Wow, that's some burn rate. This does reinforce the idea of why it's not very feasible to do a pickup truck yet. They will need much bigger batteries to have reasonable towing range, and that's going to cost big bucks until they can get battery costs down.575Wh/mi under ideal conditions. With about 80kWh still available in my 90kWh battery (based on range charge estimates), that gives me about 139 miles to completely empty. 138 miles is tight.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Supercharger network
- Thread starter dsm363
- Start date
When planning most of my admittedly theoretical trips, I'll usually look for lodging (RV park with 50A service) between dicey stretches. That, or CHAdeMO availability for topping up enough to get on to the next stop. But I think the rule is that we can't be in a big hurry, and since we have our lodging and comforts right behind the X, we'll just try to enjoy the stops along the way. A Plan B (and C) is not just a good idea, it appears to be imperative.
The main reason I brought this up was just to point out that sometimes a 100% charge is a necessity, though it's more the exception than the rule. And since this takes a while, if one is in a state that charges by time for the Supercharger network (see how we're back on topic?), it could get quite costly for certain stretches.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
The more the merrier, but interesting they would put one in Rochester when Victor, NY is also in permitting. That puts these only about 12-15 miles apart.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure people are just referring to the Victor supercharge that's in permitting as "Rochester."
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
HillCountryFun
Member
It might be my imagination but it seems like (according to supercharge.info) the number of SuperChargers currently under construction is down a bit. Now I've been following the SC build out for years and I know the activity does go up and down throughout the year but I'm wondering this year if the drop could be related to Elon's tweet. Could it be possible that they're about to start installing SuperCharger v3's? I have long suspected that is the hold up for Fremont #2.
What do you think?
What do you think?
The simplest explanation is that Tesla is just being slow like they were in late winter & spring of 2014 and 2016. The number of permit and construction sites at supercharge.info has been a good predictor of monthly openings as shown on the graph below.
Do you think supercharger v3 is water cooled superchargers with updated transforms?
S100D
Member
Hopefully the current Tesla main battery and internal charging hardware will be able to handle the higher amperage of the V3 Superchargers.
V1 and V2 superchargers are already water cooled.
A logical next step would be a power upgrade by using the Model X charger units.
V1 supercharger used the charger units from original N.America Model S (9.6kW input on 240V power as used in the cars, 11kW input->10kW output on 277V power as used in superchargers, 12 units for total 120kW output)
V2 supercharger used the charger units from European Model S (11kW input on 230V power as used in the cars, 13.2kW input->12kW output on 277V power, 12 units for total 145kW output)
Model X (and facelift S) chargers go up to 16.5kW input, though don't appear to scale up with voltage as the other ones do. Still, a V3 supercharger built from them and otherwise unchanged would give something over 150kW.
Of course, they may be doing something entirely different.
Which is also different from liquid cooled connectors, which is what ChargePoint announced for their higher powered chargers.
Gerasimental
Member
I remember Elon saying there would be a focus on increasing the number of stalls at existing stations. I've noticed this on a few individual cases, but was wondering i there is anywhere this can be tracked?
Those also have already been seen in combination with V2 superchargers at at least one location. If the cables were the limiting factor rather than the cars, that combination would already allow higher rates than anybody has reported (the superchargers are not the limiting factor, at least in the single car case).
It's not clear to me whether Tesla's liquid cooled cables also cool the connector - obviously they will do so to some extent, since the cable is one of the main routes for the connector to dissipate heat. Quite possibly they also take the cooling loop inside to more explicitly cool the connector.
So there's a bunch of stuff that we know about already that could make modest upgrades to capability. To date, "V1", "V2" has referred just to the cabinets (the two generations of cabinet have been used with various versions of the stalls/cables), but if they want to make a big announcement about it they could choose to call it "V3". However, last time around the "big announcement" (120kW charging vs 90kW) was made over a software-only change, while the V1->V2 hardware change was just quietly rolled out rather later without fanfare.
I'm not expecting any improvement in max charge rates for existing cars from any upcoming changes (except perhaps a small improvement for '100 cars). There's also limited possibilities for the Model 3, since the two things we know so far point to slower charging in kW terms: it's a smaller car with a smaller pack, so (if built from the same cells) would charge at a lower rate in kW terms even if it's charging at the same rate in MPH or percentage terms. We also know that it has larger form-factor cells, which makes them more difficult to cool (less surface area for cooling), again reducing the potential charge power. It's quite likely that there are chemistry improvements going in the opposite direction, but they'd need to be huge to take the charging power much above what we have today on Model S with large packs. Even existing Model S power levels on the smaller Model 3 battery would be a big improvement in actual usability while needing nothing more than the superchargers we already have.
So if there is a big change to come in the Supercharger hardware, then I'm more expecting improvements to improve the multi-stall sharing and the equipment cost. A single cabinet giving 350kW shared between 4 stalls for example would be a nice improvement in usability, while also cutting costs and reducing the size of the equipment compound (maybe helpful to allow room for battery storage?).
Similar threads
- Poll
