interested in Model 3 Vs Model Y so the US06 should give us a pretty good indication of relative highway driving range since the Cd values are about the same and we can calculate the frontal area effect

Yes, sadly you will not be getting that as long as the EPA allows 2-cycle EV testing. But I include the HWFET cycle results. I also track the coefficients but have not shown them in the attachments (hidden in spreadsheet) because it would be too much.

It's pretty clear even from the HWFET results that the Model Y is going to be pretty bad on the highway, as one would expect. The biggest mystery to me is the reason for this higher multiplier...is Model Y going to get a heat pump? That's the only justification I could see for that much optimism, though I think these multipliers are cleared by the EPA before their use...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hand calculated the impact. Please expand.

For example, I know the heat set to 70 degrees uses about 2kW steady state if it's 50 degrees out. If I'm traveling 70mph on the freeway, that's going to add 2000W/70mph = ~30Wh/mi to my consumption, and reduce my range by about 10-15%.

AC if it's not broiling hot is probably more like 1kW steady state, so on a warm summer day on the freeway it might add 10-20Wh/mi to my consumption.

Max numbers here are something like 9kW for max heat plus AC, so on an extremely cold day traveling on dry cold roads at 50mph you might see something like 9000W/50mph = 180Wh/mi added to your usage, for a total of 400Wh/mi, which would (since baseline 50mph is around 220Wh/mi) would cut your range by about 45% (nearly in half). (It might well benefit you to go a bit faster depending on exactly how high the additional load is - I think the max range speed at those conditions is about 50-55mph though, based on my recollection of prior calculations.) For the plots you have above it doesn't look to me like they are accounting for HVAC use since the optimal speed does not change significantly with temperature - not sure how what they are modeling there - seems excessive for battery internal resistance changes and additional drivetrain losses - briefly scanning that web page, to me it looks like too much reliance on fleet data and curve fits without just creating a real physical model. You DEFINITELY must travel faster in the winter to get better range (if you are using HVAC to remain comfortable)...but once you get above 60mph or so, the aero losses begin to swamp even the savings from reduced duration heat use.