Oct 28, 2013
ModelS4Taos I notice on this video review at around 5:54 that they are supercharging at 114KW in Columbus, TX. Is this because of new firmware? I like how Tesla is just sneaking in the new charging speed.
Any ideas?
Update: The 6:54 was wrong. 5:54 is correct. Dyslexic moment. Too many fives. :tongue:�
Oct 28, 2013
Cottonwood I believe that 5.0 and higher support 120kW charging. New cars are shipping with 5.0 or higher these days.
He was actually getting closer to 115 kW with 88 miles in the battery. Closer to empty, he probably could have gotten the full 120 kW. Also, note that 88 miles at 400 mph is a little less than 15 minutes of charge time. If we take that 15 minutes of calculated time plus his about an hour to get to "almost full", then it is consistent with the graph on the Supercharger page that shows empty to full in 75 minutes, 1 hour 15 minutes.
I am anxiously awaiting 5.6 or whatever gets pushed to us in the (hopefully) near future so that I can Supercharge FASTER!�
Oct 28, 2013
jkliu47 Yes I believe its because of rev 5.0. I got Supercharged in Atascadero last week at peaks of 341 mph and 112 kW with about 80 miles remaining in the Model S85 I had just picked up from Fremont.
�
Oct 28, 2013
Cottonwood I have said this before, but it is important to remember that the charging rate shown on the Model S display is the average rate for the entire charging session. If you want to know the charging rate that is happening now, do a little calculation of Amps x Volts / 300 Wh/mi to get mph charging rate.
If you take 120 kW / 300 Wh/mi, you get the Tesla 400 mph charging rate or 200 miles in half an hour they talk about...�
Oct 28, 2013
SamGarber I had the Newark, DE supercharger all to myself and had 262-263 mi/hr speeds at the peak with 5.0 firmware.
�
Oct 28, 2013
Doug_G 216A times 368V = 79.488 kW�
Oct 28, 2013
brianman We've seen (pictures of) "292 mi/hr" reported for 90 kW.�
Oct 28, 2013
SamGarber Right, my point was that 5.0 with the DE supercharger did not produce the mythical 120kW charging.�
Oct 28, 2013
Cottonwood Correct, you need the 5.0 software AND a Supercharger that has 120 kW capability.�
Oct 28, 2013
nleggatt Do we know if all new sc are 120? Are the ones that just got installed in mt Shasta etc 120??�
Oct 28, 2013
dirkhh That's what we have been told. When I asked at the Woodburn opening the Tesla person responsible for the SC rollout in the Northwest said that all new superchargers would be ready for 120kW�
Oct 28, 2013
Cottonwood Here is a picture of the info plate of one of the bays of the Silverthorne, CO Supercharger.
With a 480V 3-phase, Wye connection, you get 277 Volts per phase, and the plate says the max current is 160 Amps. 3 phases * 277 * 160 Amps = 133 kW or a little more than the 120 kW of new chargers. If you can see the electrical plate with similar limits and it is connected to 480 Volt, 3-phase service, then its a pretty good chance that it is a 120 kW Supercharger.
Note this one is serial number 61, so they have not made that many, but at 2-4 per Supercharger, you don't need that many.�
Oct 29, 2013
Navi Elon announced that the superchargers in Germany will be 135 kW, and said another upgrade is coming. (My guess 150-160 kW)�
Oct 31, 2013
paulkva For what it's worth, I've seen 302 mi/hr at The Newark DE supercharger, and the app reported numbers (374 Volts x 245 Amps) indicating 91,630 W. My car has 5.0 firmware. I agree it's unlikely that DE has 120 kW capability yet. (It was plenty fast for my purposes though!)
View attachment 34469�
Oct 31, 2013
hans Has anyone confirmed if S60 owners with 5.x firmware at a 120kW supercharger see any more than the 70 kW max that we see on the 90 kW superchargers?�
Oct 31, 2013
evmile According to the Tesla rep at the Crissy Field Supercharger event all US Superchargers are now 120 kW. He wasn't sure which version of 5.x makes the car 120 kW compatible.�
Oct 31, 2013
FlasherZ The plate also lists a 240V delta configuration @ 280A, which is 115 kW. I haven't seen any plates with a lower current rating yet, so I think it's just a matter of software!�
Nov 1, 2013
Musterion Nice pic. But what is strange is that the specs match exactly the 2012-vintage supercharger specs posted in the Wiki for serial number 7. Also the DC output power on this unit is limited to 90kW. I believe when supercharging the car is reading out DC values for voltage and current, and would not know or care about the AC input into the rectifier stack.�
Nov 1, 2013
Cottonwood Good points, I will give it a try when I go back by there in a month or so with a nearly empty battery and 5.6; we will see what it gives me... I wondered about 200 Amp limit that, too. Here is a picture from a few weeks ago when I had 4.5 in the car, and I got 250 Amps and 88.5 kW from one of the Silverthorne Superchargers.
BTW, this picture is a good example of the hidden miles below zero. If you look at the battery, it is about 20%. 20% of 260 miles is 52 miles; 52 miles minus the 34 showing is 18 miles; that is very close to claimed 17 rated miles left below zero in an 85.
�
Nov 1, 2013
dirkhh This keeps getting reported and we have had quite a few people now who ended up testing this hypothesis and concluded those tests on flatbed trucks. At least on a 60 the "reserve" appears to be fewer than 5 rated miles. Not sure what the furthest is someone has gone past zero in an 85, but I seriously doubt that it's three times as far.�
Nov 1, 2013
Cattledog My best so far.
�
Nov 1, 2013
dirkhh Almost 117kW. Nice. You are on 5.6, I assume?�
Nov 2, 2013
Cattledog Yes, on 5.6. Here's today's charge at San Marcos, TX. One other car at a charger.
�
Nov 4, 2013
brianman As I mentioned in another thread...
On 5.6, I'm still seeing a 90 kW cap at Centralia and Woodburn.�
Nov 4, 2013
onesixeight Anyone get 120kW at Burlington, WA?�
Nov 4, 2013
apacheguy Are those stations rated at 120? If you look on the backside of the charging tower does it read "Supercharger 120?" All of the ones that I've visited have indeed been rated at 120 including Harris Ranch, which required a field upgrade. I'd be surprised if the newer ones are still at 90.�
Nov 4, 2013
brianman It was cold and I was tired. I forgot to look. Sorry.�
Nov 5, 2013
brianman Just got home.
Burlington shows the same tapering behavior (i.e. not the newer, less tapered behavior) as Centralia and Woodburn. The most I got out of it was 85 kW, and I didn't see it try going above 90 kW. I have the strong impression all 3 of these are configured for the original "90 kW, heavy tapering" of old.
No, I didn't take pictures of the labeling because I completely forgot again. On the + side, the taco soup and burger @ Bob's were good.�
Nov 8, 2013
AndyM I'll be Supercharging tomorrow at Springfield, newer than Woodburn, with my shiny new 5.6 firmware, and I'll let you know if I get close to 125 kW.�
Nov 11, 2013
SarahsDad Got this rate at the Burlington NC Supercharger. This is on 5.0 not 5.6.
�
Nov 11, 2013
brianman Burlington, NC > Burlington, WA
�
Nov 11, 2013
Cottonwood Note, you are tapering already. 370 Volts x 284 Amps / 310 W-hr/mi = 339 mph. That is a rate that is already lower than your average of 350 mph; not much, but the taper has started...�
Nov 11, 2013
ChadS Buzzbuzz and I did Centralia WA, Woodburn OR, Springfield OR, and Grants Pass OR on Friday. We got 90kW on all of them. His car has 5.6.�
Nov 12, 2013
Reed The best Supercharging I have had (noticed) is 386 mph at Tejon Ranch in CA. Sorry for the blurry cam picture. My car has SW ver 5.6.
�
Nov 15, 2013
onesixeight I'm currently at Woodburn, OR and looks like 120kW Supercharging has been activated! If my calculation is correct I'm getting ~118kW.
�
Nov 20, 2013
deonb I got 120kW (well, 112kW) at Burlington, WA last night. (On 5.6). Woo-hoo!
Would be great if someone can re-test Centralia at some point.
The tapering however did not feel any better. When I drove up I started charging at 150mile range, and I maxed out at 60kW.�
Nov 20, 2013
SarahsDad 122kW at the Burlington NC Supercharger.�
Nov 20, 2013
onesixeight I passed Centrelia WA on my way back to Seattle and I got 108kW for a few minutes and it dropped back to 95-96kW for the remaining 30 mins. I was the only car there.
Looks like its been activated but doesn't seem as strong as the Woodburn, OR supercharger�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh Does anyone have a charge log from one of the sets of REST API tools? teslams and the visualization tools would give us excellent data on the shape of the taper. I haven't managed to find an excuse to drive by a supercharger... On the way home today... hmmm... that would be a 50 mile detour...�
Nov 20, 2013
brianman There was data posted way back on the 90 kW charging (by me and others).�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh I have a 60 (duh) where the old supercharging was nice, but really lame compared to the 85. And I of course have extensive data of my supercharging with my 60 on 4.5. So I'm really curious about people who have "before and after" data. And I hope to add my own data soon.�
Nov 20, 2013
wraithnot I logged a road trip in late July back when all superchargers were 90 kW:
1,100 mile road trip to Las Vegas and back with a REST datalogger
I've got another road trip planned in about a month and I'll try to log that one as well to get some 120 kW data.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh Excellent. Very much looking forward to seeing those data.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh OK, I'm not very patient, I guess. So I detoured via Woodburn on the way home. Arrived with 2 miles rated range left. Yeah, I know....
Ramp up to rated range of about 35 miles, peaking at about 102kW (320V/320A). Way better than anything I've seen before on 4.5.
So my guess is the improvement is even more on the 60 than on the 85. We get about 40% more, the 85 about 33% more.
At about 45 miles rated range, about 10 minutes into the charge the thermal management of the battery kicked in with a loud buzz. Quite impressive...
So far I'm very happy. Let's see how the taper compares vs. 4.5. I'm now at about 40% SOC and charging with 78kW. 75 miles added in about 14 minutes. Nice.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh A blue 85 drove up a few minutes ago. At almost 40% SOC it peaked at about 116kW (368V/318A)...
In the meantime I got 130 miles added in half an hour. Certainly not what Tesla claims on the web site. But still quite impressive.�
Nov 20, 2013
Cottonwood Your numbers are actually pretty close to what the Tesla web site claims. The graph shows 80% in 40 minutes. For a 60, 80% of 200 miles is 160 miles. You got 130 miles in 30 minutes. If you get 30 more miles in the next 10 minutes, that is the 160 or 80% in 40 minutes, right on.�
Nov 20, 2013
GDH West Coast > East Coast :tongue:�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh Sorry. I don't know why, but I get into EXACTLY this argument rather frequently. Here is what the Tesla website says. It says many other things, too, but this is most likely the FIRST thing that anyone interested in supercharging will find. And no, I'm getting no where near that. And that's my point.
And no, nowhere does it point out that this is "with an 85kWh battery, from completely empty, under ideal conditions". It simply says "Charge in minutes, for free" and then 30 minute charge, 200 miles of range.
�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh I take it back. Both parts of it.
Here are two reasonably comparable graphs - top one is a supercharge in Centralia on 4.5 a couple of months ago, up to 81%SOC, the second one is from today on 4.8 in Woodburn, for comparison purposes I also unplugged at 81%.
- It's about 33% improvement of peak power for either battery - I got close to 70kW on 4.5; I misremembered that number.
- But more importantly, the real improvement is nowhere near that:
The one thing that is different is the starting SOC was 33% in Centralia and 8% today in Woodburn.
So with all the measurement uncertainty I'd say it's basically identical once you hit 50%, It may be up to a third faster before then, but on a reasonably typical 35->80% charge you only gain about 10% of time.
- At 35% SOC: 68kW vs. 87kW
- At 50% SOC: 67kW vs. 68kW
- At 65% SOC: 48kW vs. 49kW
- At 80% SOC: 33kW vs. 36kW
- Total time from 35% to 80%: 34min vs. 31min
Actually, I have the data from a different Centralia visit (funnily the same day as the upper chart - just on the way back home) where I arrived with 20% SOC. On that charge power at 35% was identical to the number above (68kW) and it took 7 min from 20% to 35%.
So if I combine the data from the two visits to Centralia (that doesn't seem completely invalid), I get:
So for 20%->80% still only about a 10% or 4 minute improvement :crying:
- Total time from 20% to 80%: 41min vs. 37 min
�
Nov 20, 2013
deonb Uhh... Scroll down on the same page:
- - - Updated - - -
Agreed. I found the same thing (with less scientific data points).
Based on this, I don't think they enabled the reduced tapering graph yet - only the 120kW Supercharging.
But once you hit 50% it makes almost no difference for a single car. (It should still help with dual cars though to more quickly get to the state where the charge is shared).�
Nov 20, 2013
islandbayy I supercharged with my S60 for the first time last Saturday. The station is a 120kW SC, I had the WHOLE 6 bays to myself.
I had 22 miles range remaining. My initial peak rate was 92kW. Tapered down to 50 at approx 65% state of charge in the pack, and went down from their.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh Let me ask you a question. Which part of this sentence did you not understand?
The way the graph I posted is presented, top of the page, entirely unqualified, no little asterix, no further explanation, plain and simple. 30 minutes. 200 miles.
Yes, they have the green percentage page, about two page scrolls further down, and the people who actually are looking for details and are willing to do the math (because down there it's 40 and 75 minutes, no more 30 minutes, and it's percentage with no correlation to miles) can figure it out.
But I bet you a 100 dollars. You show this page to a dozen regular people who are curious about this supercharging thing, most of them will come out of reading this thinking "cool, I can get 200 mile range in 30 minutes". And you can't. Not on an S60, and not on an 85, either, given the aggressive taper.
Why are so many people here absolutely allergic to any type of any statement that isn't RA RA TESLA IS AWESOME. Bu-Yeah!
What is on their page is GROSSLY MISLEADING and FACTUALLY WRONG.
I love the car. I'd buy it again in a heart beat (and given what I've learned about the supercharging, I'd buy an 85 - actually, I think if they more clearly stated this, they'd sell MORE 85s...). I have helped sell four 85s to others so far. That does not make me blind to the fact that Tesla is playing fast and loose with numbers. This is just one of the many examples. Look at the "cost of ownership" calculator. Look at Elon's latest card trick with the ratios of car fires. There is no need for that crap, the car is phenomenal and has no competition in the market. That's why this makes me angry. As an owner and a shareholder.
Sorry I'm taking it out on you, deonb. Seriously. Sorry. Reading your post again I'm almost certain you really just thought I missed the second graph.
But some times this is getting really tiresome in this forum. Admittedly, the Teslamotors.com forum is even worse, but that doesn't make this type of willful ignorance here any better.
Hey, I write these visualization tools, I might as well use them to make my point
Cool, so here we 100% agree. This will make a nice difference when you are sharing a charger. But I had honestly hoped that my 20%->80% time would drop more.�
Nov 20, 2013
brianman I'm confused by this reply. Last I checked, WA is on the west coast.
- - - Updated - - -
If only there was a thread about supercharging on 60 kWh vehicles...
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/20697-Supercharging-on-60kWh
- - - Updated - - -
In "yet another" thread that branched into the joint discussion of "supercharging" and "60 kWh" this was discussed previously. I replied with (among some other words) a request that the issue be raised about the "presentation" of the webpage on the teslamotors.com site and that recommendation still stands.
I tried finding the post but I don't have useful "search for posts by me containing the words __ and __ and __" apparently available. Bing fails, Google fails, TMC search fails. So I give up. TEG will find it someday and include a cute picture of a Roadster in a tutu or something, but I've grown bored already of trying to find the post.
Hope this helps.�
Nov 20, 2013
daxz or something
Now Free With Every Tesla: Tempting Tangerine Tutu
�
Nov 20, 2013
brianman Nice work, daxz. Didn't realize TEG was deputizing people.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh I did. No response.
Your posts always do�
Nov 20, 2013
Odenator Wait a minute. I just drove an Oly>SFO>Oly this weekend. I hit every supercharger on the I5 and the best I got was 89.7kW. And this was me having the car on "fumes". When did the Oregon superchargers get updated to 120? I'm on v5.8 so that can't be the issue.�
Nov 20, 2013
brianman No response or no useful response? If you got a useless/form-letter response, bummer. If you got no response at all, send the email again. If the 2nd email gets no response for over two weeks, then send it again and Cc Jerome.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh I honestly don't know. But with my S60 getting >100kW and the gentleman with the 85 getting about 117kW Woodburn clearly has been updated. I thought Springfield and Grants Pass were 120kW from the get go...
So I wonder why you topped out at 90kW.�
Nov 20, 2013
dirkhh No response. Nothing. Not even an automated reply.
I'll resend.
I sent an email to Jerome on a different topic three weeks ago and had a response in 24h. He's quite impressive.�
Nov 20, 2013
islandbayy So your saying your 60 is getting more then 90kW (I saw 92), how much higher are we talking about? Or did I miss it in this thread?�
Nov 21, 2013
dirkhh Look at post #49 in this thread... I got about 102kW max (the REST data show 318V/320.3A - I saw 320V/320A on the screen... I only get the charge data every 30 seconds from the server).�
Nov 21, 2013
islandbayy
I see it, thanks, Sleep deprivation, I missed it the first time around�
Nov 25, 2013
Odenator I stopped by Woodburn this weekend and this was the best I could do at midnight with no one else charging and temps in the low 40's. I got a shade over 89kW. Anyone in a P85/S85 with proof that they got more than 90kW at Woodburn?
�
Nov 26, 2013
dirkhh Look up a few posts. I got 102 in my 60 and a gentleman next to me 117 on his 85.�
Nov 26, 2013
Cottonwood How old is your car? All I got at Silverthorne was 90 kW and 250 Amps. It seems that 120 kW chargers are limited to 333 Amps which makes sense. I'm wondering if some of the older cars, mine is Signature #37, can only do 90 kW.
Has anyone with a Signature or older production model gotten more than 90 kW?
In reality, I am not too worried. It looks like the charge taper starts somewhere around 40%, about 100 miles for an 85. At 120 kW (400 mph), 100 miles takes 15 minutes. At 90 kW (300 mph), 100 miles takes 20 minutes. At 100 miles in an 85, or shortly after, the taper brings the charge rate to less than 90 kW anyway.
This means that the difference in charge time between a 120 kW limit and a 90 kW limit is only 5 minutes or so, even if you start at 0 miles! If you start with more than 100 miles there is no difference in charge time between a 90 and 120 kW charge limit!�
Nov 26, 2013
dirkhh Look at the detailed data and analysis that I posted in #49 on this thread. You are spot on. It really makes no difference. It is mostly a marketing statement that makes it sound like you get 33% more. The real life impact is almost negligible.�
Nov 26, 2013
cinergi I have the same problem. I have a call into Tesla about it. Will see if it's fixed when I hit the Burlington, NC SC this coming Saturday.�
Nov 28, 2013
scaesare Got to try the new Glen Allen, VA superchargers today, I hit 122KWh as well... was getting 432mi/hr of charge at peak:
Impressive....
Unfortunately it appears that charger #1 was out of service (affecting bays 1A and 1B), so I used the second bay. The car would report that there was a cable plugged in but indicated a charger fault. We called it in to the Tesla customer service number posted on the cable unit, and they were there on the holiday and thanked us for letting them know.
ON EDIT: I forgot to mention initially: when the car started charging, it ramped up quickly to 90KWh, and then leveled there for 30-45 seconds... I was initially disappointed thinking that perhaps I wasn't going to get the higher power charging despite have a v5.8 car and the SuperChargers being very new. But then it climbed up to the the 122KWh level seen above.�
Nov 30, 2013
timdorr Wait, how do you get it to show the kW numbers? Do you just tap that area of the display? I had no idea you could do that!�
Nov 30, 2013
dirkhh It's in the settings. You can report charging as miles per hour or kW�
Nov 30, 2013
Odenator So today I was at Centralia with 2 other owners. Only the P85+, VIN>17000 was able to charge at greater than 90kW. Maybe the older cars need a special update?�
Nov 30, 2013
apacheguy Were you able to get 120 today? It'd be curious if Sigs don't support the higher supercharge rate. I'll be calling my SvC on Monday if that's the case so they can do the upgrade.�
Nov 30, 2013
Kenne74 I charged at Hawethorne last night vin 88xx if I remember correctly and it was 120kw once the other guy left. Interesting it was taking about 23secs to get 1 Mile after 180 miles. I was bored and using my stopwatch. That number jumped to 35secs around 220.�
Nov 30, 2013
SCW-Greg Chatted with TeslaSinHR, in the red, he got 390+ while he was there. I think he was on 1B.
I was only on for 5 minutes and got 275 or so, with half a charge already on the pack.
�
Nov 30, 2013
Odenator I spoke to Tesla supercharger support today. The first guy told me almost all the chargers are upgraded to 120. The second guy told me none of the chargers are upgraded. Figures.�
Nov 30, 2013
Puyallup Bill Yep, it figures. Tesla does need some work in this area.
I really hate it when any customer support person makes a 'best guess' choice. I applaud those that say they don't know, or aren't sure, but they will try to find out.�
Dec 1, 2013
apacheguy I know for a fact that all CA superchargers were installed at 120 or have been upgraded. I would imagine the same is true for the Pacific NW corridor. The only question now is whether the hardware/software config of the older VINs support 120.�
Dec 1, 2013
cinergi I wasn't. When I called in to check on the status of my previous call, no progress had been made.�
Dec 1, 2013
Cottonwood Here is a plot of my Sig #37 charging at Siverthorne. The data are from two charging sessions. Boulder to Pagosa, I get to Silverthorne with plenty of charge, but need to do a range charge to make it to Pagosa. Pagosa to Boulder, I do a range charge in Pagosa, and arrive in Silverthorne with low miles in the battery. The State of Charge (miles) is in rated miles, and the Rate (mph) is Volts * Amps / 300 W-hr/mi. The discontinuity just after 0:45 is where I tried to put the two sets of data together.
Notice that charge rate goes below about 90 kW (300 mph) at about 100 miles SOC. As I have said before the time difference to get from 0 to 100 with 90 and 120 kW is only about 5 minutes. With that, this curve is close to the "ideal" curve on the Tesla web page, but a little slower. Also, with the taper starting at 100 miles and down to less than 150 mph at 200 miles SOC, there is no way to get 200 miles in 30 minutes as the Tesla web page claims. It seems to be more like 35-40 minutes to me with the taper. Close, but no cigar.
�
Dec 1, 2013
dirkhh The way I read this you never really got more than 90kW. 120kW would be 400mph the way you plotted this.
And yes, this once again shows that the "200 miles in 30 minutes" claim is misleading.�
Dec 1, 2013
scaesare Indeed, by multiplying by 300Wh/mi to get back to power, it appears that charge curve starts at only 90kW.�
Dec 1, 2013
Cottonwood Yes, it appears the Sigs and older production cars cannot charge at more than 90 kW. At 300 W-hr/mi, 300 mph is 90 kW and 400 mph is 120 kW. I would like to hear from any early MS owners that have charged at 120 kW and what it took to make that happen.
With the taper going below 90 kW at 100 miles or so on in an 85, 120 kW is only 5 minutes or so faster than 90 kW peak. Also, with that taper, there is no way to get 200 miles in 30 minutes even in an 85 starting at 0 miles and 120 kW. From my data, it appears that the fastest time from 0 to 200 with a 120 kW limit is 35-40 minutes and with a 90 kW limit, 40-45 minutes. Still fast, but not up to the first graph on Tesla's Supercharger. BTW, my car is v5.6.
The real advantage of 120 kW is that there will be less limiting for two cars charging at the same time from one cabinet. This will be more of a concern as Superchargers get more heavily used, and has probably already been noticed at Hawthorne...�
Dec 1, 2013
apacheguy Elon stated right from the start that it was always their goal to get above 100 kw supercharging. Seems crazy that they wouldn't have built that capability into Sigs. I'm sure there's a simple explanation and it'll all be sorted out.
Having said that, I'll be stopping by Hawthorne to test it out this week. It'll be my first supercharge since uprading to 5.x.�
Dec 1, 2013
Odenator On Facebook, an early car owner, VIN in the 2000's, posted that she was able to charge faster than 90kW.�
Dec 2, 2013
apacheguy 120 kw Broken on Older VINs
Just tried out Hawthorne and the max I got was 85 kw. By 105 miles rated range I was already down to 72 kw. Thought the taper would have been better at least...
Any other Sigs have better luck?�
Dec 2, 2013
lloyds Here's what I'm getting�
Dec 2, 2013
apacheguy Whoa! You were pulling 88 kw at 126 miles. I was only getting 72 kw at 105 miles !?! Something is clearly wrong with my car.�
Dec 3, 2013
TylerCA Does it matter how many cars are charging at the station? Does it reduce charging speed and rate when there are more cars in the station?�
Dec 3, 2013
scaesare A single charger cabinet (say #1) feeds 2 cable assemblies (#1A & #1B). The 120kWh of power is split between the cars using those 2 cable assemblies.
This is why if possible, it's best to try and use a separate "numerical" charging stalls. Note that at the new Glen Allen VA location, the stalls sharing a charging cabinet are no longer adjacent to each other. They are laid out as 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B.�
Dec 3, 2013
wraithnot Each supercharger stack (the tall cabinets with the fan that contain the actual stack of 10 kW chargers shown in the first photo in emupilot's post here: NorCal Supercharger locations? - Page 13) serves two charge bays (the area with the cord that actually plugs into your car). And it definitely matters if there is already a car charging at the bay that shares the supercharger stack with the bay you plug into. If the superchargers are labelled, bays 1A and 1B are paired, 2A and 2B are paired, etc.
For an example, see the bottom graph on this post: 1,100 mile road trip to Las Vegas and back with a REST datalogger - the charge rate increased significantly when the car in bay 2A at Barstow unplugged while I was charging in bay 2B.
So the charge rate is kind of related to how many cars are charging at a station. But it is a little more complicated than simply counting the total number of cars.�
Dec 5, 2013
cinergi Tesla support is telling me that the SC engineering team said that Burlington, NC (where I reported the issue) isn't 120 yet. I told them in no uncertain terms that others are getting 120 there and that it wasn't just Burlington that didn't give me 120. I quoted a few posts here to add some data. So ball's back in their court (support's relaying that info back to engineering). Left hand isn't talking to right hand somewhere. I'll let you know if/when I get an update.�
Dec 5, 2013
apacheguy Thanks a lot for following up on this! I've tried calling them twice but they came up with similar excuses.�
Dec 5, 2013
Cottonwood Thanks for following up. I will probably be back in Silverthorne, CO with low miles in a 1.5 to 2 weeks. If you have a contact or case number, let me know, I will try to call and have them monitor my charge session there. PM me if that works better for you.�
Dec 5, 2013
markb1 The way to determine charge rate in kW is to multiply current times voltage. The MPH rate is an average of some sort, and I don't trust it.�
Dec 6, 2013
Cottonwood I've looked at this carefully. The mph number displayed is the average of the session. Once you are in the taper, it is always higher than the most-recent, instantaneous charge rate. As you said do a little math, and the instantaneous power into the battery is Volts times Amps, and the instantaneous mph is Volts times Amps divided by 300 W-Hr/mi.
Another trick for an 85: Because the final Voltage is close to 400 V, the instantaneous mph is about 4/3 current in Amps for those who enjoy mental math. :biggrin:�
Dec 6, 2013
Vger I am another one of the "Neutered Ones"-- early builds that apparently cannot charge above 90 kW, despite 5.8 and charging at a known 120 kW supercharger (Burlington, WA). I wrote about this in this thread.
I have also sent polite but sternly-worded emails to both my Vancouver, BC service manager (who is a gem) and to Jerome Guillen, expressing my disappointment. Even if this does not make too big a difference in real terms, it is yet another very unfortunate slight to Signature owners.
-----
In happier news, I believe I verified that the taper is improved with 5.8 vs. 4.5, even with my non-120 kW-capable car. On our first supercharge at Burlington, WA after the 5.8 upgrade, the charge rate did not fall below 16 kW until we were at 97% SOC. On 4.5, we fell to 16 kW at about 94% SOC. Why did I notice/care about this? Currently, until the Ellensburg supercharger is built, it make sense to continue at Burlington, despite the taper, until the charge rate falls below what we can do on the 69A, 235V Roadster HPC in Ellensburg.
So anecdotally, it seems that the taper IS reduced (curve arched higher), across its whole range, as one would expect if they just changed the exponent of the governing function. Other better documentation is invited and eagerly awaited!�
Dec 9, 2013
Stoneymonster 3280 here getting 122kw in Gilroy (I know it's probably rounding error).
![[?IMG]](https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/0/AAD9wyAEsJXdjWALRulrzXsK5sIEbccfASzqSyed2tIPCg/12/5376897/jpeg/256x256/3/_/1/2/2013-12-08%2015.53.56.jpg/jVDu_YVSdWo2M8z3y9zaAsdWgKNKPOfuPDrcuhQ0L4g?size=1280x960)
�
Dec 10, 2013
C.Ford 3223 here on 5.8. This weekend I got 120kw in Burlington,NC, but 90kw in Rocky Mount, NC. Weird. I had my choice of charging bays and picked one in the middle. No other cars were charging. Are some bays 120 and some 90, or should they all be 120 capable?�
Dec 10, 2013
Huskerfl I recently did our first road trip and supercharged as the only car at these superchargers.
5.8 software. All were from spot 1A.
I went from 194 rated miles to 260 in 37 minutes for a rate of 107 mph gain. That seems to be better than your graph. Port Orange, FL
From 10 miles to 250 miles in 60 minutes for a rate of 240 mph gain. Burlington, nc.
From 3 rated miles to 100 miles in 16 min for a rate of 363 mph gain. Port Orange, FL�
Dec 10, 2013
scaesare I got 122kW myself. Doing the calculations it was 121900 watts... so the rounding appeared correct.�
Dec 10, 2013
William13 Sig 520, max 250Amps and 90kW at fastest charge on brand new Supercharger.�
Dec 10, 2013
Benjamin Brooks Wonder what their gain/offset errors are in the voltage & current sensors...�
Dec 10, 2013
scaesare I did use the voltage & current readings from another person in the thread who posted a screenshot of their 122kW session, and they also calculated to exactly 121,900 watts also...�
Dec 10, 2013
apacheguy Yep, so you are seeing the same 90 kw cap as all other Sigs. Welcome to the club!
More info here: Older Tesla's limited to 90kwh super charging�
Dec 10, 2013
Benjamin Brooks I meant if there is 1-2% error in their (Tesla's) power sensors' accuracy, that could easily account for 122kW being reported (above the theoretical charger max of 120kW...)�
Dec 10, 2013
scaesare Sure... I was just throwing out the other data point I had... it would be rather coincidental for the error to end up the exact same value on 2 different cars.
That having it been said, I've seen it reported here that the Tesla chargers (used in both the cars and the supercharger stacks) are actually capable of accepting 277VAC (a common commercial voltage) at up to 40A. That actually works out to be 11.08kW each.
Given the stack of 12 understood to be in each supercharger, that could actually deliver 132.96KW. So simply some supply-side line voltage fluctuation might allow them to put out slightly more than 120... provided the car was willing to accept it.
As a matter of fact, that figure rounds to 133kW... awfully close to the 135kW Elon mentioned in Europe...�
Dec 10, 2013
hans I don't think you can compare the AC input to the DC output. There is loss and the US spec chargers cannot deliver 11 kW DC to the battery. More like 9.6 kW or so.�
Dec 10, 2013
scaesare Actually, up to their limit for current and voltage, the AC input does affect output. That's why, for instance, HPWC's running on commercial 208V circuits only put out about 8.3kW per charger.
If your figure were correct, that world mean the stack of 12 chargers in a supercharger cabinet could only supply ~115kW...�
Dec 10, 2013
Zythryn Which supercharger?
Could we get confirmation from someone else with a higher VIN that it does indeed charge above 90kW?�
Dec 10, 2013
apacheguy
Now that we have all but confirmed that this is a hardware limitation (Tesla has confirmed this twice to one of our members) there isn't much of a point in doing any more detective work to figure out what the maximum SC output is. I was holding out hope that this could have been causing the issue, but not any longer.
Now it's a question of how we proceed and determine why TM never communicated anything about a hardware issue to Sig owners.�
Dec 10, 2013
SFOTurtle Agree that there are just too many people who have used the newest Superchargers in numerous states and not seen more than 90kW (with numerous reports of others getting 120kW at these very same SCs) -- and the one thing these folks who are maxing out at 90kW have in common is that they are all Sigs or a few low VINs.�
Dec 10, 2013
hans My figure comes from 240V x 40 A = 9.6 kW which is most AC input I can get on a single charger. I see less than that as DC input to the pack. I guess each charger must be able to go higher in a supercharger configuration though or as you say, the numbers don't add up. The North American chargers are quoted at 10 kW each and the Euro chargers are shown as 11 kW each so a stack of 12 of the Euro version chargers should be able to get ~10% more energy. I think thats how Elon gets from a high end of 120 kW in the US to the 132ish in the Euro superchargers.�
Dec 11, 2013
dpeilow Why would they? When the Model S came out we all thought that 90 kW charging was amazing. I don't remember anyone communicating their dissatisfaction with that. Then when they said the plug could support 120 kW and they could route all of the supercharger power to one car, that was even more amazing. It's likely they incorporated the necessary changes into the cars to support that at the same time.
Who knows whether handling 120 kW needs totally new power electronics and cabling, for example?
This sense of entitlement does seem a bit strange. You bought a MY1 car, so of course there will be improvements down the line. Did it meet your needs and expectations last year? I don't see Gen 1 Leaf owners demanding a heat pump just because the Gen 2 has it. Roadster sigs are a lot more crude than the later variants, but part of the deal with having the first cars off the line is they may well not be as refined as the end of the run.
I've got a Samsung Galaxy S3. It was an excellent phone last year and it's still an excellent phone, even though the S4 has a few tweaks that would be nice to have but in no way diminish the S3's usefulness and capabilities. Do I demand Samsung give me a free upgrade?�
Dec 11, 2013
yobigd20 well I've been told by Tesla that the very early cars, basically all the sigs, are running with many 'prototype' parts that later production cars have better/newer versions. For example, things like older/different embedded ROM chips that run different firmware etc etc. Some (many?) of these cannot be "upgraded" (aka chips soldering into boards, not plug-and-play). so if sigs are limited to 90kWh charging , this isn't really surprising to me.�
Dec 11, 2013
scaesare Yeah, most certainly, few of us will likely drive a single charger at more than 240V/40A at home (and many times the voltage will actually sag down to the 230's...). And certainly there are some losses due to charger efficiency.
My point is though, that in a supercharger, the input voltage will be higher, so with losses being a static percentage (say 10%), the resulting output will also be higher. While the chargers are quoted as 10 or 11kW, that actually may be stated as a result of expected input for typical residential usage.
The SC's can take 480V 3-phase input at 160A. See HERE.
Each phase to ground is a 277V feed at 160A. That means each of the 3 legs can supply 4 chargers with a 277V/40A input (i.e.- 11.08kW of power), for a total of 12 chargers in the stack.
I share you curiosity if that's how the Euro 135 number is derived though... it would seem that's not sufficient once you factor in losses. I'm not familiar enough with European commercial power to hazard a guess at the moment.�
Dec 11, 2013
Cottonwood Exactly! As an early Sig buyer (#37), I was very aware that this would happen. If this were a huge difference in charging time, then it would be important to me. However, as I stated before, its only about a 5 minute difference if you start at 0 miles. The taper goes below 90 kW at about 100 rated miles. 0 to 100 rated miles at 120 kW (400 mph) takes 15 minutes; at 90 kW (300 mph), it takes 20 minutes. After that, you are in the taper anyway.
I'm not getting too excited over a 5 minute loss in charge time for my early Sig. :wink:�
Dec 11, 2013
mnx And with that I think we should close this thread.
�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy Again, it has been my experience that the time difference is much more than 5 minutes. Trust me, I have done my research here. Newer cars don't taper below 90 kw until 120 rated miles. My car tapers to 70 kw by 80 rated miles!
For me, supercharging is even slower than Tesla originally claimed. Therefore, I wasn't expecting 120 to be perfect, but I was expecting it to be noticeably different and fall more in line with what they originally claimed the SC network was capable of.
I was never told that my car is a prototype.�
Dec 11, 2013
yobigd20 and you were also never told that your car is not a prototype.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét