sparky wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:12 pm
This seems like a good thing for the legacy auto manufacturers to lobby for. Wouldn't cost much and would blunt Tesla's accelerating lead in EV adoption. Unlike Tesla, legacy auto cares little about advancing sustainable transport. So, let's take a model for something that works very well (Supercharger Network) and instead of copying/improving it, let's break it by forcing access with slow-ass charging cars and congesting the network. This can be considered a force multiplier. Plus lobbying is cheap. Much cheaper than building stuff.
So, to answer your question, as a DCFC LEAF and Tesla owner, I'd spend good money to defeat this silly idea. Silly, unless you want to slow down progress on charging infrastructure. Then it's brilliant.
Interesting idea. Maybe we can get Big Oil to support this motion (to help LEAFs struggling to find QCs on the road, but really to defeat Tesla).
On a serious note, it's bizarre to me to see Tesla owners and shareholders shaking in their boots at the idea of more people using the Tesla SC network.
Every additional Tesla sold is another Tesla that may take up a SC spot - and the current network just ain't gonna cut it if Tesla wants to sell 5-10 million EV sedans/SUVs and trucks every year. A few thousand pottering old Leafs charging with adapters at spare Superchargers is going to be the least of Tesla's worries when there are millions of Teslas treating their city's only Supercharger like one of their neighborhood's half dozen gas stations.
Never ceases to amaze that literally the only people who vehemently disagree just so happen to be owners of Tesla stock/cars. I thought the whole idea was to increase Tesla's gross margin by opening up new markets.