My car won't charge faster than 60kW

[Larry Chanin]

I just charged at Buckeye, AZ - 2 miles from my house. I received 93 kW at a 42% SOC. I think this rumor of throttling is much ado about nothing.

View attachment 74815

I have asked four of our club members who live near Superchargers to provide their findings to me on this subject.

Here is the first response from a club member that lives 4 miles from the Port Saint Lucie Superchargers.

View attachment 74920

He is on v6.1(2.2.115) of the firmware.

He drove a little over 40 miles before charging in 80 degree weather on Charger 2A in Port Saint Lucie.

The charge rate quickly went to 111 kW then leveled off around 105-109kW for the first 5-10 minutes.

This is the first time he has used the Supercharger in about a month.

Larry

My current working theory is that the car will throttle to 60 kW if you have a destination set in your nav and you have enough charge to reach that destination. That would explain the apparent random throttling.

The solution, then, would be to set no destination in your nav or an alternate destination that is really far away. Problem solved.

However, as you an I have demonstrated in our postings above, even when the destination is in the nav system and only 2 and 4 miles away from the Supercharger throttling did not occur. So proximity to the Supercharger is obviously not the cause in every case.

Larry

 

[Obsoletion]

My interpretation is that they are saying the car is acting normally. The service center is not responsible for diagnosing the superchargers. They are only responsible for diagnosing the car's side of supercharging system. It does not rule out the supercharger being broken.

Now that interpretation is really a stretch.

What is it you guys need the paperwork to say before you will believe that tesla is telling me this is intentional? I will call them and have them reword it if it's the only way any of the naysayers will believe. This is real. It's happening to me and others and tesla is telling me and anyone who calls their service centers that this is intentional.

 

[Zarwin]

Just charged in Burlington, NC, which is exactly 25 road miles from my house. Charge rate of 116kw initially, nothing unusual.

v6.1(2.2.115) No home setting, no NAV at all.

Edit: I am not a frequent "local" charger as this is only the third time I have plugged into this supercharger. I have, however, used superchargers about 30 times since getting the car(April '14) when travelling.

 

[mikeash]

Maybe, just maybe, US buyers who can't charge at home or work shouldn't buy a Tesla (or any other electric car, for that matter)? I can't imaging buying an electric car without control over my own charging situation.

I generally agree, but it's really up to the buyer. It seems like it would be incredibly inconvenient not to have home charging, but if someone thinks they can make it work, who are we to tell them no? If someone bought a Model S planning to use a nearby supercharger for regular charging needs, based on Tesla's advertised charging rates and availability, can we really say that they're somehow doing something wrong?

I don't think Tesla should go out of their way to enable such scenarios at the moment, and I agree that such buyers should really reconsider their options, but I very much don't like the idea of pulling the rug out from under them after the fact.

 

[Obsoletion]

I would also add the local sales and service centers were advised of this today according to my local center. Don't believe it... Call your service center and request service because you can't supercharger beyond 60kW. Let's see what they say today

 

[Larry Chanin]

A number of us have posted photos of the dash board showing that some people who live near Superchargers are NOT being throttled. If we take Obsoletion's report at face value the Tesla service advisor is saying Tesla is responsible for limiting the charge rate, but he is NOT sure why.

I'm inclined to follow Walter's general line of reasoning. IF Tesla is responsible for this a simple explanation is that they are trying to save money on demand charges. Therefore, in this scenario when they apply charging rate limitations it would have no relationship to where you live or how often you charge, but rather it would depend on the real-time activity at the particular Supercharger. When a Supercharger is busy it would be more likely to be throttled than when it is not busy. People who live near Superchargers are more likely to charge frequently at Superchargers. People who charge frequently are more likely to occasionally run into a situation where demand charge throttling is being applied.

That's my current theory. :wink:

Larry

And if that's the case, Tesla needs to immediately change their Supercharger web page because it is blatantly false advertising. I was promised free supercharging for life, and that I can charge to 170 miles in 30 minutes. I don't care about Tesla's demand charges - those are Tesla's problem and should have been considered before making commitments to owners and claims on their web site.

No, this can't be it.

I invite you to visit posting #237 and add your own logical reason(s) to explain the various observations.

None of the the reasons that I have suggested leave me with a good taste in my mouth. :biggrin:

Larry

 

[dhanson865]

What is it you guys need the paperwork to say before you will believe that tesla is telling me this is intentional? I will call them and have them reword it if it's the only way any of the naysayers will believe. This is real. It's happening to me and others and tesla is telling me and anyone who calls their service centers that this is intentional.

No one is going to believe it the way you do until there is a Press Release, modifications to the teslamotors website*, or Elon says it.

Nothing personal it's just too drastic of a change to take from one source that doesn't have a CEO or VP title next to his name.

*preferably all up and down Supercharger | Tesla Motors and Supercharging | Tesla Motors the latter which says

I am Supercharging, but not as quickly as I expected. What could be wrong?
Model S and the Supercharger communicate to select the appropriate charging rate for your car. The Supercharging rate may vary due to battery charge level, current use of the Supercharging station and extreme climate conditions.

How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?
Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like.

and so on, nothing supporting what you say is coming.

Though I and others will leave it open that the Press conference coming later this week (Thursday morning/afternoon depending on your time zone) might reveal what the service center is hinting to you.

 

[markb1]

What is it you guys need the paperwork to say before you will believe that tesla is telling me this is intentional? I will call them and have them reword it if it's the only way any of the naysayers will believe. This is real. It's happening to me and others and tesla is telling me and anyone who calls their service centers that this is intentional.

I think there's really nothing the service center could say to convince me that it is intentional. Service centers have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not in the know when it comes to corporate policies. (Not that I am ruling out that it is intentional, I'm just saying we need a better source than the service center.)

And even if we take the service center at their word, that invoice certainly does not say that it is intentional, just that the car is working as designed. They may have said otherwise verbally, but I'm just talking about what I see on the invoice.

My opinion is that it probably is intentional, but not related to how close you live to a supercharger, and that it is temporary.

 

[ecarfan]

What one person at a Service Center says is not a reliable indicator of a major corporate policy change.

Let's see what is announced on Thirsday.

 

[Obsoletion]

What one person at a Service Center says is not a reliable indicator of a major corporate policy change.

Let's see what is announced on Thirsday.

i agree. That's why I suggest calls to local centers and see if we can extract a unified statement

 

[sorka]

So the repair invoice doesn't really say anything. All it says is that the charge rate was reduced by the Super Charger which would happen if there was a technical problem there i.e burned out chargers in the stack, local supply issue with the utility.

The invoice does not say the customers charge rate was reduced due to a POLICY decision. If that's what they meant, then they should have clearly stated such.

The invoice should have stated the reason why the charge was reduced rather than the fact that it simply was reduced which was already known by the customer.

 

[Obsoletion]

It says Concerned VERIFIED...charging rate is being reduced by CUSTOMERS local superchargers. Vehicle operating normally

 

[markb1]

It says Concerned VERIFIED...charging rate is being reduced by CUSTOMERS local superchargers. Vehicle operating normally

Right. They verified that your car was indeed not charging above 60 kW at the local supercharger. The supercharger is responsible for the reduced rate, not the car. That's all that says. I don't see any statement about corporate policy.

 

[Obsoletion]

Right. They verified that your car was indeed not charging above 60 kW at the local supercharger. The supercharger is responsible for the reduced rate, not the car. That's all that says. I don't see any statement about corporate policy.

Superchargers (plural). And they drove it to two different ones to verify

And others at the same location have no issue. So the vehicle is working right and the supercharger is working right... 60kW as intended

 

[dirkhh]

Superchargers (plural). And they drove it to two different ones to verify

And others at the same location have no issue. So the vehicle is working right and the supercharger is working right... 60kW as intended

So if this is a policy change, then why would they drive to the superchargers to verify? That makes no sense - you are contradicting your own statement.

 

[sorka]

I would also add the local sales and service centers were advised of this today according to my local center. Don't believe it... Call your service center and request service because you can't supercharger beyond 60kW. Let's see what they say today

Why don't you go ahead and call them and ask them *WHY* the charge was reduced. You state it's intentional but you didn't really provide a quote that indicates that's actually the case, so many of us are thinking what you were told, whatever it was, is open to interpretation. Call them back and ask them point blank is this intentional due to POLICY and not due to local / temporary technical issue. If POLICY, ask them to clarify what the policy is.

 

[Obsoletion]

So if this is a policy change, then why would they drive to the superchargers to verify? That makes no sense - you are contradicting your own statement.

You didnt see my original post. The thread I started was merged into this one. When i took it in for service they didn't know about this. They couldn't find an issue with the vehicle so they took it to the Indio supercharger and it charged at 120kW. Then took it to cabazon and it charged at 59kW then they took it to Rancho Cucamonga and it charged at 59kW. Verifying there was an issue they contacted tesla engineers and we told on froday that this is intended reduction at owners local
superchargers. They called me with this and i asked them why and why I wasn't notified before the change was made. He stated that the announcement was coming in the next week

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you go ahead and call them and ask them *WHY* the charge was reduced. You state it's intentional but you didn't really provide a quote that indicates that's actually the case, so many of us are thinking what you were told, whatever it was, is open to interpretation. Call them back and ask them point blank is this intentional due to POLICY and not due to local / temporary technical issue. If POLICY, ask them to clarify what the policy is.

i asked why and was told the engineers wouldn't state why and an announcement was coming

 

[sorka]

BTW, I'm going to play devils advocate. If this wasn't due to a policy decision, then something was wrong technically and the service center did a lousy unacceptable job diagnosing this issue. They should have simply stated that the car does not have a technical issue that would have prevented a full charge rate and the cause is unknown and then stated it would be investigated by the Super Charger deployment teams, or some such.

The diagnosis as written is unacceptable and Obsoletion should demand in writing clarification of why charged was reduced:

1) A new policy.
2) A technical issue.
3) Unknown at this time.

 

[Obsoletion]

BTW, I'm going to play devils advocate. If this wasn't due to a policy decision, then something was wrong technically and the service center did a lousy unacceptable job diagnosing this issue. They should have simply stated that the car does not have a technical issue that would have prevented a full charge rate and the cause is unknown and then stated it would be investigated by the Super Charger deployment teams, or some such.

The diagnosis as written is unacceptable and Obsoletion should demand in writing clarification of why charged was reduced:

1) A new policy.
2) A technical issue.
3) Unknown at this time.

Agreed. Asking for this now

 

[strider]

My theory is that this is all about money in the form of utility demand charges. Is it possible they have some kind of data tie-in with the local utility and if they are going to be hit w/ a demand charge and throttle charging to keep the SC out of the demand charge range? Much of the desire to have battery packs at SC sites was to help smooth out demand and eliminate demand charges. Tesla could be getting killed on electricity costs and this is a way to get costs under control.