Supercharger - San Diego, CA (Qualcomm / Pacific Heights Blvd., 12 V2 stalls)

[TexasEV]

I am not sure I understand. I have never heard of MPH (mi/hr) being an average over an entire session. I have always used MPH, and at every SC I have visited, I typically got around 340 MPH, and several times much higher, holding that charge rate for awhile, tapering down as my charge increases. Getting 340 (or 400) is obviously not averaged. Yesterday, I started around 110 RM, which I think is low enough to get a rapid charge. In fact, the photo above by Smilepak shows 288 after adding 8 miles (therefore, also starting at 110), so he was already "warmed-up" to the fastest charge he would get. It also seems that he was the only one. Shouldn't he be at 340?

What you may be confused about is the miles/hr displayed is the average of the supercharging session up to that time. It's not the average of what the entire session will be, it that's what you thought markb1 said. If you want to see an instantaneous rate, switch the display to kW.

The miles/hr display does not show what you're doing at that moment and that may cause people to charge longer than they need to, when they see such a high rate they think it's worth their while to stay a few minutes longer when actually what they're seeing is the effect of the early phase of the charging cycle.

 

[Cosmacelf]

That's one of the little programming quirks that has always annoyed me about the charging display. Every other number is instantaneous but miles per hour is a session average. Confusing.

 

[markb1]

I am not sure I understand. I have never heard of MPH (mi/hr) being an average over an entire session. I have always used MPH, and at every SC I have visited, I typically got around 340 MPH, and several times much higher, holding that charge rate for awhile, tapering down as my charge increases. Getting 340 (or 400) is obviously not averaged. Yesterday, I started around 110 RM, which I think is low enough to get a rapid charge. In fact, the photo above by Smilepak shows 288 after adding 8 miles (therefore, also starting at 110), so he was already "warmed-up" to the fastest charge he would get. It also seems that he was the only one. Shouldn't he be at 340?

You're right that you can compare roughly these two charge sessions, because they started at the same SoC. But 288 isn't that much more than 250. I'm not saying that nothing was wrong. It's just hard to say without the instantaneous numbers. Also, I don't see why you think it's "obviously not averaged." The averaging causes the charge rate to appear to remain higher, longer, than it actually does. At the very beginning of the charge session, it will be nearly instantaneous, because there isn't much time to average over, so you will indeed see high numbers, and then it will slowly drop. You won't see number that high, though, if you start at 110 RM.

- - - Updated - - -

That's one of the little programming quirks that has always annoyed me about the charging display. Every other number is instantaneous but miles per hour is a session average. Confusing.

I really wish they would always show instantaneous power. I used to be able to configure my car to show instantaneous power while charging, but still show rated miles for the SoC on the dash. They took this away with software update, and now I have to choose one or the other.

 

[4SUPER9]

You're right that you can compare roughly these two charge sessions, because they started at the same SoC. But 288 isn't that much more than 250. I'm not saying that nothing was wrong. It's just hard to say without the instantaneous numbers. Also, I don't see why you think it's "obviously not averaged." The averaging causes the charge rate to appear to remain higher, longer, than it actually does. At the very beginning of the charge session, it will be nearly instantaneous, because there isn't much time to average over, so you will indeed see high numbers, and then it will slowly drop. You won't see number that high, though, if you start at 110 RM.

There is something that I am clearly not understanding here. I am also confident that it is me having the difficulty, and not you. I probably need to go back to electrical engineering 101. My point is that at other SC's, I would see a rate of 340+ when I start, and yesterday at SD, I only saw 250. This is starting at a similar SOC when arriving at other locations. Starting with 110RM, the SC should be delivering a full speed charge, should it not? In my experience, I typically have not seen a decline in rate until I reached at least the 180's.

 

[smartypnz]

Simple indication of proof....
If your number is truly 240 MPH, then your miles would be increasing at a rate of 4 miles per minute. If also you really believe 340 MPH is the case, that would be between 5 and 6 miles per minute. Just watch your range and see if that happens - especially when you're over 200 RM.

The number you are referring to is not what you think.

 

[4SUPER9]

Simple indication of proof....
If your number is truly 240 MPH, then your miles would be increasing at a rate of 4 miles per minute. If also you really believe 340 MPH is the case, that would be between 5 and 6 miles per minute. Just watch your range and see if that happens - especially when you're over 200 RM.

The number you are referring to is not what you think.

That makes sense. I did not time the actually miles added. It did seem much slower than normal. After 10 minutes, I only added about 30 miles. That's when I moved stalls, but with an even slower displayed rate. I gave up as I had enough to get home with a safe buffer.

 

[markb1]

There is something that I am clearly not understanding here. I am also confident that it is me having the difficulty, and not you. I probably need to go back to electrical engineering 101. My point is that at other SC's, I would see a rate of 340+ when I start, and yesterday at SD, I only saw 250. This is starting at a similar SOC when arriving at other locations. Starting with 110RM, the SC should be delivering a full speed charge, should it not? In my experience, I typically have not seen a decline in rate until I reached at least the 180's.

340 MPH is around 100 kW. I'm surprised it would be that high if the charge session started at 110 RM, but I'm not really sure what it should be. Somewhere around here there are some charts people have made, but I don't remember where. It could very well be that something was wrong with the supercharger.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh-oh! looks like there are seven cars, and only six usable spaces, right now!

 

[TexasEV]

There is something that I am clearly not understanding here. I am also confident that it is me having the difficulty, and not you. I probably need to go back to electrical engineering 101. My point is that at other SC's, I would see a rate of 340+ when I start, and yesterday at SD, I only saw 250. This is starting at a similar SOC when arriving at other locations. Starting with 110RM, the SC should be delivering a full speed charge, should it not? In my experience, I typically have not seen a decline in rate until I reached at least the 180's.

No, starting at 110 rated miles (40% charge) the supercharger will not start at its full fate. Also was there another car charging at the paired supercharger?

 

[markb1]

FYI, the construction crew has cleared their equipment out of the charging stalls, so there should be no problems during the evening rush.

 

[FredTMC]

That's one of the little programming quirks that has always annoyed me about the charging display. Every other number is instantaneous but miles per hour is a session average. Confusing.

yep. Agreed. Instantaneous is accurate and avg is very misleading.

 

[ahm]

I tend to look at the Amps being delivered as a way to interpret the rate of charge. I know the greater my SoC (or the longer I charge) the lower the Amps delivered. I'll check the Amps being delivered after the handshake with the car before I wander off.

 

[TTT]

Markb1, would you be able to share the CoLoc-Guest wifi password?

 

[Brent A. Thale]

I tried this charger on my way back from Comic-Con and was really disappointed. I don't understand why Tesla chose this location and designed the charger this way. The spots are all back-in style, and when I was there a temporary fence made it almost impossible to actually back in to half of the spots. Granted that fence may be removed, but even so, backing $100,000 luxury cars into tight spaces (on a Sunday afternoon all but one spot was taken), is just a bad idea. I get the distinct impression that the people using this charger are locals, almost every car had California plates. I noticed most of the people using the charger were sitting in their cars, this is somewhat unusual, I assume it's because the area is activity-challenged, if you walk a bit you can find some restaurants, but it's not like other locations that have Starbucks, Chipotle, etc, right there. And the other chargers I've used are right on major highways, this one is in an office park some distance from big roads.

I wish Tesla would go back to their original design, like the Tejon Ranch charger which has pull-in spots, plus is covered, plus has easy well-known food options right there, is right on a major highway, and is far enough from where Tesla owners live to discourage local use.

 

[Bet TSLA]

I wish Tesla would....

But then what would we have to complain about?

 

[TTT]

I tried this charger on my way back from Comic-Con and was really disappointed. I don't understand why Tesla chose this location and designed the charger this way. The spots are all back-in style, and when I was there a temporary fence made it almost impossible to actually back in to half of the spots. Granted that fence may be removed, but even so, backing $100,000 luxury cars into tight spaces (on a Sunday afternoon all but one spot was taken), is just a bad idea. I get the distinct impression that the people using this charger are locals, almost every car had California plates. I noticed most of the people using the charger were sitting in their cars, this is somewhat unusual, I assume it's because the area is activity-challenged, if you walk a bit you can find some restaurants, but it's not like other locations that have Starbucks, Chipotle, etc, right there. And the other chargers I've used are right on major highways, this one is in an office park some distance from big roads.

Hey Brent, I guess you've been fortunate to only charge at conveniently located SCs. While on a trip to Denver I found that St. George and Grand Junction are about 3 miles from the interstate.
I have always been a proponent of pull in charges, would have most probably prevented the one SC at the Primm location from recently being leveled. As far as the construction fence, it was unfortunate to have coincided with the Comic-Con weekend. Most locals wouldn't charge at high use times such as you experienced, I would mark the high utilization to the Comic-Con weekend. Keep in mind the number of MS being delivered.
Why not get out of your car and encourage others to converse on their experiences with this exceptional piece of machinery?

 

[4SUPER9]

I tried this charger on my way back from Comic-Con and was really disappointed. I don't understand why Tesla chose this location and designed the charger this way. The spots are all back-in style, and when I was there a temporary fence made it almost impossible to actually back in to half of the spots. Granted that fence may be removed, but even so, backing $100,000 luxury cars into tight spaces (on a Sunday afternoon all but one spot was taken), is just a bad idea. I get the distinct impression that the people using this charger are locals, almost every car had California plates. I noticed most of the people using the charger were sitting in their cars, this is somewhat unusual, I assume it's because the area is activity-challenged, if you walk a bit you can find some restaurants, but it's not like other locations that have Starbucks, Chipotle, etc, right there. And the other chargers I've used are right on major highways, this one is in an office park some distance from big roads.

I wish Tesla would go back to their original design, like the Tejon Ranch charger which has pull-in spots, plus is covered, plus has easy well-known food options right there, is right on a major highway, and is far enough from where Tesla owners live to discourage local use.

Having California plates is not unusual. Long distance travel within California is more the norm than not. This is not the New England, where states change every 60 miles. Also, having people sit in their cars waiting for their charge is a good thing. Leaving their cars for hours or overnight is not.

 

[Teriyaki88]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Tesla owners using local chargers. They were sold by Tesla that these SC'er will be available to them. Since people paid to use the chargers, they should be able to them when they see fit. Back in the day people with 60KW model paid $2000 extra for this privilege to use ANY SC'ers.
Thanks!

 

[markb1]

Markb1, would you be able to share the CoLoc-Guest wifi password?

Is that an SSID? Never heard of it.

 

[GoBlue88]

Having California plates is not unusual. Long distance travel within California is more the norm than not. This is not the New England, where states change every 60 miles.

Yep, especially in San Diego. The number of people from LA that drive down here every weekend is huge.

 

[RandyS]

I tried this charger on my way back from Comic-Con and was really disappointed. I don't understand why Tesla chose this location and designed the charger this way. The spots are all back-in style, and when I was there a temporary fence made it almost impossible to actually back in to half of the spots. Granted that fence may be removed, but even so, backing $100,000 luxury cars into tight spaces (on a Sunday afternoon all but one spot was taken), is just a bad idea. I get the distinct impression that the people using this charger are locals, almost every car had California plates. I noticed most of the people using the charger were sitting in their cars, this is somewhat unusual, I assume it's because the area is activity-challenged, if you walk a bit you can find some restaurants, but it's not like other locations that have Starbucks, Chipotle, etc, right there. And the other chargers I've used are right on major highways, this one is in an office park some distance from big roads.

I wish Tesla would go back to their original design, like the Tejon Ranch charger which has pull-in spots, plus is covered, plus has easy well-known food options right there, is right on a major highway, and is far enough from where Tesla owners live to discourage local use.

Brent,
Sure, the location could be closer to the freeway (along with other more minor improvements)...However, my experience in working with charging providers and others that want to connect to the local utility to connect charging equipment is that a site host that is willing to participate by providing space is like a unicorn (very hard to come by). Real estate here in SoCal is extremely expensive, as you know, which translates to high costs for the installation if the provider has to pay. I believe this is one of those cases where the willing and cooperative site host who provided the space for the installation trumped some of the issues you mentioned.

I've actually been on a site walk (at a location that many would consider to be excellent) where the site manager/owner rep. has said that the parking stalls cost $30K each all-in after construction (and they wanted to recover that from the charging provider to have dedicated chargers use the spaces)...

So my attitude has changed after soaking in what I've learned over the last few years. I think we're very lucky to have Tesla investing in these new stations, paying the installation and ongoing monthly energy bills (which are not small). If it means having the stations located in slightly out of the way spots occasionally, then I'm all for that as well. Better to have it the way it is than not have it built because of high costs...