-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
hill
high fiber member
Well I think they looked at the usage statistics and made a set of assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. Namely that high amperage lvl2 charging was not essential. We disabused them of that mistaken assumption and they responded appropriately (if this newest rumor turns out to be true.) Frankly, I can't think of another car company that would make a decision and then change course so quickly based upon customer feedback.
That said, I wish they would simply come up with a set of specs for this vehicle, publish it on the website and then build the car to those specs. Communication is still very sporadic and, for the most part, has to be initiated by the customer. Then again, I had a nice conversation with my delivery specialist today and he's pretty frustrated that he doesn't have more information to give me.
Deep, cleansing breaths, this will all be over soon and we'll be so busy driving out bat-stuff awesome cars we won't have time to forum anymore!
This argument, which has been brought up a number of times (Tesla looked at the usage patterns and made a decision), reminds me of the classic Abraham Wald war airplane example, which goes something like this:
During WWII, naval researchers were trying to minimize bomber losses. They took all of the bombers that returned to base with damage, calculated the most statistically likely places that they had sustained this damage, and recommended that this is where additional armor be installed. Wald proposed that instead, the bombers should be armored where there was no damage. The reason? Because the sample with damage were bombers that were able to return to base. That sample excluded planes that were shot down. Therefore, the other areas were the most susceptible and in need of the most reinforcement.
It's an often cited example of selection bias, and I think it's applicable to the idea that Tesla reviewed charging patterns of the existing fleet. They'd be missing a big piece of the picture. (All assuming this is actually how they made this decision, which I don't believe to begin with!)
PGeer
Member
To add to a growing chorus, my DS called today confirming 72amps for all Sigs. When I pressed him, he agreed that it would only make sense if this was a least an option for production. Frankly, given how they came around, based on our emails I think, I can't imagine why they wouldn't make it an option for production.
BTW, in answer to another of my questions, he said he's just learned that all the Sigs with 6 seat config will get center console which also includes phone plug-ins. He went so far as to ask if we wanted Apple or Android plugs at the base, and that both cables would be supplied. I'm happy, however, it's so strange how this is all dribbling in.
BTW, in answer to another of my questions, he said he's just learned that all the Sigs with 6 seat config will get center console which also includes phone plug-ins. He went so far as to ask if we wanted Apple or Android plugs at the base, and that both cables would be supplied. I'm happy, however, it's so strange how this is all dribbling in.
MrBoylan
Member
It's almost as if... the car wasn't actually finished (maybe still isn't)?
So should we pat ourselves on the back for 6-row seating option, included rear console and 72A charging? Maybe we should wait until they actually ship a few.
I am really looking forward to Ashlee Vance's second Musk biography and the real story behind the Model X launch.
I'm doing a factory tour tomorrow. I'll look in the parts bins on the X production line and let you know what I find. [emoji6]
I got the same phone call tonight.... except the part about the center console. That's the first I'm hearing about such a thing. I'm hoping it it, at a minimum, removable without too much work. We're intending for the kids sitting in the back to be able to walk between the seats to get there.
goneskiian
Active Member
^^^ this. they make bad decision. it pisses everyone off. they change their mind. this is how they do their requirements gathering.
aija SigX 649
Winged Lion
This would be very welcome news. Not happy at how this is being communicated though ..as others have pointed out! I originally configured a 6-seater but after being told by several reps that the center console would not be offered, changed to a 7-seater. It just didn't seem right that one would give up a 7th seat and not get anything in return! Perhaps Tesla came to their senses and corrected this injustice ..maybe another reason for the delay in deliveries. Just emailed Testa to confirm and make the change back to a 6-seater! Keeping my fingers crossed. Shouldn't be so difficult, but I'm glad that they are listening - another huge benefit of this community!
Last edited:
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
Now, Tesla needs to offer an option on the HPWC DIP switches that supports a 90 Amp breaker and 72 Amp charging. This will allow the use of #4 copper to the HPWC in most situations. #4 copper wire is a little cheaper, easier to find, and cheaper than the the #3 required for a 100 Amp breaker/80 Amp charging.
It appears that the current version of the HPWC has a spare DIP switch that could be used, or I would be happy to give up the 15 Amp breaker/12 Amp charging mode. How many people use an HPWC for 12 Amp charging? Is it really needed? :wink:
It appears that the current version of the HPWC has a spare DIP switch that could be used, or I would be happy to give up the 15 Amp breaker/12 Amp charging mode. How many people use an HPWC for 12 Amp charging? Is it really needed? :wink:
of interest, it was said early on that there would be no dual-charger option for The X, due to space constraints. There was quite some disappointment as the implication was that the vehicles would be limited to 40A AC charging only.
Then the 48/72 debacle ensued... the upside being that despite there only being room for a single charger, there will likely continue to be a standard/upgrade AC charge capability offered.
I suppose one could always hope that they could surprise everybody by making dual-72A chargers an uber-option! :wink:
Then the 48/72 debacle ensued... the upside being that despite there only being room for a single charger, there will likely continue to be a standard/upgrade AC charge capability offered.
I suppose one could always hope that they could surprise everybody by making dual-72A chargers an uber-option! :wink:
hill
high fiber member
I don't get why, but even stranded #3 is cheaper nowdays - going back several months.
.
Copper prices hit 6 year low on supply glut
http://news.investors.com/investing-futures/111715-781214-copper-prices-hit-6-year-low-on-supply-glut.htm
http://news.investors.com/investing-futures/111715-781214-copper-prices-hit-6-year-low-on-supply-glut.htm
I certainly agree that the introduction of Model X creates a challenge for the current version of HPWC's that are shipping. Whether 48A or 72A, both of the WC settings that match are gone (60A & 90A breakers). I would expect that Tesla would address this in time for production.
- - - Updated - - -
In manufacturing, nothing is actually finished until the lines are running at full speed, turning out products. Even then, it's never truly finished because you need to manage the supply chain, and sometimes partners go away and/or get replaced, leading to re-engineering.
All speculation: I still suspect their 72A charger supplier couldn't get spun up in time and/or had quality issues with the parts Tesla was receiving. Delays have led to them being able to meet some of the demand (the Signature cars) while they figure out how to solve the ramp-up problem with the suppliers.
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
But that would be a hardware change for all newly produced HPWCs, right? Or are the HPWC's software upgradeable to repurpose the existing DIP switch pattern? Not a problem for new to Tesla owners, but S & X owners wouldn't be able to take advantage of any new dip settings without new equipment, right?
O-G
Member
I doubt that the difference between a 90 amp breaker with #4 wire compared to a 100 amp breaker with #3 wire is significant. Much of the cost is labor which won't change.
I'm set up for the 80 amp charging. My understanding is that the car charger will adjust to its maximum. I'm curious to see what the actual charge rate will be. Even though I have 240V, I don't actually get 240. I fluctuate between 234-236 which is within the range of the power company's specs. So, if I was trying to charge at 80 amps (assuming a MS), I don't think I would actually get 80 amp charging. But since I'm going to be charging at 72 amps, I should get the full 72 amp charge despite the reduced voltage. Not having owned a MS and not being an electrician, I'm speculating. Would this be true? If so, it's another reason to go with the full 80 amp configuration.
I'm set up for the 80 amp charging. My understanding is that the car charger will adjust to its maximum. I'm curious to see what the actual charge rate will be. Even though I have 240V, I don't actually get 240. I fluctuate between 234-236 which is within the range of the power company's specs. So, if I was trying to charge at 80 amps (assuming a MS), I don't think I would actually get 80 amp charging. But since I'm going to be charging at 72 amps, I should get the full 72 amp charge despite the reduced voltage. Not having owned a MS and not being an electrician, I'm speculating. Would this be true? If so, it's another reason to go with the full 80 amp configuration.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I am not sure what are you saying.
Are you saying 2 x 72A = 144A?
Or are you saying instead of 1 x 72A = current Single onboard 72A charger, you'll get futuristic 2 x 36A = Dual onboard 72A Chargers?
He was facetiously suggesting we might get 144A charging. I think I can say with 99.99% probability that wouldn't happen. Lots of equipment changes and starts to get very expensive when you get to 150A circuits, and even moreso for the 200A required to protect charging at 144A (next size up for 180A).
- - - Updated - - -
Correct.
I'm installing both my HPWC's with 100A circuit / 80A charging capability. It makes sense if you can do that, and the wiring isn't much difference. The curse-factor of getting #2 and #3 into the WC is significantly reduced with #4, and load calculations don't have to assume the full amount. Technically, the installer-configured dip switch setting determines the current that must be used in the load calculation. So if you install it & set it for 100A circuit even though you have a single-charger Model S, the NEC requires that you use 100A as the load requirement (and not 50A). The "non-concurrent load" provision doesn't apply to using only 40A on an appliance rated at 100A.
Similar threads
