Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[m6bigdog]

Related other thread:
Photo evidence: Tesla Adapter to J-Plug (on a Mercedes B-Class EV!)
View attachment 99763
(HPWC to J1772 adapter.)

Seeing does not make it authorized or legal.
Yeah, Man, I have this adapter and it works...

How about I come to your house and run an extension cord to my UMC.
How about your condo with Association Dues for common area electrical usage.

Would you object?
Would you want to have the authority to stop me?
Would you want to prevent me from coming back the next day and doing it again?
If your a business operator, then what?
You just want to add your unauthorized electricity use to the cost of doing business because it is not that much.
What if every non-Tesla in the area wants to do the same thing at your business because you don't have an armed guard at the charging station.

Just because you can, or no one stops you, doesn't make it legal!!

 

[Chris TX]

Seeing does not make it authorized or legal.
Yeah, Man, I have this adapter and it works...

How about I come to your house and run an extension cord to my UMC.
How about your condo with Association Dues for common area electrical usage.

Would you object?
Would you want to have the authority to stop me?
Would you want to prevent me from coming back the next day and doing it again?
If your a business operator, then what?
You just want to add your unauthorized electricity use to the cost of doing business because it is not that much.
What if every non-Tesla in the area wants to do the same thing at your business because you don't have an armed guard at the charging station.

Just because you can, or no one stops you, doesn't make it legal!!

Are you saying a business owner would only want Tesla customers? Why would they not want a Leaf, Volt, Spark, or Soul EV owner patronizing their place of business?

 

[FlasherZ]

All the hullabaloo over NRTL and UL is a red herring. Devices don't "lose their listing" when they're used in a different way, although it may violate some other regulation. Codes require that devices be "listed for the purpose", and the fact that someone attempts to use an adapter with it doesn't magically turn it poisonous and rain plagues of locusts on the business that installed it (vs. the person who used it). In fact, NEC 625.5 merely says that "all electrical materials, devices, fittings, and associated equipment shall be listed" -- it doesn't even say "listed for the purpose" like it usually does. For all we care, the EVSE could be listed under the same UL standard that the Quick220 lists itself under, a "safety power device", and it wouldn't mean a thing.

There are two concerns I have about such an adapter that are -

1) it does create a violation of the NEC, if you believe that NEC article 625 (EVSE) applies to the appliance. As I mention in a few other threads, there is an argument that can be made that the NEC has no jurisdiction over EVSE because EVSE represents the appliance, over which the NEC doesn't have jurisdiction. Just as the NEC can't dictate how Whirlpool wires the internals of its electric dryers, the NEC doesn't dictate the internals of the EVSE. There may be insurance and liability implications for the user of the adapter... and no, the business installing is not liable when someone else uses the adapter(without their knowledge), and they don't have to place warning language on it.

2) the reverse engineering of the inlet may prove problematic in some ways. For example, the pins may be slightly larger than expected, which deforms the sleeves on UMC's and HPWC's, resulting in a higher-resistance connection when plugged in to them. Let me give you an example where this has been a problem: MC4 connectors on solar panels. In January, I had 3 new solar arrays installed; in August, two of them failed, providing no voltage. When I looked up on the roof, I found that two of the MC4 connector pairs had melted in half - the ones at the end of the string. As it turns out, the half of the connector on the panel and the half installed by the electrician worked for 8 months but then developed a high-resistance connection that literally melted the connector in half. It wasn't a bad crimp -- the connector itself had poor mating. The solar installer said this year he had switched suppliers for MC4 and that led to a very high failure rate. As a result, he now installs only mated pairs - cutting the one connector off the panel and installing the half of the mated pair to ensure they are well connected. The same can apply to non-standard applications of Tesla's connectors.

 

[scaesare]

So the system will work itself out. But there's no reason why someone shouldn't attempt to produce this adapter, there is definitely a demand. What I don't understand is the desire by some forum members to squelch and discourage this type of innovation. Indeed, most of the contrarian positions in this thread are making assumptions about Tesla's terms with destination providers without even knowing what those terms actually are. Why not get that information first and then post it, instead of drawing conclusions based upon idle speculation?

I don't see the existence of an adapter itself as an issue. I agree there are many legitimate use cases. As I commented previously , I'd consider one if I had the need myself.

Most of the concern I've seen here has to do with the potential safety/equipment risks associated with poor engineering, or use of the adapter to in a manner not in accordance with the provider's intent. Both concerns are legitimate.

And if someone wants to copy or violate Tesla's patents, that is that person's choice. It's up to Tesla to enforce its patents, not forum members. Elon opened up all the patents, right? So it's about time people start using them.

Everyone loves to quote the "open patent" thing and seems to conveniently forget that the stipulation was as long the use was "in good faith".

I'd expect prostituting a Tesla-provided HPWC to charge your Leaf when there's direct evidence that Tesla's intent is for them to be for Tesla owners usage would be hard to justify as a "good faith" act.

That having been said, I'd rather see actual abusers held accountable for that, as opposed to the maker of a well-engineered adapter marketed for legitimate use.

 

[mikeash]

I'm convinced on the destination chargers. The statements are clear enough, I just didn't realize they were there.

But there are plenty of Tesla chargers not provided by Tesla and with those, if the owner of the charger wants to allow non-Tesla cars to charge on it, I see nothing wrong with that. There are some good questions about the potential risks of using a homemade adapter, but if all involved parties (which means the charger owner and the car owner, not Tesla) are OK with that, I don't see the problem.

I see no problem with the adapter itself. If it gets abused at destination chargers, then those places need to step up enforcement, and the abusers shouldn't be doing that, but it's hardly a reason to complain about the adapters.

 

[Dborn]

Google type 2 to J1772 and you will see every variety of adaptor cable supplied from China, AND they seem to be of good quality. I own one so that i can use J1772 in an emergency. That is J1772 to type 2. However, Type 2 to J1772 is also available which means that it is not home made and in both Europe and Australia, All J1772 cars can potentially charge from Tesla branded plugs.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Check out Model S to Roadster Adapter. You'll see quite a different tone regarding the design of Henry Sharp's Model S inlet. No one questioning his qualifications to design it. No scrutiny of certifications or regulatory compliance. No rush to judgement that his design is inferior. It's all love and kisses regarding his custom designed Model S inlet. I guess if your inlet design is for a Roadster it simply gets a big sweet pass from all of you.

 

[scottf200]

Check out Model S to Roadster Adapter. You'll see quite a different tone regarding the design of Henry Sharp's Model S inlet. No one questioning his qualifications to design it. No scrutiny of certifications or regulatory compliance. No rush to judgement that his design is inferior. It's all love and kisses regarding his custom designed Model S inlet. I guess if your inlet design is for a Roadster it simply gets a big sweet pass from all of you.

Perhaps some consider the Tesla Roadster to be a different situation.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Perhaps some consider the Tesla Roadster to be a different situation.

I'm referring to the Model S inlet design criticism only. Another guy designs a Model S inlet and you guys aren't crapping all over it. Seems highly hypocritical.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm referring to the Model S inlet design criticism only. Another guy designs a Model S inlet and you guys aren't crapping all over it. Seems highly hypocritical.

Hcsharp/Henry previously designed a J1772 Roadster adapter (called "the CAN") that had a great rating from people who have used it and he has a great reputation in the community. Thus you will find no one here that will question his work on a new adapter, given his previous track record.

The second factor is a Model S to Roadster adapter does not have the potential of making HPWCs be used by non-Teslas (which is one contention about the adapter you made). A Roadster is still a Tesla vehicle and Tesla reps that have seen the CAN SR being used have been very positive about it. There is also no doubt such an adapter fits under Tesla's "good faith" exception for their patents.

 

[m6bigdog]

Are you saying a business owner would only want Tesla customers? Why would they not want a Leaf, Volt, Spark, or Soul EV owner patronizing their place of business?

Business owners do not have a say in the Tesla Chargers usage, So they cannot legally authorize a non-Tesla to charge at a Tesla charger - Period... No one can change the chargers Conditions of Use and approval for use except Tesla and the NRTL that certified the charger as safe for charging Tesla's Only and no other manufactures EV's..

Also, Businesses have the Tesla chargers because Tesla owners bought a Tesla and by extension a small portion of that profit is reinvested by Tesla into chargers that the Tesla owner's can use exclusively at these destinations.

Once Again... there are consequences for violating the approved conditions of use from the municipality, NRTL and the manufactures instructions that stipulate the Tesla charger is for Tesla EV's only.

Not that it matters much but, rest of the non-Tesla EV community did nothing to contribute to these Tesla charger installations and have no authority (real or imaginary) to use them no mater how delusional the justification.

 

[FlasherZ]

I'm referring to the Model S inlet design criticism only. Another guy designs a Model S inlet and you guys aren't crapping all over it. Seems highly hypocritical.

For the record, I'm not crapping all over it - I rather like it. I am concerned about pin-and-sleeve fatigue over time, but I'm fine with it.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Hcsharp/Henry previously designed a J1772 Roadster adapter (called "the CAN") that had a great rating from people who have used it and he has a great reputation in the community. Thus you will find no one here that will question his work on a new adapter, given his previous track record.

The second factor is a Model S to Roadster adapter does not have the potential of making HPWCs be used by non-Teslas (which is one contention about the adapter you made). A Roadster is still a Tesla vehicle and Tesla reps that have seen the CAN SR being used have been very positive about it. There is also no doubt such an adapter fits under Tesla's "good faith" exception for their patents.

Because Henry was creating that Model S inlet for a Roadster you babied him along through it all. Not a word about it not being up to Tesla standards or any of that Typhoid Mary crap. None of you suggesting that it might cause damage to Tesla charging equipment. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

 

[hcsharp]

Check out Model S to Roadster Adapter. You'll see quite a different tone regarding the design of Henry Sharp's Model S inlet. No one questioning his qualifications to design it. No scrutiny of certifications or regulatory compliance. No rush to judgement that his design is inferior. It's all love and kisses regarding his custom designed Model S inlet. I guess if your inlet design is for a Roadster it simply gets a big sweet pass from all of you.

Noel, it might surprise you to find out that I spent thousands of dollars developing the pins ALONE in my adapter. I extensively analyzed the float, dimensions, plating, among other things. The bare copper pins that you spun on your lathe will, in fact, create a Typhoid Mary situation. I don't have time to explain to you why.

You might also be surprised to know that I didn't use a single 3D printed part in ANY of the prototypes or finished products. Why? Because a 3D printer for parts capable of heat dissipation rates and EVE thermal standards does not exist unless you pay over $1,000,000 for it. There are other safety issues you're overlooking (not on purpose - you have good intent) but I'll save them for another day.

I don't want to discourage your DIY spirit and ingenuity. I don't blame you for being proud of what you made. Please understand that spirit, ingenuity, and good intent do not replace the need to strictly adhere to good safety practices. I used to be more callous about EV charging. I've now seen enough bad things happen like fires, melted parts (fortunately nothing I made), etc. that I take things much more seriously. I could go on about the importance of following standards, safety engineering, etc but I don't have time and don't want to repeat what others have said. It doesn't have to be UL listed to be safe, but you have to be MUCH more careful with safety standards than you realize. If you continue to hang around the EV community, in a few years you will understand what I'm talking about.

In short, my adapters did not get a "big sweet pass" just because they were made for a Roadster.

 

[m6bigdog]

Check out Model S to Roadster Adapter. You'll see quite a different tone regarding the design of Henry Sharp's Model S inlet. No one questioning his qualifications to design it. No scrutiny of certifications or regulatory compliance. No rush to judgement that his design is inferior. It's all love and kisses regarding his custom designed Model S inlet. I guess if your inlet design is for a Roadster it simply gets a big sweet pass from all of you.

Bottom line is the Roadster is excluded from using the Model S UMC and HPWC also as per the Tesla instructions.

Per Tesla Model S UMC and HPWC Charger User/installation Manuals:
The Mobile Connector is designed only for charging a Tesla vehicle (excluding Tesla Roadster). Do not use it for any other purpose or with any other vehicle or object.
The High Power Wall Connector is designed only for charging a Tesla vehicle (excluding Tesla Roadster). Do not use it for any other purpose or with any other vehicle or object.
Therefore, any Tesla Model S style output connector adapter to Roadster charge port is an unauthorized device also and has the same problems with violating Tesla's conditions of use, the NRTL certification and municipality AHJ approval.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Because Henry was creating that Model S inlet for a Roadster you babied him along through it all. Not a word about it not being up to Tesla standards or any of that Typhoid Mary crap. None of you suggesting that it might cause damage to Tesla charging equipment. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

I see you completely missed the first half of my comment. Let me make it clear: people did not "baby" Henry because it was a Roadster adapter and your's wasn't. People did not question his new adapter because he has previously demonstrated the quality of his work with a different J1772 to Roadster adapter that had excellent ratings. If you browse a few comments from the thread you linked, it should be pretty obvious.

If Henry were to make the same Model S to J1772 adapter, you would not see people here questioning the quality of it (although the same comments about its use to enable non-Teslas to charge would still be brought up). This has nothing to do with being "pathetic hypocrites", simply that people do not trust the work of a new member as much as one who has been doing it for a while and has good reviews to back it up.

 

[hcsharp]

Bottom line is the Roadster is excluded from using the UMC and HPWC also as per the Tesla instruction for the HPWC.
...

Interesting. I had not seen that in the instructions. Many Roadster owners, myself included, have specifically asked people in Tesla's Destination Charging Program for clarification as to whether the network is intended for use by Roadsters. The answer has consistently and emphatically been "Yes." Although they have not officially endorsed the S->R adapter (nor have I asked them to), several employees and Tesla service centers have purchased them to charge the Roadsters they service. I'm aware of several incidents where the answer was "Absolutely not" to non-Tesla vehicle using an adapter. They have good reasons for this.

 

[mknox]

The Tesla J1772 adapter is indeed listed. You can find it on the UL site when you search for Tesla.

Doh! I should have checked. I was operating on the assumption that listed items were supposed to have the UL mark on them somewhere. Mine doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

This example nicely illustrates how Tesla's intentions does not match what you keep suggesting. If Tesla wanted the HPWC to be accessible to non-Tesla EVs, they would install two J1772 instead of one HPWC and one J1772. That would be the only way the makes sense. It seems obvious to me that they install the HPWC so that it keeps at least one spot always open to Tesla customers only. T

I'm not suggesting it... Elon has stated this many times. I'm not going to go hunting it down, but I think it might have even been featured in the Revenge of the Electric Car film.

- - - Updated - - -

2) the reverse engineering of the inlet may prove problematic in some ways. For example, the pins may be slightly larger than expected, which deforms the sleeves on UMC's and HPWC's, resulting in a higher-resistance connection when plugged in to them.

I can give an example of where this happened. I have 2-100 amp (80 amps delivered) ClipperCreek charging stations at my office. After about a year of use with my (and guests that dropped by) Tesla J1772 adapter, the J1772 handles stopped connecting reliably. On both stations. I would have to wiggle and jiggle to get them to connect. ClipperCreek sent me replacement cord sets a few months ago, and they are working fine, but I do wonder in the back of my mind if continued use of the Tesla adapter is going to see this problem come up again.

 

[mknox]

Are you saying a business owner would only want Tesla customers? Why would they not want a Leaf, Volt, Spark, or Soul EV owner patronizing their place of business?

Exactly. This is the reason I installed 2-80 amp ClipperCreek units at my office. They offer a full 80 amps to Teslas with dual chargers, and any other car can use them too. Installing a Tesla-specific public charger makes no sense to me. At home in your garage... sure.

There is a mall close to my home with 2-J1772 stations and 1-HPWC (set for 40 amps). Often both J-1772 stations are in use and the HPWC is vacant. If I drove a Leaf or similar and showed up with one of these adapters, I'd sure use it at the HPWC.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Noel, it might surprise you to find out that I spent thousands of dollars developing the pins ALONE in my adapter. I extensively analyzed the float, dimensions, plating, among other things. The bare copper pins that you spun on your lathe will, in fact, create a Typhoid Mary situation. I don't have time to explain to you why.

You might also be surprised to know that I didn't use a single 3D printed part in ANY of the prototypes or finished products. Why? Because a 3D printer for parts capable of heat dissipation rates and EVE thermal standards does not exist unless you pay over $1,000,000 for it. There are other safety issues you're overlooking (not on purpose - you have good intent) but I'll save them for another day.

I don't want to discourage your DIY spirit and ingenuity. I don't blame you for being proud of what you made. Please understand that spirit, ingenuity, and good intent do not replace the need to strictly adhere to good safety practices. I used to be more callous about EV charging. I've now seen enough bad things happen like fires, melted parts (fortunately nothing I made), etc. that I take things much more seriously. I could go on about the importance of following standards, safety engineering, etc but I don't have time and don't want to repeat what others have said. It doesn't have to be UL listed to be safe, but you have to be MUCH more careful with safety standards than you realize. If you continue to hang around the EV community, in a few years you will understand what I'm talking about.

In short, my adapters did not get a "big sweet pass" just because they were made for a Roadster.

Thanks for your reply. Don't know if you recall, but I emailed you back in May looking for OEM sources for the Model S inlet. I mentioned at that time I was reverse engineering the Model S inlet with a CMM machine and Solidworks. It's a prototype right now so it's 3D printed nylon. Might injection mold with nylon, but not definite yet. Safety and avoiding heat damage are paramount. That's why I included lots of thermal protection. You warned me back in May that someone would attempt to operate it at 80 amps. The Model S inlet is the only EV connector I've seen with floating pins. CHAdeMO pin config looks fixed to me. I just assume that very knowledgable people design this stuff. I don't doubt that you have quite an investment in your pin design. You mentioned that you see some safety issues. Feel free to list them here.