Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[Jeff N]

Tesla's current connector will have difficulty hitting the 350kW levels the future CCS levels are aiming at.

Really? The CCS v2 350 kW number is probably 350A @ 1000V but realistically we will probably see cars that charge at 350A @ 700-800V or around 250 kW.

I think CCS will try to do that on their existing plug and socket design for compatibility reasons and I suspect Tesla's US plug and socket could also handle 800V (it already supports 350A). Dunno about their European plug.

 

[alseTrick]

I definitely foresee a lot of owners abusing free super charging. Don't you think people would abuse free gas?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Really? The CCS v2 350 kW number is probably 350A @ 1000V but realistically we will probably see cars that charge at 350A @ 700-800V or around 250 kW.

I think CCS will try to do that on their existing plug and socket design for compatibility reasons and I suspect Tesla's US plug and socket could also handle 800V (it already supports 350A). Dunno about their European plug.

I'm assuming CCS is talking about realistic limits, not something that will only exist on paper only (although it certainly is possible they are talking about inflated paper-only specs using 1000V). So probably like 440A @800V for ~350kW.

Currently if Tesla bumps peak voltage to 800V, they can get ~280kW on paper (350A @ 800V). The 85kWh peak in 120kW power at 347A@347V (even though peak voltage is 403V), so realistically probably ~245kW (350A @ 700V).

The Chargin presentation talks about CCS 2.0 (which presumably might keep same connector), but it also mentions CCS 3.0, which might not necessarily use the same connector.
http://www.charinev.org/fileadmin/Downloads/Presentations/KeyNote_ELIV_2015.pdf

 

[Garlan Garner]

Wow talk about taking things out of context to give a false impression. Here is a direct quote from the link you provided and chose to ignore.

Wow. people in here are truly rude and insulting.

Chose to ignore?
Attempting to give a false impression?

WOW.

 

[SpiceWare]

Wow is right, there's nothing rude or insulting in KJD's response.

Based on your comment of "If Elon Musk is ok with rivals using the super chargers for free", it appears that you only read the headline, or didn't make it to the end of the article. As such, you definitely chose to ignore what was in the article you linked to.

 

[Jeff N]

I'm assuming CCS is talking about realistic limits, not something that will only exist on paper only (although it certainly is possible they are talking about inflated paper-only specs using 1000V). So probably like 440A @800V for ~350kW.

I'm guessing "the number" is a peak which is not actually typical of real vehicles. On slide 7 they describe the status quo CCS (CCS 1.x) as having 50 kW "implemented in infrastructure" (500V x 100A) and "DC up to 200kW standardized high degree of maturity" which presumably means 1000V x 200A. Or maybe it is 800V x 250A? No CCS spec I have ever seen would allow for 200 kW today.

I wonder if there is an incremental update to CCS 1.x that hasn't been widely discussed since some of the articles about CCS in the press are based on and include images of obsolete CCS version drafts. In furtherance of this theory, there is a CCS equipment vendor which claims to imminently support "120 kW" charging which could be 500V x 240A. If only these standards were created using an open process.... I have also seen a standards roadmap schedule which described a near-term "phase 1" spec update and a later "phase 2" happening around 2018.

The Chargin presentation talks about CCS 2.0 (which presumably might keep same connector), but it also mentions CCS 3.0, which might not necessarily use the same connector.

On slide 17 it refers to "CCS next level" but described it as providing 150-350 kW. That corresponds to a later slide which refers to CCS 2.0 as being "CCS next level".

I think CCS 3.0 is just a future placeholder for whatever is needed beyond our present horizon.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Wow is right, there's nothing rude or insulting in KJD's response.

Based on your comment of "If Elon Musk is ok with rivals using the super chargers for free", it appears that you only read the headline, or didn't make it to the end of the article. As such, you definitely chose to ignore what was in the article you linked to.

Now there are 2 of you. lol

 

[Red Sage]

If they could make superchargers that were CCS compliant and offered a subscription program for people who had cars with other car makers, the superchargers could be subsidized if not a minor profit center.

Elon Musk has already stated that if cars from other manufacturers join the Supercharger network, there would be no direct charge to the end user at all. He noted that access to Superchargers would be strictly through the purchase of the car itself, with no fees beyond that. He said that the costs would be worked out business-to-business proportional to the 'fair share' each company used.

 

[Red Sage]

The L.A. Zoo has free juice at some newly opened chargers. There are 6 J1772 hookups that have a four hour limit, and one CCS/Chademo that has a 30 minute limit. A couple times I hit the Chademo just to experience it. There is a closer one to where I live and I haven't hit the Zoo in several weeks now. Anyway, while hanging out there waiting for my quick charge, I have on more than one occasion seen people on the J1772 hanging out in their car, waiting while their vehicle charges at 25 miles per hour. In some cases grabbing a nap in the back seat, pillow and all.

Sorry...? Uhm... I don't see any actual problem with what you have noted here. If there is a four hour time limit for J1772... And you were using CHAdeMO, which is a 30 minute time limit... How exactly did you determine that someone had been there more than four hours, as you sat there for 30 minutes?

Honestly...? If I knew it would probably take four hours for me to charge, I'd likely take a nap too. Sleeping is fundamental.

 

[Red Sage]

Wow talk about taking things out of context to give a false impression. Here is a direct quote from the link you provided and chose to ignore.

"Musk added that for companies looking to gain access to the charging stations, they will have to pay a sum that is proportionate to how much the owners of their respective brands use the Superchargers."

Uhm... Yeah. That is a business-to-business transaction. No fees direct to the end users. Thus, perfectly in line with what he wrote, and similar to what I have written before. If Tesla Motors does not expect fees from end users of vehicles from other companies, no one should expect them to institute pay-per-use, pay-at-the-pump, monthly billing, or subscription plans for their own Customers either. Also filed under, 'DUH'.

 

[Red Sage]

Important point:
"Musk added that for companies looking to gain access to the charging stations, they will have to pay a sum that is proportionate to how much the owners of their respective brands use the Superchargers."

Also, it seems nothing came of the talks, as it has been many months since then and not a peep of another automaker joining the supercharger network.

Pungoteague_Dave is among those who claim that the offer by Elon Musk may as well have been in jest. He believes it was a carefully crafted 'offer' that Tesla Motors knew full well that no one among the traditional automobile manufacturers would ever accept. It was something that, according to Pungoteague_Dave, was merely another marketing ploy designed to make Tesla 'look good' either way. If other companies accept, it gives legitimacy to an upstart rival, as their Toyotas, Mercedes, and Chevrolet cars charge under signs emblazoned with 'TESLA' overhead. If they don't accept, Elon looks like a saint who 'at least tried' to get others on board the EV Revolution.

I am not so pedantic, pragmatic, or pessimistic. I believe that Elon was absolutely sincere. If other automobile manufacturers produce EVs that can handle the power without being throttled back, and have at least 200 miles of range, thereby the capacity to accept the juice, they are welcome to use the Supercharger network. That is, as long as there are no additional fees to the end users beyond the purchase of the car, and a proper payment structure be worked out between the businesses due to proportional use by their respective Customers. That sounds like a good idea to me. And it keeps other companies from having to bear the brunt of building out a worldwide charging infrastructure.

 

[Red Sage]

Wow is right, there's nothing rude or insulting in KJD's response.

Based on your comment of "If Elon Musk is ok with rivals using the super chargers for free", it appears that you only read the headline, or didn't make it to the end of the article. As such, you definitely chose to ignore what was in the article you linked to.

Elon has said there would be no charge to end users of cars from other manufacturers. Garlan Garner was saying there would be no charge to end users of Tesla Motors cars. His point was made. Nothing was ignored. The only fees of any sort would be payments made business-to-business, based upon proportional use, and that would be worked out between those companies. It would still be 'Free' to the Customer, who would only pay for their vehicle.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Elon has said there would be no charge to end users of cars from other manufacturers. Garlan Garner was saying there would be no charge to end users of Tesla Motors cars. His point was made. Nothing was ignored. The only fees of any sort would be payments made business-to-business, based upon proportional use, and that would be worked out between those companies. It would still be 'Free' to the Customer, who would only pay for their vehicle.

Exactly .

 

[graphic]

Wow is right, there's nothing rude or insulting in KJD's response.

Based on your comment of "If Elon Musk is ok with rivals using the super chargers for free", it appears that you only read the headline, or didn't make it to the end of the article. As such, you definitely chose to ignore what was in the article you linked to.

Dude, I know we are talking about FREE Supercharging for the M3 here, but from your quote above, you sound like the "TESLA POLICE", ready to prosecute somebody; talking about, "As such, you definitely chose to ignore what was in the article you linked to". You need to sit your old self down somewhere.!!

 

[SpiceWare]

Elon has said there would be no charge to end users of cars from other manufacturers. Garlan Garner was saying there would be no charge to end users of Tesla Motors cars. His point was made.

He said, emphasis added, "If Elon Musk is ok with rivals using the super chargers for free...."

Rivals for Tesla would be the other car manufactures, not the end users. His point was inaccurate.

 

[ohmman]

Friendly mod reminder: Personal attacks, even those that seem benign to the poster, are against the terms of use. I would like to avoid having to move posts to snippiness, so please discuss the topic and avoid name calling.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Elon Musk has already stated that if cars from other manufacturers join the Supercharger network, there would be no direct charge to the end user at all. He noted that access to Superchargers would be strictly through the purchase of the car itself, with no fees beyond that. He said that the costs would be worked out business-to-business proportional to the 'fair share' each company used.

I disagree with your interpretation. Nothing in Elon's statement precludes an end user being charged with charging (either directly by Tesla or indirectly by the user's car company). The only condition was that Tesla collects fees in proportion to usage. Also as others pointed out, the original post talked about "rivals" which implies the car companies got it for free, not the end user. It is misleading to say the least.

 

[dhanson865]

I definitely foresee a lot of owners abusing free super charging. Don't you think people would abuse free gas?

I currently have a Leaf with a 3.x KW charger.

I also pay less than 10 cents per kWh.

I can charge on 120V for free at work and for free 2 miles down the road on L2.

120V at work I'll take as much as I can when it is below 70F outside. Above 70F and I'd rather park in the shade and come back to a cool car. The charge rate is too slow to bother on hot days.

2xxV L2 is too far down the road to conveniently walk back to work so I'd have to sit there to charge instead of being at home (assuming I try to charge before or after work). I stop some days for a 15-20 min charge on lunch break because the scenery there is nice and it's a change of pace instead of rushing back to the office to eat lunch at my desk. If this Leaf had a 6.x charger on board that could eat into my home charging a bit more.

But as free as both of those are I still charge at home more than anywhere else. It costs more but its more convenient. I charge about 2 hours a night at 3KW (240V open evse dialed down to 14a)

I suppose a supercharger will be more convenient than the L2 or L1 charging I've had access to but the only supercharger near me is in a high traffic shopping center so I'd have to make a special trip late at night to avoid traffic. I could see myself doing that just to say I tested the supercharger and maybe even to save a few cents on my home electric bill but I'd Probably still be charging more at home than at the supercharger. Maybe I'd charge to the 50% mark and then leave.

So if you gave me a free Tesla today my charging would be something like

2% on the free L2 at lunch
3% on the free L1 at work on the coldest days
5% on the free supercharger once a week just to say I did, while we are out for groceries or something*
90% at home when its more convenient (charge every night for an hour or so at 7KW using the 30A EVSE on my garage wall for convenience).


There will be the crazy people that try to charge 100% at a supercharger but those are less than 1% of the ones that will buy a brand new EV.

Maybe in states where electricity is more expensive they'll have issues but I'm going to say in states where kWh are less than 10 cents you're making sub minimum wage to go sit at a supercharger for an hour and even less on a L2.

*I'm trying to imagine this I'd have to drive 5 miles past the grocery store to the supercharger. Sit there until it gives me 20 kWh and then drive back to the grocery store. Really nothing for me to do but watch the charge rate and play with my cell phone. Tons of stores and restaurants in that shopping center but I'm sure not going into them to spend money if my reason for being there is to save money by grabbing free electricity. So I spend 10 minutes driving + 10 minutes or so sitting there grabbing a charge for $2 of electricity. I'm pretty sure that's less than what I'd make walking into the closes fast food restaurant and working there.

 

[cpa]

Many Supercharger locations are at malls or other places that have restaurants or shopping. I believe that there will be a segment of the local population who would justify their use at "local" Superchargers if they popped into a place for lunch, or decided to do a little shopping for an hour.

Sorta like the days when stores advertised "free parking with validation."

 

[stopcrazypp]

Maybe in states where electricity is more expensive they'll have issues but I'm going to say in states where kWh are less than 10 cents you're making sub minimum wage to go sit at a supercharger for an hour and even less on a L2.

Many people have made this argument that it doesn't make sense if you value your time at more than minimum wage, but obviously that doesn't stop people from wanting to do this.