I had to chuckle as I read this. I am not sure of ANYthing but one thing I have noticed is that Tesla does not seem to be taking too much time developing the app. Or if they are it has not been made known to us lesser minions. They are probably devoting their time to more worthwhile pursuits. I find this strange since Range Anxiety seems to be the number one concern they are trying so diligently to address in the SuperCharger network. But those of us living outside that network have a while to wait evidently.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Whatever reckoning system you use it might be good to note the MAX Recharge at a SC:
Begin SCing as close to ZERO miles as possible.
End SCing after 25 min = 140 miles.
Going beyond these points means you are wasting time, so do so only when needed.
90kw and 105kw limited cars will taper differently.
--
Begin SCing as close to ZERO miles as possible.
End SCing after 25 min = 140 miles.
Going beyond these points means you are wasting time, so do so only when needed.
90kw and 105kw limited cars will taper differently.
--
InTheShadows
Active Member
When I picked up our car the DS told me that Tesla was going to open up the API so that apps could be written for the car. They then would show up in the app section and could be moved to the navigation bar at the top of the screen for customization.
Yup! I have heard that too, but I have to wonder how long it takes to 'open up the API'?
Tesla should have all of this data for each of the charging configurations (14-50, J1772, HPWC-80, supercharger 90KW, supercharger 120KW, ...). If they don't want to publish it on their website - maybe someone could make a request to Ownership for the data and then put that into a usable spreadsheet, website and/or mobile app.
Supercharger 120 kW vs. 90 kW comparison
Learning on this thread that the Hawthorne Supercharger was upgraded to 120 kW, I revisited it to test it out, ironically just hours before the Kickoff Party for last week's LA-to-NY Rally. I intended to repeat the test I did last April, when my S was just two months old, recording measurements every 5 minutes during charge. Here is a graph of the results:
The blue and gold lines are the 120 kW, and the green and red is the 90 kW. The blue and green is Range, and the gold and red is kW, calculated by multiplying the car's measurements of voltage and current (it's DC).
I can confirm that, below 120 mi of Range, the 120 kW Supercharger charges much faster. Perhaps because they're "empty", the batteries can be safely charged, with cooling (I could hear it), at that rate. The graph shows that the measured power begins at almost 120 kW.
Beyond the mid-100s of Range, the charging rate is pretty similar to the 90 kW, asymptotically sloping to zero as the batteries get "full". Another interesting effect I see in the raw data is that when the voltage is over 400, the battery is near full charge, and that's when the current begins a new mode of tapering off (at 63 minutes in the recent test, but beyond 70 minutes in last year's). Last April my 85 kWh pack would top out at over 270, but today it tops out at 257. Perhaps Tesla's algorithm has a tapering function kick in near "full" (or at 401 V), making my more recent test look slower than last year's near maximum Range.
What I see is that if you're always trying to get to full charge, the difference in the total charge time between a 120 kW and a 90 kW Supercharger is minor. However, if you're going from 0 to half charge, you would probably see a several-minute advantage with the 120 kW, which seems close enough to make Tesla's claims (20 vs 30 minutes) plausible in ideal conditions.
Put another way, the 120 kW version bolsters the oft-discussed strategy for efficient use of Superchargers: don't bother filling to 100% (unless you have some other reason) and arrive at each Supercharger with a low Range while maintaining a safety margin.
I did see others' 120 kW data, but those were leading to even slower results than my 90 kW data, so I felt I needed to eliminate variables and take the same car back to the same location to do this right.
After some analysis and compensating for the fact that my car has lost a few percent of its capacity, I adjusted charging function for the 120 kW Supercharger and now I can post a new table, below.
The biggest difference I see from the 90 kW results is below 120 miles of Range, where charging occurs much faster than before. After that however it seems the charging rate is not that much different, and near the Max Range the rate perhaps even gets slightly slower, with the 90 and 120 kW Superchargers converging at around 250 miles of Range.
In any case, all are welcome to use it, just like the 90 kW Table earlier. As before this should apply to the P85, but I don't know if the 85 or 60 editions of the Model S behave differently, so YMMV.
Learning on this thread that the Hawthorne Supercharger was upgraded to 120 kW, I revisited it to test it out, ironically just hours before the Kickoff Party for last week's LA-to-NY Rally. I intended to repeat the test I did last April, when my S was just two months old, recording measurements every 5 minutes during charge. Here is a graph of the results:
The blue and gold lines are the 120 kW, and the green and red is the 90 kW. The blue and green is Range, and the gold and red is kW, calculated by multiplying the car's measurements of voltage and current (it's DC).
I can confirm that, below 120 mi of Range, the 120 kW Supercharger charges much faster. Perhaps because they're "empty", the batteries can be safely charged, with cooling (I could hear it), at that rate. The graph shows that the measured power begins at almost 120 kW.
Beyond the mid-100s of Range, the charging rate is pretty similar to the 90 kW, asymptotically sloping to zero as the batteries get "full". Another interesting effect I see in the raw data is that when the voltage is over 400, the battery is near full charge, and that's when the current begins a new mode of tapering off (at 63 minutes in the recent test, but beyond 70 minutes in last year's). Last April my 85 kWh pack would top out at over 270, but today it tops out at 257. Perhaps Tesla's algorithm has a tapering function kick in near "full" (or at 401 V), making my more recent test look slower than last year's near maximum Range.
What I see is that if you're always trying to get to full charge, the difference in the total charge time between a 120 kW and a 90 kW Supercharger is minor. However, if you're going from 0 to half charge, you would probably see a several-minute advantage with the 120 kW, which seems close enough to make Tesla's claims (20 vs 30 minutes) plausible in ideal conditions.
Put another way, the 120 kW version bolsters the oft-discussed strategy for efficient use of Superchargers: don't bother filling to 100% (unless you have some other reason) and arrive at each Supercharger with a low Range while maintaining a safety margin.
I did see others' 120 kW data, but those were leading to even slower results than my 90 kW data, so I felt I needed to eliminate variables and take the same car back to the same location to do this right.
After some analysis and compensating for the fact that my car has lost a few percent of its capacity, I adjusted charging function for the 120 kW Supercharger and now I can post a new table, below.
The biggest difference I see from the 90 kW results is below 120 miles of Range, where charging occurs much faster than before. After that however it seems the charging rate is not that much different, and near the Max Range the rate perhaps even gets slightly slower, with the 90 and 120 kW Superchargers converging at around 250 miles of Range.
In any case, all are welcome to use it, just like the 90 kW Table earlier. As before this should apply to the P85, but I don't know if the 85 or 60 editions of the Model S behave differently, so YMMV.
Last edited:
As others have pointed out previously in this and other threads:
"Old firmware 90 kW charging" on a 120kW-enabled battery is different than "(old or new) 90 kW charging" on a 90kW-disabled battery. As such, we'll probably need separate tables for (at least) 90, 90/120, 120, and 135. My impression is that dauger's provided 90/120 and 120 data. It would be good to get some 90 (A packs) and 135 (Europe?) data.
"Old firmware 90 kW charging" on a 120kW-enabled battery is different than "(old or new) 90 kW charging" on a 90kW-disabled battery. As such, we'll probably need separate tables for (at least) 90, 90/120, 120, and 135. My impression is that dauger's provided 90/120 and 120 data. It would be good to get some 90 (A packs) and 135 (Europe?) data.
wcalvin
Member
Graph from empty to full on a 120 kW supercharger
Using VisibleTesla to monitor, here is what I got with my 85, starting at 19 rated miles, stopping at 268 about 80 minutes later. Rate of charge is also a measure of m/hr.
Using VisibleTesla to monitor, here is what I got with my 85, starting at 19 rated miles, stopping at 268 about 80 minutes later. Rate of charge is also a measure of m/hr.
Last edited:
You'd want to do some serious thinking, testing and planning before going public.
You need:
- Documentation
- Stability
- Longer release cycles (to give app developers time to test compatibility).
ZBB
Emperor
I took a stab at putting together a table for those of us with 60s.
This is based on data I recorded with Visible Tesla during my first Supercharger visit in mid Feb. It was a 120kW Supercharger (Flagstaff), but 60s are limited to 105kW. This was on Firmware 5.8, so may be a bit different on 5.9. We arrived with 13 rated miles and charged to 199 rated (99% for my battery on 5.8), and unplugged while the battery was balancing, although the VT log reported the battery at 100% a few seconds after unplugging. Unfortunately, VT didn't log the beginning of the charge (we dropped out of cell coverage just south of Flagstaff -- so VT must have gone into "allow sleep" mode) -- but VT captured data from 34 to 199 rated miles. The data logs didn't exactly correspond to 10 mile increments, but I had points within 1 rated mile in most cases that I used for those points; a couple had to be averaged (for example, the log had points at 127.4 and 134.0 miles -- so I just averaged the data to get a midpoint) -- for the purpose of this table, its OK, especially since I rounded to the nearest minute. I also estimated the data from 0 to 35 rated miles (yellow cells) -- math works out pretty well (13-199 took about 81 minutes in real time, and my estimate calc shows 81 minutes for 20-199, and 84 minutes for 10-99, so slightly conservative)...
This is based on data I recorded with Visible Tesla during my first Supercharger visit in mid Feb. It was a 120kW Supercharger (Flagstaff), but 60s are limited to 105kW. This was on Firmware 5.8, so may be a bit different on 5.9. We arrived with 13 rated miles and charged to 199 rated (99% for my battery on 5.8), and unplugged while the battery was balancing, although the VT log reported the battery at 100% a few seconds after unplugging. Unfortunately, VT didn't log the beginning of the charge (we dropped out of cell coverage just south of Flagstaff -- so VT must have gone into "allow sleep" mode) -- but VT captured data from 34 to 199 rated miles. The data logs didn't exactly correspond to 10 mile increments, but I had points within 1 rated mile in most cases that I used for those points; a couple had to be averaged (for example, the log had points at 127.4 and 134.0 miles -- so I just averaged the data to get a midpoint) -- for the purpose of this table, its OK, especially since I rounded to the nearest minute. I also estimated the data from 0 to 35 rated miles (yellow cells) -- math works out pretty well (13-199 took about 81 minutes in real time, and my estimate calc shows 81 minutes for 20-199, and 84 minutes for 10-99, so slightly conservative)...
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
