SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
If so, my car got the triple silicon dose since degradation is ~ 1%, 3 years coming up in JuneI agree. I wonder if it's the small amount of silicon they added....
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If so, my car got the triple silicon dose since degradation is ~ 1%, 3 years coming up in JuneI agree. I wonder if it's the small amount of silicon they added....
You are not going to get rated efficiency (thus rated range) driving 75 mph without a pretty strong tailwind.
My guess it's mostly because the BMS in the S series is nowhere near as good as the one in the model 3. So it just doesn't calculate capacity anywhere as well as what the model 3 does.that's one thing. But when other people have a 1.5 year old Model 3 with only 20k miles on it with 10% degradation thats a completely different matter.
Model 3 packs seem to degrade 3-5x as fast as Model S packs.
Means you're at about 272 miles at 100%, so about 15% capacity loss, or perhaps as little as 12% depending on whether you started at 77.8kWh or 76kWh (you likely started at 77.8kWh). You now have about 67kWh of capacity (estimated) by the BMS. The estimates are usually pretty good.I know that there are threads that says the displayed range doesn't reflect battery health but it just doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?
The extra silicon may help the first few years.... but after a while, it all just starts to sag... silicon or no silicon.If so, my car got the triple silicon dose since degradation is ~ 1%, 3 years coming up in June
I wish my car was still showing 471km range.
My guess it's mostly because the BMS in the S series is nowhere near as good as the one in the model 3. So it just doesn't calculate capacity anywhere as well as what the model 3 does.
it is becoming very evident that the initial batch of performance 3s in 2019 have something wrong with them. No matter where you live in Australia (i.e. hot tropics like me or colder melbourne), whether you supercharge all the time or not or whether you put 20k km or 60k km on your car - we all seem to have very heavy degradation nearing 10%. Makes you almost wonder whether we are getting software limited due to a problem with the battery manufacture.I wish my car was still showing 471km range.
This shows your battery is close to 72kWh remaining, 1.5kWh more than my late 2019 performance.
From my understanding, there was no silicon in the S or X, only when they introduced the 2170 cell for the Model 3 they said they added like 5% of it in there. Silicon expands more, therefore cracks more, so I'm wondering if this is why the degradation is more on the 3 than the S or X. I'm at around 12% now, but I've been on here since 2012 and kept up with Tesla and their chemistry. I remember reading several articles that had stats where it showed the S would go down 5% after getting the car and then level off.....WTF is going on with all these 3s then?...............The extra silicon may help the first few years.... but after a while, it all just starts to sag... silicon or no silicon.
That may be what the car shows. But then you see all new owners complaining about barely being able to go over 300km.Heck, a new Model 3 SR+ gets almost the same range as me charging to 100% - and I cant even charge to 100% regularly without risking damage to the battery, especially with it being 40C here and all.
Silicone was fist added to the S&X cells when they went from the 70/85kWh packs to the 75/90kWh packs.From my understanding, there was no silicon in the S or X, only when they introduced the 2170 cell for the Model 3 they said they added like 5% of it in there.
The timeline of that must have slipped in my brain over the years. Thanks for the reminder! So why such a huge difference with 3 to S/X?Silicone was fist added to the S&X cells when they went from the 70/85kWh packs to the 75/90kWh packs.
Range at new was 320 miles, max now is 283, 12.5% degradation. This seems so much higher than others I have seen.
217 actual vs 320 mile range when new is a whopping 32.2% difference
64.3%. A recent drive commenced with 283 available miles at full charge, drove of 171 miles on Friday, 19 March. Outside temp was 15°c and had 72 miles available at the end of the day.
So, if my memory serves, cathode cracking occurs above 3.92V or thereabouts, which may or may not be around 63% SOC. So, if there's a higher percentage of silicon in the 3 batteries than others, would it make even more sense not to charge above 63% unless necessary to avoid degradation?From my understanding, there was no silicon in the S or X, only when they introduced the 2170 cell for the Model 3 they said they added like 5% of it in there. Silicon expands more, therefore cracks more, so I'm wondering if this is why the degradation is more on the 3 than the S or X. I'm at around 12% now, but I've been on here since 2012 and kept up with Tesla and their chemistry. I remember reading several articles that had stats where it showed the S would go down 5% after getting the car and then level off.....WTF is going on with all these 3s then?...............
So why such a huge difference with 3 to S/X?
Source please?So, if my memory serves, cathode cracking occurs above 3.92V or thereabouts