You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If one is in the market for a 2nd hand 90. Two identical cars turn up, similar mileage and one has throttling (smart enough to ask/check), and the other doesn't. How much more is the non-throttled one worth? Difference might be 5-6 figures, regardless of intended charging protocols? It's to be sold on again, typically...
Yes, Tesla should mention that you might REALLY like their cars because they get a 90%+ approval rating. They should also mention that only occasionally will you find donuts in the service center for the clients. Need I go on?
I agree, but especially is if a free unlimited supercharging car, the next person you sell to might be someone whole makes the off time sensitive road trip.I get your point and for those that might be expecting to do high mileage driving and need to supercharge regularly, it could be a factor to them depending on their timeframe (business meetings to get to as opposed to recreational traveling). However for the average potential owner out there who does lots of local driving and plans to charge at home, probably wouldn't matter.
Geez, given Tesla's track record for creativity and innovation, don't you think they are working on or have already fixed this in new battery and BMS design?
I know they somehow fixed what limited my A pack.
You own a 60KW, you won't get more than a 96KW charge.
LOL, no... they "fixed" it in subsequent iterations of battery design.You mean your pack can charge above 90kW now? Or was it lower than that and it's now up to 90?
I agree, but especially is if a free unlimited supercharging car, the next person you sell to might be someone whole makes the off time sensitive road trip.
Now that throttling exists, it's like a service record.
FOR SALE: Throttle Tesla 90kWh. I still get above 85kW sometimes. Great car, served me well. Will accept any offer.
Your user name is No2DinosaurFuel and you might not have bought your Tesla because over time supercharging might take a few minutes longer? You'd rather drive an ICE for a few more years because one day your car might only get 90kW to start rather than 110kW when you supercharge? Talk about a loss of perspective. This thread has really jumped the shark.If I knew this then, I might have not purchased the car and wait for next gen battery tech without this problem to buy.
I consider it strange (the first term in your preferred dictionary) and irrational (one of the leading descriptors.)
Maybe, and I say maybe that is true for the new 75 software limited to 60KW but as I said in post #80 in this very thread the Model S60 from 2013/2014 charged faster than that.
some can charge at 105 KW (60 KWh with older battery pack, 1.75C charge rate)
some can charge at 111 KW (60 KWh with newer battery pack, 1.85C charge rate)
I've seen posts within the last month or two of Model S 60 owners that still get over 100KW max charge rates. So I'm going to have to disagree with your post. It just doesn't match what other owners are saying.
I never said not knowing is speculation. This kind of statement seems like a purposefully confusing interjection. It's a bit bizarre.That we do not know is not speculation, it is a fact. We do not know.
I believe that Tesla should provide us some more detail on this. I've said that from my first post in this thread. I absolutely prefer transparency about this kind of thing, but I also understand how something like this could happen. It's possible someone looked at the trade-off and just implemented it. 5 minutes might have seemed trivial to them. When Tesla comes out and quantifies the cap at 90kW and points out the ~5 minute trade-off, what makes you think that'll change?People seem to have motivations to not be too open about it? So that may be affecting what we hear. Thus it is only wise to admit we have hardly been told enough to know with confidence if 5 minutes is the end of the story. It may well be, and I hope it is, but since we don't know how the battery chemistry behaves and analysis works, it is hard to say.
Feel free to explain if you disagree, you know I'll listen and am genuinely interested.
I should caution saying general statements like this. The factors that go into this is very complex and I doubt Tesla wants to attempt to educate all users about the nuances of that (and the general public won't bother to learn the nuances, more likely they latch on a certain point and generalize).Actually in the early days many of us assumed that faster charging would be harder on the cells and speed degradation. That's what I always told people, until the work by Prof Jeff Dahn seemed to show otherwise, as did the long term pack capacity studies. Faster charging does not seem to negatively impact capacity though it does seem to impact peak charge rates in some cases.
You are sure I don't care about what ?I'm ok with that phrasing; I don't agree with you, but it's not public branding. You said, "Since no rational person who makes more than half of US minimum wage in his locale would use ChaDemo this way, his behavior is perverse." That struck a nerve. I'm pretty sure you don't care, but alas, I do..
By including frequent high power charging in their existing list of things that may degrade the pack instead of explicitly stating that it won't.Now how can Tesla explain all of this to a general user and in a way that they can apply practically?
To your earlier response, I'm just not sure they know all of the outlier cases until they happen. Given a choice of quick to market or imagining and testing every outlier case (such as someone only doing DC fast charging for 2 years), what do you think they should do?
But the key thing is, ironically, it appears they are using the BMS to ensure that high power charging will not degrade the Tesla pack excessively. This may mean a limit on the max high power charging rate, but they are still allowing high power charging.By including frequent high power charging in their existing list of things that may degrade the pack instead of explicitly stating that it won't.