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

Slower supercharging on Model 3

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I'm not sure repairing batteries by hand would be economical. Although it does make me wonder whether there's a good economical way to refurbish packs - aka a machine that opens up a pack, tests each cell, swaps out each dead cell for a new one, and seals it back up. So the packs could be sold aftermarket for a small fraction the cost of new ones, providing people with old cars an economic option for replacement. How much labour is involved in a swap?

There pack could be designed to be repaired. The S/X packs are not. Atleast not to physical damage. Could do something with software to avoid bad cells. If packs are going to be recycled, they could also be repurposed or refurbished. Pack torn apart and good cells removed and combined into a new pack. Or the modules are just placed into an energy storage systems with the software configured to no charge the bad cells. Only time will tell but the old batteries have a lot of value and can remain very useful for a long time.
 
There pack could be designed to be repaired. The S/X packs are not. Atleast not to physical damage. Could do something with software to avoid bad cells. If packs are going to be recycled, they could also be repurposed or refurbished. Pack torn apart and good cells removed and combined into a new pack. Or the modules are just placed into an energy storage systems with the software configured to no charge the bad cells. Only time will tell but the old batteries have a lot of value and can remain very useful for a long time.

You can't configure software not to charge specific cells, there's not a controller on every cell. In an old pack you'll have some cells that are still quite good and a small number that are just totally failed, wired up in parallel with the good cells. You need a machine that can quickly identify and remove the bad cells, replace them with new cells (a low cost when you're only talking about a small number of cells), then reseal the pack. At a price that can justify amortizing the cost of the machine.

I'm not sure that S and X production volumes could justify the cost of developing and producing such recycling systems, but with 500k Model 3s rolling off the line per year, I'd think it viable. Which would be really comforting, knowing that refurbished packs might be available for people whose cars are off warranty. I for one will probably drive my car into the ground (unless someone develops an Aptera-like streamliner, wherein, bye Model 3!).
 
"Absolutely not risky"? Do you have weather information readily available with wind direction and velocity for the next 100 miles of your trip? If rain is imminent, do you know how much and over what portion of your next leg?.

Yes, I have weather and wind available at my fingertips and so do you. So does anyone with a phone. A VERY basic origin and destination weather check usually tells you everything you need to know, but you can always add a midpoint(s) if it's a long leg with potentially variable conditions. If you review the forecast for a few hours before and after your eta you're better equipped to know what might happen if the weather report's timing is off. You don't need a degree in meteorology here, just basic common sense. And The Weather Channel app (or equivalent).

I also know how my car consumes relative to the in-car guess-o-meter, including the [fairly minimal] impact from rain. My bogey cruise speed is 80; in the event I hit unexpected conditions, I manage my reserve with range mode and/or speed. Easy peasey.

If I'm feeling really sassy I'll plug variables into EV trip planner, but usually I just budget .75-1% margin for every 5 miles planned driving. That maths out to 15-20% indicated margin for every 100 trip miles. Bear in mind I'm in a classic 60 (that tops out at 187RM), so 1% banter for me is less than other models. That .25% in there is what I use to fine tune for wind/weather/traffic, and I almost always land with 15-25RM without having to sacrifice speed.

For more extreme weather (heavy wind, snow, extreme cold) I add margin accordingly. Knowing what I can actually do within the meat of the bell curve makes that edge case management easy.

I encourage folks unfamiliar with efficient supercharging to pay even the most basic attention to what your car is telling you. Thwarting FUD and range anxiety isn't a binary choice between extreme conservatism and graduate level mathematics.

Planning to arrive with 20 miles isn't risky, it's simply a exercise in trusting your common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush
Soon this 170 mile in 30 minutes will be challenged. Asia doesn't start a tease campaign 5 years before a car goes on sale. Hyundai as I understand are looking to stick more batteries into the Ioniq Electric, and it peaks out at ~300mph already with a 31kWh battery (cheaper than Model 3, although not by a lot). If they manage to crank it up to 50kWh, it may well achieve 500mph, 220-250 miles in 30 minutes.
With short leaps between 100kW chargers, Ioniq Electric may well beat Model 3 over a road trip still. Great economy, bit quicker battery at the optimum SOC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matias
Soon this 170 mile in 30 minutes will be challenged. Asia doesn't start a tease campaign 5 years before a car goes on sale. Hyundai as I understand are looking to stick more batteries into the Ioniq Electric, and it peaks out at ~300mph already with a 31kWh battery (cheaper than Model 3, although not by a lot). If they manage to crank it up to 50kWh, it may well achieve 500mph, 220-250 miles in 30 minutes.
With short leaps between 100kW chargers, Ioniq Electric may well beat Model 3 over a road trip still. Great economy, bit quicker battery at the optimum SOC.
And with the Hyundai reputation for cheating -- for free. You go right ahead.
 
Soon this 170 mile in 30 minutes will be challenged. Asia doesn't start a tease campaign 5 years before a car goes on sale. Hyundai as I understand are looking to stick more batteries into the Ioniq Electric, and it peaks out at ~300mph already with a 31kWh battery (cheaper than Model 3, although not by a lot). If they manage to crank it up to 50kWh, it may well achieve 500mph, 220-250 miles in 30 minutes.
With short leaps between 100kW chargers, Ioniq Electric may well beat Model 3 over a road trip still. Great economy, bit quicker battery at the optimum SOC.


And Supercharging v3 is supposed to work with the new Model 3 cells.........so it's not like the 170 miles in 30 minutes is going to remain the same throughout the service life of these vehicles.
 
And Supercharging v3 is supposed to work with the new Model 3 cells.........so it's not like the 170 miles in 30 minutes is going to remain the same throughout the service life of these vehicles.

Why do you think that? A base model 3 draws half of the capacity of a V2 supercharger; a long-range model 3 still draws only 3/4ths of its capacity. What good would a V3 do?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matias
And Supercharging v3 is supposed to work with the new Model 3 cells.........so it's not like the 170 miles in 30 minutes is going to remain the same throughout the service life of these vehicles.
I've heard that the v3 uperchargers supply the battery with round electrons rather than the typical pyramid electrons. This will of course vastly improve the flow.

Oh, seriously? Faster chargers need either way bigger or way quicker batteries to be fully utilized. Could be all about cost saving again. The v3 may well be a 6-stall charger in one box, each 120kWh, capable of giving 6 cars all they can take at a given time. It won't make Model 3 charge up a second quicker. If I were paying rent per square meter, I'd make holes in the ground so 2 or more would pit in one stall space, multi-story elevator. When done, the car is summoned to GTHO to make room for the next.

The smart thing to do for Tesla would be to introduce faster charging cells (getting 140kW or so for most of the charge from existing chargers) and then v3 chargers to get the most from them. For S/X primary, but very useful for NextGen Roadster to have more output power from a relatively small battery. Like Rimac and NextEV already have in their really fast BEV's. Tesla can survive 5 more years with the 2012 SuC's and cell chemistry. But it will lose a lot of sales. To the point of irrelevance. They need to make a move, not wait to be the last one.
 
  • Love
Reactions: SageBrush
It's possible Tesla is anticipating with all the extra cars most supercharging sessions will be at half rate with two cars on each charger. Maybe they are just being conservative so that people are pleasantly surprised when they see a faster rate instead of the opposite.

Considering how much they are still anti-selling the 3 against the S I wouldn't be surprised to see them throttle the 3 to give the S priority at a supercharger.

Your only hope is that they're quoting the 20%-80% charge time. I presume they'll be quoting the fastest part.

I'm really not surprised that it's slower. The Model 3 is about lowering cost, and part of that is in cell performance characteristics. I suspect that the Bolt charging rate is low(er) for the same reason.

130 miles/30 minutes would be OK for me for occasional travel. 1/2 to 3/4 hour every 2 hours isn't great, but it's not totally horrible either, especially in the context of a charging network with increasing density.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush
So I'll point out that even though everyone is using comparing the 3's rates to the Model S' being able to do 80%@30mins, the previous website design pegged the 80% charge being at the 40 minute mark:
Supercharger.PNG




The more recent design does away with this graphic, and instead has an animated bar without a scale on it, and a reference to 30 minutes... so the implication is that 80% at 30 mins is possible, but that's not explicitly stated. Can't post the animation, but here's a snip with a hashmark at the implied 80% point:
supercharger2.PNG



Given that the Model 3's advertised supercharging numbers aren't that far off from 80%@40mins, and the fact that supercharging rates on the Model S packs has been improved over time, I second the posts that suggest this is conservative and/or may get better as they get more data on the new cell formats..
 
10-80% it seems to mean, per the accompanying text.

So 70% of 81.5kWh true = 57kWh for 85kW average. Just over 1C.
The 40 minute aspect vs 30 quoted for Model 3 does drawn in a fair amout of tapering and/or ramp up time.
 
Last edited:
@scaesare - It's not clear to me on the new graphic what the starting percentage is. Seems to be at the beginning of the loop the pack already has 10-20% so I don't think it's comparable to the previous graphic of the 85 kWh that you show above.

---edit---

And the graphic for the 85 kWh clearly shows 0-80% in 40 minutes. I've never come close to hitting that, though, even on the best of days.
 
Last edited:
220 * .8 = 176miles
130 miles charging per 30 minutes = 4.3 miles per minute
176/4.3 = 41 minutes to 80%
Not sure I understand your point. I get the 176 miles (220 x .8). I understand the 4.3 miles a minute. What I have trouble with is your 176 / 4.3 = 41 minutes issue. You are right if you let your battery discharge to zero. But I would think that is an extremely rare occurrence for most of us. If you assume you had 20% charge or 44 miles when you started charging that would bring your total charge to 132 miles (176 - 44). That would be 30.7 minutes (132 / 4.3) or about 130 miles in 30 minutes. I am assuming, of course, that the average person usually doesn't go to zero before starting to super charge. 44 miles is about my comfort level. I went to 21 miles once but had to reduce speed, eliminate heating, etc. and felt mentally very uncomfortable in an area I was not familiar with, for those last miles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal_tsla
It's not clear to me on the new graphic what the starting percentage is. Seems to be at the beginning of the loop the pack already has 10-20% so I don't think it's comparable to the previous graphic of the 85 kWh that you show above.

To my eyes it appears that the starting point of the graphic is 25%. This makes sense because (25%) 55 + 130 = 185 (84%) for the smaller battery. For the larger battery that same logic would be 78 + 170 = 248 (80%). This is on par with the Model S.
 
To my eyes it appears that the starting point of the graphic is 25%. This makes sense because (25%) 55 + 130 = 185 (84%) for the smaller battery. For the larger battery that same logic would be 78 + 170 = 248 (80%). This is on par with the Model S.

Ok. Got it. So they are saying 25->80% occurs in 30 minutes. That's slower than what Tesla claimed for the 85 kWh battery 3 years ago (0->80% in 40 minutes, see @scaesare graphic above).

To expand further, in order to assume they were exactly equal you would need to pull exactly 120 kw for 10 minutes to get you from 0->25% in an 85 kWh (assuming ~78 kWh nominal full pack). But that's an 85. The 90 and 100 actually start out much slower from 0% and don't ramp very quickly. And 25% represents a greater amount of energy on the 90 and 100 compared to the 85. So, indeed, it appears that Tesla has reduced their claims re: supercharge rate compared to 3 years ago. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: mal_tsla
Agreed.

The issue is Tesla previously said supercharging is 30min 0-80, so 25-80 should be faster than that.

Instead the goal posts have moved. It's probably fast enough, but factually slower than the other cars.

My guess is the new cells have a lower C rate tolerance.

Fwiw the lowest I've arrived at a SC was 8 miles.

Not sure I understand your point. I get the 176 miles (220 x .8). I understand the 4.3 miles a minute. What I have trouble with is your 176 / 4.3 = 41 minutes issue. You are right if you let your battery discharge to zero. But I would think that is an extremely rare occurrence for most of us. If you assume you had 20% charge or 44 miles when you started charging that would bring your total charge to 132 miles (176 - 44). That would be 30.7 minutes (132 / 4.3) or about 130 miles in 30 minutes. I am assuming, of course, that the average person usually doesn't go to zero before starting to super charge. 44 miles is about my comfort level. I went to 21 miles once but had to reduce speed, eliminate heating, etc. and felt mentally very uncomfortable in an area I was not familiar with, for those last miles.
 
You need a machine that can quickly identify and remove the bad cells, replace them with new cells (a low cost when you're only talking about a small number of cells), then reseal the pack. At a price that can justify amortizing the cost of the machine.

Have you looked at how the modules in the S&X are designed? Replacing cells wouldn't be an easy process. For one they are "glued" in, and have bus bars above/below them. So you would pretty much have to completely tear the module apart and rebuild it. WK057 tried to get some cells out and ended up damaging them and causing a thermal run-away before he gave up. (But maybe they have some kind of solvent they can use to release the "glue".)
 
130mi in 30 minutes is 59% of total SR capacity. May well be 21-80%. Or 15-74%.
170mi in 30 minutes is 55% of total LR capacity. Could be 25-80%. Or 20-75%.

If SR shows a higher C rate, perhaps it's got a few more cells than needed for 220mi to keep estimated range at 220mi for a few years against degradation? Or, might Tesla just allow the cells to be pushed harder as to not be too pathetically slow? Also, these are very round numbers, 10's of miles in exactly half an hours. There have been roundings for sure. LR could be quoted on the safe side. 180mi would still be a lower COG gain than the SR's 130, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: transpondster