Are supercharge-limited packs really THAT limited?

[Doug_G]

As a Sig owner who is not upset about the A versus B packs because I believe I received what I was promised, I think that the rear map lights that are currently in the cars and were taken out of the Sigs (and perhaps early production cars) due to concerns about the design with a promise from George Blackenship that they would be retrofit to Model S vehicles built before the redesign are a bigger deal since the retrofit hasn't materialized and was part of the car when I ordered it.

Just FYI, the rear map lights are in my Canadian Sig VIN 2006. But it was delivered after some of the American P cars.

I have an A pack. The only thing that bothers me is Elon's announcement about the increased charging current did not mention that some customers would not be able to make use of it. Spending a few extra minutes at the Supercharger is a little disappointing but small potatoes compared to spending hours at a Level II charger.

 

[FlasherZ]

The rear lights are also in my Sig, one of the last US Sigs to roll off the line.

 

[brianman]

The rear lights are also in my Sig, one of the last US Sigs to roll off the line.

Ok, now that we're firmly off-topic hopefully you guys can clear up a fuzziness in my neural net.

Were there 3 rear light cases in U.S. Sigs: (a) missing, (b) type 1, and (c) type 2? Or just two: (a) missing and (b) present?

Thanks.

I have (b) or (c) but I'm not sure which.

 

[aviators99]

There are two additional issues with the "A" vs "B" packs, both of which are MUCH more important than the 90 vs 120 kw issue, but are not mentioned in this thread yet. If we are going to start a duplicate thread, all of the information should be present:

1) The improved taper that Tesla has stated is (or will be) available on the B pack but not the A pack. It makes certain trips undoable for me, even though they would be doable if I had a B pack.
2) The much higher rate of battery degradation in the A pack. This has all sorts of implications.

OT: Brianman, did you get my PM?

 

[apacheguy]

In my next two tests charging with fully functional superchargers and starting at 0 miles left, I think I achieved 155 miles in 30 minutes. But it was pretty cold (45 degrees) -- okay cold for a Californian. So I have yet to achieve the advertised rate myself. Haven't had time to post this blog yet, will try to do so soon.

Do you have the corresponding % SOC for 155 miles on your car?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

There are two additional issues with the "A" vs "B" packs, both of which are MUCH more important than the 90 vs 120 kw issue, but are not mentioned in this thread yet. If we are going to start a duplicate thread, all of the information should be present:

1) The improved taper that Tesla has stated is (or will be) available on the B pack but not the A pack. It makes certain trips undoable for me, even though they would be doable if I had a B pack.
2) The much higher rate of battery degradation in the A pack. This has all sorts of implications.

OT: Brianman, did you get my PM?

1) Can you provide actual data, or is this simply speculation?
2) See #1, above.

 

[apacheguy]

1) Can you provide actual data, or is this simply speculation?

Actual data (mine and Wraithnot's):

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=40879&d=1389771669

 

[aviators99]

Actual data (mine and Wraithnot's):

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=40879&d=1389771669

Note that I said "is (or will be)". Right now, the improved taper has not been implemented for either pack. But it has been promised by Musk, and if you read the original thread, you can see that Tesla has stated that it won't be available for A packs.

- - - Updated - - -

1) Can you provide actual data, or is this simply speculation?

See post above

2) See #1, above.

Due to certain circumstances, I can't answer this question directly. But read the "Decreased Range" thread, cross-referenced with some other threads and wikis, and draw your own conclusions. That is only a part of the information I have, but should be enough.

 

[apacheguy]

@aviators - Actually if you look at my taper curve you will notice that my A pack drops off of 90 kW much sooner than the B pack. So, at least in my case, there is evidence of an improved taper for B packs that exists in the current firmware.

 

[brianman]

OT: Brianman, did you get my PM?

Nah, I probably need to pay for ultrapremium TMC somehow so that I can get a bigger inbox.

 

[Owner]

I was thinking about that connection between these numbers too. As batteries degrade so will they. But the kWh numbers are there too. Still haven't had time to put this together, sorry.

Do you have the corresponding % SOC for 155 miles on your car?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone up for a battery to battery test in the bay area??? I'll bring my Model S, you bring your older pack.

We drive to Gilroy mid day on an upcoming warm day. 70 degrees is good. Fremont is often too crowded. We arrive with zero or just drain our packs to zero.

We test the cars 1:1 as much as we possibly can -- waiting for other cars to leave if necessary. It is all right if someone arrives after we start charging.

I will co-ordinate with the supercharger team to verify before hand that whatever chargers we are going to use are at 100%. So we don't have any inconsistent data.

Anyone up for this? You can reply to the thread or PM me.


Thanks for that. I was quoting Tesla on my blog, those were not my words. But hopefully i'll find a volunteer to do the 1:1 test soon.

Thanks for clarifying. Let me do same. I was wrong to call your tests theoretical and I apologize. What I meant to say, and should have been more accurate, is that any extrapolations regarding extra time to charge A pack are theoretical, because the charge curves are quite different. A bunch of people tried to do so and posted on the 90 kW limitation thread, but results and interpretations were all over the place. I think OP is correct that the only decent test would be a charge-off between two cars at same temp etc. from same SOC to same SOC. Then, I'm sure the supercharger on one would stop mid-charge… DRAT.

Anyway, I believe it is nit picking anyway. It's a little longer. Not enough to warrant getting super agitated or expect Tesla to replace at 40k a pop. Enough to want an upgrade program, as they're planning.

 

[JohnQ]

<snip>
PS: JohnQ, please don't equate this to trivial stuff like vanity mirrors, music storage. Those are desirable features that some people were expecting and want, fair enough. But nobody has them. This is the most critical component of car, and "A" pack owners paid the same price as others whose cars were produced the same week and received a less functional component. That's just not the same. If that's not clear, PM me.
</snip>

Tomas, was just pointing out, in a tongue-in-cheek way (I thought), that we were revisiting something that has been dormant for a while and was controversial/contentious. Probably doesn't matter after 24 hours of content in this thread.

 

[Kraken]

I was thinking about that connection between these numbers too. As batteries degrade so will they. But the kWh numbers are there too. Still haven't had time to put this together, sorry.



- - - Updated - - -

Anyone up for a battery to battery test in the bay area??? I'll bring my Model S, you bring your older pack.

We drive to Gilroy mid day on an upcoming warm day. 70 degrees is good. Fremont is often too crowded. We arrive with zero or just drain our packs to zero.

We test the cars 1:1 as much as we possibly can -- waiting for other cars to leave if necessary. It is all right if someone arrives after we start charging.

I will co-ordinate with the supercharger team to verify before hand that whatever chargers we are going to use are at 100%. So we don't have any inconsistent data.

Anyone up for this? You can reply to the thread or PM me.


Thanks for that. I was quoting Tesla on my blog, those were not my words. But hopefully i'll find a volunteer to do the 1:1 test soon.

I am up for it, but I prefer the vacaville charger. Clearly it wouldn't be with you though, cuz I'm on a B pack as well. I get back to vacaville with 0-25 miles remaining by doing my daily commute.

i think we are missing a key aspect. It hasn't infiltrated these threads yet, but the rated range numbers we have been seeing have been too low, according to tesla. All of our tests have been with bad data. That being said, going with that, Owner got 163 in 30 minutes. That might actually have been very close to 170 on the new firmware.

on that note, it's best to make sure any tests are done with cars on the newest firmware

 

[apacheguy]

i think we are missing a key aspect. It hasn't infiltrated these threads yet, but the rated range numbers we have been seeing have been too low, according to tesla. All of our tests have been with bad data. That being said, going with that, Owner got 163 in 30 minutes. That might actually have been very close to 170 on the new firmware.

We figured out a while back that's it's best to report data in terms of % SOC for this very reason. Hence, all the data that I post is SOC, not rated miles.

 

[bluetinc]

SOC% has it's own issues also. For example if a battery has half it's capacity degraded, then it will fill up from 0% to 10% twice as fast as the same battery when new, but only store half the energy.

The very best way to track this type of stuff is as energy (kW), but it's been difficult to track that as Tesla doesn't give us direct access to that. I just received 5.9 so I am working though the changes they added into the mix, because again the "rated range" energy unit has changed... Ideal may have stayed the same. I'll know much more by tonight and post over on the decreasing range thread. I have now verified that 4.0 up to and including 5.8, Tesla has NOT changed the reserve below 0, something which seems to be used to discount the displayed loss of range.

Peter

We figured out a while back that's it's best to report data in terms of % SOC for this very reason. Hence, all the data that I post is SOC, not rated miles.

 

[roblab]

I am up for it, but I prefer the vacaville charger. Clearly it wouldn't be with you though, cuz I'm on a B pack as well. I get back to vacaville with 0-25 miles remaining by doing my daily commute.

i think we are missing a key aspect. It hasn't infiltrated these threads yet, but the rated range numbers we have been seeing have been too low, according to tesla. All of our tests have been with bad data. That being said, going with that, Owner got 163 in 30 minutes. That might actually have been very close to 170 on the new firmware.

on that note, it's best to make sure any tests are done with cars on the newest firmware

I'm close enough to Vacaville and have the A pack. Might be fun. Since I'm retired, tell me your schedule. I prefer email, stelling at napanet dot net. I met you at the Vacaville ribbon cutting. Chocolate brown S85.

I should be getting 5.9 any day now, but not yet.

 

[Owner]

I could do Vacaville too - a little far but worth it. The more the merrier (well no) to some point.

Weather is warming up too, so that factor should be good.

I'd really like to do this in conjunction with Tesla as they can tell me the supercharger status before hand, and we will then know we will get clean numbers. Don't want a false comparison with someone using a 115kW max supercharger and a 112kW ….. Or have them explain away something like that after the fact.

You can get the kW on the screen while charging.

I'm close enough to Vacaville and have the A pack. Might be fun. Since I'm retired, tell me your schedule. I prefer email, stelling at napanet dot net. I met you at the Vacaville ribbon cutting. Chocolate brown S85.

I should be getting 5.9 any day now, but not yet.

 

[Cottonwood]

I could do Vacaville too - a little far but worth it. The more the merrier (well no) to some point.

Weather is warming up too, so that factor should be good.

I'd really like to do this in conjunction with Tesla as they can tell me the supercharger status before hand, and we will then know we will get clean numbers. Don't want a false comparison with someone using a 115kW max supercharger and a 112kW ….. Or have them explain away something like that after the fact.

You can get the kW on the screen while charging.

View attachment 46518

You can get more accuracy by multiplying "Volts * Amps".

 

[ken830]

Can't wait to see the results of this "charge-off". Also, if you guys can get a video-recording of the screens while charging, we can extract more fine-grained data of the entire charging process and see the charge taper characteristics.

I think those of us with April-delivered cars should be the most upset because cars delivered before ours have B packs... WTF?? =(

 

[Cottonwood]

Can't wait to see the results of this "charge-off". Also, if you guys can get a video-recording of the screens while charging, we can extract more fine-grained data of the entire charging process and see the charge taper characteristics.

I think those of us with April-delivered cars should be the most upset because cars delivered before ours have B packs... WTF?? =(

Easier to use VisibleTesla or take charging screen shots in the App at a regular interval (5 or 10 minutes). On an iPhone you can capture the screen to the camera roll by pushing the power and attention (round) buttons at the same time.

Have fun!