Can charging curve be improved with software?

[sammy5001]

Everyone is talking about range but frankly that’s the least of my concern.

Comparing the CT to my MX I expect the CT range (with AllSeason tires) to be 95% of my MX.
CT has lower efficiency (439 according to ABRP vs 309 based on my 20k miles driving habit).
CT has bigger usable battery (122khW vs 95khW).
Then CTRange = MXRange * (122/95) * (309/439) = MXRange * 0.9
Replacing the AT tires with AS tires should in theory give 6% range improvement which means the CTRange = MXRange * 0.954.

I‘m fine with this. But my biggest concern with the CT is that the charging curve sucks compared to my CT and from experience charging speed is more relevant for long road-trips.

There’s talks and rumors of how in theory Tesla is holding back the charging curve on the CT and in theory can easily improve it with a software update in the future. How realistic is this narrative and has this actually happened with prior Teslas?

Sponsored

 

[alex454]

I would *assume* so, but I am not an authority to say yes or no. However, one data point would be did Tesla improve charging curves on other Tesla models in software? Did they do this on early Model X's??

If they are holding back, it may be for additional testing of the battery at high charging rates??

 

[lowtek]

Very much so. They can also unlock more range on either end (there is a buffer to protect the battery).

I expect that early CyberTrucks are held back a bit while they examine telemetry.

 

[Coolbreeze704]

Everyone is talking about range but frankly that’s the least of my concern.

Comparing the CT to my MX I expect the CT range (with AllSeason tires) to be 95% of my MX.
CT has lower efficiency (439 according to ABRP vs 309 based on my 20k miles driving habit).
CT has bigger usable battery (122khW vs 95khW).
Then CTRange = MXRange * (122/95) * (309/439) = MXRange * 0.9
Replacing the AT tires with AS tires should in theory give 6% range improvement which means the CTRange = MXRange * 0.954.

I‘m fine with this. But my biggest concern with the CT is that the charging curve sucks compared to my CT and from experience charging speed is more relevant for long road-trips.

There’s talks and rumors of how in theory Tesla is holding back the charging curve on the CT and in theory can easily improve it with a software update in the future. How realistic is this narrative and has this actually happened with prior Teslas?

Jon @Cleanerwatt is a forum member and has a great YT channel. Jon is very knowledgeable and has great content on Tesla batteries. You can try DM him or see link below for his content to go through

https://www.youtube.com/@Cleanerwatt

 

[HitchHiker71]

I would *assume* so, but I am not an authority to say yes or no. However, one data point would be did Tesla improve charging curves on other Tesla models in software? Did they do this on early Model X's??

If they are holding back, it may be for additional testing of the battery at high charging rates??

They have done this with every new model brought to market to answer your question. As more and more telemetry comes in (data), they adjust the BMS software accordingly. The Gen1 4680 packs had some CC issues due to heat problems - which from what I've read has largely been resolved with the Gen2 packs in the CT - but I'd surmise Tesla is being conservative with the BMS calculations for the early adopters. I'd also state that with the 800v architecture, the real "solution" to CT charging lies in using V4 SC stations - which obviously isn't going to happen overnight (likely 1-2 years at least).

 

[GhostAndSkater]

I did the calculations to what the charging curve would have to look like for the "15% to 85% in 18 minutes" from Lars on Jay Leno review to be true

This does not mean it will nor that it is possible on trucks delivered today, just what it would take for that to happen. The current charging curve doesn't inspire confidence that it will be improved on vehicles on the road now and being delivered in the near future

Actually, this initial bad charging curve, plus lack of true V4 chargers deployment makes it seem to be that a Cybertruck that can charge fast, even on V3 Superchargers, is quite far away and needs 4680s Gen 3, or even 4, 5, 6...

 

[Gigahorse]

Very much so. They can also unlock more range on either end (there is a buffer to protect the battery).

I expect that early CyberTrucks are held back a bit while they examine telemetry.

Hopeful that is the case and we see the true potential of the CT range and charging sooner than later.

 

[Gigahorse]

I did the calculations to what the charging curve would have to look like for the "15% to 85% in 18 minutes" from Lars on Jay Leno review to be true

This does not mean it will nor that it is possible on trucks delivered today, just what it would take for that to happen. The current charging curve doesn't inspire confidence that it will be improved on vehicles on the road now and being delivered in the near future

Actually, this initial bad charging curve, plus lack of true V4 chargers deployment makes it seem to be that a Cybertruck that can charge fast, even on V3 Superchargers, is quite far away and needs 4680s Gen 3, or even 4, 5, 6...

ooophhhh

 

[sammy5001]

My MX can charge from 10% to 80% in 30 mins with v3 SC. So 66.5kWH added in 30 minutes.
Two independent MX charging concurrently (each from 10% to 80%) in theory could gain 133kWH in 30 minutes.

Given that the CT has split-packs then, does that mean it effectively has 2x independent 61kWH batteries?
Then I wonder what’s holding it back from charging each pack independently from 10% to 80% in 30mins?

 

[GhostAndSkater]

My MX can charge from 10% to 80% in 30 mins with v3 SC. So 66.5kWH added in 30 minutes.
Two independent MX charging concurrently (each from 10% to 80%) in theory could gain 133kWH in 30 minutes.

Given that the CT has split-packs then, does that mean it effectively has 2x independent 61kWH batteries?
Then I wonder what’s holding it back from charging each pack independently from 10% to 80% in 30mins?

It doesn't matter if it's one, two or four packs, what matters is the cells

In this case, if a 123 kWh Cybertruck pack is taking 41 minutes from 10-80%, a 61.5 kWh will take the same

The charger isn't the limitation form 20% forwards, see my charts, if Lars numbers comes to fruition, even on a V3 Supercharger, given it's not completely full and there is spare capacity, could do 10-80% in 21 minutes

Using you Model X, it holds 250 kW up to ~33%, with Cybertruck bigger pack, it could/should hold it even longer, at least it's what we expected until we saw that the charging curve is quite a bit worse

 

[Woodrick]

In the charging curves that I've seen the numbers aren't that much different than I see in my Model Y or Model3. You just don't sit a 250kW for more than a couple minutes and to get that, the battery needs to be nearly empty, not at 0%.

Because it is so similar, I'm wondering if optimization has even been attempted yet. Of course there could be some limitations intentionally enforced. Remember, all of this is coming from Employee vehicles that they are known to screw around with.

But it won't be until you can get 800V that it can shine. That's why the updated CCS connector is important.

Of course we can always hope that they have been sneaking 800V charging in the V3 pedestals for years, but chance of that is near 0.

Sponsored