disappointed that Tesla hasn’t leveraged intelligent charging management to increase # of chargers

[BM3B]

I think there should be signs at V3 stations telling people to use V2 (regular) if their SOC is over 50%, that way if it’s busy then travelers with low SOC can charge quickly.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed that Tesla hasn’t leveraged intelligent charging management to increase number of charging stalls. Average power utilization is going to be really poor with V3. They could have 2-4 SCer on a 250 kW feed, the max power will only be needed for 10 min max for each vehicle at a low SOC, the rest of the time they can share the power to accommodate more vehicles charging at the same time. Heck, I am fine with pairing to 75 kW if I need to have dinner or stretch my legs. The trade off is a little less predictability and consistent max power

Perhaps they aren’t doing pairing with 250kW because of Semi charging needs (1 megawatt charging power I read).

tl;dr supercharging can get more efficient and smarter.

 

[AMPd]

I think there should be signs at V3 stations telling people to use V2 (regular) if their SOC is over 50%, that way if it’s busy then travelers with low SOC can charge quickly.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed that Tesla hasn’t leveraged intelligent charging management to increase number of charging stalls. Average power utilization is going to be really poor with V3. They could have 2-4 SCer on a 250 kW feed, the max power will only be needed for 10 min max for each vehicle at a low SOC, the rest of the time they can share the power to accommodate more vehicles charging at the same time. Heck, I am fine with pairing to 75 kW if I need to have dinner or stretch my legs. The trade off is a little less predictability and consistent max power

Perhaps they aren’t doing pairing with 250kW because of Semi charging needs (1 megawatt charging power I read).

tl;dr supercharging can get more efficient and smarter.

Perhaps they don’t want to invest time in doing that since the entire location will be upgraded to V3 anyways.

 

[Big Earl]

I think there should be signs at V3 stations telling people to use V2 (regular) if their SOC is over 50%, that way if it’s busy then travelers with low SOC can charge quickly.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed that Tesla hasn’t leveraged intelligent charging management to increase number of charging stalls. Average power utilization is going to be really poor with V3. They could have 2-4 SCer on a 250 kW feed, the max power will only be needed for 10 min max for each vehicle at a low SOC, the rest of the time they can share the power to accommodate more vehicles charging at the same time. Heck, I am fine with pairing to 75 kW if I need to have dinner or stretch my legs. The trade off is a little less predictability and consistent max power

Perhaps they aren’t doing pairing with 250kW because of Semi charging needs (1 megawatt charging power I read).

tl;dr supercharging can get more efficient and smarter.

V3 shares one ~550 kW charging cabinet across four stalls. Average power utilization should be quite high.

 

[AMPd]

V3 shares one ~550 kW charging cabinet across four stalls. Average power utilization should be quite high.

That’s incorrect
They share a 1 MW cabinet.

 

[Big Dog]

I think there should be signs at V3 stations telling people to use V2 (regular) if their SOC is over 50%, that way if it’s busy then travelers with low SOC can charge quickly.

Perhaps in the ideal world with unlimited resources, but why would should Tesla assume that speedy charging for those with a low SOC is more fair than those with 50%+? In other words, why is the low SOC'ers time worth more than the high SOC'ers time? Perhaps that high SOC'er is about to head into a really long leg?

To me, first-come, first-served is the only way that makes sense.

 

[Big Earl]

That’s incorrect
They share a 1 MW cabinet.

Not according to the data plates on the charging cabinets.

 

[AMPd]

Not according to the data plate on the charging cabinet.

Then I guess Tesla is lying, because they advertise V3 superchargers as being able to provide a max of 250kW
How can 4 stalls achieve 250kW if there’s only 550 available.

 

[BM3B]

Perhaps in the ideal world with unlimited resources, but why would should Tesla assume that speedy charging for those with a low SOC is more fair than those with 50%+? In other words, why is the low SOC'ers time worth more than the high SOC'ers time? Perhaps that high SOC'er is about to head into a really long leg?

To me, first-come, first-served is the only way that makes sense.

But someone charging to 90% will draw only 30 kW the last 10 minutes, which means 220 kW is going unused (unless Tesla is doing its own active power management to route power to where it is needed most).

 

[AMPd]

Perhaps in the ideal world with unlimited resources, but why would should Tesla assume that speedy charging for those with a low SOC is more fair than those with 50%+? In other words, why is the low SOC'ers time worth more than the high SOC'ers time? Perhaps that high SOC'er is about to head into a really long leg?

To me, first-come, first-served is the only way that makes sense.

Then you don’t know how supercharging works.
If you arrive with 50% of battery capacity left then the V3 supercharger won’t make much of a difference in charging speed due to the charging taper. Common courtesy suggests you choose a v2 stall and leave the v3 one for someone who can take advantage of the speed.

 

[Big Earl]

Then I guess Tesla is lying, because they advertise V3 superchargers as being able to provide a max of 250kW
How can 4 stalls achieve 250kW if there’s only 550 available.

V3 can provide a maximum of 250 kW. Just not to all four stalls simultaneously. Not a big deal since the 250 can only be achieved for a couple of minutes in a very narrow state of charge window.

Here is the video that shows the data plates. My recollection was a bit off ... DC output is shown as 575 kW but input power is listed at 350 kVA maximum continuous.

 

[AMPd]

V3 can provide a maximum of 250 kW. Just not to all four stalls simultaneously. Not a big deal since the 250 can only be achieved for a couple of minutes in a very narrow state of charge window.

Here is the video that shows the data plates. My recollection was a bit off ... DC output is shown as 575 kW but input power is listed at 350 kVA maximum continuous.

“Faster Charging, No More Power Sharing
V3 is a completely new architecture for Supercharging. A new 1MW power cabinet with a similar design to our utility-scale productssupports peak rates of up to 250kW per car.”

That’s quite different than what tesla advertises.

 

[Big Earl]

“Faster Charging, No More Power Sharing
V3 is a completely new architecture for Supercharging. A new 1MW power cabinet with a similar design to our utility-scale productssupports peak rates of up to 250kW per car.”

That’s quite different than what tesla advertises.

Quite different, indeed.

 

[MP3Mike]

“Faster Charging, No More Power Sharing
V3 is a completely new architecture for Supercharging. A new 1MW power cabinet with a similar design to our utility-scale productssupports peak rates of up to 250kW per car.”

That’s quite different than what tesla advertises.

I could be wrong but normally the spec labels are what something is rated at continuously. They can peak much higher, just for "short" periods of time. The other thing you have to consider is that it has two inputs: AC input at 350 kVA (continuous) and DC input at 575kW and those are combined. So it seems to me it can do 250kW x 4 for short periods of time. (Which is all that you are likely to get even if you had 4 empty cars plug in at the same time.)

 

[Big Dog]

Then you don’t know how supercharging works.
If you arrive with 50% of battery capacity left then the V3 supercharger won’t make much of a difference in charging speed due to the charging taper. Common courtesy suggests you choose a v2 stall and leave the v3 one for someone who can take advantage of the speed.

I concur about common courtesy, which is more efficient for all, but that requires common knowledge.

In the first place, there IS a difference in time charging; it may not be much, but it exists. But more importantly, there is ZERO way to essplain this to the masses (aka common knowledge). And I'm sure Tesla recognizes that educating hundreds of thousands of users on charge taper is a just not practical.

 

[BM3B]

But Tesla doesn’t need to educate anyone, the NAV should just tell us “use stall 2B” for V2 if I am at 55% or “use stall 16A” for V3 if I am at 15%. It’s not rocket science, it’s almost 2020 after all. Look up what PowerFlex has been doing; simple and smart, efficient. Just tell me where to go Elon. I let him drive my car, they can optimize my charge

 

[Big Earl]

I could be wrong but normally the spec labels are what something is rated at continuously. They can peak much higher, just for "short" periods of time. The other thing you have to consider is that it has two inputs: AC input at 350 kVA (continuous) and DC input at 575kW and those are combined. So it seems to me it can do 250kW x 4 for short periods of time. (Which is all that you are likely to get even if you had 4 empty cars plug in at the same time.)

That’s the key. I hadn’t considered the AC and DC inputs being summed. This could partially explain why many Trans-Canada Highway locations are using 6 pedestals across 2 cabinets... there is no battery storage at many of those sites, so no additional DC power available (yet).

 

[bxr140]

But Tesla doesn’t need to educate anyone, the NAV should just tell us “use stall 2B” for V2 if I am at 55% or “use stall 16A” for V3 if I am at 15%. It’s not rocket science, it’s almost 2020 after all.

Yep, we’ve been asking for that for years. Tesla can direct based on maximizing site throughput, capping max load, avoiding underperforming pedestals, balancing hardware duty cycles, etc.

The ‘it’s not going to help plugging into a 250 if you’re already below 150 on the taper’ is only a minor part of the equation.

 

[MP3Mike]

The ‘it’s not going to help plugging into a 250 if you’re already below 150 on the taper’ is only a minor part of the equation.

That isn't totally true. If the V2 stall has the paired stall already occupied by someone with a low SoC you would only get ~30kW of charging from it, where for a V3 you could get much more.

 

[Big Earl]

I just came across this post from back in March. It all makes sense now - specs quoted below match what’s on the the data plate. Very clever design that will better optimize available power from the utility. With these, there is no need to direct people to specific stalls because power can be shared across all V3 stalls (up to 28).

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

 

[miimura]

All of this AC + DC stuff and cabinet sharing makes sense. However, it does not change the fact that in aggregate, there is only 130kW per stall available across the whole site. It just means that the likelihood of someone being throttled due to lack of AC power is very low.

If the Powerpacks at Kettleman are connected by DC, then the AC limit is even less likely to be encountered. However, the Kettleman mixed V2 & V3 site and the Santa Rosa dedicated V3 site both have an inverter, so I assumed they would just be doing demand offset to the utility. However, the batteries could also be on the V3 Supercharger DC bus, bypassing the inverter if they wanted to augment the DC charging straight from the battery instead of doing DC-AC-DC conversions, as would be required for a pure V2 Supercharger site.