Supercharger - Durham NC

[Zarwin]

Many of the pedastals are mounted now but still a bit more work to do for some.

 

[RTPEV]

Durham is a great place for a Supercharger. I am not suggesting building a Supercharger because one person might forget to charge. It’s a good distance from the Henderson Supercharger and the Mebane Supercharger. If you are traveling to the triangle from places such as Richmond, Durham is a great place to stop. Any large city with more than 100,000 people should have at least 1 supercharger.

...and it will--just not on I-85 or downtown as I think you were hoping.

I do agree that a split between Henderson and Mebane would be eventually helpful, and Durham is not the worst choice for that, but ideally the split would be just north of Durham, although there is really not many suitable host sites in that area.

Also, a top off generally means a quick charge, not a 20 hour charging session at a 3.3kW public charger.

I certainly agree that it's not a 20 hour charging session. To me top off means you don't necessarily NEED the charge, but will take what you can get to fill up the battery. AKA opportunity charging. Like "topping off the tank" vs. "filling the tank" in a gas car.

 

[Stellavator]

9 pedestals up. Lots of activity.

 

[swengl]

I wonder if we’ll start seeing those prefab Superchargers I’ve seen on Electrek become the norm, or if this type of installation will still tending the usual. I really was hoping Tesla would start building Superchargers that are compatible with vehicles pulling trailers. It’s a huge PITA to disconnect every time you need to charge, or be unlucky enough to get to a Supercharger with a Model X towing a trailer taking up 4 stalls.

This is definitely going to be an issue when the CyberTruck starts rolling out. I'd love to see Tesla address this by using pull-through spots (in the middle of a parking lot) that are large enough for a vehicle + trailer to avoid the inevitable headache of someone blocking *other* stalls to charge in one when they have a trailer. I agree: the suggestion to remove a trailer for charging is laughable. No one will want to do that!

 

[swengl]

...and it will--just not on I-85 or downtown as I think you were hoping.

I do agree that a split between Henderson and Mebane would be eventually helpful, and Durham is not the worst choice for that, but ideally the split would be just north of Durham, although there is really not many suitable host sites in that area.



I certainly agree that it's not a 20 hour charging session. To me top off means you don't necessarily NEED the charge, but will take what you can get to fill up the battery. AKA opportunity charging. Like "topping off the tank" vs. "filling the tank" in a gas car.

Too bad the Southpoint Mall plan hasn't panned out (yet). That would be a good spot for charging, which would allow folks to safely leave their vehicle and walk to dining/shopping.

 

[Knightshade]

This is definitely going to be an issue when the CyberTruck starts rolling out. I'd love to see Tesla address this by using pull-through spots (in the middle of a parking lot) that are large enough for a vehicle + trailer to avoid the inevitable headache of someone blocking *other* stalls to charge in one when they have a trailer. I agree: the suggestion to remove a trailer for charging is laughable. No one will want to do that!

Tesla claimed they'd be building future SCs with the truck in mind a while back, but real word examples where they've actually built them are few and far between.

And even those few that exist are generally are just wider normal spots- no accommodation for having a trailer attached

 

[RTPEV]

Tesla claimed they'd be building future SCs with the truck in mind a while back, but real word examples where they've actually built them are few and far between.

And even those few that exist are generally are just wider normal spots- no accommodation for having a trailer attached

Starting to get a bit off-topic, so apologies, but really the only way to address this is to arrange chargers like gas pumps are today, with the chargers on an island. There's a good reason why gas pumps aren't located on a curb in a pull-in spot. And I'm definitely not a fan of Tesla's choice in locating the charge port on the rear driver's side. Yes, I know there are pros and cons to other placements, but I do think the Tesla placement has more con than pro.

I realize that an "island" arrangement is not as space efficient as a "curb" arrangement, and clearly at this point in Tesla's (and EVs in general) ramp-up phase, space efficiency is key, as you're not going to find hosts willing to allocate a ton of parking space to charging stations. But can you imagine the space inefficiency of allocating even only a few spots that can accommodate a CT with a trailer? And what size trailer do you assume? By that time, you might as well go with an island arrangement anyway.

 

[Zarwin]

Looks as if everything is done but the fences are still up. Power meter installed but due to the fencing it's difficult to see the front of it to determine if there is power yet. Looks like now power but can't be sure.

sOoN!

 

[Zarwin]

Drove by today and no change since the last post. Will be back by in a couple of days and update.

 

[Stellavator]

Everything is done, new pavement is down, and landscaping is complete. They were painting the parking spot lines today. After that, looks like all they need to do is turn them on.

 

[Zarwin]

Yep, drove by this afternoon and took a quick pic. Just waiting for fences to be removed. All fencing is still up.

 

[Zarwin]

One note, it looks like the pedastals are not lined up optimally with the spaces. The signs are centered on the spaces but usually the pedastals are directly on the lines of the spaces (centered between the signs) and these are offset. Looks like it will still work fine, just not optimal compared to other implementations. Or maybe this is a new layout?

 

[DarkNightP3D]

One note, it looks like the pedastals are not lined up optimally with the spaces. The signs are centered on the spaces but usually the pedastals are directly on the lines of the spaces (centered between the signs) and these are offset. Looks like it will still work fine, just not optimal compared to other implementations. Or maybe this is a new layout?

I really do wish they put longer self-retracting cables on the Superchargers. The other day in Greensboro I witnessed a woman not get close enough to the Supercharger 3 times to plug in. Last time she went to back up she hit the pedestal with her hitch mounted bike rack…

Also would be nice to see Tesla add reverse AEB in a software update. It sure does look like a lot of people back into supercharger pedestals when trying to get close enough (or when reversing too quickly) judging by how many of them I see have quite substantial damage. I wish they could OTA real blindspot monitoring with cross traffic detection, too. Really miss those things.

 

[DarkNightP3D]

Tesla claimed they'd be building future SCs with the truck in mind a while back, but real word examples where they've actually built them are few and far between.

And even those few that exist are generally are just wider normal spots- no accommodation for having a trailer attached

I personally wonder if Cybertruck is even going to be released any time soon. I thought it was odd Elon never showed off a production spec vehicle or gave any new information even though he kept saying he would in a few weeks or months. I also thought it was strange when they released the V3 HPWC and slashed max output to 48A (far below what a CT would need) when the old HPWCs could output 80A. Even at 80A @ 240V would take 11Hrs to charge a 200kWh pack. That’s probably a conservative size estimate for the “500 mile” variant (400wh/mi).

Beyond the layout of existing Superchargers not accommodating a truck and trailer, there’s also the issue with the chargers themselves. 250kW is fine for a Model 3/Y, but something with a 200kWh pack is completely different. New cars like the Ioniq 5/EV6 using 800V architectures are able to offer 10-80% charges on 350kW chargers in under 18 mins. A 200kWh Cybertruck on a 250kW V3 would take over 35 mins to do that same 10-80% charge if it could pull 250kW the entire charging session. Due to the extremely high amperage that V3 Superchargers are outputting (>625A) at 250kW, I find it unlikely the pack could withstand that kind of amperage for a sustained period of time. Model S/X and 3/Y only hit 250kW for a brief moment, and then taper sharply. All GM trucks using their Ultium batteries will supposedly be 800V, so it only makes sense for Tesla to do the same. 350kW is absolutely necessary as we get vehicles with these ever larger pack sizes. It would also be great if Tesla planned to make all 4680 packs 800V, even for the 3/Y. That would help slash charge time and improve efficiency, as well as open up the door to using 350kW third party chargers for those overseas or if we ever get a CCS adapter here in the US.

 

[gfb107]

New cars like the Ioniq 5/EV6 using 800V architectures are able to offer 10-80% charges on 350kW chargers in under 18 mins. A 200kWh Cybertruck on a 250kW V3 would take over 35 mins to do that same 10-80% charge if it could pull 250kW the entire charging session.

That's a totally misleading comparison, because of the huge difference in battery capacity. A 10% to 80% charge for the largest Ioniq 5 battery (about 73kWh), is about 51 kWh in 18 minutes. But you expect the same 18 minutes for the 200 kWh Cybertruck battery, where a 10% to 80% charge is about 140 kWh.
That's getting 2.74 times as much into the CyberTruck battery as the Ioniq battery in only twice the time (based on your 35 minute estimate).

 

[RTPEV]

I also thought it was strange when they released the V3 HPWC and slashed max output to 48A (far below what a CT would need) when the old HPWCs could output 80A. Even at 80A @ 240V would take 11Hrs to charge a 200kWh pack. That’s probably a conservative size estimate for the “500 mile” variant (400wh/mi).

Well yes, it would take that long to charge a 200kWh pack, but how often do you need to actually charge the entire pack all at once? As long as you are reasonable about plugging in every few days, 48A should be sufficient to replenish a few days' worth of driving in an overnight session (and I even suspect most people would even have the full 11 hours available each day if they really needed it). Even if your charging regimen is to plug in at 30% and charge to 80%, you're basically adding 100kWh to a 200kWh pack, which at the 11kW that 48A provides would be 9-10 hours charge time.

A 200kWh Cybertruck on a 250kW V3 would take over 35 mins to do that same 10-80% charge if it could pull 250kW the entire charging session. Due to the extremely high amperage that V3 Superchargers are outputting (>625A) at 250kW, I find it unlikely the pack could withstand that kind of amperage for a sustained period of time. Model S/X and 3/Y only hit 250kW for a brief moment, and then taper sharply.

800V recommendation for the CT aside (I won't disagree that that's a reasonable architecture for it), I don't agree with the statement that the pack would be unlikely to "withstand" that kind of amperage for a sustained period of time. This is most likely false. A larger battery, by the simple virtue of it being larger, can sustain increased amperage. As compared to a 100kWh pack, a 200kWh pack at the same voltage essentially has twice the cells in parallel. This means that as long as the other components in the system (i.e. the cables and the DC/DC converter) themselves can handle the increased amperage, the pack definitely can, because essentially you're still only pushing the same amount of current into each serial stack of cells that are arranged in parallel.

In other words, all else being equal, and if there was such a thing as a Megacharger that could pump out 1400A (500kW), then the CT's 200kWh pack would be able to accept it, and it would have a similar taper curve to what the other vehicles have, except the current (and power) would be 2X what the long range vehicles have.

But even without a 500kW Megacharger, the CT's pack will hum along just fine accepting 250kW of power until around the point where the Model 3 and new Model S/X would normally taper down to about 125kW, which using my Model 3 as a guide, would be at about 55% SOC. The 4680 cells will probably help this slightly. So my prediction would be that the CT will happily accept the full 250kW until around 55-60% SOC and then start tapering.

 

[DarkNightP3D]

Well yes, it would take that long to charge a 200kWh pack, but how often do you need to actually charge the entire pack all at once? As long as you are reasonable about plugging in every few days, 48A should be sufficient to replenish a few days' worth of driving in an overnight session (and I even suspect most people would even have the full 11 hours available each day if they really needed it). Even if your charging regimen is to plug in at 30% and charge to 80%, you're basically adding 100kWh to a 200kWh pack, which at the 11kW that 48A provides would be 9-10 hours charge time.


800V recommendation for the CT aside (I won't disagree that that's a reasonable architecture for it), I don't agree with the statement that the pack would be unlikely to "withstand" that kind of amperage for a sustained period of time. This is most likely false. A larger battery, by the simple virtue of it being larger, can sustain increased amperage. As compared to a 100kWh pack, a 200kWh pack at the same voltage essentially has twice the cells in parallel. This means that as long as the other components in the system (i.e. the cables and the DC/DC converter) themselves can handle the increased amperage, the pack definitely can, because essentially you're still only pushing the same amount of current into each serial stack of cells that are arranged in parallel.

In other words, all else being equal, and if there was such a thing as a Megacharger that could pump out 1400A (500kW), then the CT's 200kWh pack would be able to accept it, and it would have a similar taper curve to what the other vehicles have, except the current (and power) would be 2X what the long range vehicles have.

But even without a 500kW Megacharger, the CT's pack will hum along just fine accepting 250kW of power until around the point where the Model 3 and new Model S/X would normally taper down to about 125kW, which using my Model 3 as a guide, would be at about 55% SOC. The 4680 cells will probably help this slightly. So my prediction would be that the CT will happily accept the full 250kW until around 55-60% SOC and then start tapering.

I drive a ton, and a lot of other people do too that use their vehicle for work. So it’s definitely easy to see why 48A would be insufficient for a lot of truck buyers who drive 250-350 miles a day. 80A would be the bare minimum I’d want and that’s exactly what Ford is offering with the F-150 Lightning. Seeing how news just broke earlier that Panasonic now says 4680 ”prototype” PRODUCTION won’t even begin until next year, I would say it’s a strong bet that the CT does get delayed long term. Maybe a few will get delivered, but I don’t see mass production starting that’s for sure.

I also do think they will have to go with 800V packs just because the sustained high amperage of a 250kW supercharger running at 675A creates a lot of heat, even if it’s a larger kWh capacity pack. The number of cells will probably end up being less than before, even though greater capacity. It remains to be seen as to what the thermal properties are of the new pack design and the other thing is we don’t know how many cells will be in series or parallel to calculate the amperage per cell. se

 

[swengl]

I drive a ton, and a lot of other people do too that use their vehicle for work. So it’s definitely easy to see why 48A would be insufficient for a lot of truck buyers who drive 250-350 miles a day. 80A would be the bare minimum I’d want and that’s exactly what Ford is offering with the F-150 Lightning. Seeing how news just broke earlier that Panasonic now says 4680 ”prototype” PRODUCTION won’t even begin until next year, I would say it’s a strong bet that the CT does get delayed long term. Maybe a few will get delivered, but I don’t see mass production starting that’s for sure.

I also do think they will have to go with 800V packs just because the sustained high amperage of a 250kW supercharger running at 675A creates a lot of heat, even if it’s a larger kWh capacity pack. The number of cells will probably end up being less than before, even though greater capacity. It remains to be seen as to what the thermal properties are of the new pack design and the other thing is we don’t know how many cells will be in series or parallel to calculate the amperage per cell. se

In regards to the 4680 cell design, the tabless approach (versus the current, single tab approach) is supposed to distribute (or even partially eliminate) the internal battery cell resistance, effectively allowing the larger cell design to charge like (or better than?) a less dense cell design. It does remain to be seen exactly *how well* the new cells handle a higher amperage, but in theory the thermal impact should be manageable (fingers crossed). In order to make a structural battery pack possible, efficient internal thermal control will be essential, as the cells will be glued to the structure and there won't be room for the current design's cooling infrastructure (the dreaded cooling snake).

Everything You Need To Know About Tesla's New 4680 Battery Cell

Tesla 4680 Cell: Thermal Analysis Suggests Unique Cooling System Design

On Battery day, Tesla told us the biggest barrier to a larger format cell is cooling the cell, and its new tabless electrode design fixes that problem.

insideevs.com

Tesla (TSLA) new 4680 battery cell to be produced by Panasonic, report says

Tesla (TSLA) has recently introduced plans to produce its own battery cells called ‘4680’, but now we learn that Panasonic...

electrek.co

Also, Tesla is partnering with multiple companies (Panasonic, LG) to (eventually) achieve the scale of production needed for the Y, CT, S/X Plaid. I agree with the you though: their biggest bottleneck is going to be production of the new battery cell. We haven't heard much about project Roadrunner lately, I wonder how that is going?

Tesla Roadrunner Project at Kato Road Is World’s Most Advanced Battery Line

Featured image: Tesmanian For months now, the Tesla community has known that the company has a pilot battery production line in Fremont at 47700 Kato Road. At Battery Day on September 22, Elon Musk and Drew Baglino shared some details about it.Tesla announced that its Roadrunner pilot line will...

www.tesmanian.com

 

[Zarwin]

Fences down and power to the meter but not yet operational. Plugged in and got nothing. Will check later today to see if it's all up.

 

[DarkNightP3D]

Fences down and power to the meter but not yet operational. Plugged in and got nothing. Will check later today to see if it's all up. View attachment 671242

I can check tomorrow if you’re busy.