Well, then you’re wrong. Stop guessing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I've read the thread. Far as I can tell, there's currently three distinct populations in the thread. One: people who have some charging problem that prevents high rate charging, such as louver, connector, or cooling system problems. Two: people who have been throttle by Tesla, by chopping off the peak of the rate after high volumes of Supercharging. And three: people who don't understand cold charging or high SOC charging, or other similar problems. This is the smallest group.
The first two both are zero fun for owners subject to them. One is fixable. The other is probably just a reality of these battery packs. In both cases, Tesla's transparency has been rather poor, and I would say that's the biggest issue.
Speaking of the second group: anyone who has been throttled because of high amounts of DC charging, have you seen your rates go up as part of the recent software updates? It's made a big difference on my 90, but I've only done maybe 500 kWh of Supercharging over the life of the car, since most of my charging is at home.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No updates do not make charging faster. If anything it is slower. I get tesla is trying optimize for range for now, but hopefully one day they release a pack that doesnt have this fast DC charging slow down due to high lifetime DC charging sessions.
Are you contributing to ABRP data? It would be interesting if they could pull out a second curve.
Sooner or later it will affect all Tesla batteries. Lets hope that the reduction with 100kWh packs will not occur during the life of the vehicle.
It already does effect the 100kwh battery. I've been throttled and range greatly reduced on my P100DL Model X. Both in supercharging, and lost 29 miles of range over night. Service says its in the normal range for the battery..
Wow I have a 75 which is throttled and hadn't heard of the 100 being throttled before. How much has your peak charge rate changed? I used to peak in the 96-98 KW range at superchargers now it hits 81 KW for a minute or two a the peak and tapers very quickly. It's quite a difference.
Thanks you for the no nonsense description. Maybe someday battery technology will improve so that batteries don't wear out and never need to be throttled. Oh, Happy Day. I really appreciate hearing from an authoritative source about these cars and not having to rely on what a third party speculates.
Jon, has the charge rate on any of the 100 kW batteries been slowed? I'm the owner of a 75 which has been throttled, and to be honest, knowing that throttling can occur, this will play a major factor in determining whether or not I purchase another Tesla when the time comes to replace my S. I travel over 25,000 miles per year with a lot of day trips, so supercharging speed is more important to me than most.
That was very informative and extremely disappointing. What's the point of installing v3 Superchargers if you're going to throttle the cars to 108 kW after only 2500 kW of DC charging? At 3.3 miles per kW (what my car gets, I'm sure the newer ones are slightly more efficient), that is only 8,250 miles of DC charging (including CHAdeMO) which is not that much for those of us who do a lot of road trips. I was really hoping this wouldn't be an issue with the 100 packs. I can't express how disheartening this is to me.
At least until the next update, right?
Seriously though, I think I know what he means by that since my car has been throttled. My car has been slowed from a 95-97 kW peak to a peak of 81 kW (and that drop extends through the entire charge curve, not just at the peak). His has dropped to 107 kW (If I remember correctly). Tesla told me that the 81 kW peak will never decrease via the software. I do have it in writing--the exact wording is, "After this point the peak charging current will not decline and specified charging time will not increase any further regardless of charging usage."
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The lower energy density of the Model 3 packs suggest something different inside the cells. The switch to 2170 should have provided some increase in energy density, instead it was lower.
MarcG
Active Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Both I believe. The larger cell has more active material in relation to both the exterior casing and the void left in the center from the forming mandrel.
Similar threads
