Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
1) I discharged often to sub 0% . But I never charged immediately after to 100%. I charged often to 100% , but usually on trips .
But, when I dropped it to 0% (or when I charged to 100%) I never noticed a direct influence on NFP. (at least not in the next immediate period).
Nor the temp is a signal to trigger the nfp high or low. It's only the low charge method.
2) there is no difference if I charge from SUpercharger or AC. What make the NFP raise is the 20-30% to 60% charge and never let it sleep over 55%
3) there is always a direct correlation between NFP of the graph and the rated range. Now it's 78,6 and the full rated rage is 497 km and when it was 79,9 at 11 20th November 2023 it was 505.
@conv90 and @Bouba.

Here are three graphs with NFP and FRR for my M3 via SMT that I mentioned yesterday.
Plot 1 the raw data where the Y axis has been adjusted to show the data without overlapping.
Plot 2 the raw data with the Y axis adjusted to show the relationship between NFP and FRR (and to see how noisy the FRR signal is!)
Plot 3 the raw data has been condensed to a monthly average and Y axis adjusted to allow comparison. Points of 0 and 100 % SoC also shown.

@conv90 yes as seen in plot 2 NFP and FRR are closely correlated but difficult to assimulate without playing with tha data a bit!
 

Attachments

  • Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR raw data plot 1.png
    Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR raw data plot 1.png
    116.2 KB · Views: 181
  • Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR raw data plot 2.png
    Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR raw data plot 2.png
    132.9 KB · Views: 34
  • Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR monthly average values & impact 0-100% SoC plot 3.png
    Battery Capacity From NFP & FRR monthly average values & impact 0-100% SoC plot 3.png
    116.2 KB · Views: 41
  • Informative
Reactions: KenC
@conv90 and @Bouba.

Here are three graphs with NFP and FRR for my M3 via SMT that I mentioned yesterday.
Plot 1 the raw data where the Y axis has been adjusted to show the data without overlapping.
Plot 2 the raw data with the Y axis adjusted to show the relationship between NFP and FRR (and to see how noisy the FRR signal is!)
Plot 3 the raw data has been condensed to a monthly average and Y axis adjusted to allow comparison. Points of 0 and 100 % SoC also shown.

@conv90 yes as seen in plot 2 NFP and FRR are closely correlated but difficult to assimulate without playing with tha data a bit!
Just guessing but I think my car will match those figures exactly….which proves AAKEE right…these things are predictable
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAKEE
Plot 2 the raw data with the Y axis adjusted to show the relationship between NFP and FRR (and to see how noisy the FRR signal is!)
The full rated range is noisy partly because the services that use OTA data do not get the the exact SOC but a rounded one.

The full rated range seen in Scan my tesla built on the exakt numbers are much more stable, of course slight adjustments with the changing bms nominal full pack but much much less noisy.

The ”noise” induced in SMT comes only from the BMS change in capacity which should change the full rated range as it is built on the BMS estimation of the capacity.

So, basically what I say is that the noise comes from the OTA limitation. And also, the calculated FRR is mostly less via the OTA (at least in teslafi) than the BMS dito.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: DrGriz and Steve446
The full rated range is noisy partly because the services that use OTA data do not get the the exact SOC but a rounded one.

The full rated range seen in Scan my tesla built on the exakt numbers are much more stable, of course slight adjustments with the changing bms nominal full pack but much much less noisy.

The ”noise” induced in SMT comes only from the BMS change in capacity which should change the full rated range as it is built on the BMS estimation of the capacity.

So, basically what I say is that the noise comes from the OTA limitation. And also, the calculated FRR is mostly less via the OTA (at least in teslafi) than the BMS dito.
Thanks for the explanation. The data can then be smoothed out by averaging over a chosen time period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAKEE
It might as well have tubes in there the way it sucks down power to provide cabin heat! haha. 2018 LR RWD here.
Agrred.

After a rushed eight minute “test drive“ of a TM3 in January 2018 in Kingston ON, I realized the auto settings for the HVAC were going to be useless.

As I enter winter number six with this car, my HVAC for cold weather operations has always been: manual, 20°C, fan speed two, fresh air only, air flow to floor, mains (pointed towards front side windows) and base of windscreen.

About a 25% hit when temperatures are below -10C.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DrGriz and KenC
Agrred.

After a rushed eight minute “test drive“ of a TM3 in January 2018 in Kingston ON, I realized the auto settings for the HVAC were going to be useless.

As I enter winter number six with this car, my HVAC for cold weather operations has always been: manual, 20°C, fan speed two, fresh air only, air flow to floor, mains (pointed towards front side windows) and base of windscreen.

About a 25% hit when temperatures are below -10C.

Just curious, why manual? What are you doing that requires it to be on manual? If you were trying to set it to below ~66F(~19C) it used to be that it would automatically trigger the A/C and stop the heat so that would require manual to make that work. Now(need to do a bit more testing in cooler weather) but I think you can go below that and the A/C won't kick up and the heat will stay working.
 
Just curious, why manual? What are you doing that requires it to be on manual? If you were trying to set it to below ~66F(~19C) it used to be that it would automatically trigger the A/C and stop the heat so that would require manual to make that work. Now(need to do a bit more testing in cooler weather) but I think you can go below that and the A/C won't kick up and the heat will stay working.
I remembered I omitted one other detail: turn the air conditioning compressor off.

I keep it in manual to ensure that fan speed “two” is kept engaged.

So: AC off, manual (to keep fan speed at two), 20°, fresh air only, airflow out of floor, mains (aimed to front door windows) and base of windscreen.

There are (very rare) instances where I engage the AC compressor for a few minutes, but this is when the conditions are cool enough for no need for AC but the exterior humidity is too high for the HVAC core heater to warm up enough to de-humidify the incoming air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrGriz
For whatever reason, when I set mine to Auto, I don't necessarily want the AC compressor to come on, plus after it heats up the car, in Winter, it'll blow cool-ish air, which I kind of don't expect or want. So, I do similar to navguy, I set my own manual settings. I use fan 2, and set the temp for 69F. If I set it to 68F, sometimes, I get cool-ish air. Why? Dunno. But if I set it to 69F, I always get warm-ish air. That's just me, but it seems to work.
 
For whatever reason, when I set mine to Auto, I don't necessarily want the AC compressor to come on, plus after it heats up the car, in Winter, it'll blow cool-ish air, which I kind of don't expect or want. So, I do similar to navguy, I set my own manual settings. I use fan 2, and set the temp for 69F. If I set it to 68F, sometimes, I get cool-ish air. Why? Dunno. But if I set it to 69F, I always get warm-ish air. That's just me, but it seems to work.


the ac compressor comes on as it is air conditioning, not heating or cooling. The car also cannot reliably set the air conditioner to the temperature you set inside the cabin. This depends on the humidty of the air. humid air will have to be frozen, dried and then heated back up.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KenC
Australian report on battery pack degradation over hundreds of cycles:

Lithium Ion Battery Testing Report – 12​

Supported by a $1.29m grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency under its Advancing Renewables Program, the Lithium Ion Battery Trial involved performance testing of conventional and emerging battery technologies. The aim of the testing is to independently verify battery performance (capacity fade and roundtrip efficiency) against manufacturers’ claims. This is the 12th and final public report for this project under ARENA and describes testing results, general observations or issues encountered and the key lessons learnt with the Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 batteries.
Report:
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: navguy12
We live in San Diego, Ca. and have only used a Supercharger twice in 5 years. When we have we charge to 100% because we were on the road.
Other than that, we charge at home (Tesla Solar Panels) and then to 80%. Battery loss has been minimal.
Last night we charged my wife's 2018 Tesla Model 3 Long Range off the grid.(12:00 midnight until 5:00am) I set the charge limit to 80% as always.
This morning when I unplugged it, mileage showed at 251 miles. Long Range is 310 or 325 miles? I forget. If 310 miles that is right on 80% charge at 251 miles.
 
Last night we charged my wife's 2018 Tesla Model 3 Long Range off the grid.(12:00 midnight until 5:00am) I set the charge limit to 80% as always.
This morning when I unplugged it, mileage showed at 251 miles. Long Range is 310 or 325 miles? I forget. If 310 miles that is right on 80% charge at 251 miles.
2018 Model 3 LR RWD is 325 miles.

You should check the percentage to make sure it actually hit it though (it can be off by a couple %). Anyway seems pretty good for a vehicle that age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldPro and AAKEE
I keep reading here how some cars never got the 325 range update.
Yeah it is a myth as far as I know.

People think they didn’t get it because they had already degraded below the new 310 miles. That’s my theory.

I haven’t seen any TeslaFi captures showing no change to range on the update. (Everyone should have seen a change - some people would go from 295 to 310 for example.)
 
Yeah it is a myth as far as I know.

People think they didn’t get it because they had already degraded below the new 310 miles. That’s my theory.

I haven’t seen any TeslaFi captures showing no change to range on the update. (Everyone should have seen a change - some people would go from 295 to 310 for example.)
Do you own this car because most owners should have noticed an increase in range right away. Other than that I see no reason why someone would say they didn't receive the update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
Do you own this car because most owners should have noticed an increase in range right away. Other than that I see no reason why someone would say they didn't receive the update.
No I don't. However, there are a lot of reasons why people would not notice this change.

Actually I've figured this out before, but what I said above is wrong.

Specifically this is wrong:

haven’t seen any TeslaFi captures showing no change to range on the update. (Everyone should have seen a change - some people would go from 295 to 310 for example.)

This 295 to 310 could NOT happen. If below 310miles before the update, people would not see any change when making the update!

Most likely (since the LR RWD always had over 330 miles in the EPA test), Tesla just had the degradation threshold set to 310 miles, from the beginning. This means that people with LR RWD happily had 310 miles until their capacity dropped below 310mi*234Wh/mi = 72.5kWh (takes a year or more in some cases).

Most vehicles were still above 72.5kWh when the update came along in less than a year after the vehicle release. Maybe some had started to show a little capacity loss, for example 72kWh would give 308 miles.

But when the update came along, anyone above 72.5kWh would have seen their max range go up a bit. Maybe from 310 to 315, for example, if their car was a year old with 73.7kWh estimate.

Anyway, net result is some people would see basically no change with the update. Many would see very little change. (They might see 315 and think they "didn't get the update."). People with the oldest most degraded vehicles, below 72.5kWh, would see no change!

Furthermore, many would not be paying attention to their 100% charge, and only pay attention after the update. So it would be hard to see the change.

Would have to search out TeslaFi captures of a person before and after the update to see whether what I am saying is consistent.

This is my best guess of what happened. I am quite confident that the constant did NOT change on this update, based on discussions at the time with owners where I asked this specific question. I think the rated line has always been at 239Wh/mi (234Wh/mi constant). Before and after update.

(As a refresher on degradation threshold: Remember that the way it works is it crams all the energy into the available miles, so if you are above the threshold, your miles will be more energetic. For example, if you have 78kWh with a 72.5kWh/310mi degradation threshold, each rated mile will contain 252Wh (78kWh/310mi), while after you get to 72.5kWh, you'll get 234Wh per mile. And below that you'll just start losing rated miles. So it's not really like a top buffer where when you start driving you won't see any change in your miles until you get below 72.5kWh of remaining energy. It's a top buffer of sorts, but it doesn't work that way. Miles start clicking off as soon as you start driving. Just more slowly than they would for someone in a car below the threshold.)
 
Last edited: