Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[apacheguy]

Sure it does. The battery chemistry may not improve radically but there are certainly improvements to the thermal management system and other "in total" aspects of the Tesla battery pack.

Right, it's become apparent through the existence of the Battery Table wiki that there are improvements being made hence the distinction between A, B, C, D packs. However, I don't believe any of us thought that Tesla would switch to a different cell design just months into production. But clearly that's exactly what they chose to do. That is more along the lines of what I was getting at.

Also, let me clarify Jerome's 4 minute assertion. First, I believe the data showed 6 minutes but we'll let that slide. More importantly, Jerome very carefully selected those percentages. If you are charging from near empty to 200 miles the difference is ~15 minutes, not 4. This is the more common scenario at least in my case.

 

[Eggplant]

Where do you see that the battery is from May 2013?

From previous posts, I understand the "T13E" part of the serial number indicates year and month. I take it to mean that E = the fifth month, so this would be May 2013. I don't know if that's a re-manufacture date, or the original date of the pack, since I got it in November. I sort of doubt the pack was sitting around doing nothing for six months though.

 

[tezco]

Would have been informative to have a specific response about some newer cars having older limited packs compared to some other older cars with newer packs. Saying advances are made and can't be retrofitted is one point, saying it's a crap shoot as to what pack you'll get is another.

Yes, this is a big black eye for the marketing department for their failure to check in with engineering prior to issuing their blanket statement. We're experiencing one of the downsides of not having a model year per se, and one of the disadvantages of inserting significant upgrades in the middle of a production run. Could also be part of the reason Tesla is having so much difficulty reducing Vampire Idle Power Losses for the entire fleet. We'll probably be seeing the qualifier "future owners will be able to take advantage of ..." in some of the press releases going forward.

There is also a bit of a feeling that this may signal a slight change in direction of a Company that in the past has bent over backwards to install upgrades in all cars of a particular model. I agree with some that a second pathway should be considered since it is apparent that a pack change will remedy the issue. Make the second pathway available and figure out what the cost of the upgrade is. Then it is reduced to pure economics on the part of the owner.

 

[Discoducky]

4 minutes per supercharger stop max if getting from one supercharger to the next as quick as possible is your goal does not seem like a big deal.

While I realize the communication was not great on this issue, TM is changing the world so I hope those that are affected can move on.

Supercharging is unlike anything else one can experience in this world on 4 wheels. Where else can you harness such an immense delivery of power?

Disclosure: I have a 60kWh and can charge at 105kWh, but do not believe that the time difference made any difference in an actual real world scenario as I drove from Seattle to LA in March with 90kWh and then again in December with 105kWh.

Many superchargers on the west coast are close enough so that you won't need to experience the full 4 minutes of slower charging either. Also, I realize that some want to try to get to their destination as quick as possible and sometimes skip a supercharger or need a higher % of charge as their destination might be far away from a supercharger and thus would see a much slower charge time to get to near 100%. I'd argue the former does not maximize efficiency and the later is getting less likely with every new supercharger.

 

[Fedderman]

Also, let me clarify Jerome's 4 minute assertion. First, I believe the data showed 6 minutes but we'll let that slide. More importantly, Jerome very carefully selected those percentages. If you are charging from near empty to 200 miles the difference is ~15 minutes, not 4. This is the more common scenario at least in my case.

Seems the "official" data from Tesla is 4 minutes difference for 20-90% charge times, and this seems to be approximately supported by bluetinc's data. However we have other data that suggests the "practical" difference is more like ~15 minutes. How do these correlate, or are they contradictory?

Surely Tesla has the max charge rate curves for both 120- and 90-kW limited batteries on a single graph, why can't they provide them? This would allow us to estimate the charge time difference between any two charge levels (which should be plotted in rated miles, not %, to eliminate any ambiguity).

 

[v12 to 12v]

After resending my email to Jerome yesterday, I received the following the following reply at 3 AM this morning (I hope he is on vacation in another time zone):

Dear Dennis:

Thank you for your messages.

I responded to all customers who have contacted me regarding this topic and I would hope that an email from me would be considered as an official communication from Tesla.Jerome Guillen

I read that as a definitive "Tesla is not going to anything for owners of the earlier battery packs." Oh, well.

The one lingering question for me is does the data on comparative charging rates collected by owners here support Jerome's statement that "for a customer charging from 20% to 90% ... the difference in charging time between an early car and a current car is less than 4 minutes"? If so, it is hard to argue with their position.

This does not sit well. I didn't receive an official response. I have an A battery. I have a Signature, and it was supposed to include special amenities and hardware updates on the basic car, above and beyond basic warranty work and defects, as a form of risk abatement. We paid extra for these features. I haven't purchased a new model car in my life and I wouldn't have this time if it were not for those assurances. I didn't write a letter yet because I thought that Tesla was working on it and that they would come up with a satisfactory response. Apparently, I have to compose my letter now.

Apparently he still does not yet understand what the issue is and what the potential long term impacts are. I would have thought that the team would have scanned this thread and the other one at the Tesla Motors forums to get a better idea about the significance of this issue. I have defended Tesla on every other decision they have made. I can't defend this one. I'm a stockholder too. I am afraid that someone is going to say, "See! This is why you need dealers." Don't give them that ammo.

The Tesla team could have come up with a solution for those that were unfortunate enough to get an A battery without notification that they were getting a 90kW instead of a 120kW, such as a discounted update at better than cost at any time during the warranty years of the battery.

Frankly, I am shocked. My mantra has always been that Tesla exceeds expections and always makes things right. My enthusiasm has sold many cars. I need to take a time out before I write my letter...

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

...

Disclosure: I have a 60kWh and can charge at 105kWh, but do not believe that the time difference made any difference in an actual real world scenario as I drove from Seattle to LA in March with 90kWh and then again in December with 105kWh.

...

Small correction to units and numbers. Before the 120 kW charging was enabled, 60 kWh packs maxed out at 70 kW from the then-90 kW superchargers. We 60s got a 50% boost since with the max-105 kW supercharging.

As has been hinted at, the 85 kWh (B+) packs can, in theory, get up to 135 kW (that's their 50% boost from the original 90 kW). The time difference may be a bit more than 4-6 minutes at that time.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

No, Jerome. Your CEO is on record stating that battery tech isn't likely to improve for years until Gen 3 is out.

Let's not pick on Jerome. This man deserves our admiration and thanks in everything that he does at Tesla. He personally responded to owners' inquiries when he didn't have to. Try emailing a senior VP at GM, Ford, Mercedes, Chrysler or any other company. Good luck getting a lucid response. At least Jerome is being honest and is expressing Tesla's thinking on this issue. Criticizing him here is only going to serve one purpose - to make executive management reticent. Nobody wants that. There are absolutely going to be incremental improvements to the battery technology. Of course Tesla should implement any positive changes immediately.

Let's look at this from Tesla's point of view. From Tesla's perspective, the 120 kW superchargers are a group benefit. This particular perspective was shared over at the TM forums... Tesla is planning for the day that all bays are going to be occupied. When two adjacent chargers are being used, the current to each car drops in half. By increasing the total rate to 120 kW between pairs of chargers, Tesla is essentially increasing the charge rate to pairs of occupied chargers by 33% (increased to 60 kW each from 45 kW). In this respect yes, it is a group benefit. The 90 kW limited owners will continue to receive that group benefit even if Tesla were to increase the superchargers to 180 kW - well above today's level.

I'm simply saying that the benefit Tesla describes will become important as more cars hit the road and more superchargers become occupied. Tesla is planning for growth, which is good. Where Tesla is misstepping, in my opinion, is in promoting the full 120 kW rate when quoting charge times and managing expectations. This is more of a marketing issue. From a long view, Tesla should have limited every single Model S to 90 kW supercharging. Then, when 120 kW charging was announced, Tesla should have marketed that as a group benefit as Tesla ships more vehicles. Instead, now everyone expects to receive 120 kW supercharging on their individual vehicles because that is Tesla's current communication. Yes, I'm suggesting Tesla should have limited the capabilities of "later" vehicles in order to maintain a consistency with their (now) stated internal position on the group benefits of increased supercharging rate. If they had done that, this thread would not exist. We would all be happy with our 90 kW charging and all of us would be applauding Tesla for increasing the group throughput. Everyone, including "early" owners, would have celebrated the group upgrade to 120 kW charging because we all could take advantage of it.

Sadly, in the future Tesla may have to consider limiting some functionality if it helps them better manage their public relations and customer expectations. This aspect is going to increase in importance as they ship more cars and have more owners examining their every move.

 

[v12 to 12v]

As has been hinted at, the 85 kWh (B+) packs can, in theory, get up to 135 kW (that's their 50% boost from the original 90 kW). The time difference may be a bit more than 4-6 minutes at that time.

Yes. I was told that I have this to look forward to while at a recent Supercharger event.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Also, let me clarify Jerome's 4 minute assertion. First, I believe the data showed 6 minutes but we'll let that slide. More importantly, Jerome very carefully selected those percentages. If you are charging from near empty to 200 miles the difference is ~15 minutes, not 4. This is the more common scenario at least in my case.

This scenario is not what is being marketed by Tesla. Tesla says the superchargers "provide half a charge in about 20 minutes". Zero to 200 miles is not half a charge.

 

[apacheguy]

Seems the "official" data from Tesla is 4 minutes difference for 20-90% charge times, and this seems to be approximately supported by bluetinc's data. However we have other data that suggests the "practical" difference is more like ~15 minutes. How do these correlate, or are they contradictory?

It is correct for 20-90 % but my point is that Jerome cherry picked this range of SOC to demonstrate the minimum difference. The practical difference, for me at least, is 15 minutes.

Jerome is trying to downplay this and that is unacceptable, IMHO. I don't care who he is or what he's done, I still disagree with his response on this issue. I'm not drinking the cool aide.

While I realize the communication was not great on this issue, TM is changing the world so I hope those that are affected can move on.

@Discoducky - you previously stated "I bet TM fixes it" in relation to the 90 kW limitation. Is Jerome's response "fixing it" in your view?

 

[Fedderman]

This scenario is not what is being marketed by Tesla. Tesla says the superchargers "provide half a charge in about 20 minutes". That equates to 115 ideal miles on a 60 and 150 ideal miles on an 85. That is the context in which Jerome is speaking.

They also show the graph with 170 rated miles in 30 minutes.

 

[gaswalla]

As noted, the 20% to 90% charging is very misleading. When going sc to sc, one would charge ideally from 10% to 70% (85 battery).. The difference between 90kw and 120kw charging becomes close to 30%... That is a meaningful difference.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Surely Tesla has the max charge rate curves for both 120- and 90-kW limited batteries on a single graph, why can't they provide them? This would allow us to estimate the charge time difference between any two charge levels (which should be plotted in rated miles, not %, to eliminate any ambiguity).

But Tesla specifically wants some ambiguity here, can you see that?

- - - Updated - - -

This does not sit well. I didn't receive an official response. I have an A battery. I have a Signature, and it was supposed to include special amenities and hardware updates on the basic car, above and beyond basic warranty work and defects, as a form of risk abatement. We paid extra for these features. I haven't purchased a new model car in my life and I wouldn't have this time if it were not for those assurances. I didn't write a letter yet because I thought that Tesla was working on it and that they would come up with a satisfactory response. Apparently, I have to compose my letter now.

Apparently he still does not yet understand what the issue is and what the potential long term impacts are. I would have thought that the team would have scanned this thread and the other one at the Tesla Motors forums to get a better idea about the significance of this issue. I have defended Tesla on every other decision they have made. I can't defend this one. I'm a stockholder too. I am afraid that someone is going to say, "See! This is why you need dealers." Don't give them that ammo.

The Tesla team could have come up with a solution for those that were unfortunate enough to get an A battery without notification that they were getting a 90kW instead of a 120kW, such as a discounted update at better than cost at any time during the warranty years of the battery.

Frankly, I am shocked. My mantra has always been that Tesla exceeds expections and always makes things right. My enthusiasm has sold many cars. I need to take a time out before I write my letter...

How have you been impacted by this?

 

[DouglasR]

To put the charging time difference in perspective, on my last trip from Seattle to the SF Bay Area and back, only once or twice did I finish eating before I finished charging, and on those occasions, I was happy to have a few minutes to take a cat nap. On my way home, I drove the entire distance (800 miles) in a single day, leaving about 6 a.m. and arriving about midnight. It is possible to do it faster, but at my age, I appreciated having a few breaks. My Model S charges at a maximum of 90 kW. Unlike the two prior Seattle-SF trips I took (when I had either no superchargers or just two of them), charging times were simply not an issue when I had superchargers all the way.

 

[Fedderman]

But Tesla specifically wants some ambiguity here, can you see that?

Indeed, this is obvious, and is feeding the sentiment the Tesla is not being sufficiently transparent. I simply want to know the facts, and at this point it seems it is up to us to get them. With no better data coming from Tesla I believe for my most common use case (charging from ~20-40 rated miles to ~200 rated miles) it may take ~15 minutes longer with an 'A' battery than with a 'B' battery. I can certainly live with that.

 

[v12 to 12v]

How have you been impacted by this?

What is this? An interview for an investigative report?

 

[altman]

P85 Sig 1083, delivered late nov'12

Battery SN: T12K0001598
Battery PN: 1014114-00-A

Confirmed doesn't go over 90kWh.

 

[walla2]

P85 S1045 delivered Dec 4 2012.
T12K0001439
1014114-00-A

On a separate note, I have had several service people tell me my car is unusually fast. Told not to switch the motor or battery ever because something seems awesome. Do others get this type of commentary from Tesla service about their battery?

 

[Jason S]

P85 S1045 delivered Dec 4 2012.
T12K0001439
1014114-00-A

On a separate note, I have had several service people tell me my car is unusually fast. Told not to switch the motor or battery ever because something seems awesome. Do others get this type of commentary from Tesla service about their battery?

Never heard of that. Maybe it is your tires?