Zarwin
Member
Many of the pedastals are mounted now but still a bit more work to do for some.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...and it will--just not on I-85 or downtown as I think you were hoping.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.
Also, a top off generally means a quick charge, not a 20 hour charging session at a 3.3kW public charger.
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!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.
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....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.
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
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…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 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).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
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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).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
I can check tomorrow if you’re busy.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