For the first time, you have a choice of battery for your new Tesla. Not battery size, you've always had that choice. Now you have a choice of which chemical elements you want. Here are some thoughts about how you can choose intelligently. It all depends on your financial situation, your plans for long-distance travel, and the geography of your area.
There's a delay in delivery times for the Model 3 SR+. This is August 2021. Delivery dates are some time in 2022. If you're buying one of the more expensive models or one of the bigger battery sizes, you can take delivery sooner, but the Model 3 SR+ might be the one you want. It's the one I bought. I knew that road trips would take a bit longer with the shorter-range battery since I'd have to pull off the road to charge more often. So far, I haven't had the opportunity to take a multi-day road trip. There's a pandemic after all. But I knew that would eventually become an issue. I really like road trips. But I have to say, even when I took lots of road trips, most of my driving was local.
Had I opted for the long-range Model 3, I'd have paid an extra ten thousand dollars in order to get 90 miles of extra range. That extra ninety miles of range would come into play only 30 or 40 days each year, and the time it would save me would be about an hour each day of a multi-day road trip. It didn't make financial sense.
Now that Tesla is experiencing the same production delays as are all the other auto manufacturers, they're giving their shorter delivery dates to buyers of the more expensive, read higher profit, models. But they're making an exception and giving shorter delivery dates if you buy a Tesla with an LFP battery rather than an NCA battery.
So what's the difference? Both batteries are actually lithium-ion batteries. They both use lithium. So that's not a difference. But the NCA battery uses nickel, cobalt, and aluminum in addition to lithium. The LFP battery uses Iron and Phosphate (phosphorus combined with oxygen) in addition to lithium. The main differences for you to consider are that the LFP battery has a slightly shorter range, 253 miles, as opposed to the NCA battery, 263 miles. But that slight difference in range is deceptive. The NCA battery probably shouldn't be charged to 100%. Fully charging the battery causes damage to the battery making it likely to deteriorate over the years of ownership. It's perfectly fine to charge the LFP battery to 100% so the driver experience is pretty much the same except for a couple caveats.
The LFP battery is heavier. That's why the range is slightly lower on the ordinary battery test cycle. The extra weight causes extra rolling resistance. That's why the range is reduced. There's probably also some extra wear on the tires. The problems of extra weight and extra rolling resistance are probably not all that bothersome for most drivers.
But, if you live in an area where there are lots of hills so that you're changing your elevation every time you drive, you're going to notice a much more pronounced decrease in range with the heavier LFP battery. You can experience the difference more intimately by getting a wagon or a wheelbarrow. Roll it around on level ground. Then put a heavy object in it and roll it around some more. You'll notice a bit more rolling resistance, but you'll be able to deal with the extra rolling resistance easily.
Now do that same experiment on a hill. Pull the wagon or push the wheelbarrow up the hill empty. No problem, right? Then put in the heavy object and go up the hill again. Big difference. Your car feels the same way. You'll get a bit of extra regenerative braking going down the hill with the heavier battery, but it won't be enough to make up the difference. The second law of thermodynamics causes that. That pesky high school physics topic, entropy, strikes again.
LFP batteries charge more slowly in cold weather than NCA batteries and their range decreases somewhat more than NCA batteries in cold weather. Keep in mind that both NCA and LFP do worse in cold weather. It's just that LFP batteries get more of a cold weather effect than NCA batteries. When you're on a road trip and navigating to a Supercharger, your car will prewarm its batteries. That will alleviate the slower charging problem to some extent, but you'll be at the Supercharger six or seven minutes longer in winter with LFP batteries. That will be a problem if you plan to use your car in such a way as to need to do lots of cold weather supercharging. It won't matter at all if you're just going to charge your car overnight in your garage.
So flatlanders will be fine with the LFP battery. If you live in a hilly area, you may want to wait for the NCA-equipped Tesla Model 3 SR+. But remember, the lower range problem is only a problem for people planning to do lots of mountain driving. In that case, you actually ought to invest the extra $10K in the long range Model 3.
One last issue about the LFP battery. Remember, earlier in this article, I mentioned that you shouldn't fill the NCA battery up to 100% charge, but you should fill the LFP battery up to 100%? That's true at home, but it's not true on road trips. On road trips, you want to minimize the amount of time you're stopped. The way to do that is to never charge the battery to 100% no matter which kind of battery you have. When you plug your car in at a modern high voltage supercharger, you'll see your car adding four to five hundred miles per hour of connection. That doesn't mean you'll be up to 100% in a half hour. You won't. As the battery gets charged, the rate of charge drops significantly for both the LFP and the NCA batteries. Once you get above 80%, the battery charges very slowly. So figure out how much charge you need to get you to the next place you're going to charge up and give yourself enough charge to get you there with a twenty or thirty mile cushion. Charging your battery more than that is a waste of time. Your travel time.
Tesla's Battery Day
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on the latest Tesla news, upcoming features and software updates.
In a move that has both surprised and frustrated Tesla and non-Tesla owners, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) is actively removing Tesla Superchargers from its service plazas, replacing them under an exclusive agreement with Applegreen Electric—the company that operates the plazas.
This transition, which was officially announced by the Tesla Charging account on X, will see all 64 of Tesla’s V3 Supercharger stalls removed from the Turnpike. This has raised some eyebrows, especially as the Applegreen sites, which will only feature CCS1 plugs, won’t be online until later this year.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority ("NJTA") has chosen a sole third-party charging provider to serve the New Jersey Turnpike and is not allowing us to co-locate. As a result, NJTA requested 64 existing Supercharger stalls on the New Jersey Turnpike to not be renewed and be… pic.twitter.com/sosNIwMfYu
Tesla’s presence on the Turnpike dates back to 2014 when the NJTA granted Tesla a pilot license for just eight Supercharger stalls. That then rapidly expanded, and by the end of 2023, Tesla had 64 V3 Supercharger stalls active across the Turnpike, boasting their usual impressive 99.9% uptime, with a 30% lower cost than competitors nearby.
With the increasing adoption of the North American Charging Standard (NACS) by other automakers, Tesla's network is becoming the de facto fast-charging standard for a growing number of non-Tesla EVs, which makes this decision even harder to justify. Not only will Tesla vehicles be unable to charge at these locations, but many new EVs with NACS ports will also be left out.
Applegreen
Applegreen’s chargers are less than ideal. They resemble gas stations for EVs, which is a huge step back from Tesla’s elegant solution. Besides currently only supporting CCS1 and CHAdeMO charging connectors, which leaves out the majority of EVs, they also provide a worse charging experience.
These locations are often more expensive than Tesla Superchargers, but just like Tesla, the price does vary by location. We spot-checked several locations and noticed that prices were roughly about 10% higher per kWh than a similar Tesla charger nearby. Applegreen’s chargers also include screens and a credit card slot, requiring customers to pay for their charging sessions, just as they would for gasoline.
While we don’t have statistics on their uptime, it’s hard to argue that it’d be better than Tesla’s, which has live monitoring and often fixes issues within hours, which was recently demonstrated when it rebuilt a Supercharger less than 48 hours after it was burned down. Many users complain of Applegreen’s chargers, saying they don’t work or are difficult to use. Their app on iOS currently has a 1.9 rating out of 5.
Tesla’s Proposal
The landscape for EV charging on the Turnpike shifted in March 2023, when the NJTA amended its agreements with Applegreen to make it an exclusive offering. Despite Tesla offering what it cites as above-market terms, which included upgrading all Superchargers on the Turnpike to include Magic Docks (NACS + CCS1 chargers) for universal EV compatibility and card readers for better billing for non-Tesla owners. Tesla also offered to co-host, allowing Applegreen chargers and Tesla Superchargers to be located side by side. However, NJTA still declined to let Tesla keep any of its existing Superchargers online.
This is clearly a move for Applegreen to capitalize on its property and generate revenue by installing its own branded chargers. However, with Applegreen’s chargers only having CCS1 cables, calling them “universally” compatible while making Tesla’s seem exclusive to Tesla vehicles is laughable. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction that will hurt all EV owners. If anything, NJTA should be requiring Applegreen to maintain Tesla’s Superchargers on the premises, while also allowing Applegreen to install their own chargers.
NJTA instead announced that Tesla must decommission its Superchargers soon, which will leave EV drivers without viable options while traveling on the 117-mile-long NJ Turnpike. That’s millions of dollars of Tesla charging infrastructure that’s already being used - being removed without a replacement in place for potentially months.
The decision has been met with some widespread criticism over the last few days. The reduced options, reduced convenience, increased costs, and reliability concerns are chief among the concerns of Tesla and other EV drivers. However, the lack of transparency behind the decision, as well as the exclusivity to Applegreen, has led many to accuse the NJTA of corruption and backdoor deals, including Elon.
Anticipating the worst, however, Tesla’s Supercharging team has been working to ensure charging continuity. Between 2022 and today, Tesla has proactively built 116 replacement Supercharger stalls at eight new locations just off the Turnpike, anticipating this would happen. While this will make it less convenient for EVs reliant on NACS, it won’t leave them stranded without a place to charge. Tesla’s trip planner has already been adjusted to route drivers to these new sites as well.
While Tesla is clearly invested in expanding access to electric vehicle charging - whether for its own direct customers or for other EVs, it seems that some organizations believe the easiest way to meet “green goals” is to find the solution that’s best for their pocketbook.
We’re hoping that these types of exclusivity deals don’t become common as they harm all current EV owners and reduce electric vehicle adoption.
With Tesla’s Robotaxi network poised for its initial launch as soon as June 12th, Elon and Tesla’s lobbying team are stepping up to speak to administrators about autonomy regulation. According to a report from Bloomberg(paywall), the team is working on a behind-the-scenes push in Washington to establish a federal framework for autonomous vehicles.
This push involves direct lobbying of members of the US Congress to build a clear legislative path for autonomy, and the timing is no coincidence. Tesla needs clear regulations to operate under, rather than the fractured state-by-state or city-by-city regulations that exist sporadically throughout the US.
Pushing for a National Standard
The report, citing insiders familiar with the matter, details that Elon has been personally involved in calls with legislators and has been weighing in on revisions to the bill introduced on May 15th, which aimed to establish a basic regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. Tesla’s goal is to move this bill forward before Congress’s July 4th recess.
When the US Transportation Secretary visited Tesla earlier in May, Elon had some wise words to say on this topic, touching on the core issue: for a service to operate nationwide, navigating a patchwork of regulations is a legal and operational nightmare.
It’d be wonderful for the United States to have a national set of rules for autonomous driving as opposed to 50 independent sets of rules on a state-by-state basis. - Elon Musk
Federal Rules
While the initial Robotaxi pilot launch in Austin is more than feasible under Texas’s relatively permissive regulations, the long-term vision is severely hamstrung by federal rules. Current regulations only permit special exemptions for a test fleet of up to 2,500 vehicles that lack traditional controls, such as a steering wheel and pedals.
While this isn’t a direct roadblock for Tesla’s initial deployment of Model Ys in the Robotaxi network, this vehicle cap is a roadblock for the mass production and deployment of Tesla’s purpose-built Cybercab. The Cybercab, with its easy-to-clean interior, relatively low cost, and lower-maintenance design, is ideal to scale the service with a vehicle designed from the ground up to be autonomous, where it’ll be cheaper to operate and maintain. Remember that the Cybercab is expected to be capable of 5.5 miles per kWh, whereas the Model Y is capable of about 4. Tesla needs a federal law that allows for the widespread sale and operation of the Cybercab, as it’ll likely be crucial to make the network profitable.
The legislative push also comes as Tesla is coming under increasing scrutiny from regulators. The NHTSA is already probing Tesla’s Robotaxi plans and seeking answers about FSD’s performance in adverse weather conditions. Establishing a clear, Congressionally approved federal framework will not only create a more predictable and stable regulatory environment for Tesla to operate in, but it’ll actually make these vehicles safer by having one set of rules.
Difficult Road
This isn’t the first crack at creating national autonomous vehicle laws from Congress. Various bills have been attempted over the years, with one even passing the House in 2017 before getting stalled and dropped in the Senate. The primary obstacle has often been debates over legal liability and pressures from legal groups who have raised concerns about handling incidents with autonomous vehicles.
The new bill represents the latest effort to clear the maze of red tape, and Tesla’s direct involvement, along with the upcoming pilot launch of the Robotaxi network, provides some momentum to push this forward.
Tesla is on the verge of launching Robotaxi, which has massive implications for how we approach urban mobility as a society. However, just as in many other cases, the technology is advancing far faster than the glacial pace of bureaucracy, which means that lobbying is crucial to expedite the process of getting regulations in place as soon as possible.
![Tesla’s Optimus Is Now Learning by Watching — First Person Today, Third Person Tomorrow [VIDEO]](https://www.notateslaapp.com/img/containers/article_images/2025/optimus_cleaning.png/bd519f7f31d9c3e7e25c2736ee284efb/optimus_cleaning.jpg)
![Elon talks about Twitter and job cuts at Bloomberg forum [video]](https://www.notateslaapp.com/images/news/2022/elon-musk-qatar-forum_300w.jpg)
