You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are deploying those things at significant factory outlet shopping malls too:
Napa:
Napa Premium Outlets Napa, CA | Electric Car Stations
Anything that is the interface between two highly regulated products -- electricity and vehicles -- is bound to be highly regulated. How do you think I can afford to buy a Tesla?
Roadmap to Electric Vehicles Charging Standards.
This is a long document that basically says that they have not done much and have a lot to do. I am concerned reading this that there may be some over-regulation of the standards which may not be favorable to Tesla.
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/evsp/ANSI_EVSP_Roadmap_April_2012.pdf
If this amendment was not added, Tesla would not be able to sell the Model S in California (since it doesn't support J1772 natively).Section 1962.2, Title 13, of the California Code of Regulations, requires 2006 and later model year vehicles to be equipped with a conductive charger inlet port which meets all the specifications contained in SAE J1772™. This is also a requirement in states that have adopted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) zero emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements pursuant to section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (42. U.S.C. Sec. 7507) (“S.177 states”). In March 2012, section 1962.2, Title 13, was amended so as to permit a manufacturer to apply for approval to use an alternative to the AC inlet specified in SAE J1772™ provided that the following conditions are met: (a) each vehicle is supplied with a rigid adaptor that would enable the vehicle to meet all of the remaining system and on‐board charger requirements described in J1772, and (b) the rigid adaptor and alternative inlet must be tested and approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory.
The first half is very general information (no specifics). The second "gap analysis" half has a lot of detail. What is relevant to Tesla is this (on page 78 of the document):
If this amendment was not added, Tesla would not be able to sell the Model S in California (since it doesn't support J1772 natively).
The rest of the report didn't contain much news. As typical of gap analysis, it points out all things that still need to be done. Basically L2 is already set and L3/DC is still not set. Wireless charging and V2G also are still very much open to changes.
What I was told at Santana Row on Tuesday is that there will be a separate adaptor into which the J1772 cable plugs in. If so, Tesla will conform to the California requirement - which is hardly surprising.
I don't suppose that the rep at Santana Row had a price in mind for the adapter. Sounds like a useful thing to keep in the frunk.What I was told at Santana Row on Tuesday is that there will be a separate adaptor into which the J1772 cable plugs in. If so, Tesla will conform to the California requirement - which is hardly surprising.
I don't suppose that the rep at Santana Row had a price in mind for the adapter. Sounds like a useful thing to keep in the frunk.
Will that adapter work with the Roadster? Not that I'd ever be likely to need it. Just curious.
I don't suppose that the rep at Santana Row had a price in mind for the adapter. Sounds like a useful thing to keep in the frunk.
Electric Vehicle Discussion List - SemaConnect EVSE can't charge Tesla Roadster EVs
[...]
So, please follow the evdl thread (above) to know that there is a greater amount of leakage current when using the Roadster that the SemaConnect EVSE is not set for (they went cheap with a quick-n-dirty design, and a 'who-cares if it works with all Production EVs' attitude by putting in place EVSE set to 5ma when by 625 NEC code it could have been set to 20ma where drivers would have less problems with SemaConnect EVSE.
[...]
I repeat my request for drivers to take the time to put hosts in the loop when EVSE Hosts chose has problems.