Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[Oba]

No, but I can see where the confusion would come from. Some other EVs have separate ports for Level 1/2 and Level 3 (J1772 and CHAdeMO) and others have the SAE Combo Plug which will allow a J1772 to be inserted or a DC plug with the extra pins. Tesla uses an all-in-one port. Under discussion is whether Tesla Level 2 stations (i.e. HPWC) can be used on other EVs with an appropriate Tesla to J1772 adapter (i.e. the reverse of the adapter that comes with the car.

There's not much to discuss. The answer is quite simply "yes", with numerous examples on this very forum (for about as long as the UMC / HPWC / Tesla Model S has been available).

So, not much to talk about. Tesla's AC charging is 100% electrically compatible with J1772. It just needs the pins to align, which requires an adaptor of some sort (or like was done in the first post pictures).

Level 3 [DC] Supercharging would be a whole different matter.

This has also been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. The Superchargers would require both an adapter and a license to use in a non-Tesla car or even the Roadster. The physical adapter is relatively easy... the latter is not. There was an recent news article about Tesla being in discussions with some unnamed company, but I suspect that they are always talking about it with somebody!

 

[scaesare]

But are you saying it's perfectly fine for a Tesla to use a J1772 station with the Tesla adapter regardless of who the intended audience of that station was?

EDIT: Case in point: There is a shopping center near me with a HPWC and 2-J1772 stations. If the HPWC is occupied, can I use the J1772 station?

As always, the answer to such things tends to be: "It depends."

If Tesla is donating HPWC's to locations with specific conditions (i.e. make available specifically for Model S owners at reasonable cost/free), and the establishment accepts the unit with those conditions, then it should make reasonable efforts to state/enforce such.

In the same way, if Nissan donated branded EVSE's with conditions specifically for Leaf owners, then the same should apply.

If an org decided to purchase their own EVSE's to make available under their terms, including (free for all customers, etc..), then they obviously have the right to do that.

Now, I expect that most location landlords, as well as the donators (Tesla & Nissan in my examples), also recognize the difficulty of enforcing type-specific use, as well as the potential negative perception of hard-and-fast enforcement, and the language of the agreement is probably deliberately vague. After all, what hotel owner wants to alienate a paying customer by unplugging their car because it's an incorrect brand?

This is complicated a bit further by the nature of the devices: J1772 is a universal standard of which most (all) EV's are capable of and expected to natively[1] utilize, so it's a common expectation all models will.

Tesla Connector is proprietary which means only a subset of EV's are capable of and expected to natively utilizing it, so it would not be a reasonable expectation that one provided to attract Tesla owners would be used by another make.

[1] "Native" imply intent/capability supplied by the vehicle manufacturer

 

[AmpedRealtor]

That remains the position of Tesla, as per Elon recently:
"As I've said before, our Supercharger network is not intended to be a walled garden. It's intended to be available to other manufacturers if they want to use it. The only requirements are that the cars must [be able to take the power output] of the Superchargers, and then pay [whatever their proportion of usage is of the system.] We're actually in talks with some manufacturers about doing just that, and it will be exciting to share that news."
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotor...we_are_in_talks_with_some_auto_manufacturers/

Tesla's spokewoman also said the same more than a year ago:
"As Elon has repeatedly made clear...we are very open to have [electric vehicles] made by other manufacturers use Superchargers," said an email from Alexis Georgeson, spokeswoman for Tesla. "They’d just have to contribute to the capital cost, such as determining what percentage of the time their cars are using the Supercharger network and making a contribution proportionate to that. The issue of non-Tesla [electric vehicles] currently being unable to use Superchargers comes down to the fact that no other electric car can accept anything close to 135kw, which is the power level of Tesla’s Superchargers."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/11/elon-musk-talks-teslas-supercharger-future

It makes zero sense to support a slow charging 50kW car with a supercharger network as that is not a good usage of resources, given the cost difference in the hardware vs a standard CHAdeMO charger. It's also going to be frustrating for Tesla owners to see that too. So the condition of using superchargers should force automakers to build something on par with what Tesla has released. In practical terms, a car that can handle the supercharger network distances will likely have a battery large enough to handle the power.

Tesla wants to use their technology to push automakers to make EVs viable for more people. Allowing them to continue to stagnate on 50kW charging speeds does not do that.

It is not class warfare either. There is no reason why an affordable EV can't have 100+kW charging given how rapidly battery costs are falling.

The above relates to Superchargers. I am discussing a J1772 adapter for the HPWC. I own a HPWC and would like to use it to charge a second EV that I'm considering, or want to open it up to Leafs and other cars who might need to pick up a quick charge. Has nothing to do with Superchargers or Model S owners waiting to charge.

 

[mknox]

If Tesla is donating HPWC's to locations with specific conditions (i.e. make available specifically for Model S owners at reasonable cost/free), and the establishment accepts the unit with those conditions, then it should make reasonable efforts to state/enforce such.

I know a couple of installers of these Destination Chargers. I'm going to inquire about whether there are any restrictions imposed. In a number of instances, they are being paired up with a J1772 station right next to it. (2 J1772 stations would make more sense to me, but hey... if Tesla is giving them away, beggars can't be choosers!)

 

[m6bigdog]

I don't understand your point, and it doesn't address mine.

My point was a simple one: the NEC generally has no jurisdiction over an appliance. There is a reasonable argument that EVSE can be considered part of the appliance, rather than part of the infrastructure. If found to be the case, NEC would have no jurisdiction and article 625 would have no teeth beyond the wiring methods necessary to connect to the appliance (EVSE), the same way it has only jurisdiction to dictate how a hardwired clothes dryer may connect but cannot dictate requirements for internals or safety features of the dryer. It doesn't matter how popular the UL is, or how expensive their standards are.

I admit that the NEC has jurisdiction to require listed wire, fittings, conduit, junction boxes, etc. as part of wiring methods - but extending 625.5 to require UL listing of EVSE is stretching it.

Off-topic - I'd also like to see listing requirements for consumer devices, but perhaps for a different reason. The UL runs a great extortion scheme selling its standards (I'm not referring to the testing service). Making listing a requirement to sell a product would result in the same effects as codifying NEC - the standards would be made available for free by codifying them as law. It would seriously shake up that extortion scheme and make it easier for products to come to market.

I though I address your comment(s) none of this stuff (standards, codes, jurisdiction) is simple however I can only provide my perspective from the United States, since every country has their own solution laws and assume I missed where you are coming from.
So let me make another attempt since Canada and the US have very similar Laws.

In the USA the NEC (NFPA 70) does not live in a vacuum. It’s a part of a system of safety laws, requirements and processes that are interwoven to provide product and systems safety or minimize harm from use and mitigate failure modes.

Jurisdiction is a matter of Laws supporting product safety and starts with Federal (CFR) and State/Local Codes that rely on trusted entities like National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), American Council of Independent Labs (ACIL), Nationally Recognized Testing Labs (NRTL) and Underwriters Laboratory (UL) for documents, procedures and processes that support these federal and state/local laws in the US.

I agree the NEC/AHJ in and of itself has limited jurisdiction consumer protections for portable plug-in appliances, however for fixed in place appliances such as an oven/cooktop or HPWC and/or other non-portable EVSE (EV forklift charger) the jurisdiction is well established and documented in the NEC; Listed/labeled by a NRTL. As for the NEC it is only one tool the AHJ will use to approve an electrical installation/equipment when in fact it is the underlying UL Standard where most of the details of the NEC are born. Referencing back to the UL Standard is accomplished by securing the NRTL Product File Number (for a UL Standard it will be an E#) and the NRTL will provide an open product certification/listing document which the AHJ can/should use to interpret the equipment testing and conditions of use, i.e. not all Listed equipment and/or components are fit for commercial/industral installation. Example: the UMC is not acceptable for use at a Tesla Service Center or any commercial workplace location due to the lack of NRTL certification as required by US Federal OSHA regulations; as when it is not labeled/listed what standards is it built to.

As for the ‘UL extortion’, maybe it is my indoctrination, but I beg to differ:
Most electrical safety laws 29CFR1910 subpart S, 29CFR1915(OSHA), etc. and the NFPA rely on the UL standards (used by the NRTL) as a reference for the details for safe design/manufacture, installation and conditions of use of electrical equipment as described in NFPA 70 (NEC), 70E (Employee work Place Safety) and 79 (Industrial Machinery), etc.
Companies that manufacture equipment do it for a profit and the cost of an NRTL certification is but pennies for each device and the lives and property saved are priceless.
Authoring and getting consensus for product safety standards is a lot of work and compensation for the effort is justified for the massive library of standards.

The part of the UL service that is FREE is the "Online Certifications Directory": http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...ce=ulcom&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=database
You can easily discover the conditions of use for equipment/components and other relevant info useful to the AHJ and equipment/component installer.
Example: Leviton product with UL file number E13399 search yields: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073992975&sequence=1
Follow RTRT.E13399 link to Product specific reference page and then follow See General Information for Receptacles for Plugs and Attachment Plugs: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073992975&sequence=1 to the RTRT.GuideInfo on how the component was investigated by the NRTL; (i.e. how do you wire a string of duplex receptacle?)
In reality for most NEC Articles and requirements in the NEC are supported by UL Standard that defines the product design, safety criteria, classification, conditions/limits of use, and scope of testing/investigation.

Hence the content of Article 625 is based on the referenced UL Standards documents and some of the UL Standard is referenced in 625 as is often the case in the NEC; such as the requirement for limiting the EVSE output cable to 25'. However, it is irrelevant whether 625 includes specific requirements of the EVSE output cable, as when the EVSE equipment is NRTL certified that will be how the equipment is designed and built/manufactured as per the UL Standard. However, there are many innovative installers that will modify/customize NRTL certified equipment with all best intentions and without the knowledge of the UL Standard or the safety implication of the modification. So while UL Standards inclusion makes the NEC a more complex document it is also a good thing if the insertion supports AHJ approval product safety.

 

[FlasherZ]

You and I differ on interpretations of what jurisdiction the NEC has, but I don't have the time to go through that post length and point it out. NEC is tied to building codes and does not have jurisdiction over appliances in residential environments, regardless of the NRTL roles.

 

[Tedkidd]

Here's another spin on the advantages of a a Tesla to J adapter, from another thread:

Sorry to hijack this thread but now that we have had such success with the J-esla UMC, is there any way to go in the opposite direction? IE to turn the EVSC formerly known as the Tesla HPWC to a J1772 plug or to build an adapter for it?

I ask b/c my condo board is finally getting around to installing a 240/208 V EVSC after very kindly installing 4 basic NEMA 5-20 outlets in our garage. I have petitioned them to simply install a NEMA 14-50 and have all the BEV drivers supply their own charging cable (as this would be the cheapest install) but this option is considered a bit "unpolished" and they are basically looking at some cheapo 30 Amp EVSEs.

The HPWC is an easier sell as it is much cheaper than the Clipper Creek CS-100, but the condo board will not install a proprietary charger than can only be used by one type of vehicle. a modified HPWC or some sort of Tesla to J1772 adapter would be so helpful here.

Currently there are 3 model Ss in the garage, and 8 other BEVs that use a J1772. I am the only one who uses my Volt as a daily driver. The rest use their BEV as a weekend car which is why the NEMA-5 has been adequate for the garage's needs thus far.

Can such an adapter be made?

 

[Larry Chanin]

I have heard that a firm is developing Tesla to J1772 adapter and that it will be out this fall, or by the end of the year. Won't say more because I'm not sure if the details are confidential or not.

Quick Charge Power?!

As mentioned before, Tony Williams - unfortunately banned from this forum for whatever reason - is indeed building such an adapter as per multiple accounts.

I love their JESLA - I had my first UMC modified to a JESLA and use it for charging the e-Golf.

Ultimately Tesla Motors will decide who gets to legally build a Tesla to J1772 adapter.

Despite mentioning reduced enforcement of their patents, I am of the opinion that using the Tesla charging connector in an adapter from Tesla charging equipment to other manufacturer's EVs would be considered a violation of the "good faith" statement that Tesla discussed in their public communications. Tony or others would be wise to have their legal staff contact Tesla and get an agreement in writting before embarking on producing such an adapter.

Larry

 

[Chris TX]

Ultimately Tesla Motors will decide who gets to legally build a Tesla to J1772 adapter.

Despite mentioning reduced enforcement of their patents, I am of the opinion that using the Tesla charging connector in an adapter from Tesla charging equipment to other manufacturer's EVs would be considered a violation of the "good faith" statement that Tesla discussed in their public communications. Tony or others would be wise to have their legal staff contact Tesla and get an agreement in writting before embarking on producing such an adapter.

Larry

There is no ToS or EULA from Tesla that prohibits any non-Tesla vehicles utilizing UMCs or HPWCs, whether private or public. Do you have any links to anything where Tesla Motors has said they are only for Tesla vehicles?

 

[Larry Chanin]

There is no ToS or EULA from Tesla that prohibits any non-Tesla vehicles utilizing UMCs or HPWCs, whether private or public. Do you have any links to anything where Tesla Motors has said they are only for Tesla vehicles?

Hi Chris,

As I mentioned, Tesla has the right to enforce their patents if they wish. They don't need any other legal device to envoke their patent rights.

Below is a link to one patent they could enforce if they thought that an adapter using their charging inlets/couplers specifications was not being used in "good faith" and was misusing the intended use of Tesla charging equipment.

Funnel Shaped Charge Inlet.

Larry

 

[Chris TX]

Hi Chris,

As I mentioned, Tesla has the right to enforce their patents if they wish. They don't need any other legal device to envoke their patent rights.

Below is a link to one patent they could enforce if they thought that an adapter using their charging inlets/couplers specifications was not being used in "good faith" and was misusing the intended use of Tesla charging equipment.

Funnel Shaped Charge Inlet.

Larry

That patent covers a "fuel" handle that has a button on it that opens the "fuel" door. It isn't the design or shape of the male or female end that's patented. The TSL-02 plug is just a differently aligned J1772.

As long as there is no button that opens a charge port, this patent isn't being copied.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That patent covers a "fuel" handle that has a button on it that opens the "fuel" door. It isn't the design or shape of the male or female end that's patented. The TSL-02 plug is just a differently aligned J1772.

As long as there is no button that opens a charge port, this patent isn't being copied.

He linked the latest patent, Tesla has other patents covering the port shape itself. I don't think their lawyers are dumb enough to not create a patent for the specific shape (I believe the below is the one):
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130078839

For the record, the JESLA does not get into trouble because it simply modifies the UMC (the part added is J1772 which is a standardized design).

A Model S to J1772 adapter would require someone to manufacture a Model S port and that will utilize the above patented design.

 

[Larry Chanin]

That patent covers a "fuel" handle that has a button on it that opens the "fuel" door. It isn't the design or shape of the male or female end that's patented. The TSL-02 plug is just a differently aligned J1772.

As long as there is no button that opens a charge port, this patent isn't being copied.

He linked the latest patent, Tesla has other patents covering the port shape itself. I don't think their lawyers are dumb enough to not create a patent for the specific shape (I believe the below is the one):
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130078839

For the record, the JESLA does not get into trouble because it simply modifies the UMC (the part added is J1772 which is a standardized design).

A Model S to J1772 adapter would require someone to manufacture a Model S port and that will utilize the above patented design.

Yes, I referenced the correct name of the patent, but linked the name to the wrong patent that discussed the charger port door.

My apologies for the confusion. I will correct the link to reduce additional confusion.

Again, despite my lack of linking skills, :redface: the fundamental issue is that Tesla has the right to evoke its patent rights and as was pointed out we can be very sure that Tesla has a patent on its connector and inlet.

Larry

 

[Chris TX]

Yes, I referenced the correct name of the patent, but linked the name to the wrong patent that discussed the charger port door.

My apologies for the confusion. I will correct the link to reduce additional confusion.

Again, despite my lack of linking skills, :redface: the fundamental issue is that Tesla has the right to evoke its patent rights and as was pointed out we can be very sure that Tesla has a patent on its connector and inlet.

Larry

All Our Patent Are Belong To You | Tesla Motors

"Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."

Making a TSL-02 to J1772 adapter to enable non-Tesla vehicles to utilize the ever-abundant HPWCs that are popping up sure sounds like good faith to me.

 

[stopcrazypp]

All Our Patent Are Belong To You | Tesla Motors

"Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."

Making a TSL-02 to J1772 adapter to enable non-Tesla vehicles to utilize the ever-abundant HPWCs that are popping up sure sounds like good faith to me.

It's not good faith if Tesla did not intend the HPWCs to be used by non-Tesla vehicles (which by way of a proprietary connector is implicit), or if it ends up conflicting with Tesla owners (such that there are complaints to Tesla to do something about it). Remember, Tesla specifically installed separate J1772 EVSEs when they wanted to allow non-Tesla EVs to charge at a location.

I touched on this in another thread. Basically if Tesla never intended the HPWCs that they donated to service non-Tesla EVs, then that adapter will be serving as a way to circumvent Tesla's physical access control, and that definitely isn't good faith.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...s-EV!)/page3?p=1199560&viewfull=1#post1199560

 

[Chris TX]

It's not good faith if Tesla did not intend the HPWCs to be used by non-Tesla vehicles (which by way of a proprietary connector is implicit), or if it ends up conflicting with Tesla owners (such that there are complaints to Tesla to do something about it). Remember, Tesla specifically installed separate J1772 EVSEs when they wanted to allow non-Tesla EVs to charge at a location.

I touched on this in another thread. Basically if Tesla never intended the HPWCs that they donated to service non-Tesla EVs, then that adapter will be serving as a way to circumvent Tesla's physical access control, and that definitely isn't good faith.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...s-EV!)/page3?p=1199560&viewfull=1#post1199560

What about all the people that are taking Roadster HPCs and putting J1772s on them? What about someone hacking off the TSL-02 handle from a HPWC and putting a J1772 handle on it? Heaven forbid :vangoghscream: a non-Tesla vehicle utilize a Tesla manufactured EVSE!

Tesla vehicles have added value by coming standard with a J1772 adapter. Tesla also manufactures the amazing CHAdeMO adapter. It's all about providing power to vehicles. Why are we assuming Tesla Motors wouldn't want people having an adapter that allows other vehicles to utilize a Tesla EVSE? Every time someone plugs into one of those, they're going to say "Thanks, Tesla Motors!" which will be followed up with "Man, I can't wait to get my Model S, X, 3, etc.!" If anything, the J to T adapter would be great marketing!

If Destination Charger owners want to limit their clientele to only Tesla vehicles, they can put up signs. As a Tesla owner that's traveled around the country, I stopped caring about public L2 stations long ago. I've yet to use a Destination Charger as I either Supercharge or CHAdeMO (or plug my UMC into an RV outlet while camping).

The real panic is going to hit when the Model 3 becomes ubiquitous. My fingers are crossed for Tesla knowing what they're going to do with the Superchargers and the added load they'll require.

 

[scaesare]

Why are we assuming Tesla Motors wouldn't want people having an adapter that allows other vehicles to utilize a Tesla EVSE?

I don't think folks here are assuming that, which is why stopcrazypp said "if", when responding to the quote regarding initiating patent lawsuits.

Tesla is the one who gets to determine what "good faith" is, and thus if their intent for the free destination HPWC program is to have only Tesla cars use them (for advertising reasons, congestion management, etc...), then copying the inlet design in order to circumvent that intended usage may not protect one from legal action under Tesla's disclaimer.

 

[Chris TX]

I don't think folks here are assuming that, which is why stopcrazypp said "if", when responding to the quote regarding initiating patent lawsuits.

Tesla is the one who gets to determine what "good faith" is, and thus if their intent for the free destination HPWC program is to have only Tesla cars use them (for advertising reasons, congestion management, etc...), then copying the inlet design in order to circumvent that intended usage may not protect one from legal action under Tesla's disclaimer.

That's assuming the design is meant to be exclusive/proprietary. It's been said before the J1772 wasn't used on the natively on the Model S because it was "absolutely terrible, extremely ugly and low power." Not once has there been a mention of anything like "so we can have our own charging stations".

 

[stopcrazypp]

What about all the people that are taking Roadster HPCs and putting J1772s on them? What about someone hacking off the TSL-02 handle from a HPWC and putting a J1772 handle on it?

Neither of these cases are covered by this patent because the J1772 handle is as an open standard and it does not infringe on Tesla patents to do so.

Heaven forbid :vangoghscream: a non-Tesla vehicle utilize a Tesla manufactured EVSE!

Depends on how they do it. If they just do the same J1772 hack above they again aren't in conflict with this patent. If they put a port on their car using Tesla's connector, then it goes into the grey area.

Tesla vehicles have added value by coming standard with a J1772 adapter. Tesla also manufactures the amazing CHAdeMO adapter. It's all about providing power to vehicles. Why are we assuming Tesla Motors wouldn't want people having an adapter that allows other vehicles to utilize a Tesla EVSE? Every time someone plugs into one of those, they're going to say "Thanks, Tesla Motors!" which will be followed up with "Man, I can't wait to get my Model S, X, 3, etc.!" If anything, the J to T adapter would be great marketing!

If Destination Charger owners want to limit their clientele to only Tesla vehicles, they can put up signs. As a Tesla owner that's traveled around the country, I stopped caring about public L2 stations long ago. I've yet to use a Destination Charger as I either Supercharge or CHAdeMO (or plug my UMC into an RV outlet while camping).

The real panic is going to hit when the Model 3 becomes ubiquitous. My fingers are crossed for Tesla knowing what they're going to do with the Superchargers and the added load they'll require.

scaesare got my intention. I'm using "if" very deliberately, as I don't claim to know Tesla's real intentions for sure in terms of this policy, but my point was mainly that in this very specific case Tesla has legal options to stop someone from building such an adapter if it conflicts with their intentions with HPWCs.

- - - Updated - - -

That's assuming the design is meant to be exclusive/proprietary. It's been said before the J1772 wasn't used on the natively on the Model S because it was "absolutely terrible, extremely ugly and low power." Not once has there been a mention of anything like "so we can have our own charging stations".

The superchargers also were not mentioned as being meant to be exclusive/proprietary either under the same argument, but Tesla did lay out conditions before other automakers can use their superchargers. They can't just copy Tesla's port and then charge at superchargers without negotiating something with Tesla. That Tesla might want to do something similar for the destination charging network isn't so far fetched and the patent is what gives them the legal leverage to do so.

 

[Chris TX]

...The superchargers also were not mentioned as being meant to be exclusive/proprietary either under the same argument, but Tesla did lay out conditions before other automakers can use their superchargers. They can't just copy Tesla's port and then charge at superchargers without negotiating something with Tesla. That Tesla might want to do something similar for the destination charging network isn't so far fetched and the patent is what gives them the legal leverage to do so.

We all know (I hope) that Superchargers will only work on Teslas right now. Even if you were able to plug into the same port like that one guy in a Volvo, it's not going to charge. This discussion is about Level2 charging.

With destination chargers, the owners can simply say "for patrons only" like many of them do. If I'm not a patron, I can't in "good faith" pull up and start charging my Tesla on one of those. Why wouldn't the same hold true to any other car with the adapter? Hell, the adapter might actually bring in more patrons that don't have Tesla vehicles. What's the downside, again? Vague and assumed threat of lawsuit from Tesla Motors?