@dbierce@dylaneworden@brandenflasch Yep that's a Panasonic NCA, thanks for confirming. (If it's LG then it's NMC.) Cold helps for sure. Hot, not so much.
@brandenflasch@eivissacopter Putting aside management of initial degradation and whether a buffer is allocated, the bigger problem is that Tesla capacity loss (in the US Pana packs) is way way worse than most manufacturers (even including others' hidden buffer loss). Somehow 20% in 4 years is now "fine?"
@brandenflasch Specifically, they do. 2024 Model Y LR AWD uses 251.3Wh/mi constant, so shows loss of range below 77.9kWh. And that is approximately denominator used for health test. But pack starts at 80-82kWh. So 6% is about 9-10%.
@brandenflasch That's why I said they pick something lower than the start point for the denominator - makes it look better than it is. (By as much as 3-5% in some cases.)
@gregm12@grok@neverdemocrat0@AustyUSA Definitely @Grok is about as dumb as a rock. Or a box of rocks. Probably it is going to make some inane comment in response to this.
@grok@neverdemocrat0@AustyUSA This is absolutely false. The voltage of the system only is an issue if current somewhere in the system is a limiting factor. Most of the Tesla charge curve is limited by the C-rate of the pack. Max current from v3 Supercharger is around 700A so minimal impact.
@adambecker1@AustyUSA@toidinamaisey Yeah, it can be significant. Only 35k on my 2019 but nerfing comes for us all. In any case your pack always charged more slowly than my original pack. You’ll probably start taper in the low 10s now. Just arrive at 5% - have to optimize more and more as taper collapses.
@adambecker1@AustyUSA@toidinamaisey February 27th 2026. If you have Supercharged more or you have more miles (not sure which), Tesla seems to nerf you more. But this is definitely nerfed - tapers at ~21% used to be ~25%.
@AustyUSA@toidinamaisey It’s actually degraded a bit from original, just not as much as some with more miles/supercharging. Taper currently begins around 21-22% (instead of around 25% which these packs (if low use) did until 2023ish (software update nerfed it)).
@toidinamaisey Same reasoning applies at 17%. Voltage at 17% (which is 4.5+0.955*17=20.7% "energy" SOC due to 4.5% buffer) is obviously lower than the weighted average pack voltage. So coulombic SOC is considerably higher than 21%.
@toidinamaisey No, that's the coulombic SOC. You probably have a 4.5% buffer still but that means that coulombic will be higher (since voltage of those electrons is lower they have to be more numerous to get 4.5% energy).
@AustyUSA@toidinamaisey Not sure about your OG 2170 data - I think it was better than that. I know it's the average but makes sense to compare best case. My OG pack is degraded 19% but adds 11%-80% (~42kWh) in ~22 minutes. Is that 39 minutes a typo? 1%-60% seems right (my 11%-60% is about 13 min).