Standard Range Plus Supercharging Speed

[HG Wells]

But then people would buy the SR+ and not the more expensive models. When you can charge that fast the returns on a bigger battery are rapidly diminishing.

Yes, but how many people are aware of that ?

Also: (A better route planner https://abetterrouteplanner.com )
Going from Atlanta to Orlando.
SR+ 1 hour of charging
LR AWD 43 Minutes

So it saves 17 minutes on a 500 mile (8 hour) trip.
And that would be with the bigger battery.

Unless you are a traveling salesman or have a vacation house the SR+ is perfect.

The faster charging will come. Just not for a few months.

 

[bwilson4web]

Going from Atlanta to Orlando.
SR+ 1 hour of charging
LR AWD 43 Minutes

I used Plugshare trip planning from Orland to Atlanta (hurricane Dorian) and a recent, SR+, charge curve. My analysis suggests ~45 minutes from three charging sessions:

• Live Oak Supercharger, add 91 miles, ~13 min.
• Tifton Supercharger, add 103 miles, ~14 min.
• Macon Supercharger, add 89 miles, ~13 min.

This assumes the adjacent stall is not occupied. Rule of thumb, double the charging time if occupied so worst case, 90 minutes of charging. Here is the charging curve:

Bob Wilson

 

[11thIndian]

But then people would buy the SR+ and not the more expensive models. When you can charge that fast the returns on a bigger battery are rapidly diminishing.

There’s people who need the extra 80mi range on a regular basis. There’s people living in colder climates who see their range reduced during the winter. There’s people who want Dual Motor for adverse road conditions, There’s people who want Dual Motor for Performance.

I think when we get to the point that 200+mi cars can charge in 5 min that there will be serious conversations about range vs convenience.

Until then there will still be lots of use cases for Long Range vechicles.

 

[HG Wells]

One item often overlooked is the LR has faster AC charging.
The SR+ is limited to 32 AMPS at 240.
The LR is limited to 48 AMPS at 240.

So if you charge at home you can get 50% faster charging with the LR.

Note. The Mobile Connector that comes with the car can work with both 120 AC and 240 AC.
Older model 3's came with both cables newer model 3's must purchase the 240 cable fior $35.
Mobile Connector max is 32 AMPS at 240.
Must buy Tesla Wall Connector (48 AMP $500) for Model 3 LR for fastest AC charging.

Tesla Model 3 Home Charging Guide | TeslaTap

 

[bwilson4web]

There are competitive reasons why Tesla may want to tweak up the Std. Rng. Plus charging rate:

By allowing 150 kW peak charge rate, our Model 3 would easily achieve parity with the Audi e-tron.

Bob Wilson

 

[transpondster]

you seriously comparing e-tron with SR?... M3P cost less...

 

[LittleBlue]

SR+ on 2019.28.3.1

My family took a trip across a large portion of Tennessee. We stopped at superchargers 7 times over the weekend. I took some data. Sorry its not more. The best taper I saw was below.
% / kw
50/ 99
51/ 97
52/ 96
55/ 90
56/ 88
57/ 86
63/ 74
69/ 62
71/ 59

 

[acarney]

There are also crowding issues. Tesla took the time and energy to code a smart battery warming feature to precondition the battery to charge as fast as possible as soon as you plug into the supercharger. Tesla "limits" the amount charged to 80% on busy superchargers to again get more cars in and out as fast as possible. As long as it's not a technical issue, which on the battery specs people here seem to think it isn't, Tesla should increase the SR+ supercharging speed to ~135kW to 140kW on V2 superchargers. You want those cars in and out of the chargers as fast as possible, or build more chargers, lots more. If you could charge the SR+ at 140kW on a V2 charger and maintain that from 10% to 40% before tapper then you would 2.5 minutes per car compared to a SR+ at 100kW. Sure, 2.5 minutes isn't huge, but it is noticeable, and is in fact about 33% faster! Tesla spent time and energy to gain ~25% (admittedly probably over the whole charge session) by introducing smart battery warm up, well if they open up the supercharge speed they'll reduce that "prime SOC" charge by 33%.

Because of that I'm holding out hope that SR+ will be able to charge at the same rate as LR cars on V2 superchargers at some point, as long as there isn't some hidden technical issue that owners haven't thought of. V3 rates could be higher as well but would still be under 200kW... maybe top out at like 170kW.


(If you had five cars all down near 5 to 10% SOC waiting for a supercharger stall and they each charged at 140kW and left when they hit 40% SOC you could charge all five in a little less time then it would take to charge FOUR cars at 100kW. Super ideal condition that probably wouldn't happen in the real world, yes, but illustrates that capacity would increase by bumping that charge rate up.)

 

[bwilson4web]

Based on "C" rate, (50/75) * 250 ~= 167 kW should be possible if there are no other technical limits. Since the V2 SuperChargers are 150 kW rated, that would be a great rate. But there is a competitive advantage.

The German EVs are oversizing their cars to achieve similar ranges and slightly faster charge rates. Stepping up the SR+ M3 would give a higher competitive advantage leading the 'honorable competition' to adding even more, expensive batteries . . . a vicious cycle.

Bob Wilson

 

[darth_vad3r]

Based on "C" rate, (50/75) * 250 ~= 167 kW should be possible if there are no other technical limits. Since the V2 SuperChargers are 150 kW rated, that would be a great rate. But there is a competitive advantage.

The German EVs are oversizing their cars to achieve similar ranges and slightly faster charge rates. Stepping up the SR+ M3 would give a higher competitive advantage leading the 'honorable competition' to adding even more, expensive batteries . . . a vicious cycle.

Bob Wilson

Would even be a smidge higher using 31/46 cell ratio (168.5 vs 166.7)

... but we are just hoping and dreaming until Tesla makes it happen (if they do).

I wonder if there is no actual technical limit other than them just trying to preserve the SR+ cells longer by stressing them less that the LR (since they will have to cycle more than LR cells for the same number of lifetime miles).

 

[pdx_m3s]

I wonder if there is no actual technical limit other than them just trying to preserve the SR+ cells longer by stressing them less that the LR (since they will have to cycle more than LR cells for the same number of lifetime miles).

I never thought about that. You may be onto something.

 

[lateulade]

Partially relevant, but I just downgraded me SR+ to SR and decided to drop by a supercharger to see what the curve looks like (hoping to discover definitively whether the battery is top locked or not). It was about a 25 minute drive to the supercharger, with battery preconditioning on the entire way (90F outside). I was the only car on the cabinet the entire time.

I went from 68% SOC to 100% SOC in 20 minutes, and was WELL above the SR+ supercharger curve the entire time. I also had full regen available at 100%.

 

[darth_vad3r]

Partially relevant, but I just downgraded me SR+ to SR and decided to drop by a supercharger to see what the curve looks like (hoping to discover definitively whether the battery is top locked or not). It was about a 25 minute drive to the supercharger, with battery preconditioning on the entire way (90F outside). I was the only car on the cabinet the entire time.

I went from 68% SOC to 100% SOC in 20 minutes, and was WELL above the SR+ supercharger curve the entire time. I also had full regen available at 100%.

Can't find @Zoomit 's latest SR+ / SR combined chart to check, but I think it's 91-92% like the LR for ~25 kW.

This matches 220/240 = 91.67% the presumption/expectation of a full top-lock for SR.

EDIT: Hmmm, well ... this chart: 150kW Supercharging for Model 3
Seems to show 25 kW expected on SR+ at 82-87%?

0.87 x 240 = 209. What was your 100% range?

On that chart ~40kW is 76-82% or 182-197mi, or 83-89% of 220. You had 38kW at 90%. OK, I guess that fits still.

56-68% is ~60kW, you had 58 kW at 76%
56-68% is 134-163mi. 76% of 220 is 167mi ... still pretty close to fitting upper range.

I'm not sure if that's the latest chart from @Zoomit. I don't remember.

 

[lateulade]

Can't find @Zoomit 's latest SR+ / SR combined chart to check, but I think it's 91-92% like the LR for ~25 kW.

This matches 220/240 = 91.67% the presumption/expectation of a full top-lock for SR.

EDIT: Hmmm, well ... this chart: 150kW Supercharging for Model 3
Seems to show 25 kW expected on SR+ at 82-87%?

0.87 x 240 = 209. What was your 100% range?

On that chart ~40kW is 76-82% or 182-197mi, or 83-89% of 220. You had 38kW at 90%. OK, I guess that fits still.

56-68% is ~60kW, you had 58 kW at 76%
56-68% is 134-163mi. 76% of 220 is 167mi ... still pretty close to fitting upper range.

I'm not sure if that's the latest chart from @Zoomit. I don't remember.

funny you should come to that conclusion — my 100% charge was 209 miles

 

[Zoomit]

Can't find @Zoomit 's latest SR+ / SR combined chart to check, but I think it's 91-92% like the LR for ~25 kW.

This matches 220/240 = 91.67% the presumption/expectation of a full top-lock for SR.

EDIT: Hmmm, well ... this chart: 150kW Supercharging for Model 3
Seems to show 25 kW expected on SR+ at 82-87%?

0.87 x 240 = 209. What was your 100% range?

On that chart ~40kW is 76-82% or 182-197mi, or 83-89% of 220. You had 38kW at 90%. OK, I guess that fits still.

56-68% is ~60kW, you had 58 kW at 76%
56-68% is 134-163mi. 76% of 220 is 167mi ... still pretty close to fitting upper range.

I'm not sure if that's the latest chart from @Zoomit. I don't remember.

I've never posted an SR version with the 19.20.x charging profiles. This post has the latest SR+ data and if you convert the @lateulade data to an SR+ percentage, assuming SR is 220mi of SR+ 247mi, then it overlaps pretty closely with the @karki data.
1) The SR is definitely top locked; very, very likely all of it. If I owned one, I'd curse Tesla for having the 100% charge warning and always charge it to 100%.
2) It's not a ratio of 220 to 240, it's 220 to 247...89%. Those are the actual results from the EPA test protocol

funny you should come to that conclusion — my 100% charge was 209 miles

209 is not relevant. Those battery range estimates haven't meant crap since March when Tesla started messing with the prediction algorithm.

 

[Zoomit]

Here’s a quick version of the data using the SR+ SOC scale

Original graph: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/20190630-3sr-chrg-png.424989/

 

[darth_vad3r]

I've never posted an SR version with the 19.20.x charging profiles.

I remember something where the line "changed colours" because you had SR and SR+ overlapping exactly and SR ended mid line revealing the SR+ line underneath. Don't recall if this was an ideal profile or some other chart.

2) It's not a ratio of 220 to 240, it's 220 to 247...89%. Those are the actual results from the EPA test protocol

Are you saying 247 is an EPA result *and* 220 an EPA result? Or just 247?

 

[bwilson4web]

These URLs will identify the two, EPA databases with the EV data:

• Data on Cars used for Testing Fuel Economy | US EPA
  
• Download Fuel Economy Data

The spreadsheets are a little awkward as they come from the ICE era. However, the basic data is there ... sort of. Since 2016, the EPA has all but closed down their independent measurements of vehicle efficiency. Instead they use manufacturer reported data which has sometimes proved inaccurate. Worse, for EVs we have to do independent AC and fast DC charging tests.

Bob Wilson

 

[Zoomit]

Are you saying 247 is an EPA result *and* 220 an EPA result? Or just 247?

Yes both. The EPA database shows 220mi for the SR without any note of it being “voluntarily lowered.” The 240mi of the SR+ is voluntarily lowered from 247mi.

 

[acarney]

Yes both. The EPA database shows 220mi for the SR without any note of it being “voluntarily lowered.” The 240mi of the SR+ is voluntarily lowered from 247mi.

It also should be noted that the 247 mile value is almost certainly JUST city driving. Based on the EPA's data of 124 miles per gallon at highway speed, and one gallon being 33.7kWh, that means the SR+ has a tested range of ~184 miles at highway speed. (based on a 50kWh usable battery)