EV aficionado (Bjørn Nyland) denounces DC fast charging/supercharging!

jusmeig

I've owned an EV for 2 years. Probably fast charged less than 10 times in total. Don't use car to commute, so just the occasional spin to Kerry and back.

What would u be doing fast charging if u live in a city and don't do long runs or high mileage? This lad is driving for the craic to the middle of nowhere. His use case is fairly unique. The 90% doing less than 20km a day are grand so.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

This is all a bit melodramatic.

Black_Knight

I was always a bit concerned with the amount of rapid charging 2nd hand cars in Ireland would have done, give then the DC network was free up until recently. I'm sure some freeloaders charged rapidly as much as they could to save a few quid

fricatus

Black_Knight wrote: »

I was always a bit concerned with the amount of rapid charging 2nd hand cars in Ireland would have done, give then the DC network was free up until recently. I'm sure some freeloaders charged rapidly as much as they could to save a few quid

Makes the case for being very careful buying a second-hand car with a pre-201 plate alright...

Lumen

jusmeig wrote: »

The 90% doing less than 20km a day are grand so.

Using a Tesla for 20km a day is a massive waste of resources.

These cars are sold on their fast charging, high performance, long distance capabilities, environmental impact plus a load of dubious self driving tech.

This issue affects several of those factors.

If we put aside the speculation about the Model 3, and focus on the S and X cars for which there is a weight of anecdotes, it seems that the throttling through fast charging history, state of charge and temperature adds up to something substantial, and that overall charge time is doubling in some cases from performance when new. On those cars the throttling can start after only a few months of use, if they're fast charged often enough.

None of this was an issue until Tesla introduced the throttling last year, which it seems likely it did for defensible reasons, fire safety and battery longevity. The alternative would be total failure of the packs if they continued to be fast charged.

It seems likely to me that the same pattern will apply to the 3 but after a longer period and off a higher initial charge rate. So it won't be a case of a flat cut off of the charging curve at 95kW, charge rate will also be hit at higher SoC and at colder temperatures. That's how the chemistry works, as I understand it.

Come back to this thread in a couple of years and we'll see if it was a fuss about nothing.

I'm still getting my Tesla though.

sk8board

It’s probably a storm in a teacup for most, but for sure if I’m buying a 2nd hand EV, having your cars charging capacity being restricted will affect the resale value and that’s simply a fact.

Heck I can probably even ask to see the charging logs.

Bear in mind that range, charge time and price are the things iterating and improving every year at the moment - so the nerfed 2nd hand cars (from any manufacturer) will be even further depreciated, just like a really high miler ICE car currently

In terms of mass adoption, the general public will be happy to sit on the sidelines to watch how this works out

jusmeig

Lumen wrote: »

Using a Tesla for 20km a day is a massive waste of resources.

I agree, but driving a silly diesel SUV for the same usage is an even bigger waste of resources. If I was to be 100% pragmatic, I'd not buy one....but I'm not doing that.

Lumen

jusmeig wrote: »

I agree, but driving a silly diesel SUV for the same usage is an even bigger waste of resources. If I was to be 100% pragmatic, I'd not buy one....but I'm not doing that.

Talking of SUVs, this can't be good news for the etrons etc. Their usability for longer distances depends entirely on fast charging.

Efficiency FTW. This is probably good news for the Y.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Somebody with better maths than me work out overage charge time for a new 10-80% and a nerffed 10-80%....my intuition thinks its a matter of minutes. Average charge mind you not peak.

Lumen

Ernest Nutty Check wrote: »

Somebody with better maths than me work out overage charge time for a new 10-80% and a nerffed 10-80%....my intuition thinks its a matter of minutes. Average charge mind you not peak.

I made a dodgy spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jz0qoKKrfyGXjaax9kzfoo_T5-2QMnRZxahYC37aMQY/edit?usp=sharing



50% nerf rate gives the 95kW peak.

Unnerfed data from Bjorn video.

So I reckon this will double charge times, before coldgating is taken into account. This is consistent with what I've seen reported anecdotally for the S and X.

e.g. 10-80% goes from 22-44 mins.

I welcome harsh feedback. :pac:

sk8board

Ernest Nutty Check wrote: »

Somebody with better maths than me work out overage charge time for a new 10-80% and a nerffed 10-80%....my intuition thinks its a matter of minutes. Average charge mind you not peak.

You’re probably right, about 25% more time at the charge point maybe, but that’s in a few years from now when everyone else with a new EV will be 25% faster that current times, so it’ll matter for resale and future drivers rather than now

Lumen

sk8board wrote: »

You’re probably right, about 25% more time at the charge point maybe, but that’s in a few years from now when everyone else with a new EV will be 25% faster that current times, so it’ll matter for resale and future drivers rather than now

This was always going to happen. Elon Himself said to expect new cars to be better than old cars, he just didn't point out that the old cars were going to get worse.

What's a nerfed Model X going to be worth when the Model Y is out? First world problems!

Lumen

This is the other possibility, a simple 95kW cap.



This would result in the 10-80% time going from 25 to 35 mins.

Lumen

The flat capped charging curve for the Model 3 LR/P looks a lot like an etron 55, scaled to account for the smaller pack and with less top buffer. :pac:

I wonder if it matches the curve of the etron 50?

jusmeig

Lumen wrote: »

Talking of SUVs, this can't be good news for the etrons etc. Their usability for longer distances depends entirely on fast charging.

Efficiency FTW. This is probably good news for the Y.

I seriously think it's a non issue. Majority just won't be doing enough DC fast charging to make it a thing.

sk8board

jusmeig wrote: »

I seriously think it's a non issue. Majority just won't be doing enough DC fast charging to make it a thing.

Absolutely correct, especially in an Irish context - however, it will definitely matter in the future to a future owner, as most/all cars eventually go over 200,000 kms - so it’s like buying a really high mileage diesel today - there’s always going to be a market for older EVs with both battery degradation and restricted charging speeds, but the buyer will know to ask and will expect a lower price for the car.

e.g when I sold my 08 520d msport touring a few years ago, the mileage was low, the car was mint, but all the buyers wanted to talk about was the timing chain issue (which I never had), but it cost me a lot on the cars resale value for certain.

pleasant Co.

Lumen wrote: »

This is the other possibility, a simple 95kW cap.



This would result in the 10-80% time going from 25 to 35 mins.

Did you just accidentally design the cybertruck?

liamog

My impression of nerfgate, is that Tesla are allowing it's customers to over stress the battery when rapid charging for the first x kWh then gradually restrict the charging rate until another x kWh. Whereas other manufacturers are applying the restricted rate from day one.

VW ID.3, 62kWh battery, max charge rate 100kW giving a charge rate of 1.6
Tesla Model 3, 54kWh battery, max charge rate 175kW, the charge rate of 3.2 eventually becomes restricted to 95kW with a rate of 1.75.

I've noticed that Tesla appear to approach battery management in a much more holistic fashion, they'd rather give the user better capabilities so long as they are used sparingly and gradually downrate the battery. Whereas the traditional manufacturers are giving more conservative capabilities from day 1 that stay stable over the expected life of the car.

Lumen

liamog wrote: »

My impression of nerfgate, is that Tesla are allowing it's customers to over stress the battery when rapid charging for the first x kWh then gradually restrict the charging rate until another x kWh. Whereas other manufacturers are applying the restricted rate from day one.

I would interpret it slightly differently. A fresh cell can take high charge rates and voltages with the right management.

As the cell suffers lithium plating and dendrite formation through charge/discharge cycles and accelerated by fast charging, it is less able to deal with those stresses and needs to be protected in order to avoid exponential damage.

liamog

Lumen wrote: »

I would interpret it slightly differently. A fresh cell can take high charge rates and voltages with the right management.

As the cell suffers lithium plating and dendrite formation through charge/discharge cycles and accelerated by fast charging, it is less able to deal with those stresses and needs to be protected in order to avoid exponential damage.

That's just the technical reasoning behind the effect.
I believe the charging profile is mostly a business decision.

Does a company sell a car that has a charging rate at 1.6C from 0-160,000km even with constant rapid charging. Or does the company sell a car that starts with a much higher 3C charge rate, that over time reduces based on the amount of rapid charging?

We're all early adopters, so are likely to understand the trade-offs of the two approaches, however the mass market is less likely to understand why their car used to be able to charge at 150kW when new, but now for some reason can only do 75kW after 5 years, when their next door neighbour had a similar sized car that started out capable of 100kW and can still manage 100kW. I suspect the owner won't be happy when they go to the garage and are told they've been using it wrong.

It's a very similar argument to the hidden degradation buffers.

unkel

liamog wrote: »

Whereas other manufacturers are applying the restricted rate from day one.

Some of those other manufacturers didn't realise they were going to restrict fast charging like this until they made their second EV

Kramer

unkel wrote: »

Jesus, will you forget you ever saw that stupid video from Nyland? It doesn't matter how often it was supercharged.

Ah come on now unkel. He has owned what, 6 or 7 Teslas? He has probably driven each & every iteration of Tesla, at length, for 100s of thousands of kilometers. He has driven practically EVERY make, model & iteration of BEV ever produced, in the USA, throughout Europe & Asia.
He is an EV fanatic & arguably THE most experienced BEV driver of all time, driving the 1000km challenge regularly, in all conditions, all documented & usually live streamed.

Everyone "in the know" uses his reviews as a yardstick of BEV range & practicality.
You yourself regularly refer to his Ioniq videos, largely as the reason you opted for the car.

As soon as he highlights anything even remotely problematic about Teslas or BEVs in general, his video is "stupid"?

Didn't Apple have to apologise & replace batteries "as a gesture" after they were caught surreptitiously throttling iPhone battery charging or actual phone performance? Very similar sequence to what Tesla are doing IMO, similar company ethos, similar company fan base i.e. Apple/Tesla can do no wrong in their fanboys' eyes .

Let's be realistic here. This, if the mainstream media/ICE companies/fossil fuel industry etc. latch on to it, could be hugely damaging to mainstream BEV adoption.

Didn't you say we don't need bigger batteries, we need smallish batteries with loads of rapid chargers with high charge rates?
Tesla say not to supercharge too often, as do VW (rapid charge).
Now Bjorn has confirmed.

Take their advice or don't but people should be aware, before throwing down €50,000 or €60,000 plus another €10,000 of my (tax) money .

Kramer

liamog wrote: »

I believe the charging profile is mostly a business decision.

Does a company sell a car that has a charging rate at 1.6C from 0-160,000km even with constant rapid charging. Or does the company sell a car that starts with a much higher 3C charge rate, that over time reduces based on the amount of rapid charging?

Isn't it trumpeted, ad infinitum, how quickly Teslas can recharge? Coupled with their widespread network of superchargers, aren't Tesla the only real choice for long distance motorway cruising?
Don't experts aim to arrive at a supercharger with a nice hot battery & 10% SOC so as to maximise their charge speed? Don't they gaze in awe at the screen as their indicated charge speed rockets up to 150kW, 170kW, 200kw........., making sure not to share a "stall" so as to maximise this speed?

Do they realise that every single kWh added by the supercharger is damaging their car & will, ultimately, reduce their future charge speed, likely range & future resale value of their expensive car?

Mod Note: Snipped Double Posting

unkel

Kramer wrote: »

Ah come on now unkel. He has owned what, 6 or 7 Teslas? He has probably driven each & every iteration of Tesla, at length, for 100s of thousands of kilometers. He has driven practically EVERY make, model & iteration of BEV ever produced, in the USA, throughout Europe & Asia.
He is an EV fanatic & arguably THE most experienced BEV driver of all time, driving the 1000km challenge regularly, in all conditions, all documented & usually live streamed.

Everyone "in the know" uses his reviews as a yardstick of BEV range & practicality.
You yourself regularly refer to his Ioniq videos, largely as the reason you opted for the car.

As soon as he highlights anything even remotely problematic about Teslas or BEVs in general, his video is "stupid"?

Did you not see the previous points I made? There's not going to be any throttling of Model 3 until the car reaches nearly a million km, even for people who fast charge far more than average. Nyland has taken it out of all proportions and him only AC charging his own Model 3 at home to 60% is beyond absurd. I have lost a lot of respect for him over this issue

liamog

Mod Note: I've pulled some of the discussion from the CPO thread into this one, as we've two threads talking around the same subject.

Kramer

unkel wrote: »

There's not going to be any throttling of Model 3 until the car reaches nearly a million km

You've no basis for claiming that to be fair & I'd be leaning more to Bjorn's opinion based on his history, experiences, contacts & industry knowledge .

Did you read this post which shows Tesla state they started throttling 2016 75kWh cars at just 10,000km & continued throttling them right up to 50,000km.
Do you really believe Model 3s which came out barely a few years later, which were marketed as charging at up to 250kW, will see NO throttling at almost 1,000,000km?

Bjorn's wrong? Tesla themselves are wrong?

That's my opinion anyway & I'd still buy a Tesla tomorrow, if it suited me. I can't be accused of being a hater or anti EV, nor can Bjorn, but we need to be realistic here. No need to overegg the pudding .

liamog

Kramer wrote: »

Isn't it trumpeted, ad infinitum, how quickly Teslas can recharge? Coupled with their widespread network of superchargers, aren't Tesla the only real choice for long distance motorway cruising?

That's an opinion that I'm sure most non-tesla owners do not share. I suspect it mostly comes from people applying the US situation to Europe. Europe has funded (a minimal) cross country interurban networks in the EU using TEN-T programs. In the US, the cross country network (Electrify America) was primarily funded by VW as part of the diesel gate settlement.

For the current network, 200km range cars made it doable, the batch of 400km range cars we're now seeing (starting from the Kona) make it relatively straightforward.

Back to the points re charging speeds, it's up to the consumers to decide wether they'd prefer a car that can always charge at 100kW, versus a car that is capable of charging at much higher rates but only for a limited amount of charges.

To put the numbers into perspective, it's reported that the Model 3 restrictions start at around 2600kWh of supercharging. Given the studies show an average 85% home/work AC charging. The average driver will see restrictions after 17,333kWh of use. At a reported efficency of 15.1kWh/100km (SR+ EV-Database.org) that means they will only start to see restrictions at 114,000km, which for an average usage of 17,000km/year is 6.7 years. So the average Joe is basically not going to notice until well into the life of the car. The reported info also reports the restriction is gradual, I suspect for most normal users, the car will be off the road before the final cap (which makes it perform the same as traditional manufacturer vehicles) is hit.

Lumen

liamog wrote: »

To put the numbers into perspective, it's reported that the Model 3 restrictions start at around 2600kWh of supercharging. Given the studies show an average 85% home/work AC charging. The average driver will see restrictions after 17,333kWh of use. At a reported efficency of 15.1kWh/100km (SR+ EV-Database.org) that means they will only start to see restrictions at 114,000km, which for an average usage of 17,000km/year is 6.7 years. So the average Joe is basically not going to notice until well into the life of the car. The reported info also reports the restriction is gradual, I suspect for most normal users, the car will be off the road before the final cap (which makes it perform the same as traditional manufacturer vehicles) is hit.

I think you're getting mixed up there. The Model 3 nerfing is rumoured to start at 20,000kWh of fast charging, not 2,600. So that's around 400 10-80% charges on a 75kWh pack. And most stops won't be 10-80%.

Superchargers in Ireland are only 120kW max, so using a Tesla charger you won't really notice the drop to 95kW, assuming that the nerf is flat cap and not proportional drop.

And again, 400 charges is one a week for over 7 years.

Of course Tesla might introduce more nerfing later, like they did with the S and X. Or not. We don't know.

ELM327

Lumen wrote: »

I think you're getting mixed up there. The Model 3 nerfing is rumoured to start at 20,000kWh of fast charging, not 2,600. So that's around 400 10-80% charges on a 75kWh pack. And most stops won't be 10-80%.

Superchargers in Ireland are only 120kW max, so using a Tesla charger you won't really notice the drop to 95kW, assuming that the nerf is flat cap and not proportional drop.

And again, 400 charges is one a week for over 7 years.

Of course Tesla might introduce more nerfing later, like they did with the S and X. Or not. We don't know.

This is true.
My S is nerfed, I knew when buying it.
The only difference is at Ionity. 95kW vs 150 odd is a bit of extra time. But generally we stop for 30 minutes at Ionity or Tesla Suc and arrive back out to 85-90%, with no hanging around for the car. So it's all good.


If I was used to Model 3 on V3 speeds then I'm sure 95kW would feel glacial. It feels slow (in terms of km added) compared to my Ioniq!

KCross

Lumen wrote: »

I think you're getting mixed up there. The Model 3 nerfing is rumoured to start at 20,000kWh of fast charging...

Thats the key word. The reality is we dont know yet when it will start happening on the Model 3


The main issue here is the marketing. People dont know kW's to kWh's when it comes to EV's so to expect the general public to be able to understand this issue is going to be difficult and if the issue does come to pass on the Model 3 it will leave alot of secondhand owners in a few years time with a bad taste in their mouth when they get a much slower charge speed than they expected.... Tesla should be more open about this issue.

This is very very like Nissan's rapidgate... they advertised one speed but delivered something very different in some circumstances.