Cybertruck 1000V Architecture + V4 Supercharging Confirmed!! ⚡️ "It's Going to be Used for Cybertruck Too" - Elon Musk

[flowerlandfilms]

Tesla is also part of the CharIN MCS standard, maybe that will only be for Semi in Europe but from the few photos that we've seen US Semi does not appear to use the NACS connector.

Actually yeh that connector looks identical to an early MCS draft proposal. It's a massive triangular looking thing now though.

Sponsored

 

[flowerlandfilms]

That the whole world uses it is a bit of a myth, US uses CCS1 which is not the same as European CCS2, China uses their own connector which is GB/T.

My guess is that Semi uses MCS but CT will use NACS.

I am in Australia where we exclusively use CCS2.
Cybertruck having NACS here is somewhat unlikely unless they want to have all Teslas on one system and the CT on another.

 

[Crissa]

Not to bore people with Antipodean problems, but this raises all manner of questions for non Americans.

Most of the world has adopted CCS for better or for worse, not looking to start the debate on that, but Tesla thanks to the split standards is already forced to manufacture at least two connectors, NACS for the US and CCS for global use.

CharIN, the group behind CCS, has since 2018 been preparing MCS, their version of megawatt charging. It has a different shape to CCS and is not backwards compatible, I don't think this spec is finished or in use yet, but Tesla in the future will now have to make 3 connectors at least.
So then, what port will we get for the Cybertruck in the meantime?

Do we get CCS standard which limits our ability to use these new high power features, permanently janking our abilities compared to american trucks?

Or does CCS have expanded capability built into the spec that Tesla can utilise, even if they do so before CharIN has implemented those new design standards? There is a lot of talk in CharIN design documents about "proposed specs" and "in future we may consider" but Tesla is moving faster than that.

Does Tesla give us V4 capability via a NACS V4 port whatever that may look like in an attempt to beat MCS to market?

They can't give us an MCS port on the CyberTruck because then we couldn't charge at any existing stations.

Disclaimer: I am not an electrical engineer, and good information is difficult to sift through online.

Double Disclaimer: I am not as panicked as this post may make me sound, just curious and ill informed.

Tesla has has a seat with MCS the entire time. So they're not going to be left out or blindsided by any releases. However, like CCS, they need to release now, and MCS isn't complete yet. It's in the field, being tested, but isn't finished.

NACS is supposedly CCS compatible at the protocol. That makes sense, since Tesla has to support the CCS-only EU. It also makes them more capable of making adapters so anyone can use their NACS Superchargers and get that sweet, sweet funding for expanding the network.

So it's no worry at all. NACS is just a cute handle for North America. If you ship a North American truck to the EU, all you'll need is an adapter.

At $400 for the Wall Connector and $230 for the Mobile Connector and another $100 for an industrial grade NEMA 14-50 outlet the difference for the superior solution is only $70. If the install is 50 feet from the panel you will pay that much just for the extra conductor that the outlet requires bringing the total cost to parity.

...A mobile connector you'll want to have if you ever head out into the wilds or the in-laws who don't yet have EV chargers?

I think so too, also it would be very odd to have passenger vehicles like CT fighting with Semi's for charging spots.

Ehh, you see super-duty trucks vying for pumps at truck stops, big RVs, etc. They have to pay a higher retail rate, but it does happen. Those wildcat haulers are still out there.

For towing, it makes sense, you have similar turning radius and clearances, so you use the truck lanes. When you're lighter, it doesn't.

Tesla will have a slick solution to keep it from being like the Bolt sitting at the 350KW charger.

-Crissa

 

[Stuck4ger]

Total Recall (movie) reference.

So was my line!

 

[RVAC]

I am in Australia where we exclusively use CCS2.
Cybertruck having NACS here is somewhat unlikely unless they want to have all Teslas on one system and the CT on another.

I'm talking in the US, obviously CT in China will have GB/T and Europe & Aus CCS2. Provided they will be able to sell it in those markets.

 

[Dids]

That's not the same as megacharging, tho. They may need more than 1000*1000 to get the throughput. The papers also didn't say it was 1000*1000, since max voltage is the insulator and max amperage is the heat which can mean different things as insulation values and heat dissipation can vary by temperature and voltage.

-Crissa

Elon said CT would get 1MW charging. Please look at the slide with the immersion cooled cable, you can find it as the thread header. It says 1 MW+ then it shows 2 cables labeled V3 and V4. V4 is 1MW+

Tesla is also part of the CharIN MCS standard, maybe that will only be for Semi in Europe but from the few photos that we've seen US Semi does not appear to use the NACS connector.





I think so too, also it would be very odd to have passenger vehicles like CT fighting with Semi's for charging spots.



That the whole world uses it is a bit of a myth, US uses CCS1 which is not the same as European CCS2, China uses their own connector which is GB/T.

My guess is that Semi uses MCS but CT will use NACS.

Then why would they present semi with MCS and say CT gets it too? Why say 1000v architecture and say future vehicles are getting 1000v too? Why release NACS with an update done in Nov22 for 1000v NACS?
Why does everyone ignore what they say and act like something can't be done, right after they once again watch a Tesla presentation where they did exactly what some people say can't be done?
What is it about NACS that makes people think it can't do 1MW.
I understand that we have seen several charger for semi while they worked it out but showing pictures from a year ago is not the same as a standards document from 1 month ago.

 

[Crissa]

Elon said CT would get 1MW charging.

Then why would they present semi with MCS and say CT gets it too? Why say 1000v architecture and say future vehicles are getting 1000v too? Why release NACS with an update done in Nov22 for 1000v NACS?
Why does everyone ignore what they say and act like something can't be done, right after they once again watch a Tesla presentation where they did exactly what some people say can't be done?
What is it about NACS that makes people think it can't do 1MW.
I understand that we have seen several charger for semi while they worked it out but showing pictures from a year ago is not the same as a standards document from 1 month ago.

Because connector ≠ protocol.

A Bolt is compatible with a 350kW CCS charger, but can only pull 50kW from it.

The Semi will pull far more than the Cybertruck does, due to its bigger battery. So they might share a protocol, but not the inlet. Or maybe the do share, the Semi is just also compatible with MCS. Or maybe the Cybertruck is.

I don't know. There's lots of ways this could go or use adapters or whatever.

I think they mean Cybertruck shares the protocol.

-Crissa

 

[Dids]

Because connector ≠ protocol.

A Bolt is compatible with a 350kW CCS charger, but can only pull 50kW from it.

The Semi will pull far more than the Cybertruck does, due to its bigger battery. So they might share a protocol, but not the inlet. Or maybe the do share, the Semi is just also compatible with MCS. Or maybe the Cybertruck is.

I don't know. There's lots of ways this could go or use adapters or whatever.

I think they mean Cybertruck shares the protocol.

-Crissa

Agreed. NACS is not a protocol it is a connector that can do 1MW.

 

[HaulingAss]

...A mobile connector you'll want to have if you ever head out into the wilds or the in-laws who don't yet have EV chargers?

When I go to the in-laws, I just hit up one of the many Superchargers along the way for a 10 minute Supercharging break before I arrive. It's always better to arrive refreshed and with a good state of charge so you don't have to ask them for an outlet to use!

But you bring up a pertinent point. If you are going to bring the Mobile Connector with you for emergencies, then you are not going to want to coil it up in its zippered pouch every time. I keep a Mobile Connector in the lower compartment of my trunk for emergencies. Coiling it up everytime I took a trip would be a major PITA. That's the beauty of the Wall Connector, I just pull the charging handle out of the car and insert it into the holder on the Wall Connector and drive off. I would want to wash my hands before I left if I had to coil up a Mobile Connector when I left home. The charging handle stays clean, the cable gets dirty because it drags on the ground. You really don't want to touch the cable itself before you leave on a trip.

 

[HaulingAss]

------------------------------

Regenerative braking: A closer look at the methods and limits of regen
Posted October 3, 2018
by Jeffrey Jenkins
https://chargedevs.com/features/reg...oser-look-at-the-methods-and-limits-of-regen/

.....
There are some limits to regen braking. For starters, it can only recapture the energy used to accelerate the vehicle or climb an incline, minus some inevitable losses. Speaking of which, the energy recaptured by regen has to go through the full conversion process – from chemical to electrical to mechanical to road – twice. Typical efficiencies for each major step in this process are 99% for lithium chemistry batteries, 96-98% for inverters, 80-95% for motors (though this can drop much lower, especially at either extreme of the power range), 95% for hypoid gear differentials (which tends to get overlooked) and, finally, 85-95% for tires. Even taking the best-case values for each figure, that comes out to an overall efficiency from battery to road of 83%, and a round-trip efficiency of 69%; in other words, you can’t always regen brake your way to longer range.

Another, more obvious, limit to regen braking is tire adhesion. This is less of an issue in front-wheel drive EVs, but applying too much braking torque to the rear wheels in rear- or all-wheel drive EVs (especially motorcycles) can, shall we say, make for an exciting driving experience. This is due to the phenomenon called “load transfer,” in which the center of mass on any wheeled vehicle shifts due to acceleration or deceleration forces, and this shift is proportional to the height of the center of mass above ground and inversely proportional to the wheelbase (note that in a 4-wheel vehicle, load transfer can occur front to back, as during acceleration and braking, or side to side, as during turning). Load transfer can be exacerbated by weight transfer, which is the same effect except caused by suspension travel or actual shifting of liquids, cargo, etc, in the vehicle. Together these phenomena lower the weight over the rear wheels during braking, making them less effective at transferring force without skidding.

------------------------------

The article you quoted on regen is interesting and some people will find some of it informative. But it's also says some things in an odd or slightly misleading way. For example, it says;

"Even taking the best-case values for each figure, that comes out to an overall efficiency from battery to road of 83%, and a round-trip efficiency of 69%; in other words, you can’t always regen brake your way to longer range."

I agree the round trip efficiency of regen braking is around 50-70% but that's looking at it the wrong way. Why would you count the losses involved when accelerating? You can't even have a trip without accelerating, so that's not part of braking losses.

Further, it's non-sensical in this context to say, "you can't always brake your way to longer range". Of course not, you can never brake your way to longer range! But if the regen braking is replacing necessary friction braking, you most certainly will be adding range over not having regen available. The way the author words it, it's almost as if he thinks some people assume regen braking is a perpetual motion machine - it's really strange to even mention it like that. and throw shade on regen braking simply because it's not 100% efficient considering that friction braking is 0% efficient, and that doesn't even count the inefficiencies of the acceleration to get you up to speed so you can brake in the first place or the tire losses during acceleration. It sounds like a disingenuous way to throw shade on one of the very real advantages of an EV over ICE.

The second thing he brings up is load transfer in a RWD vehicle when regen braking. My wife has a RWD Model 3 and I've driven it quite a bit over the previous 4 1/2 years, including on snow and ice. Sure, there is always load transfer during braking. But load transfer is only really an issue during really hard braking as one might do in a sporting situation or an emergency. Regen braking never approaches those levels of braking - it's gentle and designed to slow the car in normal, smooth driving situations. I've driven on snow covered roads with full regen braking available and in use without there being enough load transfer to cause the rear wheels to brake traction, even going downhill, when load transfer would be greatest. This is on pavement completely covered with snow and ice.

I've also driven the RWD Model 3 on glaze ice with full regen braking available. And, guess what? As soon as it detects one of the wheels breaking traction, it backs off on the regen braking, just like an anti-lock brake would do. This is on glaze ice and Tesla actually recommends turning off regen braking in snow and ice. I leave it on without issue. If you need front brakes on a RWD car, you are going to have to push the brake pedal. This is no different from a RWD combustion car except the regen tends to be a little stronger than the engine braking of a typical combustion vehicle.

That said, a combustion vehicle with a manual gearbox and the same performance of the RWD Model 3 will almost certainly have more engine braking than the regen braking of the RWD Model 3. In otherwords, this weight shift transfer is normal and expected by anyone who has even moderate driving skills. And if they are beginner, it's much less "exciting" and more controllable than the engine braking of a combustion vehicle. In all cases, the load transfer when regen braking on ice is miniscule because there is not enough braking power available to get much load transfer.

It looks like the author is trying to turn people off to EV's by using things that should not turn people off in any way, shape or form. It's very disingenuous sounding to the point that it makes me wonder what his motives were.

Finally, I'm perplexed why you would post a misleading article supposedly identifying "problems" associated with regen braking in a thread about the confirmation of 1000V charging, especially when the "problems" identified are not problems at all.

 

[Cybercarlson]

I wonder if they are going to offer a newer version of the at home chargers. My guess is the Cybertruck battery is going to be a little larger than we thought. I wonder how long it will take to charge at home.

The minimum I would like to see is 22kW AC for home charging (in Europe).

My 22kW wall box has been allready installed (2021) and is waiting for CT.
Doing 1/2 of the work, since MY and M3 can only handle 11kW ...
which is kind of the standart Wallbox power.
Since 16A, 230V, 3 Phase, in most residential homes poses no problem.

My smale single home hook up is from 1968 and has 64A 3 Phase.....

Thanks to Westinghouse the USA residential grid is not in the best situation to handle that....

 

[Wildfortune]

Who needs 800v when you've got 1000v.

My thoughts exactly! Just one-upped Lucid.

 

[Cybertruckee]

After watching the event again (so short compared to others, especially Neurolink), what struck me was how giddy/ecstatic the two corporate guys are from Pepsi/Frito-lay...

I suspect they'll step down to do the driving duties.

 

[samroy92]

Read the article in whole rather than cherry picking and it covers both max rates as well rates Tesla likely has placed based on safety/longevity of the battery. Thermal management is key here as well, and again Tesla plays on the safe side until it gets more days/months/years or miles for that matter of data. This means if the data comes back looking good or better than expected, Tesla has the option to software push things like unlocking higher charging rates. Likewise they could lower it as well if necessary though I tend to believe they play it safe enough from the start to not have to do that as that would be a public relations nightmare.

Read what article? The reddit post, or the sources in the reddit post? I took a look at the source inside the reddit post: https://www.batterydesign.net/tesla-4680-cell/

In the article they are charging the cell at 1C rate. Not 6C... Even if the thermals were perfect it's not realistic to claim "we will be able to charge at 1MW aka 6C rate" without showing cycle life data - because that destroys cells VERY quickly.

Show me some data and i'll join your side!

TLDR: Cybertruck 300-400kW max charging speed

 

[Qball]

The more I think about it the more I’m feeling being let down, knowing Elon I was expecting ELEVEN hundred volt architecture!!!

Sponsored