I have to keep reminding myself that they are really building this out for non-Tesla drivers. So they are trying to fill in all the stuff that Tesla already has covered first, and then come back and add additional coverage. (And they are providing a denser set of stations, each with likely fewer stalls, as I doubt we will see many, if any, NEVI installs with more than 4 stalls.) So yeah, we aren't likely to see much benefit from this for a while, if ever. (If Tesla provides coverage first it won't matter to Tesla drivers.)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla making HUGE mistake with Superchargers
- Thread starter Vicj
- Start date
Mockingbird
Member
If Tesla quickly opens the Supercharger to non-Tesla vehicles, states can speed up their NEVI plans.
No. We've been through this. Neither V2 or V3 sites as deployed would meet NEVI requirements even with a CCS connector added. They would have to add power, transformers, cabinets, credit card readers, displays, etc. So it isn't a matter of opening the Superchargers, it would be a matter of redesigning the entire experience. (As well as adding a 24x7 call center that could take payment over the phone and start charging sessions.)
Mockingbird
Member
AMPd
Well-Known Member
I'm certainly glad you aren't the person setting specs./requirements for deployment. I'm not sure even EA would do something that bad.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
It's a nice goal, but every 50 miles is overkill. Well, maybe not overkill, but I would definitely do it as starting with every 150 miles on 3 times the road first, then filling in the intervening spots second. Road tripping in a car that can't easily pull off 150 miles is not a good idea.
In addition, as I said 150kw is not necessary. The difference in charge time at 150kw and 100kw is just a few minutes unless you are only charging to 50%. In theory, only charging to 50% at fast stations is the strategy that gives you the least time plugged in, but that's misleading, because you spend extra time getting to and from the chargers unless they are right on the highway (like rest stops.) As soon as you do anything but sit and wait in your charging sessions, in particular if you eat, then you want the approach of fewer, longer charge sessions (to 80-90%) done while you eat or shop. If the stations are in those "right on the highway" pull-offs, they tend to be gas stations and other places that are not the first choice for eating or shopping.
Indeed, if you argue that the long road tripper stops every 150 miles, a reasonable plan is 150kW+ every 150 miles, and slower (if required to save money) at the intervening stations, which are used by people who are local or doing local side trips. The people just going down the highway would stick to the 150+ stations.
I get both takes. I don't see putting a 4 stall site every 150 miles as being a good choice. Going with ~4 stall sites every 50 miles, vs. larger sites every 150 miles, allows for easier site selection because of available space and power as well as providing more redundancy if a single site is down for some reason.
Tesla Superchargers still wouldn't meet a 100kW requirement... (V3s are almost there at ~90kW.) I, also, think that dropping from 150kW to 100kW would make more difference than you think.
The NEVI guidelines say that they are supposed to be within one mile of the highway. So there shouldn't be a lot of diversion time for these. And I would expect most to be rest stop/gas station like locations.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
No charger will put more power into a car than it thinks the car should take. V3 superchargers routinely start at around 200kw for me. They drop fairly soon, but not because somebody else pulled up and drew power.
I am not bothered if an 8-plex of 250kw stations can't deliver 2mW. I would rather have more stations sharing the max power than fewer able to always deliver all of it. Sharing only reduces your power when the station is under heavy use (This is actually mostly true at v2 stations as long as people know not to pair until the station is >50% full.)
Tesla's approach of having lots of stalls means that a broken stall has very little impact. A broken stall at a 2-plex or 4-plex can mean a big difference.
I would much rather have to share power and get a longer charge than have to sit in a line at a full smaller station.
One mile of the highway can be quite a large diversion. One fault I have with superchargers is that sometimes it's quite a long drive off the highway to get to them, and they are mostly well within a mile of the highway. They tend to be at power centers and there are lots of turns and traffic lights and traffic to get to the back of the parking lot of the power center. Also, is it 1 mile of the highway or 1 mile of the interchange?
I guess some day we should do a survey as to how many people follow the "Charge to 80%+ with fewer stops" strategy vs. the "Charge to 50% and stop more often" approach.
You tell me that dropping from 150K to 100K would take more time than I think. I've charged at probably 100 chargers -- 25KW, 50KW, 150KW, 250KW and lots of real rates less than that. Are you asserting what I have seen is atypical? I will agree that because I almost always have a meal, or more rarely a shopping trip, with every supercharge -- I think maybe twice in my life have I sat in the car for the charge -- I tend to charge to 90%, and the relative difference is lower for those who do that. Now I know it's slow from 80% to 90% and in that case I am deliberately doing this so I don't have to go move my car while eating. (I try to avoid this if it's 100% full though, unless I need that much charge.)
It also varies by how much charge you have coming in. If you come in with 5% you will see more difference, but Tesla recommends recharging at around 20% for best battery life. If you do that, you only get the fast power from 20% to 50% (17kwh in my car) and even at 100kw that is done in 10 minutes, vs. 5 minutes at 200kw. Others have plotted charge times.
Last edited:
RTPEV
Active Member
And even if they do say it, they probably mean on a routine basis, not when you are on a road trip and going to plug in immediately upon arrival.
For V3 to be electrically compliant with this 'simultaneous 150 kW' rule, Tesla would have to reduce the stall to cabinet ratio down to just two stalls per power cabinet. That was be a substantial hit to the site's throughput, especially once you add slower charging cars like the Chevy Bolt to the network. With a significant portion of non-Tesla EVs not being capable of sustaining 150 kW, requiring a simultaneous 150 kW per stall is arbitrary and counterproductive. There are substantial installation, operating and maintenance costs associated with this requirement.
From my reading it is all stalls funded by the NEVI program. With a minimum of 4.
So an 8 stall V3 would have to dedicate 600 kW to 4 CCS stalls leaving 100kW to split between the remaining 4 stalls. (2 V3 cabinets, without battery storage, can only support ~700kW.) I don't know if they would be allowed to do the split dynamically. (ie. could they spread the power evenly and then "steal" power from a Tesla charging to make the require 150kW available to a non-Tesla that plugs in?)
I agree that sharing 700kW across 8 stalls is way better than only sharing 600kW across 4 stalls. (I think that Kempower has said that the average usage per active stall at their locations was something close to 80kW. Which is interestingly very close to the ~90kW that Tesla provides per stall in a V3 install.)
But realistically, Tesla's solution doesn't meet a number of NEVI requirements, so they aren't likely to apply to be a contractor under the program.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
One place they constantly remind you is in the car, which turns your indicator yellow below 20% to warn you that you should be charging soon. My recollection is that it also when making charging plans, aims to have you recharge by 20% though the algorithm has changed over the years.
As to whether Tesla will take these grants when they have CCS stations, I suspect they would when building new stations, and would build them to the new spec. Again, a station only has to offer 150KW to the car, however most cars will only take that for a very short period of time in their charge. So at worse you would find a situation where if 4 cars happen to be at the Nevi stalls with CCS and they all are taking 150kw at the same time, they might well decide to offer less at the other stalls to meet the requirement. In reality this will be so rare as to not be a problem.
If it happens to become a problem, Tesla has many options open to it, including charging more per kwh to CCS cars, and encouraging Teslas to use the mixed stalls first. That's a bit silly of course, but should be within the rules but gets around the silly requirement. In general, in fact, I expect Tesla to give priority and lower prices to Tesla drivers over CCS drivers. It is already standard procedure at many charging networks to have a membership which gets you lower rates. Tesla simply will include this membership with each Tesla, and charge a lot for it (if it's available at all) to CCS drivers.
I doubt weather or not they want to redesign the stalls/sites to include displays, credit card readers, etc. (Though I think they can have one display/credit card reader kiosk per site vs on each pedestal.) California is going to require displays on new installs at some point. (Which may be why Tesla is installing so many in California now.)
But I think states are likely going to prioritize contractors that have a proven history of installing/maintaining sites. Oregon has worked with WCEH/EVCS in the past, and I think they are likely to be the #1 contractor for their NEVI awards. (They already worked with ODOT on funding the existing infrastructure.) An interesting tidbit about them is that they offer a $50/month unlimited charging plan. If they install a good portion of the NEVI sites in Oregon and continue to offer that it would be an excellent deal for road warriors in the state.
In the UK/Europe they charge ~$12/month to get the same rates as a Tesla owner.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
In Europe, there was no burden once Tesla decided to put type 2 on their car and their chargers. Nor any requirement to design their stations other than as they see fit.
It's silly for the government to be designing chargers based on the old rules of gasoline. Tesla did it better, now we should not force them to do it differently. It makes sense that the government might require that the stations support more than just Teslas.
An interesting play (which I don't think Tesla would do) would be to keep the same length of cable. With a bit of evil, it means that while the stations would in theory support all cars, only a few could actually park in a way that it reaches. I think they would get criticized for it of course, but they have a real reason when it comes to the liquid cooled cords and keeping them short.
It seems that only maybe the Audi e-Tron and Taycan could reach and I am not sure about the latter. Perhaps the MG. Some could reach by only by straddling two stations, which they could easily prevent. Of course, sometimes it's hard to get even a Tesla to plug in!
However, in the end, having to put up a display screen and credit card reader (one per station, not stall) and some longer cords is not a big deal, and well worth getting a large grant for your station. Being forced to prioritize some of the stalls to be sure of 150kw is stupid, but they can mitigate the harm and deal with it if need be. Even the old v2 chargers, which would limit you to 30kw if you parked next to an empty model X, were not not that big a deal. Tesla could have made them less of a problem by telling you on your screen which stall will give you the most power when you arrive at the station. It knows how much power is available for each stall and how much more power each charging car needs.
Last edited:
Sure, but they didn't receive any government funds for those chargers either. They are still free to build sites in the US anyway they see fit, just not if they want to try for NEVI money. (And since each state is doling the money out, each state may have different requirements on top of the base NEVI requirements.)
I would probably pass on the money, if just for the ability to not have people point to the government giving Tesla millions of dollars. They should just release the CCS adapter, and retrofit for older cars, in NA so that every Tesla can take advantage of the newly installed sites. (Which I guess we will start to see in a little under a year.)
Mockingbird
Member
This is a perfect time for Tesla to tell the government:
"I have X Superchargers that don't meet NEVI requirements, but if you give me Y dollars, I can retrofit them so that they meet NEVI requirements."
Then their card readers would be as reliable as EA's.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Saying either of these characteristics are a recommendation by Tesla “for best battery life” is quite the jump to conclusions.
There is no valid battery health reason for not discharging below 20%. Lithium batteries are quite happy at low states of charge, so long as they never completely discharge. The bottom buffer and vehicle shutdown/hibernation abilities make it quite difficult to do this even when depleting the battery all the way to a displayed “zero miles”.
Similar threads
- Poll
