-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Range has never been close to 320 [2019 - rated range complaint]
- Thread starter blkholsun
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You’d expect that, but it isn’t the case.You would expect that the estimated range shown in the energy screen would be from the *useable* capacity. Considering the rest isn’t “useable”
The calculations on the energy screen assume that you will use x% of your buffer to meet the projected range, where x is your current SOC. (Yes, this indeed implies the projected range is always wrong as an indicator of your range to 0% SOC, except at 0% SOC, where it presumably will predict 0 miles. It is the most wrong at 100%.)
So for example at 100%, the entire buffer is assumed, while at 10%, 10% of it is assumed.
Just how it works. I don’t make the rules. It uses your vehicle charging constant to arrive at the projected ranges, rather than the actual energy content of each displayed rated mile, which is one way to think about why this is the case.
(Displayed rated range (rmi) * vehicle charging constant (Wh/rmi) = projected range (mi) * recent efficiency (Wh/mi). This is very consistent.)
I think it is crazy and confusing personally. Don’t even get me started on the rated line, which is always 5Wh/mi higher than the vehicle constant. Lol.
The good news is the method in the sticky still works. We should have clarified there that the result for your battery capacity includes the vehicle buffer.
Last edited:
What's more puzzling to me is a brand new Made in China LR (so 78.8kWh LG NMC battery) delivered last week is showing as 74kWh under the same calculation. So that figure would seem here to not include the buffer (3.5kWh on that car)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Interesting but would actually need all the info (rated range, vehicle constant, etc.)
There are some situations (bugs) where the calculations don’t work right (for example the wrong wheel selection can screw it up on some vehicles).
And I thought the LG packs
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc
Hello @FredMt and all, Do you think we can start to add the battery label "AA, AB, ..." in my visual table or do we still need more sample to confirm a theory ? You re right, "Style" seems to be relevant, but i don t know if we shouln t wait a little. A different type for E5D ? And what about...
teslamotorsclub.com
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Ok, so a lower capacity than 82.1kWh LG pack exists, similar to the 75 vs 78. I guess I have some vague recollection of seeing a scan of this in the past.
Now we need all the info from the car, to put the pieces together and see if the method is broken (for this particular vehicle).
One key thing to remember (also not included in the sticky!): the method provides a limited value for the pack capacity, limited by the degradation threshold. It is possible for pack capacity to be larger. The value is the min( pack capacity, degradation threshold ).
The degradation threshold is the point at which the car starts to show rated-mile capacity loss. It is possible that is what is going on here, though it seems like a large gap.
Anyway so we’d need to know the vehicle constant (3 or 4 ways to determine this), the rated range at 100%, and the maximum possible displayed rated range for that vehicle. At a minimum.
Answer to both you and @AlanSubie4Life.
If you see only 74 kWh* from a LG 78.8 kWh in a brand new, it is most probably not estimated higher than that by the BMS.
LG 78.8 (”E5LD”) tends to start low in estimated capacity and increase in one month or or two or so (driving and charging scheme probsbly dictates when…).
*) We assume the calculation and values was correct, not too low SOC etc.
It is just as @AlanSubie4Life says, the buffer is included in the energy screen calculation, even with any LG pack as well.
E5LD (where 5L means the battery pack), use LG M50 cells, we actually could estimate the battery capacity from reading about the M50 cell long before we did see the cars live. Starts low, increases after sone time and tends to top slightly above 79 kWh.
E5D or E5CD with 74.5 kWh capacity use the LG M48 cell, seem to top out about 75 kWh.
Both these packs seem to hold up well according to the BMS capacity numbers.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
But SMT sees 77.5kWh (and projection from 68% also matches) and the energy screen method is alleged to give just 74kWh. So that indicates:
1) Bug
2) Degradation threshold limited the output of the method.
3) Bad data
4) ?
…ah, I see…this data is not from the vehicle in question…
Anyway, so yes, definitely could be what you say. But presumably the value starting low would show up in rated miles display so the methods should match. Except for reasons above. I got the impression SMT had been done on vehicle mentioned above but I guess not. So if there is nothing to compare to, there is no discrepancy.
The method giving a low value should be reflected by fewer than expected (when new) rated miles. How much less depends on what the degradation threshold was set to.
No idea what it is on the LG 78.8. In general this stuff is very easy to determine though, if you start with a brand new car.
Last edited:
No LG pack is 82.1.
Theres the LG M48, 74.5 FPWN
And LG M50, 78.8kWh.
The capacity for the larger LG(M50) is about : 5000 (mah) x 3.6 (nominal voltage) x 4416 ( number of cells) = about 79.4 kWh theoretically.
Tests of the M50 cell on the net shows the cells slightly short of 5000 mah so I think we ended up at 79 kWh in the calculation, which seems to match fine.
The reason for seeing lower capacity than the Pana 2170L /82.1kWh is that NMC chemistry can not match NCA in capacity.
The other earlier LG M48 (74.5 kWh) is also smaller by this reason. They are not capped by Tesla at all.
The reason for that 73-74kWh car (out of 78.8) is most probably that the BMS has estimated a low number initially, as usual with these.
These packs (78.8kWh only today) are put in model 3 LR/P and Y LR/P made in China and also made in Germany.
Would be good. I think we have the answer: same constants as with the us Panasonic cars. At least it have seemed to be like that, but no one has digged deep into it, so it would be nice getting it cleared.
I do not think the SMT picture is from the brand new one. At least I read out that from @jyavenard’s posts.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Language and punctuation issue here.
I should have written:
Lower-capacity-than-82.1kWh LG pack.
“Ok, so a lower-capacity-than-82.1kWh LG pack exists, similar to the 75 vs 78.”
Meaning an LG pack that has lower capacity than 82.1kWh, analogous to prior pack.
Analogy being:
Pana 77.8: LG 75 vs Pana 82.1: LG 78.8
So exactly what you described, I think. Just analogous. LG M50 is to LG M48 as Pana 2170L is to Pana 2170. A different way to view analogy. Etc.
Last edited:
I was almost sure of that that was what you ment
But beside all batterymyths flying around, there is one capacity myth in europe, that the bigger LG also is 82kWh. Some people actually get angry when we sort the different capacities
And learning that the battery is 78.8 cut them short of 3 kWh capacity in 5 seconds.
Thats very quick degradation, and I understand the frustration
So I take tge opportunity to make dure no one would read that sentemce like “the 82kWh battery”.
The picture below is lent from a swedish forum, he started at 72.9 kWh the day if the delivery. After one month 78.5 or so, and last point in that thread was 79.1 kWh.
A brand new LG / E5LD, try to have ice in the stomach and wait. It will sort itself out.
The SMT screenshot was for a 2 weeks old LR, I had physical access to that car and plugged my OBD2 adapter on it. I didn't at the time knew about using the energy screen to estimate the capacity, so I do not have that data. I could access that car again and check it out again.
The 74kWh I mentioned earlier, is indeed a brand new car delivered last week. The owner only ever charged it to 80% so far. Don't have physical access to that one however. So the explanation that the BMS simply didn't have enough data to measure fully seems valid.
It is my understand (from a mate working at Tesla) that China now uses LG 78.8kWh NMC pack for both LR and Performance cars made in China. Only cars using Panasonic batteries have 82kWh packs and those aren't used in China.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Anyway, this should be reflected in the rated miles projected to 100%. It should be quite short of expectations (I don’t know what they are because I don’t know the exact vehicle or how exactly things work with that pack). Anyway, if it is thus reflected, the method is likely working just fine.
Don’t really have to have access to the car, just need the requisite pictures allowing calculation of the key parameters.
I know of the one that started at 72.9 the day after the delivery and also another one that started at 74.
According to @eivissa, that have good knowledge of these things and I think has used SMT on numerous model 3/Y, the normal starting value for nominal full pack is 75-76kWh. It is expected to a too low value initially and then increase.
Somehow it is not possible to attach pictures right now (a bug?).
The same Mode Y with the 78.8kWh batt (Code Y5LD in model Y’s and E5LD in 3’s) that started at 72.9, ended up in that (swedish) thread at 79.1kWh NFP.
The energy screen showed: average 110wh/km and 719km
The SOC was 100%, still charging (balancing) and displayed range 529km.
Charging constant = 149.5 Wh/km?
Wh/km displayed 142.8 then ?
529km seems to bee the “full range”, at 79.1kWh. Numerous cars has showed this range. I do not know if it could show more but my guess is that as 79.1kWh is the degradation threshold for the 82kWh battery that was not choosen by a coincidence on the model 3. It set both battery types to the same displayed range.
Seems probable that 79.1 or close to this is the degradation threshold.
According to @eivissa, that have good knowledge of these things and I think has used SMT on numerous model 3/Y, the normal starting value for nominal full pack is 75-76kWh. It is expected to a too low value initially and then increase.
Somehow it is not possible to attach pictures right now (a bug?).
The same Mode Y with the 78.8kWh batt (Code Y5LD in model Y’s and E5LD in 3’s) that started at 72.9, ended up in that (swedish) thread at 79.1kWh NFP.
The energy screen showed: average 110wh/km and 719km
The SOC was 100%, still charging (balancing) and displayed range 529km.
Charging constant = 149.5 Wh/km?
Wh/km displayed 142.8 then ?
529km seems to bee the “full range”, at 79.1kWh. Numerous cars has showed this range. I do not know if it could show more but my guess is that as 79.1kWh is the degradation threshold for the 82kWh battery that was not choosen by a coincidence on the model 3. It set both battery types to the same displayed range.
Seems probable that 79.1 or close to this is the degradation threshold.
In model 3 as it seems, they just popped in the LG pack without changing the constants or degradation threshold. Of course something is changed in the software but the Wh/ mile is the same and the degradation threshold does not seem to be adjusted downwards, at least the 74.5kWh pack show higher range with a nominal remaining at 75kWh or so if my memory doesnt fail me.
Similar threads
