Tesla battery longevity not affected by frequent Supercharging, study says

[Apprunner]

Tesla battery longevity not affected by frequent Supercharging, study says

Tesla battery degradation is not accelerated by frequent Supercharging, which was previously thought, according to an extensive new study. It...

electrek.co

Tesla battery degradation is not accelerated by frequent Supercharging, which was previously thought, according to an extensive new study.

It has long been believed in the industry that frequent DC fast charging is bad for battery longevity; even Tesla used to warn against it.
But we have never seen strong data that support that assertion when it comes to Tesla vehicles, where we have more data on than any other electric vehicles.

In its most recent update about battery degradation, Tesla says that its vehicles lose only about 12% after 200,000 miles.

A new report from Recurrent, which has access to data from over 12,500 Tesla vehicles in the US through its software service, now shows clearly that there’s little to no difference in battery degradation between frequent fast charging and rare fast charging:





As you can see from the charts, the data shows the same result for Model 3, and frequent fast charging actually makes long-term battery degradation a bit better on Model Y.

Interestingly, Recurrent focused on the extreme cases. Here’s how they qualified the vehicles that frequently fast charge versus those that rarely fast charge:

We compared cars that fast charge at least 90% of the time to cars that fast charge less than 10% of the time. In other words, people who almost exclusively fast charge their car and people who very rarely fast charge. The results show no statistically significant difference in range degradation between Teslas that fast charge more than 90% of the time and those that fast charge less than 10% of the time.

In Tesla’s owner manual, the automaker doesn’t talk about frequent DC fast charging affecting battery longevity anymore, but it does mention the potential to “decrease slightly” the peak charging rate:

The peak charging rate of the Battery may decrease slightly after a large number of DC Fast Charging sessions, such as those at Superchargers. To ensure maximum driving range and Battery safety, the Battery charge rate is decreased when the Battery is too cold, when the Battery’s charge is nearly full, and when the Battery conditions change with usage and age. These changes in the condition of the Battery are driven by battery physics and may increase the total Supercharging duration by a few minutes over time.

However, they also warned about fast charging under extreme heat or extreme cold, which is not ideal for battery performance. To be fair, extreme heat and cold are also not good for internal combustion engine vehicles.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Tesla's battery management is by far the best in the industry - and these results speak to that.

Fast charging -can- be hard on a pack, unless you carefully manage charge rate, temperatures, cell balancing, etc... which Tesla does.

So go charge when and where works best for you. Home overnight is often the most convenient and cheapest. But Superchargers work great too if needed.

 

[Pianewman]

MSN

 

[PCTAZRichard]

Since those graphs are 3s and Ys (and only total 10,700 not 12,500?) I wonder how much Tesla learned between 2012 and 2017. That is, those bleeding edge Ss may behave differently because of all the different battery chemistries, battery management, etc.
Gotta agree with ZenRockGarden, I think Tesla is ahead of others here but honestly - there aren’t enough ‘others’ out there driving that many miles to really compare at this point.

 

[KenC]

Tesla battery longevity not affected by frequent Supercharging, study says

Tesla battery degradation is not accelerated by frequent Supercharging, which was previously thought, according to an extensive new study. It...

electrek.co

Tesla battery degradation is not accelerated by frequent Supercharging, which was previously thought, according to an extensive new study.

It has long been believed in the industry that frequent DC fast charging is bad for battery longevity; even Tesla used to warn against it.
But we have never seen strong data that support that assertion when it comes to Tesla vehicles, where we have more data on than any other electric vehicles.

In its most recent update about battery degradation, Tesla says that its vehicles lose only about 12% after 200,000 miles.

A new report from Recurrent, which has access to data from over 12,500 Tesla vehicles in the US through its software service, now shows clearly that there’s little to no difference in battery degradation between frequent fast charging and rare fast charging:





As you can see from the charts, the data shows the same result for Model 3, and frequent fast charging actually makes long-term battery degradation a bit better on Model Y.

Interestingly, Recurrent focused on the extreme cases. Here’s how they qualified the vehicles that frequently fast charge versus those that rarely fast charge:


In Tesla’s owner manual, the automaker doesn’t talk about frequent DC fast charging affecting battery longevity anymore, but it does mention the potential to “decrease slightly” the peak charging rate:


However, they also warned about fast charging under extreme heat or extreme cold, which is not ideal for battery performance. To be fair, extreme heat and cold are also not good for internal combustion engine vehicles.

That's cool. I'll definitely read the report. Having said that, I've been a Recurrent subscriber since it started, and I haven't been too impressed with their reports. This is my report from 1 month ago. My 3 is now about to turn 5yrs old, and they're saying in 3 more yrs, when my car will be about to turn 8yrs old, it'll have only 2.5% degradation at most. I'll take it, but I think they're going to be wrong.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My 3 is now about to turn 5yrs old, and they're saying in 3 more yrs, when my car will be about to turn 8yrs old, it'll have only 2.5% degradation at most. I'll take it, but I think they're going to be wrong.

You never miss an opportunity to brag.

 

[gtg465x]

That's cool. I'll definitely read the report. Having said that, I've been a Recurrent subscriber since it started, and I haven't been too impressed with their reports. This is my report from 1 month ago. My 3 is now about to turn 5yrs old, and they're saying in 3 more yrs, when my car will be about to turn 8yrs old, it'll have only 2.5% degradation at most. I'll take it, but I think they're going to be wrong.View attachment 969403

Does the displayed range in the car still show 306-308 at 100% after 5 years?

 

[zoomer0056]

To be fair, extreme heat and cold are also not good for internal combustion engine vehicles.

What's that got to do with the price of beer in China?

 

[shahryaran]

That's cool. I'll definitely read the report. Having said that, I've been a Recurrent subscriber since it started, and I haven't been too impressed with their reports. This is my report from 1 month ago. My 3 is now about to turn 5yrs old, and they're saying in 3 more yrs, when my car will be about to turn 8yrs old, it'll have only 2.5% degradation at most. I'll take it, but I think they're going to be wrong.View attachment 969403

My 2020 M3LR shows 300 but i can never get even 200 miles distance traveled.

 

[EatsShoots]

The almost flatline after 3 years is what's most interesting to me.

 

[UncleCreepy]

My 2020 M3LR shows 300 but i can never get even 200 miles distance traveled.

Just set it to %. It eliminates all degradation since you can always use the full 100%.
That principle also worked when I had an ICE car and the fuel prices went up. It hasn't affected me at all after I started to always refuel for $20.

 

[KenC]

Does the displayed range in the car still show 306-308 at 100% after 5 years?

Actually, as many know, I'm still showing 310 miles.

 

[shahryaran]

Actually, as many know, I'm still showing 310 miles.

5 years?! Where did you get 5? It shows 290-300

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Actually, as many know, I'm still showing 310 miles.

If you ever have to get a pack replacement, Tesla is going to have a hard time of it (getting one that matches) unless they give you one with the newer cell types. But seems like this pack would be good to hang onto in any case. Hopefully keeps going strong.

Maybe they keep a few old packs in the freezer somewhere just in case.

 

[Silicon Desert]

My 2020 M3LR shows 300 but i can never get even 200 miles distance traveled.

Hmmm, sounds odd. Even my old 2017 X gets me at least 250 miles before needing to stop. I wonder what the issue is about.

 

[Jedi2155]

Actually, as many know, I'm still showing 310 miles.

How many miles do you have on that pack o.o?

And what is your charging/storage behavior? Is it basically in a frozen mountain somewhere?

 

[KenBlub]

Admittedly I’m not knowledgeable about fast charging and degradation but these results don’t make sense to me. How do they explain that model Y cars who did lots of fast charging suddenly do better than slower charging after 800 days. Does that make scientific sense given the type of battery involved? Likewise with the 3. Slow charging does better better better until 800 charges then does worse. Then about 1700 does better until 1800 then craters until 2000 where it jumps back up to meet the rapid charging group.

Please educate me. Just trying to learn. It’s mostly the fluctuations between better and worse that I don’t understand. If there is no difference, shouldn’t there consistently be no difference? Thanks

 

[KenC]

How many miles do you have on that pack o.o?

And what is your charging/storage behavior? Is it basically in a frozen mountain somewhere?

Just hit 53k miles. Back in summer 2019, I read a post about cathode cracking at 3.92V, and I figured that was around 63%, so I decided to do my own experiment and charge up to 60%.

I charge up as high as necessary if I'm on a roadtrip, so it can be over 90%, but I don't let it sit at high SOCs.

 

[Jedi2155]

Thats amazing and absolutely true!

 

[Bouba]

Admittedly I’m not knowledgeable about fast charging and degradation but these results don’t make sense to me. How do they explain that model Y cars who did lots of fast charging suddenly do better than slower charging after 800 days. Does that make scientific sense given the type of battery involved? Likewise with the 3. Slow charging does better better better until 800 charges then does worse. Then about 1700 does better until 1800 then craters until 2000 where it jumps back up to meet the rapid charging group.

Please educate me. Just trying to learn. It’s mostly the fluctuations between better and worse that I don’t understand. If there is no difference, shouldn’t there consistently be no difference? Thanks

Perhaps the sample size is too small