Exactly. They just potentially quadrupled the number of charging spots on the network. Remove HPWC. Replace w/ 4x wall connectors on same circuit. Elon mentioned in the Model 3 reveal quadrupling number of destination chargers if I remember correctly.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New Wall Connector :)
- Thread starter pluginx007
- Start date
Exactly. They just potentially quadrupled the number of charging spots on the network. Remove HPWC. Replace w/ 4x wall connectors on same circuit. Elon mentioned in the Model 3 reveal quadrupling number of destination chargers if I remember correctly.
Actually, it isn't "the Model X 48A setting" any more. It's now "the latest Tesla 48A charging setting". Model S now have 48A/72A chargers as of the redesign.
In the troubleshooting section of the manual, it looks like there are now temp sensors inside the charge handle, the main body of the HPWC, and the input terminals, and charge rate will be reduced (with an error code flashed on the LED) if overtemp is detected. It also looks like the terminal block is moved, with more cable entry options - may be easier to wire (no sharp bends in #2).
Are the temp sensors new? I don't remember this feature. Good fix for the occasional heat issues that have been seen. I also like the expanded breaker options, as I have a spare 25A breaker in my vacation home's garage.
EDIT - I was going to build a 50A OpenEVSE set to 20A for the 25A breaker (the old HPWC didn't have that setting), but I just realized that the OpenEVSE kit + J1772 cable + spare J1772 adapter is more expensive than the new HPWC...
Are the temp sensors new? I don't remember this feature. Good fix for the occasional heat issues that have been seen. I also like the expanded breaker options, as I have a spare 25A breaker in my vacation home's garage.
EDIT - I was going to build a 50A OpenEVSE set to 20A for the 25A breaker (the old HPWC didn't have that setting), but I just realized that the OpenEVSE kit + J1772 cable + spare J1772 adapter is more expensive than the new HPWC...
Last edited:
Just noticed this too in the Tesla Shop.. and thankfully there is an option for the extra long cord. I was disappointed to hear about the reduced cord length bc twice in the past three weeks at a public garage the spot in front of the HPWC was ICEd and the attendant just parked my car in front of that one. in that case I def needed the longer cord. the second time (at another garage) the attendant parked me in the spot next to the charger and I unwound the cord a fer lengths so it would reach the charge port. 8 ft cord may have been sufficient, but i was glad to have the longer cord.
Loving the new price!
aesculus
Still Trying to Figure This All Out
Sorry for the inaccurate post. 125 amp circuit with a 50 amp and 100 amp breaker. Should not type after a long day.
No worries... I just post that in case others read that, making sure the no-no's are well known.
You get 4x connectors with the same circuit, but all 4 cars will be charging at much slower speed, right? Compared to the old HPWC.
It's not clear if the charging would be simultaneous and reduced power per car, or sequential and full power per car. I suspect it is the latter.
For destination charging I would think 4 cars sharing the load would be the fair thing to do. I hope it's dynamic though, plug 1 car in and the HWPC knows to use as many amps the car can handle and when the 2nd car is plugged in, it can split the maximum load between the two. Better yet would be some sort of configurable firmware to handle parallel or serial charging between stations.
Ulmo
Active Member
I love the potential here for destination charging. For only $2,200 of wall connectors daisy-chained together (plus conduit, breakers, trenching, wires, labor, permits, etc.), destinations can incrementally install 1 through 4 charge connectors, such as a 24' HPWC in a 12 parking spot zone first in spot #2, then spot #5, then spot #8, then finally spot #11. This would allow up to 4 Tesla's to park and be charged simultaneously. Since it would take a while to give 4 Tesla's enough charge off of one circuit, it might make more sense to look at this as a way to give coverage to as many parking spots as possible without worrying too much about spots being ICE'd, and considering this just enough for "4" Tesla's to charge overnight. The more I think about it, the ideal is one Tesla per connector, not 3 (which would require switching connectors and not much charge per car). This is best from a parking-lot coverage-perspective, covering 3x the spaces as connectors (or 6x if parked two parking rows back to back with connector in middle of middle parking spots, but this is very uncommon in hotels, however it is common in shopping centers).
This is an expandable situation, which allows destinations to expand with the growing number of Tesla's that visit them. For instance, a hotel with 100 parking spaces 5 years from now who expects up to 15 Tesla's peak per night would be able to put in 15 HPWC's every 3 parking spots to be able to reach 15 Tesla's parked in any one of 45 parking spaces, almost half of their parking lot. The other 55 spots could be covered with similar charger connectors for competing brands of cars, such as Leaf, Bolt, etc. Meanwhile, ICE vehicles would still be able to park in any of the 45 Tesla parking spaces that are not occupied by Tesla's, up to a maximum Tesla utilization level of 15 Tesla's and 30 ICE's.
I would argue AGAINST making a space that is EV-only that has two or three kinds of EV charger connectors at it; that would require that 2 or 3 EV's of different types all compete for one parking space. Instead, each EV charging spot should be optimized for only ONE type of EV charge connection, as I described, maximizing the amount of EV's that can charge there. EVSE's like they installed at Cal Poly could be put in some parking slots, Tesla-specific charger connectors at other parking slots that don't compete with the generalized EVSE's, and any other proprietary EV charger connectors from particular manufacturers or standards (e.g., Chademo) could also have their own parking slot coverage. Positioning of the charger connectors should be such that they can reach up to 3 slots, so that ICE's can park in 2/3rds of the EV charge spots willy-nilly. A green traffic cone marked "EV only #x" or whatever for each charge connector pedestal (with its own "#x" number painted on it) could be left out at at least one of the parking spots of each EV cord reachable zone with a note to parking vehicles to "leave this cone here for EV of type ____, until it is the only space left, then go ahead and move the cone to the curb", so that spaces could be saved from getting uneven distribution of ICE's such that 3 ICE's block an EV connectort and two EV's park next to each other competing for one connector.
Tesla just opened up this real-world practical use for relatively inexpensive upgrades, due to the daisy-chaining capability, low cost ($550/connector), 24' cable, and 277V utilization capability. Yes, there is heavy electrical costs, conduit installation costs, circuit breaker installation costs, licensing and permitting, etc., but this is all much less expensive than it used to be before the release of this upgrade, and it allows for easier time of incremental upgrades in the future.
Then, in about 10 years, when the peak % of EV's parking gets above 33% (or whatever), they can start in-filling; they'd have to run conduit to, say, the 8th spot, and run spots #1-4 each with their own HPWC in every spot, then spots #5-8 and spots #9-12 each with their own HPWC, for a 1-to-1 ratio of HPWC to parking slot, and make those twelve 1-to-1 spots Tesla ONLY (no ICE allowed). In the 45 slot parking lot example I gave above, then there would be (45-12)/3+12=23 Tesla's that could park in that parking lot and charge, which is 23% of the parking, and if added to the other expansion for competing standards/brands would be able to match the overnight peaks above 33%. They could continue this type of infilling, until 45% of the parking lot is Tesla-chargeable, and the other 55% competing brands. This can be adjusted for the market share of each type of EV that would park at that hotel as time passes.
Yes, they'd have to eventually install solar panels covering the parking slots, batteries to store that solar energy, transformers for cloudy days connected to the grid provider, equipment, cabinets, rooms, etc., to handle all of this, but that can be done in stages. Some hotels would have more of this than others, and have their own market share outcomes as a result. A roach motel might have more ICE's than a high end hotel with Tesla's, Bolt's, and Zumbiger's.
(I made up "Zumbiger", since I have no idea what the market will look like in the future.)
This is an expandable situation, which allows destinations to expand with the growing number of Tesla's that visit them. For instance, a hotel with 100 parking spaces 5 years from now who expects up to 15 Tesla's peak per night would be able to put in 15 HPWC's every 3 parking spots to be able to reach 15 Tesla's parked in any one of 45 parking spaces, almost half of their parking lot. The other 55 spots could be covered with similar charger connectors for competing brands of cars, such as Leaf, Bolt, etc. Meanwhile, ICE vehicles would still be able to park in any of the 45 Tesla parking spaces that are not occupied by Tesla's, up to a maximum Tesla utilization level of 15 Tesla's and 30 ICE's.
I would argue AGAINST making a space that is EV-only that has two or three kinds of EV charger connectors at it; that would require that 2 or 3 EV's of different types all compete for one parking space. Instead, each EV charging spot should be optimized for only ONE type of EV charge connection, as I described, maximizing the amount of EV's that can charge there. EVSE's like they installed at Cal Poly could be put in some parking slots, Tesla-specific charger connectors at other parking slots that don't compete with the generalized EVSE's, and any other proprietary EV charger connectors from particular manufacturers or standards (e.g., Chademo) could also have their own parking slot coverage. Positioning of the charger connectors should be such that they can reach up to 3 slots, so that ICE's can park in 2/3rds of the EV charge spots willy-nilly. A green traffic cone marked "EV only #x" or whatever for each charge connector pedestal (with its own "#x" number painted on it) could be left out at at least one of the parking spots of each EV cord reachable zone with a note to parking vehicles to "leave this cone here for EV of type ____, until it is the only space left, then go ahead and move the cone to the curb", so that spaces could be saved from getting uneven distribution of ICE's such that 3 ICE's block an EV connectort and two EV's park next to each other competing for one connector.
Tesla just opened up this real-world practical use for relatively inexpensive upgrades, due to the daisy-chaining capability, low cost ($550/connector), 24' cable, and 277V utilization capability. Yes, there is heavy electrical costs, conduit installation costs, circuit breaker installation costs, licensing and permitting, etc., but this is all much less expensive than it used to be before the release of this upgrade, and it allows for easier time of incremental upgrades in the future.
Then, in about 10 years, when the peak % of EV's parking gets above 33% (or whatever), they can start in-filling; they'd have to run conduit to, say, the 8th spot, and run spots #1-4 each with their own HPWC in every spot, then spots #5-8 and spots #9-12 each with their own HPWC, for a 1-to-1 ratio of HPWC to parking slot, and make those twelve 1-to-1 spots Tesla ONLY (no ICE allowed). In the 45 slot parking lot example I gave above, then there would be (45-12)/3+12=23 Tesla's that could park in that parking lot and charge, which is 23% of the parking, and if added to the other expansion for competing standards/brands would be able to match the overnight peaks above 33%. They could continue this type of infilling, until 45% of the parking lot is Tesla-chargeable, and the other 55% competing brands. This can be adjusted for the market share of each type of EV that would park at that hotel as time passes.
Yes, they'd have to eventually install solar panels covering the parking slots, batteries to store that solar energy, transformers for cloudy days connected to the grid provider, equipment, cabinets, rooms, etc., to handle all of this, but that can be done in stages. Some hotels would have more of this than others, and have their own market share outcomes as a result. A roach motel might have more ICE's than a high end hotel with Tesla's, Bolt's, and Zumbiger's.
(I made up "Zumbiger", since I have no idea what the market will look like in the future.)
Last edited:
And no matter what choice they make, someone will complain
Curious if the firmware can be updated through the car?
I would guess that if the requested power was less than max available, it would supply current to more than one vehicle at a time. That way the cars could control priority, potentially someday even being able to talk to each other and negotiate. This would minimize the requirement for any future firmware changes in the HPWC, no need for a fancy algorithm in the wall unit.
Ulmo
Active Member
The manual only says "The Wall Connector includes a feature whereby Wall Connector to Wall Connector communication allows you to split the maximum available load over a maximum of 4 Wall Connectors. The wire used for this local network must share the main power cable conduit or be housed in a separate conduit.". They do not dictate whether this "split" is via Time Division Multiplexing or Amplitude Division Multiplexing, or both. It is possible this is software programmed, and possible that the software can be upgraded, and this can be changed with future demands. Eventually, a parking lot full of, say, 100 Tesla HPWC's with 25 conduits from however many transformers could have a new specialized software installed in all the HPWC's that makes certain the total aggregate of the 100 Tesla's charging at the same time doesn't exceed the various transformer load levels. Also, they could adjust charge rates according to how much sunlight, battery power, grid power, etc., is available at that very moment, helping to create a buffer in the smart grid with wind and solar power inputs (and even some big outputs like air conditioners).
I just used the (outdated) calculator at Tesla Charging | Tesla Motors and plugged in "150 miles per day, 80A 240V HPWC, Dual chargers (80A)" and got 2.55 hours. If this is what 4x cars did on one circuit, they could split it up to a total of 10 hours 12 minutes to get a full charge on all 4 cars from half of their battery used up. Of course, some cars will want to get a full charge from depletion, but at least they'd get a head start this way. Ten hours is 8 hours sleep + 1 hour shower & food + 1 hour reading/television/Internet.
Variables on this include the 277V, so that's only 8 hours 50 minutes to charge those 4 Teslas 150 miles. If one of the Tesla's with a 72A charger arrived 2 hours before the rest, it would only have 27x4 minutes = 1 hour 50 minutes left of charging to do to get to 150 miles charge by the time the other 3 get there, and those 3 would have have the HPWC's to themselves after that first one is done charging. Of course, some Tesla's would arrive with lower amount of charge left, some with higher amount of charge left. Some would arrive earlier, some later. Some would not park 4x per circuit, but just 3x per circuit or 2x per circuit. Some would be forced to stop at a SuperCharger earlier than others due to the portional nature of the daisy-chained HPWC's. But, at least they would have enough juice to get TO a SuperCharger, and in worst-case situations, they could stay at the hotel another half hour to three hours longer after the other Tesla cars left/completed charging to get a more complete charge without even having to leave the comfort of their hotel room.
I think this will work very well. I would hope that they NOT use the one at a time method you described, since this would make all sorts of odd situations where one car gets fully charged which won't even be used at all that day while others that are about to be used right away are completely empty waiting for the one that won't be used to fully charge.
Last edited:
The new wall connector can support 4 Tesla cars, is that mean you can just buy three extra cables and plug all 4 cables into the same "box"? Or you still have to buy 4 wall connectors (4 x $500 = $2000) to charge 4 Tesla cars?
If it is the second case, I don't see how this new box is an improvement.
If it is the second case, I don't see how this new box is an improvement.
goneskiian
Active Member
It's an improvement because those 4 WC's can now be put on a single 100amp circuit instead of having them all on separate circuits which is nearly impossible on any regular home electrical panel. My home's panel is 200amps. Larger homes get 400amp panels.
I heard back from some folks today... WC's talk to each other and will offer power to multiple cars at once. WC's will offer different charge current levels to cars based upon their SOC (lower SOC == higher current), meaning there is additional communication between cars and wall connectors beyond J1772. That, in turn, can help with troubleshooting charging issues.
The current offered to cars will adjust every few minutes based on car SOCs.
The current offered to cars will adjust every few minutes based on car SOCs.
Last edited:
You need 4 wall connectors.
As noted, in the load calculations, 4 newer WC's count as 1 instead of 4 with the older models. Many households don't have the load capacity to charge more than one car and installing 2 wall connectors would then require double the current from the load calculations. So this allows for a single circuit to be used for charging multiple cars.
Similar threads
