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

[AAKEE]

I'm getting about 276 mph

Mine struggles to get past 160 mph

 

[AAKEE]

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.

0.16x35= 5.6kWh.
Lets say you have 70kwh sas nominal full( what the BMS thinks is full battery): 70x0.08 = 5.6kWh.
These numbers match perfect, and we know there is a buffer below. 4.5% according to alansubie ?

So this means the buffer isnt counted into this, at least in the lowest level of the battery SOC. I have seen that the different types of SOC you can see with scan my Tesla differs. Havent checked the difference at vaery low SOC though.

 

[SmartElectric]

2020 SR ...At 100% SOC, the rated range was 217...long daily commute to work, 214 miles round trip...I have a ticket with Tesla service to take a look at the battery.

??? My Smart has a range of 100 km in perfect weather and 55 km in -30C. I wouldn't have bought an EV if my daily commute was 100 km. Whereas you bought the minimum range Tesla to match your commute distance, and have opened a ticket with Tesla to solve what ... that you made a mistake when buying the car. I am hopeful you will see my reply as "yes, thanks for telling the the obvious, I knew what I was doing". So, if you knew you were buying barely enough range to commute, why is this Tesla's problem to solve? I mean this seriously, battery degradation is a thing. A coworker with a Kia EV ended up with not enough range to round trip without work charging like you are seeing, and Kia didn't "solve his problem", instead he upgraded to an EV with double the range he needs for his daily commute. Stress released!

 

[Candleflame]

0.16x35= 5.6kWh.
Lets say you have 70kwh sas nominal full( what the BMS thinks is full battery): 70x0.08 = 5.6kWh.
These numbers match perfect, and we know there is a buffer below. 4.5% according to alansubie ?

So this means the buffer isnt counted into this, at least in the lowest level of the battery SOC. I have seen that the different types of SOC you can see with scan my Tesla differs. Havent checked the difference at vaery low SOC though.

Yes indeed that was my calculation. Even though the trip computer is suggesting 64kwh only for a 100% discharge, see a few posts earlier. The answer sort of was that 64kwh is correct and 70kwh includes the buffer...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I thought the energymeter doesnt include the buffer

The energy consumption screen does include a portion of the buffer, but the amount included depends on your SoC.

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

This (through pure luck since there is huge rounding error) works out to ~70kWh projected. 35km*160wh/km /0.08 = 70kWh. Don't do this calculation at low SoC like this though. It's garbage at low SoC, massive rounding error, results can easily be off by over 10% at 8% SoC.

So doesnt look like this includes the buffer? As youd expect way more range at 8% if it did?

I know it's confusing. But that's because this estimated range meter on the Energy Consumption screen is not accurate. You actually have a lot more range than it says! The error increases the lower your SoC (it's exactly correct, assuming entire use of the buffer, at 100% SoC)

The constant for your vehicle is 152.2Wh/rkm, applying to total capacity including the buffer. But each displayed rkm is 145.4Wh/rkm (displayed), 4.5% less.

At 8%, you actually have 8% of 450rkm, or ~36rkm, which is 36rkm*145.4Wh/rkm = 5.23kWh, but this does not include the buffer energy.

The buffer in your vehicle is 4.5% of 68.5kWh which is about 3.1kWh.

So at 8% you have about 8.33kWh left. But the Energy Consumption screen says you have just 35km*160Wh/km left = 5.6kWh left.

But this does NOT mean that the estimate does not include the buffer at all. What it includes, due to Tesla's weird way of dealing with this, is a % of the buffer equal to your current SoC. So at 8%, the projection includes 8% of the buffer (3.1kWh*0.08 = 0.25kWh). At 100%, it includes the entire buffer.

So 5.23kWh + 0.25kWh = 5.48kWh (which is about the 5.6kWh used for the projection - there is rounding error which is the reason for the discrepancy here).

This is mathematically required for the formula Capacity Including Buffer = Projected Range * Recent Efficiency / SoC (see above) to work through the whole SoC range - which it does, but with drastically less accuracy as you get to lower SoC (see above where it gave 70kWh rather than the correct value of closer to 68.5kWh).

The reason it works this way is that the constant 152.2Wh/rkm is used for all of these calculations on the energy Consumption screen, which is the constant that includes the buffer contribution, and there is no offset applied for the buffer, so it means that you only get a portion of the buffer when you're at a lower SoC.

As an aside, this just means in general, the projection screen is wrong. Fortunately it's increasingly pessimistic as you get to lower SoC. It's super confusing though and I wish Tesla had dealt with it differently. It's very simple math but deliberately making it work inconsistently like this is very confusing.

As an example of how it is wrong: You might think that if you have a projected range of 450km at a consumption of 152Wh/km (that's what your car will say at 100%, according to your statements), that you could travel 200km at a consumption of 152Wh/km and have 250km left. But you won't! You'll end up with 241km (actually 239km) left instead on your battery. Anyway, super confusing.

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.

Again: It includes a portion of the buffer, equal to the SoC %. So at 0% it includes none of the buffer, and at 100% it includes the entire 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%.

Right. The energy consumption screen includes a portion of the buffer. 8% of it in this case.

None of this contradicts the formulas I provided earlier. If your car displayed 450rkm at 100% SoC (this is what you said, but you also said you calculated 70kWh (I presume at 100% SoC) which would be 460rkm at 100%), you have 68.5kWh battery capacity left ( you started with somewhere between 76kWh and 77.8kWh, most likely close to 77.8kWh).

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).

Yeah this picture tells you pretty much everything but it's also 100% consistent with the Energy Consumption screen if you know how to interpret the Energy Consumption screen.

So this means the buffer isnt counted into this, at least in the lowest level of the battery SOC.

8% of it is included at 8% SoC.

 

[Phlier]

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....

I'm just curious why you care about what other people care about? You worry about the stuff that concerns you, and let others choose what they want to worry about. No reason to come across so harshly about something that literally doesn't concern you... at all.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

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.

Lifetime Wh/mi is 266.

Given it looks like you're doing mostly freeway driving with a lot of AC use, that's a pretty enviable result.

You have used 10.2MWh of energy to do your 38480 miles.

Your battery started with 47.5kWh capacity (supposed to be 48kWh). It's now at 41.6kWh (190rmi * 219Wh/rmi).

You've put 10200kWh/48kWh = 213 nominal cycles on your battery, not including regen which is probably fairly minimal in Florida with that sort of commute.

13% capacity loss with that many cycles, after about 18 months, seems ok. As many have discussed here, this may well be above the norm for Model S/X packs, but it seems very normal for Model 3 pack capacity loss. Tesla Service will tell you to take a hike, nicely. That's just the way it goes. Once you get to 154 rated miles (assuming you don't hit the mileage limit (of 100k?) first), you will have a claim.

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.

This seems fine. Since you have charging at work this vehicle works for you, and it should work just fine. You should be able to make the 107-mile one way trip at 266Wh/mi while using about 107mi*266Wh/mi/0.99 / (0.955rmi/drmi*219Wh/rmi) = 137 displayed rated miles (drmi). For your current 190-mile capacity battery that's going to be 72% of your SoC, so if you leave at 93% you're probably arriving at home at around 20% SoC. Just roughly. Obviously YMMV, literally, due to conditions like wind, rain, elevation change, etc. But this is for an actual displayed trip efficiency of 266Wh/mi (I'm using your lifetime average and assuming that's about what you get when driving your commute).

 

[Candleflame]

The energy consumption screen does include a portion of the buffer, but the amount included depends on your SoC.



This (through pure luck since there is huge rounding error) works out to ~70kWh projected. 35km*160wh/km /0.08 = 70kWh. Don't do this calculation at low SoC like this though. It's garbage at low SoC, massive rounding error, results can easily be off by over 10% at 8% SoC.



I know it's confusing. But that's because this estimated range meter on the Energy Consumption screen is not accurate. You actually have a lot more range than it says! The error increases the lower your SoC (it's exactly correct, assuming entire use of the buffer, at 100% SoC)

The constant for your vehicle is 152.2Wh/rkm, applying to total capacity including the buffer. But each displayed rkm is 145.4Wh/rkm (displayed), 4.5% less.

At 8%, you actually have 8% of 450rkm, or ~36rkm, which is 36rkm*145.4Wh/rkm = 5.23kWh, but this does not include the buffer energy.

The buffer in your vehicle is 4.5% of 68.5kWh which is about 3.1kWh.

So at 8% you have about 8.33kWh left. But the Energy Consumption screen says you have just 35km*160Wh/km left = 5.6kWh left.

But this does NOT mean that the estimate does not include the buffer at all. What it includes, due to Tesla's weird way of dealing with this, is a % of the buffer equal to your current SoC. So at 8%, the projection includes 8% of the buffer (3.1kWh*0.08 = 0.25kWh). At 100%, it includes the entire buffer.

So 5.23kWh + 0.25kWh = 5.48kWh (which is about the 5.6kWh used for the projection - there is rounding error which is the reason for the discrepancy here).

This is mathematically required for the formula Capacity Including Buffer = Projected Range * Recent Efficiency / SoC (see above) to work through the whole SoC range - which it does, but with drastically less accuracy as you get to lower SoC (see above where it gave 70kWh rather than the correct value of closer to 68.5kWh).

The reason it works this way is that the constant 152.2Wh/rkm is used for all of these calculations on the energy Consumption screen, which is the constant that includes the buffer contribution, and there is no offset applied for the buffer, so it means that you only get a portion of the buffer when you're at a lower SoC.

As an aside, this just means in general, the projection screen is wrong. Fortunately it's increasingly pessimistic as you get to lower SoC. It's super confusing though and I wish Tesla had dealt with it differently. It's very simple math but deliberately making it work inconsistently like this is very confusing.

As an example of how it is wrong: You might think that if you have a projected range of 450km at a consumption of 152Wh/km (that's what your car will say at 100%, according to your statements), that you could travel 200km at a consumption of 152Wh/km and have 250km left. But you won't! You'll end up with 241km (actually 239km) left instead on your battery. Anyway, super confusing.


Again: It includes a portion of the buffer, equal to the SoC %. So at 0% it includes none of the buffer, and at 100% it includes the entire buffer.



Right. The energy consumption screen includes a portion of the buffer. 8% of it in this case.

None of this contradicts the formulas I provided earlier. If your car displayed 450rkm at 100% SoC (this is what you said, but you also said you calculated 70kWh (I presume at 100% SoC) which would be 460rkm at 100%), you have 68.5kWh battery capacity left ( you started with somewhere between 76kWh and 77.8kWh, most likely close to 77.8kWh).



Yeah this picture tells you pretty much everything but it's also 100% consistent with the Energy Consumption screen if you know how to interpret the Energy Consumption screen.



8% of it is included at 8% SoC.

Ahh i see. That makes much more sense now. So at 100% it includes the buffer but at 0% it doesnt.

Its not exactly 70kwh, i think it was actually 70,9kwh but the 8% highlighted my question better. I wouldnt do kwh estimates at low soc normally...

 

[Candleflame]

Given it looks like you're doing mostly freeway driving with a lot of AC use, that's a pretty enviable result.

You have used 10.2MWh of energy to do your 38480 miles.

Your battery started with 47.5kWh capacity (supposed to be 48kWh). It's now at 41.6kWh (190rmi * 219Wh/rmi).

You've put 10200kWh/48kWh = 213 nominal cycles on your battery, not including regen which is probably fairly minimal in Florida with that sort of commute.

13% capacity loss with that many cycles, after about 18 months, seems ok. As many have discussed here, this may well be above the norm for Model S/X packs, but it seems very normal for Model 3 pack capacity loss. Tesla Service will tell you to take a hike, nicely. That's just the way it goes. Once you get to 154 rated miles, you will have a claim.



This seems fine. Since you have charging at work this vehicle works for you, and it should work just fine. You should be able to make the 107-mile one way trip at 266Wh/mi while using about 107mi*266Wh/mi/0.99 / (0.955rmi/drmi*219Wh/rmi) = 137 displayed rated miles (drmi). For your current 190-mile capacity battery that's going to be 72% of your SoC, so if you leave at 93% you're probably arriving at home at around 20% SoC. Just roughly. Obviously YMMV, literally, due to conditions like wind, rain, elevation change, etc. But this is for an actual displayed trip efficiency of 266Wh/mi (I'm using your lifetime average and assuming that's about what you get when driving your commute).

I guess the question is, why do model s packs degrade so little? There seem to be prople with 200k plus kms.only having 5% degradation. And then theres people with monstermiles only having 8 to 10%. Meanwhile theres heaps of people like me who have i.e. 20k miles and already 10% degradation.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Ahh i see. That makes much more sense now. So at 100% it includes the buffer but at 0% it doesnt.

Its not exactly 70kwh, i think it was actually 70,9kwh but the 8% highlighted my question better. I wouldnt do kwh estimates at low soc normally...

If the Energy Screen calculation really worked out to 70.9kWh, your range should display about 466rkm (+/-6rkm, VERY roughly) at 100% SoC, or project to it, assuming the calculation and the projection (using the slider in the Tesla app or whatever) both are done above about 80% SoC.

Let me know if it doesn't work out this way, and we can work out the inconsistency, or where one of us is making a mistake. I'm really being super loose with the rounding errors here, since it's annoying to have to work out the exact amount estimates can be off.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I guess the question is, why do model s packs degrade so little?

Different cells. No idea really. As discussed earlier, it's kind of not useful to have the conversation about Model S packs (would be nice to look at a 2019 Model S vintage) without a "brand-new" SMT (or energy screen) readout, and a current energy screen & SMT readout, from a Model S. I'm assuming the Energy Consumption screen works exactly the same way on Model S here but that is TBD. And there's the issue of hidden energy above 100% too. This has been reported in SOME recent 2021 Model 3 Performance packs (see that thread; the posts are recent), and I have no idea whether this can occur in Model S. I don't track Model S, at all. If there's hidden energy above 100% of any substantial amount for Model S, that would make capacity loss look smaller on Model S over time. That's the value of the SMT read back, since it will show that energy without having to guess.

It's all eminently knowable what the comparison looks like though. I just don't really care to figure it out. What I do know is you can't necessarily just look at rated mile loss - you have to know what the playing field looks like (whether any energy is being hidden anywhere) before you do that.

In other words, the first question is: Do recent vintage (2018 and newer) Model S packs retain capacity better than Model 3 packs? That question has to be answered before we ask why Model S packs degrade less. Fortunately the first question is much more easily answered than your original question. But I don't know the answer.

 

[Candleflame]

If the Energy Screen calculation really worked out to 70.9kWh, your range should display about 466rkm (+/-6rkm, VERY roughly) at 100% SoC, or project to it, assuming the calculation and the projection (using the slider in the Tesla app or whatever) both are done above about 80% SoC.

Let me know if it doesn't work out this way, and we can work out the inconsistency, or where one of us is making a mistake. I'm really being super loose with the rounding errors here, since it's annoying to have to work out the exact amount estimates can be off.

I have lost a lot of kms over the last few weeks hence probably the error. I.e. i was on 465km just 2 months ago and 460km just 2 weeks ago but more recently im...454 i think. I will do another 100% charge in 2 days for my roadtrip.

 

[Kevy Baby]

Mine struggles to get past 160 mph

Then you need to find a higher cliff to drive off of

 

[MACH5FL]

Given it looks like you're doing mostly freeway driving with a lot of AC use, that's a pretty enviable result.

You have used 10.2MWh of energy to do your 38480 miles.

Your battery started with 47.5kWh capacity (supposed to be 48kWh). It's now at 41.6kWh (190rmi * 219Wh/rmi).

You've put 10200kWh/48kWh = 213 nominal cycles on your battery, not including regen which is probably fairly minimal in Florida with that sort of commute.

13% capacity loss with that many cycles, after about 18 months, seems ok. As many have discussed here, this may well be above the norm for Model S/X packs, but it seems very normal for Model 3 pack capacity loss. Tesla Service will tell you to take a hike, nicely. That's just the way it goes. Once you get to 154 rated miles (assuming you don't hit the mileage limit (of 100k?) first), you will have a claim.



This seems fine. Since you have charging at work this vehicle works for you, and it should work just fine. You should be able to make the 107-mile one way trip at 266Wh/mi while using about 107mi*266Wh/mi/0.99 / (0.955rmi/drmi*219Wh/rmi) = 137 displayed rated miles (drmi). For your current 190-mile capacity battery that's going to be 72% of your SoC, so if you leave at 93% you're probably arriving at home at around 20% SoC. Just roughly. Obviously YMMV, literally, due to conditions like wind, rain, elevation change, etc. But this is for an actual displayed trip efficiency of 266Wh/mi (I'm using your lifetime average and assuming that's about what you get when driving your commute).

Thank you for your feedback. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with your assumptions. I'm still waiting on a reply from Tesla to see what they have to say. In the mean time, I'll continue to monitor the drmi periodically. I typically just drive with the display set to percentage. Other than my slight battery degradation concern, the car has been great so far.

 

[Zcd1]

I'm just curious why you care about what other people care about? You worry about the stuff that concerns you, and let others choose what they want to worry about. No reason to come across so harshly about something that literally doesn't concern you... at all.

I asked a question of another poster, because I'm genuinely curious. I even started a thread on that very topic a while back: Honest question about battery degradation...

"Candleflame" chose to respond to my question by ranting about an unrelated topic.

I'm not the person "trolling" in this situation...

 

[jjrandorin]

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....

I dont respond in this thread, because the subject doesnt really interest me. With that being said, this thread exists, in large part, for people for whom the subject does concern them to discuss it.

I (fairly aggressively in fact) move virtually every post on this topic into this thread, specifically so that:

1. Those who dont know about it and say "hey everyone, I am concerned about my range because <insert complaint here>, can find out "its normal, there is nothing wrong with your car relative to other tesla model 3s"

2. So that those who want to discuss the topic in depth can do so, without the individual posts from each user convinced their issue is different from others overrunning the forum.

3. So that those with a lot of knowledge around the topic can find one place to respond and help people who are confused about the topic, and

4. So those who are not interested in the topic can avoid looking at it, should they so desire.

So, if the topic doesnt interest you in general, my suggestion would be to avoid this thread. While forums are for discussion, and dissenting opinions are fine, being overly concerned about why someone feels the way they do, is just a way to start an argument, in general.

TL ; DR, I would recommend avoiding this thread, or if you want to have the discussion, focusing on what works for you, rather than challenging other people for being concerned about something that they want to be concerned about.

 

[jyavenard]

You sure you are the worst? How many extrapolated 100% kms do you have? On the initial 2019 performance for aus we are pretty much all down to 450km rated. Cars with the 20" tires a bit lower as they have a different max rated range... I think my friend with the performance upgrade is only on 423km.

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)

Basically all the australian initial 2019 cars have crap batteries...the way it is...

Interestingly enough discharge cycles and ambient temps dont seem to matter at all. The degradation seems to be time based mainly.

I wonder if enough of us made a fuss to Tesla, including threats of legal proceedings, they would do something about it,

What's weird is thst the SR+ don't appear to suffer from this issue.

 

[Candleflame]

I wonder if enough of us made a fuss to Tesla, including threats of legal proceedings, they would do something about it,

What's weird is thst the SR+ don't appear to suffer from this issue.

can only do it under australian consumer protection for misadvertisement of range. as far as warranty is concerned as long as we are in the 70% for 8 years/160k km there's nothing really we can do.
even though its a bit... strange if you were to buy the car and 1 week after purchase you would sit on 29% and that being ok...

That said, it seems in this thread here are multiple cars which also have 10% degradation. And looking at the average on teslafi thats 470km for 35k km so they also all have 5-6%, even though it looks like the curve is leveling off. Its hard to make case for just 20km of extra rangeloss...

Plus we dont even know if its true degradation (I sort of doubt this) or whether its software nerfing to protect the battery from something. In that case we might actually end up with less or at least the same degradation once we hit 100k km+. So it is just not clear. And even though there are a lot of Model S with 100k.

Making fuss to Tesla isnt gonna change anything. Not only do we have the worst customer service worldwide for Tesla (empiric observation) but they will just tell us our "battery is fine" until it hits 30% when its "not fine".

edit: i also want to be clear here that i would have bought my 3 also with 450km EPA range (well ideally i would have bought a Model 3 90kwh battery then or whatever could be available) but I am upset about the misadvertisement of range. If the car goes down to 450km EPA after 1 year then it's clearly not a 499km EPA car. Just one of many issues with Teslas lack of transparency. And it is nothing which could have been extrapolated from any of the Model S/X packs.

 

[jyavenard]

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

Same as Candleflame, we both live in Australia. Charging infrastructure isn't anywhere near what you find in the US.

Does it affect me on my daily driving? no.

Do I care? Why shouldn't I care. I pay a good amount of money for this car and I intend to keep it for a while. Getting 12% degradation in the first 15 months only to be told it's all normal doesn't go well with me for some unknown reason.

And being told to switch to % and ignore it doesn't sit well with me.

 

[jyavenard]

First, I wasn't asking you.

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

I have never understood the obsession with TeslaFi/capacity/range - it is what it is,

I'm not sure you've grasped the whole picture.
TeslaFi just reports a number, and that's directly related to the actual measured capacity of the battery. Many participants of this thread are using a ODBD2 adapter to read the actual capacity.

I started with 78.2kWh and now I have 69kWh batter with buffer. So that's 65kWh . If I could do the 142Wh/km that NEDC rating use, this would give me 442km range. And I will never achieve that range because no one caring about their car will go to 0% battery.

We paid for one thing, we got something. Not sure about the US, but in Australia this is against the law.

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.

LOL, what fast charger? unless you are doing Melbourne to Sydney, the availability of fast DC chargers in Oz is hopeless at present.