What kind of AC charging will make Cybertruck better?

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
The more I think about Cybertruck AC charging, the more I am inclined to think that cybertruck will support 3 phase (480V) industrial charging on top of single phase 240V support. If you take a look at SAE-J3068, the proposed North American standard, it is an evolution from single phase like J1772 protocol (currently used by Tesla) to 3 phase + higher voltages.

If this is correct and if the buck-boost converters are bi-directional, it will also mean that Cybertruck can power serious industrial equipment such as 3 phase motors and V2G.

Also, if cleverly configured, a tri-phase converter can become a higher current single phase converter, can easily achieve 80A.

Perhaps the in-bed connector will be the one that supports 3 phases, while the outside connector is for Regular Suppercharing + single phase AC.

I am surprised to see that Ford is still using J1772 type connectors, I guess they have no other choice.

-Andrei
P.S. The number of 3 phase industrial transformers is humongous and they are readily available, as a result, such chargers can be installed at little cost (when compared with Supercharger costs of $100-150K).
Sponsored

 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
126
Messages
16,227
Reaction score
27,096
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
I think that's unlikely.

Also, buck converters make a ton of heat as they're not very efficient. They aren't suited to battery charging.

-Crissa
 

BillyGee

Well-known member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
708
Reaction score
1,534
Location
Northern California
Vehicles
Model Y P, Model 3 LR, Founders CT (Ordered)
Occupation
Technician
Country flag
I'm hoping 480VAC charging is a thing, being able to plug in at my job sites where 480 is standard would be cool. Doubtful, but cool.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
3,213
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
The more I think about Cybertruck AC charging, the more I am inclined to think that cybertruck will support 3 phase (480V) industrial charging on top of single phase 240V support. If you take a look at SAE-J3068, the proposed North American standard, it is an evolution from single phase like J1772 protocol (currently used by Tesla) to 3 phase + higher voltages.
CT, and all the existing Tesla's already support charging from 480 3ø. What do we think is in the cabinets behind the fences at the SC stations? Tesla vehicles are also configured for 3ø charging in Europe. As the linked atricle in the OP says we can't do 3ø from 480/270 in the US because the phase to neutral voltage exceeds what the governing IEC standard for vehicle charging allows. J3068 proposes raising the allowable voltage and changing to the digital communiction interface required of higher voltage systems. So the transition to J3068 isn't going to happen soon. And if you had it where would you plug it in? BillyGee happens to pay service colls to places where 480 is common. How many of rest of us do? L2 charging is to allow people to charge at home. How many of us have 3ø in our houses?


If this is correct and if the buck-boost converters are bi-directional, it will also mean that Cybertruck can power serious industrial equipment such as 3 phase motors and V2G.
The architecture of the charger in Tesla products is, as best anyone can seem to figure out:

Mains --> Bridge(R) --> Bridge(I) --> Transformer --> Bridge (R) --> Battery

R indicates a rectifying brigde an I an inverting one. By changing gate timing each R can become an I and conversely and when this is done the direction of the arrow heads can change and the battery can supply the mains. This doesn't matter whether the circuit is single phase (4 switches per bridge) or 3 phase (6 per bridge) or an assembly of 3 single phase units.

There isn't going to be a 3ø inverter on the CT for the same reason there isn't going to be a 3ø charger and that is that no one, outside an industrial setting, has any 3ø loads or sources. Now mind you I wouldn't mind if the US went to 3ø residential wiring one bit. It would certainly hurt the parts of the service industry that make much of their living replacing starting/running capacitors in heat pumps and air conditioners but I think those guys would survive. Many house in Europe and elsewhere are wired for 3ø. Putting all that aside you don't want to run heavy equipment from your CT. It would drain the battery too fast.


Also, if cleverly configured, a tri-phase converter can become a higher current single phase converter, can easily achieve 80A.
Since you have used the terms "converter" I assume you mean that you are thinking about converting battery DC to AC. If you had any three phase loads you would need a 6 switch bridge. That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or _/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral? Thus it appears yoy would need 3 separate inverters clocked 120° apart.



Perhaps the in-bed connector will be the one that supports 3 phases,
It would have to be 245Y/141 if it is going to support V2H or V2G. Supposing it isn't and is wired for the more usual 208Y/120. What loads would you envision plugging into it?



while the outside connector is for Regular Suppercharing + single phase AC.
The charging port will be for 240 V charging at 48A and for Supercharging.


I am surprised to see that Ford is still using J1772 type connectors, I guess they have no other choice.
What else would they use and why? The can use the SAE connector or come up with their own and the SAE connector is adequate for what they want to do. They have no need nor desire to charge from 3 ø power in this country. For the overseas market they can use the apporpiriate connector for the particular market.



P.S. The number of 3 phase industrial transformers is humongous and they are readily available, as a result, such chargers can be installed at little cost (when compared with Supercharger costs of $100-150K).
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. A SC station has to buy a 3ø transformer to get from local distribution voltage (15480Y/7200) down to the 480 the cabinets need. Are you suggesting that we ask the utility for 480 service, buy transformers to get to 208Y/120 as they do in office and apartment buildings and rewire our houses for 3ø?

I think this needs a little more thought.
 
OP
OP

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
CT, and all the existing Tesla's already support charging from 480 3ø. What do we think is in the cabinets behind the fences at the SC stations? Tesla vehicles are also configured for 3ø charging in Europe. As the linked atricle in the OP says we can't do 3ø from 480/270 in the US because the phase to neutral voltage exceeds what the governing IEC standard for vehicle charging allows. J3068 proposes raising the allowable voltage and changing to the digital communiction interface required of higher voltage systems. So the transition to J3068 isn't going to happen soon. And if you had it where would you plug it in? BillyGee happens to pay service colls to places where 480 is common. How many of rest of us do? L2 charging is to allow people to charge at home. How many of us have 3ø in our houses?


The architecture of the charger in Tesla products is, as best anyone can seem to figure out:

Mains --> Bridge(R) --> Bridge(I) --> Transformer --> Bridge (R) --> Battery

R indicates a rectifying brigde an I an inverting one. By changing gate timing each R can become an I and conversely and when this is done the direction of the arrow heads can change and the battery can supply the mains. This doesn't matter whether the circuit is single phase (4 switches per bridge) or 3 phase (6 per bridge) or an assembly of 3 single phase units.

There isn't going to be a 3ø inverter on the CT for the same reason there isn't going to be a 3ø charger and that is that no one, outside an industrial setting, has any 3ø loads or sources. Now mind you I wouldn't mind if the US went to 3ø residential wiring one bit. It would certainly hurt the parts of the service industry that make much of their living replacing starting/running capacitors in heat pumps and air conditioners but I think those guys would survive. Many house in Europe and elsewhere are wired for 3ø. Putting all that aside you don't want to run heavy equipment from your CT. It would drain the battery too fast.


Since you have used the terms "converter" I assume you mean that you are thinking about converting battery DC to AC. If you had any three phase loads you would need a 6 switch bridge. That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or _/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral? Thus it appears yoy would need 3 separate inverters clocked 120° apart.



It would have to be 245Y/141 if it is going to support V2H or V2G. Supposing it isn't and is wired for the more usual 208Y/120. What loads would you envision plugging into it?



The charging port will be for 240 V charging at 48A and for Supercharging.


What else would they use and why? The can use the SAE connector or come up with their own and the SAE connector is adequate for what they want to do. They have no need nor desire to charge from 3 ø power in this country. For the overseas market they can use the apporpiriate connector for the particular market.



I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. A SC station has to buy a 3ø transformer to get from local distribution voltage (15480Y/7200) down to the 480 the cabinets need. Are you suggesting that we ask the utility for 480 service, buy transformers to get to 208Y/120 as they do in office and apartment buildings and rewire our houses for?

I think this needs a little more thought.
>Thus it appears you would need 3 separate inverters clocked 120° apart.
Yes.

I understand that SuperCharger stations use powerful 480V transformers, but that's an entirely different animal and it is very expensive to commission. Most US industrial settings, warehouses, etc, have 3 phases, so it will be easy & cheap to install a 3 phase 'destination charger' -- like in Europe, at 32A you can get ~20kW. I really think that a single-phase 240VAC will not be fast enough for such large battery packs. I understand that US homes do not have 3ø configs (it sucks), but businesses / larger buildings often have this kind of setup.

If I may ask -- what can Cybertruck do in order to have superior AC charging capabilities as well as superior power delivery when compared with F150? Ford's 240V@80A seems a bit extreme, the only other choice would be 3 phase AC power, it can easily scale to 20-40kW. I simply don't see any other way. School busses, trucks, and other medium-duty electric vehicles can take advantage of SAE-J3068.
 


OP
OP

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
CT, and all the existing Tesla's already support charging from 480 3ø. What do we think is in the cabinets behind the fences at the SC stations? Tesla vehicles are also configured for 3ø charging in Europe. As the linked atricle in the OP says we can't do 3ø from 480/270 in the US because the phase to neutral voltage exceeds what the governing IEC standard for vehicle charging allows. J3068 proposes raising the allowable voltage and changing to the digital communiction interface required of higher voltage systems. So the transition to J3068 isn't going to happen soon. And if you had it where would you plug it in? BillyGee happens to pay service colls to places where 480 is common. How many of rest of us do? L2 charging is to allow people to charge at home. How many of us have 3ø in our houses?


The architecture of the charger in Tesla products is, as best anyone can seem to figure out:

Mains --> Bridge(R) --> Bridge(I) --> Transformer --> Bridge (R) --> Battery

R indicates a rectifying brigde an I an inverting one. By changing gate timing each R can become an I and conversely and when this is done the direction of the arrow heads can change and the battery can supply the mains. This doesn't matter whether the circuit is single phase (4 switches per bridge) or 3 phase (6 per bridge) or an assembly of 3 single phase units.

There isn't going to be a 3ø inverter on the CT for the same reason there isn't going to be a 3ø charger and that is that no one, outside an industrial setting, has any 3ø loads or sources. Now mind you I wouldn't mind if the US went to 3ø residential wiring one bit. It would certainly hurt the parts of the service industry that make much of their living replacing starting/running capacitors in heat pumps and air conditioners but I think those guys would survive. Many house in Europe and elsewhere are wired for 3ø. Putting all that aside you don't want to run heavy equipment from your CT. It would drain the battery too fast.


Since you have used the terms "converter" I assume you mean that you are thinking about converting battery DC to AC. If you had any three phase loads you would need a 6 switch bridge. That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or _/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral? Thus it appears yoy would need 3 separate inverters clocked 120° apart.



It would have to be 245Y/141 if it is going to support V2H or V2G. Supposing it isn't and is wired for the more usual 208Y/120. What loads would you envision plugging into it?



The charging port will be for 240 V charging at 48A and for Supercharging.


What else would they use and why? The can use the SAE connector or come up with their own and the SAE connector is adequate for what they want to do. They have no need nor desire to charge from 3 ø power in this country. For the overseas market they can use the apporpiriate connector for the particular market.



I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. A SC station has to buy a 3ø transformer to get from local distribution voltage (15480Y/7200) down to the 480 the cabinets need. Are you suggesting that we ask the utility for 480 service, buy transformers to get to 208Y/120 as they do in office and apartment buildings and rewire our houses for 3ø?

I think this needs a little more thought.
>That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or >_/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral?
Can you clarify? I am not familiar with 480V/US configs -- do they have a neutral or not? (I know 380V 3ø in EU is "Y" config. Thanks.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
3,213
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
I understand that SuperCharger stations use powerful 480V transformers, but that's an entirely different animal and it is very expensive to commission. Most US industrial settings, warehouses, etc, have 3 phases, so it will be easy & cheap to install a 3 phase 'destination charger'
Some businesses do install chargers for their fleet vehicles but these are DC fast chargers and they usually require 3ø power. There is no way to charge any recent Tesla vehicle (US maekert) faster than 11.2 kW from AC because the charger in the car is sized for that.

If I may ask -- what can Cybertruck do in order to have superior AC charging capabilities as well as superior power delivery when compared with F150? Ford's 240V@80A seems a bit extreme, the only other choice would be 3 phase AC power, it can easily scale to 20-40kW. I simply don't see any other way.
They could do what they used to do - install double or bigger chargers. Early S model Teslas were available with dual 40 A chargers. Later Model S and X came with modular chargers and 72A was possible. The Gen 2 HPWC could charge 72A and 80A. For whatever reason they stopped offering the faster charging options and changed to HPWC design accordingly the limit is now 48A. Clearly there are cost savings involved in doing this but I suspect keeping charging levels down for the sale of battery longevity may have had something to do with it.

In other words getting faster home charging is something that can and has been done with biphase power. There is no question about the fact that 3ø has its advantages but most of those are realized in terms of its efficiency in transmission, the fact that power is delivered continuously as apposed to in pulses and that motors don't need starting capacitors. None of these really apply to any great extent in battery charging (less ripple but do batteries care about ripple?).

I used to hope, in this regard, that Tesla would offer an optional second charging port for at least the TriMotor. You would have to pay to have the second port and charger installed removing Tesla's cost savings motivation and the fact that having twice the charging on twice the battery pack implies the same C rate removes the argument about treating the battery gently. I doubt they will do this.

School busses, trucks, and other medium-duty electric vehicles can take advantage of SAE-J3068.
But I don't think they do. I think their operators put the extra chargers outside the vehicle, in the form of depot fast DC chargers.
[/QUOTE]
>That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or >_/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral?
Can you clarify? I am not familiar with 480V/US configs -- do they have a neutral or not? (I know 380V 3ø in EU is "Y" config. Thanks.
I was rambling on about inverter configurations here with the thought being that if you used a single H bridge to produce three phase that you would need to derive a neutral if your application required it so that it might be best to implement 3 separate single phase inverters so that the neutral is simply derived by connecting one output from each to a common point.

As far as distribution to factories in the US I believe most transformers are configured ∆-Y and the utility will feed you whatever you want from the secondary. I think 480Y/277 is the most common for industry. For apartments and office buildings 208Y/120 is quite common as it closely mimics the 120/240 biphase system. IOW the neutral is earthed, normal outlets go between one of the legs and neutral and you HPWC connects across the legs. This is, of course, technically charging a US market Tesla from a 3ø system and is probably what apartment dwellers with charging capabilities do. It is also probably what you get when you destination charge at some place like the Coaticook Dairy (great ice cream - the free charging is an excuse to get the ice cream).
 
OP
OP

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
Some businesses do install chargers for their fleet vehicles but these are DC fast chargers and they usually require 3ø power. There is no way to charge any recent Tesla vehicle (US maekert) faster than 11.2 kW from AC because the charger in the car is sized for that.

They could do what they used to do - install double or bigger chargers. Early S model Teslas were available with dual 40 A chargers. Later Model S and X came with modular chargers and 72A was possible. The Gen 2 HPWC could charge 72A and 80A. For whatever reason they stopped offering the faster charging options and changed to HPWC design accordingly the limit is now 48A. Clearly there are cost savings involved in doing this but I suspect keeping charging levels down for the sale of battery longevity may have had something to do with it.

In other words getting faster home charging is something that can and has been done with biphase power. There is no question about the fact that 3ø has its advantages but most of those are realized in terms of its efficiency in transmission, the fact that power is delivered continuously as apposed to in pulses and that motors don't need starting capacitors. None of these really apply to any great extent in battery charging (less ripple but do batteries care about ripple?).

I used to hope, in this regard, that Tesla would offer an optional second charging port for at least the TriMotor. You would have to pay to have the second port and charger installed removing Tesla's cost savings motivation and the fact that having twice the charging on twice the battery pack implies the same C rate removes the argument about treating the battery gently. I doubt they will do this.

But I don't think they do. I think their operators put the extra chargers outside the vehicle, in the form of depot fast DC chargers.
I was rambling on about inverter configurations here with the thought being that if you used a single H bridge to produce three phase that you would need to derive a neutral if your application required it so that it might be best to implement 3 separate single phase inverters so that the neutral is simply derived by connecting one output from each to a common point.

As far as distribution to factories in the US I believe most transformers are configured ∆-Y and the utility will feed you whatever you want from the secondary. I think 480Y/277 is the most common for industry. For apartments and office buildings 208Y/120 is quite common as it closely mimics the 120/240 biphase system. IOW the neutral is earthed, normal outlets go between one of the legs and neutral and you HPWC connects across the legs. This is, of course, technically charging a US market Tesla from a 3ø system and is probably what apartment dwellers with charging capabilities do. It is also probably what you get when you destination charge at some place like the Coaticook Dairy (great ice cream - the free charging is an excuse to get the ice cream).
[/QUOTE]
 
OP
OP

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
Thank you for the clarification and detailed explanation.

My 2013 Model S was dual charger, never could take full advantage or higher current capability anywhere outside my home.

The rumors about V2G and serious AC power output makes me think that at least for the top-end Cybertruck a second multi-protocol charging/discharging port will be available. As you know, the standard Tesla connector cannot offer bi-directionality (due to fact that J1772 does not support bi-direction). So the logical next level is some sort of SAE-J3068, tri-phase, and bi-directional at the signaling level, yet downwards compatible.

Great chance that the tri-motor Cybertruck AC inverter will be similar to Model 3 EU (22KW) with more current and higher voltage capabilities to accommodate the 270V situations.

I somehow believe that Cybertruck will have duality in terms of connectors.

My dream configuration:

Cybertruck tri-motor: 3ø Y config (380V/480V), ~48A, bi-directional via truck bed SAE-J3068, + NEMA-10-50 + 110V AC sockets. US Tesla DC/AC charger will be standard, of course.

Cybertruck dual and signle motor: single ø. (240V), 48A, 240V and 110V sockets via truck bed NEMA-10-50 + AC sockets. US Tesla DC/AC charger will be standard, of course.

If V2G and V2V will ever become a reality, what do you think that standard connector will be to solve all these problems?
 

boomer45

New member
First Name
Charles
Joined
May 31, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Sayner, WI
Vehicles
Audi Q5 / Jeep
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Country flag
>That essentially confines you to ∆ connected loads. If you wanted to do Y for more current or >_/\ for biphase (V2H or V2G) where would you get neutral?
Can you clarify? I am not familiar with 480V/US configs -- do they have a neutral or not? (I know 380V 3ø in EU is "Y" config. Thanks.
I feel Tesla needs to release the final design of the Cybertruck ASAP. We are all making assumptions about the charging and V2H capabilities. Also the last description of the Cybertruck implies it will not fit in a standard single car garage. And if it will be parked outside a garage there is not any charger cable long enough to reach the Cybertruck charge port on the rear left side❓Also it will be very difficult to charge at Tesla chargers without backing into the stall (another reason RWS needs to be standard)❓It would be nice if the Cybertruck charge port had option to be in front right side of truck.
 


ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
3,213
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
My 2013 Model S was dual charger, never could take full advantage or higher current capability anywhere outside my home.
My first X had a 72A charger which I too never used other than at home but then I have only destination charged at the one place (the ice cream place) sine I have been driving Teslas.

When I put in solar the utility sent me a copy of the new tariff which indicated that I was subject to demand charges. Seventy-two amps is 17 kW and as I often charge for more than half an hour throwing in baseline utilization of 3 kW I could easily be subject to demand charges of over 20 kW which would increase my bill appreciably and negate the benefits of the solar system so I started charging at much lower rates around 30A. This worked out fine and is easier on the battery so I stayed with it even after I discovered that while the utility computes demand and lists it on my bill they don't charge me for it. The only time I increase the rate is if I want to "top off" prior to a road trip.

The rumors about V2G and serious AC power output makes me think that at least for the top-end Cybertruck a second multi-protocol charging/discharging port will be available.
Tesla has never been supportive of V2G or V2H - in fact the opposite but I think Elon's opposition may have softened recently. There is thus no motivation for them to make dramatic chages in their charging architecture.


As you know, the standard Tesla connector cannot offer bi-directionality (due to fact that J1772 does not support bi-direction). So the logical next level is some sort of SAE-J3068, tri-phase, and bi-directional at the signaling level, yet downwards compatible.
Tesla does not pretend to be J1772 compliant though one can charge their cars from a J1772 AC source. The connector is a glaring example of this. But there is no reason that the current connector cannot be used for a bidirectional system as the two power pins can be switched to connect to the battery directly as is done for fast DC charging.

Great chance that the tri-motor Cybertruck AC inverter will be similar to Model 3 EU (22KW) with more current and higher voltage capabilities to accommodate the 270V situations.
I think you mean charger rather than inverter. Of course CT exported to foreign markets that have 3ø power will have compatible chargers.


I somehow believe that Cybertruck will have duality in terms of connectors.
I hope you are right but I really doubt it will come to pass.

If V2G and V2V will ever become a reality, what do you think that standard connector will be to solve all these problems?
I'm pretty sure the standard is going to be the CCS connector. Your EVSE won't look any different than they do today. It is just that rather than a relay and some supervisory circuitry they will contain a bi-directional rectifier/inverter which transfers power from mains to battery or from battery to mains. IOW home charging becomes DC charging. I thought this was how Ford was doing it but evidently they still have rectifiers in the truck and the EVSE unit contains the inverter.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
3,213
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
I feel Tesla needs to release the final design of the Cybertruck ASAP. We are all making assumptions about the charging and V2H capabilities.
The wise man makes no assumptions about this except that it is unlikely that the CT will have V2H and extremely unlikely that it will have V2G.

Also the last description of the Cybertruck implies it will not fit in a standard single car garage.
The dimensions are available. It isn't going to get bigger but it might get a little smaller.

And if it will be parked outside a garage there is not any charger cable long enough to reach the Cybertruck charge port on the rear left side
Not so. The cab;es on the Tesla HPWC are plenty long enough if you place the HPWC correctly. CT isn't that much bigger than an X.


Also it will be very difficult to charge at Tesla chargers without backing into the stall (another reason RWS needs to be standard)
It's difficult to charge any of the current Teslas without backing into the stall as that's the way the stalls are designed at most chargers.

It would be nice if the Cybertruck charge port had option to be in front right side of truck.
Why would Tesla want to change the location of its charge port from what they have been using for years and around which they have built the SC network?

Now it would be nice if there were an option for a second charge port on the truck for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this thread.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

ituner-HF

Well-known member
First Name
Andrei
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
118
Reaction score
231
Location
Pleasanton, CA
Vehicles
S, X and 3, Waiting for Cybertruck
Country flag
My first X had a 72A charger which I too never used other than at home but then I have only destination charged at the one place (the ice cream place) sine I have been driving Teslas.

When I put in solar the utility sent me a copy of the new tariff which indicated that I was subject to demand charges. Seventy-two amps is 17 kW and as I often charge for more than half an hour throwing in baseline utilization of 3 kW I could easily be subject to demand charges of over 20 kW which would increase my bill appreciably and negate the benefits of the solar system so I started charging at much lower rates around 30A. This worked out fine and is easier on the battery so I stayed with it even after I discovered that while the utility computes demand and lists it on my bill they don't charge me for it. The only time I increase the rate is if I want to "top off" prior to a road trip.

Tesla has never been supportive of V2G or V2H - in fact the opposite but I think Elon's opposition may have softened recently. There is thus no motivation for them to make dramatic chages in their charging architecture.


Tesla does not pretend to be J1772 compliant though one can charge their cars from a J1772 AC source. The connector is a glaring example of this. But there is no reason that the current connector cannot be used for a bidirectional system as the two power pins can be switched to connect to the battery directly as is done for fast DC charging.

I think you mean charger rather than inverter. Of course CT exported to foreign markets that have 3ø power will have compatible chargers.


I hope you are right but I really doubt it will come to pass.


I'm pretty sure the standard is going to be the CCS connector. Your EVSE won't look any different than they do today. It is just that rather than a relay and some supervisory circuitry they will contain a bi-directional rectifier/inverter which transfers power from mains to battery or from battery to mains. IOW home charging becomes DC charging. I thought this was how Ford was doing it but evidently they still have rectifiers in the truck and the EVSE unit contains the inverter.
I keep confusing J1772 connector with J1772 signaling protocol. Tesla uses J1772 AC signaling protocol via a custom connector. J1772 signaling protocol does not support V2G, V2V, etc. SAE-J3068 is an evolution of J1772 signaling protocol, supports higher voltages and 3 phase and it is downwards compatible with J1772 signaling.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
3,213
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
The Tesla connector has 5 wires in it. Two are for the charging current, one is earth/gound/signalling common, the 4th is for proximity (make sure a vehicle is connected) and the fifth is to tell the vehicle via a simple pwm scheme how much power it can have. But the wand and the car communicate in other ways too. There is some sort of RF link by which a push of a button on the wand signals the car to open the charge port. Also the vehicle uniquely identifies itself to the terminal so that the mother ship can give the terminal permission to charge the car. I don't know if this is multiplexed onto one or the other or both of the signalling wires in the wand or sent over the RF link.

J3068 calls for more sophisticated (PCM) signalling because one of the applicable IEC standards requires that if the AC voltage is over 250V as it is in the typical US 3ø distribution.
 

BriggTrim

New member
First Name
Brigg
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Location
California, USA
Vehicles
Yamaha, Ford
Country flag
Hi...I utilize a Nema 14-50 and it meets code for electric vehicle charging.

I just got the most recent 5.8 fix and if the vehicle identifies inconsistencies in the force quality, for example, you would get in an overheat, it bargains back the current all alone.
Sponsored

 
 




Top