I never said not knowing is speculation. This kind of statement seems like a purposefully confusing interjection. It's a bit bizarre.
A lot of things are bizarre in test-based non-chat conversations, because a single message has to target a lot more different angles (and people) than verbal or chat dialogue perhaps does at any given time. My underlining the fact that we do not know was targeting the notion that we know "5 minutes". Some people took that number as fact, sort of seemed to me including you, and ran with it. It is my view that we know far too little about that number to tout it as a fact. (Indeed, from Denmark we already heard of 7 minute delays as a practical example.)
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?
Sure, a lot of people have said Tesla should provide us with more detail, but beyond that line there are very different approaches on what to do next. Some are understanding to the point that Tesla has no incentive to tell us more, on the other end I guess some are really trying to push Tesla to do the right thing and tell more by keeping their feet to the fire as
@Canuck put it. It seems to me you are more in the first group, perhaps I am more in the latter group, though my personal things is more about finding the truth - that can happen without Tesla telling us too, by analyzing the data we get. You know me, analyzing the findings have produced results before, even when Tesla has no incentive to tell us (but we have an incentive to find out). E.g. @wk_057 is an extreme example of a person who finds out on their own...
For me, the only reason it would change is that Tesla learns that the batteries are degradable beyond the current projections. If that's the case, it's based on something we don't yet know.
Yes, it is something
we do not know. What we do not reliably know is,
what does Tesla know, because the precedent suggests a risk they would not be forthcoming with bad news until we find out about those bad news. Does analysis exist somewhere that suggest another step downwards in Supercharging capping is needed? Maybe Tesla could write an honest (not horse power kind) blog post about it all and alleviate our concerns. The precedent so far is that they will quietly implement counters/limiters etc. and only discuss them once they are forced by publicity. I see no change in this pattern, unfortunately.
I don't know how you plan to assign blame or fault, but to me that's an acceptable risk of buying new technology.
If Tesla finds out about an unforeseen issue, that's what recalls and warranty repairs are for. We would expect no less from other companies.
One other thing to note. There's a trade-off here, right? Battery degradation (some unspecified amount) vs. faster charging. Some have said they'd prioritize faster charging over battery degradation, but that seems terribly short sighted to me. The former is going to cannibalize the latter anyway. If you charge quickly at the cost of battery life, your battery life will eventually make it so you are permanently charging more slowly due to reduced range. So in a way it's lose/win vs. lose/lose.
Battery degradation over time is a well-communicated fact that even regular people can understand. If they want to make peak-charging "degradation" aka throttling a similar fact, then they should start by being very open about it before purchase and at the very least from the moment they find out themselves. As has been pointed out, not even this community knew about peak-charging throttling before the latest discoveries, so obviously this is not something that until now has been considered normal or communicated as a fact of life with battery electric vehicles.
Just as a reminder to you, Tesla even had a FAQ entry on Supercharging speed. Here is what is says. Considering that service centers apparently have been handing out knowledge about this for weeks or months already, we know Tesla has known about this, but apparently chosen not to mention it at all in any public material we could find out so far...
Tesla.com said:
I am not Supercharging as quickly as I expected. What could be happening?
Your vehicle and the Superchargers communicate to select the appropriate charging rate for your car. Supercharging rate may vary due to battery charge level, current use of the Supercharger station and extreme climate conditions. Your vehicle charges faster when the battery is at a lower state of charge and charging slows down as it fills up. Depending on your destination, charging to completely full is often not necessary.
How can I maximize power and reduce charge time at a Supercharger?
Each charge post is labeled with a number and letter, either A or B (e.g. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). When possible, select a charge post with a unique number that is not currently connected to a vehicle. When a unique number isn’t available, the Supercharger cabinet has technology to share available power between charge posts A and B. To maximize power, park at a Supercharger shared with a car that is nearly done charging.
The fact that Tesla and several members on TMC seem reluctant to discuss this issue in public suggests to me some people may realize it has the potential to hinder adoption through creating apprehension about DC charging. But that would be a terrible reason to withhold information! The absolute worst. Besides being, just, well, wrong... it has the potential to backfire many times over, both for the company and for the mission.
