SilverSp33d3r
No Longer Silver
New theory: Tesla lowers range to boost end of quarter sales. For those of you look at your Teslafi or other data. I bet range drops ominously around 4-6 weeks before each quarter end!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Theory: People who baby their batteries experience more "degradation"
- Thread starter Dolemite
- Start date
- Status
I don't know the answer to the ops theory stated in the subject but it seems most of the degradation talk is moot given that whatever distance it says after a 100% charge is always only an estimate unlikely to be fully realized given the variability of everyone's driving.
Probably the biggest influence on range variance and apparent degradation for EV's is temperature. ICE doesn't suffer to the same degree in lower temps.
I'm pretty sure the quality control of every cell that Panasonic delivers for Tesla is excellent. So many people seem to get all freaked out and can't sleep at night because of their apparent loss of an estimated range?? The car is brilliant at telling you when and where to charge. Gee, it even will navigate you there and do the range estimation & calculations for you.
Forget about apparent degradation , sleep tight .... charge to 100% when you need to.... drive & enjoy
Probably the biggest influence on range variance and apparent degradation for EV's is temperature. ICE doesn't suffer to the same degree in lower temps.
I'm pretty sure the quality control of every cell that Panasonic delivers for Tesla is excellent. So many people seem to get all freaked out and can't sleep at night because of their apparent loss of an estimated range?? The car is brilliant at telling you when and where to charge. Gee, it even will navigate you there and do the range estimation & calculations for you.
Forget about apparent degradation , sleep tight .... charge to 100% when you need to.... drive & enjoy
CertLive
Member
I don't know the answer to the ops theory stated in the subject but it seems most of the degradation talk is moot given that whatever distance it says after a 100% charge is always only an estimate unlikely to be fully realized given the variability of everyone's driving.
Probably the biggest influence on range variance and apparent degradation for EV's is temperature. ICE doesn't suffer to the same degree in lower temps.
I'm pretty sure the quality control of every cell that Panasonic delivers for Tesla is excellent. So many people seem to get all freaked out and can't sleep at night because of their apparent loss of an estimated range?? The car is brilliant at telling you when and where to charge. Gee, it even will navigate you there and do the range estimation & calculations for you.
Forget about apparent degradation , sleep tight .... charge to 100% when you need to.... drive & enjoy
I agree with this. When reading a lot of posts regarding charging people do not seem to want to trust the figures they are getting in front of them even though Tesla has the most accurate data available. Miles is kind of yesterdays news its more about will that amount of energy get you to your destination and is the car smart enough to direct you right when it needs more to get you there in the shortest possible time. Tesla is top of any EV manufacturer in this regard and will be for years by the pace of the others. Cells will degrade and will less with each improvement step in the technology and model revisions. But from my experience so far the car has never failed to get me from A to B. Set it to show percentage and see of the next few years of ownership if it fails to get you where you want to go.
Those that obsess about it, will notice issues and it will bug them more. In other news, maybe performance was not a good choice on my model 3, I have had the car now 6 weeks I think, 4k miles and my 90 percent is now 260, slowly losing a mile a week or so, kind of funny. my original 90 percent was 269. Its all good, its my commute car which is 120 mile round trip, so I could lose plenty more, LOL, won't let it bother me, just mash the Go pedal and all worries fly away
I'll always think of this car as nothing but a cell phone designed to drive on the road. Check any major cell phone forum and witness the same fussing over battery life, lol. Battery degradation comes with the territory. When the technology improves to the point where a big enough buffer in rated range vs typical driving range becomes a reality, the obsession should subside a bit. With this recent uptick in EV sales, I wouldn't be surprised it happens sooner than later.
Unless the degradation becomes unusually high, I'll continue charging to the default 90%, leave it plugged in when not in use, and go about my business.
Unless the degradation becomes unusually high, I'll continue charging to the default 90%, leave it plugged in when not in use, and go about my business.
As usual, I completely disagree regarding the comments along the lines of "just let the Nav take care of your charge". This assumes a mature Supercharger network everywhere I go, and this is absolutely not the case where I drive. Even when I was in the US, my destinations were 100% decided by Superchargers, I don't decide where I get to travel. Besides that, my experience with its projections in Winter were consistently terrible (summer is accurate though) to the point that the car would have stranded me if I listened to it (CHAdeMO stops were necessary and thankfully available). I do look forward to the day this is true though, perhaps starting with adding CHAdeMO/CCS to the maps for all countries (and giving North America a CCS adapter!).
This may be a poor reflection on my character, but reading "Source references also" made me really not want to reply. Sorry. Every time I see this, the poster is generally only happy with something like a Tesla engineer's quote or something like that, which I clearly do not have. My fault, but it's also not super on topic with the thread (kind of, explaining how they cannot be compared for degradation).
But in the off chance I'm just being pessimistic and this is a benign request for information, have some stuff!:
Besides them being managed lithium-ion battery packs with a Tesla logo on them, they have more differences than similarities. Beyond this, their stressors are different too. Model 3 packs are allowed to charge at a higher C-rate than S/X packs, and the SR+ packs especially need to deal with a higher average load due to the smaller battery. These surely have some impact to degradation, but so do all the other differences. The net result is we expect the 3/Y packs to last longer. But we also observe via fleet data (various apps), that the in-car range reports fall a bit more steeply at beginning of life than S/X packs, especially for newer Model 3s. My hot take here is that they've designed a better system overall, but they're really pushing the limits of it compared to what they used to do for S/X in order to get better advertised range whereas they may have been fairly conservative before.
In summary, like everyone always expected of Tesla anyways, they took all their learnings from the S/X days and completely redesigned the system, especially tuning it for mass production.
I hope that sufficiently satiated any curiosity on differences. Hopefully that stops the relation of S/X data to a Model 3, because they really are different.
*This interpretation of the data is not necessarily accurate. We're pretty dang sure it is. But technically, only Tesla knows for certain.
This may be a poor reflection on my character, but reading "Source references also" made me really not want to reply. Sorry. Every time I see this, the poster is generally only happy with something like a Tesla engineer's quote or something like that, which I clearly do not have. My fault, but it's also not super on topic with the thread (kind of, explaining how they cannot be compared for degradation).
But in the off chance I'm just being pessimistic and this is a benign request for information, have some stuff!:
- RE: Control Software is different
- This is a design necessity due to the hardware being very different, plus their opportunity to integrate things they've learned from S/X.
- Temperature management is a good observable example of this (noting their temperature management mechanisms are completely different). Preconditioning for Supercharging in a Model 3 heats the battery much more than an S/X, and an S/X will cool the battery much sooner in the charge process (whereas the 3 may not even reach the point of active cooling). This is even despite the fact that the S/X packs have less power going into them than 3/Y. To be fair, this may have changed on more recent S/X, I don't have data on this but have no reason to expect this is true given their designs are still completely different.
- RE: BMS is different
- See below these points, but also the previous point.
- I'll show this a simple way. Looking up pictures can show you they're very different. The Model 3 has 1 large board per series module (of which there are only 4). The Model S also seems to have one smaller board per module, but there are many more modules (at least 14). Even just a visual inspection of these boards shows they're very different, and the ones in the 3 seems to have a redundant microcontroller setup (safety? backup?).
- RE: Allowed cell voltages are different
- A few different ways to observe this.
- For one, you can infer the max voltage from CHAdeMO stations that display the input voltage. For example, I've now seen one at 403V. We know from information that's gone public that there are 96 bricks of cells in series. This means 4.198V/cell, so they're probably going right up to 4.2V/cell. Older S/X owners on these forums report lower max voltages than this, though this may be due to ageing and protection of the battery.
- The bottom end is harder to tell. Those who have scanned OBD-II data* have noted the cell voltages can go as low as 2.5V/cell. I can't find the references anymore, but the Model S/X packs appear to have a much higher minimum voltage threshold.
- RE: The way range is reported is different.
- This is mostly a result of the software and BMS being different, probably.
Besides them being managed lithium-ion battery packs with a Tesla logo on them, they have more differences than similarities. Beyond this, their stressors are different too. Model 3 packs are allowed to charge at a higher C-rate than S/X packs, and the SR+ packs especially need to deal with a higher average load due to the smaller battery. These surely have some impact to degradation, but so do all the other differences. The net result is we expect the 3/Y packs to last longer. But we also observe via fleet data (various apps), that the in-car range reports fall a bit more steeply at beginning of life than S/X packs, especially for newer Model 3s. My hot take here is that they've designed a better system overall, but they're really pushing the limits of it compared to what they used to do for S/X in order to get better advertised range whereas they may have been fairly conservative before.
In summary, like everyone always expected of Tesla anyways, they took all their learnings from the S/X days and completely redesigned the system, especially tuning it for mass production.
I hope that sufficiently satiated any curiosity on differences. Hopefully that stops the relation of S/X data to a Model 3, because they really are different.
*This interpretation of the data is not necessarily accurate. We're pretty dang sure it is. But technically, only Tesla knows for certain.
Candleflame
Active Member
i dont baby my battery and have a lot of degradation. in, fact i have a perfect balance between babying and non babying.
- Status
Similar threads
