Good point. Considering Tesla seems to be indicating a desire to pursue this funds, this might indicate that v4 is a bigger change than I had anticipated.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Beat me to it. And as far as I can tell there is no Canadian equivalent so I’m thinking nothing like this will happen in Canada. At least not anytime soon.
DeepBlueMN
2019 AWD Model 3
That indeed is a good reference!
And the date of that tweet would likely supersede any previous general comment by Elon or Zack regarding not trying to make a big profit on supercharging.
If Tesla is indeed trying to make 30% GM on supercharging, that would explain recent charging price hikes, and would make supercharger rates more expensive than EA’s CCS charging in many cases.
I don’t think the supercharging profitability has anything to do with the availability (or lac thereof) of an official Tesla CCS adapter. Tesla likely doesn’t care at all if a small number of owners charge somewhere else; they likely would prefer it in some areas in order to relieve some supercharging congestion.
The CCS adapter issue can most obviously be explained by Tesla trying to avoid the likely customer service mess/fallout from last summer’s chip issue that resulted in the lack of CCS support for (probably) 10’s of thousands of cars. Simply, they effectively advertised CCS support “as a feature” in their car’s on-screen information, then they took it away for a while. Since having CCS support is currently a desired, much talked about, and “hot”, feature, there is no way they will release a CCS adapter UNTIL they have a firm plan to upgrade last year’s cars (at least, maybe even older cars too). Releasing the Tesla CCS adapter now would be nice for many owners, but it would piss off many thousands of owners too. They simply do not want a high profile black eye. IMHO, the simplest explanation makes the most sense.
Don't know if it has been reported yet, but the Soom Lab website apparently no longer lists the Tesla CCS1 adapter as a product (it has been "scrubbed"). I tried searching the site for "tesla," "ccs," "ccs1," and "adapter" and got no results.
Yeah I noticed that this morning. I’ve lost interest in CCS adapter so didn’t bother posting.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Would be interesting if they learn from the established CCS charge sites and put a display in but allow it to be vandalized and never repaired. Don't forget to face it to the south so you can read it on sunny days and the display eventually bleaches out. That seems to meet the criteria at those other sites.
Perhaps they could just add a Square(TM) CC reader to the display so you can pay with your phone.
In true Tesla form the phone number you call to pay for charging (which is ALREADY listed on every Supercharger) would be a recording telling you how to download and use the Tesla app
As to CCS cables, I don't see why people think it will be any different than in the EU, that's the precedent I would expect them to follow, two cables coming from the same place on the Supercharger post.
Fair question, and, tbh, I've just been assuming. Its free money, surely they'd want their slice of the pie?
But its completely possible that they'll just skip it, I guess. The red tape might not be worth it for them.
You forgot a few important steps:
1. Make sure the temperature sensors fail and don't replace them. That way, they can have '150 kw' for every stall, but they'll really only do ~35kw at most.
2. Once the recorded messages are through, patch you through to someone that doesn't know there's only one Key West in America and has no idea how to look up the site by city. Make them read the id for the site in full.
3. Once they've properly found your site, have the person tell you that the machine that is clearly showing a Linux boot error is actually working fine.
4. After convincing him that no, its not fine, have him reboot it. After wasting 15 minutes on that, have it still fail
5. Then a week or so later, report the stall down. Wait a few days and then report it fixed. When the next person calls, have them repeat this loop starting at step #2. Make sure to do this at least a couple more times before eventually fixing it.
Mostly a true story.
I don't hate EA, but I've had... experiences. 
Yep, just like they withdrew from the ~$1B of funds for the battery factory at GigaBerlin because the red tape and necessary conditions made it not worth it.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
The rules required the factory be using a "first of its kind in the world" process, but Tesla had already deployed the same process in other gigafactories.
Correct, but only because the permitting process took too long for GigaBerlin. So they ended up putting the cell factory in GigaTexas in production first.
They could have delayed the cell factory at GigaTexas to allow GigaBerlin to be first so that it qualified to get the money. But they decided it wasn't worth it.
The same could be true for the NEVI funds for, they may think the 150kW requirement, which is IMO ridiculous, makes it not worth it. (It would more than double the cost of installs, and require re-building existing sites.) Or it could be some combination of other requirements as well. A better requirement would have been to have <x>kW available per stall that can be shared across stalls. (Obviously Tesla thinks that number is ~90kW.) That would allow for more stalls to be installed for roughly the same cost and available power at the site.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
Again, I don't think it increases install cost at all. It's a software change. Just set the software so that the designated NEVI stalls all get 150kw at the expense of the non-Nevi stalls IF, and it's a big IF, that should happen. It's a big if because having 4 cars in those stalls all demanding 150KW is not a common event. That's why Tesla is able to make 250kw stations which can't deliver 250kw to each pillar and everybody is still happy about them. You need all the cars at the NEVI stalls to have been just arrived and pulling full power. Cars don't all arrive at once, they normally stagger arrival naturally.
So in fact, people would hardly notice. If they *did* notice, it would mean the Nevi stalls got more use as people would pick them first, but they still will stagger. As long as 2 of them are not recent arrivals, the others at the station are not likely to notice much. Every so often you might notice it. Big whoop, but nice if the grant paid for the stalls.
There are some physical costs -- a single terminal with screen and credit card reader, and a call center for all the stations. Tesla can calculate if that's worth the cost, but the need to have 4 or more stalls able to do dedicated 150K costs zero as long as there are enough stalls without that guarantee. Yeah, maybe once a day somebody arrives and is annoyed their stall only delivers 80kw until one of the Nevi stall users dials down. They will be annoyed all the Nevis were full and they didn't get one, but that's how it goes some times. The lower wattage won't last long, because most cars won't take 150kw for more than about 10 minutes, if that.
Wrong. The requirements are that every NEVI stall can deliver 150kW at the same time. (Regardless of if that demand ever happens.) All V2 sites and 4 stall V3 sites are non-starters. (A 4 stall V3 Supercharger can only deliver ~90kW to all 4 stalls at the same time, while a V2 site can deliver a maximum of 144kW to a single stall.) No software reconfiguration can change that. At an 8 stall V3 they could potentially handle it via software, by crippling the other stalls when the NEVI stalls have demand, assuming the transformer is big enough, not every V3 site can even deliver the ~90kW per stall. (I think I saw where one 8 stall V3 site only has a 500kW electrical feed, so it would max out at ~125kW per NEVI stall, i.e. would not qualify.)
And while currently 4 simultaneous cars pulling 150kW is currently unlikely, it will be more likely in the future as more cars are capable of that. Some examples of vehicles currently on the market:
- The e-tron can pull 150kW up to 73%
- The Taycan can pull 150kW up to 72%
- The Ionic 5 can pull 150kW up to 69%
- The EV6 can pull 150kW up to 67%
- The EQS can pull 150kW up to 56%
- The EQE can pull 150kW up to 53%
- The iX50 can pull 150kW up to 50%
Can you imagine the outrage if there was an e-tron, Ionic 5, EV6, and EQS charging at an 8 stall V3 site along with one Model 3, and then another Tesla owner pulls up and suddenly the two Teslas can only get ~60kW each. Then a third Tesla plugs in and all the Teslas drop to 40kW. All while the non-Teslas are all still getting 150kW. And there is still one more stall available. Another Tesla plugs in and the Teslas can now only get 30kW each. Yes, it might be rare right now, but as EV adoption increases it will get much more likely to happen. I would be very surprised if Tesla did this.
At sites with 12, or more, stalls, and ample power available, it would be more workable. (But really I think the most they would do is dedicate one NEVI stall per V3 cabinet, so it would have to be a 16 stall, or larger, V3 site, again with ample power available from the utility.)
Last edited:
It has been super quiet in this regard. I wonder if we’ll see any development on the CCS compatible V4 front. I can’t see the point in modifying V2’s and V3’s.
I think part of the problem is that the NEVI funds will be doled out by each state. So there will be more than 50 different sets of requirements and application processes. States can also choice to do the installs themselves and not give money out to anyone else.
I think Oregon starts accepting applications once the Federal government approves their plan, by 9/22?, with the plan then to select contractors and begin construction around April 2023.
Last edited:
srs5694
Active Member
There's been some reporting that Tesla is planning to implement something called a "Magic Dock," which will use a single cable and a "built-in adapter." Descriptions are pretty vague beyond that, so use your imagination. My own best guess is that it will be an adapter that must be attached to either the pedestal or to a TPC (presumably both keyed in some way to prevent theft), so users could disconnect it in one way to charge a Tesla and in another way to charge a CCS vehicle.
That said, the reporting I've seen relies on anonymous sources, and it's not been spread heavily in the EV press generally, just on a few sites, so I take it with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, it's the only reporting I've seen that makes specific claims about how Tesla will be doing it. A dual-cable approach certainly has precedent, both at Tesla Superchargers in Europe and at CCS/CHAdeMO stations in many places. If the reporting about a "Magic Dock" is accurate, it would have the advantage of saving costs by requiring just one cable. (They'd probably have to be longer than current ones to reduce problems caused by the variety of charge-port locations on non-Tesla vehicles.)
bradtem
Robocar consultant
I was fully aware it has to be for all 4 stalls. I would be curious not just what the cars can pull but what they do in the real world. Because most of the reports I hear from all types of cars is the cars don't do nearly as much as they should in theory. Also cars that can pull 150kw at 800v would not do it at 400v, so it's that true for the taycan and other 800v cars?
No, I don't think there would be outrage from teslas pulling low wattage in this situation. Because it would not happen often and it would not happen for long, and those other cars got there first, and some of them will be drawing less than 150kw soon.
At least the way I charge, the difference between 150 and 100 is pretty small
