Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I always felt that being an early adaptor was risky but that was tempered for me by Tesla's customer focus, over the air updates, prepaid service for "hardware updates", premium brand, etc. etc. I thought Tesla would likely provide an upgrade path (prorated or low cost---not "free") especially for the Sig Model S but I was wrong.

I don't believe Tesla ever intended to provide free "hardware upgrades" in terms of new features. Rather, I would expect changes to be implemented that affect the reliability and/or mechanical performance of the vehicle.

That is what they did for Roadster. I didn't get the improved cosmetics when they released the V2.5, and I certainly didn't expect it (they did offer it as paid upgrade, albeit expensive). But I did get two free upgrades to the cooling system, which replaced substantial components in the car.

Upgrading 3,000 battery packs - $12 million

You dropped a zero. It's more like $120 million. I'm not expecting them to spend that kind of money. It's not reasonable.

Look, they screwed up, mainly and especially on the communications. They can't really fix it. Time to move on.
 
Oh, I didn't realize that all 60s had the "A" battery designation. Have there been any 60s that are limited to 90 kW or can they all charge >90 kW?

Well actually there are 60s with "B" packs. My 60 has the B. I can only charge at 70Kw, but that is because I am still on FW4.5.

Tesla Pack Serial Label.jpg
 
Not to take this too far off topic, but are you saying that if my service center looks at my pack and says it's in balance, yet I am only charging to 248 rated miles (down from 275 when new), you will believe that I have seen degradation?

Peter

The diagnostics mode has this info, but is only accessible to SC. We need an advanced user menu.
 
I still get hung up on Tesla's internally inconsistent statement about the reason for the 120kW upgrade. It can't both allow for an appreciable number of additional cars to be charged in a given day and have only a minimal impact on the cargo time of each car. They're trying to have it both ways.
 
I still get hung up on Tesla's internally inconsistent statement about the reason for the 120kW upgrade. It can't both allow for an appreciable number of additional cars to be charged in a given day and have only a minimal impact on the cargo time of each car. They're trying to have it both ways.

It absolutely can. The charger is still capable of 120kW output regardless of the capabilities of the cars plugged in. If the priority (A) car is limited to 90kW, there is still another 30kW available to the secondary (B) car. The debate that's raging on here is what the improvement in charging times is when you're the only car on that pair. If the SC is packed full all day, it most certainly can turn out 33% more cars than if the SC itself were limited to 90kW.
 
You dropped a zero. It's more like $120 million. I'm not expecting them to spend that kind of money. It's not reasonable.

Look, they screwed up, mainly and especially on the communications. They can't really fix it. Time to move on.

You are right; bad math. $120 million is not doable, I suppose. Kudos to you for taking this in stride. I do hope Tesla makes some kind of reparations here (free service, accessories, credit towards a future vehicle, etc.)
 
Not to take this too far off topic, but are you saying that if my service center looks at my pack and says it's in balance, yet I am only charging to 248 rated miles (down from 275 when new), you will believe that I have seen degradation?

Peter
The proper protocol would be for the SC to contact engineering, and proceed from there. Unfortunately the SC doesn't handle anything but swapping parts, and when a technical problem arises, they proceed as advised by engineering. At this point, Tesla does not share a lot of technical info with the SC. As you may know, there is no repair of internal drivetrain items(inverter, battery fuse and this list is long), they just replace entire units with "refurbished" items.
 
It absolutely can. The charger is still capable of 120kW output regardless of the capabilities of the cars plugged in. If the priority (A) car is limited to 90kW, there is still another 30kW available to the secondary (B) car. The debate that's raging on here is what the improvement in charging times is when you're the only car on that pair. If the SC is packed full all day, it most certainly can turn out 33% more cars than if the SC itself were limited to 90kW.

^ this

I'm trying to work through Tesla's version of this...

At 90 kW, when adjacent stalls are occupied each car will receive 45 kW. After the 120 kW upgrade, adjacent occupied stalls will each receive 60 kW, a 33% increase in current and a decrease in charge time. All vehicles can take advantage of this and will lead to more cars being refueled in a given timeframe. Even early battery vehicles can take advantage of this increase (assuming occupied chargers) even if Tesla were to increase the superchargers to 180 kW. Is that correct?

If so, marketing the upgrade in this way would require that Tesla have an uncomfortable conversation with customers about the charge rate dropping when stalls are occupied. I believe their simplified marketing message was a result of not wanting to have that discussion. Doing so would undermine their current marketing message for superchargers and make the numbers look less exciting. The reality can often be far less exciting than the marketing promise. It seems like Tesla has boxed itself into a corner.

I'm sure that Tesla upper management is hoping this issue will go away and that owners will blow it off, but judging by the energy in this thread, I'd guess that Tesla may have a problem on its hands.
 
Last edited:
^ this

I'm trying to work through Tesla's version of this...

At 90 kW, when adjacent stalls are occupied each car will receive 45 kW. After the 120 kW upgrade, adjacent occupied stalls will each receive 60 kW, a 33% increase in current and a decrease in charge time. All vehicles can take advantage of this and will lead to more cars being refueled in a given timeframe. Even early battery vehicles can take advantage of this increase (assuming occupied chargers) even if Tesla were to increase the superchargers to 180 kW. Is that correct?

If so, marketing the upgrade in this way would require that Tesla have an uncomfortable conversation with customers about the charge rate dropping when stalls are occupied. I believe their simplified marketing message was a result of not wanting to have that discussion. Doing so would undermine their current marketing message for superchargers and make the numbers look less exciting. The reality can often be far less exciting than the marketing promise. It seems like Tesla has boxed itself into a corner.

I'm sure that Tesla upper management is hoping this issue will go away and that owners will blow it off, but judging by the energy in this thread, I'd guess that Tesla may have a problem on its hands.

Last I checked, the SC load sharing doesn't work that way. The first car to plug in gets all the juice it can handle. The remainder goes to the poor sap who plugged in second. Before the 120-to-car upgrade, it was still 90 for the first car, 30 to the second (meaning, the SC equipment was still putting out 120 total). What I don't know (haven't seen reported) is what happens NOW when there's a 120-capable car plugged in first and a second car plugged in -- does the second car get 0 until the first car starts ramping down?
 
They have a depleted loaner fleet. Why couldn't they swap batteries from new loaners as they are delivered with the existing "A" packs that are in the wild. That would make for a loaner fleet that won't be so quickly depleted. Also, that would also result in all owners that ordered cars with the exact same battery specifications getting batteries of comparable performance. Tesla would then retain their Dudley Do-right image.
 
Which was the intent of my post. Brianman just seems to want to tell me I'm wrong every time I say anything.
Nah, I just misunderstood what you were saying. Mea culpa.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a depleted loaner fleet. Why couldn't they swap batteries from new loaners as they are delivered with the existing "A" packs that are in the wild. That would make for a loaner fleet that won't be so quickly depleted. Also, that would also result in all owners that ordered cars with the exact same battery specifications getting batteries of comparable performance. Tesla would then retain their Dudley Do-right image.
While this would be lovely, I won't hold my breath. That said...

If they would follow through on the Battery Replacement Plan that was previously announced, then something like what you described becomes totally reasonable and perhaps likely. Heck, they could even consider charging a fee in line with the BRP schedule and many owners would probably be satisfied.

I really wish Tesla would be talking about stuff like this rather than what Jerome put out there. :(
 
They have a depleted loaner fleet. Why couldn't they swap batteries from new loaners as they are delivered with the existing "A" packs that are in the wild. That would make for a loaner fleet that won't be so quickly depleted. Also, that would also result in all owners that ordered cars with the exact same battery specifications getting batteries of comparable performance. Tesla would then retain their Dudley Do-right image.

I think most of the loaners eventually get sold. I suppose they could disclose this information to prospective buyers, but I don't think Tesla is racing to find a new way to depreciate the value of cars they haven't sold yet. Don't hold your breath for this solution.
 
I think most of the loaners eventually get sold. I suppose they could disclose this information to prospective buyers, but I don't think Tesla is racing to find a new way to depreciate the value of cars they haven't sold yet. Don't hold your breath for this solution.

Maybe such loaners should never be sold and should stay on permanent duty as loaners. Given the number of service centers mushrooming out there, we'll have good coverage that way. Most loaners will never see a supercharger (as I don't think Tesla lets one take a loaner on a roadtrip?!) so, an A pack is not an issue.

This is a very workable solution if Tesla gradually offers to swap an early customer 90kW-capped pack for a loaner's.
 
Maybe such loaners should never be sold and should stay on permanent duty as loaners. Given the number of service centers mushrooming out there, we'll have good coverage that way. Most loaners will never see a supercharger (as I don't think Tesla lets one take a loaner on a roadtrip?!) so, an A pack is not an issue.

This is a very workable solution if Tesla gradually offers to swap an early customer 90kW-capped pack for a loaner's.

I just bought a loaner,

And its P01966, so its probably an A pack anyway :p
 
It absolutely can. The charger is still capable of 120kW output regardless of the capabilities of the cars plugged in. If the priority (A) car is limited to 90kW, there is still another 30kW available to the secondary (B) car. The debate that's raging on here is what the improvement in charging times is when you're the only car on that pair. If the SC is packed full all day, it most certainly can turn out 33% more cars than if the SC itself were limited to 90kW.

Your 33% figure assumes that every car pair will always have a 90 kW version and that they would have both plugged in at roughly the same low state of charge at around the same time. You're also assuming constant, non-stop use of the stations. In practical use, I maintain that the 120 kw chargers will have little impact on the number of cars charging at a station in a given day.

Honestly it really seems like the 120kW upgrade came about because Tesla made big promises about being about to get "three hours worth of driving range at 60 mph with a 30 minute charge" when Supercharging was first announced and that doesn't happen with a 90kw system.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad my car is 120kw-capable.
 
Your 33% figure assumes that every car pair will always have a 90 kW version and that they would have both plugged in at roughly the same low state of charge at around the same time. You're also assuming constant, non-stop use of the stations. In practical use, I maintain that the 120 kw chargers will have little impact on the number of cars charging at a station in a given day.

Honestly it really seems like the 120kW upgrade came about because Tesla made big promises about being about to get "three hours worth of driving range at 60 mph with a 30 minute charge" when Supercharging was first announced and that doesn't happen with a 90kw system.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad my car is 120kw-capable.

Yes, that's absolutely true, and is the way I meant for it to be taken. Tesla is correct that it's capable of 33% more throughput over the course of the day. In the real world, that will never happen even at the busiest stations. If a station were that busy, it obviously needs to be expanded. The point is, however, we still all benefit from the increased power from the SC if it's busy. It might not charge more cars in a day, but it's still capable of doing so. But then we're getting off topic, because this thread is about peak charging rates and improved tapers and all that stuff. :)
 
Maybe such loaners should never be sold and should stay on permanent duty as loaners. Given the number of service centers mushrooming out there, we'll have good coverage that way. Most loaners will never see a supercharger (as I don't think Tesla lets one take a loaner on a roadtrip?!) so, an A pack is not an issue.

This is a very workable solution if Tesla gradually offers to swap an early customer 90kW-capped pack for a loaner's.

Excellent add on point! There are customers that are disgruntled because they have to drive a gas rental loaner.

This would make for a reliable available loaner fleet. The customer could choose between driving a regular comfy loaner Tesla with a 90kW battery that was swapped out or trying something new on for size. Both options are better than the gas rental that is available right now. It sounds like a win-win.

As long as there are no more surprises, Tesla can maintain their white knight status.
 
Last edited: