Anyone have time for a newbie question?

[bonnie]

Great chart.

I know it's covered by the 'J1772 High' but it would be nice to see Roadsters represented with a row labeled 'Tesla HPC'. There still are some in the wild and if Model S drivers have an adapter, those are also an option.

Also, would add a column to the front and label as 'L1', 'L2', 'L3' - people get confused by terminology & having it all on one chart would be helpful.

Nice work!

 

[davewill]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will :smile but in my understanding, Tesla had their charging solution developed BEFORE the other "plugs" were developed. Why SAE and CHAdeMO chose the large format huge plug instead of the sleek, highly efficient and capable Tesla design leaves many of us still shaking our heads. I hear that CHAdeMO will have to redesign to up it's DC fast charging above 50 amp. Really Dumb. While Teslas continue to charge at 135 kW and beyond.

I would guess, operative word here, that there was some mental competition going on between Tesla and GM and Nissan. Most Old Era auto manufacturers are really not interested in making electric vehicles easy to use or charge. They don't care if a car, such as Toyota's RAV4EV, can only charge at 3.3 amps (not even 7 kW) when Tesla can do 20 times that amount. I can hardly wait for them to go out of business.

Sort of. Tesla was involved in the standards process for J1772, but was unhappy with the 40a charging limit at the time so went with the Roadster plug. Later, J1772 L2 capacity was upgraded to 80a to match Tesla. I think by the time that Model S charging was on the table, the current DC charging standards were well under way, but Tesla didn't like the proposed plugs (for North America) or the capacity of either CHAdeMO or SAE, and went their own way. In any case, there were certainly significant numbers of CHAdeMO chargers in the field long before the first Supercharger was built.

I understand why Tesla did it, and they may have had no real choice, but I'm not sure I entirely condone the decision...however that's water under the bridge and this is definitely not the thread for that discussion. Anyway, I mainly didn't want the newbie to think that CHAdeMO was Nissan specific.

The CHAdeMO standard goes to 100kW. There ARE 100kW CHAdeMOs but I don't think there are any in the US.

As far as the RAV4EV, it is all Tesla for the drive train and charging system so it goes up to 10kW, just like a Model S with one charger, but with a J1772 inlet. They didn't include DC charging presumably because it wasn't part of their agreement with Toyota. With 100 mile EVs it's hard to justify going much over 7kW charging for L2 (full charge in 3+ hours). The ones that only have 3.3kW charging...well there's no excuse for that. The lack of DC charging on most EVs IS also too short-sighted. I expect (hope?) the upcoming 150-200 mile cars to have higher capacity charging on board, as well as DC.

I know that Tesla doesn't share your hope that other makers abandon EVs. Tesla intends to be the tech leader in a massive EV market, supplying tech to the other vendors. Having to go it alone would not be good.

 

[NOLA_Mike]

I might also suggest taking the word "Nissan" out of the CHAdeMO "Limited" row because some of the Nissan branded chargers do charge faster than that. Here is a Nissan charger installed at a Rouse's Supermarket in New Orleans outputing 107A @ 363V (38.8 kW) into my Model S:

 

[brianman]

J1772 "High" should really be 80A (I have two of them installed at my office). In fact J1772 "Low" could be 24 amps because I'm aware of some of those too.

Updated.

- - - Updated - - -

I know it's covered by the 'J1772 High' but it would be nice to see Roadsters represented with a row labeled 'Tesla HPC'. There still are some in the wild and if Model S drivers have an adapter, those are also an option.

Good point. Omission corrected.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, would add a column to the front and label as 'L1', 'L2', 'L3' - people get confused by terminology & having it all on one chart would be helpful.

With the discussion about AC{1,2,3} and DC{1,2} I've lost track of which labelling is most useful. Remind me and I'll update the chart.

- - - Updated - - -

The CHAdeMO standard goes to 100kW. There ARE 100kW CHAdeMOs but I don't think there are any in the US.

I added a "Theoretical" CHAdeMO entry to the chart. Please let me know if it needs corrections.

- - - Updated - - -

I might also suggest taking the word "Nissan" out of the CHAdeMO "Limited" row because some of the Nissan branded chargers do charge faster than that.

Is it the European Nissan CHAdeMOs that have the limit? I forget the qualifier for which ones have the limiting.

Edit: Added a footnote that indicates "some" and references the thread discussing the topic.

 

[Max*]

with the discussion about ac{1,2,3} and dc{1,2} i've lost track of which labelling is most useful. Remind me and i'll update the chart.

l1 = 110v ac
l2 = 240v ac
l3 = dc

 

[brianman]

l1 = 110v ac
l2 = 240v ac
l3 = dc

Updated. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

I created a wiki for the chart. It can be found here:
Model S Charging - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum

 

[davewill]

l1 = 110v ac
l2 = 240v ac
l3 = dc

Better to simply not use the term "L3". Yes, "L3" has come to mean DC charging to some EV owners, but SAE, who coined the terms, specifically doesn't use it that way. I always stick with L1, L2, and DC.

 

[brianman]

Better to simply not use the term "L3". Yes, "L3" has come to mean DC charging to some EV owners, but SAE, who coined the terms, specifically doesn't use it that way. I always stick with L1, L2, and DC.

I've updated the wiki version to remove "L3" from the DC entries. Please continue table editing discussion @ the wiki itself. Thanks.

 

[TEG]

Some related stuff:

So, in theory, we should be talking about SAE J1772 Hybrid DC "combo" in USA (since this isn't about Japan), yet CHAdeMO has far more stations in USA than the US SAE standard, so we end up considering the Japanese standard instead. Tesla hasn't even bothered to make an SAE J1772 hybrid DC "combo" adapter yet, have they?

 

[LoL Rick]

Aaaargh, this forum gets so caught up in the nitty gritty details. If I can quote myself:

for illustrative purposes

It needs to be easy enough for a newbie to understand. The most important label there is the power since it's easier to see that 7 is better than 1.4 and 120 is better than anything. Thank you brianman for picking up the baton and carrying it forward.

 

[brianman]

Aaaargh, this forum gets so caught up in the nitty gritty details. If I can quote myself:

It needs to be easy enough for a newbie to understand. The most important label there is the power since it's easier to see that 7 is better than 1.4 and 120 is better than anything. Thank you brianman for picking up the baton and carrying it forward.

Happy to help.

 

[MSEV]

I have an 85D, about 3 months old. I charge easily with the NEMA 14-50 I put in the garage almost every night up to 80 or 90% (not 100% unless we are going on a trip).
Traveling, which we just did, putting 3600 miles on the MS, we used SupCs, a NEMA 14-50 one place (free), at a free HPWC (a nice Tesla owner had in front of his distillary), a few ChargePoint J1772s (adapter comes with car; these were free where I stopped), and I even plugged in 110 overnight one time to make sure I had enough power to get over the mountain pass (overnight it gave me about 20 more miles).
So, I feel Tesla outitted me with what I needed for home (I had to put in the NEMA 14-50, of course, and I am glad I did) and travel (SupCs, the J1772 adapter along with the NEMA 14-50 and the 110 standard plug).
I think you are set, unless you have a special need or situation.
Happy Driving!

I just completed a trip and posted about my charging experiences. You can find that here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/47755-Traveling-in-the-Model-S-A-Road-Trip

 

[Cottonwood]

This stuff gets incredibly confusing, so I have found that it is easiest to compare the charging options in terms of kW. These are approximations but should be close enough for illustrative purposes and are the common stations that I know of in the US.

110V Household - 1.4 kW
J1772 @ 30 amp - 6.2 kW
NEMA 14-50 - 10 kW
J1772 @ 70 amps - 17 kW *
Tesla HPWC @ 80 amp - 20 kW *
CHAdeMO - 25-50 kW +
Supercharger - 120-135 kW

* These two require dual chargers to be installed in the car
+ This requires an adapter purchased from Tesla, currently $450

Of course all of these will hit the battery taper curve. For the lower powered chargers, it's only in the last percent or two. A full power CHAdeMO hits the taper at about 75-80% SoC, and a full power Supercharger hits the taper pretty early.

The maximum power that an 85 can pull from a Supercharger is about 120 kW, and 105 kW for a 60 or 70; these limits come from the 330 Amps per pedestal limit and battery voltages. 135 kW is for the sum of two cars, but no single car can get that. There are some older Superchargers and mobile Superchargers on 208 Volts that can only produce 90 kW. Also, early 85 batteries could only accept 90 kW.

 

[mknox]

Also, early 85 batteries could only accept 90 kW.

Yeah, rub it in! :wink:

 

[brianman]

Of course all of these will hit the battery taper curve.

I've only noticed what I would call tapering on DC. On AC, it's steady throughout the charge session -- or at least steady enough that I haven't noticed.

 

[Cottonwood]

I've only noticed what I would call tapering on DC. On AC, it's steady throughout the charge session -- or at least steady enough that I haven't noticed.

It's only at the very end. An 80 Amp HPWC hits the taper at about 98% SoC, and a 40 AMP UMC hits the taper at about 99% SoC. Notice, I did say, "For the lower powered chargers, it's only in the last percent or two." Compared to the DC chargers, the HPWC and UMC are lower powered chargers.

 

[brianman]

It's only at the very end. An 80 Amp HPWC hits the taper at about 98% SoC, and a 40 AMP UMC hits the taper at about 99% SoC. Notice, I did say, "For the lower powered chargers, it's only in the last percent or two." Compared to the DC chargers, the HPWC and UMC are lower powered chargers.

Ah, there's the rub. Point noted.

Firstly, I wouldn't call that taper; I'm not disagreeing, I just use the terminology differently.
Secondly, I almost never bother to charge above 95% when not at a supercharger and have more same-day driving to do.

 

[beeeerock]

, at a free HPWC (a nice Tesla owner had in front of his distillary),

Ah, every owner should have his own distillery!!! :biggrin:

But to be on topic, I've charged at a public J1772 charge station and also a HPWC at a business in the last week. In both cases, the voltage was in the low 200 volt range. The HPWC was about 206, so I'm inferring it was on a three phase circuit (know just enough to make dangerous assumptions) and the J1772 was 203, so perhaps the same sort of three phase source power.

The HPWC was set at 40 amps. However, with my single charger, I could theoretically handle 10 kW, correct? Meaning the 208 circuit could provide me with 45 or 46 amps to allow me to charge at the same rate as with 40 A at 240 V. The J1772 was set at 30 amps, but I understand they tend to be down in that range.

So the question is... would it make sense for an HPWC on a 208 circuit to be set by DIP switch a little higher (assuming wiring allows) to enable a single on-board charger to maximize its charge rate?

 

[NOLA_Mike]

The HPWC was set at 40 amps. However, with my single charger, I could theoretically handle 10 kW, correct? Meaning the 208 circuit could provide me with 45 or 46 amps to allow me to charge at the same rate as with 40 A at 240 V. The J1772 was set at 30 amps, but I understand they tend to be down in that range.

So the question is... would it make sense for an HPWC on a 208 circuit to be set by DIP switch a little higher (assuming wiring allows) to enable a single on-board charger to maximize its charge rate?

The dip switch setting in the HPWC is determined by the size of the breaker (circuit) the HPWC is wired in to. The dip switch settings should not be based on anything else. I.e., if the HPWC is on a 40 Amp circuit (regardless of the voltage - this is based on rated current only), the dip switches are set to 40A and the maximum charge rate is 80% of 40A (or 32A).

So, unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking, you cannot "increase the dip switch settings" unless you increase the circuit wiring, breaker, etc.

Edit: I (now) see you had "assuming wiring allows" so I didn't mean to come off as telling you something you already knew.

Mike

 

[Cottonwood]

Ah, every owner should have his own distillery!!! :biggrin:

...

So the question is... would it make sense for an HPWC on a 208 circuit to be set by DIP switch a little higher (assuming wiring allows) to enable a single on-board charger to maximize its charge rate?

As for the first, charge at the 70 Amp J1772 at Wood's High Mountain Distillery It's a great stop in Salida, CO. See below.

For the second, I am pretty sure the limit for each charging module is 10 kW or 40 Amps, whichever come first. At a 200 Volt J1772 with 50 Amps offered, a single charger MS can accept 200V * 40A or 8 kW; a dual charger MS can accept the full 200V * 50A or 10 kW. The interesting question is if 277 Volts is offered at 50 Amps, I assume that the single charger car could take 10 kW or 36 Amps, and the dual charger car would be able to take 277V * 50A or 13.85 kW.