New Wifi Wall Connector 48 amps?

[Rocky_H]

Super interesting, but I don’t think stuffing a bunch of expensive charging equipment in every car is a reasonable solution to the very infrequent “worst case” scenario you describe above. Even here in charger-rich CA, I almost never come across public L2 chargers anywhere near 72 or 80A. They’re just not a thing.

You seem to be intentionally looking through the wrong end of the telescope to not see what is going on here.
We are not asking Tesla to do this in every car, regardless of whether each person needs it. Stop putting words in people's mouths. But the point that several people have been making is that for a significant number of people and locations, this is intensely useful, and Tesla has eliminated it as an option at all and will not offer it for anyone to choose to buy. That is what is frustrating about this. They don't need to build it in every car, but it's still important to offer the option for people who need it.

 

[Uncle Paul]

I believe that when Tesla offers those double stacked 600 mile batteries, they will also offer the option for higher amperage dual charging.

Probably offer dual Supercharging as well. Perhaps with a socket on both sides of the car, allowing hooking up to two Superchargers at once.

When Tesla offered the expensive dual on board charger/invertors, many got them...just in case. For most they never had the need, but liked the comfort of having them available for fringe edge cases. Perhaps only use it once a year or so, but getting a quiet satisfaction when that time came. Cybertruck, New Roadster, Truck, and perhaps even PLAID will have that option once again.

 

[Rocky_H]

I believe that when Tesla offers those double stacked 600 mile batteries, they will also offer the option for higher amperage dual charging. [...] Cybertruck, New Roadster, Truck, and perhaps even PLAID will have that option once again.

Nope. A lot of people had thought that...until they just deleted that capability from their wall connectors.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Not thinking of home wall connnectors, but for long distance travel charging. With current 240V wall chargers, even the largest batteries can usually charge enough to get through the next day. Not considering charging form 0-100% regularity.

 

[captjoemcd]

This has always been the case and is not new with the Gen 3 WC. You could put them on individual breakers and feed with whatever size circuit was necessary for your setup. #3 was never required if you didn't need 80A charging.

Splitting the total available power coming into a panel or subpanel is the new, significant feature. On Gen 1 and Gen 2, if you wanted to daisy chain power, you had to wire the feed to every WC with the same size wire rated for the total current available, even if your intent was never to charge above 48A on any of the daisy-chained WCs. If you wanted to split 80A continuous over 2-4 WCs, you had to wire the whole thing with #3, fed from a single 100A breaker. Now, you can run 2-16 (I know, no one will run more than 3-4 in a residential setting) from a subpanel with a 100A feed, with #6 to each of the WCs, each on a separate 60A breaker, and have them share the 80A continuous coming into the subpanel safely. Running 2-4 Gen 2 WC's set at 48A on individual 60A breakers in a 100A subpanel wasn't/isn't possible.

 

[random155]

I just put a 14-50 pigtail cord on my new Gen 3 Wall Connector. Works great. Here's what it looks like before I mounted it:

View media item 120900View media item 120901

I just scored a gen 2 HPWC and this is very tempting vs wiring in a new breaker. I have a nema 14-50 extension cord that I may hack up now and make this pigtail.

 

[Ostrichsak]

Splitting the total available power coming into a panel or subpanel is the new, significant feature. On Gen 1 and Gen 2, if you wanted to daisy chain power, you had to wire the feed to every WC with the same size wire rated for the total current available, even if your intent was never to charge above 48A on any of the daisy-chained WCs. If you wanted to split 80A continuous over 2-4 WCs, you had to wire the whole thing with #3, fed from a single 100A breaker. Now, you can run 2-16 (I know, no one will run more than 3-4 in a residential setting) from a subpanel with a 100A feed, with #6 to each of the WCs, each on a separate 60A breaker, and have them share the 80A continuous coming into the subpanel safely. Running 2-4 Gen 2 WC's set at 48A on individual 60A breakers in a 100A subpanel wasn't/isn't possible.

With the obvious difference that the new HPWC simply isn't capable of supplying more than 48A to any one vehicle. If one never plans to own a vehicle that exceeds that then there's no negative to this catch. If one does, the added wiring cost is the difference between being able to utilize the 72A/80A charger upgrade they paid for in times when they really need to charge quickly for whatever reason. To those people, having access to the older HPWC with the higher capabilities is important. They require higher charge rates and the cost of getting that isn't critical as evidenced by their investment for the higher charger capabilities in the first place.

 

[Silicon Desert]

I paid $1800 extra for my MX when ordering the 72A upgrade in 2017. And would do it again.
I agree the HPWC wiring install for 80 theoretical amps is a pain... (actually it was not only a pain, also $$$) but it was worth it. I really like charging at 17kW at home. With about 2 hours notice I can easily add 40% to my state of charge.

yes, I am in the same camp. Love the fact that I can charge at 72A at several places. Some people are not going to understand why though

 

[tga]

Splitting the total available power coming into a panel or subpanel is the new, significant feature. On Gen 1 and Gen 2, if you wanted to daisy chain power, you had to wire the feed to every WC with the same size wire rated for the total current available, even if your intent was never to charge above 48A on any of the daisy-chained WCs. If you wanted to split 80A continuous over 2-4 WCs, you had to wire the whole thing with #3, fed from a single 100A breaker. Now, you can run 2-16 (I know, no one will run more than 3-4 in a residential setting) from a subpanel with a 100A feed, with #6 to each of the WCs, each on a separate 60A breaker, and have them share the 80A continuous coming into the subpanel safely. Running 2-4 Gen 2 WC's set at 48A on individual 60A breakers in a 100A subpanel wasn't/isn't possible.

What wasn't clear until I read the installation manual is that there are 2 amperage settings on the new WC - total power available to all WC's, and the circuit to each. So you could feed 2 WC's from a 100A subpanel, and breaker each at 60A from the sub. One car can charge at 48A, two will charge at 40A each. With the Gen 2's there's only one setting, total power available (in this case, 100A). So, to your point, you'd need to connect both Gen 2 WC's on a 100A circuit (since they'll offer 80A), even if your cars won't draw more than 48A.

I would have preferred they keep using a bigger contactor and the old heavy gauge cable (did they downsize the cable for the Gen 3?). Even if no new home users need more than 48A, 80A installations are a bonus for public charging, even for new installations. There are plenty of cars out there with 72/80A charging, and charging them at full rate improves throughput at shared public charging stations, benefiting all drivers (even those who can't use the full capacity).

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Another Tesla downgrade. I'm so glad my Model S charges at 80A with a wall charger to match. Tesla is really dumbing itself down.

 

[woodguyatl]

The 3rd gen looks pretty great. Daisy-chaining is done over WiFi, can support up to 16 wall connectors, and each wall connector is individually breakered (no need to run #3 to each wall connector) and can split total power coming into a subpanel. Thinner cable (since it's only rated up to 48A). Wish they'd been around a month ago when I bought 2 Gen 2's - it would have enabled me to build the exact setup i'd wanted.

The V2 could each be on their own circuit and still load balance. The V3 can not share a circuit. How did the V2 limit you?

 

[ucmndd]

The V2 could each be on their own circuit and still load balance. The V3 can not share a circuit. How did the V2 limit you?

Totally agree. I see the benefit of the new load sharing arrangement in say a commercial setting, where maybe you've got a bunch of units in a dedicated subpanel and you don't want to exceed the rating of the whole panel - but I'm struggling to see the usefulness of the new arrangement for most home users. If you're running each one on its own circuit anyway, why do they need to share load at all?

 

[MP3Mike]

If you're running each one on its own circuit anyway, why do they need to share load at all?

Because otherwise you might exceed your total panel capabilities. (Or exceed the acceptable load ratings.)

 

[tccartier]

Range is king and charging time to turn around is paramount. The more you have of the former and the less you need of the ladder makes for a better electric vehicle ownership experience period.

My goals when ordering my Model S were simple to get the biggest battery I could afford the highest power chargers I could afford and when I installed my home charging solution bring as much power to the car as I possibly could either that my car could handle or that I could afford.

 

[woodguyatl]

Because otherwise you might exceed your total panel capabilities. (Or exceed the acceptable load ratings.)

I don't understand. The v2's can communicate and stay below a maximum combined electrical draw. For instance, I just installed three v2's on a single 100 amp circuit. Each is set to allow a maximum of 80 amps individually with a combined max of 80 amps.

Edit, I guess the advantage is the ability to load share across more devices and run smaller wires but with more homeruns.

 

[captjoemcd]

Totally agree. I see the benefit of the new load sharing arrangement in say a commercial setting, where maybe you've got a bunch of units in a dedicated subpanel and you don't want to exceed the rating of the whole panel - but I'm struggling to see the usefulness of the new arrangement for most home users. If you're running each one on its own circuit anyway, why do they need to share load at all?

My main panel is on the far side of my house from my garage (125 feet), so I had to run a new 100A subpanel to the garage solely for the chargers. I'm not staying in the house more than 2-3 more years, so I wanted to run standard wiring from the subpanel to the chargers so I have the option to replace them with NEMA 14-50s when I leave without changing the wiring. With the Gen 2 chargers, this means i'm limited to 100A total breakered capacity and 80A continuous, so I've got one on a 60A breaker set at 48A and one on a 40A breaker set at 32A, instead of both being on 60A breakers sharing the available 80A continuous.

Full discussion here:Wall Connector/Charger Daisy Chaining on Separate Breakers

 

[MP3Mike]

I don't understand. The v2's can communicate and stay below a maximum combined electrical draw. For instance, I just installed three v2's on a single 100 amp circuit. Each is set to allow a maximum of 80 amps individually with a combined max of 80 amps.

Exactly. The poster asked why V2s needed to be able to share the load, that is why.

 

[Rocky_H]

The V2 could each be on their own circuit and still load balance. The V3 can not share a circuit. How did the V2 limit you?

Ummm, no. Both versions can share circuits and load balance, but the methods of current allocation are a little different between them.

 

[lowtek]

Ummm, no. Both versions can share circuits and load balance, but the methods of current allocation are a little different between them.

As a datapoint, the Gen 3 requires its own dedicated breaker.

 

[Rocky_H]

As a datapoint, the Gen 3 requires its own dedicated breaker.

This needs clarification: Not dedicated main breaker at the main panel, but does need its own dedicated sub-breaker in the sub-panel just before each wall connector--still on the one main branch circuit.

The version 2 could split the power wiring the exact same way, with sub-breakers. They are still functionally very similar, with a slight difference. You would still do one main run to get the single circuit to your garage. Then, with both versions, you did have to split up the power connections first, with some kind of box, just before putting them into the wall connectors. That could be done a couple different ways, but you could use subpanel with breakers with either one. There is both more and less flexibility in different aspects of the two methods:

With the version 2, there is less flexibility about how you allocate the current, so you have to size the feeds for all as if they are the max. But because they are all going to be the same size of wiring and amps, you have some flexibility in how you wire that upstream junction box. You don't have to use breakers, but can do wire to wire Polaris-type splices.

With the version 3, there is more flexibility with how you allocate the current, with a lot more potential devices on the circuit, and you can spec them for various smaller amp levels instead of max, so you can use smaller wire for that last leg connections. But then that does require less flexibility with the upstream box. For whatever amps you are picking for each one, you do have to then breaker it for that.