Dec 20, 2011
fairlycool Tesla won't be supporting supercharging for the base model which leaves me pretty disappointed. The only reason why they won't do it of course is to drive you to buy the 60 or 85 Kwh models which is pretty sad since I can't justify spending 10K extra just for that option though it would be nice to have.
So sad
�
Dec 20, 2011
Citizen-T I'm pretty sure there are technical reasons.�
Dec 20, 2011
Zextraterrestrial so that supercharge stations need not be so close together?�
Dec 20, 2011
Todd Burch Almost certain it's due to the limited C rate as a result of being a lower capacity battery pack (and possibly, to a much smaller extent, older Li-Ion chemistry).�
Dec 20, 2011
stopcrazypp I kind of predicted this in older discussions (and also how the different packs might have different performance specs). The pure technical issue for this is that at the same power input (90kW), the 40kWh pack will have to charge at 2.25C vs 1.5 and 1.06 for the 60kWh and 85kWh packs respectively. 2.25C is going to degrade the pack significantly faster, while even the 1.5C is kind of iffy for frequent use (1.06C is okay; Panasonic cells are cycle tested at a 0.5C-1.0C). That's probably why Tesla is offering an unlimited mile warranty on the 85kWh pack (and probably won't even need to condition it against supercharger usage).
I don't see why they can't offer the supercharger running at half power though, for the 40kWh pack. Although maybe they are considering that a 40kWh pack running at half power is going to take up the space for longer (on a per mile basis). And I'm no sure what the "optional" part for the supercharger on 60kWh pack means. Doesn't the same connector already support the supercharger? Maybe there are extra electronics needed (they didn't list a price)?�
Dec 20, 2011
AnOutsider There was mention of software: "Includes all software and on-board hardware"�
Dec 20, 2011
Norbert Another reason may be that it is more difficult to install Superchargers at shorter distances along the highways.
EDIT: Zextraterrestrial actually already mentioned that above...�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow Well, if a 24kWh Leaf battery with no cooling can be quick charged, I don't see why a 40kWh liquid cooled pack can't be. Besides, as you say, they can always use lower current.�
Dec 20, 2011
Todd Burch 90 kW in a 24kWh battery? YIKES. That battery might last 10 cycles
If you want to use a lower current, why not use a 240v 50A socket?
I don't think we know for sure that you won't be allowed to use the Tesla Superchargers. I think all we know for now is that you won't be able to charge at 90kW with the base pack.
EDIT: After reading it again, I see that it's under a heading of "Super Charger Access" with "Includes all software and on-board hardware"....so it would seem that perhaps the base pack is mechanically or electronically prevented from having access to the Supercharger...so I think you're right about that.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow Just to re-iterate, the battery capacity shouldn't affect quick charging.
A 85 kWh battery can be quick charged to 80% in 30 minutes by applying approximately 136 kW of power. That is 1.6C.
A 40 kWh battery can be quick charged to 80% in 30 minutes by applying approximately 64 kW of power. That is 1.6C.
So, even though you don't get the same # of miles out of a quick charge in a 40kWh battery compared to a 85 kWh battery, technically there should be no problem in quick charging the lower capacity battery at the same C rate as the larger pack.
To use Nissan Leaf example, the 24kWh pack is quick charged to 80% in something like 24 minutes @ 2C. Nissan says the battery can be charged much faster - infact they recently talked about a 10 minute charger (which was badly mangled by most of the press).�
Dec 20, 2011
Todd Burch To paraphrase a former US president:
That all depends on what your definition of Quick charge is...
EVNow, what are you referring to when you say "Quick Charge"?
Battery capacity absolutely affects quick charging, if you are referring to Tesla's supercharger (90 kW)...end users don't care about C rates...what matters for the end user with Quick Charging is miles/hour of charging. Since higher capacities give higher miles/hour of charge, there's an effect.
I agree, there shouldn't be any problem quick charging the lower capacity battery at the same C rate as the larger pack.
I'd say the lack of supercharger support for the base Model S is for at least 3 reasons:
1) Tesla wants a way to pay for a nationwide network of Superchargers...forcing the upgrade to a 60 or 85 kWh pack is one way to help subsidize it.
2) With the base pack, the superchargers would need to be MUCH closer together (perhaps 75-100 miles instead of 200 or so) for base customers to take advantage of them for long distance travel. That might require (VERY rough ballpark estimate) on the order of four times as many supercharger installations.
3) Base pack customers are likely to be getting the car for short-distance commutes, and therefore a NEMA 14-50 is plenty for overnight charging.
I'm sure there are more reasons.
Edit: EVNow, I completely agree with you on a technical front (same C rate shouldn't matter)...I'm coming from an end user perspective, where the customer associates quick charging with miles per hour of charge.�
Dec 20, 2011
GSP I don't know, "Joe six-pack" might just as well recognize "80% charge in 30 min" as the definition of "fast charging." No reason to expect the smaller packs to have the same number of miles.
I think that Japan's experience with ChadeMo has been that customers get much more use of low milage EVs, making them much more suitable to replace a gas car.
It is a shame that Tesla will not offer fast charging on their 160-mile car. Best to get a TwinCharger and hope for some 80 amp ESVEs to pop up. Hope is not a good plan however. I know that wasn't how Japan got ChadeMo stations.
GSP
PS. The Leaf, the "i" and probably GM's Spark EV all support DC fast charging. Tesla is not keeping up in this department.�
Dec 20, 2011
Todd Burch I'm still not seeing where you guys are saying the 40 kWh pack doesn't support quick charging...maybe I'm missing it?
All I'm seeing is that the 40 kWh pack doesn't support the Tesla Supercharger (and I think this is for business reasons, not technical reasons).
But is there anything that indicates it can't do other types of DC quick charges?�
Dec 20, 2011
qwk Nope, they are just ASSuming....�
Dec 20, 2011
Norbert I see your point, however Tesla also doesn't offer an 80 mile range or 100 mile range option. If you consider all the points made above (and in related threads), I think it comes down to Tesla's philosophy of offering good solutions first at the necessary higher price point and then drive the price down, meaning for Bluestar, or perhaps earlier, the price for an about 60-85 kWh pack including supercharging will be significantly lower. Tesla first focuses on offering a good solution and then lowering the price, whereas others focus on starting with a low price and try to squeeze in features.�
Dec 20, 2011
stopcrazypp Completely different chemistry. The standard Lithium cobalt laptop cells in the 40kWh Model S are probably the worst in terms of charging/discharging C-rates and cycle life out of the battery types being used in EVs. Tesla just addresses that problem by using lots of them. Standard cycle life tests done by Panasonic (and probably most 18650 manufacturers) have a charging rate ranging from 0.5C-1.0C. The 2.25C is way over that and likely will affect the battery life significantly even if it can be safely done. But I do agree that lowering the charging current will easily address that.
To be fair, the general, most commonly used, definition for "Quick charge" is any significant charge (70+%) that is under an hour. Although there really is no "official" definition.
http://www.cars21.com/files/news/EVS-24-3960315%20Botsford.pdf
But I do agree that the charging speed figure that matters the most in the end is the miles/hour (although most people don't realize this, which gives PHEV sellers a chance to brag about how little time it takes to charge their relatively small battery pack).�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow There is another thread talking about this. Merge ?
Options / Pricing gripes for 160 mile version
BTW, my impression is people getting the 300 mile model are saying it is OK for 160 mile model not to have QC. I'm interested in hearing what people who reserved a 40kWh "160 mile" model think about this. I can't beleive they are happy about this turn of events.�
Dec 20, 2011
qwk I don't think anybody is saying it's OK. I think that most are saying it was inevetable due to the smallish pack and battery chemistry.
I for one think that this is a mistake. Tesla would sell more cars if they offered the supercharger charging at a lower rate for the base cars.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow Anyway, as I've explained this is not a technical limitation. This was a purely business decision.
Ironically, Elon Musk called Nissan's battery "primitive". LOL.
BTW, I should say I'm always aghast when EVs don't include QC option. I think it is very important to have QC option for widespread EV acceptability. I had the same reaction when news that Focus EV, RAV4EV or Fit EV wouldn't include QC came out.�
Dec 20, 2011
GSP The Leaf, the Mitsubishi i, and probably the Spark EV all offer DC fast charging with smaller packs than the 160-mile Model S. I doubt there is a technical reason that prevents Tesla from offering this.
GSP�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow You mean Spark EV might have the new SAE QC plug ? I guess that is a possibility if GM really wants to push that "standard".�
Dec 20, 2011
Norbert I think it is disappointing, although I already had doubts that the smaller packs would be able to support 90 kW, and made some posts here about that. There were also some hints in recent months from Tesla in this direction, but I assume they wanted to make a comprehensive statement and not cause a lot of discussion, back and forth, before they knew what exactly they want to do and offer. There seems to be a still ongoing process as the supercharging option for the 60 kWh pack is still "TBD". For example, perhaps they weren't sure whether to offer it for the 60 kWh pack, until recently. They may have done some extensive testing before making these decisions.�
Dec 20, 2011
jimbakker666 As a person with a 160 reservation I will confirm that, at least from my perspective. If I can regain my mileage quickly, then I find much more utility in my vehicle. I don't see much point for a family sedan when we can't really go anywhere meaningful. We're literally restricted to a sub-80 mile radius in this vehicle unless we're going somewhere where we can charge overnight.�
Dec 20, 2011
richkae Now is the time to directly give Tesla your feedback and tell them you *need* fast charging on the Model S variant you would consider buying - and if you would cancel your order if it is not.
If they are considering offering Chademo support, then push them to do so.
If they are not, there still is time for them to do something about it.�
Dec 20, 2011
Tommy I think we Americans just got a dose of what our European friends have been clamoring the past few years with Tesla over the need for fast charging via 3 phase.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow It would be useful to get a direct comment from Tesla on the reason why they didn't allow for a lower powered QC for the 160 mile pack. Technically that should be a very simple thing to do, assuming the packs can't even take 2C charging.
I wonder whether Tesla is thinking of SuperCharging only in a very restricted long road tour scenario.
With any EV we are making quite a few compromises. So, people will find novel ways of pushing the EV usage if QC is available. Tesla shouldn't consider just some narrow scenarios.
On the business side, I think lack of QC may make the base version very unattractive and significantly impact S's market, since the next level is a costly $10k upgrade. In the case of Leaf, more than 80% (IIRC) chose to get the trim that allowed them to get QC. Clearly, the lower the range, the more the need for QC.�
Dec 20, 2011
AnOutsider Again, not to belittle the fact that it's not in the car for whatever reason, but if range really is that important why don't you upgrade the pack size? As it stands, you'd drive 2 hours, then stop and recharge for 1/4 that time (30 mins) to get another hour's worth of driving?
With the 80 mile radius thing, again, buy the car that fits your needs (I think tesla's fact page actually says that outright).�
Dec 20, 2011
Norbert Agreed. I'd guess it is multiple reasons coming together. Perhaps Elon will explain this in an interview, or a blog post on Tesla's website. Also the upcoming Supercharger announcement may clarify the situation. Although that's still a few months down the road.�
Dec 20, 2011
fairlycool Can you explain this a bit more. So the 40Kwh battery pack is different that the Nissan Leaf battery pack. I assume you are meaning to say it is inferior too. Is the 60/85Kwh battery pack significantly different from the 40Kwh battery in terms of chemistry/quality? Are those more comparable to the leaf?�
Dec 20, 2011
stopcrazypp To make it explicitly clear, there's a good technical reason why Tesla doesn't want to offer supercharging to 40kWh packs at the full 90kW power. But there is no good technical reason for Tesla not to offer it running at half power (45kW).
The critical question right now is if there are any differences in the car itself needed to support supercharging. If there isn't any difference, all it takes for 40kWh cars to use the superchargers is a policy change by Tesla (and maybe some tweaks on the charger side at worse), rather than a costly retrofit on the car.�
Dec 20, 2011
Kipernicus I guess in the end it will come down to where you live, where you want to go, and what options there are in between. Like others have said, with the 20kW charger and an HPC 2.0 you can fill up a good portion of the 40kWh battery in an hour, which if you are stopping for a meal anyways is not that much worse than stopping for 30 min at a Supercharger running at low power. Why tie up a Supercharger when a much cheaper HPC will do?
That said, my feelings are similar to others - I'm rather disappointed in their crippling the base pack and don't want to spend 50k just for an in-town car when I can get a Leaf for much cheaper, which also can QC when the infrastructure improves.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow The market at $50k is larger than the market at $60k. In the EV community we are demanding that even the cheapest EVs have the quick charge option since that will greatly expand the market. So, to not have QC in a $50K car is an aberration.
BTW, how many of the 6K reservation holders reserved a 160 miler ?�
Dec 20, 2011
fairlycool I'm planning on getting a 40Kwh model. With the options I want (pano roof/leather/backup camera/nav/tech package) the price will be closer to $60K + (taxes?).�
Dec 20, 2011
brianman Zero. At most, 1000 (the Signature reservations) have chosen the 300mi (85). None of the non-Signature have configured any battery choice yet.�
Dec 20, 2011
AnOutsider I get your points, but I don't really think they addressed what I brought up. Is it an annoyance at a perceived slight or is it something that is genuinely a make or break thing? Tesla hadn't even made mention of the superchargers when most people made their reservations (though they were throwing around 45 minute charges), so I can't see it being the sole reason people reserved the car.
Like someone else just said, it's not like you can't still get some juice in a decent time. If you were sold on the early 45 minute time, then it's just 15 minutes more.�
Dec 20, 2011
Norbert Another question might be if one can later upgrade to an 85 kWh battery, and if that will include the supercharging option then. Some were considering that a while ago.�
Dec 20, 2011
jimbakker666 For me, range isn't as big a factor as the ability to quick-charge. Price and principal are also big factors. After all, a large part of my motivation for the S was the principal behind it.
The 160 fit my needs when it could be charged in an hour. Considering that I've always owned sub-$20k cars without the bells and whistles, I can't justify within myself having to spend more on the vehicle not because of a change in my personal desire, but because of having my hand forced by the company which overbilled their vehicle to me. Tesla did not say that the 160 would be absent the ability to quick-charge. They didn't say it's range was dependent on a 55-mph driving speed. In fact, I believe their website said or says that the range was based on typical driving conditions. In CA, the highway speed limit is 65mph...a slower speed would be atypical.
Did Tesla know all along that they wouldn't allow for QC on the 160, and that it's range would be based on a 55mph highway speed limit? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have known, after all it is their car. Should I have assumed that what they were telling the world about their vehicle(s) applied only to their top of the line vehicle? I suppose so, but I don't think it's reasonable to place that burden of understanding squarely on my shoulders. If Tesla thinks that's the way to do business, I think they are mistaken. I don't place a lot of faith in companies that play word games with me. I'm not buying a cheeseburger from them, I'm buying an expensive automobile.
Perhaps they are also striving for 5-star safety ratings for the Model S, except for the 160? If they didn't specify, or I didn't read it correctly, then maybe we should all be digging around to see what they really mean by that?
So it's sort of a principal thing. I can sort of accept the range not being a full 160 miles. What I can't accept is Tesla not disclosing to me that my vehicle cannot be quick-charged. Frankly, I would feel like a doofus spending sixty-thousand-dollars on a car that is effectively hobbled from ever being more than a commuter car extraordinaire. To upgrade to the 230 for an additional $10k, a whopping $70k tax+license without options, because of Tesla's inaccurate marketing, is just too much for me to accept. That may actually be the sum total of every car I've ever owned. I think I'd spontaneously combust.�
Dec 20, 2011
stopcrazypp This thread will have more info on C-rates and other battery stuff.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6758-Bigger-Battery-Longer-Warranty
But the short version of it is that I'm saying the battery cells used by Tesla is inferior in C-rate and cycle life compared to the cells used by the Leaf. That doesn't mean the battery pack is inferior though, because a proportional increase in pack capacity will make up for it any deficiencies.
By example:
As you can see, the cells used by the Leaf is ~2x better in both C-rate and cycle life, but because Tesla's battery pack is ~2x larger in capacity than Nissan's pack, the capabilities of the two packs end up basically the same. The larger 60kWh and 85kWh will be proportionally better than the 40kWh pack for the same reason.�
Dec 20, 2011
jimbakker666 So that I'm clear in my understanding here, can someone tell me how many miles are recovered per hour when charging the 160? What I see via the Tesla Options screen is this:
*EDIT* By the way, Tesla's main features page lists the vehicle ranges @ 60 MPH: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/performance
They're the same as those ranges listed in the new options page @ 55 mph. Convenient!�
Dec 20, 2011
dsm363 Tesla is a new car company and I'm sure will make more errors but they've been a great company to deal with. The Leaf is you're only other option at the moment so I guess you have to make a decision. Realistically, depending on a quick charge in the next year or two for travel will leave you disappointed anyway unless you live along the east or west coast. It will be years before there is a Tesla super charger every 150 miles along major highways.�
Dec 20, 2011
stopcrazypp Assuming there is no difference in efficiency between the 160,230,300 mile versions, that miles per hour figure should apply equally to all of them. The only version that will get more miles per hour of charge are the ones that opt for the optional 19" aerodynamic wheels, because it increases the efficiency by a max of 5%.�
Dec 20, 2011
surfingslovak That's a valid question and I can confirm that unless you wanted the Signature trim, there was no way to elect a particular battery size when placing a reservation. There was an informal poll on the forum, which seemed to indicated that the interest level in the 40kWh pack was relatively small. It's questionable however, whether the Tesla forum members constituted a representative sample of Model S buyers.
Poll on battery size. - View Poll Results�
Dec 20, 2011
dsm363 Even the Signature reservation holders couldn't pick a battery size and were told only months ago that it would indeed come with the '300 mile' pack.�
Dec 20, 2011
jimbakker666 I should have been more clear. Is 31 miles of range per hour typical for a public charging station?�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow As an "EV activist" I think it is bad for the movement.
I've been toying with the idea of getting an S when my Leaf lease ends in Feb '14. So, personally, this probably pushes S lower in my priority list, compared to Infiniti EV.
Actually, I think Tesla will have to change the decision on this. This will put the base S in a uncompetitive position.�
Dec 20, 2011
Doug_G I suspect you are correct, as long as it is technically feasible for the Supercharger to automatically back off to half power when a 40 kWh pack is plugged into it.
In the real world, though, you're probably not going to encounter many Superchargers within major cities. Tesla will be installing them along highways.�
Dec 20, 2011
surfingslovak I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Tesla's QC technology. The Chademo protocol Nissan and Mitsubishi are using in their fast chargers is eminently capable of throttling the output current. This behavior is typically observed towards the end of a charge session. There was a thread on the MNL forum where we were trying to come up with a creative way to limit Nissan's QC to 12KW power output. This would help avoid prohibitively high demand charges levied by several utility companies in California. Let's see what specific technology will Tesla deploy in their QC network.�
Dec 20, 2011
doug In a way, it's the smallest pack that can make the most use out of a quick charge. I'm sure those with the 40kWh pack would like to be able to use the growing 50kW capable CHAdeMO network that the even shorter ranged Leafs and i-MiEVs will be using.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow I think more than the Tesla chargers, CHAdeMO adopters would be very useful.�
Dec 20, 2011
EVNow Most public chargers are 6.6 kW - so can expect about 25 miles.�
Dec 20, 2011
dpeilow I was out of the loop last night so unable to get all the details or comment, but this does indeed suck bigtime.
All the comments on C rates and throttling the charger are valid and so this is just a business decision. Doug hits the nail on the head above.
Without CHAdeMO support, this is a total deal breaker on the 160 mile car for most I suspect. Whether they hold out to see what Infiniti does or just go PHEV for 90% of their electric needs remains to be seen.
It also adds confusion to what sites install charger-wise. Now do you put an 80A HPC2 alongside your supercharger in case a 160 miler turns up?�
Dec 20, 2011
Doug_G Tesla Toronto told me that when they install chargers on the 401, they're going to put in HPCs and Superchargers. Maybe that's not just because of Roadster owners.
(Mind you they also told me months ago that they were going to install an HPC in Kingston, but backed away from doing it.)�
Dec 21, 2011
neroden That's still going to be useful for an awful lot of people with 160s. Suppose Tesla spaces the Superchargers out at 300 mile intervals along, say, I-90. The people who live on I-90 halfway between two superchargers suddenly double their range eastwards and westwards. That's significant for someone in, say, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany....
I suppose if Tesla pairs every Supercharger with an HPC that will help some, but 20kW charging isn't 40kW charging.�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert I think the fact that supercharging for the 60 kWh is only an option, and its price TBD, shows that Tesla believes that even that is a stretch.
And that the message they really intend to get across, is that the 85 kWh pack combined with 90 kW charging, has just reached the level where traveling is acceptable also by common standards.�
Dec 21, 2011
Mycroft The 85kWh pack and the 60kWh pack use different technologies and the "TBD" on the 60kWh pack for supercharging indicates to me that even Tesla isn't all that familiar with the supercharging tech yet.�
Dec 21, 2011
jcstp Curious how this will evolve
can't wait on a decent explanation for why supercharging is so difficult on 40 & 60kw packs!
It's new technology, and Tesla is stretching borders!�
Dec 21, 2011
Eberhard supercharging has nothing to do with the battery back size. the car communicates the current needed to charge. (with 9x10kW charger installed, any of them can be easily switched on and off). Its the same why Tesla deny 3-phase charging. It doesn't fit in their concept and the 40kWh has do be not too attractive. They simple want to make more money with the bigger packs.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Exactly - it is purely a business decison (and I think a very bad business decision). Most people wanting a 160 miler will simply not plunk $10k more to go to 230 miler - they will just look for alternatives (sadly, I think a luxury ICE - except for committed EVers who would look at BMW i3 or Infiniti EV).
Tesla needs higher volumes to survive - and they need to make the 160 miler attractive enough.
That is why I think, they will revise this decision, if not now in a year's time, when they figure out they can't meet their 20K sales target.�
Dec 21, 2011
mnx I think i saw it mentioned somewhere else, and I'll mention it again here. If you've got an 85kWh pack and someone with a 40kWh pack is tying up a supercharger while only using it at half capacity you're going to be annoyed to say the least. Hopefully ChaDeMo will be supported, then the lack of super charger support will be a moot point.
- mnx�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 If Tesla installs HPCs at 80A in the same locations as their super chargers, I think that would be a valid alternative to quick charging of for the 40 kWh pack. Not as good of course but it wouldn't leave them without a good alternative.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Personally I don't care about supercharger at all. All I care about is CHAdeMO. But I'm afraid, any CHAdeMO adopter won't work if the car isn't wired for supercharger.
BTW, why do you think you will be annoyed if a 160 miler is "occupying" a super charger - but Leaf people won't be annoyed if Tesla guys are "occupying" a CHAdeMO charger ? Makes little sense.
You can see why that is so ... we will have 35 CHAdeMO chargers in Washington in a year or so (hopefully).
![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_soSOfvLu7fhGiYjX0bJ_B-X5MYTQ8yjmkgQz52dVdAJqJOBoeY4OUMA3T6Ov0PzR3mKBXG6CcitzvcF0zQtOhQQE4JOQedUwOEmUTVWJVU3xz2eyge7NOoyQ=s0-d)
�
Dec 21, 2011
Doug_G The 40kWh car isn't going to take more time to charge. The power is lower but so is the capacity. If I get there and a car is already charging, I'm going to have to wait 30-60 minutes for it to finish regardless of the pack size.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow He isn't annoyed that 160 milers will take more time - he is annoyed just thinking someone who paid less is "occupying" the charger ;-)�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert As Elon has already said he doesn't expect the 40 kWh to sell as much as the others (which you might expect from the price alone), I'd rather think they will try to lower the price for the 60 kWh and the 85 kWh versions, and perhaps drop the 40 kWh altogether, once battery prices go down. For the time being, they will probably sell it as a second car, or to those who for other reasons don't need to make long trips with it .�
Dec 21, 2011
jcstp I think for someone to be meeting an other Tesla-owner at a Supercharger the first years will be exeptional!
In my mind getting Supercharger-possibilities in the 40kw makes bussinessence! Superchargers will be used more = better bussines for the exploitation of them ----> more Superchargers get installed faster!�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Well, Leaf is my primary car, since I use it for 90% of my trips. Why would 160 miler be a second car ?�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 I think he was referring to people with a ICE car as their primary car. Do you already have a Model S reservation?�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow The "second car" is a talking point of many anti-EV people. We should be careful not to use it.
Since I need to replace my Leaf only in Feb '14 - not sure I need a reservation. In anycase, I plan to decide on reserving after taking a look at S when it comes in 2 days.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk This is absolutely the case. This is a horrible business decision, and I'll tell you why. Most of the people that are/were waitng for a Model S(including myself) have postponed/are postponing their car purchase, while their car they drive now needed replaced in 2009. I would be willing to bet that a good majority of them want/could only afford a base pack. I guess we will see how this affects reservations.
Hopefully this isn't another roadster scenario repeat where you are sold out until you aren't, and then build/sell half the cars you intended.�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert Or a Volt. As a "back-up" car, to avoid the term "primary".�
Dec 21, 2011
Doug_G IMHO the 40 kWh version is a "loss leader". They don't care if they sell them or not. They're a "gateway" to selling the more expensive versions.
An anecdote to illustrate. A few years ago we decided to release a low-end version of one of our products. We thought it would sell well, but we were wrong. Instead, it boosted our sales of our more expensive version. Adding the low-end version measurably increased sales, but very few of those additional sales were of the low-end version. And it wasn't that we had salesmen talking them into it, all those sales were through our web store.
It's a highly effective sales strategy. You advertise a low price point to attract customers. This attracts new customers to the product/brand, they make a decision that they want it, and then promptly talk themselves up to a higher-end version. You do sell some of the low-end ones, but that's not the point of it.
And no, it's not a bait-and-switch. You really do sell some of the low-end ones... just not very many. The customers are the ones selling themselves up.�
Dec 21, 2011
Eberhard Thats happen to me everytime, when i charge my Roadster on a 3-phase socket while only be able to use only on-phase. I have to wait triple time as really necessary.�
Dec 21, 2011
brianman It's a common marketing mechanism. Some of it for the reasons you describe. A lot of it is psychology related as well.
Generally, that's part of where versions of software come from as well. Product differention among your own offerings when your competition is your own products.�
Dec 21, 2011
surfingslovak I'm sorry, but this is a very weak argument. A lot of things that have been said here are hypothetical, and I suspect that most the folks saying this sort of thing don't have much actual EV driving experience. A 40kWh car will not tie up a supercharger longer than an 85kWh car. Yes, the charging rate might be lower, if Tesla ever allows these cars on superchargers, but the total time spent at the charger will be the same. I would expect the utilization of these chargers to be low. Tesla could allow advance reservations, much like Coulomb does, should charger utilization become a problem.
It's almost amusing to see the arguments we come up with wanting to rationalize Tesla's business decisions. I personally think that Tesla under-delivered and under-communicated, but that could be just me, and I could be proven wrong. I would want to appeal to your rational side however, please think through your arguments before you voice them. It's sad to see that most of what has been said, often repeatedly, simply does not make sense. It might appear logical, yes, but is often hypothetical and not realistic.
I'm rooting for Tesla and I appreciate what they are doing. I'm also cognizant of the fact that their decisions and strategic moves might be imperfect, and I'm trying to understand them the best I can. At the same time, I'm trying to stay away from wishful thinking and from rationalizing. I don't know about you, but I'm not finding it beneficial.�
Dec 21, 2011
Kevin Harney My thinking is WAY off from all that is stated here. I think that in a year or two when the 40kwh pack is supposed to come out it will be replaced by the 60kwh pack and there will be a 110kwh pack as the new 400 mile high pack. Thus no need to support the 40 kwh pack. Any ideas on this concept ?�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow Then why risk a rebellion and cancellations?�
Dec 21, 2011
Kevin Harney Why are people cancelling before they know what they will be getting ? Nothing is really in stone yet ...�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow They've published an options list and some don't like it enough to talk about cancelling.�
Dec 21, 2011
Tommy Speculation on my part, but could the reason Tesla doesn't want to 1/2 power the supercharger is because doing so will open the gate for every EV to charge, not just Tesla cars. These other EV's would end up crowding out the use of the limited # of superchargers that Tesla has built to charge Tesla cars. Tesla has a proprietary plug, but a work around can probably be found, I don't think there is a work around regarding the high power output, unless Tesla provides it, which is why I think Tesla is reluctant to provide 1/2 power for the 40kh batteries.�
Dec 21, 2011
surfingslovak I'm sorry, this is another weak argument. Please have a look at the Coulomb chargers. They enable sites to allow private or privileged use only, and if your RFID card is not part of a certain group, you can't use that charger. This works very well for Google and couple of other companies here in the Bay Area. The fact that you can physically connect to a charger does not mean that you can use it. Besides, Tesla could come up with a proprietary protocol and even if someone devised a connecter for their charger, they couldn't initiate a charging session.
Again, I'm very surprised to see these arguments on this forum. I thought that folks here would be either more technical, more experienced, or both.�
Dec 21, 2011
Tommy Nope, not a fanboy, just a farm boy, got go out and cut some more hay.:redface:�
Dec 21, 2011
surfingslovak LOL, same here! Didn't mean to offend anyone, just wanted to provide a different perspective. Tesla has a business to run, which I respect. We might not always agree with their business decisions or even understand them. Unless there is a plausible explanation or a statement from Tesla we can take at face value, I simply don't see a need to rationalize their decisions. It's not going to help anyone.
Like a number of others, I wanted a Model S, and decided to get a Leaf while I waited. Now it looks like Tesla does not want to move in the direction where I expected them to be. Like someone else has already poignantly said, I accept this decision and don't look for superficial reasons to rationalize it. I hope that this strategy works out for them, even though they might lose me (and others) as a customer.
I am disappointed? Yes, but I'm sure that someone else will fill the void Tesla is leaving behind in due time. While I applaud them for what they do, and secretly hope that they will move downmarket and offer more viable base model, I'm not really expecting that.
Good day, enjoy reading your posts.�
Dec 21, 2011
Todd Burch I might be off a little here, but let's be clear on the terms:
Supercharger: Tesla's proprietary charger, capable of producing 90 kW of charging power.
Supercharging: a vague term, but presumably charging in the upper echelons of the supercharger's capability (faster than CHAdeMO).
Quick Charging: Again a vague term, but more referring to the time rate at which a battery can be recharged.
The quick charging term is not directly tied to charging power. An 85 kWh battery might quck charge at 90 kW, whereas a 40kWh battery might quick charge at half that (well within CHAdeMO's limit), and still recharge in the same elapsed time.
So let's be clear that nothing states that quick charging for the base pack is not supported.
Moreover, at least one of these posts alludes to the idea that the base car won't have the internal wiring to support quick charging.
Do you really think Tesla's going to have different diameter wiring for the 3 different battery levels? That would make a battery swap or future upgrade more difficult, it would reduce economies of scale and go against interchangeable part theory.
Elon's just not that stupid.�
Dec 21, 2011
Todd Burch Isn't it just as silly to see an options sheet on the website (probably created by a marketing person) and assume that quick charging is not supported just because 90 kW supercharging is not supported?�
Dec 21, 2011
Todd Burch I just read the options sheet yet again. The "supercharger access" section refers to replenishing 160 mi of range in 30 minutes, then goes on to say that it's not available for the 40 kWh battery.
All of this could even just be a misunderstanding, that the 320 mph charge rate is not available on the base pack...not that they will restrict access to the superchargers.
In fact, the more I read it, the more I think it just may be a poorly worded portion of the page. Wouldn't be the first time.�
Dec 21, 2011
stopcrazypp We're just speculating on possible reasons (to the benefit of Tesla for the most part) why it's not offered, beyond just leaving it out to force people to buy the 60kWh or higher version.
The fact that it's charging at half mph, isn't completely insignificant, since for a car going the same distance, the larger/higher power packs will be there for a shorter time (there's nothing that says they have to stay for the whole charge). And the point about proximity between superchargers still stands. Tesla will have to build about twice as many supercharger stations if it is to work as a network for the 40kWh packs too.
On the RFID thing, the Roadster chargers' exclusivity was solely from the physical interface. And given someone on the Leaf forums was able to reverse engineer the CHAdeMO protocol without a copy of the spec, it's probably possible for the supercharger too even if Tesla uses a proprietary protocol. But I do agree on your main point that if it becomes a huge issue, Tesla can always install RFID card reader (although Tesla will then have to distribute those cards and it becomes an extra thing for the customer to carry with them).
There's still a lot of question marks at this point though. Like what "optional" means for the supercharger on the 60kWh version. And Todd also makes a good point about how the reference to supercharger refers to 160 miles in 30 minutes. It's completely possible for Tesla to build a cheaper 30kW or 60kW (for symmetrical three-phase) external charger for the 40kWh packs (since after all, isn't the 90kW "supercharger" just nine 10kW chargers put together?).
Anyways, I suggest people thinking about canceling their order for this reason to make it explicit to Tesla that this was the deal-breaker. If not then it's impossible to judge how many orders was affected by this.�
Dec 21, 2011
brianman Since this whole topic stems from dissecting and analyzing the language on the Options & Pricing Page, it's important to be precise when referring to what it says.
It doesn't say "Optional".
Supercharger Access
...when applied to the 85 kWh vehicle....
[60kWH]>
TBD�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert It says "Optional" close to the top in the "Battery & Performance" section.�
Dec 21, 2011
brianman Aha! Thanks.�
Dec 22, 2011
WhiteKnight I'm sorry if I sound dismissive but anybody that thinks they are taking a road trip in the 40 kWh car does not understand how the range drops dramatically at highway speeds. Even if you could Supercharge it would be very difficult to make it from one Supercharger to another. And at that point it would be a miserable experience of drive 90 minutes, charge 60 minutes, et cetera.
We're talking about it over here:
Highway Range Ignorance
With that said, I've almost convinced myself that the 40 kWh is the best car (for me) because you can get a car identical in every meaningful way to the 85 kWh (albeit slightly slower to 60) for $20,000 less. That will buy me a lot of plane tickets!�
Dec 22, 2011
Cobos Well that depends a lot on your highways. The Autobahn in Germany is very bad for road-trip range so is most US highways, up here in Norway though were driving faster than 50mph during winter times is plain stupid your range is pretty good.
It also depends on your definition of a road trip. A 200miles trip with a night or two layover should actually be very doable with moderate QC in the halfway point even with the 40kWh battery. That's pretty much how far people drive to their cabin here in Norway. As long as the cabin has power you can trickle-charge it through the weekend.
If you do this trip every weekend sure, get the 300 miles pack, if you do this twice a year another hour or two on the road should be pretty decent.
Cobos�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Because 99% of most people's driving is well within an 80-mile radius. However, for the rare occasions that we might take a road trip outside of that radius it'd be nice to be able to quick-charge even if it's not the most efficient thing (having to recharge every couple of hours).�
Dec 22, 2011
VolkerP A 40kWh pack with a nominal 160 mile range at 55mph does not give you an 80 mile radius!
That 160 mile range is from a test scenario. The car is driving, without heat or A/C, until the wheels stop turning because the battery management cuts off power to protect the battery pack from deep discharge damage. You need to plug in IMMEDIATELY to prevent from further damage to the pack.
You will use your Tesla car in standard mode which makes 80% of battery capacity available, i.e. 64 ideal miles for radius. This gives the lower 10% or 16 miles as a buffer.
Further you should account for character of roads (typical speed, hills, wet/snow etc.) in your area. It is mandatory to understand the factors impacting range to make the correct decision for your pack size.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Noticed I said well within a 80 mile radius. I'd say a 60-mile radius (120 mile round-trip) is more than adequate for well over 90% of most people's driving (commuting, running errands, etc.). If you have a longer commute to work and wouldn't have an easy way to charge while at work, then yes, the 40 kWh option is not for you.�
Dec 22, 2011
surfingslovak You bring up some good points, but I think "mandatory" is a strong word. Drees brought this up here and on the MNL forum as well. The range estimates are very likely a stretch for daily driving, and we have seen this problem with other EVs as well. I would apply about 30% fudge factor to get a reasonable real-world range. It will be interesting to see what range numbers the EPA will publish for Model S next spring.
Obviously, I would want us all buy larger packs, and I was saying from the beginning that the 60kWh car made the most sense to me. To be fair however, we can make it work with smaller packs as well. It can be painful at times, but where there is a will, there is a way. There are many Leaf and Volt owners driving millions of electric miles on about 20kWh and 10kWh of usable pack capacity respectively. That might be laughable to some people, but we have to start somewhere, and this technology is far from mature.�
Dec 22, 2011
jcstp If people with a Leaf with a range of "100miles" do long roadtrips using quickchargers, why would MODEL S users be denied this possibility!
I fully understand buying a 160 mile car with supercharger acces when you do once a month a 300 mile trip with supercharging midway, or even once a year an even longer trip with more stops!
I can understand that Nissan Leaf owners, after being used to 100 mile range do not see (or see) the need for a longer range vehicle! With their experience they can surely evaluate the sence of supercharging (quickcharging)
Note that Nissan also stated that Quickcharging deteriorated the lifespan of the battery!
So offering acces to supercharging (maybe at lower chargerate) to 160's is sensible I guess!
Now it's just up to the possible customers to convince Tesla!
Maybe start a poll or a petition!
It was done before!
If you never ask, you never get!�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Many great points there! And if this is truly about Tesla's battery warranty, then they need to think of creative ways to offer quick-charge capability on the 40 kWh batteries while still maintaining a solid warranty, even if it means changing the terms slightly. They already adjust the warranties based on the battery pack size and how many times it's necessary to re-charge the thing for a given distance. The 40 kWh is 100k miles. The 60 kWh is 125k miles (or 25% more miles on a 33% larger capacity battery). They need to consider that most people are simply going to recharge their Model S using their own power over 90% of the time. Quick-charge usage will be a small minority of re-charging instances, so it may have minimal impact on overall battery life. Sure somebody could live right by a quick-charge station and do nearly all of his charging with one, and this is what they are trying to protect themselves against. Perhaps they could adjust the terms of the warranty to put a clause in that limits the % of quick-charging for the life of the battery, and could even use the on-board computer to monitor this. Maybe the warranty is 8 years/ 100k for less-than 20% quick charge usage for its life. 6 years / 80k for up to 40% quick charge usage, etc, etc. Something like that. Come on Tesla, be creative here.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow Actually Nissan never stated quick charging reduces the life of the battery - just when done on average more than once a day. It's almost the other way around - I've been told they are on the verge of stating they will warrant that quick charging is effectively harmless.
Interesting that people are now coming along and saying people won't / don't understand that road tripping in the car is not sensible and don't understand highway range. That's a bit condescending. I know very well what it means to drive at highway speed long distance and while I would like the same from a Model S, I was/am not in the market for a 70 grand car. 100 real miles would serve a most of my needs and I was prepared to make the compromise to make more quick charge stops on longer trips, but now that is not possible.�
Dec 22, 2011
Cobos Seriously Tesla if you've managed to screw up your own PR so badly that someone like Dpeilow is being turned off by your car then you are not doing it right. That's probably your most high-profile fan in the UK and marks a serious loss of free publicity. I'm so glad I don't work PR for Tesla, in that case I would be looking at job ads.
Cobos�
Dec 22, 2011
WhiteKnight I was not trying to be condescending. I am sorry to the extent that it came across that way.�
Dec 22, 2011
TEG A more recent variation I heard of this (from Nissan directly) is that they "cannot guarantee more than one quick charge per day". In other words, not saying that it is bad for the pack, but rather the car may not allow it. I think the car is smart enough to refuse a quick charge if the pack is too hot to safely accept that much current. If you are trying to do a long drive at highway speeds, with quick stops for QC along the way, the pack heat build-up may prevent it from recharging at full rate.
It is probably more about setting expectations. Planning a multi-hundred mile day trip in the LEAF with repeated quick charge sessions along the way may not work out. (And not just from the point of view that one of the QC stations may not be available.)�
Dec 22, 2011
jcstp This is best answered by a Leaf-owner!
But of what I am aware, the LEAF does not limit it's owner of QC several times a day!�
Dec 22, 2011
qwk Exactly my thoughts. I'm the same way. If you look at my past posts, I was extatic about Tesla and their Ev plan. Now I'm just like meh..�
Dec 22, 2011
TEG Previously I had thought that doing too much QC per day would start to harm the pack excessively, but I was told that the car is "smarter than that" and will protect the pack on its' own. You may well be able to do multiple QCs per day, but the car could decide it has "had enough" (due to heat primarily) and start limiting repeated QC sessions until it has had a time to rest (and cool down.) I suppose the Nissan person (who is in a position to know) was wrong about this, but I am just relating what I was told by someone who should know. I think it may still charge off the CHAdeMO, but just charge at a slower rate. This may primarily be a concern only in places with hot climates.�
Dec 22, 2011
ljbad4life Well it's in the manual to limit the use of Quick Charging and I'm sure Nissan can pull the warranty if they deem you used quick charging excessively (which is a number Nissan refuses to quantify).�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow Yep, we know a few LEAF owners in the UK who have done multi-QC day trips with no problems.�
Dec 22, 2011
ljbad4life The issue isn't what happens today, it's what will happen "tomorrow". Nissan isn't physically keeping you from using QC, but keep quick charging frequently and Nissan will pull the warranty. So when a charge only nets you a 50% range compared to what it used to be in two years and these owners will turn to Nissan and say "oh noes my batturies!!11!!" Nissan will point to the verbiage in the manual that clearly states to avoid quick charging and those owners are going to be very angry and throw a fit, but it's no ones fault but their own.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow It was said somewhere that the 1 a day rule is an average. So if you go on a trip and do say 7, then nothing else for a week then that is one a day.�
Dec 22, 2011
ljbad4life What makes it shakey is that Nissan wont quantify how many quick charges, and the verbiage in the manual is very vague (in Nissan's favor). So that Nissan could void your warranty if you quick charge and that's never pretty. Just be careful and reserved in quick charging.
Tesla wants to avoid that warranty whole issue. keep in mind that Tesla tests cars at 55mph to get 160 while Nissan tests their Leaf at 20mph for 100 mile range. Which is more likely to give you a more realistic range so that you don't have to Quick charge frequently. 10kw charging is fast, not as fast as quick charging, but fast. 32 miles of range added per hour. The Leafs hwy range is about half of what the 160 Model S is. So in the end a 300 mile trip would take the same time for a quick charging Leaf as a 10kw charging Model S�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow LEAF range is 100 miles at 55mph. A couple of owners I know have managed it.
As for 10kW charging being fast - that's if your definition of fast is sitting around for hours. Sorry but 10kW charging is for night time.�
Dec 22, 2011
Norbert Meanwhile we have some more info from a post by smorgasbord:
----
The 40 kWh has a shorter battery life in general since common use puts a higher stress on a smaller pack. Combine this with the need for more frequent supercharging on long trips, and you have higher stress even at a 40 kW charging rate.
Also combine that with the need for more chargers and a blurred message about Supercharging.
The chemistry of Panansonic's batteries may be more optimized towards range/price than power/price, unlike Nissan's, since the Leaf needs to get along with 24 kWh for daily use. Hence perhaps the hints that Nissan isn't keen on increasing the range of the Leaf.
It may be unfortunate, but perhaps better in the long run for all of us, if we allow Supercharging to establish itself in the public opinion as a very-well-working (though *currently* expensive) feature, rather than compromise that crucial message so that those who can't afford $10k more have a compromise that gives them a few more medium length trips but not the real solution in any case.
It may help Bluestar come sooner, which will be much better for those of us not wanting to spend that much money.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Honestly who cares that a quick charging Leaf can travel the same distance in roughly the same time when compared to a 10kW charging Model S? All I know is, a quick-charging Model S with 40kWh battery will certainly travel the same distance more quickly than a 10kW charging Model S with 40 kWh battery. I don't get much consolation knowing that my Model S can cover ground as quickly as a Nissan Leaf. I'm not buying a Nissan Leaf
Again, Tesla who preaches how innovative it is, needs to be creative and come up with solution to provide the 40 kWh batteries with quick-charging. Perhaps allow one one quick charge at full-rate per day, and any subsequent ones will be provided at a progressively reduced rate. The irony is this. Most people getting the 40 kWh version are doing so because its within their usual driving range and likely will not be taking many roadtrips with it to begin with, so it's less likely they would quick charge their car anyways. But people with the large pack cars may have opted for them because they do in fact plan on taking more road trips necessitating quick charging, so its the large capacity batteries that will be taking more of the strain (if that is indeed the case) with more quick charging over the life of the battery.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...�
Dec 22, 2011
Norbert Some people here will buy a 300 mile Model S so that later-on you can afford a 300 mile Bluestar.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow I expect to own a 300 mile whitestar before there's an affordable 300 mile bluestar.�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp The warranty thing sounds like the most likely explanation. But I think something can still be worked out despite that (like adding limits to quick charging in the warranty terms, assuming it is legal to do so) since it seems a lot of potential 160 customers want the supercharger ability, judging from threads here.�
Dec 22, 2011
surfingslovak Yes, this sounds reasonable and I've heard that somewhere too. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of data from the field to validate this, but I would be surprised if Nissan implemented this differently.�
Dec 22, 2011
Norbert Great! I think the most important objective is to reduce the price of 300 mile EVs. I expect that to be the direction Tesla is taking, with the means available.�
Dec 22, 2011
Norbert Perhaps, but reducing the warranty is probably the kind of thing it would require. I'm not sure how good that would look when printed in mainstream media, though. (Especially considering these are luxury sedans).�
Dec 22, 2011
ljbad4life Well everyone keeps comparing the Model S to a Leaf. One thing Tesla could is shorten the warranty to 5 year and allow super charging. If Tesla allowed supercharging that would encourage people to use super charging. I contest that people car picking the 160 mile car because it's suits their needs, if it did then they wouldn't be complaining about supercharging. Many people are buy the 40kwh because that's what they can afford. Or Tesla could compromise and allow the 20kw twin charger (I'm not too sure if you can or can't get it for the 160). so 62 miles per hour charged is fairly competitive with the leaf.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét