What's your guess. Do the DC-DC need upgraded to 1000V output, or is it a software flag? (plus new nameplate).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
ALL CyberTruck discussion
- Thread starter Fact Checking
- Start date
If it was a software flag why wouldn't they have flipped that in Europe so that all of the 800v cars there could take advantage of it? (I get that it would be weird to provide faster charging to non-Teslas, but it would increase the throughput of the chargers.)
I think new hardware will be required. (But it is weird that the DC bus connecting cabinets is at higher voltages, but I don't know how the internals are designed, maybe there is a 1000v capable DC-DC to connect the bus to the rest of the cabinet, and then smaller 500v capable DC-DCs for each individual port?)
Hum, good point on 'if can, why isn't it'.
Internally, I think it's five three phase power factor correction boost stages to the 880-1000V DC bus. Then eight step down buck converters to pack voltage.
In terms outout stage, the pass and synchronous switching devices need to be 1000V rated anyway, so the only difference would be output filter (capacitor) voltage rating and voltage feedback value selection. Plus clearance and creepage increases.
Semi Megachargers are using similar looking cabinets. If isolation is > 1000V, they could stack modules in series to get 1000V, but that would hurt 400V performance unless using active switching (like Cybertruck's pack).
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Maybe. But such a change would come with a massive improvement to the charge curve at v3 chargers too. Made the assumption,as I made clear, of no changes to c-rate. If there are, then everything could be a lot better!
But note the taper at 20% from 250kW.
This is a pack configured for 400V charging.
That suggests that the pack is limited to a C-rate of about 2 (250kW*1hr/123kWh) at 20%. Which matches Model Y AWD at 2.1.
Compare to a Model 3 which at around 30% still does about 3.2.
You can use the actual efficiencies to convert to mi/hr or whatever but makes little difference to the comparison since they are similar range vehicles.
I don’t really follow why 800V would change this at all (except below 20% of course where it will improve things slightly — but would still need to push ~390kW at 5% for parity with Model 3 just at that SOC, which is not what really matters, and you can see from the Model Y it is going to cap at 123kW/67.5kW*200kW = 365kW, not 390kW) unless they decide to push more current into each cell at these higher SOCs. Which they might, but that isn’t really related to the charger.
But right now is all I was talking about. And without changes to the vehicle (software) the charger should not make much difference (and again it needs to be better than Model 3, not the same or worse). Unless I am missing something.
Last edited:
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
It stopped. He suspected they accidentally installed one of the front door hinges on the back right. Other reviews had both back doors open completely. His had a list of issues; a rattle in the back seat (due to the center armrest not locking in place), the steering wheel cannot be adjusted, and the door issue from his initial look. He has it for a week and is doing extensive testing.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Huh? As far as I recall their highway test is at 80 MPH, or is that their 15-minute charge challenge and the highway test is at 70 MPH?
But if you are worried about range you probably wouldn't be using off-road tires...
Last edited:
I added it to my Beast order earlier today. I assume if things change before delivery in 6+ months I get my $500 back.
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Yep, just scanned through the video. They aimed for 70 MPH and it was 46 F outside while they were testing. People that think this represents a failure don't understand how the EPA rated range works.
The configuration page (at the time of my screenshot) said the $500 is non-refundable...
They normally edit everything and put out a ~30 minute video on the test, that will likely have those details. It will probably be a coupe days, or maybe a week, as they have a lot of testing planned for the week.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
In their defense having manufacturers choose their own "adjustment factor" to get the range they want is ridiculous.
EPA numbers are for comparison. No one should expect that they will be what a person actually gets. My comment was ~250 miles were achieved at 70 mph doing 100% to 0%. So if you're like me, on a trip you target 20% remaining at destination. 80-85 mph will use more energy, so I estimated that a normal range would be somewhat under 200 miles. Driving an X LR Plus at 75-80 mph gives a bit over 200 miles. A comfortable real world range in the Supercharger Desert would be 300-350 miles. Comfortable means if local power is out at any one Supercharger (and I've had it happen three times since 2020) there is enough range to skip. Of course, it's not the Supercharger's fault that the grid is down.
Similar threads
