Tesla Model S Charging At 440 Miles Per Hour


The Tesla Model S is the only electric vehicle capable of Supercharging, but images such as this one are sure to make owners of non Supercharge-capable vehicles jealous.

440 miles per hour.  That’s impressive.

Though Tesla sets the bar in terms of charge rate, we believe other automakers/charging station manufacturers will start upping output in the near future.

The up-to-135 kW Superchargers will eventually be in need of upgrading to higher output too.  Someday, 135 kW will be like the bare minimum for fast charging.  At least that’s what we hope for.

Question…Has your Model S charged at more than 440 miles per hour?  Have you heard of this rate being exceeded?  Let us know in comments below.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

48 Comments on "Tesla Model S Charging At 440 Miles Per Hour"

newest oldest most voted

This is 302A x 371V = 112 kW only.
The battery voltage will stay the same, so the amps must go up to reach 135 kW.

And to get 440mph from that rate, means that owner is averaging over 3.9mi/kWh. In a 2 ton Tesla Model S, that is admirable.

Which also probably means they’ve been driving around town all day and haven’t been on the freeway…


That’s the instantaneous charge rate and has nothing to do with driving style.

It’s not the charge rate and it has everything to do with driving style.

Charge rate is measured in kW and nothing else. Miles per hour “charge rate” depends on the energy you use per mile which depends on how you drive the car.

Joe S is correct the “440” on the left shows approximately how quickly range is being added back to the pack and the 64 shows how much range has been added this charging session. When plugged into an SC, the Tesla does not give you a time remaining to your set charging level (perhaps because of the taper) so the miles per hour number is useful to figure out how long you are going to be plugged in. Driving efficiency has no relation to how fast the car will care, only SoC and if you are sharing a charger or not.

The car is set to ideal miles which is the only reason the MPH is so high (as stated in another comment). The car shows 84 miles of range with the car having about 28% battery capacity. If you divide 84 by 0.28, you get 300 which is the ideal range of an 85 kWh model. The real metric that matters is the kW (voltage x current), not the MPH.

Too fast, why the rush?

Yeah, my LEAF S (without the QC package) does 12 miles per hour! 640kB RAM should be enough for anyone!

Good One!


Best line of the week.

Good one!

Based on the range vs. state of charge, that owner appears to have his range set on “ideal miles” (55 mph under ideal conditions) rather than “rated miles”. 300 ideal miles = 265 rated miles. The miles per hour is also an average value rather over the charging session rather than an instantaneous value like the current or power.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!



Anyone else giggle that his last name is “Wat(t)son”? 🙂

Good catch, Sherlock. 😉


Charging time is nonlinear.
Either way, I would avoid the SC most of the time as it is recommended to not charge at SC all the the time.

Yes, charging is non-linear. The rate of charge is slow at first and peaks when the battery is around 25% to 50% charged.

I have a screen shot showing the battery charged to 53 miles of rated range. It was charging at 363V and 290amp for a rate of 355 rated miles per hour. Kind of a common rate for a supercharger.

The charging rate is the fastest in the beginning and then drops of in a pretty linear way, which makes the charging time exponential.


Mine refuels at about 4800 miles/hour. And I’m being conservative.

Of course yours comes with the destruction of the biosphere as a side effect, so minus points for that.

It also comes with the feature of having to take it to the dealer every 4,000 miles to have the oil changed and then you get to constantly maintain your car by changing air filters, fuel filters, belts, etc. Oh, I forgot about that feature your car has where after your car is 4 years old you get to take it every couple of years to get a smog check. Then there’s the one where you get to fill up your car in your garage…oh wait that’s my EV, never mind. I know there’s more neat features your classic car has I just can’t remember them all.

Even the best ones of the that type are less pleasurable to drive than even a LEAF.

I don’t know/care how fast my car fills up. I just wake up every morning and it’s sitting in my driveway full.

No surprise about the responses (red herrings?) that have nothing to do with refueling. My point is simply that the best BEV charging times are an order of magnitude longer compared to fueling an ICE. Garage recharging is a partial response to that, but not for those that do not live in single family homes. How do you propose multifamily dwellers recharge? Until BEVs can charge as quickly as ICE, it has serious market penetration limits.

The responses were snarky for a snarky post. I don’t think BEVs need to match ICEs refueling times to penetrate the market.
* Most families own 2 cars or more
* Most charging will be done at home
* People that stop to refuel on long trips stop for 30 minutes or more anyway, and their car can refuel itself while they do their business.

If you are going to hold EVs to ICE standards, then we could do the reverse say ICE cars will never sell until they can offer 100% torque off the line, or have zero emissions, or run at 5dB sound level, or…

EVs and ICE are both cars, that get you from A to B, but to me they are totally different products. It’s sort of like comparing a Sony Walkman CD player vs. an iPod. It sure is a lot faster to put a new CD in my Walkman, but I’d still rather own an iPod.

I want to feed grass to my ICE 🙂

You assume everyone can charge at home. Half the country doesn’t have a place to plug in at home.

Didn’t you read Rick’s comment? He said:

“Garage recharging is a partial response to that, but not for those that do not live in single family homes. How do you propose multifamily dwellers recharge? Until BEVs can charge as quickly as ICE, it has serious market penetration limits.”

The lack of place to plug in at home is why BEVs have serious market penetration limits.

I’d say 50% market penetration would be pretty darn good LOL.

Sorry about being snarky, kdawg. It appeared as such when I reread it, but was not really my intent. BEVs are best in urban areas, because of range limits, so that limits their utility to the rural population. BEVs also charge easiest in a private garage, so that limits its use in an urban area. BEVs that are not a compromise are expensive, so that leaves out much of the middle class population. Until these three issues are solved (range, recharging time and cost), then yes, I continue to believe that BEVs have serious market penetration limits. I’m not saying it can’t be solved, just saying it will take some time.

If you are one of the lucky beta testers at Tesla’s new battery swap station at Harris Ranch then you can refuel your BEV as fast as filling up a conventional car. Right now it’s by appointment only and requires a technician to manually remove the titanium battery shield. But if there is sufficient demand then they will automate everything.

DC quick charging will probably get fast enough to make battery swap stations obsolete before they are rolled out widely. But if there is some show stopper with increasing DC charging to the point that allows widespread adoption of BEVs then battery swapping is a feasible backup plan.

112 kW. Not that impressive (by Tesla standards that is).

It would be interesting to know if anyone have been able to charge at 135 kW yet though. Or if there are any news on the 150 kW charging.

I also wonder how hard Tesla are working on been able to a more continously high charge rate. The average charging rate is still a bit low.

Its a good thing we’ve closed most of our factories down so that we still have electrical generation capacity to expend 125 kw (assuming 112 Kw at the car and 13 kw at the charging bays) for just one car. 800 of these cars simultaneously charging would only require 100,000,000 watts of generation (assuming no losses); 8,000 would be 1,000 megawatts or a very large generating station. Or more like 1,200 megawatts, realistically. So its fun to see a car charged this way but as the foregoing indicates, its not exactly grid friendly. Big Solar could charge about 150 volts using the same facilities that charge only 1 Tesla. As Americans grow poorer, sales of the “S” will increasingly be made in China, so its great that there, where most future cars will be sold, are also adding so many power plants compared to the Shuttering of plants in the US. OF course, the demand charge (fine), for this one car facility per month would be 125 kw * $20/kw or $2,500 per month or $30,000 a year, if in Southern California Edison territory. So there must be ZEV credits or something that Tesla gets for installing these Supercharger facilities,… Read more »

Tesla has been pilot testing stationary storage at some of the busy SuperCharger sites to reduce any instantaneous peaks in demand from the grid. They do have to pay the demand charges, so they are incentivized to manage the issue.

Long term the plan was solar + stationary storage, so only drawing minimally from the grid. As far as I know, there are only a handful of sites right now that have solar and no idea how many have the stationary storage.

I completely agree. And I’ll add that Tesla isn’t the only company exploring stationary batteries to minimize demand charges for DC fast chargers. The Barstow supercharger had a 360 kWh battery array the last time I stopped there. And now it looks like they are adding solar as well: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15739-California-Barstow-Supercharger-News/page29

A couple of things: 1) the charging load of a cabinet is shared across two bays, so an 8-bay location has 4 135kW cabinets and 2) cars only spend a few minutes at the full 135kW before they start to taper. The max an 8-bay SC could pull is 500kW for a short amount of time if four cars with very low SoC all plugged in at the same time. Looking at the aggregate load for 800 bays or 8000 bays does not make sense as they that many SC locations would be spread across multiple sub-stations. Finally, as others have pointed out, Tesla is exploring technologies to buffer their grid access.

ON the contrary, your rationale is faulty.

If the thing charges for 15 minutes then it kicks up the demand. IF it has to share with a car longside it then the article would have been titled 220 instead of 440.

8000 cars publically charging in a metropolitan location of a few million people is not unreasonable when you listen to EV proponents vision of most families with an electric car.

THe reason for the battery buffers / Solar Panels IS to mitigate the demand charges.

But 360 kwh is only a start.

So you have explained the problem well. Would you care to provide a solution?

As I’ve mentioned in the first post, by me there is no problem, – they’ve shut down all the factories that would be competing users of electricity.

Now as far as all the wealth those factories used to create, I’d recommend learning Mandarin.

360 kWh will go quite a long way towards reducing demand chargers for an average supercharger location. Even the busiest supercharger locations only put out around 2,800 kWh a day while servicing 80 cars: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15739-California-Barstow-Supercharger-News/page29

If you assume most of the usage will be between 8 am and 8 pm then even the busiest locations would only need something like 1,400 kWh of batteries to completely smooth out power draw from the grid. If you assume $200 a kWh, you are talking about $280,000 worth of batteries which seems feasible for the busiest supercharger locations.

The link for the busiest supercharger locations should have been: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/8590-Tesla-Supercharger-network/page502

Interesting link. Seeing as, what is it? 12% of the power for the avg model S comes from a Supercharger, there must be some owners who ‘park’ there on a regular basis, as is sometimes the complaint of L2 chargers at work being ‘adopted’ by some ev owner’s, thinking that they are their own.

THe link briefly hinted at what happens when S and X drivers have to start waiting in line?

Many of the original supercharger locations only had four charging stalls and long waits became problematic at places like Gilroy, Barstow, Hawthorne, and Fremont (I personally had to wait at Gilroy and Hawthorne and saw others wait at Barstow and Freemont). All of those locations have since been expanded and having to wait for a spot is much rarer now. We are often the only car charging at stations far from urban areas. Stations closer to urban areas are often used by locals either for the free electricity or because they don’t have any other way to charge the car.

The cynicism I read by some posters is matched by the optimism of other posters. The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Generation and delivery of energy will get better over time. Fossil fuel use will be phased out overtime – it is too valuable a commodity to be wasted the first cycle. Where those two vectors cross is anyone’s guess.

My question isn’t one of cynicism, I’m just wondering who is ultimately paying for this party.