VIN 138XXX, 03/2021 MY LR. Shows 333 miles for a full charge.
You can't extrapolate from this low an SoC. There is too much rounding error - do the math on the the rounding error on 45.5% to 46.5% extrapolating to 100% (answer is that it can extrapolate anywhere between 323 and 331 rated miles - why you're seeing 333 I'm not sure, but there are a lot of rounding errors that may add up, and of course the range calculated here depends on whether your car can display higher than 327 rated miles (my assumption)). In any case, to see a better
approximation of your range at 100%, do this same thing from an SoC of 90%.
st. I have over 2500 miles and am showing zero signs of degradation? I've attached picture to show that when sliding the charger line to 100% it shows over the rated range (327)?
It's too early. Tesla hides it by
inflating the energy content of displayed rated miles when your battery capacity exceeds 77.8kWh (this has been confirmed by observations from in the car and from SMT concurrently). Also, at 2500 miles, with very little time passing, you probably have very little capacity loss, anyway (but it's not knowable unless you have been tracking with SMT or similar).
Also i keep hearing that some of the model Y's have a 82kwh battery... maybe accounting for not showing signs of degradation?
This may be part of it, yes. For example, if you do happen to have one of these, the battery may have a capacity of 79.5kWh (for some reason they don't make the 82.1kWh fully available in LRs). That battery would have to lose 1.7kWh of capacity (actually more like 1.8 or 1.9kWh) before you would see it in a reduction in your rated miles at 100%. This is more energy to lose before hitting the threshold, than we typically saw for the prior packs (though data is sparse).
and the kWh of the battery is easily seen via the energy screen calculation.
I do need to update that post in the Model 3 thread, but just for reference here, this method establishes the lower bound for the energy content. If you are above the degradation threshold, it will just give you (roughly) the degradation threshold for your capacity. If you look at SMT and your energy is 79kWh (would have to be a new vehicle of course), you'd still get 77.8kWh from the energy screen method. FWIW.
It's also unknown at this time - if you do have one of the 2170L packs - whether they have address some of the capacity loss issues with the older 2170 cells. They may well have different capacity loss characteristics - it's too early to know.
I hesitate to reignite this debate, lol, but here goes:
CAC (calculated amp hour capacity
The CAC is used as an input to the BMS display of kWh.
If they were to rate them in Ah, they would also have to further complicate things by including the battery voltage..
The voltage matters a lot. You need that to know anything about the battery energy content.
Kilowatt hours is a measurement of the power
No.
Voltage is obviously important to know in order to have a holistic understanding of a battery or power system. The confusion begins by not recognizing when it's appropriate, and when it isn't, to use each unit of measurement, in combination with what the BMS is reporting, when trying to develop an understanding of something like battery capacity or degradation.
In the end, what matters is the integrated area (integral over time) under the curve of amps*volts supplied by the battery. That will give you the kWh capacity of the battery. The voltage of the battery is not constant, even as it is being discharged at a constant rate (constant current). So you must integrate power (V*I) over time to give you actual energy. Often this is APPROXIMATED by using an "average voltage" for the battery and multiplying by Ah capacity. However, this is not what the BMS does. Integrals FTW.
Anyway the original point you were making is that the BMS answer is just an estimate. This is true, and it does make errors. However, they tend not to be too large. It's rare to see corrections or metered trips (use trip meter to see what the pack contained) where you see more than about 2% discrepancy in the pack estimates, when using SMT or other methods to track your pack energy and comparing to the trip meter (after accounting for the 1% fairly consistent loss factor when viewing the trip meter).