You took the one remaining free stall? Wouldn't the first guy you're paired with get higher priority and you'd get whatever is left over?
-
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
You took the one remaining free stall? Wouldn't the first guy you're paired with get higher priority and you'd get whatever is left over?
There was one free stall after I took one. Then a few more later. I think the others weren't actually charging more likely shopping. It's not scientific but very curious that it's exactly 60kw mark. Could be coincidence. This weekend I'll start up visible Tesla and hopefully get a better idea. I am heading to Southern California in a few weeks so I want to know if there is a limit, when it is applied so I can plan the journey.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
No issues getting the full 120 kW when we rolled into stall 6A (one of the new ones at the end) with no one in 6B at the Fremont factory SC; we had only 20 miles left. Went all the way to 92% in exactly 60 minutes.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Yeah, I'm pretty sure. He wouldn't let me take any pictures. It was a year ago, and I'm basing this on how the bottles were labeled and what we discussed.. Not just what it looked like.
OK look at it another way, Tesla weren't expecting to spend so much on this advertising/marketing. We know Elon doesn't like spending money in this area
I suspect they were looking to break even / make a small profit for the S based on less kWh used on average across the fleet against what had been set aside to pay for those kWh. This would have lead to a substantial ongoing recurring revenue stream for the 3. (I've seen plenty of analysts use this as a partial justification of TSLA share price). Given the way Tesla has chosen to account for supercharging in it's SEC filings, i.e a deferred revenue rather than a provisioned liability, there's at least accounting evidence someone inside Tesla holds this view too.
OK look at it another way, Tesla weren't expecting to spend so much on this advertising/marketing. We know Elon doesn't like spending money in this area
I suspect they were looking to break even / make a small profit for the S based on less kWh used on average across the fleet against what had been set aside to pay for those kWh. This would have lead to a substantial ongoing recurring revenue stream for the 3. (I've seen plenty of analysts use this as a partial justification of TSLA share price). Given the way Tesla has chosen to account for supercharging in it's SEC filings, i.e a deferred revenue rather than a provisioned liability, there's at least accounting evidence someone inside Tesla holds this view too.
I have serious doubts expense is the problem. If Telsa stopped research and development, they'd be showing a profit, but that's not Tesla. As far as I've ever read, Supercharging was never intended to be a profit centre. At best, when the network is completely rolled out the amount of solar power was supposed to cover, or perhaps even more than cover the cost of the electricity. Right now the network is nowhere near complete. The "we have to make money every quarter, regardless of what's best for the company in the long run, to appease Wall Street" is why many corporations go under. Tesla has good cash flow, so they aren't hurting.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
This is a good thread with lots of good insight. While I haven't done as much roadtripping as some here, I have had a few longer drives (600-700 kms) hitting 3 SuCs along the way spaced by >250 km and widoh's, and other's, experience is also partly mine. Let's be honest, the one and maybe only last obstacle for electric vehicles, is time use on longer trips due to charging. In almost all other aspects EVs (especially Tesla) are already superior to ICEs.
With regards to the taper problem many have said in this thread that charging times could be improved if only Tesla came up with "better algorithms" and that "it's a software thing". Well, while that may be true in one sense the software/algorithm side of it I believe would be literally as simple as changing a few lines of code containing the voltages and temperatures at which tapering occurs. The real issue of course is can the battery handle it? Now this is not a black/white question but rather a question of how the battery degrades over time. I know that there are also strictly physical and electrochemical limits to when tapering must occur, but I'm convinced that Tesla is throttling the charging rate before those physical limits occur. I think of this issue much like range charge. Remember in the earlier software, where there was "Normal" and "Range". Later this was changed to the % slider. Tesla do warn that constantly charging to 100% will degrade the battery faster.
What if there was a user selectable option for Supercharging taper? For example "Normal" v.s. "Aggressive" where the user would have to acknowledge that by charging in "Aggressive" mode the longevity of the battery will suffer and degradation will happen sooner. Of course the user would have to have some sort of idea of how much "increased damage" you're doing to the battery by Supercharging "aggressively" (mind you they haven't given any firm data on this and range charging, other than Elton saying that the effect is small). I assume Tesla have data on this but they're holding their cards close to their chest.
The flip side of this would be of course to remind consumers that the batteries do degrade and eventually will loose significant capacity even if you pamper it. It makes sense to not put the searchlight on this right now, but rather in 4-6 years when the reports of meaningful degradation start emerging. By this time the Gigafactory will be up and running, there might have been one or two step changes in chemistry, prices will definitely have gone down. So it makes sense waiting to address this issue until later.
With regards to the taper problem many have said in this thread that charging times could be improved if only Tesla came up with "better algorithms" and that "it's a software thing". Well, while that may be true in one sense the software/algorithm side of it I believe would be literally as simple as changing a few lines of code containing the voltages and temperatures at which tapering occurs. The real issue of course is can the battery handle it? Now this is not a black/white question but rather a question of how the battery degrades over time. I know that there are also strictly physical and electrochemical limits to when tapering must occur, but I'm convinced that Tesla is throttling the charging rate before those physical limits occur. I think of this issue much like range charge. Remember in the earlier software, where there was "Normal" and "Range". Later this was changed to the % slider. Tesla do warn that constantly charging to 100% will degrade the battery faster.
What if there was a user selectable option for Supercharging taper? For example "Normal" v.s. "Aggressive" where the user would have to acknowledge that by charging in "Aggressive" mode the longevity of the battery will suffer and degradation will happen sooner. Of course the user would have to have some sort of idea of how much "increased damage" you're doing to the battery by Supercharging "aggressively" (mind you they haven't given any firm data on this and range charging, other than Elton saying that the effect is small). I assume Tesla have data on this but they're holding their cards close to their chest.
The flip side of this would be of course to remind consumers that the batteries do degrade and eventually will loose significant capacity even if you pamper it. It makes sense to not put the searchlight on this right now, but rather in 4-6 years when the reports of meaningful degradation start emerging. By this time the Gigafactory will be up and running, there might have been one or two step changes in chemistry, prices will definitely have gone down. So it makes sense waiting to address this issue until later.
^User selectable tapering curve would be otherwise ok, but it would have two PR problems 1) It would tell, that batteries degrade and 2) it would tell, that aggressive supercharging is bad for battery. But I'm OK with it. You could use it, if you were in serious hurry.
OK look at it another way, Tesla weren't expecting to spend so much on this advertising/marketing. We know Elon doesn't like spending money in this area
I suspect they were looking to break even / make a small profit for the S based on less kWh used on average across the fleet against what had been set aside to pay for those kWh. This would have lead to a substantial ongoing recurring revenue stream for the 3. (I've seen plenty of analysts use this as a partial justification of TSLA share price). Given the way Tesla has chosen to account for supercharging in it's SEC filings, i.e a deferred revenue rather than a provisioned liability, there's at least accounting evidence someone inside Tesla holds this view too.
Except I just don't see how this saves Tesla any money. The demand charge thing never made any sense to me, because the highest demand is when all the stalls are full, and even if you limit everybody to 60kW you are still using the same 120kW per paired stations. In terms of total power it's exactly the same power delivered, only more slowly. In terms of discouraging locals from using the Chargers, my experience is that for free power people will use them no matter what the speed. At a lot of places the locals are plugged in for a long time anyway while they go shopping at the mall. So how does this actually save money?
Ok update after my stop in East Greenwich, RI. Got there with 30% soc, only car there and the charge peaked at 80 kW. Changed to an A stall at 51% and initially saw it go over 90 kW for about 5 seconds, pushed back to 80 and then started to taper down to 70 kW all before my battery was at 60%. Gave up and decided to just go home. I'm now being told this is because it's cold and I should see better results in spring and summertime. Sorry but I think that is total bs and at with it being this cold in New England half the year, I'm expected to supercharge twice as long? I just don't know what other steps I can take to get someone to at least run some kind of battery diagnostic on my car or anything other than telling me this is working as intended. Bc If that's the truth, then this car might not be right for me anymore.
It could perhaps save money only because Leccy Spongers are a wildcard in terms of when they charge. If Tesla is trying to optimize costs, including through the use of storage they might be modeling behavior to match long-distance travel patterns.
But I think that overall it would really be about discouraging parking and waiting. And we don't even know it's happening.
Depeche Mode
Member
Doesn't make sense... the usual tapering at 51% SoC is 75 kW not 90 kW... and 62 kW at 60%...
When I read your story it seemed to me you had none of the 59/60 capping, and the kW numbers you quoted were either "normal", or actually higher than normal. How long did you actually stay at the supercharger (from 30% start), and what % did you stop charging (and leave) at?
Here is an example of the taper curve on a "D" pack - SOC vs. charge rate at a 120 kW supercharger. Observed on my car, only one present.
15% - 122.9 kW
20% - 122.9 kW
25% - 118.9 kW
30% - 114.9 kW
35% - 104.7 kW
40% - 97.4 kW
45% - 86.8 kW
50% - 78.9 kW
55% - 71.2 kW
60% - 61.7 kW
The 90 kW threshold is crossed at 43% SOC.
Your later observations line up with that (50% SOC @ 80 kW, 60% SOC at < 70 kW) except for the 30%. Do you have any instrumented data or just visual observation?
(Source: Supercharging Taper Curve for D+ Pack - Page 2)
I have no idea why you think Tesla have good cash flow, they are going through cash at an alarming rate. IIRC they burnt nearly $450m in Q4 alone.
To keep refilling the cash kitty they are issuing convertible-bonds. The interest rates on these bonds are posited on their stock price. So Tesla's access to reasonably priced cash loans it needs to continue to with such bold plans, is based on their appeasement of Wall street. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Anyway getting I'm going way off the issue of restricted charge rates, and into technical analysis which belongs in a different thread so I'll leave it there.
- - - Updated - - -
I posted a detailed analysis of the set aside, and long term depreciation by dissecting the SEC filings, which led me to the conclusion.
I agree, they are making upfront profit on the 60's (manifested in the margin per car), but making ongoing losses on average for existing cars in the fleet on a forward basis due to what I believe is an insufficient forward carry of a mere $500 to cover 20 years of usage. (Latest stats are showing on average across the fleet each Model S is using something like 500kWh)
Anyway... This belongs in the investor section.
And yes, before anyone says, I'm well aware the picture shows I just plugged in, but the kW never went any higher than 80.
Beyond photographs of my center screen, I don't have more in depth instrumental data. I'm on an E pack if that makes any difference. And as regards the 59/60 capping, I did experience that as well about two weeks ago at the same supercharger although at the time there was one other car there (8 stalls) and we were not paired. I don't have documentation of that first time since I didn't expect for that to happen. My problem with this whole experience is that despite having been in contact with both the supercharger side and the service side, I'm being repeatedly told that everything is functioning as normal with my car. I live 45 mins from the closest supercharger and I can't keep making trips out there with varying SOCs to take photographs in an attempt to get them to run a battery diagnostic or do SOMETHING.
Last edited:
Perhaps there was a malfunctioning charger at the Supercharger you were at. At 37% SOC you should have been about 100 kW. However, the rest of your data seemed within the normal taper curve. Watch it closely as you Supercharge again...
Yes it is but I did not have home set in my Nav.
@FlasherZ This is an 8 stall charger and I wanted to give it a chance to ramp up so I was only able to test out two stalls. I also had a brain fart and couldn't remember which stall I had the 60 kW issue with two weeks ago so I can't say for sure it wasn't that one either.
@FlasherZ This is an 8 stall charger and I wanted to give it a chance to ramp up so I was only able to test out two stalls. I also had a brain fart and couldn't remember which stall I had the 60 kW issue with two weeks ago so I can't say for sure it wasn't that one either.
Similar threads
- Question
