-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Typical Supercharging rate?
- Thread starter anticitizen13.7
- Start date
Ok, maybe the maximum permitted draw has been increased by firmware updates. I'm on 1.15.14 and my dash display would should this for instance when at a SC:
225/225 amps, 364/400 v
or
160/225 amps, 364/400 v
That is what led me to believe that 225 was the maximum amperage. Furthermore, this was consistent at Gilroy, Harris, and Tejon SC.
225/225 amps, 364/400 v
or
160/225 amps, 364/400 v
That is what led me to believe that 225 was the maximum amperage. Furthermore, this was consistent at Gilroy, Harris, and Tejon SC.
dennis
Model S Plaid
I don't remember seeing kW/kWh being displayed when I was supercharging on 4.1 two weeks ago. Did that change in 4.2 or is there a way to select that display rather than miles added?
Bear in mind this could be a car firmware issue or a supercharger firmware issue (or even a permanent hardware difference between the early CA superchargers and the later East Coast ones).
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I am also on 1.15.14, and I also saw about the same limits you did at the CA chargers - pretty fast, but always well short of 90kW.
Still, there could be other factors involved - ambient temps, pack temps, SOC, other draws from the supply, station limits, etc.
I had an interesting experience last week at the Folsom Supercharger. I had just driven to Tahoe and back from the Sacramento area and arrived at the Supercharger in the evening with 50 miles of range left. I charged for about an hour, noting that the recent installation version 4.2 firmware seemed to increase the maximum current being delivered. And I was very pleased that in the hour I was there, I got to about 230 miles of range. But as the photo below shows, the Model S reported that the Supercharger had added 246 miles of range when the car only had 211 and that was really the addition of only 161 from the original 50. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Is it because the readout on the left is measuring energy output of the charger and not energy actually stored? Where does the rest of it go? Is there the considerable loss that appears to have occurred here?
I'm not sure I understand your theory, but if it is that the + mileage started at 50, that still does not explain why the plus mileage is 246 and the mileage in the battery is 211. Also, while I didn't take a picture of it early in this charge cycle, I'm pretty sure it started at 0, so I am still wondering where the additional 80 kWh [246-(211-50) = 80] went. Were they disbursed as heat losses? Or is there something wrong with the calibration of the + mileage readout?
Some have experienced where the "+" miles start at the total number of miles you added during your *last* charging session. For example, if I came home at 216 miles range, and the car charged up to 240 miles, I added 24 miles. When I start my next charging session, it starts from "+24" and goes from there, and will look like I added 24 more miles than I actually did when that charge completes.
It's highly likely that the *last* time you charged before this, you had added 85 miles of range by charging, based on this theory, and that's what the "+" started with.
That day I had driven a lot and had charged at four different locations, adding something like 20, 16, 6, and 9 miles to try out different chargers out in the wild. After the last one (a J1772 charger on a 70 amp circuit which can also charge a roadster), I left with 66 miles left and arrived at the supercharger with 50 miles left. This doesn't seem to fit with the theory above.
BUT some of the driving after the first two charging events (20 and 16) included driving from the top of Donner Pass at 8800 feet to the supercharger at less than 1000 feet, including a lot of regen. Is it possible that the + was counting some or all of that regen in addition to the last two charging events that day (6 and 9)? I was pretty sure it started showing 0, but I could be mistaken.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
Excuse me for asking this without reading the whole thread first... I did read every post by cinergi since the graph was posted.
I'm surprised that the relationship SOC vs kWh is not strictly linear. How exactly did you obtain the kWh value used for the x-coordinate?
EDIT: And how is it possible that with 33 kWh the SOC increases by 50%?
I'm surprised that the relationship SOC vs kWh is not strictly linear. How exactly did you obtain the kWh value used for the x-coordinate?
EDIT: And how is it possible that with 33 kWh the SOC increases by 50%?
Last edited:
For those of you who may have been puzzled with me about the strange supercharging experience I described in post #70 of this thread, I wanted to report that yesterday I had an experience that was much more what I would expect to be normal. I started charging at 41 miles of range left and ended less than an hour later with 242 miles and it showed the amount added as pretty much exactly the difference between what I started with and whatever it was showing I had at any given time throughout the charging period. So I guess my prior experience may have been skewed by all the regen we had done when we drove down from Donner Pass that afternoon. In any case, I am a happy camper. Going to the supercharger is so much fun. Tesla gives us such a thrill even though we are only getting a few dollars worth of electricity each time we go there!
We (and I mean "we" in the sense of Tesla and/or the Tesla community) need to come up with a sound bite that defuses the "how long does it take to charge?" question. It comes up constantly on all of the interviews. The thing that the outsiders don't seem to grasp is the time it personally takes from me is about 30 seconds a week. I plug in twice a week at night. Charge time is just completely irrelevant for that 98% of the time you're not on a road trip. I didn't really grasp it. I knew the single charger was enough, but it wasn't until I owned the car that it became clear how the car is just magically always full of fuel at the point I want it.
The problem is the interviewers seem to be stuck in the "filling up as a side-trip" mindset. One of the on-set staff in the Phil Lebeau story said something like "Waiting an hour for the car to charge is a real problem if I've got somewhere to be". Day to day, you never wait. If you're on a road trip, you generally don't have any hard deadline for "somewhere to be". I think they're in the mindset of waiting an hour to charge as a side trip on the way to work, but that's a completely non-existent real world usage scenario.
When Tesla (Elon/George/etc) get this question they never seem to have a good answer. It seems to be a hard thing to communicate to non-EV folks. I've drawn a blank on a good, pity one or two sentence explanation.
The problem is the interviewers seem to be stuck in the "filling up as a side-trip" mindset. One of the on-set staff in the Phil Lebeau story said something like "Waiting an hour for the car to charge is a real problem if I've got somewhere to be". Day to day, you never wait. If you're on a road trip, you generally don't have any hard deadline for "somewhere to be". I think they're in the mindset of waiting an hour to charge as a side trip on the way to work, but that's a completely non-existent real world usage scenario.
When Tesla (Elon/George/etc) get this question they never seem to have a good answer. It seems to be a hard thing to communicate to non-EV folks. I've drawn a blank on a good, pity one or two sentence explanation.
Similar threads
- Question
