Standard Range Plus Supercharging Speed

[BEPA400]

So you got 6% more charge in the same time, which is ~12% faster. (That seems noticeable to me.)

Of course it fits the definition of the word ‘noticeable’.
What it didn’t do was have a ‘noticeable difference to my schedule’.
12% of 15 minutes is 1.8 minutes.

Takeaway being on my SR+ it charged above 145kw for such a brief period and during such a low state of charge that when comparing v2 and v3, most people will not have their wait times affected by more than 2 minutes.

 

[Darcy Santor]

Here are two screen captures of my Model 3 charging in Kingston Ontario. My experience has been that you start off with a great charge rate but then it trails off. If you look at the time at the top left corner of the display the dramatic fall off can happen over a short period of time - just 10 minutes.

Kingston has a level 2 supercharger - max 150 kw. Maybe level 3 charging will be better.

I will say that this is monumentally better than some of the third party vendors that can have chargers with a capacity as low as 7kw - which is pretty darn pointless unless you plan to sleep over.

I do know that superchargers only ever say "up to" a certain level, but it is all still a bit concerning.

I hope that Telsa understands that charging speeds need to be reliably fast.

But if I reconcile the time saved by charging at home versus the extra time charging on trips, it is not really that much extra time.

Would really like to hear about the experience of others. Hope this helps.

 

[willow_hiller]

I hope that Telsa understands that charging speeds need to be reliably fast.

This is how all DC fast charging works across all EVs. All charge speeds are advertised as "up to" and every single one starts faster at lower percentages and tapers significantly the higher it charges. The only way some other manufacturers have managed to achieve more a more consistent charge rate is by locking away the top portion of the battery to avoid the slow taper at the top. I much prefer Tesla's decision to allow us to use a higher percentage of the battery; it's up to you to charge it in an efficient manner. If you use a route planner like A Better Routeplanner then it will generally avoid charging the higher end of the battery to save time.

 

[Big Earl]

Of course it fits the definition of the word ‘noticeable’.
What it didn’t do was have a ‘noticeable difference to my schedule’.
12% of 15 minutes is 1.8 minutes.

Takeaway being on my SR+ it charged above 145kw for such a brief period and during such a low state of charge that when comparing v2 and v3, most people will not have their wait times affected by more than 2 minutes.

It will make a big difference when stations are busy since power is shared differently - and more effectively - on V3 stations compared to V2.

 

[Darcy Santor]

Thanks for these comments. I am gathering that the most efficient trip in terms of overall time is to follow the recommendations charge times provided by the algorithm (i.e. 15 minutes at the first stop and then 10 at the next, rather than doing a full charge).

So my take away from this is that the battery will charge fast uptown a certain % and then charging will slow, all other things being equal like number of cars at other stalls.

Does anyone have any ideal if there is a hard threshold, i.e. charges fast to say 70% and then slows?

Thanks again.

 

[Zoomit]

Does anyone have any ideal if there is a hard threshold, i.e. charges fast to say 70% and then slows?

The optimistic predicted lines on this graph are as good as it gets for an SR+. This is from upthread and the squiggly data lines are all previous software versions with limited charging profiles. The latest software can hit the predicted lines under rare, ideal battery temperature conditions.

For an SR+, you know it’s charging at near ideal conditions if it’s close to 100kW as it passes 50% SOC.

 

[BEPA400]

If you are looking for more data on SR+ supercharging here you go. This was 19 degrees celcius outside temp, and having driven several hours before supercharging, I also supercharged about an hour previous, going from 22% to 43%, then drove 100-120km/h for 89km. My SR+ battery display range is 362km at 100% and has been stable over 4 months. Software version 2020.12.11.1

elapsed time % kw
0:00:00 6 0
0:00:18 6 84
0:00:47 8 99
0:01:07 9 146
0:01:21 10 166
0:01:42 12 169
0:01:50 13 169
0:01:59 13 165
0:02:09 14 163
0:02:52 17 155
0:03:55 23 147
0:08:08 40 116
0:12:13 54 83
0:14:59 61 67
0:15:41 62 66
0:25:31 80 36
0:25:39 80 35

% vs kw:

time vs %:

 

[Tectonic]

I recently had the opportunity to do a roadtrip for the first time since the update last November. Big improvement in charging speed!

Not sure if there was another slight bump in SR+ charging speed but I saw peak rates of 175, 176, and 176 at the 3 V3 sites I stopped at (Evansville, WY; Spokane, WA; Moses Lake, WA). Instantaneous rate of 800+ miles/hr of range added! Not bad for a sub-$40K EV...

 

[Mr X]

I recently had the opportunity to do a roadtrip for the first time since the update last November. Big improvement in charging speed!

Not sure if there was another slight bump in SR+ charging speed but I saw peak rates of 175, 176, and 176 at the 3 V3 sites I stopped at (Evansville, WY; Spokane, WA; Moses Lake, WA). Instantaneous rate of 800+ miles/hr of range added! Not bad for a sub-$40K EV...

Hmmm. The last update bumped SR+ to 170 kW max on V3 so a few over isn't a bad thing!

 

[Zoomit]

Hmmm. The last update bumped SR+ to 170 kW max on V3 so a few over isn't a bad thing!

The SR/+ has been capable of 170kW since 2019.40.1.1 released in Nov 2019.

These higher numbers from @Tectonic are not likely due to just higher input voltage and likely represent a real tweak to the charging profile, implemented sometime since November.

176kW in the SR/+ pack is an equivalent C-rate to 261kW in the LR pack, so they’re definitely running it a little hotter. It could be due to the SR/+ cars having a less stressed battery cooling system than the LR cars.

It would be interesting to know when the cars start a taper off a 176kW peak rate. If it was higher than 22% that would represent a later taper, which would be surprising.

 

[mrgoogle]

I believe every kW above 170 is to run HVAC and “afterburners”, with the second I mean generate waste heat in stator to warm battery

 

[Zoomit]

I believe every kW above 170 is to run HVAC and “afterburners”, with the second I mean generate waste heat in stator to warm battery

The power indication on the charging screen is different between AC and DC charging. For AC charging it shows all the power coming into the car, including power used for HVAC or battery thermal control. For DC charging, it only shows the power going into the battery. Additional power usage by the car is not displayed.

It is possible that Tesla changed this indication to be consistent between AC and DC charging. This is easy to test when charging at an Urban Supercharger. The charge power should be consistent at around 70 kW. If they now include HVAC in the DC charging power indication, the power should go up when the heat is set to max. If it goes down, then it hasn’t changed and the available charging power decreases when it is diverted to heat the cabin.

 

[NewbieT]

Actual charge curves from ABRP (think this was produced just before the 100kW cap was lifted).

 

[mrgoogle]

The SR/+ has been capable of 170kW since 2019.40.1.1 released in Nov 2019.

These higher numbers from @Tectonic are not likely due to just higher input voltage and likely represent a real tweak to the charging profile, implemented sometime since November.

176kW in the SR/+ pack is an equivalent C-rate to 261kW in the LR pack, so they’re definitely running it a little hotter. It could be due to the SR/+ cars having a less stressed battery cooling system than the LR cars.

It would be interesting to know when the cars start a taper off a 176kW peak rate. If it was higher than 22% that would represent a later taper, which would be surprising.

The power indication on the charging screen is different between AC and DC charging. For AC charging it shows all the power coming into the car, including power used for HVAC or battery thermal control. For DC charging, it only shows the power going into the battery. Additional power usage by the car is not displayed.

It is possible that Tesla changed this indication to be consistent between AC and DC charging. This is easy to test when charging at an Urban Supercharger. The charge power should be consistent at around 70 kW. If they now include HVAC in the DC charging power indication, the power should go up when the heat is set to max. If it goes down, then it hasn’t changed and the available charging power decreases when it is diverted to heat the cabin.

Tesla changed to count all added and used energy. I believe it was also mentioned in a newsletter from Tesla directly? I know before they didn’t display and count all used kWh’s which means superchargers were cheaper before that change.

I’m sure others know more about it (on mobile phone, harder to search)

 

[Zoomit]

Tesla changed to count all added and used energy. I believe it was also mentioned in a newsletter from Tesla directly? I know before they didn’t display and count all used kWh’s which means superchargers were cheaper before that change.

I’m sure others know more about it (on mobile phone, harder to search)

I know in January they changed the Supercharging cost methodology (thread here) but I had not heard that they changed the power indication on the charging screen. If you, or someone, is able to confirm that the indication changed, then that would explain the >170 kW power indication. It would also imply no change to the charging profile as well as make it more challenging to derive future charge profiles as the battery and cabin heating or cooling power consumption could add around +/-10 kW of noise to the indication.

 

[miimura]

Over time, they will have to meter the total power delivered from the station to the car in order to comply with California "fuel dispensing" regulations as they will start to apply to EV charging.

 

[mrgoogle]

I know in January they changed the Supercharging cost methodology (thread here) but I had not heard that they changed the power indication on the charging screen. If you, or someone, is able to confirm that the indication changed, then that would explain the >170 kW power indication. It would also imply no change to the charging profile as well as make it more challenging to derive future charge profiles as the battery and cabin heating or cooling power consumption could add around +/-10 kW of noise to the indication.

I have the ScanMyTesla tool,

battery power and rear motor power is separately listed. I will try and confirm it next time I can.

(out the top of my head, SuC power listed all power provided and ScanMyTesla tool + motor power combined added up to that, but I am not completely sure)

 

[Tectonic]

I believe every kW above 170 is to run HVAC and “afterburners”, with the second I mean generate waste heat in stator to warm battery

FWIW, the 175/176 KW charge rate was very stable (now seen in each of 6 total V3 stops), and I saw that in a couple cases even before the loud battery cooling system kicked on (other times the battery cooling kicked on immediately). It was too hot for me to test what happened if I turned the heat on...

Edit: I also confirmed tapering above 22% charge level...

 

[Tectonic]

I noticed another SR+ report of 176 KW charging here:

Reduced Model 3 SR+ Max Charging Rate

 

[Raiden30]

The optimistic predicted lines on this graph are as good as it gets for an SR+. This is from upthread and the squiggly data lines are all previous software versions with limited charging profiles. The latest software can hit the predicted lines under rare, ideal battery temperature conditions.

For an SR+, you know it’s charging at near ideal conditions if it’s close to 100kW as it passes 50% SOC.

Some more data for SR+, charging from 2% to 100% at a V2 supercharger.
Details: software 2020.28.6, 9pm (dark), outside temp 83F, I had been driving for a couple hours beforehand.
TeslaFi data: 52.9 kWh used, 50.94 kWh added to battery (242.51 rated miles added). The car screen showed +51 kWh.
Max power was 149 kW (712 mi/hr). The car showed 249 miles at 100% state of charge. It has about 1,000 miles on the odometer.

Observations:
I hit 146 kW at 10% SOC vs the 4% shown on the ideal curve and I only stayed at 144 kW until 24% vs the 33% shown.
I was at 74 kW as I passed 50% SOC, not even close to 100 kW which I passed through at 39% SOC.

I'm not sure how close my conditions were to ideal; 83F is pretty warm I guess.