-
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
It's totally true. This actually has implications on which charge station you should use. The stations are numbered 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and so on. Each A/B pair shares a charger stack. There is power sharing between the A/B pair. If one is in use and you plug into the other one, you will get less power as the first one gets priority. You would be getting the "left overs".
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
scaesare is correct. Each pair of Supercharger Stalls (spaces) is served by a single Supercharger Cabinet.
As far as we know, each Supercharger Cabinet has 12 Charging Modules that are the same as those in the car. At the 135 kW DC Output power level, the AC Input Power is about 150 kW assuming 90% efficiency. Because 150 kW / 12 is 12.5 kW, and that is more than the U.S 10 kW per module and European 11 kW per module power level, there has been speculation that Tesla has upped the number of modules to 15. As far as I know this has not been documented, however it is plausible. There are several pictures of 12 modules in a Supercharger Cabinet.
So 8 Stalls are served by 4 Supercharger Cabinets, each containing 12 Charging Modules for a total of 48 Charging Modules for an 8 Stall Supercharger Site.
Granted all of these concerns are valid and take time to work through. The real issue is the communication process. Tesla continues to promise many more SC then they have the ability to deliver. This phenomena began last year when they published their first coming soon map. It would be very easy for Tesla to communicate more effectively. There should be criteria for sites that are on the coming soon map. IMO these sites should be sited and in the permitting process. In this way there would be a finite timeline. Usually 1 - 3 months. In addition, maps should be adjusted more frequently. At this point Tesla should have a good idea of which sites will be online by the end of 2014. I would say if they have not located a site and are not in negotiations with a landlord then there is only a very small chance that the site will be available this year. Moving into next year they should publish a map with general areas that they are considering and solicit feedback on these locations as i doubt they have made any headway on these sites beyond putting a dot on a map. If they have then they should probably be on the 2014 map or the coming soon map.
From my observation of the SC process to date, the limiting factor is not the build crew. There are sometimes hiccups with local government approvals and power company hook up but for the most part, once there is a permit application, the process goes pretty quick. There are, indeed, some exceptions to this (Edison, one in CA that escapes me now) but for the most part, it's a relatively predicable small number of weeks to completion. And the actual work that needs to get done is not terribly complex. The actual SC "guts" are pretty much cookie cutter at this point. Some permits applications have required resubmittals but that still doesn't seem to be a significant factor.
What we don't have visibility into is the site selection and negotiation processes. One of those is the gating factor here. It's been my experience that negotiations always take more time than you would ever think possible. Part of the problem is due to the fact that every site is unique and has issues that need to be resolved. Some owners will be greedy or overly demanding or just plain difficult. I am sure that a number of negotiations have fallen through and the siting team had to switch to "plan B". Maybe not a few. Perhaps some day we will know. There have been some hints that Elon is a bit exasperated by the negotiation process. He commented about how easy it was to negotiate the first crop of Norwegian SCs. That meant to me that there are other, more difficult, SC negotiations going on. So, I think that's were much of the problem lies.
Site selection can't be that hard as there really are only small number of possibilities for each targeted area. However, it does require feet on the ground evaluating each site's potential. In aggregate, it might well be an issue to vet, say, 10 potential sites and get down to 2 or 3 viable ones to come up with one final negotiated site. It's the basic business process funnel. Multiply that times 100 and we get a lot of leg work needed. Hopefully they are being smart about this process. It actually sounds like a fun kind of problem to solve.
What we don't have visibility into is the site selection and negotiation processes. One of those is the gating factor here. It's been my experience that negotiations always take more time than you would ever think possible. Part of the problem is due to the fact that every site is unique and has issues that need to be resolved. Some owners will be greedy or overly demanding or just plain difficult. I am sure that a number of negotiations have fallen through and the siting team had to switch to "plan B". Maybe not a few. Perhaps some day we will know. There have been some hints that Elon is a bit exasperated by the negotiation process. He commented about how easy it was to negotiate the first crop of Norwegian SCs. That meant to me that there are other, more difficult, SC negotiations going on. So, I think that's were much of the problem lies.
Site selection can't be that hard as there really are only small number of possibilities for each targeted area. However, it does require feet on the ground evaluating each site's potential. In aggregate, it might well be an issue to vet, say, 10 potential sites and get down to 2 or 3 viable ones to come up with one final negotiated site. It's the basic business process funnel. Multiply that times 100 and we get a lot of leg work needed. Hopefully they are being smart about this process. It actually sounds like a fun kind of problem to solve.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Has anyone seen or taken pics of the new Chicago Service Center superchargers? Seems they quietly went online yesterday. Also hearing there are HPWCs in the same lot as well, is that correct?
I can more or less confirm this. While charging at ~118kW at the new SC at Solli, Norway, another car picked the other spot connected to the same SC. He got exactly 30kW. I know because I recommended he move to another spot (all 4 others were available) and he checked the rate. So 148kW total output from the SC which hints strongly at 150kW capability (15x10kW). If the chargers were 11kW the other car should have gotten 22kW or 33kW, not 30kW.
Also there were 400V-480V step-up transformers connected to each SC cabinet. Those were rated for 160kW. Also the label on the SC cabinet says 480V 3-phase, 192A. That amounts to nearly exactly 160kW (192A*480V*SQ(3)).
The 135kW rating is per output, but requires a higher battery voltage than the Model S.
I've attached pictures of the labels.
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
I don't doubt what you saw, but this may have been a momentary output.
480V at 192A, 3-phase is 159.5 kW AC in, but this label is the standard Gen II, 135 kW DC Out Supercharger. At 90% efficiency, that needs 150 kW AC in. The calculated 159.5 kW on the label may be margin, or to account for the input Voltage to droop as far as 450 Volts (6%). Mains can still be in spec with a 5% droop, and 5% with a little margin is 6%. Also, the output limit of 330 Amps at 360 Volts (the low State of Charge pack Voltage for an 85) is 118.8 kW, right at the 120 kW per pedestal limit that Superchargers and cars seem to have.
They've been online for quite a while, just been recently noticed. See my post in the forum for photo.
Enhanced Supercharger Map: zoom in, change range indicators | Forums | Tesla Motors
I think this is a unique situation. There are two chargers in the alley at the back of the service center and the service center uses these to prep new deliveries. They said this location would not appear on the Telsa Supercharger Map. They also asked to call ahead of time to see if the chargers were available. Obviously, the chargers are there 24/7 and yes there are numerous HPWCs against the building and in the lot across the alley. Personally, I have a feeling that there is some concern for someone not familiar with the area making a wrong turn and ending up in the headlines the next morning. Just my personal opinion.
Unrelated to the topic, but I think everyone would like to know (if you don't know already). 6.0 is being rolled out today via OTA.
Firmware 6.0 - Page 2
Firmware 6.0 - Page 2
Is it really necessary to post that 6.x is released in completely unrelated threads?
Its pretty big news and if people don't go into other sections of this site I wanted to let them know. There weren't any blog posts or tweets by Elon today so I wanted to let those know who may have not seen it. I don't think it was that big of a deal to mention one post here.
To date:
50k Teslas made x $2k = $100 million in the kitty.
So 100 SCs in North America = $1 million per each.
Not counting the International SCs, of course, but just saying.
So I guess EM has not had to dip into his pocket so far to support this project.
We should plot this curve over time.
--
50k Teslas made x $2k = $100 million in the kitty.
So 100 SCs in North America = $1 million per each.
Not counting the International SCs, of course, but just saying.
So I guess EM has not had to dip into his pocket so far to support this project.
We should plot this curve over time.
--
Not all Model S cars have Supercharging enabled, but likely over 80% do.
There have been estimates posted on this forum that a Supercharger statin costs $200K to $250K to construct. Much less than a million.
There have been estimates posted on this forum that a Supercharger statin costs $200K to $250K to construct. Much less than a million.
Last edited:
It's probably well over 80%. The vast majority of cars are 85s, and I've never met a 60 owner who didn't have supercharging. Of course maybe that's because I'm meeting them at superchargers
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
At $200/yr times 5 years, that would be $1,000 or half.
12,000 miles x 0.36 kWh/mi x $0.20/kWh x 20% miles on Superchargers = $173/year, for example.
Similar threads
- Poll
