-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Painfully crowded and slow charging on I5 between LA and SF
- Thread starter russman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- California USA
ddimit
Member
Tejon is always one of those that I think will be full when i arrive but never is, or the turn over has been pretty good. For me the problem site has always been Harris Ranch. Either chargers down or long waits. The waits I think are in part due to the Restaurant being a sit down type where people tend spend a lot of time and don,t seem to be to concerned to move the car once completed.
I think that is very likely to be one reason why the Harris Ranch Superchargers can be so crowded midday. People go inside to eat lunch and may not go back out in 45 minutes or so to unplug their S and move it because they are busy eating.
Because Harris Ranch is fairly close to Tejon and Gilroy there is no reason for people headed towards those Superchargers to take more than 45 minutes to charge (unless they are headed for Sacramento or Mohave) even if they are sharing a charger pair, and often they may only need 20 to 30 minutes of charging time.
Both of those locations would free up Tejon and Harris Ranch a lot. I did not see Fresno or Kettleman on the Supercharger map. How do you know about these locations?
Kind of exciting to see this infrastructure being built around the entire country (world).
Kind of exciting to see this infrastructure being built around the entire country (world).
It would be nice to have some visual clue on the supercharger stall when charging is actually underway. AeroVironment chargers (and some other brands) have this.
When a vehicle is plugged at a supercharger at Harris and is not charging, other drivers could inform one of the Harris Ranch restaurant employees and an announcement could be made: "Could the owner of the blue Tesla with ___ state license plate _______ move his car so others can charge? Thanks."
snort
Member
Seems like there are several technical solutions. The most obvious is to simply provide a bunch more supercharger berths at crowded stations like Harris Ranch. If the problem is indeed that some of them are being "ICEd" by Tesla owners taking longer to eat dinner than their car took, then they are not drawing much power and the load on the system would not be increased all that much. I don't think the expensive part is the charger berth, but the switching and transformer equipment, and probably upgrades to the local substation, which for a fully powered 12 berth station, would be about 1.5MW load.
another would be for the navigation app to communicate with the supercharger network and tell the user that (for example) "12 of 12 bays in use, 6 cars waiting, 18 cars en route." If I'm still far enough out, I may be able to change my schedule or my route to avoid the backup. Tesla has the data; it shouldn't be too hard to collect and redistribute it in an anonymous but useful way. If you're using it, the navigation app knows where you're headed, but even if you're not, the recent range anxiety stuff has a pretty good idea.
That said, I've noticed that the various components of the car are highly asynchronous. For example, it often takes me a minute to put something in the trunk, unplug, coil and hang up the cord from the HPWC, and just as I go to get into the car, it withdraws the door handles. It knew I was fiddling with the charger, but the clock seems to start from when I opened the trunk. this extreme encapsulation is probably a software engineering mandate from fairly high up in Tesla engineering, and the reason that more data is not available about SpC status is likely a manifestation of this same decision.
I think this is a really encouraging problem to be having, because it means that there is real demand for lots more superchargers.
--Snortybartfast
another would be for the navigation app to communicate with the supercharger network and tell the user that (for example) "12 of 12 bays in use, 6 cars waiting, 18 cars en route." If I'm still far enough out, I may be able to change my schedule or my route to avoid the backup. Tesla has the data; it shouldn't be too hard to collect and redistribute it in an anonymous but useful way. If you're using it, the navigation app knows where you're headed, but even if you're not, the recent range anxiety stuff has a pretty good idea.
That said, I've noticed that the various components of the car are highly asynchronous. For example, it often takes me a minute to put something in the trunk, unplug, coil and hang up the cord from the HPWC, and just as I go to get into the car, it withdraws the door handles. It knew I was fiddling with the charger, but the clock seems to start from when I opened the trunk. this extreme encapsulation is probably a software engineering mandate from fairly high up in Tesla engineering, and the reason that more data is not available about SpC status is likely a manifestation of this same decision.
I think this is a really encouraging problem to be having, because it means that there is real demand for lots more superchargers.
--Snortybartfast
Kettleman is pretty close to Harris, though there are certainly way more options for food. But it seems like opening a site at Santa Nella or Los Banos would take pressure off of both Harris and Gilroy.
siucity
Button Pusher
To take pressure off of Harris Ranch, Tesla would need to build something north and south of it. It's about 200 miles between Santa Nella and Tejon Ranch, so you'll either have to charge for a bit longer at either location, or you're still going to stop at Harris Ranch. Lost Hills would be a good location between Harris Ranch and Tejon Ranch.
I don't want to get my hopes up, but I've contacted Tesla multiple times about Fresno and kept an eye on all the resources that hint at where superchargers are coming next including supercharge.info.
Care to tell me how you know it's only 2 to 3 months away? Even Teslas own future map doesn't show it until 2016 and it used to show it as 2015 but then rolled over.
- - - Updated - - -
That's right. Neither do I because there aren't any superchargers along 99, so I'm forced to cut over. Most folks coming from the north (not the Bay Area) will travel 99 if there was a supercharger along that route. 5 is out of the way, only 2 lanes, and a bumpy road. 99 is 3 lanes most of the way and is of much higher quality and has *far* more traffic going through it than 5 does.
Sure, but I can guarantee that 90% of the traffic that Harris Ranch sees are either folks from LA or the Bay Area. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't know of anyone from those parts who takes the 99 v the 5. Now, sure, some Central Valley folk (ie. from Merced) definitely take the 99 but you guys don't account for all that much traffic at Harris. I just don't see Fresno reducing congestion at all at Harris which was the posited claim.
ddimit
Member
If there was a SC in Fresno I would gladly take that route instead of 5, both routes are the same distance to Tejon, with 99 being a way better route, better road and 3 lanes for a good portion. Going on i5 is just agony for me with all the truck traffic
Fresno will help for Yosemite from a So Cal perspective. I'm very skeptical that it would take any load off Harris tho.
Putting in Sacramento in Google Maps from So Cal doesn't even show the 99 as an alternate. It seems like greater distance to me because you have to take the far East side of the valley.
update: just did it. Guys it's 2 extra hours to take the 99 v the 5!!!
ddimit
Member
HUH i don't know how you got that I have driven both routes and just did a google map drive from Tejon ranch supercharger to my house, via i5 is 4 25 mins and 299 miles. and via 99 its 4 hours 30 mins 302 miles (3 miles longer).
Similar threads
- Article
