-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Steve, based on your comment, it sounds like the vehicle adapter is located in the vicinity of the protective shield. Is the vehicle adapter mounted above or below (under) the shield? If it is located below the shield, how much is the ground clearance reduced (which could be an issue, especially when the air suspension is in the low setting)? What happens if a road hazard hits the vehicle adapter if it is mounted below the car's shield?
Also, how exactly is the adapter interfaced to the car? Tesla has been very picky with not wanting any modifications to their vehicles, even giving grief to some people that hardwired dash cams or radar detectors into their cars and later had electrical issues.
Thanks.
RAM_Eh
Member
Tesla Wireless Charging
We all knew this was coming. Looks like this company will be the first to the market for a Tesla.
https://www.pluglesspower.com/shop/reserve-tesla-model-s/
(no affiliation with this company what so ever)
Rob.
We all knew this was coming. Looks like this company will be the first to the market for a Tesla.
https://www.pluglesspower.com/shop/reserve-tesla-model-s/
(no affiliation with this company what so ever)
Rob.
robertvg
Extremely Well-Known Member
After living with the Tesla for a while now, I really don't see how the fear of plugging in makes sense. It's way more convenient than stopping for gas. Snake chargers will do nicely autonomous parking in the near future.
It just seems like some FUD oil companies made up about electric cars... I plug in my phone, my watch, my mouse, and my car every night. Big deal.
It's a non-problem.
mikeash
Active Member
Electricity transmission losses aren't anywhere close to 50%. More like 5%. How much electricity is lost in transmission and distribution in the United States? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
tliving
Member
The big question outstanding is how it connects to the car and what the ramifications are from that. Also how it integrates or is understood by the Tesla software. Also at $2,4000+ plus the normal cost of a 50A outlet its pretty pricey and almost double what they charge for the other EVs.
Well the units for other EVs are only 3.6 kW, while the one for a Tesla is 7.2 kW, so they charge at double the rate.
Electric700
Active Member
Electric700
Active Member
Someone had asked that I render an opinion on this after seeing the seller's site and expressing some interest in the product to me. This seems like as good of a spot as any to do so.
This is interesting, especially the video of the Model S charging with the charge port closed.
Efficiency issues aside, the modifications to the car required to make this work seem pretty extensive, and I'd be curious to hear more details about everything that the company intends to modify on the car to make this work as demonstrated/advertised. The modifications needed to make it work as demonstrated would have to be pretty invasive, IMO.
Specifically, I'd definitely be curious as to where they're tapping in with their AC power input and how they're getting that from the front of the car to the chargers under the rear seats. If they're touching the HV cables that run from the charge port to the HVJB, that's pretty much a deal breaker for me (and preclude my recommendation to my friend and others) since they're potentially affecting supercharging safety.
Also, if they tap the input feeds to the chargers themselves (between the HVJB and the chargers) then the inductive charger will need to be able to handle ~402VDC back feed during supercharging since these lines carry HVDC during fast charging (the Tesla chargers are designed handle and ignore this). The fast charge contactors do NOT isolate the charger AC-side from the HVDC coming in... in fact they bridge it with the DC side.
Then, to make the car happy to charge while the charge port is closed, for example, will require some kind of modification somewhere for that also. If it were me it'd be intercepting and manipulating CAN to/from the charge port, thus sitting the equipment on the power train CAN bus with essentially direct access to all drive critical systems and potentially control over those systems and possibly extensive control in an autopilot car, for example, if the unit's software security is not top notch. On top of that, Tesla routinely changes their CAN communication protocols and structures, so, the inductive receiver controller would need to be able to be updated as well and would potentially lag behind Tesla on these things resulting in periods of no usability. The "reversible" aspect would seem to lean towards CAN and preclude a physical modification of the charge port.
Seems like a cool idea in theory, but definitely seems like something they'd want to have Tesla fully on board with to make sure the modifications being made were completely safe and have no potential to affect other systems, including Tesla's superchargers. This isn't a Volt or a Leaf where basically tapping the charge port lines could complete the install. The system has to safely handle HV back feed during fast charging as well as manipulate the operation of the charge port's interlock and door to satisfy the car's firmware. The position of the system (in the front of the car) would suggest that there's a run of new HV cable to the rear which could be carrying 402VDC during supercharging to the front of the car in an unspecified and potentially unsafe location.
Overall, while I've made some pretty extensive modifications to the Model S myself, I wouldn't trust many others to do so... especially when it comes to touching items on the HV side of things.
I think some details on what exactly the company will be touching and modifying on the car is something that should be fully disclosed so that prospective customers can make an informed decision. There were no details besides essentially "we'll take care of it" on the web site, which definitely is not sufficient.
This is interesting, especially the video of the Model S charging with the charge port closed.
Efficiency issues aside, the modifications to the car required to make this work seem pretty extensive, and I'd be curious to hear more details about everything that the company intends to modify on the car to make this work as demonstrated/advertised. The modifications needed to make it work as demonstrated would have to be pretty invasive, IMO.
Specifically, I'd definitely be curious as to where they're tapping in with their AC power input and how they're getting that from the front of the car to the chargers under the rear seats. If they're touching the HV cables that run from the charge port to the HVJB, that's pretty much a deal breaker for me (and preclude my recommendation to my friend and others) since they're potentially affecting supercharging safety.
Also, if they tap the input feeds to the chargers themselves (between the HVJB and the chargers) then the inductive charger will need to be able to handle ~402VDC back feed during supercharging since these lines carry HVDC during fast charging (the Tesla chargers are designed handle and ignore this). The fast charge contactors do NOT isolate the charger AC-side from the HVDC coming in... in fact they bridge it with the DC side.
Then, to make the car happy to charge while the charge port is closed, for example, will require some kind of modification somewhere for that also. If it were me it'd be intercepting and manipulating CAN to/from the charge port, thus sitting the equipment on the power train CAN bus with essentially direct access to all drive critical systems and potentially control over those systems and possibly extensive control in an autopilot car, for example, if the unit's software security is not top notch. On top of that, Tesla routinely changes their CAN communication protocols and structures, so, the inductive receiver controller would need to be able to be updated as well and would potentially lag behind Tesla on these things resulting in periods of no usability. The "reversible" aspect would seem to lean towards CAN and preclude a physical modification of the charge port.
Seems like a cool idea in theory, but definitely seems like something they'd want to have Tesla fully on board with to make sure the modifications being made were completely safe and have no potential to affect other systems, including Tesla's superchargers. This isn't a Volt or a Leaf where basically tapping the charge port lines could complete the install. The system has to safely handle HV back feed during fast charging as well as manipulate the operation of the charge port's interlock and door to satisfy the car's firmware. The position of the system (in the front of the car) would suggest that there's a run of new HV cable to the rear which could be carrying 402VDC during supercharging to the front of the car in an unspecified and potentially unsafe location.
Overall, while I've made some pretty extensive modifications to the Model S myself, I wouldn't trust many others to do so... especially when it comes to touching items on the HV side of things.
I think some details on what exactly the company will be touching and modifying on the car is something that should be fully disclosed so that prospective customers can make an informed decision. There were no details besides essentially "we'll take care of it" on the web site, which definitely is not sufficient.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
