Tesla Ups Supercharger Charging Rate For Refreshed Model S 90D & P90D – Video

Tesla Supercharger

JUL 10 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 31

Tesla owner and famous YouTuber Bjorn Nyland’s latest video compares the Supercharging rates of various Tesla models.

Nyland concludes the following:

“The 90 kWh battery pack used to charge slightly slower than the 85 kWh. Last week I borrowed a Model S 90D facelift and noticed that it charged significantly faster than the Model X 90D I borrowed in US. After testing and analyzing the data I concluded that the 90 kWh pack now charges as fast or up to 15 % faster than the 85 kWh.”

Nyland’s video is extremely detailed and it has graphics showing his findings, but if you’d rather not watch the whole 30-plus minute video, then Nyland suggests the following:

“…watch just the first 45 seconds where I get right to the point. If you still want to know more details, go on and watch the rest.”

Charging Rate Graph

Charging Rate Graph

Categories: Charging, Tesla, Videos

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Tesla Ups Supercharger Charging Rate For Refreshed Model S 90D & P90D – Video"

newest oldest most voted
Dave

Site is no longer mobile friendly. Read every day in iPhone and is now virtually impossible.

Hey Dave,

We have been having a brute force attack (out of the Ukraine), and been reworking some protocols – which is causing some lag from time-to-time (working on that too). Mobile is still active, it was just offline for a bit.

But I think you will find if you load up now/refresh it now, it will have returned. If your phone cache is having issues (or you are still seeing the desktop), you can force the theme back to mobile by clicking here.

Sorry for the inconvenience

Terawatt

The problem may be that once the browser has been redirected to the full site we get a cookie that later causes us to always get the desktop version. I remember once accidentally tapping the “full” button and couldn’t find any way to navigate back to the mobile version. Clearing Safaris data fixed it so I assume it was a cookie.

Someone’s trying to block with denial of service or are they trying to hack with brute force password guess? There must be some gold in them web pages, as in millions of readers. Fortunately for me, no one reads my blog, security through boredom 🙂

It seems old Tesla at 56% (under 60 kW) was charging about same as SparkEV at 80% (45 kW with 20% better mi/kWh). In other words, if you see Tesla supercharging more than 55%, it’s actually adding fewer miles per unit time than SparkEV under 80%.

New 90 is better to 70% or so instead of 55%, but still lousy. I hope Tesla 3 will charge at 120 kW or better until 80%. Fast charge shouldn’t take 45 minutes (new 90) or close to an hour (old ones) to reach 80%.

Tech01x

Tesla uses much higher density cells and Tesla is very protective of the cycle life. I expect that the NCM based chemistries to tolerate more charge cycles and higher c-rates, but cost more and have lower specific energy. The trade off is that one cannot build any Tesla using the chemistry in the Spark. Simply, the energy density isn’t high enough. Tesla is going with more silicon in the anode which likely increases their specific energy even further, but continues to limit their charging c-rate. Tesla vehicles are optimized for long distance travel in a variety of weather and long battery life. Others, not so much.

Longer DCFC is fine for a city car where you’re not likely to travel far (ie, SparkEV, Bolt). But for long distance, shorter DCFC time is far more important. Besides, adding fewer miles per unit time at 55% than even SparkEV at 80% is really s-l-o-w.

I don’t think the taper is primarily due to chemistry. I suspect it has to do with inadequate cooling. One can see this on discharge where prolonged high speed with Tesla result in overheating, thus unable to discharge at full power. Similar may be going on with charging.

Bul_gar

absolutely right

Daniel

That might matter if the Spark were available nationwide and abroad in numerous markets. But to the rest of the world outside California the Spark doesn’t exist.

limping

You are focusing on the 55% and above rate of charge but ignore in the high rates above that. Also, you are ignoring the fact that 55% SOC on a 90D is 140 miles, so most of the time you don’t need to charge much more than that to get to the next supercharger.

For a real comparison of miles charged per minute, you should add in the time spent by the Spark EV finding a working Fast DC charger with an SAE combo plug, every 80 miles or travel. I guarantee you in a trip from LA to San Fransisco, the tesla will get there first, by a wide margin.

Bul_gar

+1

Pushmi-Pullyu

you are ignoring the fact that 55% SOC on a 90D is 140 miles

Right. Sparky is showing his rather strong bias when he calls Supercharging “lousy” because the percentage rate of charge is sometimes slower than it is for his beloved Spark EV. If Sparky instead looked at the miles added per minute of charge, I rather suspect that the Supercharged Model S (or X) would be the clear winner.

EVger

Thanks very much, Bjorn! Excellent job! Very useful and encouraging comparisons.

Hey Bjorn,

Nice plots

I’ve spent some time on the last graph. It doesn’t make sense that a larger Kwh battery couldn’t accept a higher charge rate at the first part of the charge cycle.

A bigger battery should be able to take more power right from time zero.

Looks like tesla tried to make up for it a little later in the charge cycle though and that makes sense.

So tesla has changed the charge cycle so at the beginning they charge a little less but then make up for it later…..i guess that might make sense…only Tesla know the logic.

Great data. It would be interesting if we talked more tech on this site instead of the usual LONG/short stockholder BS.

Bul_gar

that’s charging algorithm. It’s not easy to find the best one.
Before Apple hire person who was good in that from some bankrupted electric motorcycle company.

Anderlan

A more recently manufactured pack, perhaps with larger ‘natural’ capacity, but restricted in what is given to the system to the standard 90kwhr, will charge faster.

As for the drop in mid-charge, it could be anything. Maybe the temperature was too high *somewhere* and the software throttle–high temp or whatever could be on the inverter side or the pack side. Or maybe the grid price jumped or grid capacity dropped for a moment.

Pushmi-Pullyu

…or the Supercharger’s charging cable overheated.

It would be much more helpful to see graphs of a series of charges using the new setup, to see if that drop in charging the pack from ~41 to ~59 kW reoccurs, or if that was an aberration.

Big Solar

i supercharged for 30 mins the other day in FL. and I could barely touch the handle to unplug when I was done.

Priusmaniac

The suggestion of optimum speed to reduce total time of travel that he does could actually be computed by the car if it knows your destination. It would need an update in the software that takes into account the start SOC, the estimated total consumption to destination at various speeds, the superchargers along the road and the estimated charge time at various state of SOC. Pretty complicate because of the several variables but once in a software the result could be quiet simple in the form of a dash indicated suggested optimum speed for shortest global time to destination. It would be just one number so you know about it and you can follow it or not as you wish but at least you are aware of it. So this would be indicated as the OSD (Optimum Speed to Destination) in a new software update.

Priusmaniac

Perhaps the OSD could be dynamic. I mean if your destination is within short range of the available SOC of the battery, your OSD is going to be 150 mph but obviously you will likely have lower speed limits so in that case the OSD should at that moment indicate your present local speed limit instead of 150 mph. So the OSD would change along the road. This dynamic OSD would also be applied when your destination is further than the SOC of your battery. You could still have an average OSD indicated but the dynamic one would allow you to always optimize your instantaneous speed to get to destination as quickly as legally possible. So we need an OSD and a DOSD (Dynamic Optimum Speed to Destination) or whatever you name it, of course.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Priusmaniac said: “…the result could be quiet simple in the form of a dash indicated suggested optimum speed for shortest global time to destination. It would be just one number so you know about it and you can follow it or not…” It seems to me that more than just a single number would be needed. The rate of consumption of the battery pack’s energy is highly dependent on speed. In many cases, you’d have a faster overall journey by driving more slowly, to reduce the amount of time needed for charging en route. So at a minimum, it seems to me there would need to be a graph showing (optimal) total trip time vs. top speed. Showing just one number isn’t going to tell the driver what the optimal driving speed is. And there are many factors to be considered. Here are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head: 1. Distance 2. Placement of Superchargers (or lack thereof) along the route 3. Speed of travel 4. Speed limits along the route (and how far over that limit the driver plans to drive!) 5. Availability of Supercharger stalls when the car needs to recharge… Read more »
Bill Howland

The way the new charging rate burps up and down seems to indicate a bit of more software tweeking is to be done.

The only thing I can think of is the car’s air conditioning must suddenly ‘think’ to go on high, and its stealing some of the charge for the battery which isn’t showing up in the graph. If not, I have no idea why it suddently goes way down then way up.

Bul_gar

goes down because heat problem. bjorn said it “the fan never stops” can’t cool down the battery or electronic, or precool the battery to be ready for next high power charge

Mr. M

There exists no AC that can suck 30kW and is build into a car. Nornal AC at maximum is between 2-5 kW, depending on car.

Andrew

The Renault Zoe can charge at 43kW AC:

http://pushevs.com/2015/09/21/renault-zoe-r240-43-kw-ac-charging-soon/

The Model S up to April 2016 can charge at up to 20kW AC. Model X and refreshed Model S can charge at up to 18kW AC

Peter

Andrew, why are you talking about AC (as in Alternating Current) charging?

Bill Howland and Mr. M was talking about AC as in Air Conditioning and wether Air Conditioning was able to suck 30kW in a car. 🙂

Andrew

Oh dear. Ignore me; I’ve clearly been insufficiently caffeinated this morning.

Pushmi-Pullyu

A refrigerant-based air conditioner isn’t a good analogy for Tesla’s glycol/water based battery thermal management system. It’s a lot closer to the way the water jacket and radiator work to keep a gasmobile’s engine from overheating.

What’s important here is the rate at which the thermal management system can transfer waste heat out of the core of the battery pack, and radiate that heat away into the environment. That could be improved simply by circulating the coolant faster, or using bigger tubes to carry the coolant inside the pack, or using a bigger radiator, or using a more powerful fan.

Bill Howland

Well, I wasn’t stating that 30 kw of electricity was necessary to run the hvac. I’d be surprised if the COP (Coefficient of Performance), when also cooling the cabin, is above 3 (EER of 10.2), so it might surprise you to see how BIG an airconditioning system really is required to remove the heat from batteries, (and electronics) charging at 110 kw.

No doubt more efficient than the roadster due to more modern batteries, but in that car the heat just billowed out, and thats at a 7 kw charging rate. I’d be curious to find the heat output of everything in a Tesla when the input power is 110 KW.

Of course, nothing to see here, since all the big experts say 300 kw, 500 kw, or 1500 kw car charging is trivially easy.

Scripted

you’ve got some XSS going on when typing in home page…getting ‘important security message’ spam/bug and http redirect when loading via chrome desktop.

Hey Scripted,

We haven’t experienced anything like that ever from our end…but if you do see it again, can you screenshot it and send us an email (contact tab up top) with as much information as possible?

We certainly don’t want to have any issue present for readers…it perhaps was a rogue ad spot that got through google’s filters that engaged what you saw…not sure.

Much thanks for taking the time to give us a shout out and alert to any potential issue!