Tesla Model 3 Charging At Supercharger – Video

DEC 12 2017 BY MARK KANE 46

Here is one of the first videos of a Tesla Model 3 at the Supercharger in San Mateo, California where 10 stalls await.

Tesla Model 3 on SuperCharger (source: SuperGadgetGuy)

With two cars using the same Supercharger (two adjacent stalls occupied), charging power started around 30 kW out of 120 kW total, but with only single car it shot up to 105 kW (most of the time we saw 80 kW). In the end, the charging rate again falls down because the battery is close to full and another vehicle occupies the second stall.

Anyways, in about one hour the Model 3 replenished 200 miles of range.

Video description:

Model 3 on Super Charger

Actual Charge Time 1 hr.

Initial range 80 Miles (128km)

Final Range 280 Miles(450km)

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

46 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Charging At Supercharger – Video"

newest oldest most voted

Why doesn’t the kW rate match the miles/hour rate? They should be directly proportional.

Because the miles/hour estimate is an average over since start of charge while the kW are instantaneous.

OK, thanks. Looks like the average may be a bit high, since he added 200 miles in 1 hour.

Looks like you don’t get what “about an hour” means.

The estimated miles he added and the estimated miles per hour he added should be consistent.

The dude in the video seemed completely unaware that power was “instantaneous” but the other was an average. Like you, I too immediately noticed the two were not tracking one another. And I concluded the mph figure had to be a session average.

It was interesting to see power fluctuate so much. But my guess is it might be related to the supply to the charger rather than the load; at least where it climbed rapidly above 100 kW to quickly trail off again.

I don’t know what “about an hour means”, but I know what an hour means, or a specific fraction of an hour. He started charging at 1:44 and stopped at 2:39. In that time his range went from 80 miles to 278 miles.

(278-80)/(55 minutes) = 216 mph

That’s going off Tesla’s numbers displayed on their screen, so I’d like to see the math they use to come up with the 225 mph displayed. It’s not a huge amount, but there is a discrepancy.

Tesla’s number might be an average over a shorter period of time just like a file download speed usually is.

Tesla used to provide the voltage and current when supercharging, but replaced the readings with input power. For CHAdeMO and AC charging they still provide the voltage and current, and if switched in the settings they also show input power, instead of average charging speed. With giant screens available it is a head-scratcher why more information is not made available (such as a charging timer, battery temperature, power used for cabin/battery heating/cooling, the existing metrics all at once), even optionally.

Tesla also thinks we are too stupid to understand the concept of kWh, replacing it with long range and standard range. Or us understanding the concept of horsepower. So what did you expect?

At least the go-quick-long-range-all-wheels-powered Model S and X have some more info in L+.

You should talk about power instead of horsepower. The physical quantity is power.

Then I would have also had to change kWh to energy.

But Tesla once quoted hp, so that’s why I said they want to move away from giving any data to customers. Or at least as little as possible. If they could go w/o range, they’d do that too.

Well, it certainly doesn’t help that certain Tesla haters are repeating the accusation all over the internet that “Tesla lied” because the company labels its battery packs using the nameplate capacity that Panasonic rates the cells at (rounded off to the nearest 5 kWh), rather than the usable capacity which Tesla engineers the cars to use. I can certainly understand why Tesla wants to avoid that controversy, and also wants to avoid the problem of using terms like “kW” and “kWh” when trying to sell a car aimed at mainstream buyers, like the Model 3. For the average driver, the important things are the car’s range and how fast it will add miles by charging. I personally would rather have the technical data, because I am a geek and understand STEM subjects; but the average person is not, and is only going to find terms like “kW” and “kWh” to be confusing. I hope that as the EV revolution advances, the general public will come to understand what “kilowatts” and “kilowatt-hours” are, and understand the difference between the two, just as the general public already understands what “gallons” and “horsepower” are, and understands the difference between the two. But until… Read more »

Don’t forget the lame stunt BMW marketing pulled by communicating the battery amps instead of kWh so they could say a BMW i3 94 (battery amp) compared to the Tesla Model S 100D (100 kWh battery with all wheel drive). Lame is an understatement.

Everyone driving a Model 3 and talking publicly on youtube (yes, he could have cut it out before uploading) about “kilowatts per hour” should be condemned to give it to me. I guess I wouldn’t have to wait very long to own a few dozens 😉
(errata “scientists”)

Wait, I’m a physicist-turned-engineer. No wonder my correct usage has been dropping over time!

Not sure if you have already, but you should try teaching the difference between acceleration and velocity some time in an elementary physics class. Using a car analogy does.not.help because most people aren’t even aware of either term’s existence even when used to describe driving a car.

You mean say kW per hour *when they mean kW*. There’s nothing inherently wrong with kW per hour, although kW per second will usually be a more appropriate choice of units.

(In case you don’t understand me, I’m speaking of the rate of change of power with respect to time. Just like speed is the rate of change in distance with respect to time, acceleration the rate of change in speed with respect to time, and jerk the rate of change of acceleration with respect to time. You can express acceleration in miles per hour per hour, for example.)

“I’m speaking of the rate of change of power with respect to time.”

No, you are not. The phrase “kilowatts per hour” is just as meaningless as “horsepower per hour”. It’s the same amount of power whether it lasts for an instant or a millennia. Time simply has nothing to do with it; it’s as meaningless as saying “years per acre”.

Now, the phrases “kilowatt-hours per minute” and “kilowatt-hours per hour” are useful when discussing the charging speed of an EV, even though electrical engineers and scientists everywhere will insist those are technically incorrect use of the terms. Technically incorrect, yes; but nevertheless meaningful and thus useful.

Sorry PP, Terawatt is correct. Rate of change of power is correctly kW/h or kW/s or any other time unit you want to use. The slew rate in a speed controller can be measured in kW/s. The Soliton controller is just one such controller where the user could adjust this rate.

Correct. Pushy is shooting from the hip here and shot himself in the foot. It’s true that many people misuse the term, but it’s still a quite valid term when used correctly, albeit a bit obscure.

In addition to David’s point, utilities regularly use MW/minute to measure sudden changes in supply and demand, and a generator’s ability to quickly bring power online to respond.

Read the report about South Australia’s blackout during that big storm when lines were going down and a wind farm took itself offline. You’ll see MW/min all over the place to describe the sudden fluctuations in power flows.

That’s a bit disappointing to me. Will this be typical for a Model 3?

I’m still going to get one though as I will rarely need to use superchargers.

spec is 170 miles in 30 minutes but that’s with full up supercharger starting at 0 miles.

However the video probably IS more like you will see in real life if there’s 2 cars on the same charger and if you are not starting at 0 miles.

From his phone pic, looks like he got 95 miles in about 34 minutes. If I need a quick stop to make it home, I could *live* with that, but I was hoping more like 15 minutes. Would be interesting to see video of the situation you describe. Start with an almost empty battery and charge at a Supercharger with no other vehicles present.

It’s important to note that Tesla cars (and probably other BEVs) will charge faster when the battery pack is almost empty. Those first few minutes of charging if the pack is nearly drained, and if the car isn’t sharing the Supercharger with another car, will charge rapidly indeed, as compared to the average charging speed. But to note the average charging rate during only those first few minutes would give a false picture of the charging rate. Drivers are seldom going to stop charging when the battery is only 25-30% full. This relates to the best strategy when driving a Tesla car on a long trip. Because charging speed is fastest when the battery is nearly drained, the best strategy is to drive as fast as the speed limit permits, and try to get as close as possible to exhausting the battery before stopping at a Supercharger. In previous discussions I’ve argued that a better strategy might be to drive slower, because the car will use less energy per mile and thus it might reduce the number of times you need to stop for a recharge. But according to real-world experience, that’s not the best strategy. (I’m not saying it… Read more »

I’m also a tad disappointed. There were a few videos and rumours online confirming a consistent charge rate of 105-110kw for the long range model 3. But this seems to confirm more like 80kw consistent charge rate. I’d like to see a video of one starting at around 10% SOC with no other Tesla at the opposite stall at all throughout the charge.

And the lower range “base” Model 3, with a battery size about the same as the Bolt EV, will be slower.

He’s at a full Supercharging station, sipping 29kw…

“Topping off” may be fine for a YouTube experiment, but as a habit it really clogs up the place.

Crap car, no megacharger access no 620 miles and no 1.9 sec

You just described every automobile in existence.


Will it support the upcoming 350 kW charging by other manufacturers?

I would think so.. Tesla is part of the group who made the standard.
Just a converter should be needed.

On the other hand.. the car will determine how much juice it can handle.
M3 was probably not designed to handle it (full power), since it was designed years ago.
Model Y on the other hand should be able to handle 350, and probably even more power.
I would think.

Considering that it will never be able to charge at 350 kW the question is irrelevant.

100 kW CCS available today would be more than enough for it to max out.

Ok, so other than a few second burst of 100+ kw, the thing basically stabilizes at around 82 kw… Not too shabby for a 75 kwh battery or whatever size the long range ‘3’ has.

Seems to slightly beat the BOLT ev’s charging rate, it would be interesting to monitor the ‘3’s battery temperature while it is charging as fast as it can, and compare it to a Bolt ev with CCS option charging as fast as IT can, and see what temperature the battery pouches are in IT while this is happening.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Tesla was hotter, since Tesla seems to handle the problem in the “S” with limiting the rate of ‘super-fast’ charges with a warning message.

This is the Bolt EV charging rate on 100kW station.

7% SOC 52.6kW
11% SOC 53.7kW
21% SOC 53.8kW
33% SOC 54.6kW
44% SOC 55.2kW
49% SOC 55.5kW

The charge rate drop to 37kW after 57% SOC.

The Model 3 is way faster than the Bolt EV. The fastest non Tesla is the Ioniq EV reaching 70kW on the same 100kW station.

I’m excited to see the Kona EV with he 60kWh battery pack. It should be faster than the base model 3 charging rate.

I’m disappointed the Niro 60kWh BEV will use SK innovation battery instead of LG.

Getting a 20 to 25% boost on a 100 kW station with the Bolt is nothing to sneeze at. Not as good as the Model 3, of course, but it’ll work for me for now.

Well,this data shows that the Model 3 LR charges over 1/3 faster then the Bolt.

I hope GM ups their game, and increases the Bolt’s charge speed for the 2018 model. But I am not holding my breath. We will probably get another color choice but see the same mediocre seats and so-so max charge rate. But given the fact that they haven’t started selling the 2018 so far, there is still hope for a nice surprise.

Thanks, Nix. Not sure how I missed that article. As noted in the article, if GM did add additional padding to the front seats, they wouldn’t have noted it as it would make their first choice for the seats look bad. Here is hoping that they did something to make the front seats a bit more comfortable!
I hope the 2019 gets the goods and has faster charging and the lower MSRP, since that is when the credit is getting cut in half.

I like the live cost in the bottom right corner of the picture. Although why would it say $0? Are the first few cars getting free superchargering?

I was wondering about that myself. The bill will probably show up on my Tesla account page.

So basically the same as my Bolt, 100 mi in 30 minutes.


Actually not even close. The Tesla model 3 doesn’t slow down to the max charging that that bolt can take until it is over 60% full. If you started the bolt and the Model 3 charging at the same time from a near dead battery that Model 3 would leave the charger about 20 minutes before the bolt.

So, no not the same as the bolt as the Model 3 charges much faster than the bolt in just about every part of the charging process.

This is also a longer range Model 3. Bigger batteries can accept more power.

When the base model supercharges and we have those datapoints, we will have a more apples-to-apples comparison with the Bolt EV.

Why does it charge at 28 kWh with mostly empty but not completely empty battery? Supercharger is around 145 kW, half of it should be 72.5 kWh.

Is it programmed to give more power to Model S/X on the same charger or some other weird logic applies?

First come, first served. So the car starting to charge will get as much power as it can use.