Charge rate on CSP 48a vs 80a setting

[skpatel]

Anyone know the difference in charge rate when the CSP is adjusted from 80a to 48a? I’m waiting on my CSP to arrive but just doing research ahead of time. I’m unable to run a 100a circuit and will have to end up going a 60a circuit for 48a setting.

Sponsored

 

[Marcoux]

At 48Amps I typically get around 8% per hour, where as 80Amps will get me somewhere between 12-15% per hour.

 

[RickLightning]

Simple math:

80 x 240 = 19.2kWh x 90% (10% loss) = 17.3kWh
48 x 240 = 11.5kWh x 90% = 10.4kWh

131 / 17.3 ~= 7.6hrs, 13% per hour
131 / 10.4 ~= 12.6hrs, 8% per hour

Of course you don't charge from 0 to 100%. Assuming 20 to 90%, i.e. 70% of battery:

7.6 x 0.7 = 5.3hrs
12.6 x 0.7 = 8.8hrs

 

[Ostrichsak]

Simple math:

80 x 240 = 19.2kWh x 90% (10% loss) = 17.3kWh
48 x 240 = 11.5kWh x 90% = 10.4kWh

131 / 17.3 ~= 7.6hrs, 13% per hour
131 / 10.4 ~= 12.6hrs, 8% per hour

Of course you don't charge from 0 to 100%. Assuming 20 to 90%, i.e. 70% of battery:

7.6 x 0.7 = 5.3hrs
12.6 x 0.7 = 8.8hrs

Simpler than that would be glancing at a real-time indicator of your charge rate in MPH like every other EV in existence. Ford needs to fix this.

 

[Tony Burgh]

Simple math:

80 x 240 = 19.2kWh x 90% (10% loss) = 17.3kWh
48 x 240 = 11.5kWh x 90% = 10.4kWh

131 / 17.3 ~= 7.6hrs, 13% per hour
131 / 10.4 ~= 12.6hrs, 8% per hour

Of course you don't charge from 0 to 100%. Assuming 20 to 90%, i.e. 70% of battery:

7.6 x 0.7 = 5.3hrs
12.6 x 0.7 = 8.8hrs

I was going to say reciprocal of 48/80.
I would rather see % kWh available. I switch to calm screen occasionally to see the % more precisely.

 

[RickLightning]

Simpler than that would be glancing at a real-time indicator of your charge rate in MPH like every other EV in existence. Ford needs to fix this.

I disagree. This is the dumbing down of EVs. MPH is not a measurement of charging since a kilowatt delivers a different amount of miles depending on driving style, topography, weather, etc. That would be like my ICE vehicle showing how many MPGs I've added to my tank as I fill up.

EVSEs deliver kilowatts to vehicles. There's a loss from wall to vehicle, could be up to 15% (110v charging), roughly 10% with level 2 (240v charging), and roughly 8 % with DC fast charging. The resulting energy delivered will result in a different amount of miles for everyone - and changes all the time. People need to understand that so they understand why their 320 mile range drops to close to 200 in the dead of winter.

 

[Ostrichsak]

I disagree. This is the dumbing down of EVs. MPH is not a measurement of charging since a kilowatt delivers a different amount of miles depending on driving style, topography, weather, etc. That would be like my ICE vehicle showing how many MPGs I've added to my tank as I fill up.

EVSEs deliver kilowatts to vehicles. There's a loss from wall to vehicle, could be up to 15% (110v charging), roughly 10% with level 2 (240v charging), and roughly 8 % with DC fast charging. The resulting energy delivered will result in a different amount of miles for everyone - and changes all the time. People need to understand that so they understand why their 320 mile range drops to close to 200 in the dead of winter.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

My Teslas (as well as most other EVs other than the ones made by Ford) use the MPH charge rate method. It works fine. My cars all tell me approximately how much the current charge rate is based on an easy to understand metric: MPH. So if it's plugged in for an hour at 30MPH I know that I will take on approximately 30 miles of range. If I drive like an ass that actual realized range will go down, of course.

It doesn't care what the "loss" is that you mention from the wall to my battery pack because the car already calculates based on how many electrons it's putting in the pack. This really has nothing to do with phantom drain or any of those other things you mention either. It tells me what the current charge rate is, real time.

If I'm expecting to see 30mph charge rate and it's only charging at 20mph it also tells me there may be an issue worth looking into. I can also gauge (again, roughly) about how long it will be until my car is either full or full enough for a drive I need to make. With ford.... Nothing. That's not acceptable regardless of how inaccurate you think it is. An educated guess is better than nothing at all which is what Ford gives us and claims that's somehow a feature.

Ultimately I've owned nothing but Teslas for years now that use mph as the charge rate indicator. I didn't really understand it at first but have come to appreciate that, while charging, the car displays it and my phone displays that rate real time. It's super useful as an indicator for countless reasons.

Also, the range difference in the "dead of winter" is actually quite similar between EVs and ICE even though nobody notes it. I'm the type of guy who kept a journal of MPG with each fill up on my ICE vehicles and every winter here in Colorado my MPG would drop 25-30% without fail. Partially due to ethanol being added to the pumps, having to start your car to let it run for 5-15 minutes every time before you can actually drive it anywhere or just the fact that mechanical parts do NOT like the bitter cold weather... the actual difference in the amount of energy resulting in forward momentum is roughly the same no matter how much people try to make it seem like an EV only thing.

But this is an entirely separate conversation and none of this has anything to do with giving the end-user some sort of an idea (we can debate how rough this estimate really is, sure) of what rate their vehicle is currently charging at is a glaring omission. I will never understand people who are willing to die on the hill of less information is somehow better. Nobody says you have to look at it if it exists if you think it's so inaccurate that it's not every worthy of displaying in the first place but we both know that... if your vehicle had it... you'd use it to at least yet an idea of things.

That's the point of information. Do what you will with it but don't limit other's access to it just because you thin it's less-than-ideal.

 

[Maquis]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

My Teslas (as well as most other EVs other than the ones made by Ford) use the MPH charge rate method. It works fine. My cars all tell me approximately how much the current charge rate is based on an easy to understand metric: MPH. So if it's plugged in for an hour at 30MPH I know that I will take on approximately 30 miles of range. If I drive like an ass that actual realized range will go down, of course.

It doesn't care what the "loss" is that you mention from the wall to my battery pack because the car already calculates based on how many electrons it's putting in the pack. This really has nothing to do with phantom drain or any of those other things you mention either. It tells me what the current charge rate is, real time.

If I'm expecting to see 30mph charge rate and it's only charging at 20mph it also tells me there may be an issue worth looking into. I can also gauge (again, roughly) about how long it will be until my car is either full or full enough for a drive I need to make. With ford.... Nothing. That's not acceptable regardless of how inaccurate you think it is. An educated guess is better than nothing at all which is what Ford gives us and claims that's somehow a feature.

Ultimately I've owned nothing but Teslas for years now that use mph as the charge rate indicator. I didn't really understand it at first but have come to appreciate that, while charging, the car displays it and my phone displays that rate real time. It's super useful as an indicator for countless reasons.

Also, the range difference in the "dead of winter" is actually quite similar between EVs and ICE even though nobody notes it. I'm the type of guy who kept a journal of MPG with each fill up on my ICE vehicles and every winter here in Colorado my MPG would drop 25-30% without fail. Partially due to ethanol being added to the pumps, having to start your car to let it run for 5-15 minutes every time before you can actually drive it anywhere or just the fact that mechanical parts do NOT like the bitter cold weather... the actual difference in the amount of energy resulting in forward momentum is roughly the same no matter how much people try to make it seem like an EV only thing.

But this is an entirely separate conversation and none of this has anything to do with giving the end-user some sort of an idea (we can debate how rough this estimate really is, sure) of what rate their vehicle is currently charging at is a glaring omission. I will never understand people who are willing to die on the hill of less information is somehow better. Nobody says you have to look at it if it exists if you think it's so inaccurate that it's not every worthy of displaying in the first place but we both know that... if your vehicle had it... you'd use it to at least yet an idea of things.

That's the point of information. Do what you will with it but don't limit other's access to it just because you thin it's less-than-ideal.

I like to go to the gas station and put 250 miles of gas in my ICE.

 

[Ostrichsak]

I like to go to the gas station and put 250 miles of gas in my ICE.

The difference is you fill your tank in 2 minutes, maximum. You can look at the display and it really doesn't matter how quickly it's filling so nobody cares because it's the difference in a few seconds either way. A decrease in fill rate also doesn't necessarily indicate there's a potential issue either. If it's grossly off in the rate at which it's filling we instinctively know because it's moving super slowly on the readout.

With EVs it takes a very long time to charge so it's important to factor the rate at which it's filling as well because often times you may be basing when you can drive again on this metric. If it took 10 hours to fill a gas tank you can count on people wanting a better way to incorporate that into the readout they're seeing. To use your analogy, since we're effectively moving the gas station into our garage now, I like to have a full understanding of the health and performance of my electrical system. Knowing if your charge rate is suddenly lower is an indicator that you could have a potential electrical issue that your vehicle is protecting you from that may get worse, unchecked.

There are really countless reasons to have this information readily accessible and very few to not having it accessible. If it bothers you that much, just don't look at it. I will never understand those who argue against information when nobody is forcing them to look at it.

There is zero logical reason to not provide this information, no matter how accurate you think it is. It's like saying "No speedometer is 100% accurate on every car at all speeds so.... we just quit including them on our cars" as a solution.

Much like the Tesla forums, I can see already there are LOTS of users here who seemingly sunk their entire life savings into Ford stock that will defend any and ALL decisions Ford makes... no matter how wrong they are.

 

[RickLightning]

Pretty funny how I say there should be MORE information, and you took it to be LESS.

So you think the average idiot, the one that doesn't know about winter gas and lower MPG from cold, is not going to freak out when the 30 miles per hour they were getting in August turns into 24 miles they're getting in October, and 20 miles in February.

Ok, right...

Oh, by the way, my F-150 takes a lot longer to fill up my 36 gallon tank than 2 minutes.

 

[Pioneer74]

So if it's plugged in for an hour at 30MPH I know that I will take on approximately 30 miles of range. If I drive like an ass that actual realized range will go down, of course

You just made the argument not to show MPH being charged.

 

[Firestop]

Simple math:

80 x 240 = 19.2kWh x 90% (10% loss) = 17.3kWh
48 x 240 = 11.5kWh x 90% = 10.4kWh

131 / 17.3 ~= 7.6hrs, 13% per hour
131 / 10.4 ~= 12.6hrs, 8% per hour

Of course you don't charge from 0 to 100%. Assuming 20 to 90%, i.e. 70% of battery:

7.6 x 0.7 = 5.3hrs
12.6 x 0.7 = 8.8hrs

FWIW, my CarScanner readings on my 80A FCSP confirm your math. The readings consistently shows 16.67-17.00 kW being delivered between 0-90% SoC on my Lariat ER, inclusive of ~10% loss from the total kWh delivered by the FCSP and that total accepted by my truck. The kW delivered by the FCSP drops like a rock at around 90% SoC…..

 

[ivan256]

My Teslas (as well as most other EVs other than the ones made by Ford) use the MPH charge rate method. It works fine. My cars all tell me approximately how much the current charge rate is based on an easy to understand metric: MPH. So if it's plugged in for an hour at 30MPH I know that I will take on approximately 30 miles of range. If I drive like an ass that actual realized range will go down, of course.

There is already a perfectly good metric unit for this concept. The Watt.

Using MPH in exchange for Watts is a downgrade - you can't compare MPH from vehicle to vehicle or driver to driver. If somebody tells you that a particular charging station delivers 300MPH of charge rate you don't know anything about that charger.

That's before you even get into the fact that many EVs at fast chargers take less than an hour. So now you have to do some division to figure out how long you're going to be at the charger anyway. AFAICT the reason for using MPH was to distract people from the fact that fast charging is still pretty slow, but it seems fast if you're thinking about 200+MPH speeds while you're stopped waiting for your car to charge up.

Also, driving fast and/or inefficiently doesn't necessarily make a person an "ass".

Sponsored