Slower supercharging on Model 3

[david_42]

Small reminder, 90% of charging on Teslas is done at home. I think many folks overestimate the frequency in which they would exceed the vehicles range in any particular day.

I suspect we will be closer to 99%. About the only time we might use a supercharger would be if we drive to Vancouver, B.C. We'll make Seattle on one charge, even with the standard battery. As long as we have our Sprinter, we will use that for longer trips, 650 miles on a tank and a queen-sized bed in back!

 

[FlyingKiwi]

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.

Erm, how exactly will a V3 supercharger go faster? The existing model 3 isn't capable of using the full power of the existing superchargers, and no-one has posted anything I've seen about coolant passages or extra pins in the model 3 connectors to enable some higher power charging technology so I fail to see how plugging a 350kW (or whatever it is) charger in is going to sudden make the car charge any faster.

 

[arnis]

Erm, how exactly will a V3 supercharger go faster?

It won't. People with no technical knowledge just made that up. S/X/3 will not charge faster on V3 Supercharger.

 

[scaesare]

Tesla never said supercharging is 30 min 0-80%. The original claim was 80% in 40 minutes, and that was with the 85 kWh battery.

Well, to be fair they did phrase things a bit awkwardly at times. along with the "80% in 40 minutes" graphic from Tesla's site that I posted earlier in this thread that was part of a previous website version, it was accompanied by the following text:

...we recommend charging to 80%, which is typically enough to reach a neighboring Supercharger station.

Using a Supercharger is as easy as using a Wall Connector. You simply plug in, walk away and in approximately 30 minutes you have enough range to get to your destination or the next station

So while not explicitly stated, it sounds a bit like the 80% mark was what they were referring to in 30 minutes... which is where I think folks got tconfused. But I agree that was never what Tesla said outright.

Additionally the caption in the graphic refers to the 40 minute charge taking the car from 10% to 80%, so you are really only gaining 70% charge (although admittedly if you start below 10%, it doesn't add much additional time, and not a whole lot of folks are going to plan rolling in to a superchargers with only 10 miles of range buffer...).

 

[apacheguy]

Um, pretty sure the graphic explicitly referred to 0->80% in 40 minutes. AFAIK, nobody has ever supercharged at this advertised rate.

 

[apacheguy]

Like here:

Supercharger | Tesla Motors

 

[arnis]

Most get 70% of charge within 40 minutes.
New big packs can get 75% within 40 minutes (new 90 and 100 packs are more capable).
Getting 80% within 40 minutes is theoretically doable though it doesn't happen.

 

[apacheguy]

Most get 70% of charge within 40 minutes.
New big packs can get 75% within 40 minutes (new 90 and 100 packs are more capable).
Getting 80% within 40 minutes is theoretically doable though it doesn't happen.

Can you please post an instance of a 90 or 100 kWh pack doing 0->75% in 40 minutes? I've never seen evidence of this. These packs start out extremely slowly at less than 5% and take like 20-30 min before they ramp to a meaningful rate.

 

[apacheguy]

A 90 kWh without throttling does 10->75% in 36 minutes. Although I know for a fact that it definitely cannot pull off 0->10% in 4 minutes.

For comparison, an 85 kWh does 16->75% in 35 minutes. 10->16% would take roughly 3 minutes, so it is only 2 minutes slower than the 90 kWh for the same SOC range.

 

[scaesare]

Um, pretty sure the graphic explicitly referred to 0->80% in 40 minutes. AFAIK, nobody has ever supercharged at this advertised rate.

Here's the subsequent version of the graphic and the text that accompanied it... note the "10% to 80%" comment:

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm getting tired of this site, guys.



Everyone speculates. We find out more info about the car, and then 3 months later, people go back and thumbs down your comments and pick them apart, Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest.


Refrain from being that guy. No one is impressed that you disagree with my WAGs. You all make them too. Let dead threads stay that way.

 

[JonathanD]

Here's the subsequent version of the graphic and the text that accompanied it... note the "10% to 80%" comment:
View attachment 251758

And per the caption, I guess we need a new acronym. Instead of YMMV I guess it's YCTMV!

 

[arnis]

Can you please post an instance of a 90 or 100 kWh pack doing 0->75% in 40 minutes? I've never seen evidence of this. These packs start out extremely slowly at less than 5% and take like 20-30 min before they ramp to a meaningful rate.

I saw a graph somewhere, but not video of charging screen.
Though it appears one should avoid going below 5% for maximum ramp in the beginning (to avoid losing time).
YCTMV will definitely apply. Thermal load is nr1. Also restriction if case of charging very often. And internal resistance going up with years.

 

[FlyingKiwi]

I'm getting tired of this site, guys.



Everyone speculates. We find out more info about the car, and then 3 months later, people go back and thumbs down your comments and pick them apart, Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest.


Refrain from being that guy. No one is impressed that you disagree with my WAGs. You all make them too. Let dead threads stay that way.

Perhaps you should keep your WAGs to yourself until you can come up with something based in reality or at least supported by a logical argument instead of wasting bandwidth with noise?

 

[apacheguy]

Here's the subsequent version of the graphic and the text that accompanied it... note the "10% to 80%" comment:
View attachment 251758

Ah, gotcha. It's funny tho because if you analyze the graphic you can see the shaded grid lines at 25, 50, 75, and 100%. The graphic clearly shows the car starting at 0%.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Perhaps you should keep your WAGs to yourself until you can come up with something based in reality or at least supported by a logical argument instead of wasting bandwidth with noise?

You're new here, aren't you? Take a look around before singling someone out over WAGs.


logical argument based in reality:

I'll have my car at least 365 calendar days before you. While you're still criticizing "the noise" in an internet forum, I'll be driving.

 

[scaesare]

Ah, gotcha. It's funny tho because if you analyze the graphic you can see the shaded grid lines at 25, 50, 75, and 100%. The graphic clearly shows the car starting at 0%.

I agree... it's not as clear as it could have been.

I wasn't really trying to prove anyone wrong here... only to point out that, combined with the unclear Tesla site text I posted above, I think there was some confusion earlier on about what exactly was the "published spec" for things.

 

[FlyingKiwi]

You're new here, aren't you? Take a look around before singling someone out over WAGs.


logical argument based in reality:

I'll have my car at least 365 calendar days before you. While you're still criticizing "the noise" in an internet forum, I'll be driving.

You get your WAGs, I get to rip them to shreds

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Perhaps you should keep your WAGs to yourself until you can come up with something based in reality or at least supported by a logical argument instead of wasting bandwidth with

You get your WAGs, I get to rip them to shreds

I'll be ripping up my rear tires. It will be more fun than "winning an internet fight"

 

[SageBrush]

You get your WAGs, I get to rip them to shreds

I would feel much better about WAGs if they were posted in a sub-forum of snippiness called "baseless speculation."

I don't mind the posts so long as I can ignore them