Sponsored
Outdoors
Well-known member
- First Name
- Outdoors
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2019
- Threads
- 17
- Messages
- 1,879
- Reaction score
- 3,460
- Location
- North West Montana
- Vehicles
- S,3,Y,CT,CT(holding pattern) Slate is back on
Did anyone see the piece on LFP's charging to 100% and it being bad? It also mentioned that doing the 0-30 charge are is a waste of battery capacity, and ultimately resources. People might take it to the extreme, and buy the biggest battery so they only use 0-30%. Such lack of practicality.
Basically those people that do the 0-30%. I think their spouses force a trade to non EV's in as it means you have a golf cart in one's garage. We have seen recent studies on conversion back to ICE. Wonder why.....
https://insideevs.com/news/731210/lfp-battery-health-degrades-full-charge-study-finds/
Still, it has some flaws. The study states that a 0-25% charging cycle elongates battery life. That seems pointless in terms of convenience for everyday users, especially if you don’t have a home or office charger and rely on public charging. The study focuses solely on battery longevity, not overall best charging practices. It leaves out what’s best for the broader EV-buying audience, like specific use cases, convenience, charging times and more. So it’s still advisable to follow your automaker’s recommendations.
A higher charge is beneficial in most cases, like road-tripping, during power outages if you need vehicle-to-home charging, during winter when range loss is accelerated or simply for the peace of mind. Plus, modern batteries last hundreds of thousands of miles even with bad charging practices. It's one of the reasons brands offer long warranties on them. That’s not to diminish the study, which still accomplishes the all-important task of discovering more facets of what is still a relatively new technology.
Above all, the authors don't recommend changing your charging habits. “How practical is it to cycle a battery cell in only low SoC ranges? There is clearly a tradeoff between useful capacity and capacity retention… It is not realistic to recommend cycling LFP cells between 0%–25% SoC only, because that is a waste of capacity.”
While I appreciate the study. I think media that has a narrative it wants to paint will use it down the road in a hit job on cells and EV's.
Please note. CT does not use LFP cells.
Basically those people that do the 0-30%. I think their spouses force a trade to non EV's in as it means you have a golf cart in one's garage. We have seen recent studies on conversion back to ICE. Wonder why.....
https://insideevs.com/news/731210/lfp-battery-health-degrades-full-charge-study-finds/
Still, it has some flaws. The study states that a 0-25% charging cycle elongates battery life. That seems pointless in terms of convenience for everyday users, especially if you don’t have a home or office charger and rely on public charging. The study focuses solely on battery longevity, not overall best charging practices. It leaves out what’s best for the broader EV-buying audience, like specific use cases, convenience, charging times and more. So it’s still advisable to follow your automaker’s recommendations.
A higher charge is beneficial in most cases, like road-tripping, during power outages if you need vehicle-to-home charging, during winter when range loss is accelerated or simply for the peace of mind. Plus, modern batteries last hundreds of thousands of miles even with bad charging practices. It's one of the reasons brands offer long warranties on them. That’s not to diminish the study, which still accomplishes the all-important task of discovering more facets of what is still a relatively new technology.
Above all, the authors don't recommend changing your charging habits. “How practical is it to cycle a battery cell in only low SoC ranges? There is clearly a tradeoff between useful capacity and capacity retention… It is not realistic to recommend cycling LFP cells between 0%–25% SoC only, because that is a waste of capacity.”
While I appreciate the study. I think media that has a narrative it wants to paint will use it down the road in a hit job on cells and EV's.
Please note. CT does not use LFP cells.
BannedByTMC
Well-known member
This isn't anything new, at least for those of us who are long time battery geeks. OEM's just want to keep things simple and know that if LFP isn't somewhat regularly charged to 100% the BMS loses track of capacity and it's difficult to balance cells. Also LFP has such a high cycle life anyway it doesn't matter too much to most people.
REM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2023
- Threads
- 14
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 6,645
- Location
- NC
- Vehicles
- 2020 Model 3 Standard Range++ & Diet Cybertruck, Dual Motor
- Occupation
- Professional Retard
That dude is an untrustworthy hack. He doesn't have the material knowledge of Tesla's BMS architecture (very few people truly do). Slapping a generic LFP study on top specific product is foolish.
His nail in the coffin for me was his laughably logic fallacy riddled hit piece on the Cybertruck during the final unveiling.
BannedByTMC
Well-known member
MoCyber
Member
- First Name
- Mo
- Joined
- May 7, 2024
- Threads
- 7
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- Mount Hamilton, CA
- Vehicles
- Mod S, CT, Mod Y
I agree with all of the above. But I’m going to keep mine at 80% because I’m using power share for house back up power. I start charging at 9 PM when the grid rates go lower. Want to get back to 80% as soon as possible.
REM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2023
- Threads
- 14
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 6,645
- Location
- NC
- Vehicles
- 2020 Model 3 Standard Range++ & Diet Cybertruck, Dual Motor
- Occupation
- Professional Retard
No, he took a study with the name "LFP" in it and thought he could just willy-nilly attach it to Tesla.
If you want real battery and BMS advice, I suggest getting it from someone who has a much better understanding of the topic:
BannedByTMC
Well-known member
REM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2023
- Threads
- 14
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 6,645
- Location
- NC
- Vehicles
- 2020 Model 3 Standard Range++ & Diet Cybertruck, Dual Motor
- Occupation
- Professional Retard
So what you are saying is that the guy running a YouTube channel has a better grasp of the subject than the entire battery engineering team at Tesla? Who suggests you to charge up your LFP battery pack to 100%?
BannedByTMC
Well-known member
I clearly explained above why Tesla recommends that. It's not difficult to understand. LFP is robust and can handle charging to 100% because of it's structure and lower voltage. It also needs occasional full charging for the BMS to function properly. That doesn't change the fact that overall lower SOC cycling would extend the pack life even further. However Tesla knows that the greater danger is people never charging above 95%, the BMS not being able to properly balance the cells, and risk draining an unbalanced cell to zero during a drive, hence the recommendation to occasionally charge to 100%.
igs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2023
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 1,183
- Reaction score
- 1,730
- Location
- CA
- Vehicles
- CT, MX, MY
- Occupation
- Tesla: "To maintain service life, the battery pack should be stored at a state of charge (SOC) of 15 to 50%."
You bring up a good question about what SOC powerwalls should be charged to.
Outdoors
Well-known member
- First Name
- Outdoors
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2019
- Threads
- 17
- Messages
- 1,879
- Reaction score
- 3,460
- Location
- North West Montana
- Vehicles
- S,3,Y,CT,CT(holding pattern) Slate is back on
Yep. Those battery geeks if they take the 0-30% approach do nothing to help EV growth. They just tend to confuse, and pay for drinks at the bar.
BannedByTMC
Well-known member
Yeah those silly battery geeks, like Dr Dahn and JB Straubel, do nothing to help EV growth...
Sponsored
