2019 MX (Raven) Charging rate between LR and SR

[ev1982]

I'm one week away from delivery of the new SR MX (raven) rated @ 255 miles.
I used better route planner and adjusted the settings to run a route planning from San Jose to Kent, WA (near seattle) for both LR and SR
I get almost similar results with respect to charging time/rates etc. Is there something i'm missing, i thought the difference should be significant with additional 60 miles or so on LR

Note: I'm setting the max charge to 95% of capacity and the destination arrival @ 20%

Here are the results

Better route planner settings for LR and SR

 

[Troy]

You can compare those times to the video below. Look at 75 kWh for Standard Range and 100 kWh for Long Range.

 

[ev1982]

Based on this data, what would be the compelling reason for one to go for LR. If charge rate difference is not significant and the time spent at supercharging also is not a big difference

 

[BBone]

Based on this data, what would be the compelling reason for one to go for LR. If charge rate difference is not significant and the time spent at supercharging also is not a big difference

Assuming betterrouteplanner models the SR and LR accurately (which I'm not sure it does or doesn't), I think the occasional one where you spend more time for a meal or a break would let the LR get to a higher SOC (maybe 100%) and might eliminate the need for the next stop. that would save a lot in real world total elapsed time including stops.

 

[Hebert]

I noticed you have Reference Speed set to 84%. If you change that to 100% to drive the speed limit, I think you will see a larger difference. I'm driving from Seattle to Sacramento next week in my 2018 75D. In ABRP, I switched the car to a Raven LR and the total time spent charging time dropped by an hour.

 

[_jmk]

You can compare those times to the video below. Look at 75 kWh for Standard Range and 100 kWh for Long Range.

I don’t think this video has anything to do with the present day cars. BetterRoutePlanner uses new charging curves and are much more accurate (moreover, they use multiple data points and not just one run).

 

[David99]

I was under the impression that Tesla is only making the 100 battery for the S/X and the SR cars just have a software limitation on capacity. It would be odd if they artificially slowed down supercharging. Basically the charge rates would be identical on both cars. But the battery level is shown as a percentage. That mean, 80% on the LR is not the same absolute charge level on the battery as the SR. Since charge rate depends on battery charge level, this could explain the differences in charge time.

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

It’s not the same battery. For $10k, I’ll take my time

 

[jboy210]

Seems like the planner's limiting factor is the Supercharger availability on the route. It would be interesting to see what if does in an area of higher Supercharger density.

 

[deemo]

If put in 100% reference speed - you get a significant difference - 16.56 for Raven LR, 17.25 for 100D, 18.20 for Raven SR & 18.40 for 75D. Approx 29 min between Raven LR and 100D, 1hr and 24 between LR and SR Raven.

The original setup looks like was set up to go 55 MPH (55/65 = 0.846)

 

[G.R.]

You can compare those times to the video below. Look at 75 kWh for Standard Range and 100 kWh for Long Range.

That video shows a slower charge rate throughout the session for the 75 pack that is way lower than I have experienced in many sessions all the way from 3-5% and up to 90+.

Also, two months ago Tesla increased the charging speed significantly for the 75 packs. My car now tops at 118kW on v2 120kW SuC, and stays at 110kW to about 40% and then 100% to about 50%. 75 packs with the CCS retrofit are getting ~125kW on Ionity chargers now. That is most likely more like what the SR.

 

[gangzoom]

75 packs with the CCS retrofit are getting ~125kW on Ionity chargers now. That is most likely more like what the SR.

Oh first time I've heard of this with CCS, mine is been done tomorrow, but no Ionity chargers near us to try .

 

[ajdelange]

Based on this data, what would be the compelling reason for one to go for LR. If charge rate difference is not significant and the time spent at supercharging also is not a big difference

The longer range model (and it is not that much longer) gives you slightly shorter charging times (first because the battery does not need to be charged to as high a level and, second, because it not being charged so high stays in the higher rate part of the taper) for the same margin at stops and destination. You can trade this saved charging time for more margin if you like. So the longer range version basically does what your intuition is probably already telling you it does namely alleviate range anxiety to some extent.

 

[Maliloz]

I'm one week away from delivery of the new SR MX (raven) rated @ 255 miles.
I used better route planner and adjusted the settings to run a route planning from San Jose to Kent, WA (near seattle) for both LR and SR
I get almost similar results with respect to charging time/rates etc. Is there something i'm missing, i thought the difference should be significant with additional 60 miles or so on LR

Note: I'm setting the max charge to 95% of capacity and the destination arrival @ 20%

Here are the results
View attachment 418089


Better route planner settings for LR and SR
View attachment 418088

I did the same here in Europe in ABRP. A 1000 miles roadtrip from the Netherlands to Rome in Italy. The difference between a SR 2019 and a LR 2019 was: "drums roffle"........:1 minute.
Both with the same parameters. The real thing is the mileage between superchargers. As you can see they are all between 100 miles and 200 miles. So with a SR no problem. And with a LR also, because you can not skip a SuC.. The duration of charging is more or less the same, because it depents on how much juice you need to reach the next SuC. Or better say how many miles the next tour is.. For both the same, so for both the same charging.. more or less. Depents a little bit of minimum settings.

For me the SR. a 10.000 euro cheaper car! And for maybe 1 or 2 times a year for such a roadtrip.

 

[Saghost]

I don't believe the ABRP data presented is correct.

75 packs have a 12.5% lower system voltage (14 modules vs 16) which means that at the same amperage the power it can absorb is 12.5% lower.

The modules are also smaller in capacity, so the same amperage means a higher C rate for the cells.

You'll note that after the update 75 cars are sometimes peaking at 118 kW. Very impressive, and a big improvement from the ~98 kW limit before.

Post update, 100 packs routinely see over 140 kW, sometimes up to 148 kW on the same v2 Superchargers.

For longer jumps, you'll have to push much further into the taper on the SR, which further slows it compared to the LR.

 

[_jmk]

You'll note that after the update 75 cars are sometimes peaking at 118 kW. Very impressive, and a big improvement from the ~98 kW limit before.

Post update, 100 packs routinely see over 140 kW, sometimes up to 148 kW on the same v2 Superchargers.

You compare non upgraded v2 charger to the upgraded one. When plugged to upgraded 150kW charger, 75 peaks at 127kW.

If you pull 40kWh per stop the 100 pack is around 2min faster getting it. 100 pack heats up faster and can’t really maintain that peak power much better than the 75. This is the best case for the 75 pack, the 100 pack gets much better if you need to get 60kWh.

 

[Saghost]

You compare non upgraded v2 charger to the upgraded one. When plugged to upgraded 150kW charger, 75 peaks at 127kW.

If you pull 40kWh per stop the 100 pack is around 2min faster getting it. 100 pack heats up faster and can’t really maintain that peak power much better than the 75. This is the best case for the 75 pack, the 100 pack gets much better if you need to get 60kWh.

Interesting. I've never seen a 75 reporting 127; I saw several reports of 118 as maximum. (I traded my 75 before the upgrades were fully rolled out.)

127 would fit with a charger amperage being the limiting factor, since it is 14/16th of 145 kW.

 

[_jmk]

Interesting. I've never seen a 75 reporting 127; I saw several reports of 118 as maximum. (I traded my 75 before the upgrades were fully rolled out.)

127 would fit with a charger amperage being the limiting factor, since it is 14/16th of 145 kW.

Right. On the right road type with the chargers max 120 miles apart the travel speeds are not drastically different when the total trip is over 400 miles. On the other hand, it really takes these exact conditions. For most ‘normal’ uses the 100 pack is much faster.

 

[Saghost]

Right. On the right road type with the chargers max 120 miles apart the travel speeds are not drastically different when the total trip is over 400 miles. On the other hand, it really takes these exact conditions. For most ‘normal’ uses the 100 pack is much faster.

Not drastically different I can believe - possibly as little as ten percent more charging time. Fifteen extra minutes in an eighteen hour trip usually won't matter much.

The two percent more as shown in the OP I still have trouble believing. One part of it may be seeing the trip up for the SR and not clearing out stops to recalculate for the longer initial range, but even so I'd expect more difference than that.