f3honda4me
Member
Model S charging at 48 amps should see less energy loss than the model 3 at 32 amps (max for M3).
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Model S charging at 48 amps should see less energy loss than the model 3 at 32 amps (max for M3).
Model S charging at 48 amps should see less energy loss than the model 3 at 32 amps (max for M3).
4- Don't really agree on this one. I use supercharging but not that often (and it's not great for the batteries)!
No I'd say that the difference in charge efficiency is 5% at best. The 25% running efficiency is far greater.Running efficiency might be better on the 3 , but charging efficiency is better on the S? So they essentially cancel each other out?
Ah you are correct. But on that same note, the long range model S is 72A. Apples to apples and all that.For the long-range version of the Model 3, the maximum non-supercharger charging rate for the Model 3 is actually 48 amps, not 32A. 32A is the limit of the Tesla Mobile charger that comes with the car and 32A is the limit of the short-range version.
Home Charging Installation
Model 3 road noise is louder for sure. Can tell a decent difference between my MS and my friend's M3 when riding around.What about cabin noise / road noise between the S and the M3? That's what at the moment is keeping me from thinking about going from my MS (lease is up) to an M3.
Thoughts?
Model 3 road noise is louder for sure. Can tell a decent difference between my MS and my friend's M3 when riding around.
No I'd say that the difference in charge efficiency is 5% at best.
The efficiency is from charging at a higher amperage, since the energy loss is given by the integral of the resistive loss (RI*I) over the charging time. I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.I have seen no data on this, do you have some? Somehow I doubt they increased efficiency from 91% to 96% without having also put the chargers in every new car.
91% was already really high for a 10-12kW power supply.
The efficiency is from charging at a higher amperage, since the energy loss is given by the integral of the resistive loss (RI*I) over the charging time. I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.
The shorter the charge time the less loss. I misquoted the RI*I thing. It’s vampire losses. The longer you charge the more energy you lose to coolant pumps, fans, etc.I assume you mean the other way around - I^2R losses increases with amperage, however the auxiliary draw from the computers, pumps, etc, is so high it's always best to charge as fast as possible.
No what I really meant is if you take energy added to the battery and divide by energy consumed at the wall, given 80A @ 230V, I get 91% efficiency. With a single charger I used to see a bit over 92%. My assumption is this is the same for Model 3, I have seen no one claim otherwise. So I hear you say charging is 5% more efficient, I wonder what you're claiming. Do I get 5% of the electricity I paid for back?
Does anyone have any actual data that shows the supercharging is bad for the battery? The only data that I know of, from Scandinavia if I remember correctly, said that the long-term durability the battery was better with those cars that use supercharging. Anecdotally we have an 85 with 99000 miles on it and we supercharge at least four times a week, and still have 258 miles of rated range still.
Holy molly you super charge 4 times a week? How many miles are you putting up weekly and do you follow the 80-20 rule?
We usually charge to 80% every night, and then bump it to 100% in the morning. Well, we rarely really get that last few miles but every once in awhile I get it to 100%. We try very hard never to leave it at 100% for more than a few hours. Dendrite development and all that. We've put about 60,000 miles on it in the last 14 15 months. So a couple thousand a week. Long story. Not worth telling here.