Tesla Launches Supercharger V3 With 1,000mph Charging, Better Efficiency, and More (electrek.co) 169
Yesterday, Tesla launched the next generation Supercharger V3 with higher charging capacity, better efficiency, and more. The biggest new feature is the ability to deliver a new 250 kW of peak power thanks to an "all-new liquid cooled cable design." Electrek reports: According to the company, the cable is "significantly lighter, more flexible, and more efficient" than their current air-cooled cable found on the V2 Superchargers. Other than the cable, the Supercharger V3 should be undifferentiated from V2 at the station. The company didn't even release new pictures for V3. The new 250 kW peak at the station is also enabled by a new 1 MW power cabinet. Instead of using onboard chargers staked together, the new Supercharger is built using technology Tesla developed for its massive grid energy storage system. With the new technology, there will be no power share between stalls like in the current version.
On Tesla's most efficient vehicles, like the Long Range Model 3, the company says that the new Supercharger V3 can add up to 75 miles of range in 5 minutes and charge at a peak rage of 1,000 miles per hour of range. A new 'On-Route Battery Warmup' software feature was also announced. When entering a Supercharger station in your navigation system, the vehicle's software will "intelligently heat the battery to ensure you arrive at the optimal temperature to charge." That's assuming you have enough charge in the battery when you come in. The new feature alone should reduce "average charge times for owners by 25%," according to the automaker. Model S and X owners may be disappointed to hear that the new peak charging rates won't be available for their vehicles at launch. Instead, they will have to wait for a software update "in the coming months." Model 3 vehicles will be the first to receive the software update to support the new speeds.
On Tesla's most efficient vehicles, like the Long Range Model 3, the company says that the new Supercharger V3 can add up to 75 miles of range in 5 minutes and charge at a peak rage of 1,000 miles per hour of range. A new 'On-Route Battery Warmup' software feature was also announced. When entering a Supercharger station in your navigation system, the vehicle's software will "intelligently heat the battery to ensure you arrive at the optimal temperature to charge." That's assuming you have enough charge in the battery when you come in. The new feature alone should reduce "average charge times for owners by 25%," according to the automaker. Model S and X owners may be disappointed to hear that the new peak charging rates won't be available for their vehicles at launch. Instead, they will have to wait for a software update "in the coming months." Model 3 vehicles will be the first to receive the software update to support the new speeds.
WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:5, Funny)
You have to reach Mach 1.35 before it starts charging?
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:4, Informative)
It recharges 1000 miles of driving in an hour.
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:5, Informative)
It was a rhetorical question. The point is, the mile-per-hour is an existing unit (albeit one that is only used in Burma and in the US) and it does not mean that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like a kilobyte was! Now is it 1024 or 1000? I always forget.
Re: WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:2)
A kilobyte is 1,000. A kibibyte is 1,024.
Re: WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:2)
What you call a "convention", the IEC calls an "international standard for trade".
Re: WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:2)
Not to mention, SI who manages the metric standards most definitely says your understanding of kilo- is mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
kilobyte being 1000 is a marketing term used by hard disk manufacturers to make their drives look bigger.
kilobyte being 1024 is a scientific mathematical term used to represent 2 power of 10 (2^10) commonly used for computer memory sizes. It uses the binary system used in digital computers.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a rhetorical question. The point is, the mile-per-hour is an existing unit (albeit one that is only used in Burma and in the US) and it does not mean that.
Journalism also used to mean honesty and integrity too.
Hence the bullshit clickbait title.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed out the UK which uses miles per hour (MPH) for traffic speeds. I think you will find that MPH is a British Imperial measurement.
In the UK, both Imperial and Metric systems run in parallel except where it is too expensive to convert to metric such as traffic speed and distance signs. For example, supermarkets have to put both Imperial and Metric measurements on their goods. However, if you go to a town market place, food is often only sold in Imperial measurements because it is traditional. Some t
Re: (Score:2)
This things is just full of inaccuracies.
If you're a Critical Role fan you might like this one:
the new Supercharger V3 can add up to 75 miles of range in 5 minutes and charge at a peak rage of 1,000 miles per hour of range.
Re: (Score:2)
It was more of a joke than a rhetorical question.
Much like the modern journalism driving this discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:5, Informative)
It recharges 1000 miles of driving in an hour.
Which isn't true. Overall the new system (including preconditioning the battery) reduces the charge time by about 33% [electrek.co]. What used to take 60 minutes can now be done in 40 minutes. The 250 kW charge rate is only maintained up until about 16% state of charge.
It's still a very good improvement, but don't believe the hype.
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:5, Informative)
The main advantage is that they can charge more cars simultaneously. Many people don't realize, when they see 8 Tesla chargers they can't all deliver max power. Pairs of them share 130kW at the moment.
Depends on how high you are charging... (Score:2)
The charge time to 50% charge really is close to half that of the V2 charger. I suspect future SW updates will optimize this somewhat further.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In that case, the local gas station has a 6000+mph gas pump.
Stupid units. The range is dependent on the efficiency of the vehicle, which varies depending on the vehicle, age and usage. So the rate of range increase at peak charge rate isn't constant. And if that isn't dumb enough already, you should never quote a peak rate over a time interval longer than it can be safely sustained. If they had said it was rated it at 16 & 2/3 miles per minute, then that would at least be achievable for some specifi
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:4, Informative)
Further the engines are not rated for max power for 20 continuous minutes. The coolant cant keep up, and the it is likely to flash over and the engine would seize in about 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have now.
If they don't have the fuel capacity to sustain 253 miles per hour for an hour, then why not call it 4.22 miles/minute?
Re:WTF is 1000 mph charging? (Score:4, Interesting)
MPH for charging speed is a very useful metric, because it tells you how long you will have to charge to go a certain distance. If your destination is 200 miles away and you charge at 400 MPH, you know that you need to charge for half an hour.
The main issue with it is that it depends not only on the charging speed, which varies with the battery charge level, temperate and a number of other factors, but also the efficiency of the car which varies with model, tyres and most of all driving technique. 1000 MPH is the most optimistic figure, if you drive the car hard it will be lower.
Re: (Score:2)
"MPH for charging speed is a very useful metric, because it tells you how long you will have to charge to go a certain distance."
If it's so useful, how is it that it haven't been used in the previous century of automotive industry?
a) It's not as useful as you thought.
b) It's a lie
c) Elon Musk is a genius who things become obvious to, which others can't even fathom.
Re: (Score:2)
Because with fossil cars refuelling takes 5 minutes. All pumps are pretty much the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because with fossil cars refuelling takes 5 minutes. All pumps are pretty much the same."
Even then, you don't get "kilometers per second at the pump". Why? Maybe because it makes no sense? Maybe because there's no constant relationship between liters and kilometers just like there's no constant relationship between watts at "the pump" and distance?
Re: (Score:2)
A metric which would be useful if it were accurate, but is not, is not useful. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
They have the data to make it somewhat accurate on an individual basis, so if you had the charger and vehicle communicate the necessary variables for that specific car, then you could provide a decent range per unit time charge value. Though, the charger on its own would still need to be rated in kW for comparison to other chargers.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cars will give you an accurate number based on recent diving. If you are doing a long journey it's pretty reliable.
You also get to know your usual efficiency numbers and how they relate to charging.
Re: (Score:1)
You DO KNOW that Tesla is the new Delorean... and with inflation and all, 88mph just doesn't do it for you anymore
my answer and the death ray plasma arc (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it refers to the rate of power delivery compared to the rate of power draw a vehicle woul duse to go 1000Mph.
example, suppose that sustaining 100Miles per hour in air drag were to require , to pick an approximate number, 25KW of engine power. Noiw scale this by 10. that's 250KW and 1000Mph. I'd actually say that the real number is about half that for most cars. so really this is 550MPH charging that someone rounded up.
Now this is wonderful in the sense that it's actually the unit you care about. If you are using your car sustainably on a drive across the country then if you have to recharge it every 5 hours for 5 hours then you aren't going to get far. it it takes 5 hours to recharge 5 hours of drivine then the rate of charging is equivalent to your rate of travel when moving. e.g. 60MPH. so if you can do it ten times faster then it takes ten times less long. It's a convenient unit as perplexing as it sounds.
One the other hands it's fundamentally insane. Asking a member of the public to make connections that carry megawatts is Bonkers. And in fact it never will be anything but bonkers... ever. The only form of dense energy storage that we've come up with that is not so explosive is in fact gasoline. It's redicluously safe when you consider the crazy amount of energy you are transfering when your hand is on the gas pump handle. Electricity isn't that safe. I don't think it can ever be. Megawatts of power just burns holes in things at the slightest resistance. Even a 1 ohn resister would melt metal instantly and probably spray plasma.
there's a reason why our houses have 110 volts. It's the transition point between air gap jumping plasma arcs that are self sustaining st elmos' fire death and spakes that just damp out. Get up to 480 and you are wielding plasma torches. Likewise 20 amps is where things like small resistances in connections start to just matter but can usually be managed.
megawatts is just bonkers. no way will this ever be safe as this fleet ages.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assume you are joking.
To clarify, 1000 mph means that the battery in the car will charge such that the rate of adding range is 1000 miles (of added range) per hour (assuming you then drive at some normal speed).
My house in the USA has 240 volts (nominally 220V, but actually 240 - 245V).
Re: (Score:3)
yes 220 will easily kill you. 110 can kill you but with high probability you will survive because you are below the let-go-point for normal human skin resistance and shoes. the 220 you have in your house is normally 3 phase 110 which means only 110v drop between any pair of connections making it slightly safer.
Re:my answer and the death ray plasma arc (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
US houses are fed with +110V, -110V and neutral. The + and - are 180 degrees out of phase (the term normally used is "split phase"). There is 220V between the two sides.
Electric ovens, dryers, EV chargers, etc. all use 220V.
Arguably it is slightly safer than other 220V systems because there is only 110V between a live wire and ground. However, most of the world uses 220/240V single phase systems in houses and no one seems to think it is too dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
US houses are fed with +110V, -110V and neutral. The + and - are 180 degrees out of phase (the term normally used is "split phase"). There is 220V between the two sides.
Actually you're wrong. The gp is mostly correct except that houses in the US are normally two phase, not three. Most industrial and businesses are three phase, though.
What makes you wrong is that there is no + and - assigned to the hot wires in AC because it alternates back and forth between +110 and -110 at a rate of 60 times per second (in the US). You are correct that the two hots will be 180 degrees out of phase which means that while one hot is +110 the other is -110 and vice-versa allowing 220v bet
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed that people were smart enough to realize when I wrote "+" and "-", they were not to be taken literally. Obviously I was wrong. We all know it's A/C.
Also, many people will tell you that US houses do NOT have 2-phase, instead it's "split-phase". Personally, I think the term 2-phase is appropriate, but, in the USA 2-phase was used in the past for a system where the two phases were 90/270 degrees apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, no, I wasn't wrong, unlike the GGP. You are just being pointles
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think 2-phase is appropriate, because split-phase and 2-phase are different things.
That's like saying it's ok to call a peanut butter sandwich a tuna sandwich because they're both sandwiches, and what's the use of distinction?
Re: (Score:2)
You are imprecise, the peak voltage for 110v AC is not 110v..
110v AC is an RMS (Root Mean Square) value which represents the equivalent steady DC value of the voltage. In other words, the peak voltage of 110v AC is 110 x square root of 2 = 156v peak.
RMS is used because old analogue voltmeters averaged out the AC voltage and could not display the peak voltage. Also RMS is used so you can calculate the power output (voltage x current) of a resistive electrical heater and it is equivalent to feeding in a DC vo
Re: (Score:2)
+110V, -110V
Those signs are nonsensical. It's 110VAC. Each phase is equally positive and equally negative. What they are, is 180 degrees out of phase.
Re: (Score:2)
On another forum, I had someone argue vehemently with me that US houses do not have 2-phase supplies (which is implied by your post). According the poster on the other forum, US houses have a single phase supply. Even Wikipedia goes along with this nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The problem is that, historically, there was a 2-phase system that had 2 phases that were 90/270 degrees apart, so peo
Re: (Score:2)
2-phase power *does* exist in US dwellings, but usually only some condos, and that's because large condo buildings generally get a 3-phase feed from the utility, and split out groups of 2 to individual units.
The problem is that, historically, there was a 2-phase system that had 2 phases that were 90/270 degrees apart
Those numbers are insanity.
3 phase systems deliver power in 3 phases that are 120 degrees apart. You can't get 90 or 270 degree phase alignments out of that.
so people in the industry believe that "2-phase" must only mean that old system.
What industry? I am heavily involved in the datacenter
Re: (Score:2)
I just love it when ignorant people "correct" me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos on that technicality. You were still wrong on every other point.
Re: (Score:2)
To be pedantic, 110v AC is the average voltage using the RMS (Root Mean Square) equation. RMS represents the equivalent DC voltage of the AC voltage by averaging out the sinusoidal AC curve into an equivalent steady straight DC curve.
Re:my answer and the death ray plasma arc (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get a 240v shock in a typical USA house is to somehow get connected to BOTH legs of the service, which would almost take intent.
Or a minor mistake in a breaker box. Those 2 poles are very close together.
Re: (Score:2)
They are actually on neighboring breakers. Take any breaker, and the other one will be on the leg of the service.
That's why when you need 240V, they use a double ganged breaker with a little connecting rod on the toggle switch - the double breaker connects to both legs, and the connecting rod
Re: (Score:2)
They are actually on neighboring breakers.
I know ;)
Those 2 poles are very close together.
Where you connect a 2-pole breaker, the 2 poles of the split-phase are only a cm or so apart.
Now, you still have to be purely reckless to get hurt here, since you should have already dropped power to your box before attempting this madness, but I was just saying... If you didn't cut the power, a minor mistake could sign you up for a bad time.
Re: (Score:3)
Have fun with this story, https://darwinawards.com/darwi... [darwinawards.com]. Amps kill more than volts and alternating current is far worse than direct current, just ask a certain elephant, well, you can't because, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], just proves you can't believe anything were money is involved.
What Tesla should have done, was do a deal with nearby residents, to put in a solar powered charging grid adjacent to those charging stations, well, at least a few stations of them for marketing purposes. How many r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
110 can kill you but with high probability you will survive because you are below the let-go-point for normal human skin resistance and shoes.
No. 110V DC is below the let go point. 110V AC will mess you up just as readily as 230V AC if you're unlucky enough to get the power through your heart or brain, and neither will cause serious long term muscle damage, though 230V put you at an increased likelyhood of post electrocution blood clots complications.
I do however know a comical (and probably not relevant but comical comparison anyway) comparison between electrocution at 230V and 110V. We have electricians at our work from various parts of the wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
The first few kWh will charge at up to 250kW, then tapering off.
Just for fun, if we very generously assume that 250kW can last for the entire hour, then you'd be getting 4 miles per kWh, or 0.25 kWh per mile, which is about right for efficiency. Of course, the biggest Tesla battery is 75kWh, so this is not possible.
Obligatory car^W food analogy - you might be able to eat two pies in ten minutes when hungry, but that does not mean you can eat twelve pies in an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "rate", which I was quite careful to use.
Perhaps "peak rate" would have been more informative.
Re: (Score:2)
it's fundamentally insane. Asking a member of the public to make connections that carry megawatts is Bonkers. And in fact it never will be anything but bonkers... ever. The only form of dense energy storage that we've come up with that is not so explosive is in fact gasoline.
Considering how many people light themselves on fire every year at gas stations that's a bold claim (The answer is about 50 with about 2 dying).
Re: (Score:2)
It's the transition point between air gap jumping plasma arcs that are self sustaining st elmos' fire death and spakes that just damp out.
It is nothing of the sort. The ability to sustain an arc depends on the characteristics of the airgap in relation to voltage and current. Previously ionised air (spark) can easily be sustained with 110V and 20A. It's the reason you guys have Arc Fault Current Interrupters in your houses.
Now as to why your houses burn down so often that you typically install AFCI in residential buildings, well that's quite bewildering. I've not seen one in a country which uses 230V systems.
Likewise 20 amps is where things like small resistances in connections start to just matter but can usually be managed.
Take a zero off the end and you'd b
Re: (Score:3)
You have to reach Mach 1.35 before it starts charging?
It's kind of like how a KC-135 can land on top of Air Force One and refuel it in the air, only in this case, your Tesla drives under a flatbed semi.
Too soon?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to reach Mach 1.35 before it starts charging?
That's when the flux capacitor kicks in and turns your Tesla into a time machine.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad? 1000MPH is peak rage! How much damage does that do? Whats its strength and stamina?
Catching up (Score:3)
The latest chargers installed in Europe are 350kW, with 500kW rollout beginning.
The main issue is that most cars can't take high enough voltage to make it practical. The Audi eTron will be the first to hit 350kW most likely, at 800V.
It will be interesting to see what Tesla to to get their charging up to 250kW given the lower voltage of the battery packs.
Re:Catching up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite impressive, yes.
Having said that I don't see it as being vital like some people do. Consider that in a car with 400km range it saves you about 25 minutes over an 8-9 hour 800km drive. For some people that's useful, for me other things about the car are more important.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but again you are talking about a 40 minute difference over a whole day trip in poor conditions.
Maybe I'm just getting old but I'd want to stop for that much time just to use the bathroom and get a bite to eat anyway.
Faster charging is useful to some people, but for me (and I suspect a lot of people) things like the shape and size of the car will be a much bigger factor than the difference between 20 and 40 minutes for an 80% charge. For example the Model 3 boot is too small for me, I want a hatchback
Re:Catching up (Score:5, Informative)
When I go on a long distance trips, the second fill up will be on a super charger. Somewhere between 20 to 30 minutes more than a comparable gas stop.
Till you actually own and drive battery cars you wont "get" this point.
Re: (Score:2)
FedEx does not deliver to 80% of the land area in USA. It is a viable business, nonetheless. Piped natural gas is not available to all the homes, but the houses that have them provide a market big enough for the gas companies. So many people have no boatable water bod
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, existing Tesla hardware is already capable of utilising the higher charge rate after a simple software update. That’s pretty impressive.
As nice as it is this isn't some incredible promised foresight. No one bought a Tesla with the idea that sometime in the future it may charge faster. People have range anxiety and are concerned about getting to their destination, not whether they will need to spend 8 or 10 minutes at the supercharger.
Sounds like they are playing catch-up to Tesla, not the other way around.
Look as good as Tesla is, leave the fanboyism to where it's deserved on their fantastic cars. Tesla's first superchargers were faster than the competition exclusively outside urban centres. At the time when Tes
Re: (Score:2)
Look as good as Tesla is, leave the fanboyism to where it's deserved on their fantastic cars
This is about their cars. While Tesla was still rolling out those 75kW chargers, they were already equipping their cars with hardware capable of charging at 250kW. And while I am happy we're seeing a rollout of fast CCS chargers across Europe, the fact is that very few cars can make full use of those chargers. Not today, and not tomorrow either with a simple software update. The car I ordered charges at single phase 7.4kW AC or max 75kW DC, because apparently those were common chargers when the car was
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit on the 500kW chargers being rolled out.
Chademo claim to support 400kW, CCS specs go up to 350kW.
But more importantly, a Model 3 charging at 250kW will add range faster than any other car you can buy today. Even when the Taycan is actually being delivered, the 350kW charge rate will add range slightly slower than a Model 3 at 250kW.
Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla is more than Musk.
Congratulations to the engineers working on this stuff. It sounds great!
My car needs a software update (Score:5, Funny)
Words that I hope to never utter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still okay. The worst will come when you realize 5 years later that your car is too old, doesn't have enough RAM, has expired certified certificates, or the manufacturer has disappeared, and you can't update it anymore. Then you need to buy another car, despite yours still being otherwise perfectly sound and serviceable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point, gas cars don't have any electronics. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the hardware will be a big reason why Tesla cars get scrapped.
What happens 15 years down the road when the motherboard that controls the charging system blows a capacitor and Tesla says they aren't made anymore?
Will there be an aftermarket supply of major electronic components for old Teslas?
I don't see why not. Lots of other cars no longer being manufactured have after-market suppliers. For example, decades-old Volvos are still on the road, and IPDUSA supplies parts. [ipdusa.com] I have a 90s-era Saab. New parts are available in most cases. Sometimes I have to get a remanufactured one. Finding mechanics who can service it has never been an issue.
You may have a point about electronics components being harder to supply than other components. But I think all manufacturers will face this issue as the auto indu
Re: (Score:2)
15 years on a tesla?
I'm considering buying one, but if I do, it will be kept for 4 years or less, then sold.
no way I'm keeping something SO TECH based that, after x amount of years, its just not a current platform anymore.
not to mention batteries losing so much of their capacity over time.
this is not an 'own for a long time' kind of car. not for me, anyway, and I don't think most owners think of this as a long-term keeper, either.
Re: (Score:2)
My 2010 Tesla Roadster can't communicate with Tesla anymore, because it depends on the 2G phone service that's been phased out almost everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Basically all stock cars need a software update. They come tuned for shit.
Most people wait for the warranty to run.
Re: (Score:2)
been like this for years, but you don't notice. the garage does it for you during your maintenance.
at least with a tesla you get the update right away, much better.
and still much better then those people who bought nike shoes (yes, a shoe) and buggered up their firmware with an update.
V2 was no slouch either. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:V2 was no slouch either. (Score:5, Informative)
No. Tesla's, and the various batteries that Tesla sells, all come with warranties. The quicker they screw them up, the quicker *Tesla* has to pay for more.
Re: (Score:1)
Now imagine how much more power we'll need once everyone's fast charging their EVs instead of buying gasoline.
Answer: Prepare to nearly TRIPLE America's electric power production. Hopefully they've finished working all the kinks out of Votgle 3 and 4 by then so we can start building new AP1000 reactors in huge numbers because that's the only thing that's liable to make a dent in such a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on the state of charge. Tesla ramps down charge rates to protect the batteries as the SoC gets higher. Also, you should not be charging to 100% every day, which is another factor for battery life.
For most Model 3 owners, Supercharging is all about road trips. Most charging is done overnight, at home at much lower rates (7-12kW).
Re: (Score:2)
as the SoC gets highe
My systems on chip only smoke the magic smoke, not that reefer stuff.
Re:V2 was no slouch either. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article, this was part of the software upgrade. When you or the car is navigating to a charging station, the car starts pre-heating the batteries to optimal charge temperature.
Cool! (Score:2)
miles? (Score:3, Funny)
Please convert miles to hogs heads so the metric community can understand.
This had me scratching my head... (Score:1)
They put a supercharger on a Tesla?! How in the...but....OHHH.
They should change the name of it, we already have those for cars. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Meant for the roadster and the truck (Score:4, Informative)
Given that for some one going from 0 to 100%, the net savings will not be some eye popping number. But for those who drive in with 30 miles on the battery and fill 200 miles per session might see significant savings, from 35 minutes to 20 minutes, may be.
But the real winners are the yet to be made pickup truck and the roadster. Their battery capacity is very high and they can soak up power at 1000 miles/hr for 15 minutes or so, picking up 250 miles in 15 minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
But for those who drive in with 30 miles on the battery and fill 200 miles per session might see significant savings, from 35 minutes to 20 minutes, may be.
When driving a Tesla on a long road trip, the car tells you which superchargers to stop at, and how long to charge at each. And it's clear from watching it that it's optimizing for total time -- which means stopping at each supercharger along the way and charging only enough to get you to the next one (with a comfortable safety margin). This keeps the battery at a lower state of charge, because it can charge faster at that rate.
So on a long road trip, what's going to matter is the "75 miles in five minut
Re: (Score:3)
Last long trip I did was an airport pickup at Dulles, Washington, DC from Pittsburgh. I planned to be at Washington supercharger 20 minutes before ETA. By the time she disembarked, finished immigration and collected baggage, I had 50 minutes or so. Had enough to return. But still
Re: (Score:2)
But with an active map of all super chargers within range, with how many bays are free/occupied shown, I usually dont follow the optimized route Tesla has planned. I prefer relaxed driving, and taking breaks.
Heh. In the mountain west the superchargers aren't dense enough to make this an option most of the time. In most cases, the road networks aren't dense enough to make this an option... usually there are only one or two reasonable routes between point A and point B, and often only one of them has superchargers. For example, from my home in Morgan, UT to Las Vegas, Google Maps proposes two routes: one that's 6:23 and 464 miles down I-15 and one that's 7:49 hours and 525 miles taking I-80 out to Wendover, the
Peak Rage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - shot into space at 1000 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - shot into space at 1000 mph.
Nope. Ignoring air friction, and assuming you shot straight up, the highest altitude you'd reach would be a little over 10 km before you'd start falling back to earth. (v^2 = 2ah if you want to check the arithmetic.)
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing no one is talking about 250 kilovolts, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think Tesla has made the right tradeoffs. I don't want to carry around a 600 mile battery... Why do I want to carry that much weight when my average day is 40-100 miles? When the energy density gets that high I'd rather have a lighter car that can go 300 miles. Getting the 15%-75% charging times down is the right thing to do for people who are on a road trip, so I see the V3 as a great move.
One of the reasons I got the LongRange battery in the Model 3 (besides that it was my only choice at the t
Re: (Score:2)
well, if you're recharging it with gasoline; the future is now buddy boy!
Re: (Score:2)
Do what other municipalities did to coin miners. Raise the cost of high volume electricity to that consumer.
If you're going to slam the grid, you get to help improve it.