Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • The final cut of the 9th episode of the Tesla Motors Club Podcast, featuring Chad Schwitters, the former president of Plug In America, is now available. You can watch it now on YouTube or listen to it on all major podcast networks.

Anyone else worried that V3 Superchargers not being shared might be a mistake?

Given that apparently the 250kW charging rate is only sustained for a few minutes, and only when at a low state of charge, I feel like it would make more sense to have the V3 chargers be shared, where even when shared they could provide the full 120-ish Watts of the v2 chargers, which is sufficient in most cases, especially considering this would allow them to double the number of stalls for relatively little additional cost.

Unless they managed to do a significant cost-saving redesign for the V3 chargers, I can't imagine the new chargers will be anywhere near as cheap for Tesla to produce as the V2 ones are. I hope there's something I'm missing, as I don't think the faster charging rate for a short period will be worth potentially reducing the number of stalls by half (or more, from additional costs). The only significant benefit of this method I see is potentially significant charging rate improvements for the Roadsters with their 600 mile range, or perhaps the chargers themselves are only capable of providing the full 250kW for a brief time due to thermal constraints? I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this matter.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Gasaraki
you are reading it wrong.... no need to share as the 'bus' is capable of 1MW, so whatever the car needs the car gets. I suspect this is a forward thinking architecture to allow even faster charging down the road.

V3 is a completely new architecture for Supercharging. A new 1MW power cabinet with a similar design to our utility-scale products supports peak rates of up to 250kW per car. At this rate, a Model 3 Long Range operating at peak efficiency can recover up to 75 miles of charge in 5 minutes and charge at rates of up to 1,000 miles per hour. Combined with other improvements we’re announcing today, V3 Supercharging will ultimately cut the amount of time customers spend charging by an average of 50%, as modeled on our fleet data.Supercharger stations with V3’s new power electronics are designed to enable any owner to charge at the full power their battery can take – no more splitting power with a vehicle in the stall next to you. With these significant technical improvements, we anticipate the typical charging time at a V3 Supercharger will drop to around 15 minutes.​
 
So the idea is that the charging stations are still effectively shared then, but just not in pairs? And presumably the bus is designed such that most cars typically get as much power as they can take, but without too much unused (and thus often "wasted") power delivery capacity (and thus cost to manufacture) from the charger cabinet? Is this interpretation correct? If so, that's fantastic, thanks for this clarification, and alleviating my concerns on this issue :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: gavine and TheDom

ewoodrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2018
5,285
4,289
Buford, GA
I feel that Tesla will end up with a new paradigm for the V3 chargers. I have a feeling that they'll end up with a 30-45 minute limit and significantly higher idle fees. So they won't allow 100% charging. I think that there are also a reduced number of pedestals, which is why I come to this conclusion. These probably wont ever be deployed as travel chargers, but only as local chargers, especially in-between locations that stay busy.

100% charging is a very time consuming process and that's what the shared pedestal technology of the V2 is optimized for. V3 is the equivalent of a stop at the gas station and add a few gallons once or twice a week.
 
Note: This is pure speculation and I don't know much about supercharging equipment of any version.

The way I understand it is that they ARE shared in sections of 4 chargers attached to a 1MW cabinet, but each post or charger can supply up to 250kW (the maximum any car can take at any given time) so 250kWx4=1mW. So there is no way that the cabinet gets overloaded to the point where a car could not supply full power. So while they are shared, they are not ever at risk of not being able to supply full power to any given car.

Now whether this is a missed opportunity to do 6 posts or 8 posts per cabinet is another story. The chances that 4+ cars all arrive at the same time to pull 250kw for a few minutes at the same time is slightly unlikely... but maybe for future-proofing its just better to not ever limit the cars based on the cars around them.
 
Last edited:

ReddyLeaf

Vision without execution is hallucination
Mar 19, 2014
2,035
4,496
WA State
Unfortunately, when all spots are filled with the future 250 KWh trucks, all arriving empty, we’ll still be limited by the maximum on the bus, whatever Tesla decides to have. I expect that we will all run into slow charging, at least periodically.
 
By the time the trucks arrive, they may have upped the 250Kw to some higher number, just imagine if the 1MW cabinets share a common backplane (bus) at a charging station tied to ultrafast battery storage, the burst rate might be something massive for a few minutes at a low SOC. Probably one reason they are looking at Maxwell. If they can get the burst rate to 500kw for several minutes, charging is as fast a gas station. It's only going to get better. Elon did say 350kw is child's play at one point. We are really waiting on batteries that can handle ultrafast charging without dying after a few charge cycles.

Of course it could all be replaced by self charging cars with 90% efficient solar cells on the car roof... All I want for Christmas is a 90% efficient solar panel
 
Of course it could all be replaced by self charging cars with 90% efficient solar cells on the car roof... All I want for Christmas is a 90% efficient solar panel

Of course this is a ridiculous thing to wish for. Even if you had 100% efficient solar panels you can't get enough sunlight to go any significant distance when put on a car. Do the math.
It is much better to put the solar panels in an ideal location with the ideal orientation and capture as much energy as possible for their 25 or 30 year lifetime than to put them on a car with poor orientation and frequent shading and subject them to getting dirt and possible car crashes, thus reducing their potential impact on the environment.
 

Zoomit

Active Member
Sep 1, 2015
2,293
4,489
SoCal
Note: This is pure speculation and I don't know much about supercharging equipment of any version.

The way I understand it is that they ARE shared in sections of 4 chargers attached to a 1MW cabinet, but each post or charger can supply up to 250kW (the maximum any car can take at any given time) so 250kWx4=1mW. So there is no way that the cabinet gets overloaded to the point where a car could not supply full power. So while they are shared, they are not ever at risk of not being able to supply full power to any given car.

Now whether this is a missed opportunity to do 6 posts or 8 posts per cabinet is another story. The chances that 4+ cars all arrive at the same time to pull 250kw for a few minutes at the same time is slightly unlikely... but maybe for future-proofing its just better to not ever limit the cars based on the cars around them.
Again, the uncorroborated specs were 1MW per up to 7 stalls, with 250kW max per stall. So there is sharing just not likely to be limiting unless a slew of empty, big battery cars show up at once.
 
Of course this is a ridiculous thing to wish for. Even if you had 100% efficient solar panels you can't get enough sunlight to go any significant distance when put on a car. Do the math.
It is much better to put the solar panels in an ideal location with the ideal orientation and capture as much energy as possible for their 25 or 30 year lifetime than to put them on a car with poor orientation and frequent shading and subject them to getting dirt and possible car crashes, thus reducing their potential impact on the environment.

Nothing wrong with wishing.. I am really thinking about where this could go in the future. It is more likely that high efficiency solar panels at the new V3 charging stations with battery storage is a more likely outcome in the near term especially if V3 are located in the in between spots for long distance travel in the middle of nowhere on the interstate.

I am all for the dreamers. Elon is one of them and he is making it happen. I do hope one day he gets someone to Mars. Dream big.

and here is a car company putting solar cells on a car, big claims, likely nonsense, but again, we need the dreamers to push the rest of us along. Sion Electric Car – Sono Motors
 
  • Like
Reactions: APotatoGod

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
3,148
5,235
Bay Area
Even if you had 100% efficient solar panels you can't get enough sunlight to go any significant distance when put on a car. Do the math.

I have. With today’s technology and accounting for practical factors like degradation, shading, garaging, electrical losses, debris, etc, the average USA model 3 with a solar roof (NOT trunk or hood) will harvest ~4% of its annual mileage. That’s not huge but it’s certainly nonzero.

What’s interesting is that number doubles with a ‘smart self parking’ feature that maximizes sun exposure. I’d venture to say that ~8% is a pretty interesting for many folks. Again, that’s today’s technology.

A bit more forward looking, layer in technological efficiencies (cell efficiency, fewer losses, better cell packaging, etc) and more vehicle surface area, and 25-30% of the average USA vehicle’s annual mileage can be self-harvested. That’s getting very compelling especially once you start folding in secondary benefits like reduced grid load and reduced storage needs...

Of course fixed installations are the ideal method of solar energy harvesting, but 1) not everyone has the capability to leverage fixed solar and 2) renewable energy’s strength is in its ability to be distributed across a number of solutions.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: APotatoGod
I have. With today’s technology and accounting for practical factors like degradation, shading, garaging, electrical losses, debris, etc, the average USA model 3 with a solar roof (NOT trunk or hood) will harvest ~4% of its annual mileage. That’s not huge but it’s certainly nonzero.

I didn't say is was nonzero. Just that all the money and resources that go into making the panel are better served by using them all day (when the sun is out) every day for 25-30 years, rather on a car as an expensive option, not fully utilized.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: APotatoGod

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
3,148
5,235
Bay Area
I didn't say is was nonzero. Just that all the money and resources that go into making the panel are better served by using them all day (when the sun is out) every day for 25-30 years, rather on a car as an expensive option, not fully utilized.

I mean, we can semantic over "can't...go any significant distance" vs "nonzero" as you like...but regardless, this is a slippery position. With this logic, its foolish for anyone to have home solar because all of the required money and resources would be FAR better spent on municipal or industrial installations in prime locations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APotatoGod

Zoomit

Active Member
Sep 1, 2015
2,293
4,489
SoCal
Again, the uncorroborated specs were 1MW per up to 7 stalls, with 250kW max per stall. So there is sharing just not likely to be limiting unless a slew of empty, big battery cars show up at once.
Here’re the pre-reveal V3 specs from NetBrown on reddit. All seems pretty legit. You can’t just make this kind of stuff up, so I give it high likelihood of being correct.

  • The liquid cooled cables will actually be much thinner than the current SC cables, the coolant pump is located in the base of the white SC stall where the current cable connects and is hung up (v3 can retrofit into existing v2 chargers), and while the cabinets can support 250kW max (so I suppose it would be possible to upgrade to 250kW in the future), the individual chargers will be max 200kW.
  • PV and Power Pack integration is a part of the design spec, but no required.
  • 40% better throughput performance compared to v2 per site
  • Thermal Foldback improvements over v2
  • v3 cabinets get 5 power stages at 70kW output per power stage for 350kW AC -> DC per v3 cabinet
  • v3 cabinet also houses 2x DC-DC modules per post yielding 100kWx2 for the 200kW deliverer per post
  • Any extra power (assuming the extra 50kW the cabinets can produce versus what the chargers are delivering if the cabinet is maxed, or if only partially maxed, any extra power) can be shared across cabinets. Since multiple cabinets will be at each site, this lessens if not removes the v2 "shared" power with linked chargers
  • Site master controller is 4G LTE for communication of all diagnostics (as well as the verify car and billing of power consumed) so better knowledge when a site has a problem - leading to more proactive fixing of sites with broken/mafunctioning chargers
  • The cost reduction will come from higher power conversion efficiency (96% for v3 versus 92% for v2), less harmonics, and no overvoltage sensitivity (though the cabinets are larger and heavier than v2), ultimately leading to an approximate 20% more customers served per dollar spent on power
  • Overall AC input is 438kVA, 526A
    • Can link up to 7 v3 cabinets per bus (or a block), which can also link to one Power Pack
    • Cabinets are on a shared DC radial configured bus of 880-1000
    • This is then pushed out to the chargers (posts) and DC 180-500v, 250kW max
 

Dana1

Member
Supporting Member
May 20, 2018
882
547
Houston
By the time the trucks arrive, they may have upped the 250Kw to some higher number, just imagine if the 1MW cabinets share a common backplane (bus) at a charging station tied to ultrafast battery storage, the burst rate might be something massive for a few minutes at a low SOC. Probably one reason they are looking at Maxwell. If they can get the burst rate to 500kw for several minutes, charging is as fast a gas station. It's only going to get better. Elon did say 350kw is child's play at one point. We are really waiting on batteries that can handle ultrafast charging without dying after a few charge cycles.

Of course it could all be replaced by self charging cars with 90% efficient solar cells on the car roof... All I want for Christmas is a 90% efficient solar panel
A solar roof makes great sense. If if it’s not a super fast charge it’s pretty much always charging...before I started seriously looking at them my assumption was that it has a solar roof.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Bill Price
I feel that Tesla will end up with a new paradigm for the V3 chargers. I have a feeling that they'll end up with a 30-45 minute limit and significantly higher idle fees. So they won't allow 100% charging. I think that there are also a reduced number of pedestals, which is why I come to this conclusion. These probably wont ever be deployed as travel chargers, but only as local chargers, especially in-between locations that stay busy.

100% charging is a very time consuming process and that's what the shared pedestal technology of the V2 is optimized for. V3 is the equivalent of a stop at the gas station and add a few gallons once or twice a week.

100% charging may be time consuming, but there are times when it is needed. The car currently thinks in terms of the one destination you wish to drive to. But it knows nothing of your plans beyond that. My regular use case is to charge at the closest charger to my destination to the fullest practical amount, because once I reach there, I won't be near another charger for a few days. I don't typically charge to 100%, but I let it go past 90% at times and in particular over the winter months.

I was just in a situation where the loaner car I was using seemed to melt away the battery charge so much so that I had to leave the car at a level 2 charger over night and have friends drive me to and from the location to avoid having a dead battery in the morning. Had the car been charged to 100% when I picked it up that would not have happened. Or, even 15 minutes on a fast charger would have solved the problem, but by the time I realized it was happening the charge was already too low to reach a fast charger.

When every town and burg has fast chargers like they have gas stations, it will be a bad idea to limit how much charge drivers can put on their cars. Maybe we can do an odd/even thing with license plates?
 
  • Like
Reactions: APotatoGod

cpa

Active Member
May 17, 2014
3,408
4,783
Central Valley
I can hardly wait for the time that I arrive at a brand spanking new Version 3 Supercharger after driving for 150 minutes with our 2014 Model S81 and receive a whopping 60kW at 15% SOC just to wait 50 minutes to return to the road with 65%!

(Seriously, if what someone above speculated is true, Tesla will continue to screw its customers if they limit the time spent at these Version 3 Superchargers.)
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Electroman
I can hardly wait for the time that I arrive at a brand spanking new Version 3 Supercharger after driving for 150 minutes with our 2014 Model S81 and receive a whopping 60kW at 15% SOC just to wait 50 minutes to return to the road with 65%!
You mean S85? At this rate you will be at 80% not 65% at 50 minutes. But I think you can do at least 90kW peak even with degradation?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmartElectric

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top