Cybertruck hits 500kW charging speed with just unveiled V4 Cabinet!

[cardad]

An empty and conditioned Model Y or Model 3 can peak at over 1,000 mph at a V3 Supercharger. The Cybertruck hits around 700 mph on the V3.

1,300 mph, DAMN!

That's basically each side of the battery getting its own 250 kW charger

Amazing what simply going to 800V yields.

“Miles per hour” has to be the most useless charging metric ever. If a CT averages 2.1 mi/kwh then 700 mph peak would be like 333 kw charge rate which we know is impossible on a V3

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

“Miles per hour” has to be the most useless charging metric ever. If a CT averages 2.1 mi/kwh then 700 mph peak would be like 333 kw charge rate which we know is impossible on a V3

The only people I've seen make the argument that "Miles per hour" (of range added) is a useless metric are owners of inefficient EVs with huge batteries. Because it makes their EV look bad.

But in the real world, that's all one cares about, how many minutes do I need to charge to go a certain distance. How many kW it can accept is the number that is meaningless, without taking into account the efficiency of the vehicle.

Typically, miles added is calculated based upon the official efficiency rating of the vehicle. If you know you like to drive 80 mph, you can use your own multiplier to make it more accurate for your use case.

BTW, the Dual Motor Cybertruck's efficiency with the OEM All-Terrain tires is 2.58 miles per kWh, which I match once the 30% of my driving that is off-road is backed out of the equation. To achieve the rated combined range on the Interstate without Aero wheel covers I would have to go 61-63 mph, which is a realistic travel speed on much of the Interstate within a 2-3 hours of my home. But even a version 3 Supercharger can add miles fast enough that most people just drive at whatever speed they want (because it only takes an extra minute or so at the Supercharger to make up for it, and you will arrive sooner at 75 mph than at 61-63 mph). Unless I have open road and want to open it up, I just travel with the flow of traffic which nets me very close to the official range numbers for combined City/Hwy.

 

[Vagis9780]

Must be fake news. I heard the Cybertruck couldn't charge very fast.

I had the opportunity to charge my CT at a new V4 charger in Atlanta last month. It was the last charge prior to my final destination so I didn’t need much charge to continue my trip. I pulled in at 17% level. I set my timer on my phone, it charged to 25% within 3 minutes! I wanted to charge stay longer to see how long would take to 80% but my wife wanted to get to grandchildren house and 25% was all I needed. It was charging at a steady rate of 250 kw up to the point I stopped charger. If live in Atlanta area, V4 charger is located in Lowe’s parking lot, Camp Street exit off I-285 west.

 

[HaulingAss]

I had the opportunity to charge my CT at a new V4 charger in Atlanta last month. It was the last charge prior to my final destination so I didn’t need much charge to continue my trip. I pulled in at 17% level. I set my timer on my phone, it charged to 25% within 3 minutes! I wanted to charge stay longer to see how long would take to 80% but my wife wanted to get to grandchildren house and 25% was all I needed. It was charging at a steady rate of 250 kw up to the point I stopped charger. If live in Atlanta area, V4 charger is located in Lowe’s parking lot, Camp Street exit off I-285 west.

So that was just a regular version 3 charger inside a version 4 charging pedestal. When they get the version 4 guts in there it will go even faster. Not that I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting, it's usually too fast for me anyway.

 

[REM]

“Miles per hour” has to be the most useless charging metric ever. If a CT averages 2.1 mi/kwh then 700 mph peak would be like 333 kw charge rate which we know is impossible on a V3

% per minute would be easier for most people to conceptualize.

 

[scottf200]

This is all great! But when will we ever seen them?

Yup, just like V3s...that are now everywhere. Hell, I remember when V2s started coming out. Love the big advancements every few years!

Permitting happening right now and installation starting 2025. We will see more over time.

Getting beyond the staffing part and just focusing on the sites. There was about ~62-6300 superchargers when that happened. We're over 6800 today. It has progressed at a pretty similar rate since mid 2022 which was significantly faster than previous years' rates. Last month 161 opened, which was the most since the Q4 2022 spurt.

A lot of this would have already been in the planning prior and it will take time for it to shake out the full impact. Thus far, there has been minimal negative impact on the network.

I created this GIF graphic on 2024-10-24 so not long ago.

Getting a significant number of V4s is going to take many YEARs. Look how many V2s there still are. See my frame below that says 'V2 only'.

It will also be confusing because there are V3.5 (V4 pedestals & V3 cabinets) ones that misleadingly called V4 (ala 250 kW V4s - essentially v3 superchargers)
.... vs true v4 that are both V4 pedestals and V4 cabinets (ala 500 kW V4s)

There has to be a significant & growing number of Tesla in the area to add more generally speaking

It does not seem like they replace any and they just add more. Some V2 sites added more V3 ones. Asheville, NC and Bolingbrook, IL are just a couple examples. There may be 170+ of these.

Supercharge . info data as of 19-Nov-2024:
** North America counts **

• ver#_| count| power_ |
• V2__ | _974 | 150 kW |
• V3__ | 2106 | 250 kW | [V3 cabinets & V3 pedestals]
• V3.5 | _178 | 250 kW | [V3 cabinets & V4 pedestals]
• V4__ | ____ | 500 kW | [V4 cabinets & V4 pedestals]

Example of v3.5 supercharges (v4 pedestals and v3 cabinets) that are 250 kW
These are essential v3 superchargers.

 

[henchman24]

I created this GIF graphic on 2024-10-24 so not long ago.

Getting a significant number of V4s is going to take many YEARs. Look how many V2s there still are. See my frame below that says 'V2 only'.

It will also be confusing because there are V3.5 (V4 pedestals & V3 cabinets) ones that misleadingly called V4 (ala 250 kW V4s - essentially v3 superchargers)
.... vs true v4 that are both V4 pedestals and V4 cabinets (ala 500 kW V4s)

There has to be a significant & growing number of Tesla in the area to add more generally speaking

It does not seem like they replace any and they just add more. Some V2 sites added more V3 ones. Asheville, NC and Bolingbrook, IL are just a couple examples.

Example of v3.5 supercharges (v4 pedestals and v3 cabinets) that are 250 kW
These are essential v3 superchargers.

The same was stated when the V3 rollout was happening. Of course it will take years. There just isn't the ability to flip a switch overnight and have ~7,000 V4s. Like V3s it will take a year or so to ramp and then they'll be the primary new installation once they are ramped. That probably happens in 2026, and by 2028 they are likely the majority of chargers. Similar to how V3s are the majority today. Supercharge.info (of note I didn't filter temporary shutdown, construction, planned, etc) has V2 and Urban spots at 2,341 and V3/V3.5 at 5,663. This is after only a few hundred into 2020. A similar rollout should be expected, but will probably take longer to overtake given the pure number of V2/V3s.

We don't really know the complexity of the setup/upgrade on the V3.5s. Entirely possible they just need a cabinet upgrade to turn on the V4 capability. It would make the most sense that they could be upgraded (especially considering eGMP cars with Supercharger access), but there could easily be factors preventing that. Possible they will never be upgraded. If they can be upgraded there are 800 sites that could be upgrades (342 in NA).

On the replacement of sites. I wouldn't say that is wise. They should only replace V2s and V3s when they become too much of a headache to maintain. Otherwise they are working chargers that add much needed infrastructure. We need more chargers, not the same number but upgraded. Adding V4s to existing sites or new sites is the way to go.

 

[countryboy]

It will also be confusing because there are V3.5 (V4 pedestals & V3 cabinets) ones that misleadingly called V4 (ala 250 kW V4s - essentially v3 superchargers)
.... vs true v4 that are both V4 pedestals and V4 cabinets (ala 500 kW V4s)

Are we sure V3.5 HW isn't SW upgradeable to 350-500kw? I was hoping that was the case.

 

[scottf200]

We don't really know the complexity of the setup/upgrade on the V3.5s. Entirely possible they just need a cabinet upgrade to turn on the V4 capability.

Are we sure V3.5 HW isn't SW upgradeable to 350-500kw? I was hoping that was the case.

It seems like the V3 and V4 setup is considerably different. The issues are sharing kW and what is the max at each pedestal ... *especially* when there are 2+ cars charging on the same cabinet.
V4 cabinets manage 8 pedestals
V3 cabinets manage 4 pedestals and can have one as site manager (star center). These pre-fab groups of 4 have DC bus channels (wire way) to other V3 cabinet managed 4 pedestal groupings.

This guy has the tech background as he did site designs for non-Tesla DCFC stations. Explains V3 ones here:

 

[henchman24]

Are we sure V3.5 HW isn't SW upgradeable to 350-500kw? I was hoping that was the case.

We've seen testing on V3.5 that allowed amperage increases to ~325. We don't know if that will be unlocked, or if that is the limit (though I'd reasonably state it likely is).

It seems like the V3 and V4 setup is considerably different. The issues are sharing kW and what is the max at each pedestal ... *especially* when there are 2+ cars charging on the same cabinet.
V4 cabinets manage 8 pedestals
V3 cabinets manage 4 pedestals and can have one as site manager (star center). These pre-fab groups of 4 have DC bus channels (wire way) to other V3 cabinet managed 4 pedestal groupings.

This guy has the tech background as he did site designs for non-Tesla DCFC stations. Explains V3 ones here:

I've seen his videos. He's also a guy who hates on Tesla quite a bit... especially on Twitter.

The DC bus is a drastic difference between V3 and V4. What we don't know is if the wiring is already setup and run for the posts to be joined into one cabinet. There have been site plans that look to have been designed with this idea in place. Take the Durango, CO Supercharger. The 8 posts are right next to each other and the V3 cabinets are placed right next to each other in the corner of the lots with all the wiring ran together.

I doubt that V3.5s will be upgraded to V4s any time soon, but there are indications that the possibility exists and shouldn't be automatically shutdown.

 

[scottf200]

ASIDE:

I've seen his videos. He's also a guy who hates on Tesla quite a bit... especially on Twitter.

He absolutely knows his tech as it was his job. He gives Tesla a lot credit in many areas.
a) He bought into 4680 battery hype (and BIG promises at the outdoor presentation) ... and got a Model Y that has had awful battery performance with the 4680s. 4680s have been a dud compared to the presentation promises even on the Cybertruck CyberCells.
b) He does talk about charging ramps on various Teslas from empirical data and tech knowledge from other EVs

 

[scottf200]

The 8 posts are right next to each other and the V3 cabinets are placed right next to each other in the corner of the lots with all the wiring ran together.

I doubt that V3.5s will be upgraded to V4s any time soon, but there are indications that the possibility exists and shouldn't be automatically shutdown.

V3 prefabricated installs have been going on since 2022, so the cabinet placement is consistent in those layouts. Last two images below.

I understand your points. I think it is way more economical and quicker just to do the v4 ped/cabs on new sites. REASONING:

• v3 to v4 upgrades: I would imagine utility companies many need to be involved and then electrical redesign permitting and inspections.
• v3 to v4 upgrades: Transformers may need to upgraded if even possibly as some locations don't get the full (max) usage of the existing transformers since they draw so much when the sites are mostly full. Utilities force caps it seems that Tesla controls thru software.

Re: Transformers for v3 (250 kW) compared to v4 (500 kW).
I've seen Supercharger transformer Max KVA per site: 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2500
Below "Total amps avail" column calc: 3-Phase Amps = KVA / Volts / 1.732 x 1000

BOTTOM line is that the true V4 Superchargers (V4 cab & peds) are going to require some serious set of transformers for the common 12 pedestal sites. See 3 columns for # pedestals concurrent support for 500 kW, 250 kW, or 125 kW. I realize busy sites will have a mix of charge rates each car is pulling (eg. people about to leave and people just arriving at low SOC)

Here is some info about the V3 cabinets and DC bus. kW 580

V3 (and V4) pre-fabs will have standard layouts for cabinets.

 

[henchman24]

ASIDE:

He absolutely knows his tech as it was his job. He gives Tesla a lot credit in many areas.
a) He bought into 4680 battery hype (and BIG promises at the outdoor presentation) ... and got a Model Y that has had awful battery performance with the 4680s. 4680s have been a dud compared to the presentation promises even on the Cybertruck CyberCells.
b) He does talk about charging ramps on various Teslas from empirical data and tech knowledge from other EVs

He's also stated things as facts and things that couldn't be done, only to be proven wrong later. I follow his stuff as he does provide good insight, but he's not infallible either.

Not sure what A/B have to do with the V3.5 discussion, but entertaining it:

A: The 4680 Y was not a great car or battery, and to date we don't have a whole lot extreme positives on the 4680s. I do think people forget the early issues with the 21700s and that wasn't incorporating nearly the amount of changes that 4680s did (still are). Odds are high we don't know the full capabilities of the current 4680 cells in CT. That's actually probably a fact given they have stated 500kw charging is coming on V4. Drawing conclusions while in this interim period seems misguided. It really took until late 2020 for the 21700 form factor to reach maturity. This feels like the stories for 2018/2019 on 21700s. Which as we know today, the 21700 cells are widely used and a highly successful form factor. Clearly surpassing the 18650 form factor at this point. If you were going by the news in 2018, you would think it would be an abject failure.

B: Of course he does. Outside of his job, his public persona/side gig is his YouTube and Twitter that is about EVs and charging. He's going to have to speak about others in the industry. He also lets bias creep in. His discussions on NACS prior to it becoming the standard shows this. He went at length of how CCS was better and had more capability. Even to the point of saying V2L and 1000v wouldn't happen with NACS as it wasn't capable and that CCS was better because of that. Of course we know that simply wasn't true. I think he has a lot of valuable insight, he's just not infallible. Specifically on V3.5s, we don't know Tesla's plans. There are indications that some could be designed with upgrades in mind either in unlocking more amperage or in changing cabinets (as the Durango site looks to be designed with). There isn't a guarantee of it though, not by any stretch. We just simply don't know.

When we're talking about charging curves and capabilities, we skip over a lot of nuance that is rather impactful. Tesla simply has a different strategy than Porsche or Hyundai or ___. Better or worse is up for debate, but certainly different. Tesla is a believer in cylindrical cells and trying to reduce the amount of cobalt in their batteries to a minimum amount. Part of that is keeping costs low (IMO the biggest part), part is scalable production, part environmental, scarcity, etc. They also design their charging curves differently, likely due to their insistence on their battery design and chemistry. They will take a lot more early, but fade later. Whereas Hyundai (utilizing a lot more cobalt in the mixture and pouch cells with a different cooling strategy) are about maintaining rates longer. Hyundai's mix (622) gives more flexibility thermally and helps with charging rates especially at higher SoC... it comes at the expense of energy density and cost/sourcing with the additional cobalt needed. The new Taycan just switched to 811 chemistry (in pouch cells and from 712 chemistry), they also dramatically changed their thermal management to compensate and improve their charge rate. It is a fantastic charging vehicle, really best in the world IMO. It wasn't designed for mass production though. Different end goals.

Tesla's whole charging strategy is built around cylindrical cells with a minimal amount of cobalt. Which naturally means they will prefer a strategy that has a much higher charge rate early that will drop off quicker and won't accept as much charge or have as much thermal tolerance at higher states of charge. Their prioritization is mass production with energy density, then designing a charge curve to fit with that.

Rivian also uses 21700 cylindrical cells (in 811 NMC chemistry). They are limited to 500 amps as that is what CCS gave them when they were designing. The lack of amps early on gives them some thermal headroom on later states of charge, but they also run into thermal issues at higher states of charge and you'll see they don't hold as long as pouch cells... especially if they have 622 or 712 chemistries. This is shown further when Rivians are really pushed with multiple charge sessions, they limit their charge rate pretty dramatically at the 45%-60% SoC if thermals creep up. Lucid also uses 21700s and does the similar taper. They also run into similar thermal issues as Rivian when pushed. In other words, all cylindrical cells EVs are running similar styles of curves. This is necessitated by the chemistries used and the form factor that has an impact on cooling.

IIRC the current CT cell chemistry is 955. So a lot less cobalt in the mix. Which would probably signal less capability to charge at high rates at higher SoC. The tabless design was meant to help with that by helping thermals. Given we are still very early in this, Tesla is likely still figuring out how far to push the cells. Much like the V3 rollout on M3 in 19-20 where the curve changed dramatically before settling in (at least with the Panasonic battery... the LG battery still moves around a bit and isn't as good of charging battery as the Panasonic... likely due to slight chemistry differences). The early curve on V3s was significantly worse than today, but somewhere around late 22, early 23 they pushed it a bit too far and dialed it back. IMO we will see a similar thing happen here as V4 rolls out.

 

[henchman24]

V3 prefabricated installs have been going on since 2022, so the cabinet placement is consistent in those layouts. Last two images below.

I understand your points. I think it is way more economical and quicker just to do the v4 ped/cabs on new sites. REASONING:

• v3 to v4 upgrades: I would imagine utility companies many need to be involved and then electrical redesign permitting and inspections.
• v3 to v4 upgrades: Transformers may need to upgraded if even possibly as some locations don't get the full (max) usage of the existing transformers since they draw so much when the sites are mostly full. Utilities force caps it seems that Tesla controls thru software.

Re: Transformers for v3 (250 kW) compared to v4 (500 kW).
I've seen Supercharger transformer Max KVA per site: 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2500
Below "Total amps avail" column calc: 3-Phase Amps = KVA / Volts / 1.732 x 1000

BOTTOM line is that the true V4 Superchargers (V4 cab & peds) are going to require some serious set of transformers for the common 12 pedestal sites. See 3 columns for # pedestals concurrent support for 500 kW, 250 kW, or 125 kW. I realize busy sites will have a mix of charge rates each car is pulling (eg. people about to leave and people just arriving at low SOC)

Here is some info about the V3 cabinets and DC bus. kW 580

V3 (and V4) pre-fabs will have standard layouts for cabinets.

IIRC the majority of V4s have not been prefabs. Some certainly have, but more of them are bespoke in what I've seen. Like the Durango one I've been referencing (Gillette, WY is also a bespoke V3.5). In these instances, I'd say the likelihood of upgrades increase. Now I can easily see the prefabs just staying 3.5. There are likely ways, but it might also be too much hassle. It all might be too much hassle. In the end, I'm simply saying we just don't know yet.

In some areas, transformers can be pushed beyond their rating. An EA site near me does this consistently. It is only a 350 kVA running 4 350kW posts (2 are full 350 and 2 are shared). I've personally seen that station output over 500kW at one time. Still, there are likely to be some massive transformers needed and given the shortage that exists there now... any upgrades are likely to be limited. There would have to be capability within what is likely there now.

 

[Macgreiner]

They've been kicking some ass rolling out new locations! Elon took a lot of flack for restructuring the Supercharger Team, but I'm so glad he did, the old team had become infected, they were headed towards the same path as the 3rd party DCFC networks. There's a reason why the Supercharger Network doesn't resemble the third-party DCFC networks, because Elon doesn't accept that kind of BS.

I had no issues with reliability or locations before they were all fired?

Sponsored