Poll: would you buy a $500 Tesla Supercharger or CCS -> CHAdeMO adapter? What would you risk to make it happen?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
coleafrado said:
Zythryn said:
No, I don’t think they can. I definitely don’t think they should, even if they could.
The other car companies were given the chance to join in, they didn’t. End of story.

It's morally wrong for non-Tesla drivers to have access to Tesla fast chargers, since we clearly have a say in Nissan/GM/Kia HQ's choices against partnering with Tesla, but it's totally fine for Tesla to offer adapters so CHAdeMO stations can be used by any Tesla owner. Interesting point of view!

I said nothing about "morally wrong".
However, I don't think there is anything wrong with any company making adapters to allow their customers to use AND PAY for use of a generic charger.

For example, some Nissan dealers didn't allow anyone but their customers to use their DC fast charging. I think that they are completely within their rights to do so if they paid for it. I think that choice is foolish, but it is their choice to make.

Tesla is paying for the hardware, installation, and maintenance for their chargers. I see nothing wrong with them requiring other companies to contribute to the buildout of the infrastructure to gain the benefit of the network.
 
Zythryn said:
Tesla is paying for the hardware, installation, and maintenance for their chargers. I see nothing wrong with them requiring other companies to contribute to the buildout of the infrastructure to gain the benefit of the network.

Would any sane company accept the control over a key resource by a competitor?

Tesla's "offer" was deflection. The point to proprietary infrastructure is creating of a monopoly.

Monopolies are evil.
 
At this time, in my area, the CSS and Chademo infrastructure is barely used. The three fast chargers, EV America, in the parking lot of Camas Walmart have been there for almost two years now. I have only seen one car charging there. I charged once my 2011 LEAF and paid $8 for the 5kWh. On the other hand, many times, the supper chargers were all in use. So until the existing generic chargers see at least the same usage as the SC, Tesla should not allow other cars to charge in SC network. If generic charging pricing keeps the customers away, why should Tesla overload their SC network? Worst case,Tesla should charge the other cars substantially more than what they will pay on the generic networks. In a pinch they could use the SC, like me using the EV America and charge the LEAF at over $1 per kWh.

When Tesla made "the offer", their technology was far superior to any other charging tech. 120kW with a connector anybody can handle. Yes, my wife had to ask for help to plug the Chademo connector in the LEAF. And she is 5'7".
 
cwerdna said:
jlv said:
cwerdna said:
By attaching a CHAdeMO to Tesla North American plug adapter on some of their DC FCs: https://www.evgo.com/tesla-charging/.
https://www.evgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/evgo-tesla-charging-connector-316x570.jpg has a larger/more visible pic.
That web page also says "or the Tesla connectors available at select San Francisco EVgo stations". In the picture you link, you can see the middle is a Tesla connector (e.g., that station is not using a CHAdeMO adapter).
Yes it is. The CHAdeMO adapter is part of the box on the left side. https://insideevs.com/news/390154/video-evgo-fast-charger-integrated-tesla-connector/ maybe will give you a better look. Ditto for https://www.plugshare.com/location/10827. I can try to find other Plugshare pics of EVgo SF locations later tonight.

Notice the CHAdeMO cable (coming out of the DC FC) and connector being plugged into the box on the left? The Tesla proprietary connector comes out of that box, which is the adapter.

I read an article that verifies this. It also stated that even a 100 KW EVgo station would still only have 50 KW to the Tesla plug due to limitations of the adapter.
 
WetEV said:
Would any sane company accept the control over a key resource by a competitor?

Tesla's "offer" was deflection. The point to proprietary infrastructure is creating of a monopoly.

Monopolies are evil.

But Monopolies are the American way.
It's all about wealth accumulation and the concentration of capital.
It's dog eat dog out there.
to those that have too much, more will be given to them, and
to whoever has very little, even that will be taken away from him.

Why is it that most all of the other civilized countries of the world
provide low or no-cost health care to their citizens?
 
Zythryn said:
...
Tesla is paying for the hardware, installation, and maintenance for their chargers. I see nothing wrong with them requiring other companies to contribute to the buildout of the infrastructure to gain the benefit of the network.

Did, or does Tesla financially contribute to the charging networks built by EVgo, Nissan, GreenLots, Ionity, or Electrify America? If you're okay with Tesla owners using CHAdeMO adapters with "public" fast charging networks, then by extension you must be okay with everyone else using Supercharging adapters on the Tesla network.

I've hesitated to point this out, since it's so obvious, but nobody seems to acknowledge that Tesla isn't the only investor in chargers. And no, as a Tesla owner, you didn't pay for Superchargers. Tesla's shareholders and creditors did.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
I read an article that verifies this. It also stated that even a 100 KW EVgo station would still only have 50 KW to the Tesla plug due to limitations of the adapter.

Could you link the article? If anything, it's a software limitation to prevent overheating. Doubling the number of metal-on-metal contacts doubles the contact resistance and overall heating. Not that it's an unsolvable problem...
 
WetEV said:
Zythryn said:
Tesla is paying for the hardware, installation, and maintenance for their chargers. I see nothing wrong with them requiring other companies to contribute to the buildout of the infrastructure to gain the benefit of the network.

Would any sane company accept the control over a key resource by a competitor?

Tesla's "offer" was deflection. The point to proprietary infrastructure is creating of a monopoly.

Monopolies are evil.

I agree about Monopolies.
Your definition is faulty.

Tesla worked with the group that made the J1772 standard. They made certain proposals that were dismissed.
They didn't like the standard, so they made some adjustments which allow for a more functional and useful connector.

They then started building their own charging network on their own dime (yes, money was generated through sales of product as well as through capital raises.)
No other auto company has done the same. VW may come the closest with their court ordered restitution. However, it is a minor expenditure compared to the full cost of the network.

When I bought my Leaf, I couldn't use CCS chargers? Does that mean Nissan had a Monopoly? Or that the CCS network had a monopoly?

Are you arguing that Tesla should let other cars use their SC's for free? There is no POS payment system at super chargers. Or should Tesla be forced to install one, making their chargers less convenient, as well as adding to both the cost and maintenance, and increase overcrowding at their chargers??
 
coleafrado said:
.....
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. :?
Tesla's whole mission is to advance the advent of sustainable transport. They are competing against ICE vehicles not other EVs.
Time to "refill" is a common marketing point for polluting gas/diesel cars and SUVs. Tesla knows this and are both expanding Superchargers and "speeding them up" so that fewer spaces are needed. I make a regular trip from SoCal to NorCal, 335 mi and stop once for 20 mins. From 10% to 80% my Model3 charges at a top speed of 1000mi/hr and average speed of >500mi/hr. It costs me $11.

That we've come to this level in 7 years is entirely due Tesla's vision and execution and a valuable marketing point for EVs in general and Tesla in particular. Less ICE cars will be on the road and as a result, less oil, less CO2 and less local air pollution.
I think that under the right circumstances (advancing sustainable transport), Tesla would allow another EV company access to their Superchargers. I would expect they would require a car to charge at >500mi/hr for most of the time. I think congesting Superchargers with slow-charging LEAFs, Bolts, eTrons etc is bad for the EV mission and forcing such access is skating to where the puck was not where it will be in the coming decade.

Tesla may check some of the boxes for a monopoly. Because of AGW, I don't ascribe to that metric as morally right/wrong. The purity test I have, if any, is that, as we're in a battle for the atmosphere/oceans to remain livable in the long term, I will support companies & governments that work now towards saving this planet; regardless of other issues I may have. I stopped supporting Nissan in 2016.
 
coleafrado said:
Did, or does Tesla financially contribute to the charging networks built by EVgo, Nissan, GreenLots, Ionity, or Electrify America? If you're okay with Tesla owners using CHAdeMO adapters with "public" fast charging networks.
No, the owners of those Tesla cars contribute to the charging networks built by EVgo, EA, etc, by paying for the service they receive when using those networks.

This whole thread is silly. There isn't going to be a adapter to let CHAdeMO cars using the SuC network. You time might be better off spent arranging a petitio for Nissan to switch future cars to using CCS instead of CHAdeMO, at least in North America.
 
Zythryn said:
I agree about Monopolies.
Your definition is faulty.

Tesla worked with the group that made the J1772 standard. They made certain proposals that were dismissed.
They didn't like the standard, so they made some adjustments which allow for a more functional and useful connector.

Standards so are wonderful, everyone wants their own.

Zythryn said:
They then started building their own charging network on their own dime (yes, money was generated through sales of product as well as through capital raises.)
No other auto company has done the same. VW may come the closest with their court ordered restitution. However, it is a minor expenditure compared to the full cost of the network.

When I bought my Leaf, I couldn't use CCS chargers?

When I bought my first Leaf, there were not any CCS chargers. So why the CCS standard with Chademo already in place? A long discussion, not part of this topic.

Zythryn said:
Does that mean Nissan had a Monopoly?

Chademo was an open standard, not controlled by Nissan. So is CCS. No car company controls the standards. Unlike Tesla SuperCharger. Any car maker can put Chademo in their car. Any car maker can put CCS in their car. Or both. Any charging network can support Chademo. Any charging network can support CCS. No car maker can forbid the use of a charging network. No charging network can forbid charging a car that meets the standard.

Zythryn said:
Or that the CCS network had a monopoly?

CCS isn't a network. CCS is a standard. Any network can support CCS, even Tesla. Any car can support CCS, even Tesla.

Zythryn said:
Are you arguing that Tesla should let other cars use their SC's for free?

Tesla controls the SC network and the SC standard. There are several ways the future might evolve. This is about the future, not the current day.

One: Tesla never gains a huge share of the car market. Other electric cars not using the SC standard are the majority by far, and some open standard supported by multiple charge network and multiple car makers is by far the widest install. So Tesla owners are usually forced to use an adapter, adding to bother and cost, and lack of usage of the SC network leads to the end of the SC standard as Tesla adopts the same standard everyone else uses.

Two: Tesla gains a dominating market share of the car market. ICE manufactures are gone, but many baling wire and chewing gum patched ICEs are still on the road. The few competing electric cars have basically no public charging available, as Tesla has either taken over or driven out of business all competing charging networks. Tesla has become the car company. And they don't have to care. And don't.

Tesla has absolutely no reason to open up the SC standard. Even if some other car company was dumb enough to install it in their cars, it would still be Tesla's standard, and Tesla could change the standard at any time. It would still be Tesla's network, and could deny or degrade usage to any competing car at any time.
 
jlv said:
coleafrado said:
Did, or does Tesla financially contribute to the charging networks built by EVgo, Nissan, GreenLots, Ionity, or Electrify America? If you're okay with Tesla owners using CHAdeMO adapters with "public" fast charging networks.
No, the owners of those Tesla cars contribute to the charging networks built by EVgo, EA, etc, by paying for the service they receive when using those networks.

So, if a Nissan owner "buys" service from the Supercharger network by using it with an adapter, are they not contributing in exactly the same way?
 
coleafrado said:
So, if a Nissan owner "buys" service from the Supercharger network by using it with an adapter, are they not contributing in exactly the same way?
Sure. You can dream such an adapter might come to be. :lol:
 
Back
Top