-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The car does, looking at my logs from the API it reports...
fast_charger_type : Chademo
fast_charger_type : Tesla
Really? I'm pretty sure he has given most of that information in the thread:
- 2015 P90DL
- ~1 year old
- ~30k miles
- ~250 CHAdeMO charges
- ~55 Supercharges
- Next to zero AC charges
NerdUno
Member
For us slow learners, can we sum up what we've learned...
1. Tesla batteries only accept direct current.
2. The only way the battery can decipher the difference between a home charger (whose AC power gets converted to DC by an internal component in the car before being passed to the battery) and Supercharger or ChaDemo power (which is already DC and bypasses the internal AC/DC converter in the vehicle) is based upon the amount of power (volts x amps) being applied to the battery at any given time.
Assuming the user never charges the battery past the recommended 90%, am I correct in assuming that the greater the amount of power applied to the battery at any given time the greater the long-term impact on battery longevity AND overall capacity? Based upon some undisclosed formula, Tesla has opted to limit the power level that will be accepted by the battery where x number of high power charges are detected by the vehicle?? And Tesla might not wish to disclose these facts because (1) it would suggest that Superchargers were not the ideal way to charge Tesla vehicles while preserving your battery and (2) the absence of throttling might increase the number of battery replacements Tesla would be obligated to provide during the vehicle warranty period?
What am I missing? If all of my assumptions are correct, would these not be material facts when you purchase one of these cars? It might also explain why Tesla shut down the battery swap program in favor of Superchargers.
1. Tesla batteries only accept direct current.
2. The only way the battery can decipher the difference between a home charger (whose AC power gets converted to DC by an internal component in the car before being passed to the battery) and Supercharger or ChaDemo power (which is already DC and bypasses the internal AC/DC converter in the vehicle) is based upon the amount of power (volts x amps) being applied to the battery at any given time.
Assuming the user never charges the battery past the recommended 90%, am I correct in assuming that the greater the amount of power applied to the battery at any given time the greater the long-term impact on battery longevity AND overall capacity? Based upon some undisclosed formula, Tesla has opted to limit the power level that will be accepted by the battery where x number of high power charges are detected by the vehicle?? And Tesla might not wish to disclose these facts because (1) it would suggest that Superchargers were not the ideal way to charge Tesla vehicles while preserving your battery and (2) the absence of throttling might increase the number of battery replacements Tesla would be obligated to provide during the vehicle warranty period?
What am I missing? If all of my assumptions are correct, would these not be material facts when you purchase one of these cars? It might also explain why Tesla shut down the battery swap program in favor of Superchargers.
thefortunes
Active Member
You are missing the fact that this has not been confirmed.
There are numerous examples in this thread (my brother's P85, for example) with much higher SuC use and no throttling.
There are also numerous examples on this forum of one employee (or Service Center) stating something that turned out to be incorrect.
Could it be that this restriction applies if you use Chademo, instead of SuC?
NerdUno
Member
No such warning on my Tesla-engineered $500 ChaDemo adapter. And why would they do that? Doesn't sound logical either: slow charging = good, fast charging = good, medium charging = bad.
Last edited:
thefortunes
Active Member
As I said in the post that you cut off, there are numerous examples of employees or Service Centers stating something that turned out to be incorrect. I'm not saying this is one of them, but I remain open to the facts and am not willing to jump to the conclusions which are rampant in this thread.Post #82 is on Tesla letterhead. Looks like confirmation to me. What's your source?
Earlier cars may have different batteries with different chemistry. This counter seems to impact newer vehicles which also feature Enhanced AutoPilot 2 for your driving pleasure.
Earlier cars definitely have batteries with different chemistry. That may or may not be the reason for all of the examples contrary to the OP's experience.
I see lots of typical blame the victim mentality. Easy to do until the victim is you.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Where do you see 'lots of blame the victim mentality'? I see people saying they'd like all the facts before drawing a conclusion. Is that what you meant?
NerdUno
Member
Actually, what you said was "this has not been confirmed" when, in fact, it has been confirmed AND documented.
No but I'm not disagreeing with your version either. I do want all the facts but doubt we will get them. Therefore I am forced to conjure up my own version of what happened.
thefortunes
Active Member
Lol. I just reread the Tesla Service Invoice:
Again, all I am saying is I would not jump to conclusions until we have facts. Nowhere does the invoice talk about a counter, no one has seen this "counter" that some are stating as fact.
@NerdUno, I can understand since you haven't been here very long, but those of us who have can easily recall many examples where something was misinterpreted (or an employee or Service Center was just flat out wrong).
"According to Tesla engineers once vehicle has been DC fast charged over a specified amount, the battery management system restricts DC charging to prevent degradation of the battery pack."
This could easily be interpreted as a poorly worded attempt to explain the SuC taper.
Again, all I am saying is I would not jump to conclusions until we have facts. Nowhere does the invoice talk about a counter, no one has seen this "counter" that some are stating as fact.
@NerdUno, I can understand since you haven't been here very long, but those of us who have can easily recall many examples where something was misinterpreted (or an employee or Service Center was just flat out wrong).
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not really. It has not been confirmed there is a counter that is based on x amount of high power charge cycles as you noted. Also the car certainly can tell what type of charging it is using (it changes the interface based on what you are using), so your premise is not correct either.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There's a thread somewhere about all the stupid things Tesla employees have said. Putting it in writing on a repair order doesn't necessarily make it real. Has anyone been told this at a different service center? Or by emailing service? Or by anyone other than a front line employee (some of whom seem to know less about the cars than we do, hence the reason for the aforementioned thread)? Lots of conclusions and accusations here in this thread based on an N of 1. This could be true, or this thread might turn out to be a good example of "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes". Maybe Mark Twain was predicting the internet?
NerdUno
Member
You missed the next sentence: "According Tesla engineers, this vehicle has seen
significant DC fast charging and is now has permanently restricted DC charging speeds. "
That's not just an explanation of a normal charging taper.
Alright lets get this straight here. It has been confirmed that the service center guys has relayed that tesla engineer has said there is some counter. Now whether that engineer is lying or not we may never know until tesla says something about it.
I think the only way to really know without tesla's input is to statically show it by getting a lot of relevant data from users and plot it out. One data point is thr OP. Another one is me and I have observed the lower max power but this might be many things like bad supercharger. And there are others who have said they dont see max charge rate anymore. Again I reiterate we need hard evidence, I.e. data of all supercharge session and numbers of them for each cars. But yeah that would cost money.
Similar threads
