-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Payment Method now on Tesla's My Tesla Page [Since Removed]
- Thread starter ElectricPi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Supercharging
Let's see:
- Model X = Pano windshield
- Model 3 = Pano rear glass
If they make a single crossbar across the B pillar, they can have both in one car. Wouldn't that be cool (sun/moon roof is out however with that design).
I'd say their intent is to integrate transparent display elements into the glass substrate, possibly OLED circuitry for use as a HUD display in the windshield.
- Model X = Pano windshield
- Model 3 = Pano rear glass
If they make a single crossbar across the B pillar, they can have both in one car. Wouldn't that be cool (sun/moon roof is out however with that design).
I'd say their intent is to integrate transparent display elements into the glass substrate, possibly OLED circuitry for use as a HUD display in the windshield.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You know this actually exists and it isn't just for holding in whales...Transparent Aluminum!
I don't think it ever worked that way. Just upthread, @ohmman described how the Supercharger "knows" whether or not the Tesla that just connected to it is allowed to Supercharge or not.
Exactly how Tesla will implement a pay-per-use Supercharging system is not known yet. I can imagine ways it could be done.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Yes, Moles have existed since the beginning of time ... or at least since the rise of Mammals
GBleck
Member
I was thinking an autonomous flipper battlebot.
You ICE vehicle is parked illegally, you have 10 minutes to move you vehicle.
Your car has been moved for your convenience. You now have 10 min to move you flaming wreck. Have a nice day.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Despite the, um, unpleasantness that happened in that other thread, and the presumptuous derisions hurled in my general direction, I'm all for "idle fees", even high ones, as long as there is some intelligence built into the system.
Like as previously mentioned in this thread, as long as there are open SC stalls available for anyone that pulls up, the idle fees would be waived. But the instant the last open stall is occupied, and you're not charging (or tapering above 90%), the idle fees would kick in within a very short period of time, along with notice via app notification, text message, email, automated voice call, whatever.
But levying idle fees just because someone is idle, but not affecting or impacting anyone else, seems braindead.
Also, there's no way this webpage leak was an accident. There's no way, even at Tesla, code gets released to the production web servers without some level of approval process. And this was clearly a very pre-mature version of what they have planned. Nothing has been announced with regard to SC charging policy... they're not going to upload half-assed code to the public without it be 100% intentional.
If Tesla can manage distributing pre-release firmware to only beta testers**, they can manage how to push changes to a test website for testing without pushing it into production, and then rolling it back. Rest assured, everyone in this thread is acting as their free focus-group for feedback and ideas.
**Yes, I know there have been one or two cases of non-beta testers getting beta firmware, but I think those were accidents or fat-fingering.
Like as previously mentioned in this thread, as long as there are open SC stalls available for anyone that pulls up, the idle fees would be waived. But the instant the last open stall is occupied, and you're not charging (or tapering above 90%), the idle fees would kick in within a very short period of time, along with notice via app notification, text message, email, automated voice call, whatever.
But levying idle fees just because someone is idle, but not affecting or impacting anyone else, seems braindead.
Also, there's no way this webpage leak was an accident. There's no way, even at Tesla, code gets released to the production web servers without some level of approval process. And this was clearly a very pre-mature version of what they have planned. Nothing has been announced with regard to SC charging policy... they're not going to upload half-assed code to the public without it be 100% intentional.
If Tesla can manage distributing pre-release firmware to only beta testers**, they can manage how to push changes to a test website for testing without pushing it into production, and then rolling it back. Rest assured, everyone in this thread is acting as their free focus-group for feedback and ideas.
**Yes, I know there have been one or two cases of non-beta testers getting beta firmware, but I think those were accidents or fat-fingering.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
It's very simple.
1. The car tells the supercharger if it is supercharger enabled.
2. The VIN *is* sent during the handshake, but nothing is done with it. Another member has sent the VIN from (I think) an Acura and it still works. You can send any VIN up the line and as long as the "Supercharger" bit set inside the car is a "1", supercharging is allowed.
3. This will obviously change in the near future.
I absolutely disagree, Idle fees should be imposed no matter if there are other Teslas there or not. Why? Because ICEing is and still will be a problem (until towing or expensive tickets become ubiqitous, and even after there will be some who are ignorant or who are just assholes, as with handicapped parking now), and just because a Tesla isn't charging in a spot doesn't mean the spot is available. It isn't a parking spot. Move your car.
Agree with idle fees, have to disagree with charging idle fee for charging above 80% or even 90%. Plenty of valid cases where someone needs to charge that high.
As a former Leaf owner, I know that it's currently illegal in most states to charge by the kWh for electricity unless you are a public utility. It's why EvGo and Blink et all all charge by the minute, as silly as that is. I wonder how Tesla plans to get around that? Maybe by just not caring? They have a track record of flouting stupid laws.
garsh
Re Member
The problem with this approach is it won't detect when the "open" SC has been ICE'd. The one time I went to visit my local SC (just to have a look), there was a truck with a trailer parked sideways across all of the stalls (it's located behind a hotel).
The best way to reduce idling would be to further develop the technology to charge faster. Once the charging time is down to 5-10 minutes, then there's no incentive to leave while the car is charging. But that's a long-term solution, and doesn't help with today's vehicles.
Tesla specifically tells people that they can go eat a meal while the car is charging. So hopefully they allow some amount of leeway (an hour?) before dinging people for idling. Otherwise, those will be some stressful meals. I'd hate to be torn between waiting for the check and running back to move the car.
Unfortunately there will still be people who thoughtlessly leave their Tesla sitting in a charging stall far too long after its done charging, even if it only took less than 10 minutes to charge.
The "idle charge" concept as Hank describes has merit but I agree with you that the idea of waiving the ideal charge when there are open stalls it won't work in situations where a stall has been ICEed. In that situation happens often enough that it presents an obstacle to implementing the "idle charge" plan.
And I also agree with @jkk_ that it would not be fair to penalize people who want to charge above 90% at a Supercharger because there are valid reasons to do so sometimes.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I agree about the 90% issue -- I just threw that in there for when there is extreme congestion and waiting lines at some SC locations.
There have been plenty of times I've needed (or more accurately "wanted") a range charge on road trips when I had the extra time to spare. But if I was preventing someone else from charging for that extra 30 or 45 minutes, in most cases I can think of, I really didn't need the range charge that bad**. I know things are very different out west with huge altitude changes and people need every Wh they can get, but out here in the east, at least for my travels, a range charge is more for the extra cushion if time allows and it doesn't affect anyone else. I suppose if your destination doesn't have good charging options, one might need a range charge to make a round-trip back to the SC, so that's a possibility (hasn't really happened to me though).
** The only time I actually needed a range charge was when I was going between Savannah, GA and St Augustine, FL before there was a SC at Jacksonville. But I made it with charge to spare in both directions (started with about 250 RM, ended with about 35 rated miles both ways).
There have been plenty of times I've needed (or more accurately "wanted") a range charge on road trips when I had the extra time to spare. But if I was preventing someone else from charging for that extra 30 or 45 minutes, in most cases I can think of, I really didn't need the range charge that bad**. I know things are very different out west with huge altitude changes and people need every Wh they can get, but out here in the east, at least for my travels, a range charge is more for the extra cushion if time allows and it doesn't affect anyone else. I suppose if your destination doesn't have good charging options, one might need a range charge to make a round-trip back to the SC, so that's a possibility (hasn't really happened to me though).
** The only time I actually needed a range charge was when I was going between Savannah, GA and St Augustine, FL before there was a SC at Jacksonville. But I made it with charge to spare in both directions (started with about 250 RM, ended with about 35 rated miles both ways).
Garlan Garner
Banned
I don't see a problem at all with leaving your car plugged into a SC forever as long as there is another stall available.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I feel that's potentially a slippery slope, and probably how that one fellow got stuck in a line at a hotel parking lot SC in a rural area late at night. He pulled up in the middle of the night to find a line for the SC because all but one slot was full of Teslas parking overnight. I have to imagine each owner pulled up and thought, well, there's three spots left, I'll just leave my car overnight. Then the next guys says, well, there's two spots left, it's a quiet town, I'll just leave my car overnight. Last guy says, there is one spot open after I park - I'm sure that will cover the low chance of someone needing a charge at 3AM.
Then this happens:
Garlan Garner
Banned
If there is an empty slot available at all times then you should be able to leave your car.
The question becomes. How can drivers be alerted (via phone app or whatever) that "There are no more slots available" when the time comes? That's not for me/us to tackle.
I still believe its ok to park for as long as you like if there is an open stall.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I have a little problem with making a nationwide change/fine/adjustment due to a problem with what I hear is < 5 supercharger locations.
Similar threads
