Yeah, but how much of it will actually be spent on CCS chargers? (V.s. residential or industrial chargers) And you know how much waste there normally is in these kind of programs, so the money won't go anywhere near as far as it should.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Depends how they manage it. Government regulation and oversight is what forced VW to create the (as of this moment) largest CCS network in the United States.
edit: there is plenty of room to point out the failures of government, and they happen with regularity, but you can't just ignore things like this and say "all gov bad", because otherwise blind pessimism wins.
Even if EA ever does install that many DC fast chargers...well, let's just say that it seems like half the time I open that app to take a look at their charger status, there are a ton of chargers that are out of commission. A couple of times I loaded the app and there were no working EA chargers between the SF Bay Area and SoCal along I-5. I'm buying the CCS adapter so that I can fast charge at shopping centers when I am on roadtrips but I wouldn't ever rely on a EA site without a backup Tesla SC site. They had that notorious incident where they literally shut down every charger along a pretty long stretch of I-95 on Labor Day weekend too, so it just seems like EA is going through the motions because the government forced them to build something as part of the dieselgate settlement, but isn't truly serious about making a reliable charging network.
OK, you are right, he didn't say "In the US".
He said "in North America", which of course includes the US:
Mockingbird
Member
Yeah, I can see that I'm not gonna convince anyone here, even if I'm one of the only people outside of Tesla to ever charge a Tesla with a fully supported CCS option. The I-95 thing was amateur hour, and I agree. But I know they didn't take that incident lightly, and I bet you won't see a ****up like that again.
On my trip, I used the EA membership card in my apple wallet. It worked 100% of the time.
Anywho, I'm headed to Buttonwillow tomorrow to participate in Tesla Corsa 20, and while everyone is lined up at the Supercharger between runs, I'll be chillin at EA, charging faster and waiting for nothing.
Mockingbird
Member
I remember that.
Electrify America was removing all efacec chargers because they were constantly failing.
It was announced on PlugShare and the Electrify America app.
With the efacec chargers gone, reliable has gone up significantly.
Yeah but the big meltdown along I-5 happened after the Labor Day incident, so...
Mockingbird
Member
For me it's how thick the CCS cables are, how stiff they can get in the winter, and how large the connector is. The Tesla system is pretty perfect in size. No little flap covering some pins or anything, I can do everything one handed. It's simple and elegant. At least for now, it also seems to be just as capable. There are rumors Tesla will bump V3 stations to over 300kW of power. If they actually can do that and the cables can handle it, even just at peak points, then those cables are pretty dang good right now. Three years down the road, maybe not, but maybe Tesla will be able to design something better while keeping compatibility with existing cars and their plug design.
I actually like the walled garden with Tesla, it keeps them honest and on their toes. If Tesla knows everyone can plug into any charger on the planet... well they'll say they'll keep working on the supercharger network to be number one but honestly what's stopping them from slowing down roll outs in states that aren't high in Tesla sales? As long as the car can go from point A to point B, well, it's covered. Right now Tesla sees a HUGE part of their fleet and where they travel/need to charge. If everyone skipped the Tesla superchargers because the EA charger was faster, newer, closer to food, etc, then Tesla could artificially think that route wasn't popular with the cars because their supercharger use was low(er). Yes I know Tesla can see their fleet, but I suspect they look more at supercharger usage than just where the cars are going. If a site is constantly 90% capacity than it might cause that location to float to the top to be built out more.
But why do I care if Tesla keeps building new sites as fast as possible? Because to me they are still the gold standard in charging. They still need those sites to work all the time. To be easy to plug into. To be fast. They need all these things to sell cars. It's a feedback loop and self check. If the chargers are getting worse the sales might slow. If the sales are taking off faster than ever, the supercharger team needs to get to work deploying more. Until there are big charging networks that are actually in the game to make money with a product that works all the time, I don't want my car to "rely" on it.
They're a great backup, and they are getting better. But to me, Tesla Superchargers still are the thing that makes long distance travel with an EV enjoyable. It might be possible with the other guy, but I think my stress level would be higher and my built in safety net buffer much higher if I knew 3rd party stations were my main option.
Five years down the road, things might have changed. But for now, give me adapters. 150kW is pretty dang good via a "cheap" adapter and 250kW or more off of Tesla superchargers is pretty good. I would like to see more power capacity at the sites before we start to routinely see 300-350kW charging. Even on a V3 station I've found that if it's full with a lot of cars at low SOC, you don't each get 250kW. It's MUCH better performance, but the site isn't delivering 2 megawatts of power. Everyone always wants faster, and I do too, but I'm ready for some refinement and improvement before pushing the envelope too much.
Double down on the V3 stations with the average travel distance like 50 miles vs 100 or 150 so towing can be done easier. Double down on the density so there is more of a backup in case a site goes offline or a whole town has a power outage. Build out more so it's easier to hit at lower SOC because there are just more options. Build out at national parks and more remote areas. Revisit the destination charger program and treat it like the supercharger program. Civic areas, large parks, zoos, malls, big metro movie theaters, sporting areas, build out 50+ destination chargers there and start to charge a small fee for them (maybe half the cost of supercharger).
Tesla can go so much further with their connector and ecosystem than they are right now. I think there are enough loopholes they can dip into the federal money by providing stations with extra plugs or a couple CCS stations at each site, and I think they can appease the Tesla owners with an adapter, but past that, I don't see a huge need to change other than change for it's self.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
In the period before 2017? I'm not saying there are no 50kW+ CHAdeMO now (More accurately 125A, CHAdeMo speced that as 62.5 kW but you needed 500V for that), just that there weren't enough to matter, especially in the face of CCS having 150 kW and 350 kW regularly.
Completely pointless for Tesla to bother, especially given as pointed out before, CHAdeMO executive member Honda already gave a vote of no confidence in 2017 by switching to CCS1 for the US market.
CCS vehicles still won't be able to charge everywhere, they would have some government funded Tesla stations that have some CCS stalls, but Tesla owners would still have much more stalls available and the ones that didn't come from government funding wouldn't have CCS. Again your argument is Tesla's main goal is to maintain a walled garden, so avoiding an adapter is critical to achieve that, and the government programs don't require it.
You still fail to acknowledge that the simplest explanation is Tesla wanted to make an adapter because it would be more convenient for their customers, not some conspiracy about walled gardens.
Nothing in antitrust laws says you can't use a proprietary connector for your own charge network. And given Tesla was using it exclusively for their own and not colluding with others or pressuring others into using it, I'm not seeing anything remotely related to antitrust. I think you are stretching very hard for something that's not there.
It does, because your claim is that Tesla did this on purpose to impede CHAdeMO on purpose. My claim is this is just how the store operates.
Last edited:
Mockingbird
Member
I was scratching my head while reading this.
I think that most people would say that having more choices rather than fewer choices would be better.
No, it was showing all plugs down at about half the sites in California south of Sacramento/Stockton and north of Los Angeles County. Not sure what the deal was but it was a really bad look for EA. Anyone trying to drive a Taycan along I-5 wasn't going anywhere until that issue got resolved.
Mockingbird
Member
I am trying to figure out what your real argument is.
Are you trying your hardest to deny that Tesla is walled garden?
For having an adapter, yes. For switching plugs, I'm not so sure.
I would like to trust Tesla to "do the right thing" and keep making sure the supercharger network was fantastic, but I have to believe EA would have been a lot more proactive with making sure their network was better if their sole revenue source was from EVs and the EA network was really the only one they could use...
Mockingbird
Member
I believe that the correct choice is the one that leads to the most competition.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm arguing specifically against the above quoted argument you made. I'm arguing against your claim that Tesla above all is concerned about maintaining a walled garden. Rather they have shown that they care more about charging convenience for their customers and in kind, it helps vehicle sales (which is their profit driver) more to offer that convenience, rather than trying to maintain a walled garden above all else.
If you look at their financials, the supercharger network isn't even profitable in the first place, it's more of a marketing thing. There is no financial incentive to maintain a walled garden. So if offering an adapter is more attractive to owners in marketing terms, Tesla doesn't really have an incentive to maintain a walled garden above everything else.
But if you look at other walled gardens, like for example the Apple App store, they are making profits there hand over fist just from running the store, so they have a very strong incentive to fight against anything that might circumvent it (thus the Epic games lawsuit).
Mockingbird
Member
If it's really about "charging convenience", Tesla would have switched to CCS1 by now.
That would allow Tesla drivers to charge at any fast charger.
The walled garden isn't just for financial reasons. It's also keep (Tesla) users in the (Tesla) ecosystem and prevent them from leaving.
gglockner
Member
I agree with @MontyFloyd : reliability of non-Tesla chargers is far below Tesla. I've seen this myself, and it's easy to see this by paging through user check-ins on PlugShare. I'm sure PlugShare has the data for an objective report if someone has the time.
gglockner
Member
This definitely makes sense for residential chargers, but less so for on-the-road.
