Tesla will not upgrade any existing vehicles to 72A anymore. I actually just checked on this yesterday before I found this thread. About 6 months ago, they cut off all upgrades for high capacity charging. I have a 2016 Model X that I wanted to upgrade and the SC told me no can do, they aren't allowing it anymore.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2019 Model X P100D no dual charger
- Thread starter MrTeaUSA
- Start date
Tesla will not upgrade any existing vehicles to 72A anymore. I actually just checked on this yesterday before I found this thread. About 6 months ago, they cut off all upgrades for high capacity charging. I have a 2016 Model X that I wanted to upgrade and the SC told me no can do, they aren't allowing it anymore.
Can someone just tell me what the Maximum at home charging rate for Model X in 2019? Right now, My S charges at 50 mi/hr at 72A... Model X current production is a max charge rate of what?
I believe general consensus in 48A. If you look at the charging section of the Tesla website, I believe it recommends a 60A breaker for the HPWC and shows the max charge for breakers 60A and higher to be the same. As far as I know, this is where people are getting the information for what is currently going into current production. Note that the mi/hr rate on an X will be lower than the mi/hr rate on an S if they are charging at the same amperage.
So how about a range of charging rates for the new model X in 2019? versus high amperage upgrade on 2018? I'm wondering what the real world results are.... for example... My 2018 Model X with high amperage upgrade was at 48 miles per hour with 72 amp charger. Does anyone have experience with 2019 Model X on the Same charger?
Not looking for theoretical numbers here.... I'm looking for actual results.
It was about mid/late December of 2018 that they completely stopped offering the 72A charger in any new vehicle builds.
There is no such thing, because in 2019, they have never made any vehicles with the 72A charger. The 48A is the max on any vehicle they offer. That is the long range 3 or any version of the S and X.
According to the Tesla website:
At 60A breaker, Max Amp draw is 48amp, the power is 11.5 kW => Model X charging speed is 30 mi/hr, for Model S is 34 mi/hr and for Model 3 is 44 mi/hr with the same 48 amp on board charger.
Yep, that definitely sucks... my guess is the delay on factory floor and the fact that the model 3 is close to the 72a rate with more s. 2170 will likely bump it to 40 mph ... still it would be great if it were an option
Since Tesla can look at charging scenarios for thousands of cars in order to make their design decisions, I imagine they simply looked at the statistical data for cars with 72A charge capability and found that capability was effectively not used by their customers. So they deleted a statistically unused feature after looking at the data.
Let's say we could look at Tesla's statistical data:
1) What percentage of customers have installed walled connectors on an AC circuit with > 60A breaker (to get > 48A charge rate)?
To get the full 72A, what percentage of customers have a 90A or greater breaker? My guess: < 1%, likely is even lower.
2) For 48A and less charge rates, what percentage of the time has charging been interrupted before reaching desired charge?
If most charging scenarios are reaching completion with 48A or less, then you have another statistical indicator that 72A is effectiively not being used.
Put another way, with the 48A on the worst case vehicle (the Model X), you can get a full charge overnight (9 hours). And full charges are rarely needed, yet they are still handled at 48A rate. Most scenarios need nowhere near a full charge. So it is hard to imagine that a 48A rate effectively impacts any more than a handful of customers out of tens of thousands. When you do need a fast charge (because you are travelling), the Supercharger network is WAY faster than any wall charger. After owning an X for about a year and considering my usage, it makes complete sense that Tesla removed that 72A 'non-feature'.
Let's say we could look at Tesla's statistical data:
1) What percentage of customers have installed walled connectors on an AC circuit with > 60A breaker (to get > 48A charge rate)?
To get the full 72A, what percentage of customers have a 90A or greater breaker? My guess: < 1%, likely is even lower.
2) For 48A and less charge rates, what percentage of the time has charging been interrupted before reaching desired charge?
If most charging scenarios are reaching completion with 48A or less, then you have another statistical indicator that 72A is effectiively not being used.
Put another way, with the 48A on the worst case vehicle (the Model X), you can get a full charge overnight (9 hours). And full charges are rarely needed, yet they are still handled at 48A rate. Most scenarios need nowhere near a full charge. So it is hard to imagine that a 48A rate effectively impacts any more than a handful of customers out of tens of thousands. When you do need a fast charge (because you are travelling), the Supercharger network is WAY faster than any wall charger. After owning an X for about a year and considering my usage, it makes complete sense that Tesla removed that 72A 'non-feature'.
I agree that is probably how they analyzed it, but it is soooo missing the point, as you are as well. The really necessary use of it is not at home on a 9 hour overnight charge. It is for gaps in the Supercharger network. And you're in Portland, Oregon; you should know this, because there are two really annoying, highly traveled routes that don't have Supercharger coverage in Oregon, and they have 70+ amp wall connectors that people need the capacity to use to reduce the hours of waiting to charge.
South central Oregon is this wasteland that is missing an interstate highway and therefore Superchargers. THE route that everyone takes from San Francisco to Boise is on U.S. highway 95 from Winnemucca to Boise. There is a 70A wall connector to bridge that gap. To get across from Boise to Bend, Oregon has either U.S. 20 or 26. Both of those have high amp wall connectors available but also no Superchargers. Those are just the examples near me that are very commonly used, but people have been putting in these high amp wall connectors to substitute for missing Supercharger coverage on secondary routes all over the country. They are pretty important, and it's annoying for Tesla to remove the capability to use them well even as an option.
Rocky_h: those are good points. They are in the context of what is available for charging while travelling. However, I think using a wall charger as a 'fast charger' is a real poor substitute for a DC fast charger. The best you can get out of the 72A AC wall connector is 17kW. meh.
A V2 (DC) Supercharger is 120kW: that is more in the ballpark of what we need while travelling.
ChaDemo DC is 50kW, CCS DC is 80kW and higher. Now those are respectable charge rates while travelling.
The S and X can use that 50kW ChaDemo if you buy the $450 Tesla adapter, but there are not that many ChaDemo around (none on the routes you suggested, but quite a few on oregon coast). And Tesla has no USA CCS adapter.
So I agree with your point, but what we REALLY need is more DC fast chargers and the ability for all Tesla models to plug into them. At that point, EVs will become ubiquitous because you just won't have to sweat charging while travelling no matter where you are. To me, Tesla's lack of any effective compatibility with other USA DC fast charging networks (other than ChaDemo on S & X) is Tesla's biggest failing at this point.
A V2 (DC) Supercharger is 120kW: that is more in the ballpark of what we need while travelling.
ChaDemo DC is 50kW, CCS DC is 80kW and higher. Now those are respectable charge rates while travelling.
The S and X can use that 50kW ChaDemo if you buy the $450 Tesla adapter, but there are not that many ChaDemo around (none on the routes you suggested, but quite a few on oregon coast). And Tesla has no USA CCS adapter.
So I agree with your point, but what we REALLY need is more DC fast chargers and the ability for all Tesla models to plug into them. At that point, EVs will become ubiquitous because you just won't have to sweat charging while travelling no matter where you are. To me, Tesla's lack of any effective compatibility with other USA DC fast charging networks (other than ChaDemo on S & X) is Tesla's biggest failing at this point.
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding me. So you're the guy telling the starving person that he shouldn't eat that fast food burger and should swat it away because it's not high quality food. Give me a break. You think people should turn up their nose at high amp AC charging because some ultra high-speed DC charging exists somewhere else where they can't get to it? What does that accomplish? The whole point is that these 120kW opportunities don't exist here, so what is the only thing available that they must use?
The question was why it made sense for Tesla to drop the 72A. Statistically, it is insignificant and your statistical 'corner case' (finding the unicorn in-the-wild 72A wall chargers for the benefit of just a few Model X's) would be much better handled in the long run by Tesla giving all Tesla's the ability to connect to ChaDemo and CCS so we can charge at much faster DC rates throughout the USA. 72A AC was a stop-gap: more DC fast chargers is the better long term answer. And I believe Tesla is trying to stay focused on the long term answers so dropping the 72A makes sense. But go ahead: tell me I'm clueless again. That will so help teach me the error in my ways...
Huh?! So you're saying this corner case would be "better handled" by being able to use CHAdeMO or CCS, which also don't exist there? Hmm, failing to see the usefulness. The main routes that would have CHAdeMO or CCS already have Supercharger coverage. The areas that don't have DC fast charging just don't have DC fast charging. It doesn't matter whether it's Supercharger or CHAdeMO or CCS.
Well, I'll keep trying.
You are looking at this all wrong: 100% of Buttershrimps are affected by this decision, therefore, it is 100% the wrong decision for Tesla.
Similar threads
