Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[bluetinc]

Just a note on times, that's an extra 15 minutes extra charging time to 80%, and another 15 minutes extra to 100%, so for long charges (bad weather, long distances between superchargers, last Supercharger in a path, etc.) that is an extra 30 minutes. I generally need this extra more than I use to as my battery capacity has fallen over time/use. For some of my planed trips, that's an extra 2-3 hours of charging time on a 14-16 hour drive. Point being, it is very real, and it really does add up on longer trips, and that time doesn't fall into my "barely significant" category.

Peter

PS. Didn't Cottonwood's data show 15 extra minutes to 80% also?

> I value my time a lot more than the cost of electricity. [too far back to find]

A Distinction Without A Difference

Cottonwood's 'stopwatch' analysis showed about 5 to 6 minutes extra time spent at the SC. Apacheguy's estimate was more like 12 to 15 minutes. From memory.

From a 'road trip' perspective this extra time spent by 2012 Model S'en is barely significant. Only a daily commuter would be impacted by such a delay. But how many commute over 180 miles per day, thus even needing an SC stop at all??

If you are not an 'SC commuter' then this is all about prestige.

Btw, my 2012 vin 1993 had new battery installed summer 2013. It was a freshly arrived batt that was popped in, so no mods made to car. Thus a good test to see if the 90/120 issue is 100% battery-pack specific. So I'll take it to Silverthorne SC, get my burrito first, and then plug it in keeping eyes on the charge rate until it starts to crap out. That should prove it. 85 still using 4.5 firmware.
--

 

[Cottonwood]

> I value my time a lot more than the cost of electricity. [too far back to find]

A Distinction Without A Difference

Cottonwood's 'stopwatch' analysis showed about 5 to 6 minutes extra time spent at the SC. Apacheguy's estimate was more like 12 to 15 minutes. From memory.

From a 'road trip' perspective this extra time spent by 2012 Model S'en is barely significant. Only a daily commuter would be impacted by such a delay. But how many commute over 180 miles per day, thus even needing an SC stop at all??

If you are not an 'SC commuter' then this is all about prestige.

Btw, my 2012 vin 1993 had new battery installed summer 2013. It was a freshly arrived batt that was popped in, so no mods made to car. Thus a good test to see if the 90/120 issue is 100% battery-pack specific. So I'll take it to Silverthorne SC, get my burrito first, and then plug it in keeping eyes on the charge rate until it starts to crap out. That should prove it. 85 still using 4.5 firmware.
--

My latest analysis shows that the 0 to 80% time appears to be about 15% slower than the "ideal" time on the Tesla Supercharger page. I have yet to see any data that confirms that a new MS actually will do as well as the "ideal" web page curve.

With the progress Tesla is making we can meet in Cheyenne and do an A/B comparison. (as long as your 12V keeps working...) :wink:

 

[Trnsl8r]

Just a note on times, that's an extra 15 minutes extra charging time to 80%, and another 15 minutes extra to 100%, so for long charges (bad weather, long distances between superchargers, last Supercharger in a path, etc.) that is an extra 30 minutes. I generally need this extra more than I use to as my battery capacity has fallen over time/use. For some of my planed trips, that's an extra 2-3 hours of charging time on a 14-16 hour drive. Point being, it is very real, and it really does add up on longer trips, and that time doesn't fall into my "barely significant" category.

Peter

PS. Didn't Cottonwood's data show 15 extra minutes to 80% also?

(Bolding mine.)

I'll give you the extra 15 minutes up to 80%, but the remaining 20% the charge rate tapers down and then it shouldn't matter if we're maxed out at 90 or 120 kwh, since we're charging at a slower rate than that regardless, or am I missing something?

 

[bluetinc]

The charging on 120kW is not just the ability to charge at a max rate of 120kW but an updated taper that changes what the charge rate is as the battery fills up. The newer taper should also reduce the time from 80% to 100%, which we don't seem to have (at lease I don't on my car). It would be great if we had a full charge profile from a newer car at 120kW to validate Tesla's page.

Peter

(Bolding mine.)

I'll give you the extra 15 minutes up to 80%, but the remaining 20% the charge rate tapers down and then it shouldn't matter if we're maxed out at 90 or 120 kwh, since we're charging at a slower rate than that regardless, or am I missing something?

 

[wormhole]

Not to throw fuel on the fire but I emailed and called ownership inquiring about my vehicle. The email response back was:

"Thank you for your inquiry about supercharging rate. We are currently looking into the matter with engineering. If we receive any clarification on the 90kWh vs. 120kWh rate, we will let you know. We appreciate your patience."

the phone response was, disconcertingly, that it's "being looked into including at the highest management levels." I was also informed that there is a list being maintained of owners who need to be contacted once the matter is resolved (I presume this is a list of those who have inquired). I say disconcertingly because it seems to me it should be a fairly easy question to answer based on a vehicles hardware specs.

 

[aviators99]

The charging on 120kW is not just the ability to charge at a max rate of 120kW but an updated taper that changes what the charge rate is as the battery fills up. The newer taper should also reduce the time from 80% to 100%, which we don't seem to have (at lease I don't on my car). It would be great if we had a full charge profile from a newer car at 120kW to validate Tesla's page.

Peter

This is huge, if true. I was hoping that the only difference would be the full rate, not the taper. I do not understand why the battery should make a difference in the taper rate. How can that not be all software?

 

[ckessel]

the phone response was, disconcertingly, that it's "being looked into including at the highest management levels."

That's a good thing in my mind. It means it's made it out of the hands of the front line support and/or service center folks and up to the level where action is possible. Not to diminish the folks we talk to directly, but on something like this there isn't anything they can do other than relay our concerns. Unlike, say, a bad 12V or something more clearly in the "fixable by service" category.

 

[Doug_G]

This is huge, if true. I was hoping that the only difference would be the full rate, not the taper. I do not understand why the battery should make a difference in the taper rate. How can that not be all software?

Depending on what is causing the limit, they may be able to simply hold the 90 kW cars at full power longer. In other words, past a certain point the two taper profiles would be identical. Before that point the older cars would simply be held flat at 90 kW.

In that case they could make the 90 kW cars much faster simply by modifying their taper algorithm, and the time difference between the two would be minimized.

 

[apacheguy]

This is huge, if true. I was hoping that the only difference would be the full rate, not the taper. I do not understand why the battery should make a difference in the taper rate. How can that not be all software?

Unfortunately it has also been my experience that we are still limited to the old taper curve. I don't understand it.

Depending on what is causing the limit, they may be able to simply hold the 90 kW cars at full power longer. In other words, past a certain point the two taper profiles would be identical. Before that point the older cars would simply be held flat at 90 kW.


In that case they could make the 90 kW cars much faster simply by modifying their taper algorithm, and the time difference between the two would be minimized.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the question is why are we not seeing this behavior currently?

 

[wormhole]

That's a good thing in my mind. It means it's made it out of the hands of the front line support and/or service center folks and up to the level where action is possible. Not to diminish the folks we talk to directly, but on something like this there isn't anything they can do other than relay our concerns. Unlike, say, a bad 12V or something more clearly in the "fixable by service" category.

while I agree its good that higher ups are looking, that, as I wrote, is not what I found disconcerting. As I wrote, what I found disconcerting is that it even needed to be 'looked at'...it should be a straightforward answer based on hardware.

 

[Doug_G]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the question is why are we not seeing this behavior currently?

Well, one simple-minded possibility is that there has only ever been one algorithm, and all they did was change one number - the starting point - to enable higher rates.

- - - Updated - - -

what I found disconcerting is that it even needed to be 'looked at'...it should be a straightforward answer based on hardware.

On the contrary, we're talking about a pretty complex system. I would expect them to take their time, do a bunch of analysis, and perhaps run some engineering tests, before deciding on a course of action.

 

[wormhole]

What course of action??? They either have cars with two sets if supercharging hardware or not.

 

[ckessel]

while I agree its good that higher ups are looking, that, as I wrote, is not what I found disconcerting. As I wrote, what I found disconcerting is that it even needed to be 'looked at'...it should be a straightforward answer based on hardware.

I think "looked at" means they're deciding how to communicate the issue, what can be done, etc, rather than where the problem exists.

 

[Doug_G]

What course of action??? They either have cars with two sets if supercharging hardware or not.

There are all kinds of possibilities. Things that come to mind include:

• Determining whether these cars can charger faster, through modifying the tapering profile without increasing the peak power
• Determining whether it's possible to moderately increase peak power for those packs
• Investigating whether it is feasible (engineering and/or economics) to upgrade older packs for full 120 kW charging
• Determine whether they can offer a paid-for upgrade, and at what price
• Deciding on a communications strategy for the bad news

 

[tomas]

There are all kinds of possibilities. Things that come to mind include:

• Determining whether these cars can charger faster, through modifying the tapering profile without increasing the peak power
• Determining whether it's possible to moderately increase peak power for those packs
• Investigating whether it is feasible (engineering and/or economics) to upgrade older packs for full 120 kW charging
• Determine whether they can offer a paid-for upgrade, and at what price
• Deciding on a communications strategy for the bad news

+1. I just don't understand why so many of us jump to conclusion that Tesla is incompetent or trying to screw us vs. expecting them to deliberate to figure out the right course of action. As it stands today, we don't know what the cause is, we don't know the potential solutions, and we don't know what course Tesla is going to take.

 

[apacheguy]

• Determining whether these cars can charger faster, through modifying the tapering profile without increasing the peak power
• Determining whether it's possible to moderately increase peak power for those packs
• Investigating whether it is feasible (engineering and/or economics) to upgrade older packs for full 120 kW charging
• Determine whether they can offer a paid-for upgrade, and at what price
• Deciding on a communications strategy for the bad news

Still don't understand why people think this ought to be an out of pocket expense for owners. The fact of the matter is that TM misinformed us (dare I say lied) by saying that 120 kw supercharging would be fully rolled out to all Teslas via a software update. They screwed up and it is on them to fix it. Who knows? Maybe that will be what they end up doing and I will applaud them for making that decision.

However, to add to your list of possibilities I believe this one deserves serious consideration:

Manufacturing a retrofittable part that will be automatically applied as a "hardware upgrade" at no additional cost to owners who pay for service.

 

[Doug_G]

Still don't understand why people think this ought to be an out of pocket expense for owners.

I simply listed a bunch of possible reasons. I did not assign probabilities. Don't assume any of them are correct; and certainly don't assume they're all correct, as that wasn't my intention.

Manufacturing a retrofittable part that will be automatically applied as a "hardware upgrade" at no additional cost to owners who pay for service.

I think that's the same scenario as my third item.

 

[neroden]

Tesla has a problem with communication and you would think by now it would have changed.

I got jumped on here for saying that 9 months ago... now everyone seems to agree. Ah, life.

 

[dennis]

I just don't understand why so many of us jump to conclusion that Tesla is incompetent or trying to screw us vs. expecting them to deliberate to figure out the right course of action.

Most likely because Tesla has to have known about this issue for 9+ months and failed to communicate it to the owners of the affected cars or formulated a plan to address it during that time.

 

[wormhole]

There are all kinds of possibilities. Things that come to mind include:

• Determining whether these cars can charger faster, through modifying the tapering profile without increasing the peak power
• Determining whether it's possible to moderately increase peak power for those packs
• Investigating whether it is feasible (engineering and/or economics) to upgrade older packs for full 120 kW charging
• Determine whether they can offer a paid-for upgrade, and at what price
• Deciding on a communications strategy for the bad news

I think you are missing my point. The OP has hypothesized that there are two sets of hardware. One that can charge at 90KWH, another that can charge at 120KWH. That is a simple yes/no answer. Tesla should already know whether or not this is the case.

Your possibilities already suggest that this is in fact the case and they are trying to figure out how to break the news for those who have the inferior hardware.

- - - Updated - - -

Still don't understand why people think this ought to be an out of pocket expense for owners. The fact of the matter is that TM misinformed us (dare I say lied) by saying that 120 kw supercharging would be fully rolled out to all Teslas via a software update. They screwed up and it is on them to fix it. Who knows? Maybe that will be what they end up doing and I will applaud them for making that decision.

However, to add to your list of possibilities I believe this one deserves serious consideration:

Manufacturing a retrofittable part that will be automatically applied as a "hardware upgrade" at no additional cost to owners who pay for service.

Simple, because they set the expectation that EVERY car will be able to take advantage of the 120KW charging. Not every car forthcoming, every car including those already on the road.