I don't think super chargers were available at all, period, when I confirmed my car, but I still "paid" for it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Well, crap. That's not good. We now know there is absolutely no communication between the service dept and Tesla HQ on this issue. If the service tech unequivocally states there is no hardware limitation and TM unequivocally states there is then we've got a problem. That concerning by itself.
Now that we received another confirmation, I'll be placing a call to ownership tomorrow to express my discontent with the limitation, their lack of communication, and dissatisfaction with the 4+4 service contract I purchased.
There were posts quite a number of months back about Barstow being upgraded. I don't know when or if that happened, but I recall there were a number of people who reported being very disappointed in the charging speed with the old chargers there and being told that they would be replaced out with the newer chargers. As for Hawthorne being Tesla's "flagship" Supercharger and thus automatically being upgraded, not sure I would agree it's the flagship, but the proof is in the pudding. Are there *any* other people who have used that Supercharger who reported 120kW charging at Hawthorne? Keep in mind, Gilroy received a ton of traffic but had not been upgraded until this past week, and it's not clear that the original 4 bays have been upgraded. But for stations like Centralia, Woodburn, Grants Pass, Atascadero, Buellton -- we have lots and lots of people reporting they are getting 120kW now with 5.x-- but not Sigs and some other low number VINs.
Kraken
Member
Alright, I had a really long post that I shortened earlier to just the 120kw sticker at Harris ranch post. I actually think I was getting 120 out of Harris ranch, but I have no proof for sure. What I do know (and the reason I deleted my long post) is that I was getting 300 mph charging there at 166 miles of charge. This suggests that I was getting well over 300 earlier in the charge cycle, as I think I remember seeing. I didn't think to actually check the kw output at the time.
the reason I deleted that other post is because I based it on the premise that 300 mph meant about 90 kw charging and 400 mph would be 120kw charging. If that was true, my premise, according to the research done in the other thread was that at 100 miles of charge, the tapering curve was the same, and 120 kw charging already matched the 90 kw for anything above that. This would mean that the only difference would be the time to get to 100 miles of charge. At 400 mph (120kw), that would be 15 minutes. At 300 mph (90kw) that would be 20 minutes. This means a total difference of 5 minutes if charging an 85 kwh battery from empty with no one else plugged in at a 120kw charging station.... In other words, rarely you would maybe see up to a five minute difference.
i then figured that tesla knew all this, and that minimal vins were affected for what amounts to a nominal difference, so they don't care. The 120kw charging to them is more of a marketing tool, and good for multiple vehicles charging. The biggest issue in this case would again be their communication process on this (probably assuming most wouldn't notice).
however, my 300mph charging with 166 miles of charge blows a hole in some part of that theory. Either the 300mph didn't equate to 90kw, or the taper curve I was seeing didn't equal out at 100 miles.
the reason I deleted that other post is because I based it on the premise that 300 mph meant about 90 kw charging and 400 mph would be 120kw charging. If that was true, my premise, according to the research done in the other thread was that at 100 miles of charge, the tapering curve was the same, and 120 kw charging already matched the 90 kw for anything above that. This would mean that the only difference would be the time to get to 100 miles of charge. At 400 mph (120kw), that would be 15 minutes. At 300 mph (90kw) that would be 20 minutes. This means a total difference of 5 minutes if charging an 85 kwh battery from empty with no one else plugged in at a 120kw charging station.... In other words, rarely you would maybe see up to a five minute difference.
i then figured that tesla knew all this, and that minimal vins were affected for what amounts to a nominal difference, so they don't care. The 120kw charging to them is more of a marketing tool, and good for multiple vehicles charging. The biggest issue in this case would again be their communication process on this (probably assuming most wouldn't notice).
however, my 300mph charging with 166 miles of charge blows a hole in some part of that theory. Either the 300mph didn't equate to 90kw, or the taper curve I was seeing didn't equal out at 100 miles.
teslasguy
MSP P#1117
Ok, so with all the misinformation and concern floating around over this issue, why doesn't someone just ping Jerome for the definitive answers.
If that has already been done could someone please post the response here?
If that has already been done could someone please post the response here?
There's a really easy way to confirm what is happening and measure the time differential between a 120kW and 90kW charge (note, I'm not volunteering). Simply build a power curve over time like @cinergi did for a Sig model and a later VIN model that are on the same firmware. Won't define the VIN cutoff but will show the different taper curves.
That's what I would like to see, too. There are reports of low VIN 85/Signature tapering quite early to 70kW in the Finally-120KW-Supercharging thread. If that is the case, supercharging with 120kW vs. 90kW becomes moot.
The nature of the limitation to 90kW still remains unclear. I want to add another possibility: older embedded controllers and sensors that govern the tapering curve which can't be updated via firmware flash, only upgraded via hardware swap.
Uh that's exactly what I've been saying... told to me by a higher up tesla regional manager about the use of older prototype chips in sigs and early vins.
I'm not sure what to think anymore. I'm happy for Digitaltim, but if he's got 120kwh and a bunch of us with later VINs don't, then the argument about missing the cut due to advancing technology is standing on very thin ice.
Yea, just saw that. So that's yet further evidence it's a hardware issue and quite possibly a very expensive hardware issue.
As a datapoint, I supercharged twice yesterday on my trip from Boston to the BMW i3 event in NJ. Once at Darian CT (South), and once and Darian CT (North). Both times I was the only Model S being SuperCharged at the time, and both times the power ramped up and peaked at exactly 90 kW for a few minutes before ramping down.
My (wife's actually) S is an early non-sig non-perf 85, VIN 01812
My (wife's actually) S is an early non-sig non-perf 85, VIN 01812
I was notified by Tesla Service today that three of my coolant pumps will be replaced proactively by Tesla because a better and more reliable pump has been designed. I'm thrilled that Tesla is reaching out to its customers to update components proactively as components are being improved. If they are doing this with coolant pumps, pano roofs, and various other items, I'm sure they would also do this with the supercharging hardware if that was an issue.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
I didn't read the entire thread, so this may have already been stated.
Not all super chargers have been upgraded to 120 kW. For example the superchargers at Barstow are only 90 kW. Furthermore there is the possibility that any given charger is not functioning at full capacity. This last week, I charged at Springfield and only got up to 33 kW. I wasn't very low when I started out, but only charged up to a little over 200 miles, as I could easily get to Grants Pass with that. The car had been sitting overnight with temperatures below 20F. I don't know if it was low temperature, or that the charger has a problem. Up to this time, there had never been more than one other Model S at the station.
At Mt. Shasta I know I had over 100 kW charging for part of the time, so the car wasn't the problem.
Not all super chargers have been upgraded to 120 kW. For example the superchargers at Barstow are only 90 kW. Furthermore there is the possibility that any given charger is not functioning at full capacity. This last week, I charged at Springfield and only got up to 33 kW. I wasn't very low when I started out, but only charged up to a little over 200 miles, as I could easily get to Grants Pass with that. The car had been sitting overnight with temperatures below 20F. I don't know if it was low temperature, or that the charger has a problem. Up to this time, there had never been more than one other Model S at the station.
At Mt. Shasta I know I had over 100 kW charging for part of the time, so the car wasn't the problem.
Vger
Active Member
I spoke with an extremely knowledgeable and credible Tesla person today. I cannot say who and I cannot give details until Tesla officially responds (soon). For now:
0) The issue is real
1) Some car's hardware is the issue
2) Tesla knows they need to communicate this; a big plan is in the works
3) in my opinion, more of those affected speaking out constructively now will affect the response/outcome
0) The issue is real
1) Some car's hardware is the issue
2) Tesla knows they need to communicate this; a big plan is in the works
3) in my opinion, more of those affected speaking out constructively now will affect the response/outcome
Odenator
Member
Similar threads
