SR (limited?)battery degradation

[gary3411]

The engineer in me resists the term vampire drain or phantom drain and a couple others, because it is a known maintenance drain on the battery.

What is the known maintenance being done on a sleeping car to waste 4 miles per day in optimal temps? i don't believe we have figured this out yet according to this thread: Vampire Drain/Loss Tracking

The engineer in me is frustrated because it truly seems to be useless drain done by a vampire, not necessary 'maintenance' of any kind.

 

[gary3411]

Correction. About 1/4 is useful maintenance. 3/4 appears phantom.

 

[Evoforce]

Correction. About 1/4 is useful maintenance. 3/4 appears phantom.

It is part of a complete system approach, of which half of it you don't care to have as features on your described "ideal vehicle". But I believe most people prefer to have those amenities. Pretty sure the engineers on the project know exactly what is using the battery.

 

[gary3411]

It may be part of a complete system approach. It may not be. I'll give it a 50/50 shot either way. I'm sure the engineers do know exactly what is using the battery. However, we civilians DO NOT. It'd be nice if we did. That way I can predict if they will ever be able to offer the option of turning off whatever is draining this battery so fast. If it's simply part of a system that can never ever be turned off, so be it, and it has a material affect on my choice to buy the car. However, I suspect that even with a little engineering 'will' they could easily give the consumer an option of a 'deep sleep' mode of some sort in the future using maybe .5 to 1 mile per day. But I don't know if this will ever be possible because they havn't made the information available to speculate.

 

[Rocky_H]

I would absolutely be willing to wait for the right car to come out. The main problem I see, is that there is absolutely NO EV's that will be $31,000, access to fast charging, long lasting parts, 250+ mile range, etc. on the horizon for at least 5 years. Am I wrong?

Within 5 years? A used Tesla.

 

[Evoforce]

Within 5 years? A used Tesla.

I was going to say the same thing but the Tesla's have too may features to match up to his Dream Vehicle. A 2012-13 $30,000 used Tesla S 85 (today) has 50 miles under the 300 miles and still way more features than his Dream Car. And you are right about 5 years to get the (used) 300+ vehicles close to his price range.

 

[gary3411]

Within 5 years? A used Tesla.

with no miles on it? I'm in!

 

[jjrandorin]

You've lost about 4%. More importantly, you've lost 10 miles SO FAR. That is 10 miles less you can travel from a charging source. It is not ZERO, in fact no where close to zero.

I may not get quite as lucky as you. I may get luckier. Regardless, if my software locked battery degraded 4% in theory it would have degraded nothing because the first 10 percent is software locked anyway. This is an important difference.

I dont think an EV is the right car for you yet, based on what you are saying here. Its certainly not "one size fits all" and you have so many ifs in there, that you would probably be better off getting an ICE car now and waiting for the next round of EVs in 2-3 years. The batteries will get bigger for similar cost, etc.

 

[jjrandorin]

DREAM CAR: 300mile battery with manual seats, mirrors, etc. for 30K that lasts 500k miles. No cameras, no sensors, no apps, no bluetooth. Nothing wrong with computer and software to maintain the DRIVETRAIN only. Get an update when you are in range of wifi. I believe it can be built pretty easily by Tesla and profitable.

A car is a tool.

Man Teslas could've been so great. Now what, Volkswagen? Rivian? Doubt it, they're all planning wasteful "features" too. Oh well.

That sounds horrible to me, but thats why they make different cars for everyone. I dont want "manual seats. mirrors etc" and no way in !@#$@E I would pay 30k for that. Everyone has different priorities, but its HIGHLY unlikely you will see a car like this.

If your "car is a tool" then you are looking in the wrong category.. you want an appliance car which tesla's currently are not.

 

[gary3411]

If your "car is a tool" then you are looking in the wrong category.. you want an appliance car which tesla's currently are not.

I'd love an appliance car, but they all burn freaking dino juice! Grrr. Or have low range, or no supercharging network, or don't last very long.

 

[gary3411]

I dont think an EV is the right car for you yet, based on what you are saying here. Its certainly not "one size fits all" and you have so many ifs in there, that you would probably be better off getting an ICE car now and waiting for the next round of EVs in 2-3 years. The batteries will get bigger for similar cost, etc.

What next round? Volkswagen crozz? Maybe. That thing will be 40k, 125kw charge MAX if lucky, and the battery probably won't hold up for 200k miles. Another reason I don't want to wait, $3750 federal rebate is pretty enticing.

 

[MP3Mike]

Assuming the battery gets software limited to 220miles, leaving it a 'spare' 20 miles worth of battery, does this mean that 'spare' 20 miles would be the first to 'degrade'? In other words, my SR will not degrade until that degradation exceeds the spare 20 miles? Or would my pack degrade evenly and I see the same proportion of degradation as a non-software locked car?

All the software locking does is remap 100% on your car to 90% of the actual capacity. So your battery will still degrade just like a normal non-locked battery.

If they used the extra 10% to hide degradation then they couldn't sell you the unlock later since it would not actually unlock anything once your pack had degraded by 10%.

If the Model 3 packs degrade about the same as the S&X packs you should expect ~5% in the first year and ~1% each year after that. (Depending on use and abuse.) Of course if you drive a SR pack the same number of miles as a LR pack the SR pack is going to degrade more because you are putting it through more charge cycles.

 

[ucmndd]

First hand experience, software locked batteries degrade just like any other. No difference.

 

[dmurphy]

All the software locking does is remap 100% on your car to 90% of the actual capacity. So your battery will still degrade just like a normal non-locked battery.

If they used the extra 10% to hide degradation then they couldn't sell you the unlock later since it would not actually unlock anything once your pack had degraded by 10%.

If the Model 3 packs degrade about the same as the S&X packs you should expect ~5% in the first year and ~1% each year after that. (Depending on use and abuse.) Of course if you drive a SR pack the same number of miles as a LR pack the SR pack is going to degrade more because you are putting it through more charge cycles.

So I guess that’d be my question, as an ignoramus. Where are the goalposts?

If you SW lock a 75kWh battery to 60kWh ...

Is 100% state of charge still 100% SOC, but “empty” on the 60kWh variant still means 15kWh available? Or, alternately, is a full SOC on the 60kWh variant actually 80% of the battery physical capacity so that empty means empty?

I can see a case to do it either way.

 

[MP3Mike]

Is 100% state of charge still 100% SOC, but “empty” on the 60kWh variant still means 15kWh available? Or, alternately, is a full SOC on the 60kWh variant actually 80% of the battery physical capacity so that empty means empty?

100% on a 60kWh car that is has a 75kWh battery is only charged to 80%. (The top portion of the battery is locked out.)

 

[ngogas]

2-10 years there will be superchargers in remote areas or Elon will have some cool accessories for charging your car while it's parked. Why worry. lol

 

[OCR1]

We won't need superchargers in ten years. Charging will be done wirelessly while driving.

 

[dmurphy]

100% on a 60kWh car that is has a 75kWh battery is only charged to 80%. (The top portion of the battery is locked out.)

So given that, even if one charges a 60kWh battery to 100% daily, I'd expect to see no real degradation. Any degradation that happens will be in the top end of the battery, so should be invisible to the end user, yes?

 

[Rocky_H]

So given that, even if one charges a 60kWh battery to 100% daily, I'd expect to see no real degradation. Any degradation that happens will be in the top end of the battery, so should be invisible to the end user, yes?

No. This was directly answered twice above:

All the software locking does is remap 100% on your car to 90% of the actual capacity. So your battery will still degrade just like a normal non-locked battery.

If they used the extra 10% to hide degradation then they couldn't sell you the unlock later since it would not actually unlock anything once your pack had degraded by 10%.

If the Model 3 packs degrade about the same as the S&X packs you should expect ~5% in the first year and ~1% each year after that. (Depending on use and abuse.) Of course if you drive a SR pack the same number of miles as a LR pack the SR pack is going to degrade more because you are putting it through more charge cycles.

First hand experience, software locked batteries degrade just like any other. No difference.

 

[dmurphy]

No. This was directly answered twice above:

So then it's not really 'hiding' the top end, is it, as someone else mentioned? That's why I'm confused. So is it still recommended to charge to 80-90% on a SR battery? Sounds to me then that running an SR battery down to 0% means there's really 10% left. The opposite of locking out the top end; I'd say it locks out the bottom end of the battery since you'd never be able to "use" that reserve capacity.

This is all somewhat academic for me since I have an LR battery but just curious how Tesla is treating it.