You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
what is the lowest vin that we know of that has proven 120kw charging? (I think I saw 2446...anything lower?)
I disagree with the sentiment that a lack of a qualifying statement from tesla that certain cars won't be able to do 120 means that they implied all cars will be able to support it.
Tesla said:1) Currently our Super Chargers have an output lower than its full potential. When our Engineering team in charge of Super Chargers are ready to increase the output it should increase power output to an ideal potential of additional 30% (speculation and not fact at this time). This upgrade will likely come inform of firmware and hardware (not on the Model S but on the Super Charger units) but details will likely not become public, but if it does it will be available on our web site or made public by Elon Musk.
I don't buy this argument and actually think it is strained like many of the other arguments for why Tesla should fix the early owners (I am one of them).
I'm definitely not trying to be disagreeable here. Things don't always come out the same in an email or forum thread as they do in a conversation so please don't take offense but I don't think Supercharging is ambiguous. It is not binary and never was. It was always variable. And expanding the range for newer cars does not violate the definition.Sorry, I disagree. It's not a strain to say that two owners who pay the same for a 2012 model year car should have received the same functionality especially when they both were sold a car that included 'Supercharging.' This is like contract interpretation. Ambiguity shall be resolved as against the party drafting the contract. Tesla sold people cars that included 'Supercharging' and we have since learned that is an ambiguous term. Tesla claims to have included Supercharging with the early cars but it's a lesser version of Supercharging. Also, let's not pretend it's something Tesla included as a gift for free; it's listed as a feature on my window sticker.
Anywho, I hope they fully enable Supercharging on your (and everyone else who didn't get it) car.
It wouldn't surprise me if he was already testing a 100+ kWh battery in his car. His car isn't expected to be a gauge for customer cars in the present -- at any point of 'present'.Does Elon's S charge at 90kW? or more...
Good point.If I were to visit a battery exchange station instead of a supercharger, would there be a possibility that my new battery pack would be an older 90kWh limited pack?
That would pretty much torpedo my interest in ever using the battery pack swap service to refuel the car.
Any intelligent person knows to not mess with bonnie.I'm serious, tone it down. Saying things like 'any intelligent person knows' will get your entire post a ride to snippiness. All of you. No more word games. Keep it respectful or I'm going to do some major housecleaning. And I'd really rather enjoy the day.
Let's talk about trust for a moment. If this happened, I'm currently tempted to immediately ask formal questions directly of Jerome and request a formal response on behalf of Tesla. If the response doesn't sound legally binding, I'd probably press on until it does. This erosion of trust is a huge problem that continues to get worse.If Elon announces next week that the superchargers are going to 150 kW, then what... are we all going to expect a free upgrade?
Define "earliest" I guess. The first official SuperCharging unveiling/announcement on Sept 24th, 2012 said this:Especially since the highest rate originally mentioned was 90kW.
...providing almost 100 kilowatts of power to the Model S, with the potential to go as high as 120 kilowatts in the future.
Define "earliest" I guess. The first official SuperCharging unveiling/announcement on Sept 24th, 2012 said this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120925135117/http://www.teslamotors.com/superchargerAt 90 kW, a Tesla Supercharger delivers 4.5x more electricity to your battery than Twin Chargers.
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...arger-network-delivering-convenient-free-longWe will soon roll out 120 kW Superchargers, which are 33% faster than our current version and can replenish half a charge in just 20 minutes, for free.
Bottom Line: After 40 min charging we went from 6 miles SOC to 200 miles so "194 miles after 40 minutes". Ended the session at 50 min = 222 miles at which point the taper was becoming really tedious for anyone other than a hyper-miler.
--
Yes, you have a special situation (that I don't believe anyone else here shares) in that you have people with 120kW both in front and behind your VIN number. I suspect that your car was made right at the cutoff point (same batch) and the details of VIN/component sourcing/production date etc. made it so you got the limited battery.For my particular situation, I still have a problem older VINs than mine having 120kw capability. One can argue that out of sequencing happens, but how far out of sequence is getting old hardware still acceptable? 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? That seems like a subjective line and, for me, Tesla crossed it.
Thanks for doing the side-by-side comparison. Extrapolating to zero, it would have taken at most 1 minute to add 6 miles at that charge rate so we'll tack that on to your 40 minutes.
Bottom Line:
41 minutes to 80% SOC (200 rated miles) at 120
55-58 minutes to 80% SOC (200 rated miles) at 90
That's a huge difference!
"Huge"? I'll go with "measurable", maybe even "significant", "noticeable" is appropriate, but "huge" for 14 minute? That's a half-cup of coffee or a few more pages in a novel. Let's keep it all in some perspective.
"Huge"? I'll go with "measurable", maybe even "significant", "noticeable" is appropriate, but "huge" for 14 minute? That's a half-cup of coffee or a few more pages in a novel. Let's keep it all in some perspective.
Hmm, no I didn't hit ~206 mile SOC until into the 43rd minute (43rd minute began at 205). And I did begin at 00 min. So properly: "43 min to add 200 miles".
No. Remember that the first 6 miles are added much faster than the 6 miles going from 200 to 206. Those first six miles are added in less than a minute.