SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Are they presuming a charge up to 100%, or at least past 80% SoC ? I bet that the final 80 to 100% SoC knocks down the average a lot.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
So there is a picture in the production photos thread that shows a Model 3 supercharging. It states the range at 259 miles (83% of 310) but it is only charging at 30kW. Charging rate is 172 mi/hr. It also lists amps at 48A, vs the picture in this thread showing 106kW, 456 mi/hr and 42A, battery at 49%. (data was presented differently, I guess there are options how to display?)
Any thoughts? I realize there are many variables, but this is quite a bit less than the 70kW at 85% that @FlyingCookie claimed he saw.
Any thoughts? I realize there are many variables, but this is quite a bit less than the 70kW at 85% that @FlyingCookie claimed he saw.
One thing to keep in mind is that it seems, at least to me, Tesla is intensionally understating range the car is capable of. I will not do the math now, but a TM3LR was seen with a 100% range of 334 miles. 7.7% over claimed.
In case this is with employee-only or testing purpose unlocked extra top end potential, this could mean shown COG on (new cars at least) shift lower.
100% = really 93%? - helps with degradation when charging full overnight long before use.
85% = really 79% - could explain late charging speed drop-off, in case this is on a 310mi range indicated car.
If all TM3LR's are just delivered indicating 334 miles or thereabouts, this point goes moot. Just understating range relative to their (current) typical indicator. It would just take years before the range after degradation indicates below 310 miles. That's 5-10 years of deg from heavy use, it not more in most cases, providing these cells are as durable as earlier ones.
Geek mania-
This picture makes me wonder:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/0d16d017-ac53-45fa-ac23-0f33dcb6b2da-jpeg.251901/
Does the 456mph indicate as per usual in Teslas the average speed for this session, or the current speed? It's relatively short into the session +13kWh, so if it ramped up quickly to 110kW an then adjusted to 106kW when this pic was taken, 456mph/106kW could in fact both be correct. Unfortunately Tesla makes a hibit of hiding half the relevant information, despite having a 17" screen that fits a good bible summary in 15 font. We don't see the total kWh the COG of 49% corresponds with, and we don't see how long we've been charging.
A pre production TM3LR was seen charging much slower, and in that instance I presumed the mph figure had to be an average. Would that have been a differently calibrated pack, or different chemistry altogether?
Also, could Tesla just send out some employees with packs that reach a higher voltage or use a lower typical economy Wh/mi figure to come to a higher typical range? I could imagine that when 310 miles was declared, the EPA stuff wasn't quite done yet, and they took it safe?
In case this is with employee-only or testing purpose unlocked extra top end potential, this could mean shown COG on (new cars at least) shift lower.
100% = really 93%? - helps with degradation when charging full overnight long before use.
85% = really 79% - could explain late charging speed drop-off, in case this is on a 310mi range indicated car.
If all TM3LR's are just delivered indicating 334 miles or thereabouts, this point goes moot. Just understating range relative to their (current) typical indicator. It would just take years before the range after degradation indicates below 310 miles. That's 5-10 years of deg from heavy use, it not more in most cases, providing these cells are as durable as earlier ones.
Geek mania-
This picture makes me wonder:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/0d16d017-ac53-45fa-ac23-0f33dcb6b2da-jpeg.251901/
Does the 456mph indicate as per usual in Teslas the average speed for this session, or the current speed? It's relatively short into the session +13kWh, so if it ramped up quickly to 110kW an then adjusted to 106kW when this pic was taken, 456mph/106kW could in fact both be correct. Unfortunately Tesla makes a hibit of hiding half the relevant information, despite having a 17" screen that fits a good bible summary in 15 font. We don't see the total kWh the COG of 49% corresponds with, and we don't see how long we've been charging.
A pre production TM3LR was seen charging much slower, and in that instance I presumed the mph figure had to be an average. Would that have been a differently calibrated pack, or different chemistry altogether?
Also, could Tesla just send out some employees with packs that reach a higher voltage or use a lower typical economy Wh/mi figure to come to a higher typical range? I could imagine that when 310 miles was declared, the EPA stuff wasn't quite done yet, and they took it safe?
The amp limit 48A/42A is only for L2 charging it has nothing to do with Supercharging. The mi/hr number is an average so it changes drastically as you charge and the rate changes. So you should just ignore both of those numbers.
Leaving you with:
83% @ 30kW vs. 49% @ 106kW.
Which is perfectly reasonable, you should expect the charge rate to reduce as the state of charge increases.
So there is a new app screenshot of a model 3 supercharging session on that other forum showing the range at 184 MI (59% of 310), charge rate is listed at 53 kW - 233 mi/hr.
No comments regarding any specific issues with the charging session.
This is another data point that doesn't agree very well the 106 kW charging rate shown earlier.
Perhaps Tesla was doing something experimental with the fast charging car
No comments regarding any specific issues with the charging session.
This is another data point that doesn't agree very well the 106 kW charging rate shown earlier.
Perhaps Tesla was doing something experimental with the fast charging car
also screen at M3OC showed 64kW at ~58%, although no details about charging session maybe it was shared...
FlyingCookie
Member
I wonder if what I saw on that Model 3 was similar to the fluke I saw on my P85 a few weeks ago, where I plugged in at 44% SOC and saw 108KW for a few minutes before it fell down to the usual taper.
Maybe the slower charges are starting at lower SOCs, so by the time they get up to 50% they're limited by battery thermal limits instead of by the chemistry? The Model 3 I saw did come in at a somewhat high SOC (New to driving electric cars and being scared of running out of energy on his road trip, i'm sure)
Or maybe they give the SpaceX employees extra supercharging speed because they're Elon's friends...
Maybe the slower charges are starting at lower SOCs, so by the time they get up to 50% they're limited by battery thermal limits instead of by the chemistry? The Model 3 I saw did come in at a somewhat high SOC (New to driving electric cars and being scared of running out of energy on his road trip, i'm sure)
Or maybe they give the SpaceX employees extra supercharging speed because they're Elon's friends...
100% is 315 miles.
Although only one photo (rendered?) shows 315, there were many supported photos.
(You can estimate by the proportion of the bar.)
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=Q2xNd09Wam91b29IZVJNNDFBeFYyYktpcFJPbVln
Last edited:
In my experience the 85 kWh taper is very rigid and I've never seen "flukes" where the rate exceeds the known maximum charging curve. 108 kw at 44% is about 20 kw higher then I've ever seen at this SOC. I'd be really interested if you could document the next time this occurs (or if someone else could that has also seen this behavior).
FlyingCookie
Member
It was at a brand new supercharger in Texas, on a reasonably cool day. Didn’t think much of it, as I hadn’t had the car long enough to really know it’s charging behavior.
It held that rate for less than 3 minutes, and was then back down to the expected 70-75kw. This Model 3 held 100+ kw for much longer than 3 minutes, though, as he arrived at 37% SOC and you see the picture I took at 49% SOC.
The picture shows that 13 kWh had been added in that charge session. So if it was getting 106 kW the entire time it was plugged that would be just over 7 minutes. (So 7 minutes is the minimum amount of time.)
You should also be able to figure out the time based on the 13 kWh added and the 456 mi/hr average if you figure out how many Whs per mile. (Which I think estimate have been posted elsewhere that could be used.)
It does give them the opportunity to back off later in time. The car has to live up to the stated specifications. Maybe they are learning.
FlyingCookie
Member
I don’t know exactly off the top of my head, but I know it was less than 15 minutes. We spent about five or ten minutes chatting, and then he offered to let me sit in the car, and then I took a few picture of the interior at my friend’s request shortly after.
FlyingCookie
Member
Adding some sWAG to the mix here. (s for somewhat)
Assumptions: 80.5 kW LR battery with say 77.5 kW usable representing the 0% - 100% charge which would been seen in the vehicle.
Since some values are known and some are not, I made up the rest. (For fun)
Column 1 is Battery state 0% - 100%, Column 2 is charge rate, Column 3 is elapsed time.
Time was calculated from the assumption of 7.75 kW per 10% of battery charge at each given rate of charge. Time is additive, showing just under an hour for a full charge 0% - 100%. 20 minutes for 0% - 50%.
Model 3 Supercharging
% kW Time
0 0 0:00
10 115 0:04
20 115 0:08
30 112 0:12
40 110 0:16
50 105 0:20
60 90 0:26
70 85 0:31
80 80 0:37
90 60 0:45
100 40 0:56
Thoughts?
Assumptions: 80.5 kW LR battery with say 77.5 kW usable representing the 0% - 100% charge which would been seen in the vehicle.
Since some values are known and some are not, I made up the rest. (For fun)
Column 1 is Battery state 0% - 100%, Column 2 is charge rate, Column 3 is elapsed time.
Time was calculated from the assumption of 7.75 kW per 10% of battery charge at each given rate of charge. Time is additive, showing just under an hour for a full charge 0% - 100%. 20 minutes for 0% - 50%.
Model 3 Supercharging
% kW Time
0 0 0:00
10 115 0:04
20 115 0:08
30 112 0:12
40 110 0:16
50 105 0:20
60 90 0:26
70 85 0:31
80 80 0:37
90 60 0:45
100 40 0:56
Thoughts?
Candleflame
Active Member
looks like its charging way too fast in the lower percentages.
my bet would be 0 to 50% in 25min. 56min for a 100% charge is also a bit optimistic... I think 80min is more realistic
Sounds reasonable.
Since we don't have any data for lower than 40% charge state let's assume 110 kW is the max and the first 10% will charge slower as occurs on the S and X.
This gives 0% - 50% in 22 mins.
The highest SoC rate seen was 70 kW @ 85%. With that I've lowered my estimate of the 80-90% charge to 60 kW and just guessed it gets worse fast for 90-100% @ 20 kW average. Leaves us with 70 minutes to 100%
Model 3 Supercharging
% kW
0 0:00:00
10 90 0:05
20 110 0:09
30 110 0:13
40 110 0:17
50 105 0:22
60 90 0:27
70 85 0:32
80 80 0:38
90 60 0:46
100 20 1:09
Since we don't have any data for lower than 40% charge state let's assume 110 kW is the max and the first 10% will charge slower as occurs on the S and X.
This gives 0% - 50% in 22 mins.
The highest SoC rate seen was 70 kW @ 85%. With that I've lowered my estimate of the 80-90% charge to 60 kW and just guessed it gets worse fast for 90-100% @ 20 kW average. Leaves us with 70 minutes to 100%
Model 3 Supercharging
% kW
0 0:00:00
10 90 0:05
20 110 0:09
30 110 0:13
40 110 0:17
50 105 0:22
60 90 0:27
70 85 0:32
80 80 0:38
90 60 0:46
100 20 1:09
Similar threads
