Tesla Cranks Superchargers Up Past 120 kW

FEB 9 2014 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 81

Tesla Superchargers Moving Past 120 kW

Tesla Superchargers Moving Past 120 kW

With not even a single mention from the automaker, Tesla Motors has quietly and almost secretively been cranking up the output at some Supercharger locations in the US.

The first hint of this occurring was a few weeks ago when we were alerted to some Model S owners charging at above 120 kW.

Since then, Tesla contractors have been seen replacing pedestals on some Superchargers to accommodate thicker wiring within.

Once again, during the epic Tesla coast-to-coast road rally, we saw a Model S charging above 120 kW.

Tesla says a software update is coming soon and it’s believed that this update will allow some (not all, as it seems to be dependent on which battery pack is within A, B or C – letters designate slight production alterations to the pack over time) of the Model S sedans in the US to charger at rates of up to 135 kW.

Further down the line, it’s believed that Tesla will go from 135 kW to 150 kW max, though the 135 kW rate will likely be tested for perhaps a couple of years before Tesla  moves to 150 kW.

Most EV advocates/owners/followers believe that 150 kW is the magic number for charging.  At that rate, EVs become so quick to “fuel” that a brief stop to use the restroom and to stretch for a few minutes puts enough charge into an EV that you’re again ready to roll.

Could it be that Tesla is almost at that magic number?  A number that some had previously figured would be at least a decade away?

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

81 Comments on "Tesla Cranks Superchargers Up Past 120 kW"

newest oldest most voted

I hope they don’t catch the damn batteries on fire like they did on the airplanes. Too fast charging, slow down everybody!

The lithium ion batteries in a 787 are of a different chemistry family, which means different characteristics for things like power input/output and flammability.

Cobalt baaaaad.

Yes, the chemistry wasn’t the best, plus they apparently packed the cells too tightly, and another part of the system pumped too much amperage in to the pack. I live in Seattle and hear a lot of ‘buzz’ about this.

Based on what even Boeing (Boeing is extremely cautious and tends to over-engineer) did with this pack, little old Tesla seemingly has done a great job with their packs. They already have quite a few copies out there, with good success, statistically. And, they will only get better.

To be honest, I originally thought that having thousands of individual cells in such a large pack was a bit crazy. But, look how robust and seemingly durable they have turned out to be, so far. It’s amazing how bold Elon, et al were in pushing this technology to work. And, thankfully so! This amazingly bold experiment called Tesla Motors isn’t going too badly, so far, I must say.

It’s exciting to see how it all unfolds, isn’t it?

Just wait until people can order non-brand battery replacement packs from Alibaba.com….then we will see some fires 😉

*just kidding*

You need to learn what charge rates are versus the entire pack. An 85kWh pack charged at 170 KW would be 2C charging. That is not that fast overall but does start to go into the area of reducing the lifespan of the battery. Since the MS 85 has an 8 year, unlimited miles warranty, this puts more risk on Tesla to support warranty claims in those out years.

It is a personal choice, really. Very few drivers need the high capacity rate. Many want it for when they need to go a long distance. We all want things we cannot or should not have, though. If battery life does degrade at high speed charging rates, the first one to pay will be Tesla in terms of warranty and the second is the car owner who must replace the battery pack when it is out of warranty.

I guess the idea is that you would only use these really high charge rates on the rare occasion that you do a long road trip, and the rest of your charges are from much slower/safer overnight charging in your garage.

In theory, by law of averages, you shouldn’t have a problem with your battery packs even with higher charging rates at Superchargers. I suppose if you charged at Superchargers every day you might have a reason to worry.

“Most EV advocates/owners/followers believe that 150 kW is the magic number for charging.”
Facts not in evidence 🙂
Most EV people don’t even know what 150kW is let alone have the awareness of the relevant aspects to formulate an opinion on which charge level we need. Let alone be right about it.

Most EV battery packs can’t handle anywhere near such a powerlevel but if it could, an 80% charge of a BMW i3 would take 7 minutes. A more typical 50% charge would take a bit over 4 minutes.
Which would be nice and ultimately where we need to go but so far the batteries can’t even handle that. Half that speed is also quite acceptable for now for the rare occasion we need it.

Gotta hand it to Tesla that they push the envelope. They don’t always know what they are doing but they motor on.

“They don’t always know what they are doing”…
Really?
Just kinda making it up on the fly you think?

It’s all just random coincidence they created the world’s most awesome EV, and global fast charging system. Must be Alien’s. 😉

And that Musk made a rocket that can go up and then land again on the launch pad. Lucky fluke… that guy is running out of luck soon 😛

You’re like girls at a bieber concert 🙂
Both the Roadster and Model S burn 100watt constantly when it’s turned off.
The roadster is so poorly done that if you leave it for 2 months it has destroyed its 40k$ battery pack.
I assure you, they don’t know what they are doing on many issues.

They ended up with a good design, they were smart enough to make it fast which costs nothing in an EV. but the rest is luck. They have been extremely lucky on the cost side. They lost 100k$ on each roadster and they are struggling to break even on Model S. If not for multiple bailouts they would have been dead more than once.

People want it to be all good or all bad. They can’t handle a mixture.

Oh, they still make the Roadster, Dan? You used the word ‘IS’ in “The roadster is so poorly done…” So, no engineering improvements along the way? That’s terrible!

“I assure you, they don’t know what they are doing on many issues.” Again, thanks for being here to ‘assure’ us. Tesla must be making one hell of a mistake with these cars. I mean, forget about the 5 star safety rating and the fact that there are “no serious injuries” that have ever occurred in a Tesla Model S. Whew, with “the rest is luck” summation of a professional analysis that you have given the situation here, it’s amazing that things haven’t ended in disaster! Wait, let me add three more….!!!

I have strung some of your key words together and used them in a sentence as efficiently as I could here for my amusement: The Tesla is CONSTANTLY POORLY DESTROYED and EXTREMELY DEAD and all for NOTHING. Lol. That didn’t sound much different than your normal phraseology.

Dan, where are you getting all this? Luck is when you win a lottery. If you create Roadster that’s immedietly compared to Boxter and Model S that’s compared to Panamera, that’s not luck, that’s perfect execution. A few things haven’t gone ideally, but it is so few that it doesn’t even make a dent on Tesla ability to create perfection from scratch. This is completely unheard of in the industry, but I guess it’s only natural to expect from a man who wants to set up colonies on Mars. By the way, when you say multiple bailouts, what were those? All I know that Tesla got a loan as part of the “Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program” (signed by George W. Bush by the way) where the whole fund was $25 billion and Tesla got less than 2% of that, and repaid it 9 years early. And yes, it’s always a mixture, never all good and never all bad, in Tesla’s case, it’s surprising allmost all good

Boris, I have been following this since 2006 and I have a memory longer than 14 days unlike most people. I am often surprised at how right I am like when I say people can’t handle a mix of good and bad. I’m a little concerned that I’m overstating a point but then you say something completely naive like ” that’s not luck, that’s perfect execution”. What has been done is magnificent in its audacity but it’s very effing far from perfect execution. 2.1ton eco car is very far from perfect. Losing 100k$ on each roadster is very far from perfect. Losing 2 lawsuits because Elon is self righteous is far from perfect. 100watt idle burn is unbelievably far from perfect. As for the bailouts, in 2008 when they were about to launch the roadster they had spent too much money (because Elon never bothers with cost considerations and Martin Eberhard didn’t enough either) and they were about to die. Merc invested 50mill to keep them afloat. During launch of Model S they had burned enormous sums including the loan and even though mass production had commenced they were still losing big on each car, never mind paying back the… Read more »

Hey you are late for your show in FOX

Fox doesn’t talk about Aliens?!?! Don’t paint all those crazy statements as belonging to the Fox News crowd 🙂

“They planned to make Model S a 50k$ car. Instead it’s a 100k$ car. That’s the average sale price.”

I love it when someone takes the most expensive TRIM and compares to a lower price/model.

I’m not hating on you Dan. I actually agree with you. all the stars aligned for Tesla.

Let’s see if the magic follows through with Model X.

” 100watt idle burn is unbelievably far from perfect.
An old issue (water pump left on for battery cooling), that was fixed a long time ago. And nowhere near 100W.

” they lost big on the roadster. A couple of hundred million actually.”

How much of that “lost” money was actually spent on Model S R&D???

Yes, I will acknowledge that Tesla has not made much money, and in fact is only in the last 2 quarters made profit on the Model S (but still not paid back all the R&D). But, hey, this is a very tough market, and Tesla and done demonstrably better than any new entrant into the auto market in the last 50 years. Not perfect? Yes. Not profitable when all start-up costs are included, agreed. But on a path to success for sure!

A major part of Elon’s strategy, is not to make a profit, but accelerate the company growth as much as possible by re-investing, such as installing Supercharger stations all over US and Europe.

What is that rambling about Elon’s Mars project? Elon doesn’t have to stop because some extra Alien encounter story come along, there have been for years. The more, if we were on the other side, like, for instance, encountering Christophus Columbus somehow, does that mean he would have to stop his voyage?
If it would be that there are Aliens out there right around the corner(not somewhere in the universe since, by now, we about know it is very likely there are some indeed), then it would be even more urgent to spread to other planets to be, even a ditch, less vulnerable by not remaining solely on our lone rock.

Wow Steve T. you are a little girl.

@Dan Frederiksen: A few quick points: 1) Tesla made changes after the first 500 Roadsters and no batteries have bricked in the subsequent 2000 Roadsters. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it is much more difficult now. However, I think there is as much fault on the owner’s side in those cases as Tesla’s. 2) Some of the ‘losses’ you ascribe to Roadster were really costs related to future programs like Model S. 3) Tesla has made vast improvements in vampire drain as you well know. No doubt they will improve further, but the reality is it is pretty minor at this point especially when you consider the offset against not burning gasoline. 4) I don’t think everything has been perfect, but execution has been extremely solid and if they hadn’t executed as they have, they wouldn’t have been able to raise the $1B in the secondary offering. 5) You could order the car at $50k for the 40 kWh battery and no options. Only 4% ordered this battery size, so it is hard to blame Tesla for discontinuing it given they are selling every higher margin vehicle they can make at the moment. No one is forcing people to… Read more »

Dan, as far as the Roadster goes, sorry, you’re wrong on 2 points as I’ve repeatedly told you. The loss was reduced on a later software change, but you should know that if you read any responses to the post.

The second point is Musk had little to do with the Roadster. Its a Martin Eberhard / plus the 3 dead engineers ( may they RIP) ‘s endeavor mainly.

As far as the Model S’s parasitic losses, the information is getting harder to come across, since the only one who even tried calculating it was David Noland (he now claims in good weather, the loss is 1200 miles per year, as long as your 12 volt aux battery is good). I’ve used Tesla’s own charts for my info re: the NYT test drive, but seeing as the charts were a bit damning, I’ve not seen any new charts lately. But that’s ancient history. It would be nice to get hard and fast info. Maybe from TeslaMotorsClub.

“They don’t always know what they are doing”

Yeah, I guess they just slapped some batteries and electronics together with tape and glue and………… “motor on!”

Sure glad you are here to enlighten us, Dan. Where would Tesla, and us for that matter, be without you? Lol. 😛

Now, about those rockets…..

Yeah, the ones that can come back to Earth, hover and land anyplace on the planet. Must be Aliens! 😉

And at 150kWh, an i3 will still be a city car, along with every other EV besides tesla.

At 150 kWh the i3 will be able to drive a lot further than the Tesla. But it would be very heavy (today).

Maybe you meant 150 kW which is something totally different….

I am generally “happy” with my 3.3 KW charge rate of the Volt. Maybe in the year 2050 when oil is $300/barrel and gasoline $11/gallon, the EVs of that time will require fast charging. But today, 6.6KW would be 20 miles per hour and for a suburbanite who isn’t driving across country anytime soon, it is just fine. Give me a Volt with 80 mile AER and 6.6 KW and I will be fine until the year 2050.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

3.3kW is inadequate. It will not supply enough power for worst-case preconditioning: subfreezing weather with heater and defrosting AC on at full blast with rear defroster going at the same time will use at least 5kW (as measured by me at a stoplight on my 2013’s dash), which means that if you precondition you will still be using battery even if you’re connected to the wall.

Plus, public charging. Volts should be able to get the best possible charge out of the briefest possible time, for maximum EV mileage.

6.6kW is really the minimum, 10kW would be even better. And yes, my CS-60 can do 10kW quite easily.

electric-car-insider.com

+1

I’m always surprised when I see his posts that Dan hasn’t been banned here yet, like he’s been banned from so many other green car websites. This chronic troll and loud homophobic nut suffers from obvious mental problems, not the least of which is his ranting about aliens.

It is just a matter of time before insideev’s realizes that they will eventually have to ban him just like all the other green car websites he’s been banned from. It is really just a matter of how much damage insideev’s is willing to let him do before finally making the choice that all the other boards all eventually are forced to make.

150kW works well because it will be able to charge the battery from 0-50% very quickly. At those low states of charge you can fill the battery really fast. Which is fine especially as you look towards the future and bigger batteries – 50% of a 325 mile battery is more than enough to get you to the next supercharger ~150 miles away at 75+ mph.

Once you get above that 50% level charging has to slow down.

In that case it is a wise thing to have a bigger battery. This will mean more miles quicker since 50% of say a 100kwh battery will be more than 50% of the current 85kwh. I agree that it is marginal but the idea is good!

yes, this is the main error why other car companies failed with EV. They did not introduce very long range electric vehicles. The very long range electric vehicles has indeed ability for very high rate of charging. And this would be the key selling point for electric vehicles.

If e.g. Mercedes had made 600 mile S class EV with powerful AWD, this could be charged at 200–300 kW for the first 50 % and therefore this would be Mercedes’ best selling S Class car ever.

Now Tesla is selling these cars as Tesla has hinted that there will be Model S with larger battery pack. And naturally it enables cranking up the charge speed.

To get the EV adoption going, we need cheaper cars. That means, less than 50 kWh on-board (make two cars with the same batteries you would use in one “high capacity car”). Thus, 120KW charging of a 50kWh car is well over 2C charge rates. This may impact the viability of the Model E when it comes out unless they invent double-capacity batteries by then which do not have lifespan detriment of 2C charging for thousands of charges. So far, Li-Ion batteries of this formula do not exist. You can fast-charge A123 cells thousands of times at well over 2C but the energy density is poor per kg compared to the Panasonic and LG-Chem batteries out there now.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Presumably the active thermal management of Tesla batteries can keep them in their “happy” zone for a good amount of their quick charge time, especially if they’re already there coming off of a stretch of highway that’s let them warm up.

BTW, for folks who think 85kWh is enough, this is another reason why 125kW would be so much better: 250kW charging!

Incidentally, I wonder how practical it would be to have multiple wiring that can physically switch battery assemblies from ‘drive’ mode (with a lower voltage but more capacity by wiring subassemblies serially) and a ‘charge’ mode (which has a much higher voltage by physically changing their wiring layout).

Actually, the charge rate does not appreciably slow down, at least in Tesla’s, until 80%. There was a graph published relatively recently, stating that 20 minutes at the 120kW supercharger for a 85kWh Model S drained to “0” takes it up to 80%, and another 20 minutes would take it to “full”. I say “0” because I think it was not including the small remainder emergency charge that the software normally doesn’t let you use.

Either 50% or 80% will remain a sticking point which requires EV owners to have much longer range of batteries than they would otherwise need, or science will solve the problem some other way.

Just because charging past 50% causes the charge rate to slow in our current battery packs, doesn’t mean this will always be a problem in all batteries forever. This can be seen in some of the scientific work on batteries with C-rates so high that this would no longer matter.

Well actually since the Model S should have a 125 KWh battery instead of a 85 KWh battery to be able to have a Prius like range of 400 miles, if you want to charge that in 4 minutes, you would need to have a 1875 KW charger. That is almost 2 MW, so if we can get 150 KW, it is certainly not to much but rather only an extra little step toward that 2 MW goal. One must not forget the broader picture where at a certain moment you inevitable reach the chemical limit of chemical batteries and therefore capacitors ultimately, even if that is nowhere now,will take over and when that happen super fast charging will be natural for that kind of device. Fast forward to 2166 we will have an electric Falcon 99 with an electric arc-jet rocket energized by a super capacitor that will land back after a flight to take a GW charging session before taking another team to Earth orbit With this in mind we need to start looking at what is required instead of looking at what we can do. Looking at what you can do will never make you think at… Read more »

The problem with 2MW is 1) can your batteries accept that high of a rate of charge (likely not, we’d have to get to supercapacitors first) and 2) how do you setup the cabling to carry 2MW of energy into a battery. You’d need 5 or 6 parallel DC 4# gauge wiring. Very expensive and not flexible.

The high power supply through a flexible cable is only a makeshift solution, we will have to pass through secured contacts on the ground under the car at one time or another. When large fixed contacts can connect under the car, 2 MW won’t be a problem, if, as you say, the batteries or super capacitors can follow.
By the way, an automatic, under the car, contact system (actually plates upon a small bump) will also provide an efficient park and forget system with no need to manipulate anything.

2MW charging rate would cause a $480,000 demand charge per year in Southern California Edision territory.
\\
So almost half a million fine for 1 car charging. $2million almost for 4 cars simultaneously charging.

Send the bill to Prius man.

You can use a flywheel to buffer the power. Beacon is producing them but also others, so that has a solution as well.

Well lets see, lets say 4 cars charging at a 2mw rate – thats 8,000,000 watts for 10 minutes? Then the next cars jump on to also fill up? And we’re doing this throughout a 16 hour work day? So thats 960 minutes * 60 seconds / minute * 8000000 or 460,800,000,000 Joules, which is the amount of translational energy required to get you through daytime rates = 1/2 mv squared. So assuming this flywheel is a hollow cylinder with a surface velocity of 360 kilometers/hour (100 m/s), the mass would have to be 92,160,000 kilograms. Thats a rather stout cylinder.

I don’t think they’ve built 2 bearings that can withstand this amount of weight required for this amount of energy storage yet.

And yeah, I have worked on flywheel generator systems… They’re kinda frightening things, You kinda hope a bearing isn’t going to seize and have your flywheel burst through the wall of your factory attacking the town like Godzilla.

Just checked your Beacon reference, their supposed model (vacuum tipped, since the thing is spinning at Mach 2) stores 25 kwh. You realize how many of these things you’ll need to avoid a Demand Fine? Even if you could get ’em at Wallmart you couldn’t afford it.

Humm, round trip efficiency of 85 percent.. That’s pretty good actually. But still, you’d need 4 big flywheel units for each Tesla S that charged during the day. That’s alot of units.

Wait a minute, the flywheel is there in case you need big power from time to time on a low power line. If you talk about a situation of an intense non stop 24/7 high power loading station then the prices you mention will be more then worth it considering the nomber of cars involved.
If that is not the case then a few flywheels will do the job of handling a fast fill up once or two per hour. As an alternative you can still use batteries or capacitors as a power buffer but flywheels are more appropriate for that particular job.

This is all well and good Priusmaniac, but Tesla doesn’t have much energy storage of any kind at most supercharger stations at a measly 120 kw per car. You are talking about 2000 kw per car, (and no one has explained how precisely you’re going to Successfully do that in the first place).

So if Tesla feels its uneconomic to do this most of the time at 120 kw, excuse me if I don’t see why they should do it when the problem is around 20 times harder. And its much more than 20 times harder in the real world.

A 4000 amp feeder is much more than 20 times the price of a 200 amp one. Much more.

The Prius is a great city car, compared to normal ICEs, but you would have to be a masochist to take a 400 mile trip in one. My body hurts just thinking about that.

2 MW charging power will generate more than 300–500 kW waste heat. The higher is the charging rate the more there is waste heat generated. How much do you expect that adequate cooling system of battery would weight. You cannot go around the laws of thermodynamics.

We are talking charging. Finding the battery or the capacitor that can handle 2 MW is yet another matter that hasn’t been solved yet, but you can’t stop the charging thinking just because the battery isn’t there yet. We have to think forward and not wait until the case occurs.

If the battery was ‘there’, there would be absolutely no need for public charging stations, supercharged or other wise in the first place.

Supercharging stations are notoriously ‘Grid Hating’, and only work in Tesla’s business model since so few people use them currently.

Tesla’s business model will fail if the typical customer costs them more than $2000.

The encouragement should be for people to charge slowly at home using either realistically sized solar cells or windmills, or after midnight using the existing household facilities, which in this way, are very grid friendly.

There is no real “need” to have 125kWh on board a sedan. Maybe large delivery truck or other service vehicle. 125kWh is 400 miles or more of range. The cost and chemistry of today’s Li-Ion cells do not work for this formula. Now, some day, lower-cost and higher capacity cells may appear which could lead to 125kWh on board. But then why not 200 kWh on board? When does the appetite end? For consumer vehicles and most city/suburb situations, EVs with 50-80 kWh should easily be enough. If battery swapping is real down the road, then swap-in a travel battery of higher charge capability and then swap-out at the end of your trip.

How are people driving their Volts, Focus EV, Fit EV, Spark EV and Leafs now with well under 30 kWh on board? Apparently, high capacity isn’t “needed”.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Supercharging every (50% of average range) miles should be Good Enough. If the average range goes down, the # of Supercharging sites along a route needs to rise. A fleet of Teslas with an average range of 180 miles should have Superchargers every 90 miles along highway routes. If/as that range goes down, the # of SCs needs to go up.

Doubling charge rate with a 125 kWh pack could be as simple as plugging into 2 150 KW chargers at the same time.

We already know that the 60 kWh version of the Model S can charge at the same rate as the 85 kWh battery pack. So a 125 kWh battery would probably have no problem handling two chargers being plugged in at the same time, running at 300 KW.

Are you really comparing TESLA’s range to a Prius?

Sad…

Fail…

Yes, why not?

You can’t charge your prius for a daily drive at home, so unless you buy a phv and travel only on very long or short trips, for most owners will spend less time at a charging station than a prius will spend at a gas station. I think that is a better metric, time at driving/charging stations per year.

Certainly BEVs are not for everyone, but for those with long trips phevs seem like a great way to subsititute electricity for oil.

If you care a lot about ghg as well with your plug-in, more than tailpipe emissions or using less oil, you can also purchase solar or wind in many places for charging, and the superchargers are all solar.

Yeah, why is Priusmaniac stopping at the lowly range of a Prius? How about a Falcon 9 range as a comparison. Feed 5 GW of power via a 16 inch conductor into the Tesla for 1.5 million miles of range.

I mean, come on, let’s get realistic….. a Prius just doesn’t cut it for range compared to a Falcon 9. 😛

I stopped at a classic car, not an F150, but a Prius.
Note that the Falcon 9 is a pure thermal fossil based vehicle, it is not even hybrid and certainly not an EV. Actually it should be better if it was using Hydrogen insted of RP-1 so at least there could be a possibility to produce the fuel from renewable electricity.
This said Elon is simply buying into the market and already envision Methane as fuel for the next one. Methane can in theory be made from renewable hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This has the extra advantage of being producable on Mars just in case. That said it would be interesting to at least have the pumps electric on a Falcon 9.

A 16 inch conductor would not be needed since that kind of GW power level would better be passed using superconductors and, by the way, the storage itself could perhaps be a smes. How it will be in the end is anybody’s guess but electric rockets are a very interesting perspective.

Comment of the year!! Great job. Next volt drivers will be saying they are driving an EV.

Yeah, I am have burned 4.5 gallons of gas in 5 months….for 832 current MPG. Yeah……you are right, my Volt isn’t an EV. Couldn’t possibly be. No, YOU get the comment of the year award!

Zealot much, Mark?

Cheers!

p.s. for everyone else [that thinks] around here (95%)……I have turned off an old refrigerator, and my new electric bills are $5 higher now than before I bought the Volt. Not bad, huh? 🙂

Er, Steve… Hate to break it to you, but outside GM-land, EVs don’t use gas.
You might be thinking of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid

Ever hear of something called the “Eighty-Twenty Rule”. 80% there is a pretty good start and is more mainstream than $100k cars.

EVs don’t use gas, that is true.
But they do use electricity which has to be generated.

Just because the generator is on-board instead of in a building sowhere does not mean the volt is not an ev.

It is only not a pure ev because it is possible to drive the wheels with a non-electric motor.

Re-read your first sentence. QED.

The Volt is an EV for 38 miles. Then a gas generator kicks in.

It’s a lot like how a Leaf is an EV for 76 miles, then you take your backup ICE car. It’s like that, except with one car instead of two.

See how it works now?

Except that with the three-clutch system, the Volt’s ICE can directly drive the wheels. A little different. The closer parallel is the i3’s ICE — it is exclusively a generator and has no direct connection to the drivetrain.

So let’s make it not be able to drive the wheels indirectly through the electric motor. What does that buy you? Less efficiency? So you can’t claim it’s “not a true EV?”

That’s kind of pointless and silly, don’t you think?

I’m with Mr. Cote (for once 😉 ).

Once the Volt goes into charge-sustaining mode, it is burning gas anyway. If our goal is to burn as little as possible, why WOULDN’T we want to make it as efficient as possible?

Until the Volt hits CS mode, it does not kick on the generator.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

So petition GM to have a config option to not allow the engine to clutch into the wheels, in order to have less efficiency but satisfy silly snobs.

In the meantime, rational Volt owners prefer GM get as much efficiency out of Voltec as possible in every operational mode. When there’s SOFCs, linear motors, turboshafts, or other gensets that operate more efficiently than traditional motors when run at a constant rate, then serial range extension makes sense.

Exactly. Removing this capability to calm people like Aaron would be penny-wise pound-foolish.

It’s a bit cynical for people to call out the Volt for doing something that innovatively increases efficiency.

I SO hope the Gen3 can use the Superchargers!

Elon have already said that gen3 will be able to use supercharger.
http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-confirms-free-supercharging-for-tesla-gen-3-model-e/

Without increasing the battery capacity further, the increasing in charging rate is diminishing return….

For a 85KWh, 0-70% can be at the max rate or 60KWh.
100KW: 36 mins
120KW: 30 mins
150KW: 24 mins.

That is only assuming it is empty to 70%. If it is NOT, then the extra rate has even less effect on the total amount of charges up to 70%…

“Most EV advocates/owners/followers believe that 150 kW is the magic number for charging”

I think the magical number is actually ~250kW. That’s the fastest charge rate demonstrated for a car (a couple of years ago using a Aerovironment charger, a Phoenix Motorcars Vehicle, and Altairnano batteries) and also what SAE has planned for the next generation of DC charging.

At that point, for the Model S you can add about 120 miles of range in just ten minutes, so the utility of the car is so close to gasoline that it can work as a complete replacement (even for city drivers without a home charger).

Hmmm, lost in all this noise is a lack of understanding of superchargers. The actual superchargers are stacks of 10KW chargers. Each stack is shared between 2 charging stations. This is much more efficient use of the resource because of the ramp down curve that Tesla charging follows. While one car is ramping down, the other car on the shared charger stack is ramping up. Thus, bumping an SC up to 150KW simply means that 2 cars charge faster in aggregate.

I do not believe the 122KW figure indicates above 120KW charging. There is battery pack heating and other draws in the car. Also, 120KW is a marketing number, the actual engineering numbers are likely different. So, this may simply be much ado about nothing.

Think they are already at that magic number, any faster and its just icing on the Tesla cake.

Who came up with this magic 150KW number anyway?

Well, I said years ago I thought the practical charging limit for a car was 150 kw, but I didn’t think you’d get anywhere close to it because I couldn’t figure out a business plan to pay the electric bill.

Tesla has at least to date, found a business model that is currently work for them. No guarantees for the future, but at the moment, its working.