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.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My car won't charge faster than 60kW
- Thread starter David99
- Start date
That is the most interesting theory I've heard so far.
At the moment I am working 74 miles from home. I left home with about 240 miles of range. I don't need to charge to get home, I have 150 miles of range shown as remaining. . But I am going to stop at the Petaluma charter on the way home and see what charging speed I get.
At the moment I am working 74 miles from home. I left home with about 240 miles of range. I don't need to charge to get home, I have 150 miles of range shown as remaining. . But I am going to stop at the Petaluma charter on the way home and see what charging speed I get.
Last edited:
bollar
Disgruntled Member
That was not the case for me yesterday in Ardmore, OK. I had enough charge to make it home and I did have "home" plugged in as the destination. Max charge was 97 kW.
And how can TM possibly determine what constitutes "abuse" without seriously screwing people who need access to the local SC because of their lifestyle? Just because someone is only less than 60 miles away from their home doesn't mean that they have the luxury of going home to charge up adequately. For example, owners who aren't intending to go and stay home for the day and can then charge up at night at a lower utility rate.
- - - Updated - - -
That would mean that TM assumes all you need is enough to get to your destination. What if there's no charging at the destination? What about afterwards? There is no logic to limiting max charge based on an algorithm that would have to accurately predict your needs and behavior after SC.
Not sure about that. I visited the Ardmore OK Supercharger (new 135kw) yesterday on a round robin trip and had about 30% left and not enough electrons to make it home. I happened to have visibletesla on at home and noted the following.
At about 13:20 I noticed the slow rate and moved to another unloaded charger (you can see this in the graph) and I did not fare any better.
Maybe it is just me but I cannot figure out why I charged slowly while others visiting that location (bollar, Danal) in the same general timeframe charged normally. And I have not visited a supercharger since last November. I'm not attempting to fuel the conspiracy theories, but the data is the data.
Hi Cosmacelf.
I have the same problem and didn't set any destination on my nav/gps when I used my nearest SC..
Hi again PunchIT
I have new data and theory here. I charged on the nearest SC as I mentioned on my previously post. I tested out a theory. On the navi I deleted my home adresse. I got 114kw when I charged at the nearest SC where I got the 60kw limitation for past 3 weeks. I'm not sure this is just a coincidence or not. I'll set my home adresse back on navi and test it again. My FW is 6.1(2.2.173). I got 60kw limitation after I got the latest FW.
I wouldn't mind having my theory (post #113) confirmed.
How else could Tesla check for "charging close to home"? Frequent charging at the same Supercharger doesn't necessarily mean it's convenience charging close to home (not that this might not be necessary in some locations ...)
I have a feeling we're going to find out on Thursday.
To add to my earlier post (below): right now I am at the Petaluma SC charging at 71kW. Started charging with battery at 51% and navigation destination set to "Home" which means 56 miles away. So I am not being limited to 60kW despite having plenty of charge to complete my trip home.
Well, I experienced throttling at superchargers 100 miles and 200 miles from the home location in the Nav system!! Your theory, not correct!
Edison, NJ and Delaware, are the only two superchargers I have used in long a while(~7 months), so I think frequency of charging at the same location can be a factor.
I agree with Archer, I don't see how an announcement including 60kwh throttling could be spun in anything but a negative light. I would rather it be a technical cause as the explanation. What constitutes "local" and "heavy use" anyway? How Tesla would make that determination might seem arbitrary and unfair to some....People who take regular long-distance road trips could still fall under that, as could someone who drives to multiple destinations in the same day over greater distances. What if you're coming home from a meeting over 100 miles away to pick someone up and need to head out somewhere soon afterwards? What if your job has you meeting with clients all over the place and you rely on the superchargers to get from place to place in time? Is that abuse? Elon said use it as much as you like. So many lifestyle differences to base assumptions on.
I know throttling is not technically violating "free supercharging for life" and it wouldn't be the first time the company changed things on people, but Tesla didn't get where it is today by treating customers in a way where they felt they had to read the fine print carefully or they'd be swindled. I just wasn't led to believe from the sense I got early on that Tesla would do something like try to play detective with who should be using the superchargers and who shouldn't. It feels like they went out of their way in the beginning to make people feel comfortable on the idea of superchargers with no strings attached, as I'm sure many people took them with a grain of salt, especially the "free for life" part. Would one expect Tesla not to honor the infinite mile warranty if a car has 500,000 miles on it? The idea of throttling just feels disingenuous and counter to Tesla's past customer-friendly, benefit-of-the-doubt image. At best throttling is an inconvenience, at worst there is no workaround and people can no longer use the car as they were able to before. That goes against the ideal of Tesla not needing an ICE backup.
I also believe using throttling as a means of discouraging is backhanded and shortsighted. I can imagine how a S60 user who paid the $2,500 outright might feel knowing they're now being "discouraged" from using them, which some people had in the back of their minds all along. What will happen is the majority, some if not most out of necessity, will not change their charging habits and just take longer, wasting their own time in lesser used areas, and tying up the stalls for everyone else in busier ones. Lose-lose.
I know throttling is not technically violating "free supercharging for life" and it wouldn't be the first time the company changed things on people, but Tesla didn't get where it is today by treating customers in a way where they felt they had to read the fine print carefully or they'd be swindled. I just wasn't led to believe from the sense I got early on that Tesla would do something like try to play detective with who should be using the superchargers and who shouldn't. It feels like they went out of their way in the beginning to make people feel comfortable on the idea of superchargers with no strings attached, as I'm sure many people took them with a grain of salt, especially the "free for life" part. Would one expect Tesla not to honor the infinite mile warranty if a car has 500,000 miles on it? The idea of throttling just feels disingenuous and counter to Tesla's past customer-friendly, benefit-of-the-doubt image. At best throttling is an inconvenience, at worst there is no workaround and people can no longer use the car as they were able to before. That goes against the ideal of Tesla not needing an ICE backup.
I also believe using throttling as a means of discouraging is backhanded and shortsighted. I can imagine how a S60 user who paid the $2,500 outright might feel knowing they're now being "discouraged" from using them, which some people had in the back of their minds all along. What will happen is the majority, some if not most out of necessity, will not change their charging habits and just take longer, wasting their own time in lesser used areas, and tying up the stalls for everyone else in busier ones. Lose-lose.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
If Tesla were to actually limit/throttle supercharging deemed "excessive" close to home I would be very, very concerned and I'd very seriously have to consider getting out of my entire TSLA investment.
If the SC network gets overwhelmed at certain places during certain hours there are only two solutions worthy of Tesla: build more stalls + charging sites and make the SCs charge faster (not slower!).
If the SC network gets overwhelmed at certain places during certain hours there are only two solutions worthy of Tesla: build more stalls + charging sites and make the SCs charge faster (not slower!).
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
Last edited:
Well, there was grumbling in the beginning as it became known charging speeds slowed due to paired stalls, tapering, colder weather and such. But those were known quantities that were technical limitations. An effort to discourage certain users seems self-serving, contrary to however such an announcement might spin it. If a supercharger with 10-12 stalls frequently gets used to 100% capacity and the charging prioritizes longer distance travelers somehow, I can understand that. But not to be the lone car at a SC finding your speed artificially reduced, amid rosy talk of future efforts to bring even faster charging speeds.
Larry, your explanation then seems to make much sense, as there's no other benefit I can think of. Tesla has traditionally emphasized customer experience and goodwill (unlike companies like Comcast) over blind pursuit of profit and pennypinching, so an initiative like this would be somewhat of a departure from that.
Larry, your explanation then seems to make much sense, as there's no other benefit I can think of. Tesla has traditionally emphasized customer experience and goodwill (unlike companies like Comcast) over blind pursuit of profit and pennypinching, so an initiative like this would be somewhat of a departure from that.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
But here's the counter intuitive problem... if you throttle users at a crowded supercharger, unless you are able to drive them away, you risk INCREASING the wait time... The one thing that would ever so tiny slightly make sense if you have a paired situation, a "local" (whatever that means) user is there first, a second "non local" car connects to the second charger and the charge for "local" drops to give more power to the "non-local" driver. But that is NOT what we are seeing.
I am much more inclined to say that we are seeing an unintended side effect of something else that they are testing...
Well, there are a few explanations that occur to me:
1) Tesla is responsible for charging rate limitations beyond normal tapering and ambient temperature reasons
A) They are trying to save money on demand charges
B) They are trying to adjust some owner's charging behavior
2)Tesla is not responsible for any of this and some of us are hallucinating. :wink:
I vote for 1A. It may be a departure from the past, but it is a publically traded company and it can't continue indefinitely to burn through cash without adjusting its strategy.
Item 1B would in my opinion, be an incredibly stupid public relations move and not worthy of Tesla.
Item 2 in my opinion is highly unlikely
Larry
Obsoletion
Member
The demand savings doesn't make sense as the demand charge is determined by the maximum 15 min load over the entire month. So only throttling some wouldn't change that
Similar threads
- Question
