Is there any way of getting Tesla or supercharge.info to identify V4 sites for the benefit of non-Tesla users with different charge port locations ?Fleet South is open. Just been informed from HQ.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is there any way of getting Tesla or supercharge.info to identify V4 sites for the benefit of non-Tesla users with different charge port locations ?Fleet South is open. Just been informed from HQ.
It will compared to a V2 site, considerably so.Will V4 make a tangible difference to charge / "dwell" times? (IDK)
The latest cabinets I've seen at V4 sites have a maximum AC input of 385 kVA. There is of course the DC power sharing bus between cabinets but it's still going to be an absolute max average power stall of 96 kW. In reality prob no more than 90 kW per stall max average output with headroom and losses to be taken into account.Now, V3 has more than 75kw per stall but from what I understand it’s nothing like 250kw and it’s the clever load balancing which keep everyone charging quickly.
Is this view of how V2 shares accurate still? It certainly used to be the case that you would get different power based on how much the first charging car was drawing, but that changed a couple of years back. As soon as a car connects next to you on a v2 you go to about 64kW now, sharing the load, and it only increases if they disconnect.Recent V3 cabinets have 385kVA@480V input (for 4 stalls) compared to V2 with 160kVA@480V so V3 about 20% more input per stall. Possibly V3 are slightly more efficient, but there's only room for that to be a couple of percentage points of difference.
More significant is the sharing, where V2 shares only in units of 25% of the cabinet capacity, while V3 has fine grain sharing, and V2 is only sharing with the adjacent stall while V3 is at least sharing in groups of 4 and potentially pooling the entire site capacity if the inter-cabinet links are used.
The granularity of V2 means that whenever a car is given all that it can take, some of the input capacity is 'wasted' (in the sense that it cannot be used even if another car would like to share it). If both cars connected to a V2 are fully satisfied, then the V2 is wasting on average half a capacity unit per stall, so on average a whole capacity unit (25%) per cabinet - or in other words, average capacity usage would only be 75% of nominal.
That is a pessimistic estimate, because the case where the cars are being throttled (given less than they want) avoids this wastage due to granularity, but in this case the cars are charging more slowly than they are capable of, and any whole capacity units elsewhere on the site are being wasted. If for a rough estimate we assume those factors cancel out, then it would be reasonable to suggest that the maximum practically achievable throughput at a V2 site allowing for sharing inefficiency is 75% of the nominal rating. With the V3 site having 20% greater capacity per stall and not suffering from sharing inefficiency, that gives a comparison of 120% vs 75%, so the V3 site having more than 1.5 times the usable throughput of a V2 site with the same number of stalls.
That is considering the case of a site fully occupied and queueing, where the total power coming in to the site is the limiting factor. There's an additional advantage of the V3 site under fluctuating demand. When the site is not fully occupied, the V3 can charge some cars faster than they would on the V2 - both the case of cars that can charge faster than 145kW, and the residual bad sharing when drivers fail to pick the optimum spare space on V2. This means that the V3 site has less demand needing to be served during the busy (full and queueing) period, because some cars have filled up and departed before the start of the busy period while on V2 they would still be there.
Combining those two effects - and only at a 'finger in the air' level of accuracy given the huge assumptions - you might estimate that a V3 site has about double the potential throughput at a reasonable level of service (wait time) compared to a V2 site with the same number of stalls.
Finally, there's the effect of larger sites. Queuing theory dictates that a site of double the size can serve more than double the demand at a given quality of service. That's not so such a big effect with the size of sites we are talking about nowadays - going from 1 stall to 2 stalls is a huge factor (maybe 20), going from 2 stalls to 4 stalls is still quite big (maybe 6 times), but by the time you are talking of an expansion from 8 to 16 it's getting close to linear. Still something to be borne in mind when talking about site expansions.
In the case of Supercharge.info this has been raised in its forum discussion; a similar debate was had when V3 started appearing. As I understand it, it's hard to do because it requires changes to the database structure. Previously, a filter for max power was added which allowed V3 to be differentiated from V2, but that won't work for the current V4 stalls which I assume are powered by V3 cabinets.Is there any way of getting Tesla or supercharge.info to identify V4 sites for the benefit of non-Tesla users with different charge port locations ?
Or if the other driver hasn't preheated, I have been at a V2 and doing well and someone has parked next to me without my speed dropping.Is this view of how V2 shares accurate still? It certainly used to be the case that you would get different power based on how much the first charging car was drawing, but that changed a couple of years back. As soon as a car connects next to you on a v2 you go to about 64kW now, sharing the load, and it only increases if they disconnect.
In the case of Supercharge.info this has been raised in its forum discussion
As I understand it, it's hard to do because it requires changes to the database structure
Previously, a filter for max power was added which allowed V3 to be differentiated from V2, but that won't work for the current V4 stalls which I assume are powered by V3 cabinets
Is this view of how V2 shares accurate still? It certainly used to be the case that you would get different power based on how much the first charging car was drawing, but that changed a couple of years back. As soon as a car connects next to you on a v2 you go to about 64kW now, sharing the load, and it only increases if they disconnect.
Or if the other driver hasn't preheated, I have been at a V2 and doing well and someone has parked next to me without my speed dropping.
aging Tesla Model S like mine
Yes, it's unlikely the hardware has changed, but the real user experience is thatI'm pretty sure that what I said (units of 25%) is still true, as it's a fundamental hardware feature. How those units are shared between the two stalls is a software matter and has changed over time. Taking away the first-car-priority potentially changes the probability of the various scenarios arising, but it's not clear how it changes the overall analysis.
The old algorithm - 2nd car gets at least one unit, first car has priority over the remaining 3 units - makes it very likely that the first car will be wasting part of a unit, but fairly unlikely that the 2nd car will be wasting. Conversely, if the new algorithm gives 2 units each unless one car is using less than 1 unit then that cuts out wastage provided both cars can take more than 2 units (~70kW), but increases the wastage where cars are below 70kW.
So the new algorithm reduces wastage in the presence of mostly fast-charging cars (which is presumably why they made the change after Model 3 became predominant), but makes it worse in the case of slow charging cars (both third-party like Jason71's Fiat 500e, and aging Tesla Model S like mine where the charging curve has got worse and I spend quite a lot of time below 70kW).
That was always the case - in fact GRiLLA is suggesting that the modern behaviour makes that less likely than before (but still possible).
As a supercharge.info editor and part of the dev team I just wanted to comment on this.Supercharger Info has incorrect POWER on plenty of the sites - they could do with sorting that out (e.g. synchronise against Tesla's data)
The database needs a full redesign to get things to show what we want. These things take time.Poor database design / APP then, if they cannot easily accommodate database changes. Maybe I should speak to them ...
Drove past rownhams today and the gridserve units have been installed where I've highlighted green. I didn't see anything Tesla related but I was driving past at 70. But at least there is some sign of progress, even if not for the Tesla'sRownhams’ planning has been revised. Not sure if Ecotricity have dropped out?
Old View attachment 620367
new:
View attachment 645891
Also made some formatting amendments to wiki
Drove past rownhams today and the gridserve units have been installed where I've highlighted green. I didn't see anything Tesla related but I was driving past at 70. But at least there is some sign of progress, even if not for the Tesla's
I was there last weekend. The concrete bases were in but the ground works were not fully completed (backfilling and tarmaccing required). I expect this would be now completed.Any news on the Ipswich superchargers???
I'll be happy when three pallets of V4 tombstones turn upI was there last weekend. The concrete bases were in but the ground works were not fully completed (backfilling and tarmaccing required). I expect this would be now completed.
3 cabinets were on site but no sign of the 12 tombstones.
Edit: the transformer has been in for a few weeks. Tesla say Q1, they could be ready before then if things get connects up quickly.
Regarding this thread, agreed it is huge but the search on TMC is very good. Usually I can quickly find information about a specific site using search-within-thread, so long as I can dream up enough alternative names for a particular location (e.g. Hamilton/Radstone).The database needs a full redesign to get things to show what we want. These things take time.
The design was fine and fit for purpose when it was created 10 years ago but now we have many different stall types, split sites with different power, stall and connector types, expanded sites, open to all (which was hacked onto the original database design), and many more with different complexities for superchargers in different parts of the world. that have to all match up.
Take for example this very thread. It was fine when it was created to have all superchargers in the UK when there were only a handful but now there are hundreds this 6,000+ post megathread is not really fit for purpose where you can't easily find anything about a supercharger - compared to the design of the US supercharger threads where each having separate pages. Changing it here would require someone putting the work in.
The same for supercharge.info dev the work it takes time to redesign everything and someone has to be willing to volunteer.
If you want to step up to help you are more than welcome. Always open for new volunteers.