Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health

[AAKEE]

The sweet spot is technically 40-60%, but keeping it between 20-80% appears to have no statistically significant impact vs 40-60%.

This is a couple of pictures i already have in my phone. It is li ion cells but from memory NMC. For the degradation from cycles vs SOC and DOD these batteries behave about the same. Its clear that the lower the SOC the lower the wear.

 

[Jejunjm]

Well the 82kWh pack is optically locked in the LR (E3LD) to 77,8kWh. Any capacity above will not show and the range is capped at 567-575k.

The 82kWh pack in the Performance is also optically locked, but higher in the region of 80,6-80,9kWh. Any capacity above will also not show and the car is capped at 508-509km.

None of the two are actually software locked. If treated well and calibrated well they will both go to 82kWh.

M3 LR with 82 kwh battery is from lg? My NFP to start with was 80.1 and now is 78.2 - while being very conservative!

 

[eivissa]

M3 LR with 82 kwh battery is from lg? My NFP to start with was 80.1 and now is 78.2 - while being very conservative!

The current 82kWh packs, especially in the states, are all from Panasonic. There will be 80-82kWh packs from LG later this year, but they will come to Asia and Europe. In the US you guys will stay with the Panasonic's for a while.

 

[Jeremy3292]

Well the 82kWh pack is optically locked in the LR (E3LD) to 77,8kWh. Any capacity above will not show and the range is capped at 567-575k.

The 82kWh pack in the Performance is also optically locked, but higher in the region of 80,6-80,9kWh. Any capacity above will also not show and the car is capped at 508-509km.

None of the two are actually software locked. If treated well and calibrated well they will both go to 82kWh.

So you're saying the only thing that is happening is the display is showing me less range than I actually have available? In other words, the displayed range is showing range for a battery pack at ~78 kWh but I actually have ~82 kWh available? So there is no "software lock" on the overall pack capacity, just simply a lower range being shown to the end user?

 

[eivissa]

So you're saying the only thing that is happening is the display is showing me less range than I actually have available? In other words, the displayed range is showing range for a battery pack at ~78 kWh but I actually have ~82 kWh available? So there is no "software lock" on the overall pack capacity, just simply a lower range being shown to the end user?

Yes. Exactly that.
In an ideal situation you are charging the 82kWh LR and once you pass 77,8kWh the SoC is at 100% / 567km / 353miles. The car then switched from an estimated time to complete the charge to "calculating". During that time the car is continuing to charge at maybe 5KW slowly dropping. In the background this is the moment when the hidden capacity above 77,8kWh is charged. At charge completed the range is still 567km and 100%, but the real capacity can be up to 82,0kwh.

In Q4 we expect the announcement of the 2022 LR and for it the update that makes the capacity from 77,8-80,9 visible (like in the Performance 2021). The range might then go up in the 590km / 370miles region.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In an ideal situation you are charging the 82kWh LR and once you pass 77,8kWh the SoC is at 100% / 567km / 353miles. The car then switched from an estimated time to complete the charge to "calculating". During that time the car is continuing to charge at maybe 5KW slowly dropping. In the background this is the moment when the hidden capacity above 77,8kWh is charged. At charge completed the range is still 567km and 100%, but the real capacity can be up to 82,0kwh.

I 100% agree with you that the capacity is "optically locked" as you put it.

However, this actually isn't the way it works, quite, as far as I know. As in the other 2021 thread, we have substantial data showing that the "constant" is not constant when the pack has more capacity than the degradation threshold - it's expanded.

So when you hit 100%, you're always very close to 100% (the NFP may adjust upwards as you sit there though). The "calculating" time is likely when balancing, etc. to get even higher capacity is occurring (NFP increasing possibly).

For example, if you have an LR with an 81kWh NFP pack, when you get to 78kWh nominal remaining (74.4kWh usable remaining) per SMT, you'll be at (78kWh-0.045*81kWh) /(0.955*81kWh) = 96% SOC (and you'll show around 544km).

As your NFP drops to 78kWh as it ages, then at 78kWh nominal remaining, you'll be at 100% SOC and display 567km.

These are both the same amount of energy (one has the standard constant of ~137Wh/km, and the other has a temporarily expanded "constant" of 143Wh/km).

This is a rather extreme example, which I haven't seen in reality, but fairly sure this is how it works. (For example @Jejunjm's case above he still very likely shows 353mi/567km at a full charge, even though he's lost a couple kWh - and in both cases he would not have shown 100% until he got pretty close to that max level.)

The evidence from the users that this is how it works is in the other thread (though further confirmation from users would be great of course). We went through it and gathered screen captures from SMT a few months ago to confirm it (since I wasn't 100% sure).

Whether there is additional complexity and special cases to this behavior, I do not know. The BMS is constantly re-estimating, so if there are large adjustments to CAC, I'd potentially expect to see some transient behavior that doesn't quite fit this framework.

 

[AAKEE]

I'm definitely on board with the strategy of charging to ~60% or so and keeping depth of discharge to a minimum. It's the right choice (if it works for the end user - it doesn't work for everyone).

But whether you "need to lose 10% over two years" - that is definitely the big question! I haven’t seen a ton of evidence that specific optimal treatment of the battery is strongly correlated to capacity loss for Tesla vehicles (even though it should be!), but sticking to proven best practices for Li-ion batteries can’t hurt, and probably does help in general. Certainly there are a couple examples here of people using the lower SOC and having good results. But overall trends? I have no idea. It seems like there are plenty of examples of people with ~70% SOC habits with low depth of discharge daily charging, which you’d think would be pretty healthy, who see ~10% capacity loss after a couple years. And others with similar habits who are doing noticeably better.

Time will tell for 2021 vehicles. Was interesting to see the TeslaFi fleet data for 2021 - but a very small sample size it sounds like?

From all research we actually already know what affect these batteries, both calendar and cyclic aging. We do not know for the latest gen like the 2170L as it is a new chemistry with lower cobalt proportion. We can probably guess that in general the same basic chemistry (NCA for example) behaves about the same. We do not know exactly for these though.
So if the Panna NCA 18650 degrades about 2.5% if you store it for 10months at 25C with 30% SOC, the first gen 2170 probably also do(more or less the same chemistry, but new format).
I think we can draw a lot of conclusions from the research reports we can read online, an be most certain they are valid for new MCA cells. We do not know if keeping the SOC low will cause exactly 1 or 2% calendar ahing over one year but we ”almost” know it will keep the degradation less then if using a high SOC.
The physics have to apply to a battery cell inside a Tesla pack even if it is protected from some things, like overheating when used.
There is clear data that low SOC is good for cycling from research ( for example the picture below, not a Panasonic small NCA but still a NCA if my memory recall

We have two/three things that mainly set the perceived degradation on a 2170L:
1) Time x SOC x ambient temp( real degradation by time)
2) Cycles x DOD ( smaller degradation than you might think)
3) The BMS inability to show the correct capacity regardless of how you charge your car.

The first two is real. Time x SOC x temp can easily eat 10% in two years if the conditions are not good for batttery life.
The third seems to trick people by showing not reasonsble low capacity. I would not guess that the 2170L is way more sensitive than the older NCA’s so 77-78 kWh out of 81-ish just after delivery doesnt seem right.
Hopefully the BMS gets better ”tuned after the first year of battery wear.

 

[AAKEE]

None of the two are actually software locked. If treated well and calibrated well they will both go to 82kWh.

Yes, they will:
(Hopefully no one thinks these packs is capacity locked after seeing this picture)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

We have two/three things that mainly set the perceived degradation on a 2170L:
1) Time x SOC x ambient temp( real degradation by time)
2) Cycles x DOD ( smaller degradation than you might think)
3) The BMS inability to show the correct capacity regardless of how you charge your car.

Agreed, these factors are very important.

There is also manufacturing variation and specific characteristics of the cells associated with a build date which may impact individual user results. It's much harder to get a gauge on that (and it would not be something that would be easy to capture in academic studies of battery longevity). We're talking about very small, 1-2% variations, on initial capacity, and potentially differences in aging behavior due to slight changes in chemistry, etc.. Obviously they have a standardized manufacturing process, but every process has a certain tolerance on control of that process.

I bet Tesla knows how much that contributes though!

 

[Jeremy3292]

Yes, they will:
(Hopefully no one thinks these packs is capacity locked after seeing this picture)
View attachment 708905

I thought Tesla actually had "software locked" 3-4 kWh of the battery so you could only use 78-79 kWh. I was not aware it is just effectively an "optical illusion." Meaning when you get to 0% SOC on the display, all other things being equal and ignoring the built in reserve amount, you have somewhere around 3-4 kWh of useable battery left. Tesla is just not showing you you have it and they apparently will within the next month or so with a software update. Which makes sense bc the 2022 M3 LR will likely have a ~370 mile EPA range with the exact same 2170L 82 kWh battery pack. All just a facade for marketing purposes! "Tesla increases range YOY"

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I thought Tesla actually had "software locked" 3-4 kWh of the battery so you could only use 78-79 kWh.

No. You can always use the full nominal remaining (approximately), until the vehicle shuts down and leaves you stranded. You must drive for a considerable (but unpredictable) distance beyond 0% to use all this energy. (See the "usable" in the capture - this is 95.5% of the NFP (in the capture above it's 95.5% of nominal remaining since that exceeds NFP) and represents the energy available above 0%.)

Meaning when you get to 0% SOC on the display, all other things being equal and ignoring the built in reserve amount, you have somewhere around 3-4 kWh of useable battery left.

At 0% SOC, for every Model 3, you will have 4.5% remaining of your Nominal Full Pack (or possibly it is 4.5% of your Nominal Remaining at 100% charge which may be different than NFP but who cares...). This is the best estimate of the BMS and whether you get that full 4.5% if you continue to drive is hard to predict. But you'll get some of it for sure. If you excessively sag the pack (by driving up a hill or something) and trigger pack protection the car will shut down.

That's why it's not a great idea to try to use the buffer (there's really never any reason to - though they do use it ALL in the EPA testing, in a very slow, continuous discharge (SS cycle) that would maximize the likelihood of extracting all the energy!). You'll be reasonably safe above 0%.

Tesla is just not showing you you have it and they apparently will within the next month or so with a software update.

Not sure what you mean here. They're not really exactly hiding anything. There's a degradation threshold of 77.8kWh for the Model 3 LR right now. If your NFP exceeds that value, you'll show your full 353mi/567km range at 100%. However, the energy content of each rated mile is expanded in proportion to the amount your NFP exceeds that threshold. Even as your battery degrades, as long as NFP remains above ~77.8kWh, it will continue to display 353 rated miles at 100%.

Which makes sense bc the 2022 M3 LR will likely have a ~370 mile EPA range with the exact same 2170L 82 kWh battery pack. All just a facade for marketing purposes! "Tesla increases range YOY"

Not really. The 2021 M3 LR, as tested, had ~78.5kWh of capacity, with the older pack. That was tested in the ~summer of 2020, before 2170L packs had been fully released in mass production (there was just one cell line or something producing 2170L for the Model 3 Performance or something like that). Vehicles were sold that way, with "FPWN" values of 77.8kWh, with the 2170C pack, for several months in late 2020 and into 2021. You got exactly what was tested for the EPA range of 353 miles.

Now, for the same 2021 model year vehicle, Tesla is including 2170L packs which typically have capacity of 79-81kWh (or maybe even 82kWh but I haven't seen that for an LR non-P). These have FPWN of 82.1kWh. It's a different pack. It contains more energy. But they simply allow expansion of the constant to ensure they don't display more than 353 rated miles. (Note this is not required - for the Model Y LR it actually shows 331 rated miles at 100% rather than 326 rated miles advertised, because the degradation threshold was increased to 79kWh in more recent builds, from 77.8kWh in the initial production runs. They chose not to do this for Model 3.)

We'll see what the actual marketed range of the 2022 M3 LR is. It'll probably be higher than the 353 rated miles because they will redo the EPA test and they're going to come up with over 80kWh on the discharge, most likely. That's going to mean more range; that's not in doubt. But whether they "voluntarily reduce" the reported EPA range (something they can always do) is TBD.

To be clear about how (say) a 370-rated-mile range would work for a 2022 vehicle (note: we don't know what the reported range will be. It depends how the vehicle does and whether Tesla voluntarily reduces it):
1) They would get results in an EPA test cycle that gave that result (370 miles) after all the scaling and balancing of city/hwy dyno results.
2) They would get something like 80.5kWh drawn from the pack (I'm picking this value randomly, it's hard to say what it will be). This is measured in the test.
3) They'll choose a degradation threshold, usually lower than that value from the test. Let's say they pick 79.5kWh. They'll choose a constant 79.5kWh/370mi = 215Wh/mi (14Wh/km)

For new owners of this theoretical 2022 370-rated-mile-range vehicle:
If you have less than 79.5kWh NFP, you'll show range loss.
If you have greater than that, you'll show 370 miles at 100%.

Again, to be clear, this is just an example. We don't know what the EPA results or the threshold, or the 100% undegraded rated miles value, will work out to be.

 

[Jeremy3292]

No. You can always use the full nominal remaining (approximately), until the vehicle shuts down and leaves you stranded. You must drive for a considerable (but unpredictable) distance beyond 0% to use all this energy. (See the "usable" in the capture - this is 95.5% of the NFP (in the capture above it's 95.5% of nominal remaining since that exceeds NFP) and represents the energy available above 0%.)

At 0% SOC, for every Model 3, you will have 4.5% remaining of your Nominal Full Pack (or possibly it is 4.5% of your Nominal Remaining at 100% charge which may be different than NFP but who cares...). This is the best estimate of the BMS and whether you get that full 4.5% if you continue to drive is hard to predict. But you'll get some of it for sure. If you excessively sag the pack (by driving up a hill or something) and trigger pack protection the car will shut down.

That's why it's not a great idea to try to use the buffer (there's really never any reason to - though they do use it ALL in the EPA testing, in a very slow, continuous discharge (SS cycle) that would maximize the likelihood of extracting all the energy!). You'll be reasonably safe above 0%.

Not sure what you mean here. They're not really exactly hiding anything. There's a degradation threshold of 77.8kWh for the Model 3 LR right now. If your NFP exceeds that value, you'll show your full 353mi/567km range at 100%. However, the energy content of each rated mile is expanded in proportion to the amount your NFP exceeds that threshold. Even as your battery degrades, as long as NFP remains above ~77.8kWh, it will continue to display 353 rated miles at 100%.

Not really. The 2021 M3 LR, as tested, had ~78.5kWh of capacity, with the older pack. That was tested in the ~summer of 2020, before 2170L packs had been fully released in mass production (there was just one cell line or something producing 2170L for the Model 3 Performance or something like that). Vehicles were sold that way, with "FPWN" values of 77.8kWh, with the 2170C pack, for several months in late 2020 and into 2021. You got exactly what was tested for the EPA range of 353 miles.

Now, for the same 2021 model year vehicle, Tesla is including 2170L packs which typically have capacity of 79-81kWh (or maybe even 82kWh but I haven't seen that for an LR non-P). These have FPWN of 82.1kWh. It's a different pack. It contains more energy. But they simply allow expansion of the constant to ensure they don't display more than 353 rated miles. (Note this is not required - for the Model Y LR it actually shows 331 rated miles at 100% rather than 326 rated miles advertised, because the degradation threshold was increased to 79kWh in more recent builds, from 77.8kWh in the initial production runs. They chose not to do this for Model 3.)

We'll see what the actual marketed range of the 2022 M3 LR is. It'll probably be higher than the 353 rated miles because they will redo the EPA test and they're going to come up with over 80kWh on the discharge, most likely. That's going to mean more range; that's not in doubt. But whether they "voluntarily reduce" the reported EPA range (something they can always do) is TBD.

To be clear about how (say) a 370-rated-mile range would work for a 2022 vehicle (note: we don't know what the reported range will be. It depends how the vehicle does and whether Tesla voluntarily reduces it):
1) They would get results in an EPA test cycle that gave that result (370 miles) after all the scaling and balancing of city/hwy dyno results.
2) They would get something like 80.5kWh drawn from the pack (I'm picking this value randomly, it's hard to say what it will be). This is measured in the test.
3) They'll choose a degradation threshold, usually lower than that value from the test. Let's say they pick 79.5kWh. They'll choose a constant 79.5kWh/370mi = 215Wh/mi (14Wh/km)

For new owners of this theoretical 2022 370-rated-mile-range vehicle:
If you have less than 79.5kWh NFP, you'll show range loss.
If you have greater than that, you'll show 370 miles at 100%.

Again, to be clear, this is just an example. We don't know what the EPA results or the threshold, or the 100% underrated rated miles value, will work out to be.

Most of this discussion is just semantics IMO.

• 2170C cells rated at 353 miles used for 2021 model years until Q2 2021
• 2170L cells rated at *an unknown higher amount of miles* used for 2021 models years from Q2 2021 onward and likely for 2022 model years as well
• Tesla is currently masking the new 2170L cells range so as to not exceed the 353 rated miles tested using the old 2170C cells
• Tesla will likely software update all 2170L battery packs to reflect this *unknown but higher* rated miles with the onset of the 2022 model year
• The 2021 2170L cells will all likely have experienced some degradation since build date and thus will likely not show the full 2022 model year rated miles once the software update is completed

So it is all just a marketing façade bc Tesla could have easily "unmasked" the 2170L cells range with a software update in Q2 2021 once they started shipping the new packs but they elected not to. An interesting decision as Tesla is adamant they don't do model years as evidenced by the introduction of the new 2170L cells mid year. However, they then turnaround and elect not to software update the pack until (presumably) the new 2022 "model year" is released, evidencing an adherence to a model year convention. So it's a bit of a conundrum. I'm not casting judgment; I feel like I'm just stating the obvious here.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Tesla is currently masking the new 2170L cells range so as to not exceed the 353 rated miles tested using the old 2170C cells

Sure, if by masking you mean: letting you use all the energy you have, but playing with the display so that 353 number never exceeds about 353. (Via method described above.) You still get the energy, and the range. And it most definitely exceeds the 353 rated miles tested!

Tesla will likely software update all 2170L battery packs to reflect this *unknown but higher* rated miles

Unlikely that they will update the 2021 2170L packs to display over 353 rated miles. It's very rare for Tesla to do this more than a few months into a model year (though it did happen with the LR RWD - but I believe in that case they unlocked capacity, which is different). I expect the constant on those 2021 vehicles to remain steady, and for any update to apply only to 2022 vehicles. It may not even happen at the beginning of the 2022 model year (depending on the timing and processing time of EPA paperwork!). In any case these changes have no impact on actual range, as discussed. Just displayed range.

So it is all just a marketing façade

They certainly were in a situation where upgrading some 2021 owners but not others would have led to a public relations fiasco - completely unwarranted of course - since people were still getting everything that they purchased (just some people got more). Another reason why I think model year 2021 updates will not occur.

 

[AAKEE]

They certainly were in a situation where upgrading some 2021 owners but not others would have led to a public relations fiasco - completely unwarranted of course - since people were still getting everything that they purchased (just some people got more). Another reason why I think model year 2021 updates will not occur.

If Tesla would change the constant and maximum range upwards often, it would lessen the percieved degradation. If they changed it twice a year my car could keep the 508km range forever(at least until the day before the battery dies).
So doing it more than absolutely needed it might look like they try to fool people. And Im sure they would get hunted by media using a tourch.

 

[Jeremy3292]

Sure, if by masking you mean: letting you use all the energy you have, but playing with the display so that 353 number never exceeds about 353. (Via method described above.). You still get the energy, and the range. And it most definitely exceeds the 353 rated miles tested!



Unlikely that they will update the 2021 2170L packs to display over 353 rated miles. It's very rare for Tesla to do this more than a few months into a model year (though it did happen with the LR RWD). I expect the constant on those 2021 vehicles to remain steady, and for any update to apply only to 2022 vehicles. It may not even happen at the beginning of the 2022 model year (depending on the timing and processing time of EPA paperwork!). In any case these changes have no impact on actual range, as discussed. Just displayed range.


They certainly were in a situation where upgrading some 2021 owners but not others would have led to a public relations fiasco - completely unwarranted of course - since people were still getting everything that they purchased (just some people got more). Another reason why I think model year 2021 updates will not occur.

There is speculation the displayed range update is already in the works via update 2021.32.5 (and now 2021.32.10). Curious timing for this update I must add

2021.32.5 Official Tesla Release Notes - Software Updates

Tesla software update 2021.32.5 includes New Language Support, Cabin Camera, Autopark, Adaptive Suspension Damping, Accessibility Update, Keyboard Improvements, Range Display, Speed Limit Mode, Refreshed QQ, Redesigned Controls Panel.

www.notateslaapp.com

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

There is speculation the displayed range update is already in the works via update 2021.32.5 (and now 2021.32.10). Curious timing for this update I must add

2021.32.5 Official Tesla Release Notes - Software Updates

Tesla software update 2021.32.5 includes New Language Support, Cabin Camera, Autopark, Adaptive Suspension Damping, Accessibility Update, Keyboard Improvements, Range Display, Speed Limit Mode, Refreshed QQ, Redesigned Controls Panel.

www.notateslaapp.com

View attachment 708932

I'd be surprised if that applied to the Model 3 LR 2021. More likely to apply to Model S Refresh, etc.

But we'll see. Tesla can always deviate from past practice. I'm just stating what they would do if they were consistent with prior practice.

 

[AAKEE]

I think thisBattery life in years presentation give a good picture of how different charging habits, DOD, SOC etc will affect the battery life.
I have read at least 30 different research reports thoroughly and the basics is the same as in this presentation but here its presented with examples that shows how many year your battery might live if charged to 100 , 80, 60, 40 % daily, and how long it will live with a DOD of 100, 80, 60 % etc.
Most habits, time with maximum SOC and average temperature etc is shown as a time to live until 80% capacity is reached.
It refers to NCA-cells, and while it might not be precise to tell you what day and time the battery will stop working it will clearly show the basics of how to preserve the battery.
Longer life in each example means longer life and less degradation for you.

 

[Jeremy3292]

I think thisBattery life in years presentation give a good picture of how different charging habits, DOD, SOC etc will affect the battery life.
I have read at least 30 different research reports thoroughly and the basics is the same as in this presentation but here its presented with examples that shows how many year your battery might live if charged to 100 , 80, 60, 40 % daily, and how long it will live with a DOD of 100, 80, 60 % etc.
Most habits, time with maximum SOC and average temperature etc is shown as a time to live until 80% capacity is reached.
It refers to NCA-cells, and while it might not be precise to tell you what day and time the battery will stop working it will clearly show the basics of how to preserve the battery.
Longer life in each example means longer life and less degradation for you.

Do you think my plan here is a good one? I have free charging at work and utilize 10-12% each way on my commute. My plan is:

• Charge to 70% at work
• Arrive back home around 58-60%, car sleeps at this SOC
• Arrive at work next day around 46-48%, charge to 70%
• Repeat cycle

I have a HPWC at home and will utilize it on the weekends or days where I'm not in the office. I figure I might as well utilize the free charging at work and only pay to charge at home when I need to!

 

[AAKEE]

Do you think my plan here is a good one? I have free charging at work and utilize 10-12% each way on my commute. My plan is:

• Charge to 70% at work
• Arrive back home around 58-60%, car sleeps at this SOC
• Arrive at work next day around 46-48%, charge to 70%
• Repeat cycle

I have a HPWC at home and will utilize it on the weekends or days where I'm not in the office.

You’ll be fine. It would be possible to keep the degradation at a lower rate though.
How long will you keep the car?
How much degradation can you take from a minimum range view? Do you need a certain range?
The most important question, how much of a battery preservation nerd are you?

If you use 25% daily for commuting and do not need much after work, you could charge to 50 or 55% at work and arrive at work with about 30%. In that way you never go above the 57% that raise the calendar aging. 55% on the battery meter is about 57% “true SOC” so you are on the low side of calendar aging. Also, lowering the SOC is good for cycling ( in the picture I posted recently there was two cycles with 10% DOD. On at 70% and one at 30%. In both test and two calculation models the cycle life was three times longer for the 30% SOC vs the 70% SOC, so cyclic degradation definitively reduces by that.

Its up to you to do the choise. Your current schedule probably takes you in the lower part of the middle of the degradation among model 3 owners. If thats ok for you = go for it, no need to worry.

I have an interrest in this from a hobby with lithium batteries since long and otherwise technical interrest. Also, have relatives that live 250km from home in a no-SuC/ no fast chargers land and sometimes colder than minus 30C so for that i like to keep the range.
I charge to 55-56% daily, charging time set so it is just in time ready( about 1 hour) before I go to work. I use about 10+10% = 20% commuting and have some 30-35% back at home. This covers what I might need during week nights driving.
I still have full range(no loss on the range meter) and actually an increase in range in teslafi. Also, I have slightly more as nominal full pack than the day after delivery when I set Scan My Tesla up. Probably not a coincidence. Its the charging habits that keeps the battery fine.
I have one advantage, not that high average temps in northern Sweden. Also always parked at nights in a garage with controlled temps.

 

[Jeremy3292]

You’ll be fine. It would be possible to keep the degradation at a lower rate though.
How long will you keep the car?
How much degradation can you take from a minimum range view? Do you need a certain range?
The most important question, how much of a battery preservation nerd are you?

If you use 25% daily for commuting and do not need much after work, you could charge to 50 or 55% at work and arrive at work with about 30%. In that way you never go above the 57% that raise the calendar aging. 55% on the battery meter is about 57% “true SOC” so you are on the low side of calendar aging. Also, lowering the SOC is good for cycling ( in the picture I posted recently there was two cycles with 10% DOD. On at 70% and one at 30%. In both test and two calculation models the cycle life was three times longer for the 30% SOC vs the 70% SOC, so cyclic degradation definitively reduces by that.

Its up to you to do the choise. Your current schedule probably takes you in the lower part of the middle of the degradation among model 3 owners. If thats ok for you = go for it, no need to worry.

I have an interrest in this from a hobby with lithium batteries since long and otherwise technical interrest. Also, have relatives that live 250km from home in a no-SuC/ no fast chargers land and sometimes colder than minus 30C so for that i like to keep the range.
I charge to 55-56% daily, charging time set so it is just in time ready( about 1 hour) before I go to work. I use about 10+10% = 20% commuting and have some 30-35% back at home. This covers what I might need during week nights driving.
I still have full range(no loss on the range meter) and actually an increase in range in teslafi. Also, I have slightly more as nominal full pack than the day after delivery when I set Scan My Tesla up. Probably not a coincidence. Its the charging habits that keeps the battery fine.
I have one advantage, not that high average temps in northern Sweden. Also always parked at nights in a garage with controlled temps.

My thought is why don’t I just do what is appropriate when it comes to charging the battery every day when it doesn’t add any daily stress? I don’t need to charge to 80% every day. I will know if I’m going on a trip somewhere and then I can easily charge higher and plan my trip appropriately. It is unlikely even in case of an emergency that I’ll need more than 50% SOC. When did I ever really need more than half a tank of gas when I had an ICE car? Why would I change the logic just because I have an EV now? If there isn’t a benefit to charging to 80% then I won’t do it unless needed. So that is why I asked all the questions, to ensure that I have a full grasp of what is necessary and what isn’t.