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

[scola7]

Hello. I have a 2020 M3 Performance that was rated with 299 range. After a software update a couple months after buying it (Maybe around July or August 2020) the max range decreased to 277. Now it's at about 271. I feel like something is wrong here only having it less than a year with 23k miles on it.

I watched it decrease to 277 right after completing an update. Unfortunately, I didn't record the version or anything as I was a new Tesla owner.

 

[T3SLAROD]

Just sit back and watch the range go up in the next couple of months.

 

[Candleflame]

Serious question: How does this affect you in your daily life/driving?

It affects me personally a lot. I didnt pay to have a car with more than 10% degradation after just 30k km and i do a lot of rural driving with no access to superchargers qnd only 40kw charging as well as no dc charging at all. And chargers can be up to 500km apart. So yeah, range is very important to me!

 

[Zcd1]

It affects me personally a lot. I didnt pay to have a car with more than 10% degradation after just 30k km and i do a lot of rural driving with no access to superchargers qnd only 40kw charging as well as no dc charging at all. And chargers can be up to 500km apart. So yeah, range is very important to me!

First, I wasn't asking you.

Second, why are you spending time worrying about what a 3rd party app says about your battery?

Third, so you regularly use more than 90% of your battery's capacity with no access to charging?!? Really??

I have never understood the obsession with TeslaFi/capacity/range - it is what it is, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so I choose to do what the car suggests and leave it at that. If that means an extra 5-10 minutes at a fast charger or an extra hour of charging overnight, the material impact on my life is nil. YMMV, obviously.

 

[scola7]

Just sit back and watch the range go up in the next couple of months.

Were you referring to my post?

 

[Candleflame]

First, I wasn't asking you.

Second, why are you spending time worrying about what a 3rd party app says about your battery?

Third, so you regularly use more than 90% of your battery's capacity with no access to charging?!? Really??

I have never understood the obsession with TeslaFi/capacity/range - it is what it is, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so I choose to do what the car suggests and leave it at that. If that means an extra 5-10 minutes at a fast charger or an extra hour of charging overnight, the material impact on my life is nil. YMMV, obviously.

Yeah all the time. The nearest supercharger is 1300km away. And the nearest dc fast charger is 380km away. The nearest dc fast charger after 380km is 1000km away.

Interestingly like i said the amount of kms driven, supercharging, depth of discharge, storage depth (i.e. my car sits at 60% most of the time as i mainly so road trips) seem to make no difference at all to degradation. I.e. all initial 2019 delivered cars in australia seem to have very similar degradation. (Around 10% by now +-1%.). It all looks mainly time/software based. My friends lets his car bake at 90% in the north australian sun all day long which youd think should cause significant battery stress ( on graphs 100% soc at 20c battery temperature should be roughly equal to 70% at 35c which our batteries for sure hit here in summer as even at night ambient temperature doesnt drop below 35c in some parts). But no, degradation seems exactly the same to the ones driving the same pack in the south...


If id have a supercharger every 150km id probably wouldnt care that much either even though its annoying that tesla misadvertise their car that much. I.e. most expected the same or better degradation compared to the model S. At 35k km most would have 1 to 3% tops.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If i do a 100 to 15% discharge the internal trip computer shows 55kwh... So thats only 64kwh without buffer... Teslafi says 386.7km rated km consumed so that extrapolates to 454km for a 100% discharge... ( I think the internal trip computer can be a bit off.... 64kwh for a 100% discharge sounds very low)

I don't understand, this is basically exactly what I would expect...for your 450 rated km you'd expect to see:

450rkm*152Wh/rkm * 0.955 * 0.99 = 64.7kWh. The 0.99 is a pretty well known loss factor (it's a little wishy washy but it's quite consistent).

So makes sense. 12% capacity loss.

Second, why are you spending time worrying about what a 3rd party app says about your battery?

He was referring to the display in the car, FWIW. Which is quite accurate if you're taking into account all the things that make it inaccurate.

Third, so you regularly use more than 90% of your battery's capacity with no access to charging?!? Really??

I think running a Tesla in a country where the distance between Superchargers is that marginal would give me pause. I haven't looked at the Supercharger map of Australia to fact check the 500km claim, but I'll go ahead and believe it - I wouldn't buy the car if that were the case and I was planning to make a trip that required that sort of use. Give me 250km between Superchargers and it is smooth sailing; none of this matters. That's the future, fortunately. Once we get that CCS adapter it is going to be great. Or maybe Tesla will keep building Superchargers. I'm ok with that too.

 

[Candleflame]

I don't understand, this is basically exactly what I would expect...for your 450 rated km you'd expect to see:

450rkm*152Wh/rkm * 0.955 * 0.99 = 64.7kWh. The 0.99 is a pretty well known loss factor (it's a little wishy washy but it's quite consistent).

So makes sense. 12% capacity loss.



He was referring to the display in the car, FWIW. Which is quite accurate if you're taking into account all the things that make it inaccurate.



I think running a Tesla in a country where the distance between Superchargers is that marginal would give me pause. I haven't looked at the Supercharger map of Australia to fact check the 500km claim, but I'll go ahead and believe it - I wouldn't buy the car if that were the case and I was planning to make a trip that required that sort of use. Give me 250km between Superchargers and it is smooth sailing; none of this matters. That's the future, fortunately. Once we get that CCS adapter it is going to be great. Or maybe Tesla will keep building Superchargers. I'm ok with that too.

Hmm your calculation does make sense.
If i calculate capacity on the basis of the energy meter i get like 70kwh though? I thought the energymeter doesnt include the buffer as that is seperate and doesnt get used for the remaining range estimation?

I.e. i have a picture here from few days ago:

8% Soc estimated remaining range 35km at 160wh/km consumption.

So doesnt look like this includes the buffer? As youd expect way more range at 8% if it did? At 100% i think capacity worked out to around 70kwh which again sounded to me like the buffer wasnt included and my full capacity of the pack sounded like around 73kwh?

 

[Zcd1]

the amount of kms driven, supercharging, depth of discharge, storage depth (i.e. my car sits at 60% most of the time as i mainly so road trips) seem to make no difference at all to degradation...But no, degradation seems exactly the same to the ones driving the same pack in the south...

The fact that you track all of this so carefully says it all.

I couldn't give a crap about where my car sits on the "bell curve", because nothing that happens to any other car means anything at all to me or my situation (or your situation for that matter, but that fact is evidently not important to you).

So, I guess since you drive 90% or more of your battery's original capacity regularly with zero access to charging of any type, yep, that could be important.... (and there's ZERO chance that this is actually your situation)

That said, your "situation" represents .0001% of worldwide Tesla owners, so it's unlikely to be relevant to pretty much anyone.

You should sell your car (there's a strong market for pre-owned Teslas) and get something that suits your "situation" better....

 

[MACH5FL]

I picked a new 2020 SR December 2019. At 100% SOC, the rated range was 217. I never saw 220 miles at 100% SOC. My rated range is 190 right now. I have 38,480 miles on the ODO. I usually charge 85-90% SOC overnight and increase the SOC to 93-100% right before I leave in the morning. I have a long daily commute to work, 214 miles round trip. I have charging at work, so I charge up to 85-90% SOC by lunch time and increase the SOC to 93-100% right before I leave for the return trip. Not much driving on the weekends, I usually charge to 65% and let it sit. There were multiple times in 2020 where the car would sit for weeks at 70% SOC without being driven. I always keep the car plugged into a level 2 charger. I have never used a Super Charger. Lifetime Wh/mi is 266. I have a ticket with Tesla service to take a look at the battery.

 

[AtticusRex]

What should be the range on a Model 3 Long Range with AWD? It has 14K miles and was purchased in November of 2019.

 

[Kevy Baby]

There are a couple of threads that you should read that are stickies in this Battery & Charging forum:
MASTER THREAD: Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, How to Maintain Battery Health
2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants
And if you aren't happy with your car's range
How I Recovered Half of my Battery's Lost Capacity

 

[Candleflame]

The fact that you track all of this so carefully says it all.

I couldn't give a crap about where my car sits on the "bell curve", because nothing that happens to any other car means anything at all to me or my situation (or your situation for that matter, but that fact is evidently not important to you).

So, I guess since you drive 90% or more of your battery's original capacity regularly with zero access to charging of any type, yep, that could be important.... (and there's ZERO chance that this is actually your situation)

That said, your "situation" represents .0001% of worldwide Tesla owners, so it's unlikely to be relevant to pretty much anyone.

You should sell your car (there's a strong market for pre-owned Teslas) and get something that suits your "situation" better....

Im not sure why you feel the need to tell me what i should and should not do? I did not say that i do not have access to charging.

 

[diamond.g]

Hmm your calculation does make sense.
If i calculate capacity on the basis of the energy meter i get like 70kwh though? I thought the energymeter doesnt include the buffer as that is seperate and doesnt get used for the remaining range estimation?

I.e. i have a picture here from few days ago:

8% Soc estimated remaining range 35km at 160wh/km consumption.

So doesnt look like this includes the buffer? As youd expect way more range at 8% if it did? At 100% i think capacity worked out to around 70kwh which again sounded to me like the buffer wasnt included and my full capacity of the pack sounded like around 73kwh?

Are your vehicles rated using WLTP? If I understand the EPA cycle correctly Tesla's rated miles also includes the available energy below 0 miles indicated. Basically until the vehicle can no longer complete the test cycle (ie the car shuts off). So the buffer should be included in the calculation?

 

[Candleflame]

Are your vehicles rated using WLTP? If I understand the EPA cycle correctly Tesla's rated miles also includes the available energy below 0 miles indicated. Basically until the vehicle can no longer complete the test cycle (ie the car shuts off). So the buffer should be included in the calculation?

Epa range itself does use the buffer but for tracking degadation it shouldnt matter. Noone apart from old model s users use wltp for the simple reason that its not an option in the car to display rated range as wltp equivalent. Older model s in the eu had an option to switch between typical and ideal where typical was epa and ideal was wltp. Anyway thats not really relevant because we are using the rated range just as an energy constant so thats like 148w/km i think. In the epa test it was 156 or smth which youd get if you use the buffer too in a new car. So i guess it depends how your mind is wired and whether your mind allocates a rated wh/km including the buffer or it doesnt. I think of the rated constant as 148whatts not... 156 or whatever it was so i dont include the buffer for me.


I dont THINK the energymeter uses the buffer as the remaining energy at low % seems too little. Look at my pic. At 160 watts only 35km at 8% suggests it does not use the buffer. Like... if it were to include the buffer i should basically be at 0 rated km displayed which i am not as i still have 8%. At full i think i get around 70kwh which is why the tripmeter which suggests 64kwh without the buffer seems a bit low.

 

[diamond.g]

Epa range itself does use the buffer but for tracking degadation it shouldnt matter. Noone apart from old model s users use wltp for the simple reason that its not an option in the car to display rated range as wltp equivalent. Older model s in the eu had an option to switch between typical and ideal where typical was epa and ideal was wltp. Anyway thats not really relevant because we are using the rated range just as an energy constant so thats like 148w/km i think. In the epa test it was 156 or smth which youd get if you use the buffer too in a new car. So i guess it depends how your mind is wired and whether your mind allocates a rated wh/km including the buffer or it doesnt. I think of the rated constant as 148whatts not... 156 or whatever it was so i dont include the buffer for me.


I dont THINK the energymeter uses the buffer as the remaining energy at low % seems too little. Look at my pic. At 160 watts only 35km at 8% suggests it does not use the buffer. Like... if it were to include the buffer i should basically be at 0 rated km displayed which i am not as i still have 8%. At full i think i get around 70kwh which is why the tripmeter which suggests 64kwh without the buffer seems a bit low.

Ah, I think it is based on usable, which does exclude the buffer. Ignore the reported degradation as that "feature" has been removed in the latest SMT (at least for iOS).

 

[Candleflame]

Ah, I think it is based on usable, which does exclude the buffer. Ignore the reported degradation as that "feature" has been removed in the latest SMT (at least for iOS).

View attachment 649543

Not sure i dont have scanmytesla otherwise id just use that.

 

[Zcd1]

Im not sure why you feel the need to tell me what i should and should not do? I did not say that i do not have access to charging.

LOL - says the guy who responded to a question he was not asked with a rambling diatribe that did not actually answer the question...

 

[diamond.g]

Not sure i dont have scanmytesla otherwise id just use that.

With your level of tracking, I would just recommend you get it. Then you can get straight answers about capacity and see if messing with charing habits change things (probably won't, lol).

 

[Kevy Baby]

The fact that you track all of this so carefully says it all.

I couldn't give a crap about where my car sits on the "bell curve", because nothing that happens to any other car means anything at all to me or my situation (or your situation for that matter, but that fact is evidently not important to you).

So, I guess since you drive 90% or more of your battery's original capacity regularly with zero access to charging of any type, yep, that could be important.... (and there's ZERO chance that this is actually your situation)

That said, your "situation" represents .0001% of worldwide Tesla owners, so it's unlikely to be relevant to pretty much anyone.

You should sell your car (there's a strong market for pre-owned Teslas) and get something that suits your "situation" better....

(moderator note: edited reported personal attack out)

Personally, I don't stress over such minutia either, but A) I am grateful for those who do as I often learn from their efforts, and B) even if you don't, WHY DO YOU CARE what they do? If something isn't of interest to you, ignore it and move along.

Sheesh!