First charge curve data I've seen.

[momo3605]

There's no way to test CT with 800V charger yet right? i.e. no V4 chargers in existence and no NACS supported EA 350KW stations in existence...yet

 

[HitchHiker71]

There's no way to test CT with 800V charger yet right? i.e. no V4 chargers in existence and no NACS supported EA 350KW stations in existence...yet

Not that I know of. There's a handful of V4 chargers now but IIRC even those stations are still limited to 250kw at this time. They have the longer cables and the real V4 stalls - but in so far as charge rates - are no different than V3 stations at this time. Even if you could find a third party 350kw charger that would work with the CT - unless it's NACS native - it won't really be a true test since the J1772/CCS adapters are limited to 500v from what I understand.

 

[tradosaurus]

40 minutes to charge from 14% to 80%?

That's a deal killer for me. Pretty much killed my dream to own a cybertruck.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

40 minutes to charge from 14% to 80%?

Yeah it is awful, and more of a practical issue than even the inadequate battery size.

There’s little clarity on whether this pack will ever be capable of the requisite ~400kW charging up to 25% with taper from there that will be required to make it practical for road travel without additional inconvenience.

But one has to hope. Every electric truck will need that kind of speed to be close to practical.

 

[momo3605]

Yeah it is awful, and more of a practical issue than even the inadequate battery size.

There’s little clarity on whether this pack will ever be capable of the requisite ~400kW charging up to 25% with taper from there that will be required to make it practical for road travel without additional inconvenience.

But one has to hope. Every electric truck will need that kind of speed to be close to practical.

is there a possibility that on a 800V V4, it splits and effectively doubles the rates that we see here? Or maybe 2C on a 65KW battery? What would that look like theoretically?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

is there a possibility that on a 800V V4, it splits and effectively doubles the rates that we see here? Or maybe 2C on a 65KW battery? What would that look like theoretically?

No. It very likely makes no difference except below 20% (can just extrapolate taper upwards below 20% - C rates will likely improve there, because the charger will no longer be current limited (at ~800V it can put out half the current to get 250kW at 20%, so it could go up from there at lower SOCs)).

If they increase C rates above 20% and across the board, anything is possible of course. But if the limit into the cell remains the same (which is independent of charging voltage), then no change when moving to 800V above 20%.

800V is just a different configuration of the cells which reduces current from the charger for a given power output, but each cell still has the same limit - so that limit would have to change.

Or maybe 2C on a 65KW battery?

2C on a 65kWh (61.5kWh) battery is just the same as what we see in the OP. ~125kW per half at 20%, so 250kW.

It could certainly change, but any change would result in substantial (and welcome) improvements at v3 as well. They (V3->V4 and C-rate) are two independent things.

Right now, V4 only will help below 20%. If they adjust the C rates, say such that the pack can do 2C at 40%, rather than 20% (a change independent from V4), then V4 will “only” help below 40%.

Improvements at V3 are far more important than V4 at the moment, of course.

 

[pdx_m3s]

Other than S/X, charging performance has only gotten worse with each Tesla model. So much for alien technology.

 

[GhostSkater]

is there a possibility that on a 800V V4, it splits and effectively doubles the rates that we see here? Or maybe 2C on a 65KW battery? What would that look like theoretically?

Right now the issue is that on one hand we have people with the actual truck having a pretty poor charging curve, and on another, we have Tesla on record saying it will do 15-85% in 18 to 20 minutes

But there is a huge lack of information, does that means only on V4 and for some weird reason V3 will always be poor? Make no sense. Does it mean all trucks will be updated? Or they will be changing cells soon?

The poor charging curve is one of the reasons that however unlikely, it still possible that the first units are using the Gen 1 4680s

It’s a bad look for Tesla to release it with the current poor charging behavior

A class leading charging curve, or close, would make most range complains and lack of 500 miles versions irrelevant for most people

 

[phantasms]

Exactly. If it was poor range or poor curve, fine. Both together ain’t great.

 

[scottf200]

Right now the issue is that on one hand we have people with the actual truck having a pretty poor charging curve, and on another, we have Tesla on record saying it will do 15-85% in 18 to 20 minutes

But there is a huge lack of information, does that means only on V4 and for some weird reason V3 will always be poor? Make no sense. Does it mean all trucks will be updated? Or they will be changing cells soon?

The poor charging curve is one of the reasons that however unlikely, it still possible that the first units are using the Gen 1 4680s

It’s a bad look for Tesla to release it with the current poor charging behavior

A class leading charging curve, or close, would make most range complains and lack of 500 miles versions irrelevant for most people

Are they being aspirational? ie. new 4680

CT forum thread
Title: New 4680 battery chemical makeup coming [link]

and then an article about it last night.
Article: New Chemistry Set To Give Tesla's 4680 Battery Cells a Significant Energy Density Boost [link]

 

[GhostSkater]

Are they being aspirational? ie. new 4680

CT forum thread
Title: New 4680 battery chemical makeup coming [link]

and then an article about it last night.
Article: New Chemistry Set To Give Tesla's 4680 Battery Cells a Significant Energy Density Boost [link]

Hopefully yes and no

New chemistry will be better, there will always be improvements, specially with Tesla that doesn’t do yearly upgrades, but ship them as soon as ready (or even before lol)

But would be a massive middle finger to foundation series buyers, which are paying a huge premium and to a few weeks or months in a whole new set of cells gets used in which cuts charging times by half

 

[scottf200]

Hopefully yes and no

New chemistry will be better, there will always be improvements, specially with Tesla that doesn’t do yearly upgrades, but ship them as soon as ready (or even before lol)

But would be a massive middle finger to foundation series buyers, which are paying a huge premium and to a few weeks or months in a whole new set of cells gets used in which cuts charging times by half

Didn't they do that already with the 4860 Model Y tho?

AFAIK, they did and still are ... this is a tech guy and has written a lot about it.
>>>
Branden Flasch who works in the charger industry has a Model Y 4680 and has been none-to-pleased with the charging.
<<<
Example Dec 23, 2023:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1738611762302251248

 

[GhostSkater]

Didn't they do that already with the 4860 Model Y tho?

AFAIK, they did and still are ... this is a tech guy and has written a lot about it.
>>>
Branden Flasch who works in the charger industry has a Model Y 4680 and has been none-to-pleased with the charging.
<<<
Example Dec 23, 2023:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1738611762302251248

Yes, 4680 Gen 1 is really bad at charging, and my personal theory is due to thermals, I posted before about it but can go more in depth if you want

Gen 2 changes the part that likely causes that problem, this is why it would be such a huge blow to have the first Cybertrucks with Gen 1 cells, charging curve won’t get better

 

[Zoomit]

Right now the issue is that on one hand we have people with the actual truck having a pretty poor charging curve, and on another, we have Tesla on record saying it will do 15-85% in 18 to 20 minutes

But there is a huge lack of information, does that means only on V4 and for some weird reason V3 will always be poor? Make no sense. Does it mean all trucks will be updated? Or they will be changing cells soon?

The poor charging curve is one of the reasons that however unlikely, it still possible that the first units are using the Gen 1 4680s

Per Kyle Conner, the CT has Gen 2.3 4680 cells

Are they being aspirational? ie. new 4680

Unknown. Lar's charging speed comment could apply to either an improved charging curve for the current cells or be associated with the NMC 955 or NMC 973 cells.

 

[GhostSkater]

Per Kyle Conner, the CT has Gen 2.3 4680 cells

Unknown. Lar's charging speed comment could apply to either an improved charging curve for the current cells or be associated with the NMC 955 or NMC 973 cells.

Nice, I watched at 2 am, sleepy and missed that

Best we can hope is a update and/or Drew making a reply to Kyle when he posts his charging video like he did a few times so far

 

[Zoomit]

100% agree! Averaging >250kW over that window would be immense and is the far extreme from what we’ve seen thus far. This is a major disconnect and should give us hope.

If this first charge dataset isn’t a fluke and represents a typical curve now, the next critical information we need is the battery pack temps while charging. If it’s really capable of handling the thermal load of 2C charging as Lars stated, which I too want to believe, then the cell temps while charging now should be relatively low and controllable. What that means in practice is cell temps probably between 40 and 50C throughout the charge session and robust control over those temps in both cold and hot weather.

I think a good indicator of that robust control would be repeatable charging session performance, ignoring any impacts from stall or station power sharing. If we see a lot of charging data that overlaps, i.e. charge power at a given SoC that is similar to other sessions, then that is a good sign the thermal management system is just loafing along and sized for much higher loads.

Here're updated graphs with Ryan Shaw's charging data from his YouTube review (at 11:00).

Both these charging sessions overlap remarkably well. Therefore,

1. This builds my confidence that this charge curve represents an optimal charge session for today's hardware and software configuration.
2. The current Gen 2.3 cell charge curve c-rate is less than the Gen 1 curve from the Model Y AWD.
3. My speculative V3 and V4 charge curves as shown are likely too optimistic.
4. This lends credance to my theory that the battery thermal management system has a lot of untapped potential and can support much higher charge power.

 

[scottf200]

Here're updated graphs with Ryan Shaw's charging data from his YouTube review (at 11:00).
...
Both these charging sessions overlap remarkably well. Therefore,

1. This builds my confidence that this charge curve represents an optimal charge session for today's hardware and software configuration.
2. The current Gen 2.3 cell charge curve c-rate is less than the Gen 1 curve from the Model Y AWD.
3. My speculative V3 and V4 charge curves as shown are likely too optimistic.
4. This lends credance to my theory that the battery thermal management system has a lot of untapped potential and can support much higher charge power.

Thanks for the efforts. Looking forward to you adding Kyle OOS to your chart as well.

 

[GhostSkater]

Can't share where this comes from, but this is the quote I received, take with a huge grain of salt, I'm trying to see if I can get a bit more info on the why, but if true, big "screw you" for first deliveries, but the data so far seems to agree with it

"A source of mine who works on batteries for Tesla says the initial Cybertruck battery packs are dogshit”

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Both these charging sessions overlap remarkably well.

Yeah seems unlikely especially in winter that we'd see such good alignment. Though of course owners may be taking special measures to make sure they have adequate preconditioning before providing data.

Kind of makes me want to see someone do a Supercharger session on a fairly chilly Cybertruck (not frozen), without preconditioning, starting around 22-25% (not below 22%). Just to see how bad the curve gets initially.

It it really doesn't budge much even when definitively chilly, that would suggest that at optimal warmer temps the pack could support a higher C-rate (but it is currently software limited).

 

[GhostSkater]

It it really doesn't budge much even when definitively chilly, that would suggest that at optimal warmer temps the pack could support a higher C-rate (but it is currently software limited).

Awesome test idea, Kyle might have been able to test it but don't think he has one in his hands anymore