Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[DavidM]

The question is whether a non-Tesla EV should be "allowed" to charge at a destination HPWC via an adapter. There are clear marketing advantages to being a part of the destination charging program including listings on Tesla's website and navigation systems. So, let's take that as a given. The business would prefer an HPWC for the reach and the wealth of the audience. I don't see why that would preclude the owner of the business from welcoming a Bolt/Volt/Spark/Leaf driver if one should happen to arrive with an adapter and the driver patronizes the business.

I put this in the same category as "rooting your cellphone". If Tesla had intended for drivers of competing EVs to use their HPWC or their supercharger, then they would have created adapters by now to facilitate that use. So, Tesla hasn't created an adapter for the HPWC because it's not in their best interest to do so. How come people can't just accept that. Now, some people with competing EVs say they want to "hack" into Tesla's HPWC by creating an adapter. Other folks with competing EVs say Tesla should make competing EVs more capable by producing a Tesla adapter and selling it to folks who chose to purchase a competing EV.

Meanwhile, Tesla is providing a free L2 charging station with every two HPWCs to shop owners who want to participate in the Destination Charging program. Apparently, Tesla is also bearing part (or all) of the installation cost as well. Competing EVs can freely use the Level 2 charging station furnished by Tesla (if the shop owner chooses to install it). In that regard, Tesla has gone above and beyond.

Let's keep in mind that the HPWC was designed to deliver 40A to 80A of current to a Tesla EV. The HPWC was designed for the Model S, X and 3. Most competing EVs cannot accept more than 30A of AC current. Some EVs like the Volt, are limited to about 16A of AC current. Bottom line - Tesla is producing more capable EVs, and more capable chargers (like the HPWC). If someone decides to save a few bucks and purchase a less capable EV. Then that's their choice. I don't know why they would then think that they should be entitled to use Tesla's more capable charger.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this kind of elitism is very harmful to the EV movement. The fact is that a Spark EV owner would likely patronize a destination that has EVSE over one that doesn't, and any smart business owner would prefer to have Teslas and Sparks, Leafs, Volts etc. as opposed to just Teslas. Tesla may not be non-profit, but they do have a publicly stated mission of accelerating the adoption of sustainable transportation by spurring on all manufacturers, leading by example.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be, and I don't think that would be Tesla's intent.

Call it what you like. I like Rolex watches and Bentley cars, but I can't afford them. Don't hate the manufacturer or the shop owner for selling them. And certainly don't hate the customers who can afford to buy them. So don't refer to those customers as "elitist". It's not up to Bentley to make the ownership experience of a Toyota any better. Bentley has a responsibility to "their" customers to provide an ownership experience that's superior to other vehicles. In return for that superior ownership experience, Bentley vehicles command a high price tag. Likewise with Tesla. Just because Tesla makes EVs, and you happen to own a less expensive, competing EV, it doesn't mean that Tesla "owes" you anything.

 

[mknox]

If someone decides to save a few bucks and purchase a less capable EV. Then that's their choice. I don't know why they would then think that they should be entitled to use Tesla's more capable charger.

Well what about the 80 amp J1772 stations I installed at my office? Should a Volt or a Leaf not be entitled to use it because they have way more capacity that their car can handle? I plug my dual charger-equipped Model S in most days, but I also see Leafs, Volts and other Model S cars use them as well.

So don't refer to those customers as "elitist". It's not up to Bentley to make the ownership experience of a Toyota any better.

I meant "elitist" as in a shop owner saying "only Tesla owners can shop here... Spark EV owners not welcome". Not everyone of means chooses to drive an expensive car. I had a very well-to-do uncle, but you'd never know by looking at him. He dressed like a farmer and drove old VW Beetles. A shop owner should make the experience of visiting just as good for a Tesla owner as for any other EV owner (from an EVSE perspective).

But as I said earlier, I really think this will become moot when the adapters become available and non-Tesla owners start using them. Then we'll see if and how it's enforced. We can speculate all we want here in the meantime, I suppose.

 

[DavidM]

Well what about the 80 amp J1772 stations I installed at my office? Should a Volt or a Leaf not be entitled to use it because they have way more capacity that their car can handle? I plug my dual charger-equipped Model S in most days, but I also see Leafs, Volts and other Model S cars use them as well.

I meant "elitist" as in a shop owner saying "only Tesla owners can shop here... Spark EV owners not welcome". Not everyone of means chooses to drive an expensive car. I had a very well-to-do uncle, but you'd never know by looking at him. He dressed like a farmer and drove old VW Beetles. A shop owner should make the experience of visiting just as good for a Tesla owner as for any other EV owner (from an EVSE perspective).

But as I said earlier, I really think this will become moot when the adapters become available and non-Tesla owners start using them. Then we'll see if and how it's enforced. We can speculate all we want here in the meantime, I suppose.

If you PAID to purchase and install an 80A J1772 station at your office, you purchased it to serve your own Model S, as well as other EVs, and as a "shop owner", that's your choice. Other "shop owners" will choose to participate in the Tesla Destination Charging program and receive (2) HPWCs and (1) L2 charging station FOR FREE. Tesla wants to provide HPWCs, and L2 charging stations for FREE. Not surprisingly they don't want non-customers "hacking" the HPWCs they provide for their customers.

btw - No shop owner will ever say "only Tesla owners can shop here". The parking lot will accommodate all types of cars. If the shop owner wants to provide a perk for a subset of customers - it's his business, and he's NOT "elitist" for doing so. This happens all the time. I've been a Marriott Platinum member for more than a decade. I get perks at Marriott hotels. I don't see that as being unfair to other Marriott customers. But I'm just a regular Joe at Hyatt, Hilton or Holiday Inn. I can live with that. The same is true with the airlines or any other business. Some customers get perks and other customers don't. I guess that's all part of a capitalist society.

 

[mknox]

If you PAID to purchase and install an 80A J1772 station at your office, you purchased it to serve your own Model S, as well as other EVs, and as a "shop owner", that's your choice. Other "shop owners" will choose to participate in the Tesla Destination Charging program and receive (2) HPWCs and (1) L2 charging station FOR FREE.

I did purchase them, from Sun Country Highway, who had just wrapped up a program where they gave away hundreds of high power J1772 stations in a fashion similar to Tesla's program but without any restrictions on use. They covered the Trans-Canada highway from coast to coast. And around here, it seems Tesla started with HPWCs only, and just recently have been supplying one (not two) J1772 EVSE.

What I can say is that the cost of the equipment itself is a tiny fraction of the total installation costs. Unless you happen to mount it on the exterior wall of a building where the electrical room is on the other side, installation is going to be huge dollars in comparison. If I recall, my company's cost to install the duct work, cabling. pedestals and sidewalk modifications was around $10,000 for an approximately 300' run.

Not surprisingly they don't want non-customers "hacking" the HPWCs they provide for their customers

It actually is surprising to me. None of the (admittedly small number of) destination owners I know of are aware of this, and as I mentioned previously, an installation company rep has told me there are no such restrictions in the agreement with Tesla. I've never once heard such a statement ever, either verbally or in writing, from anyone at Tesla.

If it IS true that Tesla wants to go down the path of providing proprietary equipment and restricting it's use in public settings, then my advice to them would be to cease and desist. It is not going to serve the EV community nor the push to accelerate EV adoption taking actions like this. If they want to go down the philanthropic path and provide EVSE equipment for the greater good, why not go with the universally accepted J1772 standard and avoid alienation and ill will?

 

[m6bigdog]

I think this kind of elitism is very harmful to the EV movement. The fact is that a Spark EV owner would likely patronize a destination that has EVSE over one that doesn't, and any smart business owner would prefer to have Teslas and Sparks, Leafs, Volts etc. as opposed to just Teslas. Tesla may not be non-profit, but they do have a publicly stated mission of accelerating the adoption of sustainable transportation by spurring on all manufacturers, leading by example.

- - - Updated - - -


....

Sorry for the long reply; as anything controversial is difficult to convey...

IMHO, what is worst for the EV movement and adaption; is an unreliable charging accessory that violate Tesla’s engineering efforts and the regulatory approvals required to install a reliable NRTL tested charging network.

The DIY adapter is sub-standard, un-tested and will infect (Typhoid Mary syndrome) and/or can only damage the reliability of the Tesla charging network (charging connectors and charge-ports). It will be the ignorance of those that choose to use such an adapter (for their non-Tesla EV) and the negligence and complacency of the property owners with destination HPWC installed that will be a contributing factor in tainting the image of safety that Tesla has worked hard to establish.

If you lack the technical or engineering knowledge to understand the concerns of the sub-standard/un-tested Tesla/J1772 adapter I would suggest you either become educated or respect the concerns and leave the subject to the regulatory requirements/authorities; that all EVSE equipment up to the EV charge-port be NRTL listed, installed under the regulatory authority and always be used as instructed by the equipment manufacture, i.e. “HPWC…designed only for charging a Tesla vehicle.”

Tesla has worked diligently to make sure their charging network is reliable (as any informed Tesla owner can attest) and that the Model S/X EV’s will not aggravate a failing branch circuit and/or HPWC/UMC by actively detecting a faulty charging circuit and either reducing the current and/or shutting down the charging session.

Do all other non-Tesla EV’s perform this critical safety function? How many EV and structure fires have been prevented? That I am aware, this has yet to become a requirement or safety standard within the non-Tesla EV’s.

I anticipate Tesla will want to keep the safety and reliability of their charging network under their control rather than leaving an integral part of the Tesla EV product safety program to those that want to illegally scab onto the proprietary Tesla charging network.

It is obvious to me if a problem occurs such as an EV and/or structure fire from a charging session, even with a sub-standard Tesla/J1772 adapter involved, it will be Tesla that gets blamed in the media and the public eye. You can bet a hotel operator will take out any and all EV chargers after a fire!!! and Tesla will pay dearly before their reputation is recovered...

Also there will never be an NRTL approved/listed Tesla/J1772 adapter unless it is Tesla/NRTL approved because currently the Tesla HPWC/UMC instruction manual specifically states Warnings:
“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. Do not insert foreign objects into any part of the High
Power Wall Connector.” (DIY adapter is a foreign object)

IMO, it is not the elitism of Tesla Motor Corporation, the Tesla owners and/or its proprietary charging connector that is very harmful - it is arrogance and the ignorance of the non-tesla vehicle owners and compliancy of those that own/manage/operate the HPWC destination chargers that will pollute the EV movement’s image and adaption. As once the charging network is contaminated with sub-standard Tesla/J1772 adapters it will be all but impossible for Tesla to managed the reliability and safety and/or get it back under its control.

Tesla is doing more than required to bridge between their proprietary and j1772 charging standard and to support the EV movement as (1) they conceived and implemented the Complementary Destination Charging Network for Tesla owners/drivers and (2) they providing a free J1772-L2 charger with every 2 free HPWC installed at a destination and also providing a $4500 subsidy ($1500/charge station) to install the 2 HPWC and J1772 charger; just for the asking no strings attached!!

So who has done more for the EV movement, EV adaption and EV community than Tesla? No one - period, and we all owe Tesla some RESPECT by being attentive to their operating instructions!! A few Autopilot and EV charging mishaps can bring their whole effort and image down...

What do you think is complicating Tesla unilateral effort to support the EV movement, the safety and reliability of the Tesla EV charging network?
I anticipate, it is those that want to do their own thing, ignore operating instructions, ignore the order of the regulatory authorities and EV industry; yet they have little/no responsibility for their product (uninsured business - violating EV industry safety standards)!!

Therefore, the business model of an un-authorized/unlisted Tesla/j1772 adapter is bad for the EV movement/adaption and unsustainable even when it is convenient/expedient for a few of the EV community members...

 

[scaesare]

I think this kind of elitism is very harmful to the EV movement.

I think "elitism" is being bandied about a bit much here.

Telsa is going above (and beyond if you consider the additional J1772's they'll throw in) in providing hardware and covering installation costs at no charge. Other manufacturers are welcome to do the same.

Location owners are very likely pleased to get such a deal, and therefore take Tesla up on it, especially because Tesla is a high-profile brand.

Does that mean the location owner doesn't want a Volt or Spark customer? Of course not. But just because Chevy isn't aggressively trying to drive similar adoption, does that mean the location owner shouldn't have accepted Tesla's offer on principle?

I can't count the number of times I've seen a company/location/service say "Download our app!", only to see that it's iOS only. While some might want to scream "Elitist!", I suspect it has more to do with the biggest bang for their development buck at the moment.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If it IS true that Tesla wants to go down the path of providing proprietary equipment and restricting it's use in public settings, then my advice to them would be to cease and desist. It is not going to serve the EV community nor the push to accelerate EV adoption taking actions like this. If they want to go down the philanthropic path and provide EVSE equipment for the greater good, why not go with the universally accepted J1772 standard and avoid alienation and ill will?

Ultimately that was the point being made by others. If Tesla intended the HPWCs to be used by other EVs, it makes no sense to install a proprietary one rather than a J1772 (this is especially true in cases where the breaker makes it so the HPWC is current limited in the first place).

I don't think however Tesla keeping HPWCs for Tesla owners will cause ill will. It is the only way to justify to shareholders and owners (which ultimately are paying for it) the investment in the infrastructure. Tesla is not running a charity. The extra J1772 chargers is Tesla's move for goodwill to the rest of the community, and it does it in a way that minimizes conflicts with Tesla owners. The Destination chargers are an extension of the supercharger network and Tesla owners expect to have some exclusive access (only exception is if an automaker partners with Tesla and also invests in the infrastructure).

I find it weird that non-Tesla owners expect that Tesla should allow them to charge at HPWCs for free as a matter of fact, just because they are doing so for Tesla owners. That seems more like the entitled attitude to me. If I owned a non-Tesla EV, I would be grateful Tesla is offering to install extra J1772 chargers (similarly for dealer chargers, I don't expect them to allow me to charge, but would be grateful if they did).

 

[mknox]

Sorry for the long reply; as anything controversial is difficult to convey...

I do respect everyone's opinion here, and sorry in advance to picking and choosing a few of your points to comment on, but...

The DIY adapter is sub-standard, un-tested and will infect (Typhoid Mary syndrome) and/or can only damage the reliability of the Tesla charging network (charging connectors and charge-ports).

I do agree with that. Rube Goldberg solutions are not the answer. I am thinking that a properly designed and certified adapter is the way to go.

Also there will never be an NRTL approved/listed Tesla/J1772 adapter unless it is Tesla/NRTL approved...

And I see no reason that Tesla couldn't develop and sell one. Basically the reverse of their current J1772 adapter. It would certainly generate them a lot of goodwill.

Do all other non-Tesla EV’s perform this critical safety function? How many EV and structure fires have been prevented? That I am aware, this has yet to become a requirement or safety standard within the non-Tesla EV’s.

Well, there was a Tesla garage fire in Toronto that has resulted in Tesla re-designing their UMC and lowering its output to 32 amps in order to get cUL approval. The original UMC was not certified. Tesla are in the midst of replacing Canadian UMCs with the new cUL approved de-rated ones as we speak.

currently the Tesla HPWC/UMC instruction manual specifically states Warnings:
“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. Do not insert foreign objects into any part of the High
Power Wall Connector.”

Well, if we're going to pick and choose warnings, it also says "Do not use the Wall Connector when you, the vehicle, or the Wall Connector is exposed to severe rain, snow, electrical storm or other inclement weather" and "Protect the Wall Connector from moisture, water, liquid and foreign objects at all times". So basically, they shouldn't even be used outdoors, because dew forming on it would constitute "moisture".

 

[fwgmills]

I've been reading all the posts and thought of something that I don't think has been brought up yet. Granted all of this is the North American standard. European chargers have their own standard which ironically is universal across most all european EVs so they don't have to deal with this mess.

J1772 connector is an AC standard adopted by most non-Tesla EVs on the market. According to Wikipedia it can charge at up to 80 Amps AC.

There are also J1772 CCS wands for high-power DC charging and although the top part of the connector is the same for signaling purposes, the high power DC pins are separate and requires a different kind of socket to take advantage of fast DC charging.

Tesla's charging wand has one design for both AC and high-powered DC charging.

I won't even go into CHAdeMO for this argument.

Now if someone were to build an adapter box so that a J1772 user could plug into a Tesla HPWC it's my understanding that the signaling is compatible and would probably work without issues. What happens when a user takes their "not sanctioned" charging box to a supercharger? Does the supercharger shutdown or possibly take damage because of the incompatible equipment or does the user's charging box or EV catch fire? Hopefully proper signaling would prevent the supercharger from funneling 400V DC into the AC socket of a Volt, but who knows?

Just another thing to think about.

 

[scottf200]

What happens when a user takes their "not sanctioned" charging box to a supercharger? Does the supercharger shutdown or possibly take damage because of the incompatible equipment or does the user's charging box or EV catch fire? Hopefully proper signaling would prevent the supercharger from funneling 400V DC into the AC socket of a Volt, but who knows?

From some post up...

If they wanted to, Tesla can also start shipping HPWC's that are inherently incompatible with J1772 signalling and would then no longer work with a passive adapter. They already have the protocol, it's used for supercharging.

 

[TexasEV]

If it IS true that Tesla wants to go down the path of providing proprietary equipment and restricting it's use in public settings, then my advice to them would be to cease and desist. It is not going to serve the EV community nor the push to accelerate EV adoption taking actions like this. If they want to go down the philanthropic path and provide EVSE equipment for the greater good, why not go with the universally accepted J1772 standard and avoid alienation and ill will?

Tesla isn't a philanthropic organization and the HPWCs aren't being donated for the "greater good", however you define that. They're doing it for marketing. That's a legitimate function and it's something you and others don't seem to get. Tesla destination charging is marketing for Tesla. If Tesla is to accomplish its mission it has to be profitable, and that means selling its cars. Lots of them. Marketing programs such as destination charging help accomplish that. I hope the availability of destination charging stations with Tesla proprietary connectors helps a Tesla sell lots of cars. That's what will help the "EV community" the most. If Tesla goes under, say goodbye to practical EVs from existing manufacturers.

 

[m6bigdog]

I do respect everyone's opinion here, and sorry in advance to picking and choosing a few of your points to comment on, but...

I'm not worried about respecting opinions posted.
It is respecting the Tesla instructions, regulatory authority and NRTL Standard that have specific/defined requirements and the legal standing that are written into laws that ensure equipment is engineered, manufactured, installed and used safely. This is for everyone's protection not just the EV community and EV adoption (fires spread to unrelated structures.)
So often these factual/regulatory documents and requirement become relegated to opinion by those that lack knowledge and become an argument of ethics rather than fact!!

I do agree with that. Rube Goldberg solutions are not the answer. I am thinking that a properly designed and certified adapter is the way to go.

So if Tesla makes and/or approves a Tesla/J1772 adapter we can all forget the ethics and regulatory authority argument because it will be available.
However don't hold your breathe as I'm sure Tesla has a lot of reasons not to comingle their charging network with other low-end EV's as they will be having there own economy EV out shortly.
But until Tesla weighs in, it has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with Tesla EV charging reliability and safety of the Tesla Charging network.
Mainly because, the unapproved Tesla/J1772 adapter will have a listed J1772 connector on one end that is of little risk to the J1772 charging network or J1772 EV charge-port.
However the unapproved/unlisted sub-standard Tesla output connector adapter will put at great risk the Tesla output connector that plugs-into the sub standard adapter and Tesla EV charge-port that will use the Tesla output connecter after it has been used in the sub-standard adapter!! This is the Typhoid Mary syndrome in action.. The J1772 charging network is not affected (approved/listed J1772 connector) but it has devastated the Tesla charging network (contaminated by unapproved sub-standard adapter connector contacts/pins).

And I see no reason that Tesla couldn't develop and sell one. Basically the reverse of their current J1772 adapter. It would certainly generate them a lot of goodwill.

I am not privy to the decision Tesla made 8-9 years ago when they were selecting a charge output connector and EV charge-port design. These designs need to be cemented early and are typically inflexible once chosen. I think they did pretty good with 120Vac to 135Kw capability all without an adapter or user intervention to start charging or waiting 10 years for the EV industry to catch up if they ever would.
I can only speculate that the early J1772 standards (ac only with no DC spec) in 2005-2006 had limitations that Tesla wanted to avoid and/or overcome and since an industry standard and it's Standards making-panels are formidable committee's that may not ever resolve the concerns of a single manufacture.

Well, there was a Tesla garage fire in Toronto that has resulted in Tesla re-designing their UMC and lowering its output to 32 amps in order to get cUL approval. The original UMC was not certified. Tesla are in the midst of replacing Canadian UMCs with the new cUL approved de-rated ones as we speak.

It is always a positive when a Testing Lab performs their review/testing on a consumer product as they will provide the consumer perspective and independent testing that the development/engineering group may have missed. I look forward getting a UL replacement UMC when and if they replace them in the US however I rarely use mine as the HPWC is the better, more efficient and safer choice for the daily residential charger even at the 24 amps charge rate I use most of the time.

Well, if we're going to pick and choose warnings, it also says "Do not use the Wall Connector when you, the vehicle, or the Wall Connector is exposed to severe rain, snow, electrical storm or other inclement weather" and "Protect the Wall Connector from moisture, water, liquid and foreign objects at all times". So basically, they shouldn't even be used outdoors, because dew forming on it would constitute "moisture".

As for the Tesla warning you sighted; I see no conflict or confusion as these are two different conditions for the HPWC and must also be religiously followed:
The first one is, "Do not Use..." which is directed toward the individual in control of the EV charging after HPWC is operational.
The second one is, "Protect the Wall connector from...at all times" this one is for the equipment installer that could leave the HPWC open, unprotected, cover off during installation, over night or during inclement weather before the installation is completed. Hence for all equipment rated "outdoor use" you will find a similar instruction to make the installer aware they should prevent corrosion and/or damage to sensitive internal devices/components in the enclosure and the installer need to protection them by keeping the normally sealed enclosure protected at all times, as advised.

 

[Chris TX]

Tesla isn't a philanthropic organization...

And yet they have given away billions in intellectual property with the free use of their patents.

 

[TEG]

Now if someone were to build an adapter box so that a J1772 user could plug into a Tesla HPWC it's my understanding that the signaling is compatible and would probably work without issues.

Yes, the J1772 AC "level 2" charging is "easy" It is just mainly an issue of getting the connectors to mate. The J1772 plug/socket is easily obtained. The Tesla socket is not generally available. People get Tesla plugs by butchering UMCs. Some firms converted UMCs to J1772 mobile charge cables, and ended up with some spare Tesla plugs in the process.

What happens when a user takes their "not sanctioned" charging box to a supercharger? Does the supercharger shutdown or possibly take damage because of the incompatible equipment or does the user's charging box or EV catch fire? Hopefully proper signaling would prevent the supercharger from funneling 400V DC into the AC socket of a Volt, but who knows?
Just another thing to think about.

Unlike the UMC or HPWC, the Supercharger is "smart", and won't provide higher voltage DC power to any device unless it recognizes it and they "handshake properly". I think the handshake includes a "tell me who you are, and let me make sure you are authorized" step. So, Tesla could deny DC power to any device they don't recognize, trust and approve. If you tried to plug in any of these "home brew" Tesla to J1772 adapter devices into a Supercharger, the likely outcome is that the Supercharger won't recognize it, won't activate, and won't do anything in particular. It might even log an internal charge attempt error of some sort. So, apart from the "it likely just wont do anything if you plug it in", I think the real valid concern is if the Tesla style socket was out of spec and physically damaged the pins in the Supercharger plug. If someone makes a Tesla socket on a 3D printer and machines their own pins/sleeves they could end up with something that causes damage to the Tesla plug if not done right. This concern has been discussed at length earlier in this thread.

 

[Larry Chanin]

And yet they have given away billions in intellectual property with the free use of their patents.

Hi Chris,

Tesla has apparently chosen not to charge licensing fees for the use of their intellectual property, but they are not exactly giving it away. There are "good faith" conditions for its use. Tesla wants others to adopt the Tesla charging specification and is willing to forgo licensing fees to achieve that objective. Building an adapter to another charging specification or permitting others to build it through the use their intellectual property would not promote that objective.

Larry

 

[FlasherZ]

I can only speculate that the early J1772 standards (ac only with no DC spec) in 2005-2006 had limitations that Tesla wanted to avoid and/or overcome and since an industry standard and it's Standards making-panels are formidable committee's that may not ever resolve the concerns of a single manufacture.

The issue is that the J1772 connector is the epitome of poor connector design. It is a minimally-keyed round connector that takes far more precision to plug in than other, better designs; the connector wall is thin enough that the connector breaks fairly easily. Tesla wanted something a bit more elegant; easy to plug in. When I got Model S, my middle children were 4 & 6; they could plug the car in easily - something they couldn't do with J1772.

 

[LetsGoFast]

There is nothing worse than planning to charge my Model S overnight at a hotel and arriving to find two Chevy Volts plugged into the only L2 chargers. It's because of that that I will book a hotel with Tesla destination chargers instead of a public charger.

Has this actually happened or is it just a hypothetical? They haven't sold very many Volts and they charge fully in 3 hours on Level 2 charging.

 

[TEG]

Has this actually happened or is it just a hypothetical? They haven't sold very many Volts and they charge fully in 3 hours on Level 2 charging.

"Haven't sold very many?" By what definition. I think the number of Volts is roughly comparable to Model S.
Chevrolet Volt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...As of September 2015, the Volt and Ampera models have combined global sales of almost 100,000 units, with the U.S. as the leading market with over 82,000 Volts delivered since its introduction in 2010...

In any case, I think the "fully charged in 3 hours" is also a bit misleading as a lot of times people find fully charged Volts still left parked at the charging station.


By the way:
Can I use the Tesla UMC to charge my Chevy Volt?
Tesla Roadster Charger adapter for My Volt

These are some of the providers of J-Adapters:
EV (Electric Vehicle) Charging Products
J1772 Adapter
I don't think either officially offer a Tesla socket to J1772 plug product just yet, but it may just be a matter of time. We have perhaps seen some prototypes being tested various places.

- - - Updated - - -

Also (changing the subject from J-Plugs back to 3rd party Supercharger compatibility):

Tesla reveals plan to share Supercharger network with other electric car makers | ExtremeTech

...When asked by a UK journalist for Pocket-lint what kind of sharing arrangement he envisioned, Musk responded that he specifically wants to avoid the walled garden effect with Supercharger technology, and that the main barrier to universal adoption by other EVs is whether or not other vehicles can accept the power level that a Supercharger delivers. Musk also noted that other manufacturers that want to use the Supercharger network would have to adopt the same cost structure. Currently, Supercharger users don’t pay for a fill-up; Musk has stated that each adoptee would need to contribute capital costs “proportional to their fleet’s usage of the network.”...

So, I gather Tesla (in principle) is amenable to the idea of another manufacturer's vehicle being granted access to the Superchargers, but doesn't offer any indication of interest in supporting adapters to other standards.

I gather that means that they would want the other car in question to adopt a Tesla socket natively on the car. They would probably want to ensure it was built to their standards too. It seems Tesla's requirements to get access to Supercharger access may be a bit steep as we have seen no examples of anyone actually doing it yet.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Tesla reveals plan to share Supercharger network with other electric car makers | ExtremeTech

...When asked by a UK journalist for Pocket-lint what kind of sharing arrangement he envisioned, Musk responded that he specifically wants to avoid the walled garden effect with Supercharger technology, and that the main barrier to universal adoption by other EVs is whether or not other vehicles can accept the power level that a Supercharger delivers. Musk also noted that other manufacturers that want to use the Supercharger network would have to adopt the same cost structure. Currently, Supercharger users don’t pay for a fill-up; Musk has stated that each adoptee would need to contribute capital costs “proportional to their fleet’s usage of the network.”...

So, I gather Tesla (in principle) is amenable to the idea of another manufacturer's vehicle being granted access to the Superchargers, but doesn't offer any indication of interest in supporting adapters to other standards.

I gather that means that they would want the other car in question to adopt a Tesla socket natively on the car. They would probably want to ensure it was built to their standards too. It seems Tesla's requirements to get access to Supercharger access may be a bit steep as we have seen no examples of anyone actually doing it yet.

Yes, I think your inference is correct. They want the other manufacturers to adopt Tesla's business model for Supercharging, adopt the Tesla charging specification on their cars, they require a large enough battery to realistically do long range highway driving, and they expect them to contribute their fair share to use the network. You may consider that "steep" now, but as you know several manufacturers have already announced plans for 200+ mile EVs.

Most people agree that the Supercharger network gives Tesla a competitive advantage. By accepting the above terms and partnering with Tesla, competing, long-range EV manufacturers can negate the competitive advantage of the Supercharger network. Then they would be competing solely on how compelling their cars are. If hubris doesn't get in the way, partnering with Tesla on the infrastructure makes a lot of sense if they are truly serious about building long-range EVs in meaningful numbers.

Another interesting quote from the article:

This has been described as patent-sharing at some publications, but Engadget, which broke the initial story, has an update clarifying that while Tesla is willing to share charging and adapter specifications with the industry, it’s not necessarily offering patent licensing. This is one of those fine points of detail that legal firms are typically employed to hash out, particularly as apparently Tesla does have some kind of patent agreement program in the cards — it’s just not ready to talk about it yet.

From the referenced Engadgetment article:

Update: Tesla's PR people have been in touch to clarify a couple of things. Firstly, although the company is indeed offering to share its charging and adapter specifications with other manufacturers, on the conditions described above, this won't necessarily involve sharing patents. Secondly, some sort of "patent giveaway" or "patent release" is still on the cards, but the company isn't quite ready to announce the details just yet.

Larry

 

[Tedkidd]

Thanks Larry!

Very exciting! This is how Tesla/Musk dictate quality design of all future EV's so "the rest of us" don't have to put up with these crappy compliance cars for much longer!

For those worried about Tesla competitiveness, they're only going to be able to build what, 600,000 yr max through 2020? Doesn't competition only matter if it means you can't sell all your cars?

I think the early majority is ready for EV's, they just need affordable cars that don't require sacrifice. Will Bolt, 2018 Leaf, and m3 will be enough?