Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[Noel Ingle]

In response to the video...

"Tony Williams Our product doesn't have 3D printed parts or homemade pins. Available 2016."

I've been holding off buying a Juice box in anticipation of being able to buy an HPWC.

"Our product.." What product? I'd love to buy Mr. Williams adapter. However, he's been talking about his non-existent adapter for 2 years. It doesn't seem right to condemn others who step up to produce one. My adapter is a prototype, so yeah, it's 3D printed with homemade pins. Pretty standard practice. At least I'm trying to walk the talk.

 

[TEG]

By the way, related old topic on LEAF forum:
Why Tesla EVSE incompatible? - My Nissan Leaf Forum

 

[Chris TX]

"Our product.." What product? I'd love to buy Mr. Williams adapter. However, he's been talking about his non-existent adapter for 2 years. It doesn't seem right to condemn others who step up to produce one. My adapter is a prototype, so yeah, it's 3D printed with homemade pins. Pretty standard practice. At least I'm trying to walk the talk.

I don't understand his slam against 3D printed parts. SpaceX uses 3D printed thruster nozzles on their rockets. And what's wrong with creating things that are "homemade" with commercial grade equipment? I do that all the time!

 

[FlasherZ]

By the way, related old topic on LEAF forum:
Why Tesla EVSE incompatible? - My Nissan Leaf Forum

A selected quote from that thread (sorry, mitch!)...

A tesla owners most popular adapter will be "Tesla to J-1772", since I doubt their "nationwide charging network" will ever amount to much.

I'd say they executed reasonably well.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand his slam against 3D printed parts. SpaceX uses 3D printed thruster nozzles on their rockets. And what's wrong with creating things that are "homemade" with commercial grade equipment? I do that all the time!

Personally, I don't have an issue with it, as long as the designer understands how to minimize pin-and-sleeve deformation over time. As I note above, because Tesla places the sleeves in the EVSE, any issues with the pins are going to be damaging a charging station and the experience of everyone who might use it in the future, instead of being localized to the user's own car (if the pin-and-sleeve were reversed).

 

[m6bigdog]

I offer that you are wrong.

As anticipated, you consider it "Hullablloo".

Tesla *did* participate in the plug-in charging standards. Tesla's EVSE conform to the J1772 standards, with the only exception being the connector; and Tesla explained why they did so - the J1772 connector is a horrible design - minimally keyed, easily damaged, and difficult to plug in. Tesla was shooting for the ease-of-use and customer experience while the rest of the group were playing with their engineering calculators.

Participate in and comply with are two different things.
Supercharger using the same EVSE output connector is the issue; as there has yet to be a EV public/national standard for a single electrical connector/contacts for two different voltage applications.
Tesla uses its engineering knowledge as the manufacture and proprietary connector configuration to claim the Supercharger and HPWC are designed to applicable safety standard.
I am aware Tesla also has an NRTL do a "Field Inspection" where required that is available to the jurisdiction for each Supercharger site approved for operation. see attachments

Now, Tesla isn't in the business of making J1772 EVSE for other manufacturers - it is in the business of supporting its own cars. This is why you'll never see an official Tesla adapter for a J1772 application. But Tesla's pricing invites a lot of repurposing - just as a cheap screwdriver makes a great mini-pry-bar in a pinch - so that you don't have a buy a specific tool. At some point we can expect that Tesla (or a third party manufacturer) will sell the TSL02 car inlet, when parts are made more freely available. That's about all you're going to get from Tesla.

In the meantime, you're going to have enterprising people build these types of things in relatively low-volume for a need/desire, and that's okay. In three years, the charging landscape is going to look very, very different.

Agreed, however there are always those ignorant of national standards and requirements that cover the electrical equipment and the laws they break.

To address another point: the superchargers do not apply 400VDC @ 300A to the charge port before they require intelligent communication and vehicle validation to do so - it's a critical interlock and is full of safety checks because even Model S would blow up if the DC power were added to the Tesla's pins without the car's contactors. The car communicates with the superchargers, the superchargers tell the car to engage the direct battery contactors, the superchargers validate that they're seeing DC voltage from the battery pack, and *then* they engage the charging power..

Except - interlocks are a secondary safety device and are not considered a primary safety device (UL standard engineering requirement) as the connector configuration and keying is required for primary physical separation between the various standards (SAE, CHAdeMO) and non-standard Tesla EVSE interconnection.
With the Tesla supercharger and HPWC using a proprietary the EVSE connector the EV onboard system and EVSE communicate to make an engineered safety system.
Therefore, Tesla will never approve an "Tesla/J1772" adapter so all that remains is for enterprising people to hack the Tesla proprietary communication protocol and switch the 400Vdc on to a non-Tesla EV J1772 connector. I anticipate the same of a Tesla/CHAdeMo connector.

Finally, none of the NRTL/OSHA stuff matters here. You're not going to find OSHA following an iMIEV around to make sure that the driver uses only listed equipment where applicable. And I don't expect to see the parking lot guards at Tesla asking to see your UL certification mark on your UMC before you're allowed to plug in at their 14-50's. If you ask most organizations' health & safety team whether their top ten concerns include someone plugging in non-listed equipment to a receptacle, you'll be laughed out of the building. It should be noted that at thousands of workspaces every single day, you'll find non-listed equipment plugged in to outlets to charge phones, or operate mini fish-aquariums, or whatever. Even *if* something were to happen. the investigation would look to see who attached the faulty equipment - *not* whether or not something was listed or not. The investigators are not going to ask to see evidence of a workplace NRTL listing checkpoint so that no contraband appliances are brought into the workplace, so can we get past that?.

You are correct no one cares about the EV owner, but the facility operator/property owner cannot turn a blind-eye to misuse of equipment installed on their site as they will always be held responsible for its use/misuse.
I was the AHJ (senior authority) where NRTL/OSHA regulations applied to installed equipment. This stuff maters when thing go wrong during unauthorized equipment use with fines, citations and facility coordinator disciplinary actions by their employer and with negligence people can be held personally liable with civil or criminal charges.
As even a custom fabricated 110/240Vac extension cords must be made from listed/approved parts; appropriate for that purpose, i.e. listed cord end devices only.
OSHA requires the employer and business operator will have a Fire Martial that will expect the facility to be supervised based on all equipment on site as ignorance is not an excuse for non-compliance to manufacture instruction and equipment installation code/safety requirement.

As I mentioned previously, my biggest concern is related to the pin-and-sleeve connectors used in the TSL02 connection. We've already seen evidence of single cars expanding the HPWC connector's sleeves over time - my HPWC cable has been replaced twice; thorough cleaning did not reduce the heat; and replacement of the cable alone eliminated the heat problem, so it was a matter of a high-resistance connection and I suspect deformation of the sleeves. If the inlet and connector were reversed such that the sleeves were in the car, then the car inlet would be subject to the damage instead of the charger connector - and then use of the adapter would be at the risk of damaging the car, not someone else's charger. That's the biggest issue I see.

Beyond the product public/employer safety issues where the approved equipment is misused and/or unapproved adapters fails.
The unauthorized pin contact can contaminate the socket of the Tesla output connector which in turn can damage a previously undamaged charge port pin. Same thing happens with a damaged receptacle destroying perfectly good cord plugs.
I agree there is a real threat to the reliability of the Tesla charging network; including HPWC, Supercharger and Model S/X charge-ports.

 

[FlasherZ]

I simply reiterate my point: never once, in my career, working in many workplaces, have I ever been subject to a "NRTL inspection" where I must surrender everything in my workspace to ensure that it is listed. Never once, in my career have I ever seen a message go out from our safety & health and/or facilities people, noting a policy that anything plugged into receptacles must be tested and listed by an NRTL. Never once have I ever been subject to the "NRTL police" checking up to ensure that the extension cord I plug in is listed. I'm sure I'd be held liable in some form or fashion if the building burned down, but I can't see someone in a smart car with flashing green lights hunting me down to make sure the circle-UL is there.

If, indeed, this were such a critical issue, then I'm sure the metal detectors at the door would have stopped me from bringing my miniature magnetic fishtank into the workplace, and I would have received a written warning for such egregious and dangerous behavior. Because they need to protect themselves, yes? And if this were such a serious issue, I'm sure we'd all have to surrender our cars to the front desk at the Holiday Inn for a full inspection before we were permitted to use their HPWC's. Finally, nothing stops me from whipping up a quick sticker with the UL logo to bypass the "UL police" that would enforce this.

So, my best to you, and I'll be considering the more practical aspects of this discussion from here on.

 

[Chris TX]

Beyond the product public/employer safety issues where the approved equipment is misused and/or unapproved adapters fails.
The unauthorized pin contact can contaminate the socket of the Tesla output connector which in turn can damage a previously undamaged charge port pin. Same thing happens with a damaged receptacle destroying perfectly good cord plugs.
I agree there is a real threat to the reliability of the Tesla charging network; including HPWC, Supercharger and Model S/X charge-ports.

LOL, it's not like these pins are being made from pumice, rusty metal, or wood! Damaging charging pins? If they're the exact same size as the pins in the inlet port and they're made of high quality metal, how in the world would this damage HPWC or UMC plugs? It's like you're assuming the people making these adapters don't know what they're doing and that ONLY Tesla Motors can properly produce a TSL02 inlet. Give me a break.

 

[scaesare]

LOL, it's not like these pins are being made from pumice, rusty metal, or wood! Damaging charging pins? If they're the exact same size as the pins in the inlet port and they're made of high quality metal, how in the world would this damage HPWC or UMC plugs? It's like you're assuming the people making these adapters don't know what they're doing and that ONLY Tesla Motors can properly produce a TSL02 inlet. Give me a break.

The posts in this thread have identified the concern: non-floating pins could spring the sleeves in the TSLA-02 connector such that the resulting high resistance at higher currents (up to 80A) could be a danger. In addition, once the sleeves have been sprung, the problem remains with the HPWC connector, and could then affect multiple subsequent cars that connect...

 

[Noel Ingle]

The posts in this thread have identified the concern: non-floating pins could spring the sleeves in the TSLA-02 connector such that the resulting high resistance at higher currents (up to 80A) could be a danger. In addition, once the sleeves have been sprung, the problem remains with the HPWC connector, and could then affect multiple subsequent cars that connect...

There are features in the Tesla charging wand pin to help prevent the kind of damage that you are describing. The strict 9 mm entrance. The center post to force alignment and prevent an undersized pin from entering at an angle to damage the spring sleeve. Extra expansion room for the spring sleeve. Way better protection than the CHAdeMO receptacle on non-Tesla cars have. I've taken the thing apart and looked at it with other engineers. I think the greatest danger is a malicious kid with penknife or a tube of superglue.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I was thinking of between Tesla and the Destination Partner or Tesla and the end user when I said that. Buts sure, Tesla could go after creaters of the adpaters too, I suppose.

A municipality posted a private communication between a host location and a Tesla project manager on the city's website. If this is representative of current Tesla policy there were no conditions so obviously Tesla would not be in a position to enforce anything even if they wanted to. I'm guessing that to date Tesla wanted to avoid any conditions that might slow down the acceptance of Tesla charging equipment at host locations, unless the host location specifically asked for a letter of intent.

It is clear to me that Tesla intended HPWCs to be used exclusively for Teslas. How do I know this? Because Tesla provides host locations with signs that say "Tesla Charging Only". Further, Tesla in certain situations is providing J1772 chargers along with HPWCs to accommodate non-Teslas. If Tesla wanted non-Teslas to use the HPWCs they wouldn't be providing the much more expensive J1772 chargers, they would have provided a relatively inexpensive approved Tesla adapter on their own.

It is therefore clear to me that an unauthorized adapter is contrary to Tesla's intent. Now having said that, it is not clear that Tesla would attempt to impose a condition whereby their host locations are required to enforce the prohibition against unauthorized adapters.

Fair enough, but that could be said of anything that someone might want to plug in to any outlet at a hotel or other host location. I've seen stories of folks using those phase combining frankenplugs at hotels, or running extension cords from room air conditioner outlets out the window to their cars too. I don't think I'd want that either.

There is a Level 3 CHAdeMO station near me that turns the power off to it at night. I was speaking with someone from the company, and they said their video monitoring cameras had spotted someone "poking some foreign object" into the cable plug one night and their lawyers freaked out over liability concerns.

So I gather, that we are in complete agreement on this point, that whether or not a host location had an legal agreement with Tesla to prohibit the use of unauthorized adapters, there would be liability issues involved in a host knowingly permitting unauthorized devices to be connected to their electrical equipment. :wink:

Larry

 

[scaesare]

There are features in the Tesla charging wand pin to help prevent the kind of damage that you are describing. The strict 9 mm entrance. The center post to force alignment and prevent an undersized pin from entering at an angle to damage the spring sleeve. Extra expansion room for the spring sleeve. Way better protection than the CHAdeMO receptacle on non-Tesla cars have. I've taken the thing apart and looked at it with other engineers. I think the greatest danger is a malicious kid with penknife or a tube of superglue.

My response was to Chris TX who was suggesting that the material and size of the pins was a laughable thing to object to, as those weren't issues. My point was that the concerns being raised involved other things.

 

[FlasherZ]

So I gather, that we are in complete agreement on this point, that whether or not a host location had an legal agreement with Tesla to prohibit the use of unauthorized adapters, there would be liability issues involved in a host knowingly permitting unauthorized devices to be connected to their electrical equipment. :wink:

Change "would" to "could" and you're right. But then you'll have an argument about what "unauthorized" means. Tesla could be considered to have "gifted" the HPWC's to the destination partner if there's no agreement or ongoing consideration. We probably should stay out of that speculation, though, because there are going to be 50 shades of gray there and we wouldn't want to mistake it with the other 50 shades.

 

[Chris TX]

My response was to Chris TX who was suggesting that the material and size of the pins was a laughable thing to object to, as those weren't issues. My point was that the concerns being raised involved other things.

The outer part of the socket pins (like on the car, and on the adapter in question) are not floating. Just open your chargeport door and look at them. They are smooth cylinders that are quite locked into place. It's the charging wand that has internal edges that give a little to make better contact with the pins. I was referring to m6bigdog's inability to comprehend that an individual with the proper tools could make a smooth, fixed cylinder to make proper contact with the charge wand without damaging them.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Change "would" to "could" and you're right. But then you'll have an argument about what "unauthorized" means. Tesla could be considered to have "gifted" the HPWC's to the destination partner if there's no agreement or ongoing consideration. We probably should stay out of that speculation, though, because there are going to be 50 shades of gray there and we wouldn't want to mistake it with the other 50 shades.

Yes, the difference between "would" and "could" is just a legal interpretation specified in court damages.

I won't have the argument, Tesla will.

If Tesla chooses to invoke their patent rights "unathorized" means that someone used their intellectual property in a manner that Tesla deemed as not in "good faith".

The ownership of the HPWC has absolutely nothing to do with whether Tesla can invoke its patent rights.

If you stayed out of all threads that engaged in speculation here at TMC you wouldn't be such a valuable poster. :wink:

If you don't mind I'll continue to speculate as well.

I should add that, that I seriously doubt that there are any shades of gray in whether Noel violated Tesla's patent rights. I believe it's going to be black or white.

Larry

 

[FlasherZ]

Patents or design patents?

The former tends to get more protection, but one can argue that pin-and-sleeve electrical connections are far from patentable at this point, and J1772 is a published standard.

Design patents are up for debate. They typically get less protection, but there may be a leg to stand on here. That said, there are a number of laws that also support fair use and interoperability that would tend to prevent Tesla from taking action.

I am unsure Tesla would be able to wield patents against Noel or Tony. In fact, I don't think they really care until it starts to be a problem for owners, then they'll get involved. They could request the destination charger locations to agree to put up additional signage and take action against non-Tesla vehicles using the chargers, then require them to sign the agreement to be put on the list of destination charging facilities.

 

[wk057]

So a few hypotheticals...

For the sake of argument, lets assume my adapters won't damage any equipment and from a technical standpoint work exactly as intended.
Also let's assume I just made these adapters with no permission or any communication on the matter with Tesla.

• 1) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla HPWC destination chargers?
• 2) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla super chargers? (Assuming custom on board hardware to make this possible was added to the Roadster)
• 3) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to use a Tesla Model S CHAdeMO adatper to charge at a public CHAdeMO charger? (Same note as above)
• 4) If I have a Nissan Leaf, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla HPWC destination chargers?
• 5) If I have a Nissan Leaf, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla super chargers? (Perhaps a supercharger->CHAdeMO adapter)
• If I have a custom EV that utilizes the powertrain components from a Tesla Model S, including the original charge port, HVJB (with supercharger support), charger setup, battery, etc:
  • 6) .... should I be allowed to use Tesla HPWC desination chargers?
  • 7) .... should I be allowed to use Tesla superchargers?

My personal answers are: 1 through 5: No. 6 and 7 yes.

Why?

Well, for 1 through 5 these vehicles were never intended to be used at these chargers, there was no access cost included in the purchase of these vehicles, etc. Specifically for the Roadster, if Tesla intended for Roadster owners to be able to use the destination charger network or the supercharger network they could easily do so.

For 6 and 7, IMO this vehicle would still have the Tesla Model S's "license" to utilize these amenities since it basically is the Model S in a new shell. The Model S was bought (with the supercharging option), and at some point converted into another EV. Arguably supercharging was included with that initial purchase, as would the destination chargers.

Just my 2 cents on the "authorized" portion of this argument.

 

[Larry Chanin]

We probably should stay out of that speculation, though, because there are going to be 50 shades of gray there and we wouldn't want to mistake it with the other 50 shades.

If you stayed out of all threads that engaged in speculation here at TMC you wouldn't be such a valuable poster. :wink:

Patents or design patents?

The former tends to get more protection, but one can argue that pin-and-sleeve electrical connections are far from patentable at this point, and J1772 is a published standard.

Design patents are up for debate. They typically get less protection, but there may be a leg to stand on here. That said, there are a number of laws that also support fair use and interoperability that would tend to prevent Tesla from taking action.

I am unsure Tesla would be able to wield patents against Noel or Tony. In fact, I don't think they really care until it starts to be a problem for owners, then they'll get involved. They could request the destination charger locations to agree to put up additional signage and take action against non-Tesla vehicles using the chargers, then require them to sign the agreement to be put on the list of destination charging facilities.

See what I mean?

Speculation is part of our TMC DNA. :biggrin:

Larry

 

[mknox]

So I gather, that we are in complete agreement on this point, that whether or not a host location had an legal agreement with Tesla to prohibit the use of unauthorized adapters, there would be liability issues involved in a host knowingly permitting unauthorized devices to be connected to their electrical equipment. :wink:

The "would", "could" and liability issues aside, I think if a property owner places a sign or otherwise makes their intentions clear with respect to the equipment then yes, that absolutely should be respected. It is no different than the picture I posted earlier (I think it was in this thread) of a Nissan CHAdeMO charger with a "Nissan Leaf Only" sign on it. Tesla owners should definitely not use that site with their CHAdeMO adapters either.

 

[FlasherZ]

The "would", "could" and liability issues aside, I think if a property owner places a sign or otherwise makes their intentions clear with respect to the equipment then yes, that absolutely should be respected. It is no different than the picture I posted earlier (I think it was in this thread) of a Nissan CHAdeMO charger with a "Nissan Leaf Only" sign on it. Tesla owners should definitely not use that site with their CHAdeMO adapters either.

With you 100% on this one. That said, it doesn't mean property owners can't make exceptions, either.

 

[techmaven]

LOL, it's not like these pins are being made from pumice, rusty metal, or wood! Damaging charging pins? If they're the exact same size as the pins in the inlet port and they're made of high quality metal, how in the world would this damage HPWC or UMC plugs? It's like you're assuming the people making these adapters don't know what they're doing and that ONLY Tesla Motors can properly produce a TSL02 inlet. Give me a break.

I think there is a big issue here which you are sweeping under the rug with this statement. You are assuming that even if this *one* or a few custom manufactured adapters are made to sufficiently compatible quality, materials, and alignment, that all others would be. Who pays if someone's custom manufactured adapter is used all over and damages a slew of HPWCs? Who pays if a subsequent Model S owner plugs in a damaged HPWC and their Model S is damaged?

In the case of J1772, there are specifications to follow that covers the physical connectors. Of course, it is possible to synthesize sufficiently compatible connectors without going through certification, but is it responsible?

I think it is irresponsible for anyone to synthesize these connectors and use them on HWPC's owned by other people unless they are willing to put up an insurance fund that is pre-funded for the potential damages. It's even worse to use other's people HWPC's without them knowing that you are using something that isn't certified to conform to the specs. Since the specs aren't released and there isn't a certification program, even if a HPWC owner gives consent, they likely don't understand the ramifications and so it is still irresponsible. Of course, if it is your HWPC, then by all means.