Electrify America Fast Chargers - Huh?

[jerry33]

You keep repeating this. Clearly you think it's true, but I have not seen any explanation of why that makes sense to you. It seems the opposite of common sense.

If you take a large company like Sony, LG, or Panasonic (or some similar company), they have many product lines. They supply to some companies that are competitors in some of their product lines. The competitors buy from them because it makes sense to do so rather than spend the money to develop a similar product. As Tesla creates more product lines it will make sense for competitors to use their electrical services to enhance their own vehicles. In other words, as Tesla becomes a company that has many product lines, the idea that it is only a car company will diminish and Superchargers will be seen as an electrical service rather than as a competing car company.

 

[SageBrush]

But that is exactly the Bad Thing (TM) they are trying to avoid!! They don't want to expose their customers to seeing how great and reliable and fast and wonderful and powerful Tesla products are! They might consider replacing their car with a Tesla next, and that's not something they want to encourage. This is common sense.

What is their alternative when the EA network dies or is bought out by Tesla ?

Speaking of Samsung, I went to their website yesterday to find a PPD for my printer and could not find *any* Samsung printer, let alone my model. I finally wised up when the chat bot told me to head over to HP for technical support.

 

[rhumbliner]

It would also require a vendor-neutral billing system and other enhancements. And I doubt very much that Tesla would give up their complete control over the system, which makes it a no-go for other carmakers.

The legacy folks have already shown they’re okay with absolutely no control over the charger network — witness EA — despite the fact a working network is paramount to selling EV’s. When I was shopping around for a Leaf in 2016 the sales guy flat out told me the Leaf was compatible with all chargers, even Tesla. I think when it comes down to it, automobile sales folks will happily send customers to the Tesla network if it means they can close the sale.

 

[Rocky_H]

If you take a large company like Sony, LG, or Panasonic (or some similar company), they have many product lines. They supply to some companies that are competitors in some of their product lines. The competitors buy from them because it makes sense to do so rather than spend the money to develop a similar product. As Tesla creates more product lines it will make sense for competitors to use their electrical services to enhance their own vehicles. In other words, as Tesla becomes a company that has many product lines, the idea that it is only a car company will diminish and Superchargers will be seen as an electrical service rather than as a competing car company.

Ah, I see what you're getting at, but also why it doesn't make sense. It's apples to oranges. Sure, companies buy products from other competitor companies. The example I gave of phones applies really well. Samsung is the biggest maker of memory chips on the planet. Apple buys those Samsung memory chips to put in their phones. But they DO NOT advertise this fact to their customers. It's hidden inside the phone where people do not see that logo or know about it or have that brand presented to them on the Apple phone to get into their subconscious. That is my point. They will only use competitor products as a supplier of they can keep it somewhat hidden or unobtrusive. They will not publicly promote those competitors' products to their user base.

 

[rhumbliner]

What is their alternative when the EA network dies or is bought out by Tesla ?

+1

Exactly. EA is a long shot to be successful and yet Ford, GM, et al are all depending upon them.

 

[Eno Deb]

The legacy folks have already shown they’re okay with absolutely no control over the charger network — witness EA — despite the fact a working network is paramount to selling EV’s.

The difference is that EA has to adhere to the CCS standard (where all interested carmakers have a say), whereas Tesla can do whatever it wants (such as unilaterally adding or blocking features to give itself a competitive advantage). That's the whole point of standardization. Of course Tesla could try to make their own system an open standard, but that ship has probably sailed.

 

[Eno Deb]

Are you suggesting that would somehow be difficult? Every other brand of car would require an adapter anyway. I can picture an adapter that contains the smarts to provide the billing handshake as well as mechanical interface.

Adapter? I thought you were advocating that other automakers adopt Tesla's system. If it's just a Tesla-to-CCS adapter, that's a whole different ballgame since they wouldn't make themselves dependent on Tesla. But in this case, what possible motivation would the other automakers have to support Tesla's network financially rather than rather than their native (CCS) networks?

Regarding the billing system, I'm not saying it would be impossible, but someone has to build it. Tesla's network currently depends on close integration between the car and the network (which is e.g. why they don't need a display on the charger to show the pricing). That part of the Tesla in-car software would somehow have to be replaced in other cars.

 

[jerry33]

Adapter? I thought you were advocating that other automakers adopt Tesla's system. If it's just a Tesla-to-CCS adapter, that's a whole different ballgame since they wouldn't make themselves dependent on Tesla. But in this case, what possible motivation would the other automakers have to support Tesla's network financially rather than rather than their native (CCS) networks?

Because the existing network is not nearly robust or built out enough to support the immense number of cars that the other car manufacturers say they will produce (no comment on how likely this is to occur). And since they won't voluntarily put any money into building a viable network... It's basically going to be a bean counter decision for the other companies.

 

[dgatwood]

Actually it will be an advantage because Tesla Superchargers and destination chargers are recognized as reliable, many of the other ones are not.

Spoken like someone who hasn't the Mountain View supercharger.

(Okay, so it is mostly working now. Finally. After more than a year of having a sizable percentage of stalls in an unhealthy state, and at one point, showing only three or four stalls out of twelve.)

 

[Eno Deb]

Because the existing network is not nearly robust or built out enough to support the immense number of cars that the other car manufacturers say they will produce (no comment on how likely this is to occur).

And? They are not standing still. Right now the EA network is badly underutilized.

And since they won't voluntarily put any money into building a viable network... It's basically going to be a bean counter decision for the other companies.

In Europe the carmakers invest in charging infrastructure through the Ionity joint venture. EA in the US is a special case. But carmaker-financed networks should be just a kickstarter. In the long run, the goal has to be to make EV charging a viable business, so the carmakers can leave the infrastructure build-out to the market and focus on making cars.

 

[jerry33]

In the long run, the goal has to be to make EV charging a viable business, so the carmakers can leave the infrastructure build-out to the market and focus on making cars.

If that happens it will spell the end of EVs because it's hard to make any kind of a profit when 90% of the charging is done at home. The charging stations need to be run by companies that want EVs to succeed so that covering costs, maintenance, and expansion are coverd--which doesn't include the legacy car manufacturers.

 

[Eno Deb]

If that happens it will spell the end of EVs because it's hard to make any kind of a profit when 90% of the charging is done at home.

Even if that was true (which it probably isn't, since less than half of the car driving population can conveniently charge at home), why couldn't the remaining 10% be a viable business? That is largely a question of having enough EVs on the road.

 

[jerry33]

Even if that was true (which it probably isn't, since less than half of the car driving population can conveniently charge at home), why couldn't the remaining 10% be a viable business?

The "less than half" is only true today. As time goes on, almost all places will have charging stalls for their residents because people won't move there if none are available. So revenues for charging companies will decline over time. Generally speaking you don't want to start a business where the long term outlook is more limited than the current conditions.

 

[Eno Deb]

The "less than half" is only true today.

On the contrary, we aren't quite there today (since apartment dwellers are less likely to buy an EV today), but assuming that EVs are successful in increasing their market share we ncreasingly will be.

As time goes on, almost all places will have charging stalls for their residents because people won't move there if none are available. So revenues for charging companies will decline over time.

Uh, who do you think will deploy and operate all these charging stalls and lamppost chargers?

 

[DrDabbles]

Something that seems to be glossed over is mobility issues and elegance.

CCS and ChaDeMo chargers are cumbersome. 6 to 7 times larger than a gas nozzle or tesla charger. Not everyone can wield such monsters that are magnitudes wider and heavier at the plug.

Also keep in mind Tesla was far ahead of the game and these "standards" are just catching up. Chademo is still capped at 100kw at most stations same with CCS. EA releases a couple of stations with 350kw and now everyone must switch. Reality check is highly needed.

I desperately want to know where all of this misinformation and FUD is coming from!

First, CCS wasn't a standard. It was. Then CCS couldn't charge as fast as superchargers. It could. Then nobody was making CCS hardware. They were. And now this?? Seriously?? Think about this for two seconds and you'll see this is anti-EV bullshit.

CCS is mandated to adhere to OSHA AND ADA requirements. For those not living in the US, ADA is the "Americans with Disabilities Act". It is literally part of the CCS / J1772 standard that it comply with these regulations. Let's all stop repeating anti-EV talking points.

 

[jerry33]

On the contrary, we aren't quite there today (since apartment dwellers are less likely to buy an EV today), but assuming that EVs are successful in increasing their market share we ncreasingly will be.
Uh, who do you think will deploy and operate all these charging stalls and lamppost chargers?

Because all that's required is a NEMA 14-50, the property owner will put them in if they want tenants. Apartment dwellers don't purchase many EVs because there's no charging at their apartment. This will change because it will become increasingly difficult to rent apartments without charging availability. This is kind of like asking who will put in toilets for each apartment (originally apartments didn't have toilets in each apartment either).

 

[Eno Deb]

Because all that's required is a NEMA 14-50, the property owner will put them in if they want tenants.

That may work for small properties, but not for bigger apartment complexes. E.g. there is no way to balance the power from the utility feed between all the outlets (dimensioning the feed to supply full power to all outlets simultaneously would be prohibitively expensive for a big garage), and 14-50 is not a good connector from a durability and safety perspective. It's far more likely that property owners will use the services from companies like Chargepoint. There will also have to be solutions for street parkers on public land, such as the before mentioned lamp post chargers.

 

[Fredneck]

Adapter? I thought you were advocating that other automakers adopt Tesla's system. If it's just a Tesla-to-CCS adapter, that's a whole different ballgame since they wouldn't make themselves dependent on Tesla. But in this case, what possible motivation would the other automakers have to support Tesla's network financially rather than rather than their native (CCS) networks?

Regarding the billing system, I'm not saying it would be impossible, but someone has to build it. Tesla's network currently depends on close integration between the car and the network (which is e.g. why they don't need a display on the charger to show the pricing). That part of the Tesla in-car software would somehow have to be replaced in other cars.

If they use an adapter the adapter will have the smarts needed. If they are buying into the Tesla charges to the exclusion of the other chargers and want to include the Tesla interface in the car, why can't the car include the smarts??? I'm not following your reasoning at all. If someone can build an EV, it would seem designing an interface to the Tesla chargers would be duck soup. Where do you see the problem exactly?

 

[Fredneck]

If that happens it will spell the end of EVs because it's hard to make any kind of a profit when 90% of the charging is done at home. The charging stations need to be run by companies that want EVs to succeed so that covering costs, maintenance, and expansion are coverd--which doesn't include the legacy car manufacturers.

How is home charging relevant??? The charging that needs to be done away from home will certainly be enough to support businesses.

 

[ralph142]

How is home charging relevant??? The charging that needs to be done away from home will certainly be enough to support businesses.

i think it will have to follow the independent gas station model, offer conveniences, food, coffee, seating, snacks etc, 15-30 minute oriented. A decent slice, pastry, barista coffee, wawa or sheetz, café style ish. Some basic groceries. All that as the profit center, electrons as the hook.