EU CCS Charging: chargespeed & stations

[widodh]

The limit seems to be 330A, just like S and X. Looks like a software limitation from Tesla, but I can not prove it.

 

[Zoomit]

The limit seems to be 330A, just like S and X. Looks like a software limitation from Tesla, but I can not prove it.

It looks like it pulled about 360A to me, but it's still car limited, not charger limited. Woohoo! Model 3 DC Charging Unhinged

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The EPA also says the 3 can take 500ish amps

if the mid range can hit ~120KW which we know it can then the LR should be able to go over it fairly easy.

When (what SoC) does the MR taper from 120kW? I haven't been paying attention.

Oh good, it looks like 145kW - 175kW is in the cards for the Model 3 (LR). Unfortunately it'll be years before we can take advantage in any useful way for road trips. Probably good because I'd really have to be shooting for 0% at every Supercharger stop which for me is a bit stressful.

 

[Big Earl]

MR starts to taper around 50%.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm not saying that isn't true. But looks to me the charger is rated at 400A.
Daud Pechler on Twitter
View attachment 375651

But that isn't the actual charge station that was used was it? (The graph that was shared was clearly labeled as a 175kW stall.) So I guess we would need to see the maximum charge curve that station is capable of.

Of course that would put that station to be rated at 368kW, and the standard is 1000v x 500A for a maximum of 350kW. (So you can't max both out at the same time.)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

MR starts to taper around 50%.

So if the MR is starts to taper from ~1.9C at 50% SoC, presumably that means that the LR is actually capable (if the wiring & charger is capable) of 1.9C => ~145kW up to 50% SoC, for the same level of battery stress. So it doesn't seem like that level should surprise any of us if it shows up tomorrow (though I don't expect it will).

Beyond that, how much higher could it be at a lower SoC? And do they want to push the entire curve out and stress the batteries beyond 1.9C (even at 50% SoC) to compete with the ephemeral Porsche EV...I guess that is up to Tesla.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

But that isn't the actual charge station that was used was it?

Looks like it is a T175 which is a 175kW charger. Whether that is the same type that was used for the plot I have no idea. Unfortunately the technical data sheet has to be requested for the T175.

ABB THPCE175-D-0

 

[guidooo]

But that isn't the actual charge station that was used was it? (The graph that was shared was clearly labeled as a 175kW stall.) So I guess we would need to see the maximum charge curve that station is capable of.

Of course that would put that station to be rated at 368kW, and the standard is 1000v x 500A for a maximum of 350kW. (So you can't max both out at the same time.)

I'm also wondering and googling a little bit what is and isn't true.

Fastned itself states that it's 175 KW chargers are capable of 375A:

"Most 50 kW fast chargers can provide a maximum current of 125A, but our 175 kW CCS chargers can provide up to 375A."
Fastned
And that their 175 KW chargers are fully upgradeble to 350 KW. (Same link). And without stating if that is done by voltage and/or amp increase. I assume that's by only increasing voltage. But that's assumption only.

I think 125 KW charging is great, with the efficiency of the model 3 it's ultra fast charging in miles/hour added. But to be honest i did expect more.

With the released model 3 CCS charging rate I do not know if it's charger limited or car limited by physics (because it would be very unwise from battery longevity perspective to charge more faster) or software limited for whatever other reason (i do think it's a very funny coincidence that somehow they seem so close with the charging rates compared to supercharger V2 charge rates). And i really hope it's not a software limit created for whatever other reason, because i've no way of seeing how that would aid the mission.

 

[Daniel in SD]

(i do think it's a very funny coincidence that somehow they seem so close with the charging rates compared to supercharger V2 charge rates)

Why would it be a funny coincidence? Maybe they designed the car to be 120kW max because all the existing US infrastructure is 120kW or less. Having a higher peak charge rate would only be beneficial at less than 50% SoC. You can already charge from 10% to 50% in 15 minutes or so. Upping the charge rate to 180kW wouldn't even save 5 minutes because you would now be tapering much earlier and would provide no benefit at over 50% SoC.

 

[guidooo]

Maybe they designed the car to be 120kW max because all the existing US infrastructure is 120kW or less.

Think that's possibly true, although that would imply that the "Supercharger V3" which will be rolled out at some point in time won't significantly reduce charge times for the model 3. (But well, 120 KW is very much and a lot more then the charge rate almost all of the non-Tesla EV's can take). Think i was hoping for a bit more (just because a higher number looks nicer). But guess you are right; in the end it won't save more then just a few minutes.

 

[Zoomit]

Unfortunately the technical data sheet has to be requested for the T175.

This might help: https://library.e.abb.com/public/afeb1d2ee6ed440cbaf384050214fe90/TerraHP_UL_G2_DataSheet_R2.pdf

And that their 175 KW chargers are fully upgradeble to 350 KW. (Same link). And without stating if that is done by voltage and/or amp increase. I assume that's by only increasing voltage. But that's assumption only.

I think 125 KW charging is great, with the efficiency of the model 3 it's ultra fast charging in miles/hour added. But to be honest i did expect more.

With the released model 3 CCS charging rate I do not know if it's charger limited or car limited by physics (because it would be very unwise from battery longevity perspective to charge more faster) or software limited for whatever other reason (i do think it's a very funny coincidence that somehow they seem so close with the charging rates compared to supercharger V2 charge rates). And i really hope it's not a software limit created for whatever other reason, because i've no way of seeing how that would aid the mission.

There are two configurations for the ABB Terra HP chargers: 375A "175Kw" and 500A "350kW". Both are capable of 920V. The "175kW" units can do 160kW continuous at 375A (inferring the battery is at 426V). If the Model 3 was not limiting the amperage, Model 3 charge power might peak at 141kW [375V*375A] on a "175kW" Terra HP charger. Similarly, it might peak at 182kW [365V*500A] on a "350kW" charger.

We can speculate why Tesla is limiting the Model 3 LR in Europe but, as was stated above, the MR charging profile on a Supercharger is already more stressing to the battery cells than the 125kW peak seen on the Terra HP chargers in Europe.

Also, just a reminder that the document that Tesla filed with the EPA stated that the Model 3 LR was capable of charging up to 525A.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks for the link.

[375V*375A] on a "175kW" Terra HP charger. Similarly, it might peak at 182kW [365V*500A]

One thing I am not clear on is where you got the 375V and 365V numbers here...I don't know anything about the exact voltages on the Model 3 battery vs. SoC, which would be needed for calculating power delivered to the pack.

 

[Zoomit]

Only thing I am not clear on is where you got the 375V and 365V numbers here...I don't know anything about the exact voltages on the Tesla Model 3 battery vs. SoC, which would be needed for calculating power delivered to the pack.

Excellent question! It's speculative but based on the voltages from my Model 3 as reported to TeslaFi. 375V is ~40% SOC and 365V is ~30% SoC. I figured 500A would peak briefly around 30% but 375A could be held steady until 40%.

 

[Rogstar]

I see what you are saying, how it jumped from about 120kw to 126kw in the 40% range. However, I don't look much into that. I have never seen a lithium ion battery that takes its peak charge in the 40% range. I am guessing the battery was warming and was able to hit the max rate in the 40%'s as a result, or it could just be a measuring error. From what I know, I think the Model 3 will take meaningfully more than 125kw from 0-40% SOC when the right chargers and conditions occur.

The great thing is, with a 300ish mile range, even if you can only take 120kw to 50%, that gives you around two hours of driving in about 15 minutes, which is awesome. 300 miles to start, 15 minute stop, then another 150 miles. 450 miles with a 15 minute stop.

450 miles which anywhere but Germany is near 7 hours driving, which will out-range 95% of drivers.
Compare that with "other EVs" which may(?) Charge faster(?) But, if tests so far prove to be the norm, will need to stop more often.
Needs a direct comparison soon!

 

[Valore]

Seems it would look like this (battery temperatures not mentioned.):
Fastned on Twitter

They (Fastned) have posted the same charge curve for an Audi E-Tron.
https://support.fastned.nl/hc/article_attachments/360025027913/Charge_curve_AUdi_e-tron.png

150kW until 80%, 50kW all the way to 100%.
Elon should fix Model 3 to match.

 

[MP3Mike]

450 miles which anywhere but Germany is near 7 hours driving, which will out-range 95% of drivers.
Compare that with "other EVs" which may(?) Charge faster(?) But, if tests so far prove to be the norm, will need to stop more often.
Needs a direct comparison soon!

Yes! I can't wait until Bjorn gets a hold of a Model 3 and can do one of his famous test races against the e-tron and I-Pace.

 

[MP3Mike]

They (Fastned) have posted the same charge curve for an Audi E-Tron.
https://support.fastned.nl/hc/article_attachments/360025027913/Charge_curve_AUdi_e-tron.png

150kW until 80%, 50kW all the way to 100%.
Elon should fix Model 3 to match.

Three things to keep in mind:

1. The e-tron battery has ~27% more capacity than the Model 3 so it should be able to charge that much faster. If you add ~27% to the Model 3 charge rate of 126kW you get ~160kW. So the Model 3 is already charging at a higher C rate.
2. Audi put a large buffer at the top of the battery so that even when charging it to 100% the battery isn't really 100% charged. I think I have read that only ~82kWh is usable out of the 95kWh battery. (They are locking ~13% away to be able to achieve those charging speeds.)
3. The e-tron is very thirsty so while it may have a higher kW charging rate the MPH charge rate takes a big hit.

So the Model 3 is already charging faster.

And what is the longevity of the e-tron battery? Come back in a couple years and see if people are really happy about how fast the e-tron is charging their battery.

 

[Zoomit]

If we assume highway consumption at 70mph, use 65% of the battery and recharge from 15 to 80%, my rough calculations work out like this:

e-tron:
Range = 130 mi
Charge time = 22 min (160kW)
Ave miles/min = 5.9

Model 3 LR AWD:
Range = 192 mi
Charge time = 34 min (SC V2)
Ave miles/min = 5.6

Model S ER:
Range = 207 mi
Charge time = 46 min (SC V2)
Ave miles/min = 4.5

What's not accounted for in this ranking by average miles/min is that the e-tron has ~2/3 the range of the 3 or S and therefore has less flexibility on when it needs to find a 160kW charger.

 

[Rogstar]

Three things to keep in mind:

1. The e-tron battery has ~27% more capacity than the Model 3 so it should be able to charge that much faster. If you add ~27% to the Model 3 charge rate of 126kW you get ~160kW. So the Model 3 is already charging at a higher C rate.
2. Audi put a large buffer at the top of the battery so that even when charging it to 100% the battery isn't really 100% charged. I think I have read that only ~82kWh is usable out of the 95kWh battery. (They are locking ~13% away to be able to achieve those charging speeds.)
3. The e-tron is very thirsty so while it may have a higher kW charging rate the MPH charge rate takes a big hit.

So the Model 3 is already charging faster.

And what is the longevity of the e-tron battery? Come back in a couple years and see if people are really happy about how fast the e-tron is charging their battery.

Exactly.
I skirted around the possible issues with the Audi, but fully expect Bjørn (and others) to highlight some "challenges".
A full day comparison will confirm these.
My opinion?
Pouch cells aren't quite there yet. I still think these cars were designed on the promise of the next stage cell which hasn't arrived. This explains both the self imposed limitations and reluctance to disclose some performance results, (not just from Audi).
Ironic that Tesla may have the "next" technology via Maxwell?

 

[Rogstar]

If we assume highway consumption at 70mph, use 65% of the battery and recharge from 15 to 80%, my rough calculations work out like this:

e-tron:
Range = 130 mi
Charge time = 22 min (160kW)
Ave miles/min = 5.9

Model 3 LR AWD:
Range = 192 mi
Charge time = 34 min (SC V2)
Ave miles/min = 5.6

Model S ER:
Range = 207 mi
Charge time = 46 min (SC V2)
Ave miles/min = 4.5

What's not accounted for in this ranking by average miles/min is that the e-tron has ~2/3 the range of the 3 or S and therefore has less flexibility on when it needs to find a 160kW charger.

Exactly.
The "ah but what about the long range performance" brigade have been looking forward to the fast chargers, but from your calculations, it would seem that on a longrr journey, say 300miles, the Tesla's would be in front, and with a slightly longer stop, have well fed, comfortable passengers!