Dec 11, 2013
Lloyd Everyone should have an expectation that for Tesla to evolve will continue to improve their product. They made some statements that they would provide "upgrades" to those enrolled in the service contracts. That said, I would expect them to provide upgrades only when the cost is not too outrageous, and the benefit is worth the expendature in PR, customer loyalty etc. I don't believe that anyone should expect their car to be kept up to the standard of a new release. For those that want an upgrade not included, a pay for upgrade should be available. Once again....... communicaiton could be better from Tesla!!!
�
Dec 11, 2013
Zythryn I think the point is that we have never been told one way or the other.
Because I haven't heard anything from Tesla yet, and they have not acknowledge this publicly, I'm not convinced this is the case.
Especially since we have at least one VIN, that is getting the full 120 kW, which is lower than another VIN number that is not getting the full 120 kW.
Listen I am just fine if it turns out that early models cannot be super charged as quickly as later models.
What is bothering me is the lack of clear information from Tesla and I would much rather hear something official then this piecemeal information with different people getting different information.�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy At risk of bringing this discussion far off topic, let me just note that Sigs are production-series Model S's (aka not prototype).
What really irks me here is that I've called Tesla twice regarding the 90 kw limit and they have not mentioned anything about hardware being an issue. Also, at the end of the day, Tesla has always said 120 kw would be a software fix "fully rolled out to customers" in their press release. That is proving to be misleading.�
Dec 11, 2013
drees That's the wrong analogy here if you are going to use the Galaxy S3. The correct one is that my Galaxy was stuck on Android 4.1 for ages - well after newer versions of Android was released for other phones, and even the S3 in other markets. It's still stuck on an old version of Android after finally getting updated to 4.3 a few weeks ago. Because of this experience I am not going to be buying any more Android phones except for directly through Google - who does provide timely updates for their phones.
It's not about a "sense of entitlement". It's about delivering on promises made. If there were caveats to those promises, they should have been made well known to avoid disappointment down the line. Especially when those most disappointed will be your earliest adopters (Sig owners).�
Dec 11, 2013
stopcrazypp For a smart phone, you have a reasonable expectation to get at least one update during the life of the smart phone. For cars, there's no such expectation, esp. for hardware (Tesla is providing software updates for all cars so it's not an issue there).
The main issue seems to be clarity/communication (for example a car before and after in the VIN sequence having 120kW charging) and Tesla doing changes within the model year (as they have pointed out at the start that they would do so). If the break line was at MY2012 vs MY2013, would people still be complaining and would there still be an expectation of getting the same hardware capabilities? I know of no car where this happens except for recalls (even for changes happening mid-model year, which I remember did happen for some traditional automakers).�
Dec 11, 2013
wycolo How can I get irked about a 5 minute difference in time spent at an SC? The mere fact that due to there being an SC there means I can haul a$$ in that direction thereby saving much more than 5 minutes overall.
NOT an Irkle.
With Dec 7, 2012 production date I'm assuming my MS is 90 kw limited.
"200 miles in half hour" is a good factoid for consumer take away. Closer to the mark than "200 miles in an hour" so if JQPublic can remember 1. the name TESLA and 2. "200 miles in half hour" then I'm a very happy driver/investor indeed.
--�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy Guys, I've gone over this about 6 times already. The difference is more like 10-15 mins. Not going to explain that here as I've already documented that elsewhere and just a few posts back.�
Dec 11, 2013
qwk I agree 100%. The roadster went through these rapid hardware changes very quickly, so I don't understand how anyone who bought a very early Model S could be blind to this.�
Dec 11, 2013
wycolo > The difference is more like 10-15 mins. [apacheguy]
I know, thus: "saving much more than 5 minutes overall". If you want, I can even drive faster!! But that only 'cause its so much fun. Basically, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth - but that's just me.
--�
Dec 11, 2013
DrComputer I have to drive to a client in Santa Maria tomorrow and will take my Sig (#272) by the Beulton SuperCharger on my way home. I'll add my data point to the list and see if my Sig is limited to 90kw�
Dec 11, 2013
Cottonwood I'd love to look at your basic data for a Sig and a more recent production car. Please post again or provide a link. I have posted my charge curve of my Sig#37 on a 120 kW capable Supercharger. It is below for reference. BTW, I use the conversion that Tesla seems to use on Superchargers, 300 W-hr/mi, so 120 kW is 400 mph and 90 kW is 300 mph. As stated earlier, this plot is a superposition of two charge sessions, and that is the cause of the discontinuity.�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy I will post a full charge curve demonstrating my point when I road trip in ~2 weeks.
But you can easily see it from your data. It took you 45 minutes to get up to 80% SOC and you didn't even start at 0. It's supposed to take 30 minutes as advertised by TM.
Correction: TM states 40 minutes to 80% from empty. However, you were not empty and started with 40 miles. Hence, you can still see how it will take substantially longer than the mere 5 minute discrepancy others are stating.�
Dec 11, 2013
Kraken Apacheguy, you've got data against a five minute difference, others using 90 and 120 charging have data for only a five minute difference. You've also said yours isn't getting the performance that it should with 90 kw charging. Maybe your data is off because something is up with your car or there was something else going on that day that was hindering performance of that supercharger.
the biggest thing I've got going for you is that I was getting 300 mph charge at 166 miles of charge. Meaning that I was getting much better than the discussed tapering curve for 120. It might also point out that every day could var somewhat ssignificantly based on other factors. Maybe colder, as it was for me, helped maintain that tapering curve from being as sharp.�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy Valid point. Maybe this is an issue isolated to my car.
Having said that, I would like to see better data showing the 5 min difference. Cottonwood's charging curve demonstrates a > 5 min difference the way I read it.�
Dec 11, 2013
Cottonwood You are correct. To add that 0 to 40 mile time at 300 mph, its 40/300*60 = 8 minutes. The difference between my 45 minutes and Tesla's claimed 40 minutes to get to 80% is 5 minutes; 5+8 =13. Therefore my data shows an extra 13 minutes in my Sig#37 over Tesla's idealized curve. It would be nice to see some real data like this from a late 85 on a 120 kW Supercharger. Tesla's web page has always been pretty aggressive. They even show 200 miles in 30 minutes before the graph that is closer to 40 minutes; inconsistency on the same web page! I bet a new 85 can't quite get 80% in 40 minutes.
We need more data on other Sigs and late edition 85's.
BTW, I am v5.6; I think the only difference between that and v5.8 is the air suspension height stuff.�
Dec 11, 2013
brianman I was also never told that my car is not a commercial airliner. Relevance?�
Dec 11, 2013
cinergi Perhaps the crux of the problem is that there's no concept of Model Year with the Model S? 2012 car has features X, Y, Z. 2013 has XYZ plus ABC. We 90-limited-customers don't even KNOW what the differences are and in some cases paid the same price as others but the others have the better feature set. Even worse, Tesla can't even tell us what's what.
When I buy a Galaxy S3, I know what I'm getting. When the S4 comes out, I know what's new. There's a clear delineation. I have a clear and informed choice. Not so in this case.�
Dec 11, 2013
yobigd20 Meaning sigs were essentially built early on before vendor agreements were finalized. Thus, things changed as expected and later vehicles are using "better" parts. They had to scramble early on and when they didn't have enough parts they just used whatever they could, including the same parts used in the prototype models.�
Dec 11, 2013
apacheguy +1. Well said. Let me just add that the Sigs actually paid more (Sig-tax), but that is a different topic.�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim Just rolled into DE supercharger nearly "empty" and got a good rate...
Sig737/VIN628 so a pretty early delivery.
...and apologies for the bad pic - would have snapped the mobile app but my power button is flaky.
...190 miles added in ~45'.
�
Dec 12, 2013
Zythryn Excellent! About 118kW�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim Yep - 11//18/2012 delivery...�
Dec 12, 2013
MikeC Well, that's interesting. Looks like you're the first Sig to charge above 90 kW. Did you update your software recently by any chance?�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim v5.8 1.49.24 for a few weeks now...�
Dec 12, 2013
MikeC Strange. Anything different about your car? Like was the battery pack ever replaced or anything?�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim Hmm...
Main battery replaced at ~11k.�
Dec 12, 2013
Zythryn I've been following this on a number of threads. We have yet to hear from someone that tested both a low and high VIN number to confirm the difference is due to the car and not the supercharger. I.E. It may be listed as 120kW but isn't charging at that rate at that time.
Not saying it isn't hardware in the car, just saying I haven't seen confirmation of that yet.�
Dec 12, 2013
ckessel Ah, well, that explains why you've got 120khw support with a low VIN.
So...I just need my battery pack to fail�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim Yeah...my bad on not mentioning originally.�
Dec 12, 2013
VolkerP Please don't get any funny ideas, running over a tow hitch and such :cursing:�
Dec 12, 2013
SFOTurtle I suppose you will only be satisfied if Tesla issues a press release, but I don't know why you keep repeating this mantra and ignoring the numerous posts of people getting near 120kW charging from Superchargers whilst Sig owners using the very same Superchargers are limited to 90kW? I mean, it must be a dozen or more posts from folks with mid-range or later numbererd VINs who have reported getting at or near 120kW from numerous Superchargers in OR, WA and CO, and Sig owners using 5.x maxing out at 90 kW on the very same Superchargers, even when no other car was charging alongside them. Are you saying that all of these other Sig owners are just making it up? The only report of a Sig owner getting more than 90kW is from one whose entire pack was replaced. That gives us yet more information.
So, unless Tesla has a magic Supercharger ferry that hovers over all of the new Superchargers and randomly flips an invisible switch between 120kW and 90kW, and the ferry doesn't like Sig owners or their cars, what other possible explanation is there? Plus you're ignoring the reports from ckessel who was told by a Tesla representative that his car, a Sig, was limited to 90kW charging.
What more evidence do you need? Do you need to have a video of two cars at the very same Supercharger charging at the same time with one getting 90kW and the other 120kW? My guess is that even this won't be enough for you, as you'd say that somehow the Sig was getting less charge because of the other car or because the magic Supercharger ferry wanted to discriminate against the Sig owner and flipped the invisible switch to 90kW.�
Dec 12, 2013
donauker Excellent! Looks like I may have gotten a second bonus for dealing with being stranded by a failed battery pack. First one was getting back the lost 16 rated miles on a full charge and now a possibility of 120 kW charging!�
Dec 12, 2013
apacheguy Ugh. You had me excited for a minute. Happy for you though that you get to enjoy 120 SC.
So really guys? Tesla will add support for owners with a failed battery pack, but won't for the rest of us. I see absolutely no fairness or logic behind that model. Want retrofit.�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim Yeah...I was so excited when I saw it I completely forgot about the battery swap.�
Dec 12, 2013
gaswalla This is a very important data point as it isolates the issue to the battery and not hardware installed in the car. Will be interesting what happens as good as folks start making a stink with TM�
Dec 12, 2013
Tommy Did your drive-train (inverter/motor) get replaced as well? Just making sure there are not two variables to deal with.�
Dec 12, 2013
brianman Reread what you said and that I quoted.
I wasn't told my car wasn't a jetski either. That doesn't imply that my car is a jetski.
- - - Updated - - -
Now would be a great time for Tesla to follow up on that Battery Replacement Plan that seems to be going the way of the sunshade. Just sayin'....�
Dec 12, 2013
rlang59 You have just added some doubt though. Perhaps your car is a jetski since you weren't told it wasn't, I think a test is in order.�
Dec 12, 2013
ckessel Well, the logic would be the expense. If it's in the battery pack then that'd be a big hit to Tesla for a relatively minor upgrade. I'm one of the very, very last folks to get old 90kwh support, but how minutes would I realistically save in a lifetime of typical supercharging use? At some point, I can understand if the retrofit cost isn't worth the karmic cost of leaving older cars out of the 120kwh party, even if I'm one of those folks left out.
Regardless, Tesla still needs to make public which cars have which charging support as cars continue to advance as it's knowledge people should have when looking at used Teslas.�
Dec 12, 2013
Tacket If and when we ever have battery swap stations maybe this would be an easy-ish fix... Possibly a credit for those early limited owners to keep the upgraded swapped battery (if it indeed is just based on the battery swap).�
Dec 12, 2013
apacheguy Agree, partially. At the end of the day it's important to recognize that some customers got a freebie while others didn't. I just don't agree with that aspect, period. I shouldn't want to secretly hope that my pack malfunctions so that I can get improved SC tech.
If my Nissan Leaf 3.3 kw charger breaks, I don't get an upgraded 6.6 kw charger. I get the same thing I had before. Not so in Tesla's case.
Also, how do we know if it's the entire pack that needs replacing? I doubt they redesigned the entire pack layout or battery chemistry between VIN 2000-3000. What if it's just the battery contacts? That would be well within reason to justify a retrofit.�
Dec 12, 2013
digitaltim I have requested the paperwork�stay tuned.�
Dec 12, 2013
markb1 It will be interesting to see what happens if the battery swap stations every materialize. Tesla plans to charge you for deprecation if you keep the swapped battery. I wonder if there will be an extra surcharge if you swapped from a sig battery.�
Dec 12, 2013
Zythryn Nothing so dramatic and no videos or even pictures needed.
I am simply looking for two cars, one early and one late VIN that uses the same charger.
I have seen just recently a supercharger that topped out around 60kW (just installed so still may be undergoing testing).
I have seen reports of superchargers labeled 120kW that are still limited to 90kW.
I am fairly well convinced that there is a hardware issue with many early cars. But to be absolutely sure, I would like to see a definitive "I am VIN 5000 and get 120 kW charge at Supercharger X and my friend with VIN 1500 charged at the same charger and got 90".
Of course, Tesla could make it much easier by simply telling us what they should have in the first place.�
Dec 12, 2013
cinergi This data already exists, in this thread or the 90 thread. I guess I'll hunt it down.
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/23180-Finally-120KW-Supercharging!?p=520387&viewfull=1#post520387
There's someone getting 120 in Burlington, NC.
I got 90 in Burlington, NC.
QED�
Dec 12, 2013
MikeC Pretty clear to me from reading this thread that the older cars are limited.
My question is do we know for sure that not all SCs are currently 120 kW? I remember Elon saying that the original chargers like Harris Ranch wouldn't need new hardware, it would be a software thing. Could it be that the "old 90 kW" chargers only appeared to be so because they were being tested by the early VINs?�
Dec 12, 2013
stopcrazypp In the very same post he said he wasn't sure if some charging bays were 120kW and some were 90kW. So you would have to charge at the same charging bay to be sure. The ideal test would be to charge back to back on the same bay and also swap to eliminate all variables.�
Dec 12, 2013
bluetinc I've recently had my inverter/motor swapped out, and I am still limited to 90kW..... I'm open to having my battery swapped out and retesting....
�
Dec 12, 2013
cinergi OK I'll fix that (and by fix, I mean close enough; sure technically swap cars etc etc but there's overwhelming information that older-battery cars can't go over 90 at the same locations people get 120).
I got 90 in Darien South. I just confirmed Aaron.S got 120 at that same location (and bay).
- - - Updated - - -
My DI was also swapped and I'm limited to 90.�
Dec 12, 2013
Benjamin Brooks 1 of the 7 at Harris Ranch is indeed only 90kW (the original one). The other 6 are 120kW split between 2 bays per. But indeed, these 6 new ones were limited to 90kW max per car up until cars got 5.x firmware, whether the SCs needed new firmware too for 120kW max I don't know.
Seems like the 90kW old ones are all explicitly labeled as such on the side; whether a suspected 120kW charger is truly 120kW capable is more the mystery...�
Dec 12, 2013
aronth5 I think Tommy's question raises and a really good point. Was it only the battery pack replacement or were there other components changed at the same time? For example, connectors, inverter or wiring harness.
Jumping to conclusions too early is always risky.�
Dec 12, 2013
hans Now we just need to figure out if the old S60s are limited to 70kW or if they can pull more on the 120kW chargers.�
Dec 12, 2013
yobigd20 FWIW I asked this question:
and got this response:
�
Dec 12, 2013
markb1 60s only began production in January of this year, so I'm guessing (and hoping) not.�
Dec 12, 2013
hans I have one of the first so we will see. I am sceptical that a 60 can charge at 120kW on a 120kW supercharger when it can only go 70kW on a 90kW supercharger.�
Dec 12, 2013
markb1 I think that's most likely. I'm just speculating that the problem that affects sigs does not affect us. Thinking of taking a road trip up 101 the week of Christmas, so I might have some data points, too.�
Dec 13, 2013
brianman This statement is patently incorrect. That's double the capacity of the battery.
(Units matter.)�
Dec 13, 2013
VolkerP Besides the mismatch in units, the answer is ambiguous and doesn't really help. It could mean "Yes, you can charge at a 120kW supercharger" as opposed to "No, a 60kWh car is not compatible with the new 120kW superchargers - sorry." Or it could mean "Yes, you can plug into a 120kW supercharger and get more than 90kW of power". I assume the latter, since dirkhh already observed 101.9kWh with his 60kWh Model S. I think that ~100kW is the max power you can expect to see in a Model S 60 ATM. Tesla might push the limits further, but is cautious in doing so.�
Dec 13, 2013
Kraken i didn't take a photo so this is off memory, but I specifically checked that one charger over thanksgiving, and I'm pretty sure it said 120 now.... Didnt think I'd ever have to recall that info though.�
Dec 13, 2013
scaesare The issue of a battery replacement allowing an early VIN car to be able to supercharge @ 120kW is interesting... and those folks who questioned if there were any other parts replaced at the same time are right to do so, in my opinion.
I had posted this in the other thread on this topic:
In addition, a post I saw today suggested that one person was proactively contacted by Tesla for some cooling pump replacements that were redesigned. This calls to mind one person mentioning that when charging at 120kW for the first time since the 5.x FW had come out, his cooling system came on full-bore as the current ramped up.
Thus, in addition to the above-mentioned electrical system components, there may be some cooling plumbing (pumps, coolant line size, heat-exchanger capacity, etc...) that needs to be in place for a car to handle 120kW supercharging as well...
- - - Updated - - -
Do we have an authoritative source for the charge rate limits as dictated by the battery chemistry Tesla uses?�
Dec 13, 2013
drees Typical Li-Ion max charge rates are determined by the cell's internal resistance, so cell temps are a big factor here - the hotter the cell is the faster you can charge it (up to a point, you typically will want to limit cells to 40-50C if you care about safety/cell-life). 2C charge rates should not be a problem for short periods of time for automotive grade Li-Ion cells, but you typically have to start tapering off current once cells hit max voltage to prevent over-charging. You could probably even briefly go up to 3C or more, but heat build-up will definitely be an issue so you don't want to do this for long.
None of that takes into consideration battery life - higher temperatures and higher charge/discharge rates are all harder on a battery so the more you push a cell, the faster it will lose capacity.
There are a lot of considerations to take into account when designing maximum charge rates - and that's just looking at the cell and doesn't take into account any of the other potentially limiting factors.
I am very skeptical that Tesla will allow a 60 kWh MS to charge at faster than ~85kW (same C rate as the 85 kWh pack) for a number of reasons:
1. The 60 kWh packs have lower pack voltage, so the same current will be pushed to the pack which means that wires, connectors, etc between the charger and pack are all a limit. I think the highest current we've seen is around 330A on any car - if you want to push a 60 kWh to 2C charge rate, you're going to need a lot more current since t's pack has lower nominal voltage.
2. 2C charge rates are going to be a lot harder on the car than 1.4C charge rates. That means you need more cooling for each cell and battery life is going to take a hit as well. For the same number of miles 60 kWh packs are already generally getting pushed harder than 85 kWh cars (unless you drive the 85 kWh car proportionally harder), so I doubt Tesla would accept significantly reduced battery life for 60 kWh owners (even though the warranty suggests this, I suspect this is simply because Tesla has higher margins on 85 kWh cars).�
Dec 13, 2013
scaesare Yup... I understand that there a re a variety of factors... but without knowing what Tesla's chemistry is, we are all just guessing... hence my query regarding an authoritative source.
As an example, Tesla has already mentioned 135kW charging for Europe... which edges the 85's up to about a 1.6C charge rate.... illustrating that the 1.4C mentioned apparently is not the limit.�
Dec 13, 2013
stopcrazypp Most 18650s have a limit of 1C (usually lower; most Panasonic cells have limit of 0.7C). Obviously Tesla has gone above that, so it doesn't apply to them (they may have chemistry optimization or maybe the active thermal management allows them to go higher).
The absolute max I have seen with consumer 18650 is 2C (but with lower capacity cells):
http://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/icr18650nh-2200.pdf
The worse case scenario is that the Sig cars have cells that can't handle the current (entirely possible), in which case a battery swap is the only way to "fix".�
Dec 13, 2013
Zythryn Thank you Cinergi, that is exactly the info I was looking for.
There is a lot of noise to signal ratio on this subject. I apologize if I missed it previously.�
Dec 13, 2013
apacheguy IMHO, this is very unlikely. Tesla would not want to change the cell design just a few months into full-scale production. A change that large would best be reserved for Model S 2.0 when they have had plenty of time to fully evaluate the technology.
Furthermore, TM had much bigger problems to deal with during the timeframe we are looking (I.e scaling up production). Switching to a new cell design would only have compounded their issues.�
Dec 13, 2013
SFOTurtle My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the person from Tesla intended to say that 60s can take advantage of higher charging rates, perhaps in excess of 90kW, and thus benefit from the 120kW Superchargers similar to the improvement (exactly what that is I'm not saying) we're seeing from newer 85s under 5.x. Someone else posted some data that they had exceeded 90kW with their 60 for a brief period, although not nearly 120kW. I assume we'll have more data before the end of the year, but the next time I get down to Gilroy and use one of the newer SCs, I can post the data from my experience, although likely there will be other cars there charging.�
Dec 13, 2013
digitaltim Confirmed per the invoice that only the HV battery pack was replaced ~3/28/2013 in sig737/vin628 (original delivered on 11/28/2012) and I can charge at 120kW.
This factoid should generate some conversation...�
Dec 13, 2013
ckessel I've had my drive unit replaced due to a growing "groaning" noise several folks have encountered, but I'm still at 90kwh. It very much sound like SC support is in the battery pack itself.�
Dec 13, 2013
stopcrazypp It may simply be a different batch of cells with lower charge current limit (with everything else the same). I see that as entirely possible and the worst case scenario. Other things (like the connector wiring, electronics, etc) are retrofit-table, but battery cells obviously aren't.�
Dec 13, 2013
kitk As another datapoint I peaked at 113kW today at Hawthorne. This was my first time exceeding 90kW. I have a December 2012 delivery running 1.49.30. I haven't had any pack or related replacements.�
Dec 13, 2013
apacheguy Great, so this confirms that Hawthorne is indeed 120 capable. I saw a max of 85 kw when I was there and some suggested that Hawthorne had not been upgraded to 120.
Interesting that your Dec 2012 model is not 90 kw limited. Guess you were one of the lucky ones that just barely missed the cut.
The more I think about it, I now believe the issue to be the result of some hardware chip that does not accept firmware flashes. Reason being that if the cells were limited to 90 kw max charge rate, Sigs would still see the benefits on the improved taper curve. Not so in my case considering that I taper to 70 kw well below the 100 mile mark.
Update
So I decided to do a side-by-side comparison of cinergi's taper curve on 4.x and Cottonwood's curve under 5.x. Well, guess what, it's actually worse under 5.x than it was in 4.x based on the time required to reach 100%!
Order: 1 Cinergi, 2 Cottonwood�
Dec 14, 2013
drees Battery temperatures will play a big role in how fast you can charge the pack - given than it's very likely cooler now (on 5.8) than it was (on 4.x), that's very likely the explanation for the apparent decrease in charge rate. Best way to compare would be to have cars side-by-side testing that have been operated very similarly before testing.�
Dec 14, 2013
CalDreamin Good point, at the same SC station at the same time, both starting with the same low SOC. Same battery size for both cars. But they shouldn't use the same paired Supercharger stalls (e.g. 1A/1B), otherwise the first car to start charging will charge much faster than the other.�
Dec 14, 2013
apacheguy Doubtful. Cinergi posted that it was 20 F outside when he built that charge curve. Cottonwood, would you mind chiming in here?
Besides, supercharging will make the pack awfully warm at any outside temp I believe.�
Dec 14, 2013
Cottonwood It was cool ~30? F. during my charging. As I said, my is the combination of two charge sessions a couple of weeks apart. The later half has a little higher charge rate, and it was probably a few degrees warmer then, and I had been driving hard from Boulder, knowing there was a Supercharger on the way. The first part was after a hypermile, gentle drive from Pagosa. The battery was probably a little warmer for the second part of my curve, but hard to tell.�
Dec 14, 2013
JohnQ Tough to compare as Cottonwood used rated miles for the curve. I would say there was a change to the algorithm that calculates rated miles between the two firmware versions. This may account for the difference � or it may not. Need to eliminate that variable.�
Dec 14, 2013
Cottonwood My rated miles of battery SoC are read from the App. The charge rate in rated miles is calculated from A*V/300W-Hr/mi as read from the App. If you want to convert my rated mph charge rate to kW, multiply by 0.3 kW-hr/mi.�
Dec 14, 2013
apacheguy Thanks for the info Cottonwood.
While there was a slight change in the rated mile computation, I don't believe that can account for a 20 minute discrepancy as we see here. Cinergi took 85 minutes to get slightly above 250 miles while Cottonwood took 105 minutes. Temperatures were about the same so weather was not a factor.
I'll be posting my own charge curve after I get back from my road trip next weekend. That should add another data point so we can determine whether 5.x has really screwed us Sigs over (as I suspect that it has).�
Dec 16, 2013
Cottonwood Here are graphs of the data that I collected from a charge session in Silverthorne, CO this evening. I arrived after spirited driving from Salida with 44 miles SoC. Because the charging started at 90 kW. I extrapolated back to create a 0 miles point. Also, because even though I did not need a 90% charge, I had the time available and thought I would take the chance to collect a consistent set of data. Below are two graphs from this data. The first with SoC charted as percent, and charge rate as kW (Volts x Amps). My last few range charges have been between 253 and 255 miles with this mornings as 254. Percent SoC are relative to 254 miles. The second chart shows the same data in terms of miles and mph (300 W-hr/mi).
From these data, it appears that my Sig#37 limits at 90 kW instead of 120 kW and takes 55 minutes to get to 80% SoC instead of the Tesla web page's claim of 40 minutes.
Other Details: Version 5.8 (1.49.30) and outside temps 32?F. Interior temps stable at about 73?F. during charging, climate control off.�
Dec 16, 2013
huntjo I charged at silverthorne yesterday and was limited to around 90kW.�
Dec 16, 2013
apacheguy Which is exactly how long it took Cinergi to reach 80% on 4.x. Further confirmation that older cars don't even receive the benefit of the improved taper curve. Argh...�
Dec 18, 2013
wycolo Didn't Cinergi's MS receive a replacement battery pack recently??
--�
Dec 18, 2013
cinergi Nope.�
Dec 23, 2013
apacheguy Charge Curve - Firmware 5.8
Hey folks -
As promised here is the charge curve I collected this weekend. I used a script to automate the process of data collection and then quickly plotted in Excel. This curve was produced at the Atascadero, CA SC in 68 F. One other MS was charging, but we were using a completely different charger bay and number. There is absolutely NO influence from external factors such as climate or reduced charging due to other vehicles simultaneously charging.
The second graph compares charge rates that forum members have posted of their 120 kw capable cars. As you can see, the difference in the taper curve is dramatic!
�
Dec 23, 2013
drees Nice plots. I have to wonder if Tesla improved the in-pack cooling (or perhaps more accurate monitoring of cell temperatures or voltages which allows the pack to be charged faster more safely?) at some point in the pack which would explain why the earlier cars are limited to 90 kW charging and why after a battery pack replacement it appears that earlier cars are able to charge at 120 kW.�
Dec 24, 2013
patp I'm so happy my battery pack was replaced on my Sig car. My bad luck is now transformed in something positive!�
Dec 29, 2013
bhuwan I am at darien south bound and barely getting 45kW. Started with 145 rated.�
Jan 2, 2014
wraithnot I took a road trip from the SF bay area to Las Cruces, NM and back in late December and was able to record some 120 kW supercharger data at Harris Ranch, Tejon Ranch, Hawthorne, and Quartzsite. I got pretty decent charge curves at my first stop at Tejon ranch (started at 16 rated miles and range charged) and at my last stop at Harris Ranch (started at 9 rated miles and charged to 238 miles). I sampled the rated range and charger power every 5 minutes using the node REST script and the data from these two charge curves matches quite well:
There are a few data points missing from each curve so I used the Harris Ranch data to fill in the missing datapoints in the Tejon Ranch data to build a composite charge table. This table can be used to estimate how long it will take to charge from a certain starting value to a certain final value. For example, if you started charging at 47 rated miles, it would take you about 30 minutes to get to 179 rated miles (assuming you have a 120 kW capable 85 kWh battery, you aren't sharing a charging stack, etc.) But the values near the end of the charge should be taken with a grain of salt because the rated range actually increased to 261 rated miles a few minutes after charging completed and your max range will vary.
Since I also collected similar data on two separate road trips in July to Las Vegas and LA when my car could only charge at 90 kW, I can compare how the charging power relates to the rated range for 90 kW chargers (in July and for "B" 85 kWh batteries) and 120 kW chargers (in December and for "B" 85 kWh batteries). I'm excluding data from occasions when I had to share a charger stack and I'm excluding initial data points that were taken when the charge power was still ramping up. The July trips included stops at Harris Ranch, Tejon Ranch, Barstow, Hawthorne, Buellton, and Atascadero:
time range 0 16 5 47 10 77 15 104 20 127 25 146 30 163 35 179 40 193 45 205 50 216 55 225 60 234 65 241 75 249 80 252 85 254 90 255 95 255 105 256 110 257
Other than the cap at either 90 kW or 120 kW, these plots look pretty similar to me (although the 90 kW chargers seem to taper a little bit more between about 100 rated miles and 200 rated miles). It also looks like there is a dramatic decrease in charger power after about 240 rated miles.
To try and figure out how to model the data, I took just the data for the 120 kW capable chargers, ignored the region close to the 120 kW cutoff, ignored the region >= to 240 rated miles and it was a good fit for an exponential decay of the form Power = 221 * e^(-Rated Miles/215) - 44. After 240 rated miles, the power seemed to decrease linearly related to the rated miles, but this seemed to vary a bit from charging stop to charging stop (the temperature may have played a role in this difference).
Anyway, I hope this analysis helps put some numbers to the differences between 90 kW and 120 kW charging (at least for "B" batteries) and helps put some numbers to the concept that superchargers charge more slowly as the rated range increases. I've got the numerical data in a spreadsheet and all the raw data the REST script spit out in three text files if anyone is interested.�
Jan 2, 2014
SamGarber 
This is what I got in Newark DE this past week. Though it was only in the beginning. It later scaled down.�
Jan 2, 2014
napabill Ok, I'm impressed!�
Jan 2, 2014
Owner I did a test like this myself. Not so interested in making a chart, but to really time what 120kW would do for me. Made a series of conclusions - like it will help on boring I-5 drives for just supercharger - to supercharger point driving - the rest of the time not as much. Lots of detailed info here for those who may be interested and includes direct feedback from Tesla.
Supercharger Time Test | Tesla Owner�
Jan 2, 2014
Fedderman Excellent data, wraithnot!
Now, if someone can superimpose the equivalent curves for a 90kW-limited 85kWh vehicle ('A' battery), we can use this to validate the estimated charge time difference between any two SOC levels.�
Jan 2, 2014
apacheguy Very nice analysis. I wonder why there is a much greater discrepancy between the taper curve that I posted and the one in your post comparing 120 to 90 kW supercharging. One thing that stood out to me was that by 125 rated miles you were consistently pulling <80 kW and yet another user posted an image of his car pulling 88 kW at ~125 miles.�
Jan 2, 2014
wraithnot The charger power values in my plots are from the "charger_power" value spit out by the REST script. The "charger_power" values match the product of the "battery_current" and "charger_voltage" values so I assume they are instantaneous values. But the "charge_rate" value seems to be some sort of average (Cottonwood has posted on this in some detail). If the other user was determining power from the charge rate in rated miles / hour then they were likely using an average value rather than an instantaneous value. But if they were really getting 88 kW (as determined by multiplying charger current and voltage) at 125 rated miles then I have no explanation for the difference.
Update: I see the post you are referring to. Lloyds got 236 A and 375 V (88.5 kW) at 126 miles. My best guess is that Lloyds is using ideal miles rather than rated miles. If not, maybe Tesla tweaked the taper between when he made his measurement and when I made mine.�
Jan 3, 2014
wycolo Anyone have a clearer photo of this? And where is this unit located? My observation is that the arches have no workings, the wire simply goes underground to one of the several cabinets. The cabinets appeared to be filled with a vertical stack of 'chargers', all identical and less than a foot high. I saw Tech Guy working on them at Silverthorne CO. Presumably these chargers are operating in parallel feeding a pair of arches as needed. So I'm missing something here (what else is new).
edit: Ok, this might be a rectifier unit feeding the charger(s). The transformers themselves would be separate.
--�
Jan 3, 2014
wraithnot I had a request for the raw data I collected so I put it all on dropbox: Dropbox - SuperChargerData
The raw data the REST script spit out (plus the time and date) for each entire road trip is in the three text files. Annotated data for rated range, supercharger power, and battery level for each supercharger stop is in the excel spreadsheet.�
Jan 3, 2014
TylerCA Not bad when all stations are vacant and I am the only one charging�
Jan 3, 2014
Cottonwood First of all these are way more than rectifiers; rectifiers are just diodes or electrical, one-way valves.
They are very sophisticated, AC input, DC output, charge controllers. Each is in a cabinet (bay) and is connected to two pedestals (arches as WyColo calls them) that feeds an MS in its charging stall. Through a communications link from the car to the charge control cabinet, the car tells the cabinet how much charge current it can accept. It has been speculated (partly by me) that each Supercharger cabinet, bay, contains 12 of the basic chargers that are in our MS's (two in those intelligent customers that choose the dual-charger option).
The plate and specs that I was referring to was on one of these Supercharger Cabinets (bays) that feeds two stalls (arches).
Excuse me if I seem a little pedantic on these issues, but I am just trying to get the facts straight. :wink:�
Jan 3, 2014
wraithnot This has been confirmed by none other than J B Straubel himself:
"The Supercharger is clever in its construction. It starts with the same 10-kilowatt charger that is onboard every Model S. To build the Supercharger, the company strings together 12 of the same units, which were designed from the beginning as building blocks.
�It�s good modular engineering,� Mr. Straubel said. �We configured all the circuitry, the power and the communications so we can just stack them up.�
On an Electric Highway, Charging Into the Future - NYTimes.com�
Jan 4, 2014
wycolo So, like Gaul, each SuperCharger is divided into three major components:
1. Arches that hold the charging cable/plug that connect to your MS.
2. The power transformer - Massive unit mounted on concrete pad outdoors, usually painted dark green. Adjacent is a smaller steel cabinet also on pad, for all the wire connections going into (from electric utility company) and out of the transformer (to the fenced-in area).
3. The fenced-in area* containing vertical rack cabinets, one cabinet per pair of charging arches. Cabinets are about 24 inches wide and contain a dozen identical charger units stacked one above the other. They are each fed power from the transformer and their output goes to a pair of arches.
When Silverthorne CO was being tested by the Tech Guy from headquarters he had cabinets open on the east side but I didn't notice that the cabinets on the west side were the same as the ones on the east side. I thought maybe they were another type of unit like perhaps mercury vapor rectifiers (something old, something blue). :smile:
* Stockade as in unclimbable fence is the word I was searching for.
--�
Jan 4, 2014
Cottonwood Exactly, there is also a fourth major part (and a fifth if you count the conduits). Here is the complete list, starting at the utility side:
- The utility transformers. This is the large squat, dark-green object that is usually close to (but not inside) the enclosure containing the Tesla Supercharger gear. The High Voltage (HV), 3-Phase lines come from the utility to this transformer, and the output is 480 Volt (Delta or Line to Line), 277 Volt (Wye, Line to Neutral), 3-Phase power.
- The 480 Volt disconnect switches and circuit breakers.The power from the transformer goes to the Disconnect, Distribution, and Circuit breaker cabinets. These are usually light gray and made by Square D. They are just a giant version of the circuit breaker box in your house. In a typical install, the main feed in would be something like 800 or 1,000 Amp, 480 Volt 3-Phase service, and the output to each Supercharger Cabinet (rack, stack) is 200 Amps at 480 Volts with a neutral.
- The charge controller cabinets. Each of these is as light beige in color, is about 24 inches wide, and has a large hooded cooling air duct in the back. Each Supercharger Cabinet contains 12, identical, modular chargers that are the same as the one or two chargers in an MS. The ones being installed currently can put out a total of 120 kW DC, shared between 2 charging stalls. Each of the individual chargers is connected between one of the AC phases and Neutral. A "Wye" connection (Line to Neutral is 277 Volts and that's only a little more than the 250 Volts that the car chargers are spec'd for. If you look at the maximum draw from a 200 Amp breaker it is 160 Amps; 277 Volts * 160 Amps * 3 Phases is 133 kW. 133 kW AC in for 120 kW DC out is a perfect match for the chargers running at 90% efficiency or better.
- The pedestals (arches) at each charging stall.The pedestals at each charging stall are fed by the Supercharger cabinets and are where you find that nice, big cable and connector to plug into your MS. They are usually numbered 1A/1B, 2A/2B, etc. The numbers indicate the Supercharger Cabinet used, and the letters denote the pair of stalls serviced by each cabinet. The usual layout is 1A, 2A, ... 1B, 2B, ... This means that adjacent stalls are on different Supercharger Cabinets. If you want to make sure that you are getting maximum charging power, try to make sure that the paired stall (e.g. 1A paired with 1B) is not in use. If both charging stalls are in use, then priority is given to the first car to arrive, and the second car to arrive gets what's left over.
- The Conduits. These may seem mundane, but a big part of installing a Supercharger site, is putting in the interconnecting conduits. Putting these in, is the reason for all of the trenching and back fill that you see at most sites. Because of the high current in all of these wires, the wires are very large and therefore the conduits are very large.
- HV lines fromt the utility substation to the transformer.
- 480 Volt 3-Phase from the transformer to the circuit breaker cabinets.
- 480 Volt 3-Phase from the circuit breaker cabinets to the Supercharger cabinets.
- 400 Volt DC and signaling from the Supercharger cabinets to the pedestals.
Jan 4, 2014
bluetinc All,
I had a chance to run a full charge on my car (with a 90kW limited battery) yesterday in Delaware on one of the 120kW chargers while collecting data. Raw data is available if anyone wants it, but here are the results, along with a quick graph. Start to end is about 1 hour 50 minutes, the X axis is seconds.
Note 1 rated mile left = 8% SOC
120kW charge on newer battery times pulled from Wraithnot's data
Datapoints in the table were estimated from available data
My conclusion was a bit surprising to me. When comparing charge times on a SOC basis, Jeromes assertion that it takes only 4 extra minutes to charge an older battery pack from 20% -> 90% was nearly correct. The largest effect on the time difference is that my battery pack has degraded an extra 5% more than Wraithnot's. This means that to charge to the same "rated mile" point of ~230 miles from ~30 miles, would take me charging from 20%->95%, a time of 1 hour 7 min, while Wraithnot would be there in 52 min.
SOC
Rated Miles added (248 mile pack)
90kW Battery Time
120kW Battery Time
8->20%
30 miles
8 min
6 min
20->30%
26 miles
5 min
4 min
30->40%
24 miles
5 min
4 min
40->50%
27 miles
6 min
4 min
50->60%
25 miles
6 min
6 min
60->70%
28 miles
7 min
7 min
70->80%
28 miles
12 min
11 min
80->90%
29 miles
15 min
14 min
90->99%
31 miles
32 min
35 min
20->90%
185
58 min
52 min
�
Jan 4, 2014
scaesare Good stuff, Cottonwood. The identification plate actually suggests the current draw may be higher @277V than just 160A. Although they don't specify, it might be closer to 280A * 0.8 = 221.6A?
Pic of the Newark, DE chargers:
�
Jan 4, 2014
wraithnot Looks like a very nice dataset- I'd definitely be interested in seeing the numerical data (dropbox works great but I can also PM you my email address). I'm curious to see how it compares to the data from my car when the superchargers maxed out at 90 kW. I'm also impressed that you charged all the way from 1 rated mile to a full range charge! I picked up a few miles of range after a few deep charges and discharges: Decreasing rated range. - Page 66 - hopefully the same happens for you.�
Jan 4, 2014
Cottonwood No the 160 Amps is right on. There is a common confusion of Voltages with 3-Phase power. See Three-phase electric power - Wikipedia. L-N Voltage (Wye or Y connection) is L-L Voltage (Delta connection) divided by the square root of 3. Therefore, 480V/1.732=277V. Most 3-phase installs refer to Voltage by the Delta, L-L Voltage. The 160 Amps @ 480 VAC is the usual install, but it feeds each individual charging module with L-N at 277 Volts.
Did that make sense? :wink:�
Jan 4, 2014
yobigd20 Curious, how many miles do you have on your MS now? What is your max rated range on a range charge? "5% more" seems like quite a lot. I know my range charges are still > 255 miles @34k. I'm wondering if the "A" packs degrade faster than the "B" packs...also wondering what your daily charge habits are and how many times you've range charges total.�
Jan 4, 2014
Cottonwood Here is a nice diagram of these components from page E-4 of the Tesla Supercharger Application to Madison, WI:
�
Jan 4, 2014
Larry Chanin Peter,
Could you please clarify what you mean by "Note 1 rated mile left = 8% SOC"?
If your full battery pack now has a rated full range of 248miles then wouldn't 1 rated mile left be (1/248)= .4%, not 8%?
On your chart:
Is the top curve the distance (rated range) in miles?
Is the middle curve the State of Charge in %?
Is the bottom curve the delivered power in kW?
Thanks.
Larry�
Jan 4, 2014
scaesare It does, and I knew that each leg of a 3 phase circuit was 277, as that's how many commercial services get their 277V lighting circuits, etc...
I'm curious as to why the separate current rating then?
Thanks for the enlightenment... most of my 3 phase knowledge is not only second hand, but rather distant in the past.�
Jan 4, 2014
Cottonwood This got me looking into the numbers a little more. The other popular 3-phase Voltage standard in North America is 208 Volts Delta, 120 Volts Wye. Curiously, 160A*480V/208V*90kW/120kW is 277A, remarkable close to the 280 Amp rating. The lower Voltage/higher current set seems to correspond to 90 kW. It looks like Superchargers connected to 208 Volt 3-phase service may be limited to 90 kW.�
Jan 4, 2014
apacheguy Yeah, I was worried that degradation would come up at some point. Although I rarely charge to max, last week I needed the extra range. I only got 244 miles and I have an A pack with 22 K. Amazing that you get >255 with 34 K!�
Jan 4, 2014
bluetinc Thanks, I really wanted a complete charge cycle on the Supercharger logged as my calculations of the 120kW vs 90kW charge times didn't seem to match up with Tesla's position. I'm happy to toss the xls onto dropbox tomorrow. I've also seen gains in the past from full cycles depending on the time since the car had been either full or near empty, and as much as 10 miles. I did see a small gain this time as a full charge had last been 246 miles.
I have a bit over 26K miles on it. I've been in the decreasing range thread for a long time, and there has seemed to be two sets of people for a while. A set of older cars that the owners (myself included) have been talking about a surprising bit of decreased range (I've gone from 275->248) and many with newer cars showing very little loss. I had written that off to the fact that the newer cars just didn't have the miles on them yet, but now that the newer cars (such as yours) have just as many or many more miles on them and are showing a good bit less loss, the A/B battery difference suddenly seems to fit much better.
My daily charge habits were 93% standard charges back when that was our only choice, then 50% during summer and 60-70% most of the time in winter. I've range charged it 20 or so times, but more important than just the number of range charges is that I stay away from the two things that are most detrimental to the battery, I never leave it sitting charged up long (esp. range charges), and I try my best to not draw large amounts of power from the batteries when they are low (well beyond Tesla's limits).
Larry, the "reserve" charge that lets people drive 14-17 miles past 0 still shows on the battery icon and in the SOC (State of Charge). Therefor when you drive the car down to 0 rated miles left, the battery still shows ~8% under 5.8.4.
I can NOT confirm that the car stops at exactly a SOC of 0 and that Tesla doesn't stop the car prior to that (I think they do), as I've never driven my car into the reserve, but I can confirm what is at 0 "rated range". Currently 0 rated range on the old 85kWh battery is a 320V raw pack voltage, or 3.33V per cell. That should be about 8% above a floor of 3V per cell which Tesla has previously stated as the lower end of their range and matches their in car display and the data send via the API. This seems to have changed since 4.5 and before, at which 0 rated miles was a 316V pack voltage but as those numbers were in warm weather and I need to fully confirm this when the weather turns warm again, or I make it down to FL!
You have the labels for the curves correct.
�
Jan 5, 2014
scaesare Yeah interesting. I wonder if there are any installations thus far where the supply-side voltage is a limiting factor.�
Jan 5, 2014
wycolo > Start to end is about 1 hour 50 minutes, the X axis is seconds. [bluetinc]
This appears to be incorrect. If 8 > 20% = 8 min and 20 > 90% = 58 min then essentially your total charge took 66 min, not 110.min.
And what's with those seconds??
Everyone seems to be trying different graphs. Since this is a response to TM's claim: "200 miles in 30 min" then for one thing using a linear time scale might best be a given, as you did here.
--�
Jan 5, 2014
bluetinc That's because I charged from 8% to 100% which took 110 min, while 8%-90% took ~66 min, 20%-90% took 58 min. The log file spit everything out in seconds, and I didn't spend any time cleaning it up
Peter
�
Jan 13, 2014
bluetinc Here are the Drop box links for the data files I used. There are two sets of data I've merged from two computers. They seem like they vary by a few second from each other which can make the data look a little strange if you look closely but doesn't effect anything. I've also included a modified spreadsheet where I tried to properly weight raising my capacity back up to match yours (100% = 262 miles) and calculate the difference in time for that. My conclusion that, removing all factors I could, there is a 9 minute difference to charge a A pack vs. a B pack from 20->90% SOC with pack capacities of 262 range miles. Also here is an updated graph of my charge making things a bit cleaner:
Peter
Dropbox - tesla charge merged data 248.xls
Dropbox - tesla charge merged data modified for 262.xls
�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét