Slower supercharging on Model 3

[FlyingCookie]

I can say that after witnessing a Model 3 charge at 110kw from 40% to 90kw at 60% SOC tonight that it is not throttled at all, and may even charge as fast as the 100kwh battery packs. (When measuring energy stored)

It blew my P85’s charge rates out of the water... the Model 3 was pulling 70kw at 85% when my P85 would have only been pulling 50kw

Also worth noting is that in similar outside conditions, my Model S would have ramped the fans and compressor up to full speed after only two or three minutes at 116kw. The Model 3 hardly made a peep after 15 minutes at nearly as high charge rates.

UPDATE: Added bad picture that I took

 

[SageBrush]

I can say that after witnessing a Model 3 charge at 110kw

IIRC the LR Model 3 has an 80 kWh nominal battery capacity, so that works out to 1.37C peak charging rate. What rate is seen at 80% SoC ?

An average 1C rate until 80% SoC would be wonderful, and work out to ~ 1 kWh a minute in the SR Model 3.

 

[FlyingKiwi]

wow, that's significantly faster than the 340mph avg the press kit lead us to expect. If the smaller battery also exceeds its press kit figure by a similar amount then i'll have to reconsider how significant the Tesla superchargers are to me. I was thinking the generic DCFCs we have here at 50kw wouldn't be significantly slower than a supercharger, but that may have blown that out of the water.

 

[FlyingCookie]

IIRC the LR Model 3 has an 80 kWh nominal battery capacity, so that works out to 1.37C peak charging rate. What rate is seen at 80% SoC ?

An average 1C rate until 80% SoC would be wonderful, and work out to ~ 1 kWh a minute in the SR Model 3.

80% was 80kw, but 85% was 70kw. He left shortly after that, so I’m not sure what the rest of the taper looked like. I’d assume it was exponential and would have resulted in 50kw at 90% and 25kw at 95%, but I’m not a battery pro, so I could easily be wrong and it could taper faster or slower. The taper definitely accelerated downward faster as the SOC increased, though.

I’m very curious why the press kit understates charge speeds so much... What i saw and what the kit says are certainly not the same thing.

 

[EvanLin]

I can say that after witnessing a Model 3 charge at 110kw from 40% to 90kw at 60% SOC tonight that it is not throttled at all, and may even charge as fast as the 100kwh battery packs. (When measuring energy stored)

80% was 80kw, but 85% was 70kw. He left shortly after that, so I’m not sure what the rest of the taper looked like.

This is quite impressive!! I made a chart based on your info.

 

[insaneoctane]

I’m very curious why the press kit understates charge speeds so much... What i saw and what the kit says are certainly not the same thing.

ANTI-SELL
It's actually quite annoying to me

 

[arnis]

Model 3 was pulling 70kw at 85% when my P85 would have only been pulling 50kw

That confirms that new form factor of cells actually has different chemical composition inside compared to 18650 made by Panasonic.
Less fan noise and delayed ramp means less internal resistance. Though this will likely change a little within a year of use, it is
still way more impressive, as the pack itself is smaller.
Also possible that upper buffer is enlarged compared to Model S/X (100% is like less than 100% on S/X).

 

[Cloxxki]

That confirms that new form factor of cells actually has different chemical composition inside compared to 18650 made by Panasonic.
Less fan noise and delayed ramp means less internal resistance. Though this will likely change a little within a year of use, it is
still way more impressive, as the pack itself is smaller.
Also possible that upper buffer is enlarged compared to Model S/X (100% is like less than 100% on S/X).

I agree with your assessment.
This is what I've been hoping, that the seemingly lacklustre energy density might be due to a change in chemistry favorite quicker charging. If the rate is so high late in the charge, it may even still be throttled some after all?
The anti-selling of the charge rates may have been in part due to the silicone anode story where it just didn't take repeated fast charging as well as they'd hoped. I doubt they realized this fully in advance and went for the 6% or so extra anyway.
If indeed these new cells have a lower internal resistance at similar energy density to the 18650's, with new module architecture, see pack sized that would draw 150kW or more, indeed opening the door to faster Superchargers.

This development might also be hopeful for the 0-60mph warriors, as most faster charging cells also seem happy to discharge at higher rates. A 80kWh Model 3 with ludicrous mode may well put out similar power to the P100DL, if Tesla so chooses. Two of the 200kW motors would also do quite a bit in the slightly lighter car, let alone putting a more powerful one in the back.

But what with the Elon/JB statement that they witnessed 10-15% energy density improvement at the cell level? They were surprisingly non-Tesla-vague that time. May they have opted for a faster charging (more durable?) chemistry that more or less levels out density from where they were?

 

[AlanSqB]

Based on feedback from @ModelNforNerd , I’m going to refrain from going back and down voting everybody who gave me crap when I suggested that the batteries in the 3 might just be superior to the S & X. THIS is the reason I’ve been holding out and not buying an S and waiting for the 3 instead.

It’s very possible this very unscientific observation is a goose chase, but what harm is there in waiting for more data.

 

[apacheguy]

I’m very curious why the press kit understates charge speeds so much... What i saw and what the kit says are certainly not the same thing.

There was speculation that Tesla was significantly understating the supercharge rate in the press kit. I guess we now have confirmation of that. There is also the possibility that Tesla increased the rate through a firmware update since the initial reveal.

These rates make a lot of sense given that the Model 3 battery is based off of the 100 kWh.

 

[Cloxxki]

Based on feedback from @ModelNforNerd , I’m going to refrain from going back and down voting everybody who gave me crap when I suggested that the batteries in the 3 might just be superior to the S & X. THIS is the reason I’ve been holding out and not buying an S and waiting for the 3 instead.

It’s very possible this very unscientific observation is a goose chase, but what harm is there in waiting for more data.

I was vocally hoping for the (seemingly) disappointing energy density to be due to improved charging speeds, but the official Model 3 spec material put that to bed. I know Tesla are good are overstating figures or dressing them favorably, didn't expect such underselling.
Around 200 or more miles of range might be added in a 30minute charge session? This makes it the fastest road trip BEV on the market suddenly. Before I do some napkin calcs, I doubt S100D can hang with TM3LR for more than 400 miles, if that.

 

[scaesare]

That confirms that new form factor of cells actually has different chemical composition inside compared to 18650 made by Panasonic.
Less fan noise and delayed ramp means less internal resistance. Though this will likely change a little within a year of use, it is
still way more impressive, as the pack itself is smaller.
Also possible that upper buffer is enlarged compared to Model S/X (100% is like less than 100% on S/X).

Well, it gives us a data point that may support new chemistry. And I actually hope so.

But there could be other factors as well:

- The cooling architecture within could be different (i.e. the heat pipe design in the patent application)

- The cooling architecture in the car may be different (quieter fans, greater surface area across coils, larger ducting cross-sectional area, etc...)

- More experience has revealed that a more aggressive charging/temp profile isn't likely to be detrimental

So while this proved some evidence that there may be a chemistry change, I'd hesitate to say this confirms it.

 

[Cloxxki]

There was speculation that Tesla was significantly understating the supercharge rate in the press kit. I guess we now have confirmation of that. There is also the possibility that Tesla increased the rate through a firmware update since the initial reveal.

These rates make a lot of sense given that the Model 3 battery is based off of the 100 kWh.

Which properties does the Model 3 battery take from the 25% larger 100 one with 87% more numerous smaller cells, to suspect that the generally accepted as slower for charging larger form factor of the Model 3's individual cells would somehow make it charge nearly as quickly in absolute terms, higher in relative terms?

1.17C max for the 100 pack, ~1.35C anecdotally observed above for the Model 3.

Should Tesla apply this apparent new faster chemistry to the 18650 cells, I'd guess it should result in even higher rates. I don't have the math ready, but 1.5-1.6C doesn't seem out at first glace. Remember, the original 85 pack managed 1.44C albeit with a sooner drop off as far as I'm aware.

 

[scaesare]

I can say that after witnessing a Model 3 charge at 110kw from 40% to 90kw at 60% SOC tonight that it is not throttled at all, and may even charge as fast as the 100kwh battery packs. (When measuring energy stored)

It blew my P85’s charge rates out of the water... the Model 3 was pulling 70kw at 85% when my P85 would have only been pulling 50kw

Also worth noting is that in similar outside conditions, my Model S would have ramped the fans and compressor up to full speed after only two or three minutes at 116kw. The Model 3 hardly made a peep after 15 minutes at nearly as high charge rates.

UPDATE: Added bad picture that I took

Great news... Between this and what are suspected to be pretty conservative range numbers, they may indeed be sandbagging on a couple of fronts and the Model 3 may end up being quite the sleeper...

 

[apacheguy]

@Cloxxki - @wk057 has speculated that the M3 uses a similar cell chemistry as that in the 100 kWh pack.

 

[J1mbo]

This is quite impressive!! I made a chart based on your info.

Might need to update that now the picture has been added?

106kw at 49% is impressive.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Where's my buddy @FlyingKiwi at today? Still shredding posts?



Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.

Me? I didn't need to be "technical" as some stated to make my hypothesis.


Elon is all for enabling sustainable transport, and bringing it to the masses.

One of the biggest psychological blocks is the time to charge your battery. If he is to sell this car and essentially the concept of EV travel to the common man, why would he waste time on an inferior battery? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the battery would charge AT LEAST as quickly as the 21700?

Jump into your slide rules, etc etc etc all you want, but sometimes just plain old common sense can be applied to a situation.


And with that, the gold star you've awarded yourself for "winning" yesterday has been revoked, and awarded to me in your place.

I bid you good day, sir.

 

[Cloxxki]

@Cloxxki - @wk057 has speculated that the M3 uses a similar cell chemistry as that in the 100 kWh pack.

Cheers. All the possible respect for wk057, but from the horses' mouths beforehand, 10-15% energy density gain at the cell level was expressed, of course referring to research, not prouction units.
When it turned out 4416 of the new cells were needed to drive 310 miles (even if really 330), that was a surprisingly high number to people such as yours truly. 19.5Wh per cells was projected (at least by me), and we're seeing sub-18. Either indeed they went back to the original lower densitty "85kWh" chemistry which has proven more durable under 1.4C charging, or perhaps something else was going on.
I expressed hope of a faster charging chemistry, but 170 miles in 30 minutes to a >80kWh pack in a super optimized car design being smaller and lighter than Model S...big bummer. Now that we're seeing 110kW peak (~473 mph apparently), that's debunked. 1.35C charging is much fast than the 100kWh pack is showing us. And it's important to understand that larger individual cells with the same chemistry are bound to perform LESS, due to limited surface for expending heat per unit of volume.
This new 2170 chemistry seems to be the first step towards truly fast charging. And Tesla isn't there yet, at all.
Toshiba just announced cells to be introduced in 2019, which are charged fully in 6 minutes. They had those before, but those are seeing an energy density doubling, making them viable for BEV's. Toshibe are not alone, others will want to make cells that enable 100kWh packs that charge in 15 minutes, actually fitting in a modest car.

 

[bro1999]

Great news... Between this and what are suspected to be pretty conservative range numbers, they may indeed be sandbagging on a couple of fronts and the Model 3 may end up being quite the sleeper...

Hey, those "spaceship controls" and HUD may yet be hidden somewhere too!

 

[SageBrush]

80% was 80kw, but 85% was 70kw.

That is awesome

So, about 1.1C - 1.2C average from low to 80% SoC
My most optimistic estimate for average SC rate in the SR Model 3 for hopping on a long trip was 70 kW. I think Tesla has come close. This works out to about one hour of charging for a 500 mile trip that starts from a full charge. My old bones need more time out of the car than that.