Hong Kong Tesla Model S Charging Standard

[markwj]

DITB: not really. Remember each charger is limited to 40A total, so your 48A figure for single charger seems wrong. Also single phase goes up to 80A.

 

[DITB]

DITB: not really. Remember each charger is limited to 40A total, so your 48A figure for single charger seems wrong. Also single phase goes up to 80A.

As I noted, these are gross values, ie 48A gross becomes 40A net, 13A gross becomes 10A net.

If you can correct the parts of the table that is wrong - it would be useful to have an entirely correct and clear table, so people can see exactly what they can expect with different combinations of equipment.

As far as I know, the principles are correct, while the chargers available aren't correctly contained in the table, either present or expected future chargers.

I have emailed you the spreadsheet I used for the table, in Excel format.

 

[markwj]

I think it is simpler to say:

Three phase: no difference tesla / non-Tesla wall connector. Single charger can max out 3x16A at total 40A. Dual charger can get 48A from 3x16A, and 80A from 3x32A.

Single phase: for Tesla wall connector, Single charger can get up to 40A, and dual charger up to 80A. For non-Tesla wall connector, single charger can get up to 16A, and dual-charger up to 32A.

 

[telegogo]

As I noted, these are gross values, ie 48A gross becomes 40A net, 13A gross becomes 10A net.

If you can correct the parts of the table that is wrong - it would be useful to have an entirely correct and clear table, so people can see exactly what they can expect with different combinations of equipment.

As far as I know, the principles are correct, while the chargers available aren't correctly contained in the table, either present or expected future chargers.

I have emailed you the spreadsheet I used for the table, in Excel format.

That's excellent. The table is clear and easy to understand. I think I got my answer clearly.

Concerning the max out 40A for each charger, the table is still hold true except for total charging current will be limited to 40A for single charger and 80A for dual charger; i.e. the utilisation is reduced for these cases.

How about CHAdeMO (if we get an adaptor)?

 

[hiroshiy]

That's excellent. The table is clear and easy to understand. I think I got my answer clearly.

Concerning the max out 40A for each charger, the table is still hold true except for total charging current will be limited to 40A for single charger and 80A for dual charger; i.e. the utilisation is reduced for these cases.

How about CHAdeMO (if we get an adaptor)?

CHAdeMO doesn't use Model S onboard chargers. Instead it talks to car BMS directly and supply DC direct to the battery. In other words with CHAdeMO, the CHAdeMO charger works as Model S onboard charger.
The only limit is the CHAdeMO charger. If it is max 50kW then that's the max, though after roughly 290km Model S requests less than 50kW due to taper.
There are CHAdeMO's from 10kW to 50kW, so you need to know the output in advance to estimate the charging time with your Model S.

 

[DITB]

CHAdeMO doesn't use Model S onboard chargers. Instead it talks to car BMS directly and supply DC direct to the battery. In other words with CHAdeMO, the CHAdeMO charger works as Model S onboard charger.
The only limit is the CHAdeMO charger. If it is max 50kW then that's the max, though after roughly 290km Model S requests less than 50kW due to taper.
There are CHAdeMO's from 10kW to 50kW, so you need to know the output in advance to estimate the charging time with your Model S.

ChaDeMo is a DC charger, the chart I made is only for AC charging.

Whether using a ChaDeMo or supercharger, it's both the same principle and as you say - on board chargers aren't longer a limitation, the ground installation including battery temperature, are the limiting factors. Cooling of both battery and supercharger is necessary.

Because of the tapering, it is only the initial charging where superchargers win over ChaDeMo - if you want a 100% charge, the difference of time to charge between the two becomes less.

The main differences between superchargers and ChaDeMo (for a Tesla owner), in my eyes, are that superchargers ...

a) Don't have silly compatibility problems
b) Don't require activation procedures (apart from owning a Model S, lest the 60 kWh / non-SC enabled)
c) Don't require payment/membership
d) Don't require an extra adapter, which is currently only offered in Japan (and doesn't fit HK/AU/EU cars)

With dual chargers, 3 phase 32A type-2 (22.5 kW) is as good as a low end ChaDeMo (around 20kW), so in order of priority for road trips (dual chargers installed), one should look for

1) Superchargers (obviously), initially up to 550 km/h
2) High end ChaDeMo (if they are compatible and operational, and if you have the correct membership/payment type). Around 200-250 km/h
3) Low end ChaDeMo or type-2 / 3 phase 32A - both will charge the car right under 100 km/h

Obviously, for the majority who doesn't have Chinese license plates in Hong Kong, "road trips" are limited to not much more than 100 km, unless you do round trips or have a need to drive all day (limo/taxi).

For overnight or work parking, anything from single phase 32A or faster will be sufficient for most peoples needs.

- - - Updated - - -

With help from markwj, the chart has now been updated. Please note that where it says "Tesla Charger" it really just means a charger that converts a single phase supply into a three phase feed - it doesn't mean that Tesla actually offer such a charger.

What we can see here is that not only can we charge more with the dual charger, but in most situations, we can take full advantage of the charger capability. Dual chargers, however, never give more than twice the speed of single chargers, yet I consider it an essential option to have, as I never know where I will be charging, and how long time I have to charger.

For simplicity, the chart now says 3 phases for either single or dual chargers, while dual chargers really split it into 2 x 16A, it is depicted as each phase takes 32A (which it does, but shared over 2 onboard chargers).

As for the 40A and 80A limitation of single vs dual chargers, I would like to question that. I have been charging on a 220V / 3~ Mennekes type-2 which averaged over 3 hours at 22.4 kW, having seen it at 22.5kW at times. The installed meter (CLP at Kwai Chung Estate) shows the total time and kWh given, when the charge finishes, while it shows the instant kW any time while charging.

Calculating backwards to current (Ampere), this means I was getting an average of 102A spread over 2 chargers, which is 51A pr charger or 17A pr channel. Had the limitation really been 80A for dual chargers, I would only have been able to get 17.6 kW (at 220V AC), rather than the 22.4 kW average I got. Unless the voltage was 280V AC or the loss at the chargers was 22%.

The table might not be correct, then, in the 40A/80A limitation depicted. I need to go back and check it again, change to kW rather than km/h charging.

Anyone else charging at different chargers than superchargers, do please check that actual values conform to what this table says. Check what the charging station indicates (if possible), as well as what your car says it's charging at (select kW rather than km/h in the settings please)

 

[markwj]

Core,

Thanks. Very clear. Once we've resolved the 40/48 and 80/96 question, let's jointly update the first post here to give a clear one-stop description of the options and limitations.

Regarding the 40/48 and 80/96 question, given what we know of the six sub-chargers, each with an 8A limit, and 2 per phase, it seems strange that there is an overall downgrade of that capability (when using three phase). The wierd 1/3rd and 2/3rd numbers shown in the table reflect that.

Tesla have always quoted the 40/80 limits. Even today, they say:

10 kW capable on-board charger with the following input compatibility: 85-265 V, 45-65 Hz, 1-40 A
(Optional 20 kW capable Dual Chargers increases input compatibility to 80 A)

That is certainly true for single phase, but it seems that from what you are saying, when using three phase, each charger can do more than 10kW.

Can someone with a three phase 32A wall connector, and dual chargers, confirm that?

 

[DITB]

Good idea, Mark.

I am also wondering whether the indicated charging rate in km/h is "ideal km/h" or if it depends on the selection in settings of ideal/typical.

Does anyone actually use "ideal" range? I don't think many people in real driving conditions, even with a light foot, can manage to get to "typical range", apart from selected trips. I did a 80 km/h trial over 31 km and averaged 175 Wh/km - it went from 183 to 153 km so even the less optimistic "typical range" setting doesn't go much above 80 or 90 km/h. Maybe on longer trips, when the car stabilises battery temperature?

Initially, they called the chargers 11kW and 22kW for single/dual, not sure why they downgraded them when I actually get more than 22kW. "Angry Birds" Padding maybe? Better to promise less, deliver more - than the other way around. I wish they would have applied that policy to delivery estimates (!!!!)

 

[3fiftynine]

Talking about range, I have been using "typical range", unless it's a deliberate "test" under well controlled conditions (which probably renders result unrealistic) I don't think you could really replicate a "typical range". I have been tracking consumption (a month tomorrow, using a spreadsheet) the purpose is to help judging what "margin/buffer/correction" I need on top of the displayed typical range. I suggest all owners do the same as long as your driving habit/range/places you go are pretty regular and fall into a pattern.

I have seen 150Wh/km after a Taipo/central round trip on a weekday with pretty nice traffic on Tolo highway, stat over a month I see 225Wh/km.

 

[Vmax]

Core,

Thanks. Very clear. Once we've resolved the 40/48 and 80/96 question, let's jointly update the first post here to give a clear one-stop description of the options and limitations.

Regarding the 40/48 and 80/96 question, given what we know of the six sub-chargers, each with an 8A limit, and 2 per phase, it seems strange that there is an overall downgrade of that capability (when using three phase). The wierd 1/3rd and 2/3rd numbers shown in the table reflect that.

Tesla have always quoted the 40/80 limits. Even today, they say:



That is certainly true for single phase, but it seems that from what you are saying, when using three phase, each charger can do more than 10kW.

Can someone with a three phase 32A wall connector, and dual chargers, confirm that?

Having Dual Chargers and charging at 32amp three phase with 90-95km/h. I believe this means each charger doesn't do more than 10kW.

 

[DITB]

Having Dual Chargers and charging at 32amp three phase with 90-95km/h. I believe this means each charger doesn't do more than 10kW.

At 220V / 10A charging, you can get 9 km/h with air con off, 2 km/h with air con on (!).

You cannot extrapolate the ~ 1A = 1 km/h (at 220V AC) directly as it is actually somewhat faster than that - but you have to take away some loss at the lower charging rates. 95 km/h (when stabilised) is definitely more than 10kW per charger.

Which one is really max (per charger)?

220V x 40A = 8.8 kW?

250V x 40A = 10 kW?

The original spec which was 11 kW (at 230 x 48A maybe?)?

When I stabilise at 95 km/h, it averages out to 22.4 kW on the charging station meter. If the loss is really from 22.4 kW down to 20 kW (or 17.6 kW if using max 40A per charger?), then the loss would be quite substantial, more than 20% from charging station to battery.

Time to find out:

- Forget the "km/h" but change to kW instead.

- Whether charging rate in km/h is ideal, typical or as selected in the settings.

 

[DITB]

More testing answers questions and clarifies, but also opens up new questions:

Is "typical range" varying with each car, depending on it's driving history, or is it a constant value embedded in the software/firmware?

After charging today, I confirmed that the 3-phase chargers, as delivered to the Hong Kong market are NEITHER limited to 40A/80A for single/dual chargers, NOR are they limited to 10kW/20kW.

Here was todays testing:

Location: Kwai Chung Estate
Charging equipment: CLP 3-phase/32A type 2 (22 kW)
Voltage: Varying between 217-219 V AC as measured by my car
Ampere: 32A/3 - as advertised

While I had 21kW indicated inside the car, it was flickering to 20 kW at times (there are no decimal places indicated, just whole kW). On the charging station it said it delivered about 1.2 kW more than the car indicated it got (cannot be seen precisely as the car rounds off to whole kW, however, V AC and Amp can be used to find it around 20.8 kW at most times, fluctuating to over 21 kW when voltage is 219 V AC).

When stabilised, charging showed 94 km/h for typical range, and 117 km/h for rated range, 20 or 21 kW, depending on actual voltage (217, 218 or 219 seen). The CLP charger showed around 22.2 kW given, and after 52 minutes of charging, it said I had used 19.126 kWh, which amounts to an average gross charging power of 22.07 kW. I had the center screen on most of the time, while the air con was off. Overhead was hence just over 1 kW, accounting for losses in the cable, running the chargers, screens and various other systems. Including all these factors, charging efficiency seems to be 94% from charging station output to battery (excluding what the charging station itself uses and before, and eventually using the power from the battery)

My calculations show around 177.5 Wh/km for rated range, and 222 Wh/km for typical range. Since my car so far has average 221 Wh/km, I was thinking if the typical range is being set to the cars life long average, or a fixed value. Or is it a coincidence that my calculation of 222 Wh/km is within 1 Wh/km of my own average use so far?

This means that the charging chart has been updated, see below. Most of the values depicted are still calculated, pending practical confirmation by testing (need car with single charger to try some locations and report back please)

Please note that overhead in the car, as well as energy used to cool (or heat) the battery isn't proportional to the charging rate. Hence, very low or very high charging rates will be less efficient than some mid range charging level. 13A BS1363 charger, is cut down to about 10A by the Mennekes adapter that Tesla sells for 3,700 HKD, while charging is about 9 km/h when all goes well. The "km/h" indicated in the table are NOT corrected for different efficiencies, at different charging levels. Also, it depends on whether air con is running or not. For BS1363 and 10A net charging, running the air con lowers the charging rate from around 9 to around 2 km/h.

 

[hiroshiy]

I believe typical is 300 Wh/mile, and rated is something like 250 Wh/mile, both fixed value.

 

[DITB]

I believe typical is 300 Wh/mile, and rated is something like 250 Wh/mile, both fixed value.

That would be 186 and 155 Wh/km, when converted. If that was the case, charging with 21 kW should indicate 112 km/h rather than 95 km/h, so it seems far off - unless there is some discrepancy between the power going into the battery, and the power used again.

My data above, converted (x1.609), would be 286 Wh/mile and 357 Wh/mile, compared to 250/300 as you write. Something doesn't add up.

It's not that it is super important to know, I am just trying to understand what it is I am reading off of the different values for charging and consumption, so I know what I got, and can predict charging times and actual range. It's not really very transparent I think.

 

[hiroshiy]

I think if you see 21kW on the charging station, the station, cable and onboard charger convert energy into waste heat approximately 5-10%. Then you might need to spend some power for battery heater if cold enough. Battery heater seems to cost from zero up to 7kw.

 

[hiroshiy]

Checking my car again and again and I found my oversight. Sorry for a big confusion!

I now guess with relatively high confidence that:
- In U.S. car, they have Ideal and Rated
- In Euro, HK and JP, we have Rated and Typical
- Rated is Rated. Same globally. 187.5Wh/km or 300Wh/mile
- Typical is a new feature. That seemed a bit lower on my car than Rated, but it seems typical depends on past records!

How's that? I now switched to Rated and see what things look like.

 

[DITB]

Checking my car again and again and I found my oversight. Sorry for a big confusion!

I now guess with relatively high confidence that:
- In U.S. car, they have Ideal and Rated
- In Euro, HK and JP, we have Rated and Typical
- Rated is Rated. Same globally. 187.5Wh/km or 300Wh/mile
- Typical is a new feature. That seemed a bit lower on my car than Rated, but it seems typical depends on past records!

How's that? I now switched to Rated and see what things look like.

"Rated" is too optimistic, says about 25% longer range than "typical" on my car. On some trips, I can achieve better than "typical", if conditions are ideal, but my all time average over about 5,000 km now, is still around 221 Wh/km. On a 30 km trip with no steep hills, gentle driving and mainly highway, I will match "typical" if I go around 80 km/h. To get "rated" range, I need to go slower, around 65 km/h or so. Those people who live in the city have much higher consumptions.

I previously thought that acceleration doesn't mean that much, but I have found it does really mean a lot. On a gentle trip with average below 200 Wh/km, just one or two "see who gets first from the red light" starts and the average shoots up dramatically. And yes, that is even without subsequent braking (only regen). Harsh acceleration does use more power but also puts "more money in the bank" quickly, it less time that acceleration takes place, and yet due to losses in motor, tires and elsewhere, more energy is wasted into heat (and tire wear).

Now back to the subject, about Hong Kong charging standards:

2.2 / 2.2 kW - BS1363 13A stations, in reality giving only 10A with the Mennekes BS1363 cable, are everywhere in HK and mainly useful for longer parking, ie overnight, work or airport (HKIA P2: I wish!)
3.5 / 7 kW - Mennekes type-2 / 1 phase 32A is more widespread than 3 phase, yet with only a third of the charging speed of 3 phase. Still three times faster than BS1363.
3.5 / 7 kW - J1772 is also very rare here, but there are places where a J1772 adapter would mean faster charging (32A instead of 10A)
9 / 9 kW - Tesla Wall charger - at the moment single phase, 40A, not just for private installations, but also in certain estates. Soon *) to be upgraded to either 80A single phase or 96A three phase (?).
11 / 22 kW - Mennekes type-2 / 3 phase 32A seems to be the best bet for AC charger development, as it fits most cars (including the Tesla Model S, cable included in HK), and the fastest before DC charging.
-
30+ kW - We are still waiting for a ChaDeMo adapter to be released for sale soon *), although there are very few charging stations in HK - and we don't even know if they are compatible or not
120 kW - superchargers, although some times they are as slow as 25 kW because of failed units and all spots charging at the same time

Multiply kW by 4.3 to get km/h typical km/h, 5.3 to get rated km/h. Too bad the car doesn't indicate charging with a decimal point. It seems it doesn't round off but merely truncate decimals, ie it needs to go above 20.999 kW before it says 21 kW. I would much rather use kW, if it was with just 1 decimal point.

(single / dual charger kW - sorted with slower chargers first. Note that kW changes with voltage, fluctuations 210-225 can occur to change actual values)


*) Note that "soon" in Tesla terminology is usually measured in either months or years. Even search engines have been potty trained by "coming soon":

 

[arg]

- In U.S. car, they have Ideal and Rated
- In Euro, HK and JP, we have Rated and Typical

Yes.

- Rated is Rated. Same globally. 187.5Wh/km or 300Wh/mile

No! Rated is whatever the local rating agency specifies. In the USA, rated is the EPA rating, giving about 265 miles for a 100% charge; in the UK we have NEDC rating, giving about 312 miles for a 100% charge. I think you also use NEDC in Japan, but I'm not sure.

Tesla's aim seems to be to have two settings, where one is achievable in everyday driving, and one is an optimistic setting which you might reach by driving very slowly, but they also must have a setting that matches the official rating.

In the USA, the 'rated' setting does the job of 'something you can achieve in everyday driving', so they make the other setting 'ideal' for a more optimistic option.

In places that use NEDC rating, the 'rated' setting is already wildly optimistic, so they make the second setting 'typical'.

In all cases, these are fixed conversions from battery percentage charge into miles (or km) - the only difference is the scaling factor. They do not depend on your driving style/history.

- Typical is a new feature. That seemed a bit lower on my car than Rated, but it seems typical depends on past records!

There have been persistent rumours that these values depend on driving style, but it has been heavily analysed on these forums from the experience of many people, and it seems clear that driving style/history does not affect the scale factors. The values for a 100% charge do vary slightly from car to car and from week to week on the same car, but this reflects the health and state of balance of the battery (or what the software thinks is the health of the battery, which may be different!).

 

[3fiftynine]

As far as I can see from here New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NEDC (for that matter EPA range in the USA) rated range/emission should be repeatable if test cycle/conditions are strictly followed. There are criticisms as to how realistic these figures are however car companies need to undergo tests and advertise/commit to some figures for consumers. They also need to worry about class action lawsuit if repeatability of quoted range is poor.

For me it's not possible that I can replicate the drive pattern in NEDC test so I need to discount the range displayed using my experience.

 

[hiroshiy]

Rated range 394 km=246 miles when new
Here's my conclusion... Our Rated number is lower than US Ideal so definitely not NEDC.