Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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

All correct. BTW, you didn't need the "if" in your second paragraph. Tesla's contract with the host states that the chargers they supply are for Tesla customers. To back up Tesla's intent on this issue, Tesla provided a free (in most cases) J1772 EVSE to destinations who felt they needed it for non-Tesla EVs.

What about all the people that are taking Roadster HPCs and putting J1772s on them?
That's entirely different for a couple of reasons. First, Tesla did not pay for the vast majority of those stations. They were not part of the Destination Charging Program. They were mostly paid for by Roadster owners who did not ask for restrictions on their use. In addition, Clipper Creek made a conversion kit so those HPCs could be converted to J1772 safely. The kit was safe and thoroughly tested. While Tony's conversion (Jesla) is safe, several people have made their own conversions that were not safe, including adapters. Tesla has every right to be concerned about this. One accident and EV adoption is prolonged, somebody might get hurt, and the company loses considerable market cap overnight.


...
If Destination Charger owners want to limit their clientele to only Tesla vehicles, they can put up signs. ...
The Destination program hosts don't have any choice. It's part of the terms they have to accept to get free chargers and installation (in most cases).

I really don't think Tesla has a problem with non-Tesla vehicles borrowing the destination HPWCs as long as it doesn't interfere with the plans of Tesla owners. If I have a trip planned the last thing I want is to be delayed because somebody else is using a charger that I indirectly helped pay for. It would be very different if other manufacturers were making similar efforts, but they're not. Tesla's goal is to speed the adoption of sustainable transport. If other manufacturers have no incentive to help with that because they're just riding on Tesla's back then it won't serve this goal.
 
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".

Well it is proprietary.

Whether or not Tesla wants it to remains exclusive is all that's being discussed here. They have the right to determine that.
 
Last edited:
All correct. BTW, you didn't need the "if" in your second paragraph. Tesla's contract with the host states that the chargers they supply are for Tesla customers. To back up Tesla's intent on this issue, Tesla provided a free (in most cases) J1772 EVSE to destinations who felt they needed it for non-Tesla EVs.


That's entirely different for a couple of reasons. First, Tesla did not pay for the vast majority of those stations. They were not part of the Destination Charging Program. They were mostly paid for by Roadster owners who did not ask for restrictions on their use. In addition, Clipper Creek made a conversion kit so those HPCs could be converted to J1772 safely. The kit was safe and thoroughly tested. While Tony's conversion (Jesla) is safe, several people have made their own conversions that were not safe, including adapters. Tesla has every right to be concerned about this. One accident and EV adoption is prolonged, somebody might get hurt, and the company loses considerable market cap overnight.



The Destination program hosts don't have any choice. It's part of the terms they have to accept to get free chargers and installation (in most cases).

I really don't think Tesla has a problem with non-Tesla vehicles borrowing the destination HPWCs as long as it doesn't interfere with the plans of Tesla owners. If I have a trip planned the last thing I want is to be delayed because somebody else is using a charger that I indirectly helped pay for. It would be very different if other manufacturers were making similar efforts, but they're not. Tesla's goal is to speed the adoption of sustainable transport. If other manufacturers have no incentive to help with that because they're just riding on Tesla's back then it won't serve this goal.

All very good points. I didn't know the destination charger contract already states that. All I know is that when Tesla intended to let non-Tesla vehicles charge at a location, they donate separate J1772 EVSEs.

In practical terms, I don't think Tesla will make that big a deal if it turns out to not be an issue with non-Tesla vehicles getting in the way of Tesla vehicles at destination chargers. But with the planned volume of the Model 3 and with the Model X/S actually approaching or exceeding other popular non-Tesla EVs (like the Leaf) sales in the US, the chances of conflict would be much higher going forward.
 
So some see an adapter as a burden to Tesla owners. Competition for charge points. I can see there may be situations where that occurs.

Who sees the opportunity to drive other manufacturers to the obviously superior Tesla standard as benefitting the "accelerate transition to electric transport" mission?

Who sees "less than 40 amp charging" as crappy charging - made worse as batteries get bigger?

Who sees competing and sub-optimal standards as slowing EV adoption?

Who thinks the common practice of providing EVSE's that only work on 110 with a car as harm to consumers (borderline criminal)?

Who sees J/ccs/chademo as impediments to good car design?

Who thinks 125 mph will NOT be acceptable charging speed for long distance travel? Who thinks that charging rate is likely to create all kinds of charging backup/problems/havoc?

Who thinks the only likely answer to EV adoption will require a Supercharger Enabled option?

By creating an adapter it opens the potential market for HPWC and the mobile charger to every EV owner or business that wants to offer charging. It simplifies their decision, and makes 40 and 80 amp EVSE service significantly more affordable and elegant. The more Tesla chargers out there, the more pressure consumers will put on manufacturers to adopt the Tesla standard. Tesla has the best solution to the portable/stock provided EVSE issue.

Where I live there are no CHAdeMO or CCS chargers, and I don't think they're coming. Tesla has figured out what is needed, even before completing the network they've expanded some locations. They probably have the modeling capacity to stay on top of it going forward.

Tesla will not be able to build enough cars to accomplish Elon's goals. Other manufacturers will have to participate, in a big way.

The only way that happens is if they build cars early majority will buy. I don't think that happens without Supercharger Enabled as an option - just like s60.

And the path to that happens by getting lots of Tesla EVSE's into the wild, which happens when other brand owners can justify buying them.
 
Last edited:
By creating an adapter it opens the potential market for HPWC and the mobile charger to every EV owner or business that wants to offer charging. It simplifies their decision, and makes 40 and 80 amp EVSE service significantly more affordable and elegant. The more Tesla chargers out there, the more pressure consumers will put on manufacturers to adopt the Tesla standard. Tesla has the best solution to the portable/stock provided EVSE issue.
Actually the opposite might happen. With adapters there is zero incentive for automakers to adopt Tesla's standard, since the adapter allows them to get what they want while keeping the same port. This is similar to how Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter allows Tesla consumers to charge at CHAdeMO stations without any pressure on Tesla ever providing a CHAdeMO port on their car.
 
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 checked with someone I know who has been involved (on the installation side) with the Destination Charging program. He said that there are no restrictions imposed by Tesla around what kind of cars can use the HPWC. It seems to be left to the site owner to decide. As a related example, we see some "for patrons only" while others are open to all and Tesla does not interfere with these decisions.
 
All very good points. I didn't know the destination charger contract already states that. All I know is that when Tesla intended to let non-Tesla vehicles charge at a location, they donate separate J1772 EVSEs.

In practical terms, I don't think Tesla will make that big a deal if it turns out to not be an issue with non-Tesla vehicles getting in the way of Tesla vehicles at destination chargers. But with the planned volume of the Model 3 and with the Model X/S actually approaching or exceeding other popular non-Tesla EVs (like the Leaf) sales in the US, the chances of conflict would be much higher going forward.

I posted this in another thread, but I did speak with someone involved with the Destination Program, on the installation side, and he says there is nothing in the agreement that would limit a host from allowing other makes of cars from using the HPWC with an adapter.
 
I posted this in another thread, but I did speak with someone involved with the Destination Program, on the installation side, and he says there is nothing in the agreement that would limit a host from allowing other makes of cars from using the HPWC with an adapter.

While I don't have the agreement itself, I will note that Tesla's Destination Charging Form Page says:

If your hotel, resort, club, or other full service destination is interested in partnering with Tesla Motors to install charging hardware, Tesla may be able to provide free or discounted Tesla Wall Connectors for our mutual customers' use.
(emphasis mine)

So, cars of other makes would ostensibly not fit in to the description of being a mutual customer of both the destination location and Tesla.

Again, this may not be strictly enforced in either the agreement itself, or in practicality, but it does imply some specific intent.
 
Last edited:
I checked with someone I know who has been involved (on the installation side) with the Destination Charging program. He said that there are no restrictions imposed by Tesla around what kind of cars can use the HPWC. It seems to be left to the site owner to decide. As a related example, we see some "for patrons only" while others are open to all and Tesla does not interfere with these decisions.

(looks like similar discussion in 2 threads... merge candidates?)

While I don't have the agreement itself, I will note that Tesla's Destination Charging Form Page says:

If your hotel, resort, club, or other full service destination is interested in partnering with Tesla Motors to install charging hardware, Tesla may be able to provide free or discounted Tesla Wall Connectors for our mutual customers' use.
(emphasis mine)

So, cars of other makes would ostensibly not fit in to the description of being a mutual customer of both the destination location and Tesla.

Again, this may not be strictly enforced in wither the agreement itself, or in practicality, but it does imply some specific intent.
 
You are correct that Tesla has a patent on the Model S inlet. It's online and anyone can review it. Tesla has borrowed heavily from CHAdeMO and J1772 physical standards in the construction if their Model S inlet. The Model S inlet's ground pin is exactly the same diameter as the J1772 power pin. The power conductors are exactly the same diameter as a CHAdeMO plug's pins. It can't possibly be a coincidence. I don't think their patent can hold up.
 
You are correct that Tesla has a patent on the Model S inlet. It's online and anyone can review it. Tesla has borrowed heavily from CHAdeMO and J1772 physical standards in the construction if their Model S inlet. The Model S inlet's ground pin is exactly the same diameter as the J1772 power pin. The power conductors are exactly the same diameter as a CHAdeMO plug's pins. It can't possibly be a coincidence. I don't think their patent can hold up.

Well, except that conductor/pin size is determined primarily by current carrying requirements, so it can reasonably be stated that those didn't "borrow" from anything, but were instead dictated by the power handling that needed to be done.

The shape of the inlet, carrying both AC and DC over the common pins, etc... are likely defensible unique patent points, however.
 
So, cars of other makes would ostensibly not fit in to the description of being a mutual customer of both the destination location and Tesla.

I think to carry any weight, it would have to be in some sort of signed agreement between the parties. And while the copy does talk about "mutual customers' use" it does not say "exclusively for our mutual customers' use".
 
I think to carry any weight, it would have to be in some sort of signed agreement between the parties.

Of course, that's why I said: "Again, this may not be strictly enforced in either the agreement itself..."

And while the copy does talk about "mutual customers' use" it does not say "exclusively for our mutual customers' use".

And again, of course that's why I said: "...but it does imply some specific intent."

 
And again, of course that's why I said: "...but it does imply some specific intent."

Sorry... I'm probably nit-picking. I do that sometimes :wink:

But I seriously think Tesla would be doing itself a huge disservice by trying to block or impede the use of these stations to Teslas only. Their oft-stated goal is to accelerate the transition to electrified transportation, and coming up with an exclusive, proprietary Tesla-only Level 2 charging infrastructure seems to fly in the face of that.
 
You conductor size comment is correct in the case of CHAdeMO. Tesla's charging conductors are undersized for the current they carry. They made up for that by using high temp tolerant materials in their insulation and cable jacket. I've actually current tested their HPWC cable and compared it to Dostar orange cable. HPWC cable got hot at 160A, but didn't break down. Dostar cable with larger conductor turned to mush because it's insulation couldn't handle the heat. But, the Dostar cable holds up fine at it's 50A rating.
 
Exactly. In fact I know of a Tesla listed destination charger at a restaurant that was never installed. It's probably installed at the owner's home or that of a friend. Tesla doesn't monitor all these installations. Business owners with Teslas simply see it as a way to get a free HPWC to install at their kids or parents house. Most of the owners of these donated destination chargers are not dialed-in enthusiasts like us. Business owner may seldom be a the premises. They just know that an upscale electric car owner will patronize their business.
 
You are correct that Tesla has a patent on the Model S inlet. It's online and anyone can review it. Tesla has borrowed heavily from CHAdeMO and J1772 physical standards in the construction if their Model S inlet. The Model S inlet's ground pin is exactly the same diameter as the J1772 power pin. The power conductors are exactly the same diameter as a CHAdeMO plug's pins. It can't possibly be a coincidence. I don't think their patent can hold up.


That's not how patents work.