Why is the charging curve so bad?

[84Apollo3]

I was curious if someone can explain why the charging curve is so bad. Is it simply the size of the pack, a different battery chemistry than what’s on other Teslas, or something else? Do we have confirmation that these early FS trucks are not getting 4680’s?

Thanks

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

I was curious if someone can explain why the charging curve is so bad. Is it simply the size of the pack, a different battery chemistry than what’s on other Teslas, or something else? Do we have confirmation that these early FS trucks are not getting 4680’s?

Thanks

The CT charge curve is similar to other Teslas.

There is no plan to develop a CT without 4680 cells and a structural pack.

 

[84Apollo3]

The CT charge curve is similar to other Teslas.

There is no plan to develop a CT without 4680 cells and a structural pack.

Ok, for some reason I had a different impression from other posts on the forum. People are talking about long charging times due to the charging curve and others saying future Cybertrucks would get the 4680’s which will devalue the FS trucks. Maybe they were just talking about a different chemistry in future 4680’s?

 

[CyberGus]

Ok, for some reason I had a different impression from other posts on the forum. People are talking about long charging times due to the charging curve and others saying future Cybertrucks would get the 4680’s which will devalue the FS trucks. Maybe they were just talking about a different chemistry in future 4680’s?

Right, the current 4680 is the 2.0 version. They are still tweaking chemistries and properties.

 

[TickTock]

Just a theory, but it may be harder to get the heat out of the larger cells. They don't want to cook the middle. Not sure I really believe this, though. Kinda something obvious that they would have simulated the crap out of.

 

[CyberGus]

Just a theory, but it may be harder to get the heat out of the larger cells. They don't want to cook the middle. Not sure I really believe this, though. Kinda something obvious that they would have simulated the crap out of.

 

[electricAK]

With the 4680 model Y, the charging curve was also less than expected. I thought we had evidence Tesla was software-limiting the charge rate, and it would likely improve over time as they got more data on how the packs were performing. Did that ever play out?

Something similar might be happening with CT. A cautious rollout, and improvement over time.

 

[Woodrick]

I was curious if someone can explain why the charging curve is so bad. Is it simply the size of the pack, a different battery chemistry than what’s on other Teslas, or something else? Do we have confirmation that these early FS trucks are not getting 4680’s?

Thanks

Take a look at the charging curve for your Model 3 and compare it to the Cybertruck. They look very similar.

There's a simple fact that the Cybertruck uses about 30% more energy than your Model 3 and to get the same range, the battery has to be bigger.

And bigger batteries mean longer charging.

And how bad is really dependent on which bad YouTube video that you watch. They are all over the place with uninformed analysis.

Yes, it does appear that the charging numbers may be a little low. I suspect that the Tesla engineers will be doing a little more analysis and lets give them a little time.

But the biggest gain will be with 800V charging, which none of the Superchargers currently support, only CCS chargers. And the current Tesla doesn't fit nor does it support 800V, so are waiting patiently for it's release.

 

[84Apollo3]

Got it. Thanks for your reply!

 

[Cybergirl]

For me, personally, I'm fine with the increase in charging time to 80% for the Cybertruck. The only time I use Superchargers is on long road trips. Charging my Model Y at a V3 Supercharger hardly allows time to grab a bite to eat and empty my bladder. I also like to stretch my legs and even catch a wink or two before continuing a trip. I typically stop every 150 miles. I look forward to it. I can drive 900 to 1000 miles in a day traveling this way, cutting out a hotel/motel stop or two. The trick is to shed those old ICEV notions and driving habits to become a 100% Tesla owner/driver. It takes awhile to do that. Some people never can. If you don't think you can, I suggest staying with the ICE.

 

[cvalue13]

With the 4680 model Y, the charging curve was also less than expected. I thought we had evidence Tesla was software-limiting the charge rate, and it would likely improve over time as they got more data on how the packs were performing. Did that ever play out?

Something similar might be happening with CT. A cautious rollout, and improvement over time.

A relevant bit of the plot arch with the Model Y 4680:

Before release, people took Tesla’s prior commentary on the 4680 advantages to mean the customer-facing benefits would be at the charging and range level.

Upon release into the wild, it became clear the 4680s were instead at the manufacturing cost level - and so the customer-facing benefits were, in theory, similar charging and range for less money.


Then MY 4680s were made in very limited numbers, and months ago paused or scrapped altogether.


Here with the CT, there may be some similar themes going on, in terms of the real advantages of the 4680 “cyber cell” at a vehicle level.

End of the day, bigger batteries take longer to charge; when they’re in a bigger vehicle, they take longer to charge but not at the result of proportionately longer range (compared to eg a larger battery in a similarly-sized sedan).

Nothing for free, only trade-offs.

The good news/bad news is they were pushing 4680 physical performance right up to release - there would’ve been a *lower* kWh pack if the CT had released just a month earlier.

The parallel is that now after release, they’ll keep pushing 4680 physical performance, and at some point future packs are likely to be incrementally “better” at both the cost and range levels.

 

[Gigahorse]

I was curious if someone can explain why the charging curve is so bad. Is it simply the size of the pack, a different battery chemistry than what’s on other Teslas, or something else? Do we have confirmation that these early FS trucks are not getting 4680’s?

Thanks

The curve is not great, and the battery pack is bigger due to the CT being a bigger vehicle.
If you are only driving around town and charging at home no big deal.
If you are towing or doing a road trip you need to be ok with a 1-2 (v2-v3) hour charge time, that will hopefully shrink by 10-20% with software and 4680 improvements.

The slow charging of the CT is not the end of the world, but a far cry away from the "zip in and charge for 10 minutes before you drive another 150 miles" numbers that were being thrown out.

It is not that bad but it is not better than the other Teslas that have been on the road for several years now which is disappointing to some.

 

[Woodrick]

The curve is not great, and the battery pack is bigger due to the CT being a bigger vehicle.
If you are only driving around town and charging at home no big deal.
If you are towing or doing a road trip you need to be ok with a 1-2 (v2-v3) hour charge time, that will hopefully shrink by 10-20% with software and 4680 improvements.

The slow charging of the CT is not the end of the world, but a far cry away from the "zip in and charge for 10 minutes before you drive another 150 miles" numbers that were being thrown out.

It is not that bad but it is not better than the other Teslas that have been on the road for several years now which is disappointing to some.

But I am expecting on a very low battery, over 10mi/min charging rates to begin with .

 

[PilotPete]

But I am expecting on a very low battery, over 10mi/min charging rates to begin with .

I get that, but with all the variables in that equation, I think it is better to look at the power coming in. What I mean is, miles/min is not only the power, but it assumes a fixed kW/mile that may, or may not fit your intended usage. I am looking to see how long it can charge at 200kwh+, and then 175kwh+, then... until you hit your target.

Sponsored