My letter to Tesla regarding their Superchargers

[DaveinOlyWA]

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.

+1. Tesla has no obligation to provide compatibility to the masses. They offer a high end car with very unique benefits. Should Tesla pay to install 15" touchscreens in our LEAFs?

if not, why not?

the question I posed may seem ridiculous (and it is) but I really don't see a difference.

the Tesla SC are not free. they are incorporated into the price of the car along with a VERY healthy profit to Tesla (not the buyer!) . It is simply Marketing.

If Nissan wants to play at the same level, then start writing letters to them.

 

[davewill]

Everyone here seems to assume that Tesla can flourish in a vacuum. That the EV movement can fail, but Tesla can somehow still be wildly successful. I don't believe that for a millisecond. Elon is betting (hoping) that he will be so successful that the other manufacturers will adopt his standards. He can ask Apple and Sony how well that works. I think it comes down to a handful of scenarios:

1. The charging standards will overtake Tesla and Tesla will finally adopt them
2. EVs will succeed despite Tesla. In this case, what Tesla does doesn't matter.
3. The EV movement will die, and sooner or later Tesla will as well.

What will NOT happen is the industry adopting Tesla's standards. Why do I think this? Tesla won't license the tech in a way that the other manufacturers will accept. There's no way that Nissan, or GM is going to increase their costs per vehicle by hundreds or thousands. They just won't. I've seen it happen time and again in the computer industry. Nobody pays a dime to their competitors if they can possibly avoid it.

 

[palmermd]

Everyone here seems to assume that Tesla can flourish in a vacuum. That the EV movement can fail, but Tesla can somehow still be wildly successful. I don't believe that for a millisecond. Elon is betting (hoping) that he will be so successful that the other manufacturers will adopt his standards. He can ask Apple and Sony how well that works. I think it comes down to a handful of scenarios:

1. The charging standards will overtake Tesla and Tesla will finally adopt them
2. EVs will succeed despite Tesla. In this case, what Tesla does doesn't matter.
3. The EV movement will die, and sooner or later Tesla will as well.

What will NOT happen is the industry adopting Tesla's standards. Why do I think this? Tesla won't license the tech in a way that the other manufacturers will accept. There's no way that Nissan, or GM is going to increase their costs per vehicle by hundreds or thousands. They just won't. I've seen it happen time and again in the computer industry. Nobody pays a dime to their competitors if they can possibly avoid it.

I agree to with you to a point. The difference is that what Tesla is proposing is for the manufacturers to offer an option on their cars. It is not that they have them make it mandatory. The option is to put in some hardware to let the car access the Supercharger network, and that access is essentially a prepaid long distance card. The reason it is pricey is because you are prepaying for the energy as well as for the hardware to get installed. The bigger reason I think that the other manufacturers will be practically forced to adopt the prepaid supercharger access model is because by the end of 2014 they will have built a complete network in the US for any car that has at least 200 miles range.

I don't think that supercharger access for the Leaf is a good idea anyway. ChaDeMo is just fine to give a boost for local travel. Leaf is not a long distance car. It is a perfect local commuter car. In order to really need the supercharger access you really need to be able to have a 200 mile range or more vehicle. I'm sure if there was a $2500 option on the Leaf for supercharger access, some people would buy it.

I'm not sure why you only have 3 scenarios, and why they are all so negative toward Tesla. Somehow several people here seem to think Tesla is anti-EV which is very strange in my mind. They have been the catalyst for this entire movement since they started in 2003.

 

[smkettner]

Superchargers are designed around 60 to 85+ kWh batteries.
The only chance a competitor would join the Tesla network would be if it could efficiently use the facility which means a large battery and an expensive vehicle. I could see a Bently, Maybach, Lamborgini etc joining as their volume is too low to build out their own network.

LEAF, Volt, RAV4..... not a chance.

 

[davewill]

... I'm not sure why you only have 3 scenarios, and why they are all so negative toward Tesla. Somehow several people here seem to think Tesla is anti-EV which is very strange in my mind. They have been the catalyst for this entire movement since they started in 2003.

I have three scenarios because those are the ones I believe are credible. I'm not sure why you think the first two scenarios are negative towards Tesla. In both of them Tesla succeeds. Don't get me wrong, I think Tesla is great and extremely positive towards EV adoption. I'm only criticizing them using their own charging standards. I hope that this won't be a big deal, but I do think it is a mistake.

Superchargers are designed around 60 to 85+ kWh batteries.
The only chance a competitor would join the Tesla network would be if it could efficiently use the facility which means a large battery and an expensive vehicle. I could see a Bently, Maybach, Lamborgini etc joining as their volume is too low to build out their own network.

LEAF, Volt, RAV4..... not a chance.

It's more reasonable to say that the initial locations are being picked with those battery sizes in mind. If those manufacturers were to bump up to, say 40kWh batteries, and Tesla were to expand their network a trifle, they would be perfectly usable for a lot of trips, especially in extended metropolitan areas. Heck current LEAFs can do that much using CHAdeMO. There's no reason why we should use a different standard for "near" travel vs. distance travel. Do you really think the best thing for the industry as a whole is to establish multiple, incompatible networks for DCQC?

 

[qwk]

Everyone here seems to assume that Tesla can flourish in a vacuum. That the EV movement can fail, but Tesla can somehow still be wildly successful. I don't believe that for a millisecond. Elon is betting (hoping) that he will be so successful that the other manufacturers will adopt his standards. He can ask Apple and Sony how well that works. I think it comes down to a handful of scenarios:

1. The charging standards will overtake Tesla and Tesla will finally adopt them
2. EVs will succeed despite Tesla. In this case, what Tesla does doesn't matter.
3. The EV movement will die, and sooner or later Tesla will as well.

What will NOT happen is the industry adopting Tesla's standards. Why do I think this? Tesla won't license the tech in a way that the other manufacturers will accept. There's no way that Nissan, or GM is going to increase their costs per vehicle by hundreds or thousands. They just won't. I've seen it happen time and again in the computer industry. Nobody pays a dime to their competitors if they can possibly avoid it.

#1 Isn't going to happen, especially if the existing auto manufacturers continue to develop the standards. They are stuck in the past, and the future holds lots of bankruptcies.

#2 This is the most likely outcome, AND you can bet that most of the existing ICE manufacturers will go belly up, and companies like google, samsung etc., will be the car manufacturing future.

#3 Die is a very strong word. Slowing the EV movement is possible for a little while longer, but the future is going to happen regardless. All of the older people that buy the junk that the current auto manufacturers are a dying breed. The younger generation doesn't want to even drive, let alone drive junk.

I know the above is pretty harsh, but that is the reality of todays world.

 

[qwk]

... I'm not sure why you only have 3 scenarios, and why they are all so negative toward Tesla. Somehow several people here seem to think Tesla is anti-EV which is very strange in my mind. They have been the catalyst for this entire movement since they started in 2003.

I have three scenarios because those are the ones I believe are credible. I'm not sure why you think the first two scenarios are negative towards Tesla. In both of them Tesla succeeds. Don't get me wrong, I think Tesla is great and extremely positive towards EV adoption. I'm only criticizing them using their own charging standards. I hope that this won't be a big deal, but I do think it is a mistake.

Superchargers are designed around 60 to 85+ kWh batteries.
The only chance a competitor would join the Tesla network would be if it could efficiently use the facility which means a large battery and an expensive vehicle. I could see a Bently, Maybach, Lamborgini etc joining as their volume is too low to build out their own network.

LEAF, Volt, RAV4..... not a chance.

It's more reasonable to say that the initial locations are being picked with those battery sizes in mind. If those manufacturers were to bump up to, say 40kWh batteries, and Tesla were to expand their network a trifle, they would be perfectly usable for a lot of trips, especially in extended metropolitan areas. Heck current LEAFs can do that much using CHAdeMO. There's no reason why we should use a different standard for "near" travel vs. distance travel. Do you really think the best thing for the industry as a whole is to establish multiple, incompatible networks for DCQC?

You either don't understand English, or for some reason don't get that the existing standards are made to charge tiny city clown cars that go less than 100 miles on a charge. They are not made to charge a real EV that can substitute any ICE car.

 

[palmermd]

... or for some reason don't get that the existing standards are made to charge tiny city clown cars that go less than 100 miles on a charge. They are not made to charge a real EV that can substitute any ICE car.

That is sort of what I was getting to earlier. Supercharger Network is not a competitor to the SAE DC any more than ChaDeMo is to J1772. They are for 3 different purposes. J1772 is perfect for daily use at home charging, or at work charging. SAE DC and ChaDeMo (which are competitors) works well for someone who is out and about, but staying near home to get a quick charge back up to continue their day near home. Supercharger is for long distance travel. This is why they spaced them 150-200 miles apart. It is only intended for enabling long distance travel and not for regular use. This is why they have them located on major routes, but not directly in populated areas. They don't want them to be used for daily charging since that is not their intent.

So supercharger access should only really be installed on vehicles with at least 200 miles range. If Nissan wanted to build an Infiniti with a 60-80kWh pack and they offered supercharger access for $2500 more, I'm sure they could sell a lot of cars. But the supercharger port should also come with the adapter so that that same Infiniti could use the ChaDeMo for the local charging; and of course it would also have the J1772 port for daily at home charging.

 

[AndyH]

It would be very useful if the supercharger stations had either an SC-CHAdeMO adapter available, or a couple of CHAdeMO DC units installed.

You do know that there's no current method to collect ad hoc useage payments at Supercharger sites, correct?

With that in mind, who do you suggest pays for the CHAdeMO equipment to add at Supercharger sites so that you can get free transportation energy?

<balance of condescending insinuation removed>

Wow. I'm surprised at some of the venom here.

Yes, Tony, I'm aware today's SC network doesn't have a pay gateway. And no, I'm not suggesting anyone should get a free charge from the network.

I'm fairly certain, however, that one of the masterminds of PayPal could probably whip something up on a napkin in about, oh, 12.372 ±2 seconds. A tech could retrofit it after she attaches the SC-CHAdeMO adapter's retractable cable housing to the side of the SC box.

Tesla's in business to make a profit. The entire world is moving toward distributed everything and selling a service. Catering to the entire EV industry would provide Tesla an additional cash flow channel for an almost negligible upgrade - almost pure profit. I guess Elon's got enough money flowing and doesn't need any more?

 

[Anonymous]

Great point, AndyH!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i dont see Tesla charging enough to make any real profit but do see them losing a HUGE marketing tool by allowing access to anyone. why should Tesla allow us access? we are the competition, not allies in any way. membership has its privileges and the main one is exclusivity.

I just dont see Tesla giving that up over some misguided sense of "fair play" this is not socialism, its capitalism and
Tesla will not be giving anything away

 

[TonyWilliams]

There's no way that Nissan, or GM is going to increase their costs per vehicle by hundreds or thousands. They just won't. I've seen it happen time and again in the computer industry. Nobody pays a dime to their competitors if they can possibly avoid it.

And yet GM just handed Toyota, et al, bazillions of dollars for CARB-ZEV credits that they were too dumb to earn.

 

[davewill]

... charge tiny city clown cars ...

I knew there was a good reason you were on my foe list.

There's no way that Nissan, or GM is going to increase their costs per vehicle by hundreds or thousands. They just won't. I've seen it happen time and again in the computer industry. Nobody pays a dime to their competitors if they can possibly avoid it.

And yet GM just handed Toyota, et al, bazillions of dollars for CARB-ZEV credits that they were too dumb to earn.

You missed the part about "if they can possibly avoid it". If they wanted to keep selling cars in CA, they had little choice. They can certainly avoid handing money from their own customers to Tesla.

 

[EVDRIVER]

So 19 kw charging from a J1772 is only for clown cars? My guess is a clown car with a 60kwh pack would go about 250 miles on that three hour charge. Probably enough range for those clowns that usually stay close to the circus.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tesla's in business to make a profit. The entire world is moving toward distributed everything and selling a service. Catering to the entire EV industry would provide Tesla an additional cash flow channel for an almost negligible upgrade - almost pure profit. I guess Elon's got enough money flowing and doesn't need any more?

There is no "profit" in the CHAdeMO business (I offer that with firsthand data). Current CHAdeMO cars are not designed to go 200 miles to even reach the Supercharger network.

I see absolutely zero reason for the resources of Tesla and the shareholders that own Tesla to enter into the marginal business of fee for ad hoc CHAdeMO services. Heck, even Nissan only reluctantly is in the CHAdeMO business, but that is to PROMOTE THEIR LEAF PRODUCT. Tesla drivers will not be strolling into Nissan dealerships with a warm reception while their Model X with a 120kWh battery sucks up some "free" CHAdeMO electrons worth several tens of dollars.

As a future Tesla owner, I wouldn't want to stroll into a Supercharger station to find that the only plug left is a 50kW CHAdeMO that I would have to use a $1000 adaptor to use and which charges at less than half the speed of the Superchargers. And that is assuming that it is free; if there is an ad hoc fee to use it, I'm probably going to be unhappy.

Here's reality: there is zero financial advantage to Tesla, it would be a distraction with no benefit to Tesla shareholders, Tesla owners, or even the rest of the EV community whose EVs can't even physically drive to the Supercharger stations.

If they offered CHAdeMO, there would be a howl from companies like shareholder Daimler/Mercedes Benz who solely support the Frankenplug standard. Does Tesla then have to offer that? What about if Renault starts sales in the USA... Tesla must offer the Chameleon 3 phase AC ports? How about BYD... will the Chinese version be needed? What about inductive charging standards, of which I'm confident there will be many. What about battery swapping? What about the next generation 250kW-500kW chargers (already, SAE is trying to muddy the waters there much like Frankenplug)?

Don't worry, there will be political challenges to Tesla. There are already jurisdictions that "require" that Tesla offer these public chargers. Naturally, Tesla just doesn't install Superchargers in that location. As soon as I see the ANY other unaffiliated manufacturer offer the Supercharger at their dealership or other locations, that's when I will change my mind on the issue.

 

[smkettner]

With a name like "USSValor" the OP maybe has a connection with the military?
I would sooner see a couple L2 charging stations installed in every government parking lot and military base.
s/b free (IMHO) to federal employees and public can pay a nominal amount.
Where is the letter to get this rolling? The Federal government is the one really pushing for EV expansion yet no plan for infrastructure.

 

[TonyWilliams]

With a name like "USSValor" the OP maybe has a connection with the military?
I would sooner see a couple L2 charging stations installed in every government parking lot and military base.
s/b free (IMHO) to federal employees and public can pay a nominal amount.
Where is the letter to get this rolling? The Federal government is the one really pushing for EV expansion yet no plan for infrastructure.

The government can't offer this for free, any more than they can give away gasoline or diesel. So, a for-profit business could bid to build such things on military bases. Sure, knock yourself out.

What do you suppose the odds are that the military bases are going to have that bad foreign Japanese CHAdeMO on bases when GM will be whispering in their ear that good, red blooded 'Muricans (with M16's, tanks and nuclear subs) should only use Frankenplug? Forget Tesla altogether, of course... they're from foreign country California.

 

[smkettner]

With a name like "USSValor" the OP maybe has a connection with the military?
I would sooner see a couple L2 charging stations installed in every government parking lot and military base.
s/b free (IMHO) to federal employees and public can pay a nominal amount.
Where is the letter to get this rolling? The Federal government is the one really pushing for EV expansion yet no plan for infrastructure.

The government can't offer this for free,.....

Congress can allow it or even require it. But that would take leadership and money they don't have.

 

[AndyH]

With a name like "USSValor" the OP maybe has a connection with the military?
I would sooner see a couple L2 charging stations installed in every government parking lot and military base.
s/b free (IMHO) to federal employees and public can pay a nominal amount.
Where is the letter to get this rolling? The Federal government is the one really pushing for EV expansion yet no plan for infrastructure.

Our military has been using fuel cell and electric vehicles for mission purposes before EV1 days.

Here's your letter, BTW:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9905

 

[TonyWilliams]

The government can't offer this for free,.....

Congress can allow it or even require it. But that would take leadership and money they don't have.

I have a personal policy to work with the rules we have today, and again, a private vendor could sell their wares today (in this case EV charging) on military bases just like McDonalds and other private firms do.

I personally do not support my government giving away transportation energy for somebody's private needs. If there were free EV charging funded with my tax dollars, I suspect it would end up like Ecotality.