Supercharging not what it used to be I guess. Nice that Tesla is so up front with their customers. 
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
TonyWilliams
Active Member
Supercharging not what it used to be I guess. Nice that Tesla is so up front with their customers.
Since the OP told us that 99% of his charging was NOT on a Supercharger, your comment doesn't seem to apply.
I'm not sure what to make of the issue, however. One guy is wound up, yet nobody else has even reported a problem.
I'm at 65,000 miles, and my car will still do 115kW below 17% SOC. Others have far more miles,
I guess I'm not convinced there's a problem... yet.
I wonder what batteries this affects. Only the newer ones? I think I have a "B" pack in my 85, so I don't know what the max rate of that one was (I know the "A" packs were limited).
Communication seems to be Tesla's Achilles heel.
Communication seems to be Tesla's Achilles heel.
@JonMc Can we get an official confirmation/denial on this issue?
Also, if it is real, should 50kW CHAdeMO charging really increment the fast charging counter? Since it is less than 50% of what a Supercharger would supply. (Maybe the counter criteria need to be adjusted.)
Also, if it is real, should 50kW CHAdeMO charging really increment the fast charging counter? Since it is less than 50% of what a Supercharger would supply. (Maybe the counter criteria need to be adjusted.)
Bighorn
Top Supercharger
For that matter, how about those underpowered CHAdeMO stations at 25kW (I'm looking at the legacy Vermont CHAdeMO locations....)
Or the time I got 35kW max at a supercharger. Should those count too?
DrivingRockies
Closed
I emailed the NA Service general email box. I'll share their response for those interested.
@Naonak Nope. If you read the details on the battery warranty it doesn't cover degradation at all. So if Tesla is doing this at all, and they are doing it to prevent degradation, not failure, they are doing it to make sure you keep your battery capacity as long as possible. (So it is good for you and worse for them since you would be at Superchargers longer.)
And in reality how much charging did you get between 120kW and 90kW before? (How quickly did it taper down to 90kW?) How much longer per charge does it take you now? (Not even a second longer where you do most of your charging at CHAdeMO chargers.)
I would therefore like to see an option early in the life of my car that would allow me to supercharge more slowly and save my fast chargers for what I really need them at a later date. Seems like an easy software switch.
That said, TM really owes it to us to disclose how they are modifying our cars after we bought them to do something other than we expect.
I'm really feel as though they think we are buy a license to use the car rather than the car
That said, TM really owes it to us to disclose how they are modifying our cars after we bought them to do something other than we expect.
I'm really feel as though they think we are buy a license to use the car rather than the car
Ulmo
Active Member
You got a response? What is it?
I'll add to the throngs of people saying we have some type of higher use than OP and have not seen the problem. Since I have a 60 limited 75 battery, I can never charge to 100%; the OP didn't even state if he ever charges to 100%.
And maybe there should be a "I don't give a rat's ass; I want to charge as fast as possible degradation be damned." option.
I wonder which would use more of your time:
I wonder which would use more of your time:
- Tesla throttling you to 90kW but keeping your battery capacity higher.
- Tesla letting you charge as fast as possible, but you lose capacity so that you have to recharge more often to go the same distance.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is pretty relevant. It seems there is plenty of evidence that older cars are not affected, but it could have something to do with the 90kWh pack specifically.
I should note, naturally a battery will charge slower as it ages since the internal resistance goes up, which reduces charging efficiency and also heats up the battery faster (so it hits thermal limits quicker). I imagine the BMS has mechanisms to reduce the charge rate to account for this.
However, a system that uses counters is a different matter. That's a bit more arbitrary and would tend to be conservative. On the one hand, it kind of "helps" the user by reducing the impact on the battery, but then it is also limiting the speed, which affects utility. I do agree this should be disclosed beforehand so that user has a chance to avoid hitting such a counter.
Last edited:
DrivingRockies
Closed
Not yet. I sent the e-mail at the same time I posted. I wouldn't expect a response before tomorrow.
cantdecide
Member
My suspicion is that the counter only started with a software change not that long ago (maybe a year) which means that most high milage drivers have most of their early driving not count.
You, however, seem to have a newer car also so perhaps that theory is off.
I don't think many people dc charge more than once per day and not many of them would notice a slightly slower charging rate.
It probably counts any DC charge, even if 25 kW, against the tally. That would be easiest from the software perspective. But it might only matter if the charge was over 90 kW, or some other range of parameters. Seems to me there might be room for refinement here.
And how does it impact you?Supercharging not what it used to be I guess. Nice that Tesla is so up front with their customers.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
The old limits were
Some can charge at 90 KW (85 KWh A battery pack, near 1.06C charge rate)
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)
some can charge at 120 KW (85 KWh B or D battery pack, near 1.41C charge rate)
I can't imagine they'd have to lower it down to 0.8 C rate.
Newer cars (90 kWh and 100 kWh) don't hit any higher peak rate so the C rate relative to capacity is lower. Assuming 120 KW max its
some can charge at 120 KW (90 KWh pack, 1.33C charge rate)
some can charge at 120 KW (100 KWh pack, 1.2C charge rate)
which is already toning it down nicely. Maybe they pushed it too far with the old 60 kWh pack. Maybe 1.5C is the line they should have crossed?
Similar threads
