Cybertruck Home Charging - New Onboard Charger?

[Swampgator]

It's not disingenuous... but it certainly is presumptive. And it was based on this: "If CT can charge 3-4X faster, the question is why would anyone want to charge slower?" which didn't state anything near your above unfounded assumptions or taking of sides. I'll give you all of what you stated would make a great case. For the much less than 1 percent that it applies to. As for reality... Solar Panels to Charge an Electric Car | Solar.com
So, again, if the guy is using more than his "fair share", plaguing the grid, or not planning and expecting to be at a full charge for a road trip that doesn't have an SC closer than 240 or so miles away, then yes, I do get a say and yes it will impact the rest of us. Thanks for your thoughts. I bet you also want to charge faster, don't you?

SS

Here is my situation, not that it should matter. I am on TOU plan with FPL. If I arrive home for example at 10am on Monday with a low SOC, I can charge for 3 hours at low TOU rate, until peak time rate kicks in at 1pm. So in this case I would want to put the most energy possible into the battery before peak rates hit.
I will be switching to solar with power walls next summer, prior to CT arrival, so whatever communist argument you are trying to make is moot.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Maybe one day new vehicles will have multiple charge ports that can be used simultaneously. While it would cost more for the hardware, it would make it easier to charge faster at home. It might also make it easier for a Cybertruck with a trailer to Supercharge.

 

[nwdiver]

Maybe one day new vehicles will have multiple charge ports that can be used simultaneously.

The onboard charger is the bottleneck, not the ability of the port to take more amps. You could have 10 ports... if your onboard charger is only 48A that's all you're gonna get.

So really this thread is mislabeled... should really be 'new onboard charger' not 'new wall charger'. If Tesla decides to put a 80A charger in the CT then no doubt they'll sell a HPWC with 80A capacity. Doesn't seem likely. More plausible IMHO is they'll offer a ~30kW L3 'home charger' for ~$5k... Won't be worth it for ~99% of people but money doesn't matter for the 1%.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

The onboard charger is the bottleneck, not the ability of the port to take more amps. You could have 10 ports... if your onboard charger is only 48A that's all you're gonna get.

So really this thread is mislabeled... should really be 'new onboard charger' not 'new wall charger'. If Tesla decides to put a 80A charger in the CT then no doubt they'll sell a HPWC with 80A capacity. Doesn't seem likely. More plausible IMHO is they'll offer a ~30kW L3 'home charger' for ~$5k... Won't be worth it for ~99% of people but money doesn't matter for the 1%.

In my magical world with multiple charge ports, I also assumed multiple onboard chargers, hence the extra cost. They could make it an option as they did with 40 amp/80 amp onboard chargers or later on with the 48 amp/72 amp chargers.

An L3 home charging option would be nice...but yeah, probably too expensive and wouldn't be needed by 99% of owners.

 

[nwdiver]

In my magical world with multiple charge ports, I also assumed multiple onboard chargers, hence the extra cost.

Sure... but there's no reason you can't just use the one port to supply power to multiple onboard chargers... multiple ports don't add anything except cost and maybe more flexibility on where you park.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Sure... but there's no reason you can't just use the one port to supply power to multiple onboard chargers... multiple ports don't add anything except cost and maybe more flexibility on where you park.

With multiple charge ports, existing households wouldn't need to upgrade their wall connectors. We have 3 wall connectors and 4 mobile connectors in our garage. I could use a combination of my existing charging infrastructure to charge a car with multiple ports faster and not have to shell out $5k for an L3 device or new wall connectors. While our wall connectors are load balanced and would be limited to 80 amps total, I could use a wall connector in a 6-20 or 14-50 outlet to add a few more amps.

I suppose they could have an adaptor such as what they use for the Tesla Semi but that might not be as flexible an option.

 

[paulk]

If you want to future proof a little, look around for a second generation Tesla wall connector. It supports charging at up to 80 amps if you wire it properly. If the cybertruck supports more than 48 amps, that should help.

 

[pilotSteve]

It's not disingenuous... but it certainly is presumptive. And it was based on this: "If CT can charge 3-4X faster, the question is why would anyone want to charge slower?" which didn't state anything near your above unfounded assumptions or taking of sides. I'll give you all of what you stated would make a great case. For the much less than 1 percent that it applies to. As for reality... Solar Panels to Charge an Electric Car | Solar.com
So, again, if the guy is using more than his "fair share", plaguing the grid, or not planning and expecting to be at a full charge for a road trip that doesn't have an SC closer than 240 or so miles away, then yes, I do get a say and yes it will impact the rest of us. Thanks for your thoughts. I bet you also want to charge faster, don't you?

SS

One last time, then I'm out.... what I meant by "charging on sunlight" was a home/grid solar system what generated more energy than used to charge the car, not a "wannabe" solar setup on the car itself.

And sure.... I want to be able to charge faster at home when I need it.... otherwise I charge at night when time of use electric rates are cheapest, and the grid has excess load (hence the power company selling it at a discount)

 

[coleAK]

This is the problem most people don’t understand about Tesla’s. They need inside a garage. Severe heat or cold is not an option for them. AN ICE truck Cat be left outside. Not a a Tesla. So the CT is not for everybody

[Moderator: This is incorrect.]

I’m in Alaska with 6 winters driving a Tesla (4 with an S, 2 with a 3). I’ll add all our cars get plugged in the ICEs to a block heater and battery blanket. We have weeks on end when it doesn’t get above 0F. The Tesla’s have had no issues even down into the -40’s F.

 

[David.85D]

If Tesla decides to put a 80A charger in the CT then no doubt they'll sell a HPWC with 80A capacity. Doesn't seem likely.

My HPWC can do 80A. Why do you say it’s unlikely? That’s with dual onboard chargers based on existing technology. Nothing new. If they did triple on board chargers it could handle 120A for (presumably) commercial customers.

 

[nwdiver]

My HPWC can do 80A. Why do you say it’s unlikely? That’s with dual onboard chargers based on existing technology. Nothing new. If they did triple on board chargers it could handle 120A for (presumably) commercial customers.

Because since that time batteries have gotten bigger and onboard chargers have gotten smaller. If Tesla thought there was value in larger onboard chargers the 100D LR+ would have a 80A charger not a 48A charger. Batteries went from 85 => 90 => 100kWh. Onboard chargers went from 80A => 72A => 48A.

For commercial customers with a fleet it would make more sense to invest in a few L3 chargers that can service all vehicles instead of spending additional money on more powerful onboard L2 chargers in every car.

 

[Blup85]

I agree. I can't help but think Tesla will provide a higher power wall connecter for the cT.

I'm hoping they install the 72 amp or dual 40's in the CT like my older MS, which would charge @ 60mph (20kw) on my gen 2 wall connector. The major cost seems to be the onboard chargers, (which could be given as an option) the additional cost to the wall connectors to support them is insignificant (larger contactor and wire), and I can't see why Tesla wouldn't offer an 80 AMP wall connector version for $100 more..

 

[nwdiver]

I'm hoping they install the 72 amp or dual 40's in the CT like my older MS, which would charge @ 60mph (20kw) on my gen 2 wall connector. The major cost seems to be the onboard chargers, (which could be given as an option) the additional cost to the wall connectors to support them is insignificant (larger contactor and wire), and I can't see why Tesla wouldn't offer an 80 AMP wall connector version for $100 more..

It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind reducing the onboard charger from 80 to 72 to 48A. Tesla may have a database on the charge rate cars used. I think one possibility is that a charge rate >48A simply wasn't used often enough to justify offering it as an option. I know a lot of HPWC set to 80A are not capable of supporting that rate due to upstream voltage drop. One of my friends has a a 80A HPWC installed at his house... the best I've been able sustain is 60A. I have a 80A HPWC at my house but I only charge >20A maybe 3x a year and if I had a supercharger I could hit up on my way out of town that frequency would be ~0.

 

[kayak1]

In my magical world with multiple charge ports, I also assumed multiple onboard chargers, hence the extra cost. They could make it an option as they did with 40 amp/80 amp onboard chargers or later on with the 48 amp/72 amp chargers.

An L3 home charging option would be nice...but yeah, probably too expensive and wouldn't be needed by 99% of owners.

I would pay another $1-2K to have a 2nd charge port on the right-hand side to not have to drag the charging cable around the truck it's parked at home (charging outside as it won't fit in the garage). My wife's Y is fine on the left-hand side as it's in the garage. Charging at 11.5KW seems plenty fast. My Leaf charges at 6.6KW which is good enough. I don't see 11.5KW being an issue with my CT even when I tow.

 

[fm500]

I think you might be missing one key point.

I don't think 80/72 amps were ever really necessary at any point in the recent past. When Tesla first came out, the Supercharger network was poor, and L3 chargers less common. Destination charging via plain old HPWC was common, including short-term stops at malls, restaurants, and other locations. Additionally, those locations tended to be "higher end" (IE: Fancy Hotel) than most charging locations are today.

While there is still some case for a more reasonable overnight charge rates on the road, it just isn't as high priority with the SC/L3 options today.

 

[Rocky_H]

I think you might be missing one key point.

I don't think 80/72 amps were ever really necessary at any point in the recent past. When Tesla first came out, the Supercharger network was poor, and L3 chargers less common.

That seems debatable who is missing the point. The SC network is still pretty poor and lacking in a lot of areas. Until Tesla figures out that interstates are NOT the only travel routes, a high amp onboard charger is still vitally useful today. U.S. federal highways are still highly traveled major routes, and for the most part, Tesla is ignoring those. Your thinking that this has all been solved in the past is naïve. It's right here where I live. At least three routes out of my city are still not Supercharger covered right now.

 

[dhrivnak]

The truck likely will not fit into my garage where my wall charger is.
I live in Ohio where the winter is not friendly.

Besides putting a charger outside, or going to a Supercharger (35 min from my house), what options do you have?

I would charge outside no problems with that option. I would not drive and pay the premium for SuperCharging.

 

[SSedan]

I think you might be missing one key point.

I don't think 80/72 amps were ever really necessary at any point in the recent past. When Tesla first came out, the Supercharger network was poor, and L3 chargers less common. Destination charging via plain old HPWC was common, including short-term stops at malls, restaurants, and other locations. Additionally, those locations tended to be "higher end" (IE: Fancy Hotel) than most charging locations are today.

While there is still some case for a more reasonable overnight charge rates on the road, it just isn't as high priority with the SC/L3 options today.

Not everyone lives on a coast.
Consider the CT is going to be hungry. The gen 3 WC is rated to give the 3 44mph but the X just 30 from the same connection, stands to reason the CT will be less efficient yet even without being used as a truck.
I don't think most people are considering increased consumption when saying the CT will recharge overnight.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think most people are considering increased consumption when saying the CT will recharge overnight.

Even if the CT uses 2x as much energy as a X or S you can still recover ~230 miles of range in a 12 hour period with 48A L2. How often do most people drive farther than this? On the rare occasion that you do AND for some reason need a full charge the next day a 20 minute stop at a supercharger would top you up enough.

 

[SSedan]

I am not arguing everyone will need more than 48amps but I really think some CT owners are going to push things enough to appreciate a more powerful option.