Electrify America general discussion

[RubberToe]

This is false.

Tesla Proprietary Connector is proprietary.

Volkswagen, Electrify America's parent company, would have to accept Tesla's outrageous patent sharing deal, which was never going to happen.

Why Other Car Companies Don't Use Tesla Superchargers

Tesla says it will give its charging technology to any automaker who wants it. But the fine print makes this a terrible deal, even if it's free.

www.roadandtrack.com

The article you linked to described why auto companies don't want to make cars with Tesla proprietary connectors. It has nothing to do with companies deciding whether to put a Tesla cable and connector on their charging equipment.

RT

 

[Mockingbird]

The article you linked to described why auto companies don't want to make cars with Tesla proprietary connectors. It has nothing to do with companies deciding whether to put a Tesla cable and connector on their charging equipment.

RT

The Tesla Proprietary Connector (TPC) is proprietary.

Suppose that Electrify America wants to implement the TPC, where is Electrify America is supposed to get the specifications for the TPC other than from Tesla?

 

[Jeff N]

The Tesla Proprietary Connector (TPC) is proprietary.

Suppose that Electrify America wants to implement the TPC, where is Electrify America is supposed to get the specifications for the TPC other than from Tesla?

Right. None of the DC charging equipment makers offer TPC as an optional cable. Only EVgo among the charging service providers offers TPC cables and it’s a bolt-on hack that apparently uses Tesla’s CHAdeMO adapter internally and thus only supports rates up to near 50 kW.

There are multiple companies that sell products that include TPC but they are all adapters. This leads me to think that l, patent issues aside, the biggest barrier might be Tesla’s proprietary and unpublished CAN bus charging communication protocol.

Who would want to make a safety-sensitive product like a DC charger without having access to a fully-documented protocol specification and compliance testing suite along with opportunities to consult with Tesla and align with future pending Supercharging engineering enhancements. Apparently nobody….

 

[RubberToe]

The Tesla Proprietary Connector (TPC) is proprietary.

Suppose that Electrify America wants to implement the TPC, where is Electrify America is supposed to get the specifications for the TPC other than from Tesla?

From Tesla of course. They (EA) chose not to do so. I said EA "could" have gone down the path of putting Tesla connectors on their equipment. I think we may be talking past each other here. For whatever reason, EA and other EVSE installers opted to not implement a connector for the majority of vehicles on the road.

I said in the other thread long ago that I believed Tesla would be by default "the" standard, due to the overwhelming number of vehicles using it versus other EVs. With other vehicle makers finally producing in larger numbers, and much fewer charging stations available, Tesla decided to add CCS connectors to some of their chargers. It's a win-win for everyone, even if Tesla ends up changing more for the CCS juice to capitalize on the other companies lack of infrastructure. Only Tesla is in a position to do something like that, cause they have the money, and they have the largest deployed network by far.

RT

 

[Mockingbird]

From Tesla of course. They (EA) chose not to do so. I said EA "could" have gone down the path of putting Tesla connectors on their equipment. I think we may be talking past each other here. For whatever reason, EA and other EVSE installers opted to not implement a connector for the majority of vehicles on the road.

I said in the other thread long ago that I believed Tesla would be by default "the" standard, due to the overwhelming number of vehicles using it versus other EVs. With other vehicle makers finally producing in larger numbers, and much fewer charging stations available, Tesla decided to add CCS connectors to some of their chargers. It's a win-win for everyone, even if Tesla ends up changing more for the CCS juice to capitalize on the other companies lack of infrastructure. Only Tesla is in a position to do something like that, cause they have the money, and they have the largest deployed network by far.

RT

Get a dictionary.

Look up what the word “proprietary” means.

 

[bradtem]

From Tesla of course. They (EA) chose not to do so. I said EA "could" have gone down the path of putting Tesla connectors on their equipment. I think we may be talking past each other here. For whatever reason, EA and other EVSE installers opted to not implement a connector for the majority of vehicles on the road.

I said in the other thread long ago that I believed Tesla would be by default "the" standard, due to the overwhelming number of vehicles using it versus other EVs. With other vehicle makers finally producing in larger numbers, and much fewer charging stations available, Tesla decided to add CCS connectors to some of their chargers. It's a win-win for everyone, even if Tesla ends up changing more for the CCS juice to capitalize on the other companies lack of infrastructure. Only Tesla is in a position to do something like that, cause they have the money, and they have the largest deployed network by far.

RT

Tesla takes a strange stance on this. It is very strongly in Tesla's interest that Teslas be able to charge as many places as possible. Which is why they are selling the adapters (and soon will sell the CCS one in the USA.) While they have a reason not to let non-Teslas charge at superchargers (though this is changing because you get fat subsidies if you let them charge) they have zero reason not to want Teslas to be able to charge at EA stations, particularly EA stations that are not near superchargers. Perhaps you think selling electricity is a business for them and they don't want competition, but it isn't a business, and they have said so.

Tesla has said they will put CCS cords on superchargers. Elon says it is because he wants to boost all EV adoption, but the real reason is you can get a fat subsidy ($60K or more per stall) if you do so.

When they do, they always have the option of charging CCS customers more money than Tesla drivers, or blocking them when the charger is full so that they don't ever displace Tesla drivers, or hardly ever. But I doubt they need to do that.

But it baffles me they didn't give a free CHAdeMO adapter to every such station that was more than 10 miles from a supercharger early on, rather than make us by adapters. That would have let them say, "Buy a Tesla, you can charge it on both networks, instead of another car which can only charge on the DC Fast system."

 

[RTPEV]

Get a dictionary.

Look up what the word “proprietary” means.

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Proprietary does not mean that the technology cannot be licensed, although the owner of the technology may not choose to do so, or not do so at reasonable terms, so it is true that it would not be as simple as EA bolting on a Tesla cable, but it's also not impossible (and certainly not technically impossible). It's also possible that it could be reverse engineered as well (hence the availability of third-party adapters), although that too is risky since a software update to the fleet could render them at least temporarily unusable.

 

[RTPEV]

The free market takes over. They either find a way to make money at their venture--becoming profitable and remaining competitive doing so, expanding if necessary--or they wither and die. It's possible that government will step in and either assist them (and other networks), or force utilities to offer lenient electric rates to streamline their cost model, but at the end of the day it's a business and they have to make money to survive.

I suppose it was unfair of me to put such a simplistic response without offering any real ideas on HOW they could expand revenue beyond just charging for electricity delivered (i.e. passing along to the consumer).

There are other possible revenue streams of course.

For one, they could continue to go for deals with large automakers that want to do "free charging for X months/years" type incentives for new car buyers. Intuitively this doesn't sound like a great option, because either the automaker is going to have to pay (on average)--and pass along to the buyer--more than the cost of electricity delivered, or EA should just refuse to accept any such deals and go with selling the electricity direct to the consumer. My sense is that the whole reason they do this deal (at a loss to EA) is to get the buyers "hooked" on the EA network.

Another option is to have advertising on the stalls themselves, either on the video screens or just decals. I can't imagine this would raise a ton of revenue, but it's something.

The best option would be some kind of deal with the site host. In return for siting charging stations at a given place of business, the host pays EA. The charging station draws in customers which makes it financially worth it to the site host. I've always felt that running a standalone charging station/network business is a financially difficult endeavor. It is best coupled with a business model that offers the charging as a loss leader (or at best at cost) while taking advantage of the captive audience to sell higher margin goods & services. This arrangement achieves this goal, albeit a little less efficiently as a single business. There are a few variations on this, including having a relatively high price for the charging, but allowing the business to "validate", or in effect subsidize the cost of charging if the driver purchases something from the host business.

 

[srs5694]

The best option would be some kind of deal with the site host. In return for siting charging stations at a given place of business, the host pays EA. The charging station draws in customers which makes it financially worth it to the site host. I've always felt that running a standalone charging station/network business is a financially difficult endeavor. It is best coupled with a business model that offers the charging as a loss leader (or at best at cost) while taking advantage of the captive audience to sell higher margin goods & services. This arrangement achieves this goal, albeit a little less efficiently as a single business. There are a few variations on this, including having a relatively high price for the charging, but allowing the business to "validate", or in effect subsidize the cost of charging if the driver purchases something from the host business.

It's worth noting that this is similar to the current business model for gas stations in the US. As I understand it, the profit margins on gasoline alone are so slim that few gas stations could stay in business if that's all they sold. Instead, they make most of their money from the associated businesses -- usually convenience stores, which of course are much pricier than other stores (supermarkets, say) that sell the same products.

IMHO, for EV charging, it makes much more sense to pair the charging site with restaurants, supermarkets, or other places where people are likely to spend 30-60 minutes, although that could change if/when the time to charge an EV drops to, say, 5 minutes.

 

[Mockingbird]

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Proprietary does not mean that the technology cannot be licensed, although the owner of the technology may not choose to do so, or not do so at reasonable terms, so it is true that it would not be as simple as EA bolting on a Tesla cable, but it's also not impossible (and certainly not technically impossible). It's also possible that it could be reverse engineered as well (hence the availability of third-party adapters), although that too is risky since a software update to the fleet could render them at least temporarily unusable.

We already know that Tesla's patent sharing "deal" is poison for most major corporations.

 

[bradtem]

It's worth noting that this is similar to the current business model for gas stations in the US. As I understand it, the profit margins on gasoline alone are so slim that few gas stations could stay in business if that's all they sold. Instead, they make most of their money from the associated businesses -- usually convenience stores, which of course are much pricier than other stores (supermarkets, say) that sell the same products.

IMHO, for EV charging, it makes much more sense to pair the charging site with restaurants, supermarkets, or other places where people are likely to spend 30-60 minutes, although that could change if/when the time to charge an EV drops to, say, 5 minutes.

I have been pondering this. I suspect Tesla got the land for most of its charger stations free or cheap, because they are usually in the back of mostly empty parking lots, and might bring in some business. For now, I doubt anybody pays Tesla to put in a station. Remember, almost all non-Tesla stations are there because of subsidies, not because somebody saw a business.

For a restaurant, the problem is you are limited to mealtimes. How many customers can charge over the lunch period of 11:30 to 1:30? Maybe 3? Perhaps 4 or more extra at dinner. You just are not bringing in very many diners per day for a $100,000 machine. Not saying it can't be done but it's going to be work. The gas pump brings hundreds every day to the convenience store.

 

[RTPEV]

We already know that Tesla's patent sharing "deal" is poison for most major corporations.

I can see how it would be that way for automakers...effectively having to open source significant patent portfolios.

But how would that be for a company like Electrify America that buys hardware from third parties, and while they may have some patentable material in process, I suspect they don't have much meaningful patentable material themselves. In fact, a search I did just now only turned up 3 hits. Two of them simply mentioned Electrify America as an example of a charging network (along with EVgo, ChargePoint, etc.) and the other one (which I don't even think is an actual patent application) is on the ornamental design of a charging station. Big whoop!

Besides, licensing a spec does not necessarily imply going along with Tesla's patent open-sourcing scheme. In fact, it's highly likely that the TPC spec is not in patent form and would have to go through a licensing path anyway. It's two different things we're talking about here.

 

[RTPEV]

I have been pondering this. I suspect Tesla got the land for most of its charger stations free or cheap, because they are usually in the back of mostly empty parking lots, and might bring in some business. For now, I doubt anybody pays Tesla to put in a station.

I have heard (though I don't necessarily believe) that for at least one site Tesla is paid $1 by the site host for every car that charges at the Supercharger site. This is hearsay, supposedly directly from the site host, but as I said, I don't believe it's as simple a payment as that. But I would not be surprised if many of the newer sites do have a provision that money flows from the site host to Tesla, whereas in the past, it may have been flowing in the opposite direction.

 

[e of pi]

I can see how it would be that way for automakers...effectively having to open source significant patent portfolios.

But how would that be for a company like Electrify America that buys hardware from third parties, and while they may have some patentable material in process, I suspect they don't have much meaningful patentable material themselves. In fact, a search I did just now only turned up 3 hits. Two of them simply mentioned Electrify America as an example of a charging network (along with EVgo, ChargePoint, etc.) and the other one (which I don't even think is an actual patent application) is on the ornamental design of a charging station. Big whoop!

Besides, licensing a spec does not necessarily imply going along with Tesla's patent open-sourcing scheme. In fact, it's highly likely that the TPC spec is not in patent form and would have to go through a licensing path anyway. It's two different things we're talking about here.

EA probably doesn't have much IP around equipment because they buy their equipment from vendors like ABB. They're the ones who would have to license the specs to be able to have cables on the pedestals they sell to EA and others. They probably have more IP around things. However, the point is still that the licensing agreements Tesla is willing to entertain are a giant unknown, and despite a lot of rumors over the years of various people talking to them, they never seem to go anywhere productive, implying the terms don't seem to be something even a firm not directly selling vehicles can accommodate. If Tesla pro-actively had worked to make the spec licensable under clear and simple terms six to seven years ago, it would probably be very dominant on the market right now. They have instead done just the opposite, playing very "hard to get". As a result, however good the physical plug and communications protocols are, it's likely to lose to CCS, or a USB-C style second/third generation open standard.

 

[Mockingbird]

I can see how it would be that way for automakers...effectively having to open source significant patent portfolios.

But how would that be for a company like Electrify America that buys hardware from third parties, and while they may have some patentable material in process, I suspect they don't have much meaningful patentable material themselves. In fact, a search I did just now only turned up 3 hits. Two of them simply mentioned Electrify America as an example of a charging network (along with EVgo, ChargePoint, etc.) and the other one (which I don't even think is an actual patent application) is on the ornamental design of a charging station. Big whoop!

Besides, licensing a spec does not necessarily imply going along with Tesla's patent open-sourcing scheme. In fact, it's highly likely that the TPC spec is not in patent form and would have to go through a licensing path anyway. It's two different things we're talking about here.

We can go on and on and on, but the fact that hardly any company has licensed the TPC from Tesla strongly implies that these companies find Tesla's terms unacceptable.

That includes companies such as ABB, BTCPower, and Signet (who Electrify America buys equipment from) and themselves have stacks of patents.

 

[lynyrdM]

Right. None of the DC charging equipment makers offer TPC as an optional cable. Only EVgo among the charging service providers offers TPC cables and it’s a bolt-on hack that apparently uses Tesla’s CHAdeMO adapter internally and thus only supports rates up to near 50 kW.

There are multiple companies that sell products that include TPC but they are all adapters. This leads me to think that l, patent issues aside, the biggest barrier might be Tesla’s proprietary and unpublished CAN bus charging communication protocol.

Who would want to make a safety-sensitive product like a DC charger without having access to a fully-documented protocol specification and compliance testing suite along with opportunities to consult with Tesla and align with future pending Supercharging engineering enhancements. Apparently nobody….

I wonder if this might change for newer cars when the CCS adapter becomes available. Teslas with the fully featured Gen 4 charging ECU can speak PLC CCS over their charging ports.

What’s to prevent a DC charging provider from hooking up a TPC cable to a CCS port inside a charger (TPC cable wired to CCS leads)? The car would see the connection the same way as a CCS cable connected to Teslas passive CCS adapter and negotiate charging via PLC.

It could be a nice for convenience so you don’t have to fumble around with an adapter every time.

 

[Mockingbird]

I wonder if this might change for newer cars when the CCS adapter becomes available. Teslas with the fully featured Gen 4 charging ECU can speak PLC CCS over their charging ports.

What’s to prevent a DC charging provider from hooking up a TPC cable to a CCS port inside a charger (TPC cable wired to CCS leads)? The car would see the connection the same way as a CCS cable connected to Teslas passive CCS adapter and negotiate charging via PLC.

It could be a nice for convenience so you don’t have to fumble around with an adapter every time.

Pretty soon after that, Electrify America's call center would be clogged with complaints from drivers whose Tesla hasn't been upgraded with the new CCS capable chargeport ECU.

 

[lynyrdM]

Pretty soon after that, Electrify America's call center would be clogged with complaints from drivers whose Tesla hasn't been upgraded with the new CCS capable chargeport ECU.

A somewhat complicated solution to that might be to integrate a Chademo adapter along side it. Once the charger tries PLC and gets an error it could switch to 50kW Tesla CAN over a secondary Chademo lead and charge that way.

There’s certainly some challenges with what I’m suggesting (either way) but long term with more of the fleet having PLC capabilities, it may make sense.

 

[Mockingbird]

A somewhat complicated solution to that might be to integrate a Chademo adapter along side it. Once the charger tries PLC and gets an error it could switch to 50kW Tesla CAN over a secondary Chademo lead and charge that way.

There’s certainly some challenges with what I’m suggesting (either way) but long term with more of the fleet having PLC capabilities, it may make sense.

Why would Electrify America want to deal with all this complication and headache when Electrify America can just let Tesla drivers bring their own adapters?

 

[RTPEV]

Why would Electrify America want to deal with all this complication and headache when Electrify America can just let Tesla drivers bring their own adapters?

Because not all Tesla drivers will have their own adapters. In fact, and I'm not saying this is how it will play out, but suppose that EA did provide a built-in adapter solution. Now there is even less reason for Tesla owners to buy their own adapters, so they are somewhat locked into EA stations that "support" the Tesla connector. If instead Tesla owners do go out and buy their own adapters, they can use other networks just as easily as EA. So in a sense, they would be locking up the Tesla market (unless other networks decide to also offer built-in Tesla support).