News on [dual] charging for CT?

[Jhodgesatmb]

I am increasing the service at my house to accommodate charging for my CT and will install new charger(s). Has anyone heard whether the CT will use a single or dual chargers? I am assuming (perhaps inproperly) that there will be no new chargers or an increase in the maximum amperage for the Tesla charger.

Sponsored

 

[rr6013]

At least! How do we make that case for dual portal?

One of our gifted mathematicians could help to run an algorithm over dual portal 150kWh battery charge time and single portal charging?Throughout matters .vs. building new or expanding to meet occupancy. Plot 70% occ. rate max. level.

Anyone know the doubling of Tesla vehicle fleet rate? That will schedule the curves. I’d think it would pay Tesla to double charge ports to maximize charging station efficacy rather than impose Utah-length wait cues. BUT Eat at Elon’s restaurants are now in-play. Use a mythical 35 min. charge time avg. to superimpose turnover rate for avg. time spent charging.

Let’s see. What the charts say?

Anyone know? What is costs? Boosting from 150kW DC to 240kW DC on a per charger basis? Maybe Tesla can juice the line capacity, bump the charge rate and push throughput that way?

 

[rr6013]

Anyone know the doubling of Tesla vehicle fleet rate?

URL: https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...oduction-capacity-guesstimate.3409/post-58298


Total Vehicle Market2%10%Vehicle TypeBat Capacity GWhAvg Pack (kWh)Total VehiclesCurrent demand EVTesla ShareTesla Battery GWhSmall15006025,000,000500,0002,500,000150Compact Midsize35007546,666,667933,3334,666,667350Luxury & SUV9001009,000,000180,000900,00090Pickup truck11001407,857,143157,143785,714110Semi30004007,500,000150,000750,000300Totals1000096,023,8101,920,4769,602,3811,000


TSLA Battery Day chart above suggests that it expects to double Tesla vehicles produced with three new Giga-factories in one year’s time.

 

[ajdelange]

At least! How do we make that case for dual portal?

The argument I've always made is that the 11.52 kW available from the largest wall connectors that are being made by Tesla and others when adjusted for 90% efficiency only deliver 104 kW which, for the CT is only 23 miles per hour. Having 2 ports in the vehicle and 2 HPWC would let you charge at 46 miles per hour. The battery of the TriMotor would be completely charged from 0 in 11 hrs.

As the 300 kW chargers just announced by Telsa would charge at 1.5C (666 miles per hour) I don't really see the advantage of a second port for Supercharging. You'd have to take 2 stalls and I just don't see that working out.

 

[Ogre]

I think people are overly worried about charging speed at home.

We plug out Model Y into 110 right now and it is mostly adequate. The only time I really wish we had faster charging is when we come home after a long trip and the battery is depleted and it can't recharge to a useful 100+ miles overnight.

The 40 AMP charger is going to charge your truck at about 25-30 miles per hour. That's enough to get you 200-300+ miles of charge overnight which is plenty for most people.

The exception is if you are running a business and need to top off your vehicles during the workday and return them to service.

 

[ajdelange]

I think people are overly worried about charging speed at home.

It's certainly not something to worry about but it is something to think about.

The 40 AMP charger is going to charge your truck at about 25-30 miles per hour. That's enough to get you 200-300+ miles of charge overnight which is plenty for most people.

You are forgetting that Level 2 charging is about 90% efficient. A 40 amp charger draws 40*240 = 9.6 kW but only delivers 0.9*40*240 = 8.64 kW to the battery. At 450 Wh/mi that's equivalent to 19.2 miles per hour. If you plug in at 7 pm and leave at 7 am that adds 230 miles overnight which is certainly enough for me most of the time. Where it can be a bit of a problem is when you forget to plug in when you get home at night and a need for extra range arises , e.g. an impromptu trip comes up. Being prudent you only charge you battery to 70% for your normal daily driving. That's enough to get you to your destination but you would very much like to have 15% more margin upon arrival. Adding the extra 15% at 8.64 kW is going to take 3 and a half hours. It's quite likely that you have two HPWC because you have 2 BEV or you are planning to get a second BEV or you want to be able to park and charge your single BEV in any spot in your garage or you want to accommodate guest or whatever. A second port on the truck would allow you to plug in that second HPWC and halve that required time to 1:45. With two HPWC hardwired for 48A it would drop further to 1:28 minutes. My wife might accept that.

While this doesn't happen every day it has come up a couple of times so I would buy the 2nd port option were it offered.

The exception is if you are running a business and need to top off your vehicles during the workday and return them to service.

A business would install a Level 3 charger.

 

[Ogre]

You are forgetting that Level 2 charging is about 90% efficient. A 40 amp charger draws 40*240 = 9.6 kW but only delivers 0.9*40*240 = 8.64 kW to the battery.

Didn't forget anything, it was a WAG. The Cybertruck will probably charge about 60-75% as fast as the Model X 18-23 MPH is likely.

Not worth the cost to cater to the very small number of people who regularly drive more than 200 miles per day.

 

[ajdelange]

Didn't forget anything, it was a WAG. The Cybertruck will probably charge about 60-75% as fast as the Model X 18-23 MPH is likely.

No need to WAG when you have reasonable information to work with. The CT is going to have rated consumption close to 450 Wh/Mi. For sure there is ± around that. The X's is 282. That's certain. It's marked right there on the graph. Thus ceteris paribus the CT will charge at 63% of the rate that an X does in terms of miles added per unit time.

Not worth the cost to cater to the very small number of people who regularly drive more than 200 miles per day.

You obviously missed the point. I demonstrated how the second port might be of interest to people who occasionally drive more than 200 miles per day. I expect there are more than one or two of us. The question is as to whether Tesla will perceive that there is enough of a market for this option to even offer it. I doubt most people would even understand the concept involved so I doubt the market will be perceived as being there and as much as I'd love to have it I don't see it being offered.

 

[rodmacpherson]

Or Tesla's old HPWC (High Power Wall Connector) for the Model S's that had dual on-board chargers?
You can still get those slightly used on ebay

 

[Ogre]

No need to WAG when you have reasonable information to work with.

This is a pre-release vehicle. We don't know battery capacity, without that, we're just shooting in the dark. Suggesting the truck will recharge 25-40% slower than the Model X is about as close as we're going to get right now. Doing pretend math to come up with a number (with a decimal place to emphasis your made up precision!) based on made-up numbers isn't more accurate.

Everything is a bit a WAG until ship date.

 

[ajdelange]

This is a pre-release vehicle. We don't know battery capacity, without that, we're just shooting in the dark.

Suggesting the truck will recharge 25-40% slower than the Model X is about as close as we're going to get right now. Doing pretend math to come up with a number (with a decimal place to emphasis your made up precision!) based on made-up numbers isn't more accurate.

Calling it pretend math and even using a term like "more accurate" only advertises that you don't understand much about estimation. The driving parameter here is not, in fact, the battery size but the consumption. Tesla is struggling to get the consumption down by every means it can (such as removing mirrors) in order that the battery size (product of rated consumption times rated miles) can be minimized. ABRP, who are much smarter than you or I about these things have estimated the consumption at 65 mph as 485. This implies a rated consumption of about 450, perhaps less. Rated consumption of 450 with rated range of 500 miles implies a battery of 225 kWh. Battery size of 200 kWh implies consumption of 400 Wh/mi. Common sense tells us they aren't going to be able to get consumption down below 400 Wh/mi and they aren't going to be able to put in a battery bigger than 225 kWh. Thus we can bound consumption between 400 and 450. This bounds charging speed relative to an X with its known consumption to between 29.5 and 37.3% slower. A 25% reduction would imply consumption of 376 Wh/mi as determined by real math (as are the percentages). Do you really think it could be that low? Did you do a calculation on, for example, Rivians numbers from before they hid their battery size: 400 miles from 180 kWh --> 450 Wh/mi.

I doubt you will understand any of that so it is not really here for you but there are folk here who do understand this sort of thing. Of course they don't need my explanation.

Everything is a bit a WAG until ship date.

If by "bit of a WAG" you mean things are not certain until we see the trucks that is indeed true. What we are doing is using reason to come up with reasonable bounds on how fast we can add miles to the CT with a single 40 A charger. That's what the fine art of estimation seeks to do. The answer in this case is 19.2 - 21.6 miles per hour. I'd just call it 20.

Now note that this is all rated miles. If you are preparing for a trip that you know will invove more or less than the rated consumption that should be taken into consideration.

When we WAG, we declare that we are WAGing. But with a little real math grounded in common sense and reason we can often do better than a WAG. Note that I laugh at calling multiplication and dvision math but I guess strictly speaking they are.

 

[Ogre]

That's what the fine art of estimation seeks to do. The answer in this case is 19.2 - 21.6 miles per hour.

Almost exactly the numbers I suggested 4 posts ago with 99% less nonsense. It is cute that you still insist on including decimal places in some weird attempt to imply accuracy.

None of your imagined precision even matters for this discussion.

 

[ajdelange]

That's what the fine art of estimation seeks to do. The answer in this case is 19.2 - 21.6 miles per hour. I'd just call it 20.

Almost exactly the numbers I suggested 4 posts ago with 99% less nonsense.

The 40 AMP charger is going to charge your truck at about 25-30 miles per hour. That's enough to get you 200-300+ miles of charge overnight which is plenty for most people.

It is cute that you still insist on including decimal places in some weird attempt to imply accuracy.
None of your imagined precision even matters for this discussion.

Not cute at all. The number of decimal places shown are completely warranted by the underlying data. You are again advertising your unfamiliarity with how good estimates are arrived at. I'd like to help you understand but it's clear at this point that that isn't going to happen. It doesn't matter whether you understand where the number comes from or not. What matters is that the charging rate from a single 40 Amp charger is going to be closer to 20 mph than 25 - 30 and that this compares, if you like, to the 30.6 mph I realize when charging my X from such a charger (which, BTW, I do).

Sponsored