My letter to Tesla regarding their Superchargers

[GaslessInSeattle]

actually everybody except Tesla, Mitsubishi, and Nissan so far, will want EVs to become very popular.

That's one of the points of my letter. I wrote to Tesla because I know that they truly car about electric cars. They're the only company that is fully vested in electric cars, yet they use a standard that no one else uses. Just because they're successful now doesn't mean that they will be in the future. They are backlogged with orders right now because the demand is higher than the supply but once everyone who wants a Tesla gets one, where will the future demand come from?

I can completely relate. I had a similar anti proprietary campaign mentality towards Tesla early on, then I watched how the CHAdeMO stations kept failing due to the fact that the lever on the handle and the way it latches is not very intuitive or ergonomic. perhaps that was mostly a Blink issue, but still, it's not all that well designed, IMHO.

I own a Tesla S and Leaf now, and I can say that Tesla is way ahead in their plug design. the industry should adopt Tesla's system, not the other way around, it's been put together by rocket scientists, pretty much literally :~). the plug is stupid simple to use, not prone to malfunction and compact and can deliver 120+kWh's. if you really want reliability, I suggest we all start writing letters to the other manufacturers and urge them to take Tesla up on their offer to use their plug design!

 

[kubel]

Tesla's game plan doesn't favor opportunity charging, it focuses on at-home charging (for commuting and running about), with pitstop charging (Superchargers) only for long distance travel.

I don't see the Tesla plug to be in conflict here with the wider adoption of electric infrastructure. They are designing a superior product for their cars- targeted for a different use.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

They did embrace a standard while the folks at GM/SAE were still scratching their posteriors. Speaking of standards, we need Frankenplug like a hole in the head, and I'm reasonably confident it will be continued to be only embraced by "compliance-only" companies (hence, utter failure). Heck, some of the Frankenplug Cast Members do not, or will not, provide any fast charging at all, like Mercedes on their upcoming B-Class ED compliance car.

I'll tell you what; you get every GM, Nissan, BMW, et al, dealer to install a Tesla 120kW Supercharger and I'll concede that Tesla should install a CHAdeMO or Frankenplug station at their sites.

Luckily I don't need you to concede anything at all. Tesla didn't embrace a standard, they created their own...and a closed one at that. Speaking of standards, we need one standard. Not two, and certainly not three. I couldn't really care less who wins, so long as we end up with a robust QC network.

Anyway, I don't particularly think Tesla should install the other plugs at this point. The crime was going their own way, and the damage is done at this point. As I said, they had their reasons. I just hope it doesn't keep DCQC from reaching critical mass.

A little over a year ago I was digging in my heels just like you. It looked like Tesla was just looking out for their own interests being exclusive. At this point, after using Tesla's super chargers and UMC... everything else sucks in comparison. sorry if that sounds self righteous, it's just true, Tesla created a more functional approach and a more sustainable charging infrastructure model, it's revolutionary and will likely be the only one to truly succeed in the long run and I don't say things like this lightly, nor does Tony Williams. Tony BTW, has plowed probably tens of thousands of hours into this subject learning and trying stuff out, he's spot on, IMHO.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Tesla's game plan doesn't favor opportunity charging, it focuses on at-home charging (for commuting and running about), with pitstop charging (Superchargers) only for long distance travel.

I don't see the Tesla plug to be in conflict here with the wider adoption of electric infrastructure. They are designing a superior product for their cars- targeted for a different use.

the need for opportunity charging is mostly a factor of battery size. I drove the first 5,000 miles in our Tesla without charging it outside the garage, it kind of blew my mind. larger batteries are what will make BEV's attractive for the masses and make the creation of a charging network financially doable because far fewer will be required.

 

[qwk]

actually everybody except Tesla, Mitsubishi, and Nissan so far, will want EVs to become very popular.

That's one of the points of my letter. I wrote to Tesla because I know that they truly car about electric cars. They're the only company that is fully vested in electric cars, yet they use a standard that no one else uses.

They use a standard that nobody else uses because the other standards suck, and would not deliver the power that a decent EV would need in order to not sit at a charger for ages.

That letter is not only lame, it's got a hint of an entitlement attitude. Tesla owes nobody any free electricity, especially someone who won't even buy one of their cars.

 

[palmermd]

Well, Tesla sat in on all of the SAE development, but in the end went their own way with the connector at the end of the cable but kept all the other SAE dc design. This is because they wanted more power capability and also a more elegant connector.

What if they kept they kept the franken-plug at the end of the cable. Would you still complain? We would still all have a Tesla only network. Our Leaf cars can't access the network, and there would not be any other cars capable of plugging in as well. Sort of sounds like the same situation we are in now.

I like the Tesla solution, and their reasons for doing it, and they have stated that if another manufacturer wants to license it for their vehicles they'd be open to it.

Seems the ball is in the other guys court to join the defacto standard, which is only a small variation on the SAE standard. Since nobody has put any serious effort into the SAE either with cars or with charging stations, it seems that SAE should just adopt the Tesla connector into their standard and were exactly where it seems several people want us to be. Except that we Leaf drivers will still be left out.

 

[SuperGrover]

Would it be technically possible to make SC to CHAdeMO adapter? Tesla is doing this themselves, but the other way around, so that Model S owners can use CHAdeMO stations. From my meager understanding of the protocols and capabilities of the two standards I would think a SC adapter to plug into the CHAdeMO port on our vehicles would be fairly straight forward unless there is some sort of authorization check in place (which I suspect there is). There is already some progress on a DIY portable CHAdeMO to higher amperage 240 volt outlet projects in the works. I would think a SC to CHAdeMO adapter would be an even simpler affair, excluding any sort of artificially enforced restrictions, as there is no AC to DC conversion necessary (and the need and expense of a series of multiple AC to DC chargers). Aside from physical form factor and inclusion of AC or DC capability on the SC, aren't SC and CHAdeMO protocols almost identical when it comes strictly to DC charging? If such an adapter were developed how do you think Tesla would handle it?

 

[TonyWilliams]

... it seems that SAE should just adopt the Tesla connector into their standard and were exactly where it seems several people want us to be. Except that we Leaf drivers will still be left out.

LEAF wouldn't be left out if some common sense (and easy) modifications are made to the LEAFs. Replace the J1772 port with a Tesla Model S port, and use the simple and cheap adaptor to charge the LEAF on J1772. When the LEAF is plugged into a Supercharger, just like on a Tesla Model S/E/X, it will charge at 48kW just like it does with CHAdeMO.

The LEAF will still have a CHAdeMO port, too. And, with another pass-through simple adaptor, the LEAF can also charge on Frankenplug.

Advantage, Nissan. The surcharge on a car with this option would be about $2500.

 

[qwk]

... it seems that SAE should just adopt the Tesla connector into their standard and were exactly where it seems several people want us to be. Except that we Leaf drivers will still be left out.

LEAF wouldn't be left out if some common sense (and easy) modifications are made to the LEAFs. Replace the J1772 port with a Tesla Model S port, and use the simple and cheap adaptor to charge the LEAF on J1772. When the LEAF is plugged into a Supercharger, just like on a Tesla Model S/E/X, it will charge at 48kW just like it does with CHAdeMO.

The LEAF will still have a CHAdeMO port, too. And, with another pass-through simple adaptor, the LEAF can also charge on Frankenplug.

Advantage, Nissan. The surcharge on a car with this option would be about $2500.

This is a really good idea Tony, but as of right now, Tesla isn't willing to sell a model S charge port to an individual. I'm sure that if a big automaker wanted to license the tech, they would do it, although I don't see any automakers that are smart enough to go this route, YET.

 

[dhanson865]

Tesla's game plan doesn't favor opportunity charging, it focuses on at-home charging (for commuting and running about), with pitstop charging (Superchargers) only for long distance travel.

I don't see the Tesla plug to be in conflict here with the wider adoption of electric infrastructure. They are designing a superior product for their cars- targeted for a different use.

Why would you say that? Tesla has a network of chargers that aren't Superchargers and they are actively working to install more of them in addition to the Superchargers.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/22940-Tesla-getting-ready-to-roll-out-a-Level-2-Charging-Network" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is only one of many threads discussing destination charging and Tesla is installing chargers at hotels and other locations that aren't Supercharger locations.

 

[TonyWilliams]

This is a really good idea Tony, but as of right now, Tesla isn't willing to sell a model S charge port to an individual. I'm sure that if a big automaker wanted to license the tech, they would do it, although I don't see any automakers that are smart enough to go this route, YET.

Well, if you did it without paying the licensing fee/royalty to Tesla, it would be outright theft.

I'm suggesting manufacturers do it, like Tesla wants.

Nissan makes it an option so that they can still sell a "low ball" car with no DC charging and a 3.3kW charger, or they can sell one with a 6kW charger, plus capability for CHAdeMO, Supercharger, Frankenplug (with adaptor), and J1772 (with adaptor). Heck, even Tesla Roadster (with currently available adaptor).

 

[qwk]

Well, if you did it without paying the licensing fee/royalty to Tesla, it would be outright theft.

Yes. I totally agree.

What I meant was that even if one wanted to buy a Tesla charge port, like for example to use on a Rav4 ev(no supercharging, so no theft), Tesla will not sell you one.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Well, if you did it without paying the licensing fee/royalty to Tesla, it would be outright theft.

Yes. I totally agree.

What I meant was that even if one wanted to buy a Tesla charge port, like for example to use on a Rav4 ev(no supercharging, so no theft), Tesla will not sell you one.

If you really want to add a Tesla Model S/E/X or Roadster plug on a Rav4 EV, there are ways to make that happen.

 

[davewill]

... If you really want reliability, I suggest we all start writing letters to the other manufacturers and urge them to take Tesla up on their offer to use their plug design!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't what Tesla is offering. What they are offering is to license their EV drivetrain to other manufacturers, and to let those cars onto their Supercharger network for a steep fee (multi-thousand) per car sold. They don't want to simply license the Tesla plug, they want significant revenue from each EV sold.

As I said. They LIKE being their own thing, and don't want to support a standard for DCQC. I get why they are doing it, I just don't like it.

 

[qwk]

As I said. They LIKE being their own thing, and don't want to support a standard for DCQC. I get why they are doing it, I just don't like it.

I just don't understand this post. You don't like a company that made a much superior product AND a much superior charging inlet/outlet that will take double the power of the shitty standard the existing ICE industry(that doesn't want to build eV's) come up with?

 

[Pipcecil]

I don't agree tesla should be retrofitting their stuff to fit everyone else.

1) Tesla's connectors both the Level 2 and the Supercharger (same plug but different delivery) were both developed because the SAE was TOO SLOW. J1772 wasn't even finalized when Tesla had to integrate SOMETHING into the Roadster so it took the lastest specs, made it BETTER and came out with its own. It was just as much as the SAE's fault. Telsa needed something and without a actual endorsed standard they were forced to make one themselves

2) Telsa's connectors are superior to what is out there - lighter (remember SAE complaining about hadicap accessability with CHAdeMO?) and high power cap. Its hard to force a substandard connector on Tesla when they developed a superior one.

3) Tesla is a business to make profit. Pure and simple. Yes it can be good to its customers, but in the end, it needs to make money. What motivation does it have? You can't force it to be auturistic when no one else is playing that game. This is pure capitalism, and while it might seem mean or harsh, that's what capitalism is, espcially since Tesla has shareholders to accomodate.

In all honesty, if we are discussing this on a pure technical/engineering standpoint of view, Tesla's connection should replace everything. That technical side alone gives them great leverage for not accomdating inferior technology into their system. In addition, you can't "force" or "punish" Tesla for taking the necessary steps to put EV's on the road when the rule making body (not offically, but widely used to set standards) for the standards couldn't even keep its deadlines for Telsa to even utilize those standards. Personally, the SAE should drop both the J1772 and the SAE Combo and just adopt the Tesla adapter and supercharger.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I wrote a letter to Sam's Club complaining that they had several items for sale that were cheaper than I could get with my Costco membership. I modeled the letter just like yours. I expect to get the same results

 

[Elephanthead]

Why don't you write a letter to Nissan asking them to dump the QC option and instead offer a second 6000 watt charger with a second plug. It is much easier to find two level 2s working next to each other then one QC and the end result is very similar. The advantage of the small battery is quick level 2 charging times. The price of infrastructure is much cheaper also. It also has the advantage of keeping your customer for an hour which is much better then 20 minutes. I can resist for 20 minutes but an hour I am going to buy something I don't need. Level 2s all over the place is much easier to accomplish then SCs for fatcat luxobarges all over. Power to the people! Literally.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Why don't you write a letter to Nissan asking them to dump the QC option and instead offer a second 6000 watt charger with a second plug. It is much easier to find two level 2s working next to each other then one QC and the end result is very similar. The advantage of the small battery is quick level 2 charging times. The price of infrastructure is much cheaper also. It also has the advantage of keeping your customer for an hour which is much better then 20 minutes. I can resist for 20 minutes but an hour I am going to buy something I don't need. Level 2s all over the place is much easier to accomplish then SCs for fatcat luxobarges all over. Power to the people! Literally.

I think that might be a good after market option but the LEAF is taking off in many areas which means one LEAF at two stations is a luxury that wont last long

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Tesla is a business to make profit.

More to the point, Tesla needs to make this technology work to survive. GM, Daimler, Toyota, BMW, you name it can all have a rotating cast of players drifting in and out of committee meetings that produce half ass designs and they go back to the comfort of their legacy business. Tesla does not have that luxury, their solution needs to be the best possible for their products and customers.