-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
No Supercharging for 40Kwh :(
- Thread starter fairlycool
- Start date
Norbert
TSLA will win
I think it is disappointing, although I already had doubts that the smaller packs would be able to support 90 kW, and made some posts here about that. There were also some hints in recent months from Tesla in this direction, but I assume they wanted to make a comprehensive statement and not cause a lot of discussion, back and forth, before they knew what exactly they want to do and offer. There seems to be a still ongoing process as the supercharging option for the 60 kWh pack is still "TBD". For example, perhaps they weren't sure whether to offer it for the 60 kWh pack, until recently. They may have done some extensive testing before making these decisions.
jimbakker666
Member
As a person with a 160 reservation I will confirm that, at least from my perspective. If I can regain my mileage quickly, then I find much more utility in my vehicle. I don't see much point for a family sedan when we can't really go anywhere meaningful. We're literally restricted to a sub-80 mile radius in this vehicle unless we're going somewhere where we can charge overnight.
Now is the time to directly give Tesla your feedback and tell them you *need* fast charging on the Model S variant you would consider buying - and if you would cancel your order if it is not.
If they are considering offering Chademo support, then push them to do so.
If they are not, there still is time for them to do something about it.
If they are considering offering Chademo support, then push them to do so.
If they are not, there still is time for them to do something about it.
Tommy
Member
I think we Americans just got a dose of what our European friends have been clamoring the past few years with Tesla over the need for fast charging via 3 phase.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
It would be useful to get a direct comment from Tesla on the reason why they didn't allow for a lower powered QC for the 160 mile pack. Technically that should be a very simple thing to do, assuming the packs can't even take 2C charging.
I wonder whether Tesla is thinking of SuperCharging only in a very restricted long road tour scenario.
With any EV we are making quite a few compromises. So, people will find novel ways of pushing the EV usage if QC is available. Tesla shouldn't consider just some narrow scenarios.
On the business side, I think lack of QC may make the base version very unattractive and significantly impact S's market, since the next level is a costly $10k upgrade. In the case of Leaf, more than 80% (IIRC) chose to get the trim that allowed them to get QC. Clearly, the lower the range, the more the need for QC.
Again, not to belittle the fact that it's not in the car for whatever reason, but if range really is that important why don't you upgrade the pack size? As it stands, you'd drive 2 hours, then stop and recharge for 1/4 that time (30 mins) to get another hour's worth of driving?
With the 80 mile radius thing, again, buy the car that fits your needs (I think tesla's fact page actually says that outright).
Norbert
TSLA will win
Agreed. I'd guess it is multiple reasons coming together. Perhaps Elon will explain this in an interview, or a blog post on Tesla's website. Also the upcoming Supercharger announcement may clarify the situation. Although that's still a few months down the road.
Can you explain this a bit more. So the 40Kwh battery pack is different that the Nissan Leaf battery pack. I assume you are meaning to say it is inferior too. Is the 60/85Kwh battery pack significantly different from the 40Kwh battery in terms of chemistry/quality? Are those more comparable to the leaf?
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
To make it explicitly clear, there's a good technical reason why Tesla doesn't want to offer supercharging to 40kWh packs at the full 90kW power. But there is no good technical reason for Tesla not to offer it running at half power (45kW).
The critical question right now is if there are any differences in the car itself needed to support supercharging. If there isn't any difference, all it takes for 40kWh cars to use the superchargers is a policy change by Tesla (and maybe some tweaks on the charger side at worse), rather than a costly retrofit on the car.
The critical question right now is if there are any differences in the car itself needed to support supercharging. If there isn't any difference, all it takes for 40kWh cars to use the superchargers is a policy change by Tesla (and maybe some tweaks on the charger side at worse), rather than a costly retrofit on the car.
Kipernicus
Model S Res#P1440
I guess in the end it will come down to where you live, where you want to go, and what options there are in between. Like others have said, with the 20kW charger and an HPC 2.0 you can fill up a good portion of the 40kWh battery in an hour, which if you are stopping for a meal anyways is not that much worse than stopping for 30 min at a Supercharger running at low power. Why tie up a Supercharger when a much cheaper HPC will do?
That said, my feelings are similar to others - I'm rather disappointed in their crippling the base pack and don't want to spend 50k just for an in-town car when I can get a Leaf for much cheaper, which also can QC when the infrastructure improves.
That said, my feelings are similar to others - I'm rather disappointed in their crippling the base pack and don't want to spend 50k just for an in-town car when I can get a Leaf for much cheaper, which also can QC when the infrastructure improves.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The market at $50k is larger than the market at $60k. In the EV community we are demanding that even the cheapest EVs have the quick charge option since that will greatly expand the market. So, to not have QC in a $50K car is an aberration.
BTW, how many of the 6K reservation holders reserved a 160 miler ?
I'm planning on getting a 40Kwh model. With the options I want (pano roof/leather/backup camera/nav/tech package) the price will be closer to $60K + (taxes?).
Zero. At most, 1000 (the Signature reservations) have chosen the 300mi (85). None of the non-Signature have configured any battery choice yet.
I get your points, but I don't really think they addressed what I brought up. Is it an annoyance at a perceived slight or is it something that is genuinely a make or break thing? Tesla hadn't even made mention of the superchargers when most people made their reservations (though they were throwing around 45 minute charges), so I can't see it being the sole reason people reserved the car.
Like someone else just said, it's not like you can't still get some juice in a decent time. If you were sold on the early 45 minute time, then it's just 15 minutes more.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Another question might be if one can later upgrade to an 85 kWh battery, and if that will include the supercharging option then. Some were considering that a while ago.
jimbakker666
Member
For me, range isn't as big a factor as the ability to quick-charge. Price and principal are also big factors. After all, a large part of my motivation for the S was the principal behind it.
The 160 fit my needs when it could be charged in an hour. Considering that I've always owned sub-$20k cars without the bells and whistles, I can't justify within myself having to spend more on the vehicle not because of a change in my personal desire, but because of having my hand forced by the company which overbilled their vehicle to me. Tesla did not say that the 160 would be absent the ability to quick-charge. They didn't say it's range was dependent on a 55-mph driving speed. In fact, I believe their website said or says that the range was based on typical driving conditions. In CA, the highway speed limit is 65mph...a slower speed would be atypical.
Did Tesla know all along that they wouldn't allow for QC on the 160, and that it's range would be based on a 55mph highway speed limit? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have known, after all it is their car. Should I have assumed that what they were telling the world about their vehicle(s) applied only to their top of the line vehicle? I suppose so, but I don't think it's reasonable to place that burden of understanding squarely on my shoulders. If Tesla thinks that's the way to do business, I think they are mistaken. I don't place a lot of faith in companies that play word games with me. I'm not buying a cheeseburger from them, I'm buying an expensive automobile.
Perhaps they are also striving for 5-star safety ratings for the Model S, except for the 160? If they didn't specify, or I didn't read it correctly, then maybe we should all be digging around to see what they really mean by that?
So it's sort of a principal thing. I can sort of accept the range not being a full 160 miles. What I can't accept is Tesla not disclosing to me that my vehicle cannot be quick-charged. Frankly, I would feel like a doofus spending sixty-thousand-dollars on a car that is effectively hobbled from ever being more than a commuter car extraordinaire. To upgrade to the 230 for an additional $10k, a whopping $70k tax+license without options, because of Tesla's inaccurate marketing, is just too much for me to accept. That may actually be the sum total of every car I've ever owned. I think I'd spontaneously combust.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This thread will have more info on C-rates and other battery stuff.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6758-Bigger-Battery-Longer-Warranty
But the short version of it is that I'm saying the battery cells used by Tesla is inferior in C-rate and cycle life compared to the cells used by the Leaf. That doesn't mean the battery pack is inferior though, because a proportional increase in pack capacity will make up for it any deficiencies.
By example:
As you can see, the cells used by the Leaf is ~2x better in both C-rate and cycle life, but because Tesla's battery pack is ~2x larger in capacity than Nissan's pack, the capabilities of the two packs end up basically the same. The larger 60kWh and 85kWh will be proportionally better than the 40kWh pack for the same reason.
jimbakker666
Member
So that I'm clear in my understanding here, can someone tell me how many miles are recovered per hour when charging the 160? What I see via the Tesla Options screen is this:
*EDIT* By the way, Tesla's main features page lists the vehicle ranges @ 60 MPH: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/performance
They're the same as those ranges listed in the new options page @ 55 mph. Convenient!
*EDIT* By the way, Tesla's main features page lists the vehicle ranges @ 60 MPH: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/performance
They're the same as those ranges listed in the new options page @ 55 mph. Convenient!
Last edited:
Tesla is a new car company and I'm sure will make more errors but they've been a great company to deal with. The Leaf is you're only other option at the moment so I guess you have to make a decision. Realistically, depending on a quick charge in the next year or two for travel will leave you disappointed anyway unless you live along the east or west coast. It will be years before there is a Tesla super charger every 150 miles along major highways.
Similar threads
- Question
