Tesla CEO Elon Musk: “Increasing Capacity at Existing Supercharger Locations Now Has Top Priority”

Tesla Superchargers


Rocklin Supercharger - Image Credit: Robert Huston

Rocklin Supercharger – Image Credit: Robert Huston

Not long ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk addressed a problem concerning people “parking” for long periods of time at Superchargers. Now, owners will be assessed an idle fee if they stay at a Supercharger for a length of time after charging is complete. Next, Tesla will place top priority on expanding current Supercharger stations to further curtail the issue.

Some of the largest stations have as many as 20 stalls currently

Some of the largest stations have as many as 20 stalls currently

While it’s not a problem in many locations (and Tesla has also addressed this, changing the idle fee to void if the station isn’t busy), some stations are overcrowded and it’s only going to increase as time moves forward. Though Tesla has promoted its diligence in expanding the network itself, this is the first that we have heard of the company putting more focus on expanding the current stations.

Stations were initially built with an average of four to six stalls, however less busy areas may have two to four stall stations. Busier stations are now generally constructed with six to eight stalls. Some even have twelve to twenty stalls, especially in prime European destinations and California, among a few other areas.

Another of Tesla’s priorities, related to Superchargers, is to increase the speed at which its vehicles can charge. This will also help to solve the overcrowding concerns. Shorter charging times lead directly to less waiting.

Elon Musk has yet to elaborate on the “new” average number of stalls per station. He also hasn’t said how many stalls Tesla is likely to add in each update. This makes sense, though, since as noted above there are a wide variety of station sizes at this point. It only makes sense that we can be confident that with Tesla’s vast amount of data, the company is well aware of exactly which stations are an issue, and how many additional stalls it will take to “fix” the problem.

Part of the project will be adding multiple stalls to the busiest of stations, but often times these stations are in congested areas and space may be nearly maxed out. Adding a few stalls to some smaller neighboring stations, that have the space to spare, will also provide relief.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

147 Comments on "Tesla CEO Elon Musk: “Increasing Capacity at Existing Supercharger Locations Now Has Top Priority”"

newest oldest most voted
Another industrial point of view

I would not be surprised to see Tesla raising fresh capital by issue of new shares soon based on the need (among other things) to increase supercharger network capacity and service centers network.
so vote.
1) increase of share capital before March 31st
2) after March 31st
3) no share capital increase needed in 2017.

Because they have enough funds now to add 3 to 4 more stalls per busy locations and heavy congestion won’t be till after the Model ≡ has been delivered for 8 months after first rollout.


Because SolarCity is sucking up hoards of Tesla’s cash on hand. Tesla recently sold the future cash flow from Solar City leases in exchange for a getting a discounted lump sum payment now.

If that’s true, then that looks like a smart move on Tesla’s part. For a growth company like Tesla, money now is worth a lot more than money later. Probably better in the long run to do that than to have to borrow more money to support SolarCity’s debt.

So thanks for the good news, Sven! 🙂

Chargers have been a smart move for Tesla, energy for the high end models and customer satisfaction all the way around.

As Tesla continues to grow, so does the consternation of its detractors. Bunch of losers. Sad!

Another industrial point of view

Me 1 as well. I do not see how Tesla could pull enough cash on bank credit lines to finance both the Model 3 capex and capacity increase of both SC and service centers. Also it is better to raise cash before a delay on M3 is announced.

Just look at financial disclosures, how cash flow is changing, it tells whole story. Charger network isn’t the biggest money pit, although it also requires investment.

Cost to build Superchargers, as I understand it, is about $50,000 for two stalls. That’s small potatoes compared to the amount of money Tesla needs to raise to ramp up to building ~400,000 Model ≡’s per year, not to mention building out Gigafactory 1.

Tesla may well issue more stock to raise funds over the next 2-4 years, but it’s very unlikely that the need to build more Superchargers will be a significant factor in that.


Tesla needs to raise right after the final reveal of Model 3, closer to production. Need to have built cars with GF cells and rolled in the previously unannounced Model 3 features to S and X (HUD noteably). I originally figured right after FY2016 announcement, but is looks more like after 17Q1 now.

2 – late in the year, if Model 3 is looking good, raising funds will be easier.

One big help in reducing anxiety would be if Tesla could push to the center display (or our devices) the information that used to be on the display at Tesla Hawthorne. The display confirms that Tesla knows about everything happening at its SCs. The SCs-in-use details could help driver decide when/how/if to stop for a charge. (See link) I have only had to wait a couple of times in about 150 SC stops, but I agree it is time to boost the number of stations.


If I had the resources, I’d pop up an In-Out burger and Starbucks next to the locations with the most stalls.

Has there ever been a study/survey of Tesla owners to find out what percentage of times Supercharging Tesla owners eat/shop at the business hosting the Supercharger in its parking lot, as opposed to walking to nearby businesses to eat/shop?

You know, that is a good point. These spots have a lot of wealthy people sitting around for 30+ minutes waiting on a charge. It would be smart to capitalize on that.

Of course, in the future it will be the other way around. Much like gas stations, businesses will want to build these to bring in traffic so that they can sell you other stuff.

A cheap burger joint? For Tesla drivers? How about a jewelry store or high-end electronics store?

Okay, an expensive trendy burger joint then. 😉

Or as most people call them, a “restaurant”.

They could still be relatively cheap. Just call them organic, non-GMO hand-crafted burgers and charge twice as much as you think you should.

You mean Amy’s organic all veggie drive thru?

Only if it has a 3-star Michelin rating. 😀

Another industrial point of view

Yes but balanced diet sort of burger shop then, I don’t know about the US but here in Europe people who can afford a Tesla will most of the time be people that won’t eat trash food.

Sadly you can’t pop up your own In-N-Out franchise. If you could have many of us would be multi multi millionaires 😀

new superchargers with higher output will cook the battery

Ever notice how often we get first-time Tesla-bashing FUD posters whenever Tesla’s stock price is on a sustained upward trajectory?

What a coincidence! You’d almost think they were TSLA short-sellers. 🙄

Not that I often check the stock price myself, since I’m not an investor, but a comment from Nix a day or two ago prompted me to look.

Imagine that. Another post from Pushmi-Pullyu with the words tesla bashing and fud. And how original you must be to also talk about shorts.

Pushmi-Pullyu is very insightful. He just calls them as he sees them.


Thank you for this fantastic information!!! You may have spared future Tesla owners from using Superchargers without knowing it would burn their car down. It’s awesome that you are so much smarter than the thousands of engineers at Tesla.

You are an absolute Godsend. I’m going to sell all my TSLA stock immediately and force Tesla to buy back my faulty cars.

Would you please testifying on my behalf at the future trials concerning these events? I will need an expert witness for the suit we will start on behalf of the entire Tesla class.

I just can’t get over what a rare gem we have found in you, Tim, for warning us of the inevitable that we are too dumb to see.

Thanks again, you brilliant man,





Bravo. Very well done sarcasm, Tony! 😀

Don’t be so hard on Tim. He is likely a newbie. Tim doesn’t know that Tesla cars and superchargers monitor temperature and charging in real time so they can’t “cook” the battery by accident.

(Note: If Tim bothered to spend 15 minutes searching, he would know this. But many people believe they are instant EV experts because they watched one lame show full of errors on mainstream media. As Rush Limbaugh says, low-information people, don’t realize they are low information. ;-).

Tim for the Win!!!

Keep bringing us the New News! Seems like all sorts of stuff is making the headlines recently! Thanks for the more in-depth reporting, with your substantiated fact checking, it is greatly appreciated. Wowzer!!!

I suppose Tesla has overlooked that possibility, but….really?!

Anybody who has engineering experience with such chargers, what is EM having in mind if he calls 350kW a toy? What are they targeting? Is it going to be safe? Could you still wait in the car while the car is charging without the risk of being electrocuted if something goes a bit wrong?

He has in mind that he isn’t going to let CharIn alliance pass over and he is not going cooperate. The target is bragging rights for most powerful charger in the walled garden, not cooperation and open charging network.

Voltage may be increased to some 800-1000 V but it isn’t really so huge safety issue. 1000 V arc air gap may be 1 inch in the worst possible case with safety margin, so you will be safe as you are not close to naked live wires and live wires are not under water, which is not likely. The plug would not have high voltage until plugged in and charging levels are negotiated.

The issue may be “rapid unscheduled disassembly” after thermal runaway. I would suppose they would need new battery chemistry (i.e. NMC) or improvements in existing NCA chemistry to deal with it. But temperature can monitored, so it should not go Samsung Note way hopefully :/

Certainly current cars would not get it, as they can’t even utilize current chargers in full. Except maybe P100D may get some marginal improvement, but otherwise it should be for the future.

+1 Newer 2170 cells, or for that matter wider distribution of larger packs, mean higher charge rates. If you’re Musk, you want commitment from competitors for your bogie, and then the hardware on the road that can set how much you’ll beat it by. Much of the current fleet is already topped out. Sig 85’s=90KW, 75’s=85kw, later 85’s 115KW. I don’t know how close to 135KW the 90’s get.

“Sig 85’s=90KW, 75’s=85kw, later 85’s 115KW”

The early “A” 85 kWh batteries are limited to 90 kW charging power, but all other cars can charge faster. I’ve gotten up to 124 kW in my S85:

More recently things tend to top out between 116 kW and 118 kW, but I assume that has more to do with how the newer supercharger stacks split power between stalls than limitations of the battery. The newer 90 kWh and 100 KWh packs don’t charge at higher power than my S85- they just hold on to peak power for longer: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p100d-supercharging-rate.77310/#post-1730047

I also remember seeing a screenshot of a 70D or 75D charging at 113 kW (with 371A of current!) but I can’t seem to find the thread at the moment

I have had the Supercharger bounce around 369… 370 A, but it’s pretty obvious that the limit is about 365, because that’s where I’ll stay for a fair amount of time.

I found the link for the 70D charging power: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/supercharging-the-70d.46332/page-3

Looks like it was actually 116 kW. This is same max power I usually see so I assume this has more to do with limitations of the supercharger rather than limitations of the battery.

I know that “Oba” guy with two the 70D. Here is his post:

My car is three weeks old with over 3000 miles (5000 km):

Min – Rated Miles – Volts – Amps – kW – Calculated@ 287 Wh/mile

0 ——- 7 ——— 282 — 0 ——- 0 ————- 0 —-
1 ——- 9 ——— 310 — 367 — 113.7kW —— 396mph
2 —— 21 ——— 316 — 360 — 113.7kW —— 396mph
7 —— 49 ——— 322 — 335 — 108.8kW —— 379mph
10 —– 65 ——— 324 — 305 — 98.8kW ——- 344mph
15 —– 92 ——— 327 — 254 — 83.0kW ——- 289mph
20 —- 113 ——— 331 — 216 — 71.5kW ——- 249mph

I got bored and quit here.

I believe it. My numbers were from 2, a 75 and 85 at the same charger, several tries each. Thee may be a difference between best, and average 😉

“Not a safety issue”. It wouldn’t bother me if the Supercharger expansion at least included the LEGALLY REQUIRED DISCONNECTING MEANS, as far more humbler, smaller (think 25 kw) fast charging stations are required to have. Somehow Tesla has avoided this due to being ‘special’, but once they become more mainstream they are going to have to tolerate the National Electrical Code just the same as any homeowner has to. (Any ‘charging apparatus’ must have a Disconnecting Means shutting off all power to the charging stall if the power to the charging stall is over 150 volts to ground (earth) or the current is more than 60 amperes. If there is no reference to ground then the limitation is 150 volts between conductors, or less. Since the Tesla stall works at over 300 volta and over 300 amps, it isn’t even close to ‘sneaking under’ the mandatory requirements). I’d expect when Mr. Musk is talking about supercharger expansion, he is talking about increasing the number of charger bays and charging stalls, since that would be the easiest most straightforward expansion as it would not require modification to any of the cars, or the Supercharger Bays’ design in the Corral itself.

The National Electric Code is up to 600V. Tesla is in uncharted territory and will face the NEC when someone gets killed.

Goodness, are the Tesla stock shorters having a short squeeze? Certainly a lot of Tesla bashing going on here!

Reality check: In the USA, but not elsewhere, any electrical service over 600 volts is termed “high voltage”, and of course electrical engineers learned how to safely engineer such systems more than a century ago.

“Uncharted territory”? Really, JyBicycleOrTesla? Going for the “concern troll” of the year award, there? 🙄

When Bill used to be just an old grumpy guy that bitched about Tesla, he just seemed a little off his rocker.

But, now that I know he voted for Trump, the angry old white guy makes perfect sense. I’m still amazed that he ever bought a Tesla Roadster and not some real ‘Murikin car like a GM Volt or Cadillac plug-in.

You do have to wonder if the disconnect issue is something he really gives a darn about (since he mentions it so many times), or if he really thinks he’s affecting the price of the stock?

As all questions like this, the logical answer is usually the one that is the lowest common denominator and the simplest. In this case, I think angry old white man with a keyboard and bored out of his skull probably is the answer.

No, I honestly don’t think Bill is a stock shorter. He’s posted his belief in various conspiracy theories, including the “chemtrails” one. He’s one of the tinfoil hat crowd. I suspect that unlike FUDsters, Bill actually believes the B.S. he posts.

But his claim here that Superchargers are built without circuit breakers… I think that’s a new low even for Bill.

He’s talking about an emergency shutoff switch numbnuts, but you wouldn’t know anything about it since you don’t own an EV and have never charged one.

Hehe, Thanks for the defense Sven – the basic answer here is that we are indeed dealing with children – adults can discuss an issue they may initially disagree with. I’m sure Mr. Cole sees this too, Only a few people know me here personally, but I’m not the slightest bit frustrated because well, for one, you meet all kinds of people you have to deal with. But Mr. Williams specifically, since he runs a business and advertises here, has shown an amazing side – the proximate cause of which was my friend ClarksonCote. Ill leave it at that.. But incidentally, Adults would want to check the law before hurling silly comments: every one who makes them will have egg on their face, not that it matters , especially to even them. NFPA #70 Article 625.1 Electric Vehicle Charging systems – Scope: “This article covers the electrical conductors and equipment external to an electric vehicle that connect an electric vehicle to a supply of electricity by ..(various).. means and the installations of equipment and devices related to electric vehicle charging…” Part III. Electric Vehicle Charging Systems – Installation The NFPA #70 2017, (within Part III) article 625.43 titled “Disconnecting Means”… Read more »

The recently talked about vanalism, of a SC on TMC, went specifically over how the vandal knew to switch off the quick dissconnect, before stealing parts. Sorry, no links. Maybe sime dont have them?


I can see there was some confusion as to my statement: I never said there were no ‘circuit breakers’ or ‘Disconnects’ anywhere.

I said there is not a “readily accessible disconnect” which is what the Law requires.

Breaking into a locked Corral and forcing open Locked switchgear containing the main disconnect is not something to be expected of a SuperCharger user who starts seeing an out-of-the-ordinary problem, and needs the unit to shut it down immediately.

Oh and by the way, one of the unadvertised advantages of Square D I-Line products is that the breaker may be racked in or out when “LIVE”.

Off-the-record, square d representatives will admit this is main reason why people purchase their higher priced products, even though there are all kinds of warning labels on them *NOT* to do this.

Also, do not confuse the CB’s here with the plug in crap you buy at the local home center. Two different animals.

What is your point, Bill? If you are nitpicking code compliance then notify the local building department of your concern and they can get Tesla to remedy the situation if they they are not in compliance.

If we assume you are correct, I don’t know why you think this is some huge big deal. People violate codes and then remedy the situation all the time.


“People violate codes all the time”.

Well, I claim your supposition is inaccurate, but a new Sheraton Hotel tried to do just that in a small town east of here (they tried to avoid sprinklering the place), but in the end they had to run totally exposed sprinkler lines throughout the whole joint, and Widen 2 staircases (yes that cost double what it would have to build it that way to begin with),

but you are welcome to try building something and ignore the operative codes.

Tell me how you made out.

You bought your home, right? I presume you got an inspection of it done, right? I would bet that there were several code violations mentioned in the inspection report. There almost always are.

Calm down. If you are correct, then contact the local building department. Maybe Tesla got a waiver or variance? Building codes are often not the most rigid laws.


Have Sven explain it to you.

In my locale I have to be 100% compliant otherwise I’m not given a “Certificate of Occupancy” for my house.

I would prefer to discuss this issue only with level-headed people – since you seem to constantly want to cause trouble whereas I only want to calmly talk about issues.

There is a very small amount of complexity here that people have to try to learn about if they are to fully understand the issue, but there is no room for clowns.

Do you insult all professional people you run across?

Probably not if you don’t want them to either refuse to do a service, or charge extra because you are too difficult to work for.

Or maybe you just constantly insult Inspectors of various stripes – all being the legal “Authority having Jurisdiction”.

Tony/Bill: I admit to enjoy reading both of your posts. Usually they are well thought out, and even if I disagree I understand the presented points of view. My take of Bill’s issue with the safety shut off is that(apparently, and I take his word on it)this is a _mandated_ requirement and Tesla has been able so far to avoid it. Tony’s point seems to be(and I don’t want to speak for him)that the requirement in Tesla’s SC case would not make a difference and would not help someone if they actually got zapped. Both points have merit, not sure why it degenerated into a tit for tat exchange. In regards to the Tesla explosion and fire, I suspect that the 2 people killed died as a result of the impact. Doesn’t lessen the loss of 2 lives, but I don’t(yet)see where the Tesla had any cause in their deaths. Maybe later investigation by the coroner established the exact cause of death, but it would surprise me if it was from fire. Unfortunately, way too many cars catch fire after hard impacts, I think it goes with driving into trees. Bill may or may not be wearing a tin foil… Read more »
Yeah, I’ve never attacked Tony – except when he said I made a ‘silly comment’, or need to take ‘my meds’. My question would be: do all Adults in California talk this way to other adults? We don’t talk that way around here – especially to someone who has always been friendly to them in the past. Tony’s physical description of me is totally inaccurate. Business must be hitting a low point for him – that’s the only thing I can think of that explains his demeanor. I just responded how can he say that when there were several totally off-the-wall comments Tony had made that defy reality. Or that he’s guessing at times. I can see why Tony hates Volts.. He doesn’t sell many as many products to the Volt customers since the Volt is more ‘self-contained’. ALthough I would have thought he would sell a Jesla or two. The one product that was intimated to be an aftermarket product by GM itself in 2010-2011 was an aftermarket 10 kw charger for the car, since the GM rep said the battery and refrigeration system could ‘take it’. I know of no one who has bothered to bring out a… Read more »

Oh, Lou, you might want to watch all 3 newscasts (just start the first one and you’ll get all of them – if you use a modern browser such as firefox).

It was an educational, illuminating video.

Anyone from the general public who sees that, who is not aware of the arcane differences between models and brands, will probably swear off all electric vehicles as just hopelessly too dangerous.

It is very instructive and I’m glad SVEN matter-of-factly mentioned it.

In Germany and i guess in many other countries DC >60volts is high voltage (orange cables in evs). Pushmi your time spent here rambling of potential tesla shorters is not healthy any more. You need a break.

Yeah Ben –

That’s the thing:

Imagine you are in a room, trying to calmly bring up a point (that can be easily solved), and (if you’ve been reading all the comments from the beginning) – certain guys rush in and say:

Pushi (Lensman-his old name) “TINFOIL HAT !! TIN FOIL HAT !!!

Then Tony Williams runs in: “PILLS!!! PILLS!! MEDICATION! MEDICATION!

Not to be outdone, jawdroppingly
Speculawer comes in, screaming:

“MELTDOWN!!! M E L T D O W N ! ! ! ! AWK!!!!

(In just talking to people on a day to day basis, you very rarely run into clowns or children) that’s why you rarely have to categorize people that way…. But, no shortage here, apparently).

Point taken that it does detract from the discussion since there is all this requisite time-out one has to perform doing Kindergarten Functions.

Somebody actually already has been killed a Supercharger.

You’re too late with your scary tale.

Yes, an electrician was killed installing new equipment at a Supercharger location.

There are procedures for safely handling high current and high voltage systems. Electricians who don’t follow those safety procedures risk injury or death.

As far as danger to customers, there was one incident where something shorted out while charging, and the Tesla car’s battery pack overheated and caught fire. If I recall correctly, it was later determined that something shorted out in the Supercharger equipment, not in the car.

Of course, as with every one of the few battery fires in Tesla cars, it was slow to start, and if there was anyone in the car, he or she had plenty of time to exit safely. Unlike gasmobile fires, I fear it would not make a very exciting scene in an action film. 😉

Pu-Pu said:
“Of course, as with every one of the few battery fires in Tesla cars, it was slow to start, and if there was anyone in the car, he or she had plenty of time to exit safely.”

That’s BS. The guy in the Indianapolis crash burned to death in his Tesla. The witness in the video said: “It hit that tree and it bounced around and all of a sudden it just exploded.”


That was sobering, shocking information Sven.

No way could anyone have survived that crash.

People at this point say the people would have been too old to survive.

Really? 27 and 44? From the photos they seem to have been in relatively decent shape also.

And why does Mr. Williams pick on Volt and ELR owners (the world’s safest cars ever) – when his favorite car does this? Uh, children…..

I’ve said for years the EXPLOSION risk about the “S” is the scariest part of the car – this video, while not showing the explosion, did indicate the aftermath.

I had no idea until this ILLUMINATING video that people in OTHER CARS were also seriously at risk.

Uh, yeah, that is why the NEC requires a disconnecting Means’ in addition to the ‘charge connector’ for the larger charging facilities.

In some you tube videos I’m sure you have probably watched, the Electrician doing the installation installs a “Readily Accessible Disconnect” even though the NEC does not require it for the smaller charging facilities.

This is perfectly permissible, as the NEC deals with MINIMUM requirements to keep an installation safe.

The electrician in this case provided ADDED safety.

The Superchargers MUST be built according to the electrical code. No such thing as ok just because it is more than 600V. What on earth makes you think these superchargers don’t have a disconnect (circuit breaker)??

Yeah, Bill Howland has his tinfoil hat wedged on his head a bit too firmly again. Well hey, at least he’s not spouting one of his favorite conspiracy theories today.

I really feel sorry for you. You have no clue to the extent of the SPOTLIGHT you are shining on yourself.

If you are not here just to waste time, you might ask a pertinent question to educate yourself.

Most adults don’t like to make themselves look silly and incompetent. You just must not realize what you are doing.

Step 1). Drop the adversarial comments. You could learn much more than you know now.

Every Chademo or CCS or combo charger I have seen has a “Readily accessible Diconnect” at the input to the charger (and even on the larger EVSE L2 devices in the US).

I have seen none of them at the supercharger near me, and I have seen NONE in the plenty of photos of Superchargers.

There is a disconnect in the switchgear, inside the corral, but the law requires a ‘readily accessible’ one. I gave the legal definition of it earlier.

Bill, just looking at photographs isn’t sufficient to conduct a valid inspection, you know that. I went to my local Supercharger station and I was easily able to locate the shutoff switch under an unlocked access flap. Everything was just fine. I detailed this in a response to your original post, which you can read below. But to be clear, this requirement was added for the previous revision before this 2017 version you are citing, and AFTER Tesla had already built out a significant number of Superchargers. So if you are looking at pictures of any of the original Superchargers, you likely will not see the shutoff, because those Superchargers were built prior to this code change. You (and anybody else) can confirm when section 625.43 was added to 625 for yourself by going to this website and comparing prior versions of the code. It is free to access by creating a free account. You just have to put up with the snail mails and emails they will send you for years after you sign up: http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=70&tab=editions Tesla won’t be required to update those early superchargers to comply with that code change until they have to pull a permit again… Read more »
Hehe. This is EXACTLY why I’ve characterized you unflatteringly in the past after receiving some insult from you. A little knowledge is dangerous. You are DEFINITELY Totally mistaken on one point. You almost certainly are, on the next one. Point one: From the 1999 NFPA #70 Article 625-23. “Disconnecting Means. For electric vehicle supply equipment rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accesssible location. The disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position.” (In 18 years they changed the paragraphs around – doesn’t matter where they actually put the text, it still has the force of law). So, yes ALL SUPERCHARGERS INSTALLED PRIOR TO 1999 (all zero of them) are grandfathered, however everyone ever built in existence in the UNITED STATES is out-of-compliance. 2). Take a picture of whatever you are calling a disconnecting means. If it is a button under a flap – that may be a remote control cutout, but it is not a DISCONNECTING MEANS such as a huge circuit breaker enclosure, or a huge KNIFE (Safety) Switch, which the code requires; even though this – whatever… Read more »

You might want to consult with an expert on the NEC before you start hurling accusations of Slander –
Hopefully after proving you are a dim bulb and don’t know how to read simple regulations that you would not use such pointed language.

Why do like to put such a spotlight on yourself claiming you are SO INTELLIGENT when you can’t even get the simplest of facts correct?

You and several others here like to be the “Grand Arbiter Of the Universe” when it comes to the way people should think, what comments they should make, who can and cannot post a comment here, etc.

A third person seeing a superdope pass judgement I’m sure is a knee-slapper to them.


I thought you could be rational, but clearly you cannot.

No, you can’t go back to 1999 regs, because those are different from the regs in effect from 2011-2014 when the first superchargers were installed. When you go to those regs, they are again DIFFERENT than the 2017 regs you quoted.

You can’t simply jump around higgly-piggly and wildly grab from whatever date.

And if you to to the 2011 regs, it clearly states that the “Disconnecting Means” is described as:

“Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER used as the disconnecting means”

No, there in no requirement in the 2011 regs for a 3 foot shutoff. A simple “Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER” is all that is need to be used as a disconnecting means

NOW SHUT THE HELL UP with your slander you fool!!!

What part of “Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER used as the disconnecting means” do you not understand????

I would further discuss this with you, but I get paid for baby-sitting.

Provide a picture of what you are talking about.

Or can anyone else describe in further detail what NIX stated? He’s too juvenile to attempt any further correspondence.

What exactly do you need a picture of? Do you not know what a “switch or circuit breaker” looks like?

If you don’t know what the box looks like, we’ve had pictures of it here in the insideev’s archives for the last 3 years.


If you can’t find the shutoff, you should stay away from outlets. Hint: It is the grey box right in the freakin’ middle of the picture, behind the white charger. It will ALWAYS be located by the actual charger stack (big white box in the middle) where all the real business happens. That is the the part that needs to be powered off, not just the shiny charger.

Another picture from insideev’s archives. Shutoff will be on the grey box on the right.


Another picture. Again, grey box, lift flap in the middle and flip breaker/switch

Grey box

Shutoff is NOT on the chargers themselves as you idiotically suggested, not having any understanding at all that the shutoff is NOT just for the shiny white holder for the charging cable, it shuts down the ENTIRE system, including the actual charger stack.

In this diagram, the shutoff is on the “Power distribution center”:

Power Distribution Center:

Bill, Get a PHOTOGRAPH of a supposed code violation if you want to claim Tesla has violated the law!!!

3 foot blades are NOT required. No, the shutoffs are NOT on the shiny white part of the station. Your blunders have lead you beyond regular trolling, where you might say something you don’t like about Tesla.

You’ve now crossed the line into making unsubstantiated and false libelous accusations of Tesla breaking the law. That isn’t the same as simply whining, it is illegal.

Cease and Desist your illegal defamation immediately unless you can provide EVIDENCE of actual violations of the law. You claiming you don’t see the shutoffs in pictures is NOT evidence of violations of the law.

Either provide photos of violations, or immediately cease and desist you campaign of defamation.

Haha, yeah those Superchargers (the ones in the grainy photograph with the Grey disconnects, have disconnecting means.

But those are the ‘portable’ models.

I’m talking about the permanent supercharger installations.

Yup just got out my Schneider Electric catalog to find the dimensions of that disconnecting means in the picture. 50.25 inches high. Although circuit breaker model is a bit shorter in the other picture.

Bill, If you want to continue to claim that Tesla is violating the law, do the following: 1) Using the diagram I posted, goto whatever Supercharger you think is violating code, and find what is labeled the “Power Distribution Center” and find the shutoff “switch or circuit breaker”. Don’t look at pictures of the shiny cable holders and get distracted. That’s not where they are located. 2) If you find what you think is a violation, PHOTOGRAPH IT AND POST IT!!!!!!!! 3) Do your damn homework BEFORE you make a libelous defamation, and find out what version of the code was required by the local code authority for that specific site AT THE TIME OF DESIGN APPROVAL!!! For this you need to know the following information: A) Who the local code authority is. B) The dates they adopted specific versions of the code. Changes are NOT automatically adopted by every authority just because they have been published. C) Any local variances that the local code authority allows. D) The version of code that applies is the code that was in effect when the design was approved. Not when it was built. You need to pull the approvals for whatever location… Read more »

Don’t confuse circuit breakers with safety switches. Though safety switches can have breakers in them, or fuses, many are also non-fused.

Safety switches are used to remove power from a “field” device. It’s so work can be done locally, and power locked out. If you just rely on a disconnect that is out of sight, someone could turn it on while you are working.

Here’s a sample picture of one similar to what we use a lot of at my work.


Seems like they could put a lockable kill switch here, somewhere. Lot’s of flavors to choose from.

So you are saying that Tesla violated the NEC? If so, perhaps you should notify some local building departments and have them contact Tesla.

But I don’t understand your larger point. Do you think it is not possible for Tesla to comply with aspects of the code? I don’t see the point of this being a big deal. If they are not properly complying then they should be informed and they can remedy the issue. But if you think it is impossible for them to comply please explain why it would be impossible to comply.

People seem to have a great deal of trouble with READING COMPREHENSION.

It is not a big deal to do, it is the LAW. I just requested Tesla, in their next SC, or refurbishment to comply with it.

Kdawg: the code requires a disconnecting means. Either a safety switch or a circuit breaker that is ‘readily accessible’ in a Nema 3R enclosure, will be adequate.

They could comply with the requirement by taking down the stockade fence in front of the supercharger bay, and unlocking the switchgear sections, and PLAINLY MARKING WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS to the car charging public.

It is up to the AHJ whether it must be ‘within sight’ – that usually implies under 50 feet away per NFPA’s 2017 definitions.

Trouble with reading comprehension? It appears I was 100% right. You were having a massive meltdown over a possible code violation.

I just thought there might be something more because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I guess you just think it is normal to throw a fit over a code issue. Please don’t ever run for an HOA board.

See my other comment. I’m not worried about it personally, no. But in general I would like SC installations to meet minimum legal standards of safety before something bad happens.

The indiana dual deaths were not good publicity, so Tesla doesn’t need any more of that kind of thing.

“Massive Meltdown”? If that is what you call an adult discussion, and me merely quoting what the law is, I’d prefer to have this discussion only with adults.

This actually sounded like a legitimate issue, so I stopped by my local Supercharger and checked. Right on the High Voltage box feeding the Supercharger was a conspicuously unlocked cover. Under that cover was an emergency “Disconnecting Means” that was “readily available” in a perfectly valid place for “for operations, renewal, or inspections”. It isn’t located on the charger stand itself, it is located on the box marked High Voltage, and de-powers the entire circuit, not just the charger itself. So everything was just fine at my local chargers, and entirely up to code. But Bill wouldn’t have actually known any of this from just photographs, so that is likely the source of this misunderstanding. ———————– It is also important to understand that section 625.43 was new for the previous revision of this code. Prior to that, when Tesla was first building Superchargers, this was NOT part of code requirements. Just like your home was built to code standards when it was constructed, and you don’t have to rebuild your home each time codes change, Tesla is NOT automatically required to retrofit stations built to code BEFORE 625.43 was added to the code in the previous revision. So even if… Read more »

Uh, Chief –

provide a clear photograph of what you are describing. Unless it is 3 feet high or larger it is not a disconnecting means as per the NEC. See my previous comment.

And as you will learn, this is not some ‘spur of the moment’ requirement.

Bill, if you would like to confirm for yourself, please visit a Supercharger station constructed AFTER 625.43 was added to this section of code, and after the revised code was adopted by that local licensing authority.

Because in the 2011 version of the code clearly describes “Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER used as the disconnecting means”

Stop quoting 2017 regs, and pretending that they apply to 2011-2014 construction that states “Switch or CIRCUIT BREAKER used as the disconnecting means”.

thank you for the response. I thought that for 1kV the arc gap could be larger.

At 1 kV you need a gap of about 1 mm or less to initiate a spark. Then with enough power you could increase the resulting arc length to prob a bit over an inch before it breaks.

But you are nowhere near jumping a 1″ gap

Now when Tesla starts charging with a 50 kV Tesla coil then you need to be careful about arcs.

As stated above its all about battery chemistry and proper precautions. Elon would not have said such a thing if they haven’t already done testing at much higher rates (probably with the new 2170 batteries).

Safety is a relative thing. How safe are you when gallons of gas are being pumped into the car? If we were all comfortable with electric charging and someone suggested gasoline would be better, we would all be panicking about the extreme explosive nature of gasoline!

“If we were all comfortable with electric charging and someone suggested gasoline would be better, we would all be panicking about the extreme explosive nature of gasoline!”

Exactly what I was thinking. It’s amazing how often in movies there is a fire at a gas station, followed by an enormous explosion and deaths. However, I suspect that potential danger rarely passes through the minds of people pumping gas into their cars!

It’s a matter of engineering for safety. We’ve engineered gas stations to be pretty safe, despite constantly dispensing highly volatile fuel on a daily basis. EV chargers are of course likewise engineered for safety, whether or not they’re high voltage systems. That’s true now and will be in the future.

Any reports of anybody being electrocuted by a public EV fast-charger? No, I don’t think so. Engineering of electrical equipment for safety is a problem which has been very thoroughly solved!

“x” said: “Anybody who has engineering experience with such chargers, what is EM having in mind if he calls 350kW a toy?” He was clearly kidding, since 350 kW is far higher than what current Superchargers use. “What are they targeting?” Tesla spokesmen have more than once said they’d like to get fast charging (“superfast” charging?) down to 5-to-10 minutes. Using some “napkin math” here, if Tesla Superchargers charge at an average rate of 90 kWh, and they give (optimally) 150 miles of range in a 30 minute charge, then 300 miles in 10 minutes would require (90 x 6 =) 540 kW. But that’s only for the average rate of charge. At the upper end, older Superchargers charge at — if I recall — 120 kW, which would suggest the superfast Supercharger would need to handle up to (120 x 6 =) 720 kW. And if you want a 5 minute charge, double that, which would put charging into Megawatt territory. “Is it going to be safe? Could you still wait in the car while the car is charging without the risk of being electrocuted if something goes a bit wrong?” Is this a serious concern, or just more… Read more »

My guess is that the future Tesla Ubercharger will be 750 kW to 1MW, primarily for large trucks with 300 to 800 kWh batteries.

A complete gas is 500 A times 1500 to 2000 V DC so that humans can handle the plug.

Or perhaps a robotic plug that is 1000 or more amps.

They probably won’t put a disconnect switch on it which might make somebody upset. Believe me, if you get zapped by 2000 V while pumping mega amps, you won’t be reaching for any disconnect switch!!! You’ll be a piece of bacon, well-done.

I don’t see large EV trucks typically charging at chargers designed to handle passenger cars. I see chargers for heavy EV trucks being serviced at EV truck stops, which just like current truck stops, will be laid out to handle larger vehicles.

Proterra has a mechanized — I guess you could call it robotic — EV bus charger that reportedly runs at 500 kW. The charger is on an arm which extends out over the top of the bus. That’s the sort of thing I envision for future EV heavy trucks, and probably running at 1 MW or more.

Future superfast chargers for cars may well up the voltage quite a bit to keep the size of the charging cables manageable by the average person. Certainly installing a robotic charging arm at every superfast charger would make them appreciably more expensive, altho common sense says that necessity would inspire development of a simplified design which wouldn’t cost more than a few hundred dollars per charge point. Still, for superfast Superchargers, that would require two robotic charging arms per Supercharger.

Here is an example of an electric ferry taking 150 kWh worth of charge in 10 minutes, in a maritime open-water environment.


It has been running fine since 2015, charging a few dozen times a day with no incidents.

The technology absolutely exists for safe ultra high speed charging. 1 MW charging for trucks is certainly possible. That’s essentially what they are doing with this ferry.

Won’t make me upset. Its just called ‘Code Enforcement’.

You go first…
No, you go first.
You go first….
No, you go first.

Back and forth between engineers.

Well apparently I try to explain the rationale for things to mostly loud mouths with deaf ears (not you Kevin).

Perhaps its better just to show something is compliant or non-compliant with the law, and let others worry about why.

This is why BMW, Nissan, Chevy (and upcoming future players) are destined to fail in the BEV market if the CCS/CHAdeMO status remains as it is.

There is rapid expansion of stations – yes but each station continues to only have up to 2 bays.

Doesn’t matter if my BEV has 200mi or 400mi range. I will never plan a road trip if it depends on very limited charger availability.

Saw a recent report showing a new CCS station with > 2 bays. Hope that is the new trend. The other trend of expanding stations with 24kW outlets is just plain useless.

Go read the article. Look at the picture. The largest ones have 20 bays. And these are probably the ones to be expanded.

“The other trend of expanding stations with 24kW outlets is just plain useless.”

What trend is that?

Everyone I know has a portable EVSE (24A or 16A @240VAC) with adapters and a 50’+ extension in their trunk for “destination charging”…..lol

Wise way to travel ~just in case~.
I’m sure many on here do also.

There have been public DC fast charging stations with two units per site for years. Almost every eVgo site has at least two.

There is an eVgo site in Fremon, Californiat that has four and a ChargePoint site in Redwood City or San Mateo that has four also.

Just as a reminder, neither CHAdeMO nor CCS is a network. They are protocols for charging that are installed by networks. The network companies are not usually auto manufactures (except in the case of at least Tesla). There have been a lot paid for by Nissan, and some by BMW and VW.

GM has publicly announced they won’t put in any. Obviously, neither has virtually all the other auto manufacturers.

I agree that most EVgo stations seem to have two DC chargers. But the ones I’m most familiar with (Corte Madera, San Rafael northgate mall, Novato, Petaluma, Atwater) tend to have one ABB CCS/CHAdeMO charger and one Nissan CHAdeMO charger. This kind of sucked when we needed to charge my wife’s BMW i3 because we had to wait numerous times for the single CCS charger. But it was great when we were in my Model S at the Atwater station because the ABB CCS/CHAdeMO unit was broken and we were able to use the Nissan branded CHAdeMO charger via the Tesla adapter.

I found the link for the 70D charging power: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/supercharging-the-70d.46332/page-3

Looks like it was actually 116 kW. This is same max power I usually see so I assume this has more to do with limitations of the supercharger rather than limitations of the battery.

That was supposed to be a reply to pjwood1. Why doesn’t insideevs just switch to DISQUS for comments like everyone else?

Perhaps Tesla could also build new locations rather than expand existing ones where appropriate. It expands capacity but also making a choice of locations makes charging more convinient. For example each side of a large city, both sides of a highway, one near a 24hr convinience store and fast food place and the other in the traditional mall car park.

I think Tesla is way ahead of you!

Tony, Yes, but are they ahead of me? My suggestion was a reasonable fix: change the connection heads to slightly modified ones with two connection cables, controled by a high power relay that swapped power to the 2nd cable as soon as first car was completed! Basically, an expansion of the curren 2 stall sharing application, but doubling the number of connection points.

This still requires parking spots to be made available, which some sites might not have, due to current space or particular head placement, but could be the easiest fix where such spaces could be added almost as easy as painting some new lines on the other side of current charing station islands.

They have 1A and 1B, etc., now, so I guess they could become 1A1, 1A2, 1B1, 1B2, with 2 cables per head.

Exactly, that way, or others similiar to your way, the charger would be kept constantly busy, and even though any individual car might be slightly slower in charging, overall more would get done because the charger would be always kept busy while people are pulling their cars in or out of position.

They are already doing this to some extent. The Bakersfield and Buttonwillow superchargers along I5 are only a few miles apart. We stopped at Bakersfield on the outbound leg of a recent trip and stopped at Buttonwillow on the return leg of the trip because we wanted to stop at the Starbucks next to the Buttonwillow supercharger for lunch.

Buttonwillow Starbucks, is the Caffine Supercharger that rivals only the Tesla Supercharger!

Drivers parking their Teslas at superchargers is a strawman. The real issue is the scalability nightmare of a fueling system which takes 20-30 minutes to chaege. California superchargers are already a sh*tshow and with the Model 3 is will only get worse. You can’t ask for ten megawatts of power to be installed just anywhere. Think from first principles, people.

You also can’t have an extra 100 people showing up at the ticket counter of most Airlines, asking for Busines Class Seats on the LAX to New York flight at 10:00 AM departure and expect to have everyone get tickets when they just show up at 09:30 AM, too!

What is wrong Tesla instituting a booking reservation system at Superchargers? Every car has a net connection and most, if not all buyers of their cars are at least basically net savy, so create an advance booking priority system!

Airlines give priority and discounts to early bookings, Tesla could do similar! Just save 1-2 spots for last minute users, give them up to 20 minutes max!

Well, I’ve proffered a few suggestions in the past – all to laughter.

But then I bet Musk’s solution to the problem will coincidentally include a few.

“The real issue is the scalability nightmare of a fueling system which takes 20-30 minutes to chaege”

No, this is ignorant trolling. What Tesla really needs to start addressing is preventing people from using superchargers within 100 miles or so of their homes. 95+% of your charging should be done at home. The Super chargers are for LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL.

For those of you that say you can’t charge at home . . . DON’T BUY AN EV UNTIL YOU SOLVE THAT.

Eliminate free-for-life charging, slash the people charging close to home, and institute idle charges. Those 3 things will go a long way. But more superchargers will certainly need to be added as more cars come out.

I know it will annoy many but eliminating the “free for life” and instituting an idle fee will be huge are GREAT steps to address the supercharger overcrowding issue.

The one big problem that I see for Tesla’s supercharger system is this: On certain holidays when large numbers of people travel, they will become overcrowded.

For example, if everyone hops in their Tesla on Thanksgiving to drive to grandma’s house 300 miles away, there will be a lot of over-crowded superchargers.

That’s a hard problem to fix. It can probably be partially addressed by reminding everyone to just get the minimum charge they need to make it to their destination instead of completely filling up.

Steven Loveday:

I’m not sure it was mentioned in all this commotion (Code compliance for public safety is vital)
but will it be possible for Tesla to add additional charging stations to SOME of their existing High Voltage supply transformers?
Did they overbuild power supply for the smaller chargers (say 4-6 stalls) with room for future expansion (say 8-12)?

I can’t judge from outside those Tesla corrals if they over built and under utilized available power at the transformer.

Kevin and Mr. Loveday:

If I may interject into the question, the BIG GREEN TRANSFORMER you see by the supercharges to date has been the Utility’s property.

To the best of my knowledge, Tesla only ipurchases electricity for the superchargers in North America at LOW VOLTAGE” (277Y480 or 347Y600). This big transformer is owned and maintained by the Utility only , and its sizing is also the utility’s decision.

If somone knows where Tesla has purchased voltage at a medium voltage level, I’d be interested in hearing about it – certainly EVERY SC COULD have had a privately owned transfomer, but there are expensive complications in doing that which I’ll only get into if there is interest, and it has not been done so far.

I suspect if only a few more stalls are added, the utility will let the existing green transformer ‘ride it out’.

These things can take large temporary overloads anyway, and most of the time they are not fully loaded anyway, even in the busier stations.

Tesla has a number of options.

1) Have a second transformer installed, and run half their station off of one transformer, the other half off the second transformer.

2) Install batteries for buffering, like the batteries they installed a few years ago at their Tejon Ranch Supercharger pilot program. The battery doesn’t have to provide full power, just enough to buffer down peak demand from the transformer so that battery + transformer together satisfies the required load at peak demand. JB talked extensively on this topic, and his speech detailing this can be found in the insideev’s archives.

3) Convert to a higher voltage industrial transformer.

All easily achievable and well within safety regulations with current technology.

Ok, this is going to be good!

“…3). Convert to a higher voltage industrial transformer….”

Just so that we, the reading public, understand you fully, what voltage transformer are we replacing (Please give full specs on old and new), and what voltage is the new industrial transformer?

Are you serious? Do you not know what a “Primary Voltage” drop is? They start at 2,400V and go up from there depending upon the utility provider. Typically maxing out at 600-750KV

Tesla could power as many chargers as they wanted, with the proper location and authorization.

What exactly do you think the Tesla factory runs on? A 400A overhead drop?

Do you not think Tesla can get Primary Voltage if they built the next generation of 400 kW plus superchargers in the right places and had the will/desire to build such a beast?

You are kidding, right? Do you think service is limited to just the standard 1-phase and 3-phase metered drops?

Funny how you simply ignored my first two items. Because Tesla at this point, with 135 kW chargers, they can get away with either of those solutions perfectly fine. But you ignore that and either act, or are stupid.

Near the Fremont factory, Tesla is currently building out a 20 stall Supercharger station using their latest 145 kW chargers. That’s 2900 kW worth of chargers.

This is just the BEGINNING of Tesla starting to scale out Superchargers, with Tesla already announcing chargers well in excess of 400 kW in the future. What do you think they are going to power a lot full of 20 or 40 of those on? A single 277Y480? Get a grip man.

I tried to be nice and respectful to you in my initial posts, and you responded like a child. Now you get treated like the child you are. don’t cry like a little baby for earning your treatment. You think in tiny terms inside your tiny world, using tiny thoughts, from a tiny boy.

I would imagine the factory takes delivery at Sub-transmission pressure, therefore that is the one place that would have a privately owned transformer.

I just assumed accidentally 1 and 2 made some sense. I’m still waiting for the answer to 3.

Of course options 1 and 2 absolutely make sense. That’s why I listed all 3 options that order.

#3 is already answered, can you not read?

“Do you not know what a “Primary Voltage” drop is? They start at 2,400V and go up from there depending upon the utility provider. Typically maxing out at 600-750KV”

What do you want? A catalog of the vast variety of choices Tesla would have for building any number of chargers, with any voltage they want?

Do your OWN research if you don’t understand the vast array of options that Tesla has beyond the standard 1-phase and 3-phase metered drops. Do you need adults to cut your meat for you too?

I guess with certain ‘entities’ we have to speak verbatum:

You said:

“…3) Convert to a higher voltage industrial transformer…”

SO, 3A. What EXACTLY was the LOWER VOLTAGE transformer, if there was one in your mind since I have to spell every single word out.

3B. What exactly are the characteristics of the presumably NEW HIGHER VOLTAGE INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMER – your words not mine.

3A. Requires 2 numbers at a minimum, in volts.

3B> Same requirements as 3A, plus tell ‘us’ about the transformer in addition to the voltage. Exactly why is it a HIGHER VOLTAGE INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMER.

No answer? Remember I prefaced my comment with

“Ok, this is going to be good!”

Wow Bill, No answer in 50 minutes on a Saturday, and you come unhinged? Is that all you do on your Saturdays? Sit in your basement pensively awaiting responses to your posts while your mommy brings you hot-pockets?

Meanwhile you’ve had all day, and STILL NO PHOTOS of your bullpucky defamatory accusations of zoning violations. Where are the photos, liar? Where are the approval docs showing that they aren’t complying with what was approved for the site where you claim there are violations, liar?

Grow up little child.

Sorry you are just another clown. Gave you actually more than 4 chances to explain yourself succinctly, and you couldn’t do it.

It would be interesting if someone else who has basically the same opinion as the superdope to intelligently discuss the issue.

Of course, it could also be argued that any intelligent person wouldn’t HAVE that point of view, and, from that perspective, it is hard to disagree.

Oh, and this is my final communication to an idiot:

Regarding all the Libelous statements, and SLander, supposedly, all I said was:

“It would be NICE if Tesla decided to install a legally required disconnect” the next time they modernize.

They apparently had a fleeting interest in doing this since their Portable stations are compliant.

It is up to OTHERS to do any code-enforcement action.

As it is, since I don’t currently use the SC facilities, it is of no great interest to me WHAT they do. I merely said it would be nice.

But that doesn’t take away from too many (almost unbelievably) showcasing their ignorance.

You just repeated the libel, but you are too ignorant to understand what you are even saying.

You are implying that Tesla currently does NOT have everything they are legally required to have. It is libel to falsely make that accusation.

Again, if you have PROOF that Tesla is missing anything they are legally required to have, TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH AND POST IT (along with supporting documentation what their site approval required them to legally have), or RETRACT your false accusation that Tesla does not currently have everything that is legally required.

Post proof immediately or recant your accusations until you can back up your false accusations.

1) None of this has anything to do with the fact that Tesla could use a Primary Voltage drop to expand the number of superchargers. So just admit I’m right. 2) You are too ignorant to even know how to ask a proper question. Because there is no single answer to your question without a site diagram detailing loads, a site survey to determine suitability, and information from the utility provider to determine primary voltage availability. Sadly you are too ignorant to understand that NOBODY can provide specific voltages without this information. Only a range of voltage is the only appropriate answer to your massive fail of a question. 3A) Tesla has hundreds of Supercharger and Destination charger sites, all of which may have their own DIFFERENT voltage supplies. You are so ignorant that you think there is one single voltage I could have in mind. That’s not possible, as they are likely different. Again, I will give you a range. They likely range from 120V/240V to 600V, which a site diagram would show. Provide a site diagram for a specific station if you want a specific voltage for a specific station. Again, this has nothing to do with the… Read more »

I’m trying to get you to say something specific.

You are just talking in generalities that everyone knows.

Every picture you showed was of a temporary or a portable or mobile supercharger.

I’m not talking about those, I’m talking about permanent ones.

But it is obvious that you cannot give a specific answer because you don’t really understand what the characteristics of a transformer are.

But you did allude to it. How do you plan on Tesla changing the Primary voltage at an existing supercharger site, which is what was being talked about.

Pick any permanent supercharger site and stick with it. Tell me specifically what the “Convert to a HIGHER VOLTAGE INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMER” will change:

Tell me what the old was, and what your propsed new is. This is now the 4th time. If you can’t answer this it will show alot.

Thought so.

You see you are just recycling information I’ve personally commented on here. For instance, the only mention of 347Y600 has been from me, when discussing one of the types of electricity generally available in Canada.

But the extremely few specifics you have given out so far have TWO Big mistakes in them – clearly you have feigned familiarity with this subject matter.

11 hours have passed – (since I DO usually only look at inside evs when I’m having a snack, or looking for a diversion from my other chores or interests) – I assume its similar with other commenters here. –

To reiterate, if there is no serious response, you’ve just proven my characterization of you is, at once, bonafide, and probably too complementary.

11 hours (overnight) and I didn’t respond yet on a 4th page, 4 day old story? I see Bill has been staying up all night pounding the refresh button with trembling fingers and bloodshot eyes for 11+ hours straight, while I had nice night of sleep, followed by sharing a lazy Sunday morning among loved ones. Loser. 11 hours and no response to your late night post? Get a grip man! You’ve completely lost your sanity. But let me get this straight, everything I’ve said is correct, but since you are incapable of forming a SPECIFIC question that excludes all other 100% correct answers, you act like a baby and cry that my correct answers aren’t the specific answers in your head? You are like talking to a child on the phone who nods their head in response to questions. All you have proven is that you are so ignorant about all the 100% correct answers that there are to your non-specific questions, that you don’t even have enough knowledge to properly form a question specific enough that has ONE and ONLY ONE correct answer. But I’m betting it is actually worse than that. Your answer to whatever question you… Read more »

Hey Bill,

All good points. Seriously.
Those tranformers should be able to withstand unimaginable abuse.
Add more chargers until they start to HUM loudly.
Tesla’s EVSE should be able to back off/shut down charging as needed. Then wait 5-10 minutes and systematicaly resume charging.
Barring of course any unforseen thermal runaway.

These people are geniuses.
Catastrophe folowed by litigation is how building and safety codes are written.
That reminds me, someone told me the NEC was written in blood.

So many cynics!

“These People are Geniuses”.

What can I say? All I did is calmly mention one simple little thing – and I probably inadvertently caused some Emergency Room visits, hehe.

The nurses need the overtime pay anyway, so what the heck…..

The only intelligent thing in this ENTIRE group of comments, was the link SVEN showed of the car fire. I’ve never seen anything like it, be sure you check it out.

Kevin if you want a laugh, be sure to read over all the comments from the superdope.

Try to imagine the facial expressions.

Hehe. I think in some of his comments it looks like the superdope blew a fuse… HIS.