See what happens when the car has rested for a few hours. If not, give more details please
Nice find, I'll look into it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
See what happens when the car has rested for a few hours. If not, give more details please
Nice find, I'll look into it.
MarcG
Active Member
@amund7 thanks again for working on the beta, looking great! I did have a few bugs where the app wouldn't connect to the ODB2 adapter and sometimes crashed, but once it finally loaded I played around with the new dashboard tab and really like it.
Question for you: in the new capacity page, how do you know the initial capacity of 77.8kWh? Is this a variable you're calculating somehow, or are you "hard-coding" this value to always be 77.8kWh for long-range Model 3 batteries?
Thank you once again for the hard work on this!
Question for you: in the new capacity page, how do you know the initial capacity of 77.8kWh? Is this a variable you're calculating somehow, or are you "hard-coding" this value to always be 77.8kWh for long-range Model 3 batteries?
Thank you once again for the hard work on this!
Crashes shouldn't happen (more than the original app (and if that also crashes, it's about time to fix it)), please report if it's repeatable.
77.8 is read from the car, recently discovered signal and only for Model 3. It seems like a hard coded value (for that battery size), so we'll see how useful this is, if it just creates panic among owners I might remove it later. But it makes the scale look sooo useful, right?
MarcG
Active Member
Crashes shouldn't happen (more than the original app (and if that also crashes, it's about time to fix it)), please report if it's repeatable.
77.8 is read from the car, recently discovered signal and only for Model 3. It seems like a hard coded value (for that battery size), so we'll see how useful this is, if it just creates panic among owners I might remove it later. But it makes the scale look sooo useful, right?
Haha yes, I actually think it's pretty valuable to have the original capacity when new. I would definitely vote for keeping it there.
I'm just wondering if all Model 3 vehicle with the long-range battery report the same 77.8 value, or if it's specific to every battery. Poking around other threads, I see two other folks who show the same value:
SMT: Nominal Full Pack tracking
PS: I'll test some more tonight and report if I see more crashes.
Last edited:
Panic isn't your problem. Giving the correct data and providing appropriate documentation for the values is the important thing.
MarcG
Active Member
Ok @amund7 I did some more extensive testing on the SMT Android beta tonight, and found the following.
When the app opens, it defaults to the Dashboard tab, and if I leave it on that tab (even if I swipe across to different dashboard views), it fails to connect to my ODB2 adapter and throws some errors like "Adapter error ?" and eventually "Thread was being aborted", then after 30 seconds it tries to reconnect and crashes right away. Here's a video of what that looks like (I did submit the crash report, btw):
However if I switch tabs to any of the "old" ones from previous 1.x versions, such as Perf or Speed tabs, just after opening the app, it connects to the adapter just fine and loads all the data (funnily enough, it still shows "Adapter error?" but it works). I can then switch to Dashboard, and everything loads in there just fine. In the below video, I just had the car in Park mode, so obviously fewer data points to show, but it worked fine when I was driving earlier. Hope these help!
When the app opens, it defaults to the Dashboard tab, and if I leave it on that tab (even if I swipe across to different dashboard views), it fails to connect to my ODB2 adapter and throws some errors like "Adapter error ?" and eventually "Thread was being aborted", then after 30 seconds it tries to reconnect and crashes right away. Here's a video of what that looks like (I did submit the crash report, btw):
However if I switch tabs to any of the "old" ones from previous 1.x versions, such as Perf or Speed tabs, just after opening the app, it connects to the adapter just fine and loads all the data (funnily enough, it still shows "Adapter error?" but it works). I can then switch to Dashboard, and everything loads in there just fine. In the below video, I just had the car in Park mode, so obviously fewer data points to show, but it worked fine when I was driving earlier. Hope these help!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Crashes shouldn't happen (more than the original app (and if that also crashes, it's about time to fix it)), please report if it's repeatable.
77.8 is read from the car, recently discovered signal and only for Model 3. It seems like a hard coded value (for that battery size), so we'll see how useful this is, if it just creates panic among owners I might remove it later. But it makes the scale look sooo useful, right?
Is this same value of 77.8 read back from 2018/2019 Model 3 vehicles as well? Or is it a different value there than for 2020 models? I definitely expected 77.8 for the 2020, but sort of thought maybe you’d see 76 for the 2019/2018 (even though the pack is actually the same capacity), just because I believe that you only see degradation on those older vehicles (in the rated mile display) when you drop below that 76 kWh threshold.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks. Kind of makes sense since that’s always where we have seen vehicles start.
Notice on these two screenshots how nominal full pack went down from 71.8kwh to 71.7kwh but the full range went up from 292mi to 293mi.
I assume it's just inconsistent rounding happening some place.
Pretty minor issue. Not sure if is happening in the car or in your app, or if it is even worth troubleshooting.
I assume it's just inconsistent rounding happening some place.
Pretty minor issue. Not sure if is happening in the car or in your app, or if it is even worth troubleshooting.
Attachments
I think you're missing the point. My concern was not that the values were different from one day to the next.
My point is that battery capacity and range should trend in the same direction because they are both measurements of the same thing. If battery capacity goes down, range should also go down. Battery capacity goes up, range should go up.
But range went up while battery capacity went down. That seems impossible. The only explanation I can think of is a rounding error someplace. the rounding error might be happening in the car but I pointed it out in case the rounding was happening in the app and it was something you wanted to look into.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
I think SMT, like the cars, is for thinking people. Said persons probably found Jason Hughes tear down data, and correlated it with The Panasonic NCR 18650 data sheet, and have the capacity for their car memorized.
However, should the unwashed masses aquire this App, a page listing the capacities for the 10 or so battery variants would be useful.
Another idea is to make an entry field for what the user thinks his capacity should have been, or would be in a newer car (200 KwH is a good number for me) and show a % change from current capacity.
Since 2020.20.12 update, the nominal remaining and expected remaining report wrong values. I’m pretty sure that occured just after the update because I’ve checked my SoH at this moment.
Here is @ 80% SoC
Now while driving @ 68%.
Does someone have the same behaviour with this update ?
Here is @ 80% SoC
Now while driving @ 68%.
Does someone have the same behaviour with this update ?
Last edited:
MarcG
Active Member
I don’t think that the problem is correlated to drive mode. On the first screen, for 80% real SoC, the BMS report between 42 and 44% and drops very fast while driving. When I reach 70% real, SMT switch from -1 to 140% SoC. It seems to be very linear and not depending if the vehicule is parked or not.
Just noticed a small thing. In the new graphics the range is using the 'ideal' number. It should use the 'rated' number for cars in the USA. I know this is confusing because in the cars in Europe the two options are called 'typical' and 'rated'. But 'rated' in Europe and 'rated' in the US are exactly the opposite.
The origin of these two numbers is the different test methods in the US and Europe. In Europe the WLTP is the standard, in the US it is the EPA test. The EPA test is not far from reality and represents a range that can be achieved when driving conservatively. The WLTP test is too easy and results in more range than is realistic. Tesla did both tests to get approval in both regions. In US cars they labeled them 'rated' for the EPA test and 'ideal' for the WLTP test. In EU cars they labeled the WLTP test 'rated' (which is technically correct), but labeled the more realistic EPA test 'typical'. I hope this makes sense.
The origin of these two numbers is the different test methods in the US and Europe. In Europe the WLTP is the standard, in the US it is the EPA test. The EPA test is not far from reality and represents a range that can be achieved when driving conservatively. The WLTP test is too easy and results in more range than is realistic. Tesla did both tests to get approval in both regions. In US cars they labeled them 'rated' for the EPA test and 'ideal' for the WLTP test. In EU cars they labeled the WLTP test 'rated' (which is technically correct), but labeled the more realistic EPA test 'typical'. I hope this makes sense.
Similar threads
