They haven't as far as I know. Only mentioned 120 kW as an "up to" rate and that charging to 80% on a 90 kWh pack takes 40 minutes (under ideal conditions)
It's on their supercharger page if you use a desktop browser.
Tor
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
They haven't as far as I know. Only mentioned 120 kW as an "up to" rate and that charging to 80% on a 90 kWh pack takes 40 minutes (under ideal conditions)
It's on their supercharger page if you use a desktop browser.
Tor
Naonak, since you disagreed with my statement above, what guarantee did you get from Tesla or see other owners get? A lot of this thread seems to be focused on some assurance that your battery charging would always be at a certain level. I get that Tesla is trying to maintain the health of the battery as it's probably among the most expensive items to replace be it for them or us. Personally I think it's great that Tesla can adjust rates if necessary just like they are able to update software and other electronics on the car.
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I don't follow your logic. I know upgraded packs in 2015 were 90 packs. So we know those packs have cells that contain silicone. Saying Tesla told us the 100's use the same cells at the 90's means nothing since all Tesla vehicles to date use the Panasonic 18650 cells, but inside some of them have silicone with the graphite, and some have only graphite. So saying they use the same cells is very different from using the same chemistry. We know from Elon that this was an experiment and Tesla was using "baby steps" with silicone. There was a good reason for baby steps, since they wanted to see the results, and after doing so, Tesla may have walked back those baby steps.
Pictures of the modules mean nothing. It's the chemistry inside the cells that needs to be analysed and wk057 did not do that.
Of course, you can speculate that they use the same chemistry, but you really shouldn't post as a fact something that is speculation...
Until Tesla tells us this explicitly -- that the chemistry inside the cells are the same -- and not just that they are the same cells -- or someone takes the actual cells apart and runs tests on the chemistry, this will remain speculation.
Let me try. You are probably correct. They did not guarantee. Their sales contract is probably pretty strong. What they did do is a) post charge rates/times on website, and b) say in numerous forums that supercharging would not harm battery. The people upset about this want to know details and feel they were misled. I suspect they were not intentionally misled. Regardless, it has upset them and tested their trust in the company. My personal views aside, I think that is the complaint.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
My 75 has always been the same. About 92, max ever about 98.
From the tesla.com website:
It is physically impossible to charge 170 miles of range in 30 minutes @ 90 kW, I know this because I have a charge session that is similar (I posted it numerous pages back):
Arrival charge 12% (Range 30.8 mi), Departure charge 63% (Range 160.3 mi). Charge time ~26 minutes. kW charge did not drop below 90 kW until minute 23 - there was 3 minutes of sub 90kW charging. @ 90kW you can't charge another 50 miles of range in 4 minutes.
You COULD do this if your charge rate was > 90 kW for a significant portion of the charge time... but with a 90kW cap, it's impossible. Especially when you start out at 90 kW and never exceed that. My example is MORE than 90 kW for almost the entire session and it still would not have reached that metric (I was already in the throttle zone, hovering around 100 kW the entire time, until minute 19)
This is just one example, but there are numerous other examples from the Tesla website and other literature that guarantees certain charge rate scenarios that are physically impossible with a 90 kW cap.
Nothing you just said proves anything, just as Tesla never guaranteed any specific charge rate. "Up to" x miles "in as little as" y minutes doesn't mean that's what you will get-- it's the best possible result in ideal circumstances.
I just want to add, it's not the throttling that irks me. It's the fact that Tesla hid the fact that DC Fast Charging causes degradation and that they will permanently throttle your charging rate if you do it.
Couple that with the low ceiling of < 300 DC Fast charges, and you are basically selling a car that WILL get throttled at some point in its life. If that information had been communicated from the start, that's an entirely different discussion.
Yes, I'm glad you agree with me, then. Since it is on their website saying you can get this under ideal conditions, that's a form of a guarantee. Since the car is throttled, it can NEVER reach those conditions, making those conditions impossible to obtain, ergo their guarantee is impossible to achieve.
It would be like selling a car saying "Gets up to 150 mpg" ... but only if you start at the top of a mountain and coast the whole way down... and then have the car towed the additional 100 miles. Yes, it will get 150 mpg under ideal conditions, but no person in their right mind would say that car can get 150 mpg. This is the same thing. No person in their right mind would say a 90 kW throttled car will get 170 miles in 30 minutes. There's simply no possible scenario where those ideal conditions can be met. And in fact, it's even more absurd, since I could theoretically replicate the 150mpg conditions. I have absolutely no way to replicate the conditions of 170 miles in 30 minutes, since I have no ability to turn off throttling (regardless of the consequences). Even replacing the pack might not be sufficient, as the BMS would still potentially throttle the charging.
Couple that with the low ceiling of < 300 DC Fast charges, and you are basically selling a car that WILL get throttled at some point in its life. If that information had been communicated from the start, that's an entirely different discussion.
Yes, I'm glad you agree with me, then. Since it is on their website saying you can get this under ideal conditions, that's a form of a guarantee. Since the car is throttled, it can NEVER reach those conditions, making those conditions impossible to obtain, ergo their guarantee is impossible to achieve.
It would be like selling a car saying "Gets up to 150 mpg" ... but only if you start at the top of a mountain and coast the whole way down... and then have the car towed the additional 100 miles. Yes, it will get 150 mpg under ideal conditions, but no person in their right mind would say that car can get 150 mpg. This is the same thing. No person in their right mind would say a 90 kW throttled car will get 170 miles in 30 minutes. There's simply no possible scenario where those ideal conditions can be met. And in fact, it's even more absurd, since I could theoretically replicate the 150mpg conditions. I have absolutely no way to replicate the conditions of 170 miles in 30 minutes, since I have no ability to turn off throttling (regardless of the consequences). Even replacing the pack might not be sufficient, as the BMS would still potentially throttle the charging.
Last edited:
I disagree strongly with the fact that every car should be able to meet this criteria under ideal conditions. For instance, an uncapped Model X 60 wouldn't have ever been able to do so. Tesla saying that one can reach "up to" means that some cars in their fleet can do it, which is true. Whether you fall into that category or not is, unfortunately, beside the point.
But to be clear on your argument, you're correct. A car capped to charge at 90kW will not achieve 170 miles in 30 minutes. A Model S 100D arriving with 0 miles of range and charging to 170 miles would represent about a 50.7% charge. Making an admittedly generalized assumption of 100kWh of usable capacity, that would be approximately 50.7kWh. In 30 minutes, without tapering (that should be right at the brink of tapering if I'm not mistaken), one would get at best, 45kWh or ~151 miles of range.
Yes, tesla does recommend you use the UMC or a HPWC... btw I have 2 HPWC's installed at home & 2 50A Level 2 EVSE's, along with a single CHAdeMO and two 14-50 receptacles. We don't believe in "sharing" at my place
I don't think the DC charging is doing anything harmful since it's all DC to the battery anyways. I am still getting 265 miles at 100% (rated for 270, and was 273 when new) so 2-3% loss/degradation over 70+k miles (300+ charges) I'm happy with that. The same service center guy told me 5% in the first year and 1% every year after that...
That's actually a good point. However, down at the bottom it says based on a 90D for charge time. Unless there is some battery/charger/BMS difference between the P90D and the 90D that I'm unaware of, I fall squarely in the window that Tesla says I should achieve.
Are you saying even a 100D couldn't achieve 170 miles in 30m starting from 0?
Ah, I didn't realize there was that disclaimer. Regarding the difference between the P90D and 90D, there is the fact that P90D has reduced range vs. the 90D. Since we're talking about charge in terms of miles and not percentage, that has some effect. But since the 100D couldn't achieve it either with a 90kW cap, the 90D won't manage to stretch it.
That's exactly what I'm saying. In order for a 100D to reach 170 miles in 30 minutes, starting from 0, it would require about 50.7kWh of charge. That means a 101.4kW average charge over that time period, not accounting for losses.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Did they hide this fact, or did they just learn it themselves after adding silicone and seeing the results?
I think we should be careful attributing nefarious conduct when there are other just as plausible explanations.
What irks me is Tesla not telling us exactly what triggers a vehicle to join the 1%'ers.
True, I would have preferred to know that after N# of fast DC charges, that it would switch to a sort of "limp" mode, not that 87kw is slow, but this is sort of the price we all pay for being early adopters... when I bought mine, the deal was "free supercharging for life" not any particular kW level, and I think that was on purpose. I sort of expected it to be throttled for heavy users, I mean it's what I would do if it was my company.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Beat me to it. It say "up to". I don't believe Tesla guarantees a minimum charge rate anywhere. It's impossible to given there are too many factors that can limit charge rate.
NerdUno
Member
1% is based upon the fact that this didn't apply at all to older vehicles with the different battery chemistry. Given the imminent arrival of Model 3's, today's 1% could very well be tomorrow's 25%.
I understand where you are coming from, but please try to see my point of view here:
Tesla obviously knew about this issue before I brought my vehicle in. They have known about it for at least a not-insignificant amount of time, since the throttling software is live. This means that it had to go through testing and make it to the live cars - that's at least a few months, if not longer.
They didn't inform those people that may be affected (they should be able to do this algorithmically throughout the database, but even if not, since it supposedly affects < 1% of the base, doing it by hand isn't out of the question either)
When I brought my vehicle in, I was told my vehicle is operating normally. Instead, they should have said "Oh, you do have a problem, we will replace your battery with a non-affected battery if you want." Again, since it's supposedly less than 1%, that's not a huge burden to bear to keep a multi-tesla household happy (I have two and looking at a 3rd). This is especially egregious since they didn't inform anyone of this problem when they found it. I would have curtailed my DCFC activity if I had known.
So regardless of whether or not it was a recent lesson learned by Tesla, they failed to disclose it when they did learn it. As I said, it's got live car throttling, so they have known about it for awhile now at the very least, if not significantly longer.
Hey have you noticed that when you plug in at a SpC, it may say 50 minutes remaining, but when you leave for 30 minutes and come back, it doesn't say 20 minutes, it says 30 minutes remaining? I've noticed that the time is not accurate, and it ALWAYS takes longer than the estimated time. Could the time be based on some "ideal" rate, and not taking into account the actual charge rate?
To be honest I don't see this applying here. Almost all Chaedmo stations I encounter are capped at 50 kw. That is even less than 60 kw standard regen. If Tesla is counsidering this in the algorithm, then they will also need to have a regen counter since, by extension, this would also be impacting pack health. Seems unreasonable IMO.
Ok, got it. So then there is literally some DC charge counter that, when it exceeds a threshold, activates a trigger.
Correct. I don't believe it takes into account the actual charge rate. I too have been stuck on 10 mins remaining for over 20 mins.
Similar threads
