My car won't charge faster than 60kW

[dhanson865]

Last week I took a road trip to LA and Orange County. I was staying in Newport Beach and went to have lunch with a friend in Temecula which is about 80 miles away. I stopped at San Juan Capistrano (about 20 miles along the route) on both legs of the trip. Both times I got the last of 7 stalls, and both times there were other Teslas waiting when I left because every stall was full. I spoke to half a dozen other owners and they were all local. One guy said he "wanted to get his money's worth". Another one, a retired accountant with a 60, said he lived 5 miles away. Both said they had charging at home when I asked them. So much for the theory that locals won't dominate suburban superchargers because their time is worth more than the cost of the electricity that they are saving.

I can't see how they put up with the traffic. I could see doing that at odd hours once a week when the stalls are empty but I wouldn't bother if it were inconvenient at all. I'd rather charge in my garage for convenience.

To be clear I'm not firmly in either camp. I'd be willing to drive to a "local" supercharger to fill er up occasionally, I just wouldn't do it exclusively nor would I bother if there was heavy traffic.

 

[JRP3]

I spoke to half a dozen other owners and they were all local. One guy said he "wanted to get his money's worth". Another one, a retired accountant with a 60, said he lived 5 miles away. Both said they had charging at home when I asked them. So much for the theory that locals won't dominate suburban superchargers because their time is worth more than the cost of the electricity that they are saving.

Makes me think Tesla should not enable "free" supercharging for the Model 3.

 

[apacheguy]

Makes me think Tesla should not enable "free" supercharging for the Model 3.

Maybe for the entry level model a pay per use fee would make sense. For larger battery sizes though I still think it makes sense to enable free for life. I don't even SpC that often and I probably take a loss by having it rolled in with the price of the car, but I prefer it that way. I also think it's great marketing to say free long distance travel for life.

 

[JRP3]

Prepaying encourages people to "get their money's worth", and the volume of Model 3's coupled with the likely more cost conscious nature of the buyers could lead to a supercharger over load disaster. As a future Model 3 owner I'd like to see a pay per use model, with a cost premium to discourage non essential use.

 

[Candleflame]

Prepaying encourages people to "get their money's worth", and the volume of Model 3's coupled with the likely more cost conscious nature of the buyers could lead to a supercharger over load disaster. As a future Model 3 owner I'd like to see a pay per use model, with a cost premium to discourage non essential use.

there will be people who wont have easy access to charging, particularly in the UK and in china (and everyone living in a city) where most people dont have garages. Especially in china teslas success will depend on easy to access supercharging. Tesla likely makes money on the included cost of supercharging anyways. you'll get a lot of electricity for 2500 euros and tesla will probably pay very reduced rates for it... Pay per use goes directly against the philosophy of the supercharging.

 

[bxr140]

It's been nearly 300 posts ago in this thread... so with the most recent data and experiences I'm going to go ahead and repeat what I said earlir:

I'm beginning to suspect that there may be a subtle bug that's exposed by some combination of:

- Car H/W configuration (60 vs 85, B pack vs. D pack, etc...)
- Car firmware version
- Supercharger H/W configuration (120 vs 135KW, internal charger revision, etc...)
- Supercharger firmware version (perhaps some superchargers have recently gotten newer versions)
- Charge session conditions (outside temp, battery temp, SOC, etc...)

There are a number of permutations of the above, and depending on what the conditions when a person charges this may be a corner-case bug that's rarely manifested.

I'm with you that there has to be an explanation as to why some people get slower charging rates at some chargers. I originally just chalked it up to "superchargers are not all alike", but that's as much supposition as everything people have said in this thread.

From a trending perspective, including last night at Fremont (where I still showed a slower rate typical with charging at Fremont), I have 431 individual data points over 35 charging events at 9 superchargers. These account for ~3300 miles out of ~25k total on my car. I'm sorry if some people feel this data set is insufficient to show that I'm getting slower charging at my local chargers, but if I charged anymore I'd get accused of hogging chargers by some people. You really can't win TMC sometimes.

To your points:
-In general, the chargers closest to me (Fremont = 25 miles, Gilroy = 40) charge ~10-25% slower across the entire taper than the other chargers I've visited (Harris is the next closest at 150mi or so). The one oddball is my only visit to Buellton, which trends with Fremont and Gilroy.
- I've SCed with 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2, with various .xxx's. My data shows no discernible difference between 6.0 and 6.1, and while I only have one data point on 6.2 (at Fremont), it is trending with the previous versions. I never intended my data to 'prove' anything, so I haven't been tracking version numbers--I suppose had I done so there could be identifiable changes, but I suspect they wouldn't be more than a fraction or three of a percent either way.
-My car is a 60 with a B pack. I can't do anything about that so its really not a variable. :wink: It would be interesting if someone had the same type and volume of data that I have to see if Fremont and Gilroy are just slower for everyone. One supposition that I had when I first compiled this data is that its simply more obvious to me because I have a pretty detailed set of data and a battery that charges slower than most at the superchargers.
-I (obviously) have no idea about the charger HW/FW, but if it matters I have charged at Fremont, Hawthorne, and (I think) Gilroy pre/post expansion. And, if it means anything, Tejon [with its old school open-the-door pedestals].
-Ambient and car/pack/soak temps haven't been a huge variable. California, and all... My data goes back to ~October 2014, so figure mid-40s through mid-70s. From a trending perspective I've definitely charged at those (ahem...) 'extremes' for both of my local chargers. Night and day. Its a freeway haul for me to get to either one, and also some of my data is coming back from long road trips so there's plenty of steady-state running before charging for those events (I live at 1500ft and sometimes have to splash at Gilroy or Fremont to make sure I have enough juice to make the climb).
-Starting (and instantaneous) SOC doesn't seem to be a variable in the trending. Clearly there's more deviation at lower SOCs, but once I get to ~40% (and definitely over 50%), the max deviations in charge rate are within +/-10% of the trend. I don't consider the lower SOC deviations as an issue in and of themselves as I suspect there are plenty of variables that can affect the first 5-10 min of charging, but its fair to note that the deviations still bounce around their respective local vs flyaway charger trends.
-Charger traffic doesn't seem to be a noticeable variable. Especially with my local chargers I've been there when they're full and when they're empty. I haven't been recording traffic so I can't directly correlate, but I do mentally note the charge rate vs number of cars charging and haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary. I can charge just as slow as when its empty as when its full... If hot vs cold superchargers is a possible variable, it doesn't seem to be with me.
-Clipping due to pairing obviously doesn't factor into the "my local chargers are slower" situation. I've experienced clipping three times now (twice at Fremont, once at Harris), and its an obvious notch in the power vs SOC graph. And on a related note, despite some suggesting this is all a conspiracy theory and that people like me are posting nefarious and/or misrepresented data, fear not. I'm not that smart.

I was responding to your previous post to me claiming that throttling exists. Are you now changing your position?

Please stop pretending you lack basic reading comprehension.

 

[FlasherZ]

This thread is about whether Tesla is limiting local supercharging to a specific threshold (60 kW).

If visualized, you'd see a "flat top" charging curve at first that led into a taper as your SOC increased. It sounds from your description like you are not / no longer seeing this, is this correct? It sounds like you're saying that your charging rate is reduced at certain locations relative to other locations - now we need to find someone in your same area that sees the same thing.

There are plenty of reasons why one supercharger location might be slower than another - especially when you start talking about only 10% or so. Perhaps someone else has logged the data at the superchargers to determine if they, too, are seeing limitations.

For example, consider the sessions at the same SpC that I show here:
Supercharging Taper Curve for D+ Pack - Page 2

One case, 60% SOC was at 65.1 kW; a couple of weeks later, 60% SOC was 61.7 kW. And this was the same SpC.

 

[bxr140]

This thread is about whether Tesla is limiting local supercharging to a specific threshold (60 kW)

At the risk of poking the bear, that's what the thread has become. That's not how it started.

If visualized, you'd see a "flat top" charging curve at first that led into a taper as your SOC increased. It sounds from your description like you are not / no longer seeing this, is this correct?

My sessions don't start as a plateau. They almost all start dropping immediately.

 

[scaesare]

Last week I took a road trip to LA and Orange County. I was staying in Newport Beach and went to have lunch with a friend in Temecula which is about 80 miles away. I stopped at San Juan Capistrano (about 20 miles along the route) on both legs of the trip. Both times I got the last of 7 stalls, and both times there were other Teslas waiting when I left because every stall was full. I spoke to half a dozen other owners and they were all local. One guy said he "wanted to get his money's worth". Another one, a retired accountant with a 60, said he lived 5 miles away. Both said they had charging at home when I asked them. So much for the theory that locals won't dominate suburban superchargers because their time is worth more than the cost of the electricity that they are saving.

At the risk of derailing this thread: As I've mentioned elsewhere, while Tesla has not outright prohibited "local" supercharging (either via technical mean or policy), I don't believe that this is in the spirit of what Tesla was hoping to accomplish when they discussed Superchargers as removing a barrier to long-distance travel or road-trips.

(Mods: please feel free to relocate this post should a separate thread for "Local Supercharging Policy" get created)

 

[FlasherZ]

My sessions don't start as a plateau. They almost all start dropping immediately.

I definitely see what you're talking about. What would be interesting is to look at the power company that serves each of these. It could be internal standards on transformer configurations, or something else. I reach the same conclusion you do - that Gilroy and Fremont are "slower", but the reason for it is still not clear - and yes, avoiding the speculation that it's some policy based thing helps.

What's interesting is the wild variation you have in the green (101/I-5/SoCal) dots < 40% SOC. Any chance you can break that out by specific location to see if natural lines come out?

And I don't have enough experience with the 60 kWh battery pack to be able to draw any other conclusions.

 

[deonb]

At the risk of derailing this thread: As I've mentioned elsewhere, while Tesla has not outright prohibited "local" supercharging (either via technical mean or policy), I don't believe that this is in the spirit of what Tesla was hoping to accomplish when they discussed Superchargers as removing a barrier to long-distance travel or road-trips.

(Mods: please feel free to relocate this post should a separate thread for "Local Supercharging Policy" get created)

On the other hand, I can't imagine that having 5 SuperChargers in downtown London (and a 6th under construction), is in the spirit of facilitating long-distance travel...


Everybody so far has been using anecdotal evidence akin to "I met a local at a SuperCharger once, therefore locals all over are SuperCharging, and it will mean the end of Supercharging, and the demise of TSLA! It is getting so bad, I almost had to wait in line to charge. Outrageous!"

But in reality, we don't know if this is even remotely a problem. Or if it is a problem, if it's up there with other problems. I've never met a local, but I have met a Tesla Employee at a SuperCharger once. So obviously we need to ban Employees from charging, post haste! SuperChargers are for customers.


Tesla is the only one with access to the information here. Let them resolve it like they see fit. Let's say there is indeed a 5% problem - it will likely be much easier for Tesla to just build 5% more SuperChargers, using a process they already have figured out, than trying to solve yet another issue.

 

[gregincal]

At the risk of poking the bear, that's what the thread has become. That's not how it started.

How can you say that. The original post was describing that when charging sometimes the OP started with a plateau of 60kW despite the state of charge. Other people confirmed exactly this behavior. Recently these people have said the behavior doesn't appear to occur any more. Everything else in the thread has been speculation and discussion.

As far as your data points you would need to show that people living elsewhere got different charge rates at the same locations to be meaningful. Otherwise you are just showing that some chargers are faster than others, and the two SF Bay Area chargers are a bit slower (the originally reported 60kW clipping did contain confirmation that other people at the same charger didn't experience the clipping for some reason).

 

[scaesare]

On the other hand, I can't imagine that having 5 SuperChargers in downtown London (and a 6th under construction), is in the spirit of facilitating long-distance travel...

Actually I believe Elon subsequently discussed some urban-area Supercharger locations as a possible solution to adress those who live in apartments/condos/ etc.. where they have no real option for home charging.

But again. I maintain that using the superchargers some short distance from your place of residence where you have (or could have) home charging just in order to save a few dollars in not in line of Tesla's intent.

But in reality, we don't know if this is even remotely a problem. Or if it is a problem, if it's up there with other problems. I've never met a local, but I have met a Tesla Employee at a SuperCharger once. So obviously we need to ban Employees from charging, post haste! SuperChargers are for customers.

I didn't address whether or not it was currently a problem. I spoke to my belief regarding what Tesla's intent for them was.

The hyperbole doesn't help the discussion.

 

[jerry33]

But again. I maintain that using the superchargers some short distance from your place of residence where you have (or could have) home charging just in order to save a few dollars in not in line of Tesla's intent.

The problems here are a) prescience and b) lifestyle changes.

Example 1: I can go to the Corsicana or Waco SC and back without actually charging, but I'd have to do a range charge to be sure of making it--especially in inclement weather. I might also be going on to Austin or Huntsville (which I wouldn't have enough range to make it comfortably, and there are no SCs in Austin anyway so I'd be SOL when I got there. It's a day trip so destination charging doesn't apply).

Example 2: When Denton opens up, it's only 35 miles from my house, but what if I was going to where that 35 miles would mean the difference between making it and not making it or stopping at an RV park where they might charge me a full day's stay for a couple of hours of charging--some do. There's no way for Tesla to be able to tell if I was doing that or just being cheap. Even if it was 15 miles rather than 35 the same principle would apply.

Example 3: I now live in a house with charging. If I move to an apartment with no charging and I'm in for a world of hurt because Tesla has already registered my car for a house. Conversely, I moved from an apartment to a house and don't tell Tesla, now I can charge at SCs as much as I want. I really doubt that Tesla wants to play policeman.

In any event, limiting Supercharging goes against Tesla's goal of sustainable transportation by making it more inconvenient than filling up at a gas station. Sure, they'll be people who abuse the system, that happens in every system. Usually it's more costly--both financially and in terms of customer ill will--to prevent than just ignore the few abusers. Even with very tight controls and stiff penalties there will still be abusers (think income tax), so it's not like you'll get rid of the abusers.

 

[scaesare]

The problems here are a) prescience and b) lifestyle changes.

Example 1: I can go to the Corsicana or Waco SC and back without actually charging, but I'd have to do a range charge to be sure of making it--especially in inclement weather. I might also be going on to Austin or Huntsville (which I wouldn't have enough range to make it comfortably, and there are no SCs in Austin anyway so I'd be SOL when I got there. It's a day trip so destination charging doesn't apply).

Example 2: When Denton opens up, it's only 35 miles from my house, but what if I was going to where that 35 miles would mean the difference between making it and not making it or stopping at an RV park where they might charge me a full day's stay for a couple of hours of charging--some do. There's no way for Tesla to be able to tell if I was doing that or just being cheap. Even if it was 15 miles rather than 35 the same principle would apply.

Example 3: I now live in a house with charging. If I move to an apartment with no charging and I'm in for a world of hurt because Tesla has already registered my car for a house. Conversely, I moved from an apartment to a house and don't tell Tesla, now I can charge at SCs as much as I want. I really doubt that Tesla wants to play policeman.

In any event, limiting Supercharging goes against Tesla's goal of sustainable transportation by making it more inconvenient than filling up at a gas station. Sure, they'll be people who abuse the system, that happens in every system. Usually it's more costly--both financially and in terms of customer ill will--to prevent than just ignore the few abusers. Even with very tight controls and stiff penalties there will still be abusers (think income tax), so it's not like you'll get rid of the abusers.

Using a supercharger as you describe in #'s 1 & 2 is consistent with enabling long distance travel. The supercharger doesn't have to be a long distance away. Very different from the scenario being discussed earlier.

As I mentioned above, Elon has referred to some urban area superchargers to accommodate those for whom home/ office charging is not an option.

Both are distinctly different than using a supercharger for the express purpose of avoiding home charging, and it's associated expense.

I'm not suggesting Tesla is, or will, attempt to enforce this as a policy. Nonetheless I maintain that local usage of Supercharging to avoid paying for home charging is not what they intend them to be used for. And quite frankly it doesn't scale well when we get several hundred thousand+ cars on the road.

 

[deonb]

And quite frankly it doesn't scale well when we get several hundred thousand+ cars on the road.

Whao! Since you clearly have access to insider information to have been able to come to that conclusion, could you share:

1. What percentage of time are SuperChargers occupied by locals, for the sole purpose of saving money?
2. What is the total amount of kWh that are dispense to said locals per year?
3. What is the number of vehicles that had to wait in line, or had a slower charge, due to the effect of these locals?
4. What is the equivalent monetary negative effect on lost goodwill towards Model S owners and would be owners, because of SuperCharger stalls that are occupied by money-saving locals when needed?
5. What is the equivalent monetary positive effect on marketing and goodwill towards the on-site business of having SuperCharger stalls occupied at a higher rate? And how much easier does it make it to negotiate more parking spaces with the local establishment?
6. And finally, how many additional SuperCharger positions would have to be added in order to compensate for the effect?

Since you know all this, please do share!

 

[JRP3]

there will be people who wont have easy access to charging, particularly in the UK and in china (and everyone living in a city) where most people dont have garages. Especially in china teslas success will depend on easy to access supercharging. Tesla likely makes money on the included cost of supercharging anyways. you'll get a lot of electricity for 2500 euros and tesla will probably pay very reduced rates for it... Pay per use goes directly against the philosophy of the supercharging.

Except that anyone currently with SC access who also lives far enough away from SC's that they charge at home, pay for their daily charging. Tesla certainly makes money on those people. However the people doing all of their charging with SC's will not only cost Tesla money for electricity they will also force Tesla to build many more SC's, costing even more money.

 

[dennis]

Everybody so far has been using anecdotal evidence akin to "I met a local at a SuperCharger once, therefore locals all over are SuperCharging, and it will mean the end of Supercharging, and the demise of TSLA! It is getting so bad, I almost had to wait in line to charge. Outrageous!"

But in reality, we don't know if this is even remotely a problem. Or if it is a problem, if it's up there with other problems. I've never met a local, but I have met a Tesla Employee at a SuperCharger once. So obviously we need to ban Employees from charging, post haste! SuperChargers are for customers.

My anecdotal experience at San Juan Capistrano indicates that it IS a problem at that location. Most or all of 7 stalls occupied by locals and other owners waiting to charge. And unlike Hawthorne, it doesn't appear that there are easy expansion opportunities at SJC.

This pattern is repeated at the other California suburban Supercharger sites that I am familiar with - Fremont and Gilroy. In both cases dramatic (4->10 or 12) expansion was required, and they are still full many times. And no, I wasn't getting free local electrons in Fremont, I was visiting the Tesla Store at the factory!

 

[deonb]

Except that anyone currently with SC access who also lives far enough away from SC's that they charge at home, pay for their daily charging. Tesla certainly makes money on those people. However the people doing all of their charging with SC's will not only cost Tesla money for electricity they will also force Tesla to build many more SC's, costing even more money.

Back of the napkin calculation tells me, over 150'000 miles, if ALL charging on a Vehicle is done on a SuperCharger, it will cost Tesla around $7200 in electrical costs (400wh/m, 12c kWh).

That vehicle will also occupy a SuperCharger stall for 1000 hours during that time (avg. 60 kW). Taken over 10 years, this is 0.00214% of the usable hours (16 hrs/day) of a 8-outlet Supercharging station. At $300'000 per station, this amortizes to $642. Let's round it up to $800.


So this SuperCharger-only user will cost Tesla $8000, on a car with a minimum gross profit of $18'750 (25% of 70D). Sure, it's not as much as they make out of other people, but this is a sale they would have otherwise not had. So it still adds to the bottom line. They're not losing money.

 

[mdemetri]

So this SuperCharger-only user will cost Tesla $8000, on a car with a minimum gross profit of $18'750 (25% of 70D). Sure, it's not as much as they make out of other people, but this is a sale they would have otherwise not had. So it still adds to the bottom line. They're not losing money.

When they are supply constrained and have more customers than they can handle, they ARE losing money because they could have sold it to someone who would not supercharge for all charging. Also, if their margins were cut almost in half, as your numbers suggest, this would greatly hurt TSLA.

It makes poor business sense for TSLA to sell supercharger rights to someone for $2000 even though it will cost them $8,000. This only works currently because most of us who do not supercharge all the time are subsidizing someone who does. When those who use supercharging 100% of the time represent a sizable portion of sales (e.g. Model III), Tesla will have no choice but to either increase the upfront cost significantly or charge for access on a pay as you go basis.