That's possible. But it's also possible, and more likely (given the high percentage of owners experiencing the backoff), that "fluctuations" are simply coming from the transformer and are no more dangerous on the Tesla circuit, than they are on your electric oven circuit, or your heat pump circuit. I don't believe that 30% of all installs involve loose connections or undersized wiring as you suggest. I give electricians more credit than that. I also don't believe that those 30% of owners did their own electrical work, and that 100% of those installs are botched.
You're mistaking my use of "undersized wiring" to mean only the conductors. Undersized wiring also includes the size of the wiring in the transformer -- i.e., transformer size. An undersized transformer is a safety hazard - it generates extra heat and in some cases will boil the oil right out the top. It *is* a problem.
FlasherZ - " b) All of your other appliances don't seem to care because they typically draw less than 2 amps and therefore produce 1/400th the heat at the same resistance."
A 40A oven circuit draws a lot more than 2 amps. Likewise with a heat pump. That's why they are on 30A and 40A circuits. And I know all about startup spikes that some appliances have. Many major appliances have an initial surge when they cycle on, but then running amps are lower.
You left out my a) qualifier. A 40A oven circuit is an intermittent resistive heating device. It doesn't care because the nichrome wire element does exactly what Tesla is trying to protect against. Furthermore, these circuits are not used with continuous loads - an oven or range cycles its elements intermittently, and never draws the full 40A for hours on end all at once. With regard to heat pumps, they are motor loads and almost always draw nowhere near the circuit breaker's capacity. Both of them are non-continuous loads.
I know that those of you who are affected by this really would like for it to go away, but wishing it away does not get rid of the safety issues associated with high-current, continuous load applications. I have seen first-hand the results of the problems, and I applaud Tesla for the safety intelligence they've added.
- - - Updated - - -
This is taking it too far IMO. There is risk in everything we do. The world doesn't live in a bubble, and electrical problems exist even without EV's in the mix. Tesla's UMC design deserves most of the blame, as the Roadster UMC, and the Roadster Foundry units never had these issues(they were by far much more safety oriented, and had oversized components).
Tesla sold the car with a 10kw charger and a UMC capable of charging at that speed, they either need to keep it at 10kw, or advertise the car having only 7kw charging capability.
BTW, software doesn't have the capability of differentiating between safe and not safe. It's just a guess.
It's not a wild-ass guess, but rather an educated comparison to a known electrical pattern aligned with ohm's law. The new AFCI requirements are also the same - they look for the electrical loading patterns that represent an arc flash characteristic of a broken appliance. Likewise, the Tesla looks for the electrical loading patterns that represent a high-resistance or overloaded component.
A 40A continuous load is not the same as an oven circuit, or a heat pump circuit, or a handful of computer server appliances. There are some things that it does come close to -- and there was a thread here previously on one of them. For 95% of homes out there, the Tesla represents the largest kWh load the home will ever see.
See this post:
Incoming utility cable capacity - A cautionary tale
When installed properly, and when the capacity is managed properly, the Tesla can charge at 10 or 20 kW. No need to rate it at 2, 5, 7, 8, or 9,
when the infrastructure is properly installed and rated for the load offered. In my case, had I kept my old 15 kVA transformer before installing my HPWC, it would likely be backing down right now because I would have stressed the ~60A limit of the transformer with the Tesla alone.
Many people make the assumption that just because they have a 200A rated service to their home, that the infrastructure will happily support 200A. My 200A service had 2/0 aluminum service cable, which the NEC rates to ~135A. My transformer was rated at 15 kVA (~60A). They had to be upgraded - and even today, my 400A service is the sole service connected to a 37.5 kVA transformer rated for ~150A. There is no doubt that many Tesla owners here are connected to transformers rated at less than 200A, *and* there are 3-5 homes connected to them.
The Tesla is backing down because it sees a high-resistance signature. Yes, it may be in a transformer out on the street that is high on a pole and is relatively safe (save from boiling oil falling from the pole) from the issue at hand -- but it's still overloaded.
The right thing to do is to follow the troubleshooting steps, involve the PoCo, and connect them with Tesla if you have to do this. Tesla would be stupid to pull off a (IMO smart) safety feature and open themselves to liability when a loose breaker screw causes an electrical panel to catch fire. Not a stove - cycling elements allows for components to cool; not a motor - inrush current vs. operating load allows for components to cool; it's a continuous load.