Do you have a reasonable prospect of making it much better? Or are you asymptotically approaching the final solution, never to reach it?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
dhrivnak
Active Member
I am willing to buy a 95% solution now than wait indefinitely for a 100% one. For me a 95% chance of a charge is better than no chance of a charge.
So let me know how you want paid.
So let me know how you want paid.
Curt
Roadster Signature #55
I would gladly take one now, and would then be willing to pay again for a new one if the 99% level is reached.
As existing Roadster HPCs continue to vanish and be replaced by new HPWCs, I find myself desiring this adaptor more all the time.
As existing Roadster HPCs continue to vanish and be replaced by new HPWCs, I find myself desiring this adaptor more all the time.
I would say that it depends on the way you intend to use the adapter. I am looking to use the adapter to avoid using my cumbersome MC240. I would be using this adapter with my own Model S UMC 90% of the time. As long at my charger is within that 95% success rate I would be a happy customer.
I'm looking to this adapter as a more streamlined home solution not a road trip solution.
I'm looking to this adapter as a more streamlined home solution not a road trip solution.
Model S to Roadster adapter
Henry is in a tough position on this. He has put a lot of effort into getting to a 95% success rate. But you know that no matter how clear he is with buyers of his new adaptor, someone is going to buy one, not be able to get it to work with the HPWC they intend to use it with most of the time, and loudly complain about it. And Henry won't be able to get it to work with that particular HPWC no matter what he does. So then does he offer the buyer a refund and eat the production cost even though he didn't guarantee it would work 100% of the time?
I have no easy answer to this dilemma, except to say that since he is doing this as a "labor of love" and not as a primary business, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect him to take a loss on even one adaptor.
And yes, I want to buy one for use as a backup to my Roadster HPC at home and to use on the road as needed, and at this point I understand that he can't guarantee it will work on more than 95% of the HPWCs out there.
Henry is in a tough position on this. He has put a lot of effort into getting to a 95% success rate. But you know that no matter how clear he is with buyers of his new adaptor, someone is going to buy one, not be able to get it to work with the HPWC they intend to use it with most of the time, and loudly complain about it. And Henry won't be able to get it to work with that particular HPWC no matter what he does. So then does he offer the buyer a refund and eat the production cost even though he didn't guarantee it would work 100% of the time?
I have no easy answer to this dilemma, except to say that since he is doing this as a "labor of love" and not as a primary business, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect him to take a loss on even one adaptor.
And yes, I want to buy one for use as a backup to my Roadster HPC at home and to use on the road as needed, and at this point I understand that he can't guarantee it will work on more than 95% of the HPWCs out there.
wiztecy
Active Member
I believe 12 is a small sample size, compared the amount of chargers which is large out in the wild. Its quite hard to realistically test against which can really change the rate of failure (good or bad), and as you increase the product's sample size you get a clearer picture of the impact of the issue on the user. I think however that the deviation will be less than 5% with error / issues if you choose to release the CAN-S_v1 in its current state.
My take would be to release the CAN (again, but disclose to those who buy it that there will be some incompatible chargers. And number or clearly mark this 1st release of the CAN so you and the customer know what they have. Also ask for users to report any issue, the GPS/location and type of charger, and the VIN/vintage roadster (1.5,2.0,or 2.5). And if there's any markings on the charger or serial number if they have it so you can work with Tesla on knowing how many of these batches have been released. That might be tough and may not be available. Also keep monitoring the failure rate, possibly make a poll / email / web form for the users that can quickly be populated with the information you want and sifted easily to get data and statistics. If the failures start to climb, stop, and reevaluate the issue with the new information and try to resolve.
Then once a fix found and tested, to release an updated version of the CAN, CAN-S_v2 and ensure its clearly marked. If I had the CAN-S_v1, I'd still be happy with it and sure it would satisfy my charging needs. Plus there's a good bit of S HPC and UMC chargers out there, if one didn't work I'm sure there's another a short distance away. And if not I have the original CAN / j1772.
I have faith Henry "CAN" make it happen
My take would be to release the CAN (again
, but disclose to those who buy it that there will be some incompatible chargers. And number or clearly mark this 1st release of the CAN so you and the customer know what they have. Also ask for users to report any issue, the GPS/location and type of charger, and the VIN/vintage roadster (1.5,2.0,or 2.5). And if there's any markings on the charger or serial number if they have it so you can work with Tesla on knowing how many of these batches have been released. That might be tough and may not be available. Also keep monitoring the failure rate, possibly make a poll / email / web form for the users that can quickly be populated with the information you want and sifted easily to get data and statistics. If the failures start to climb, stop, and reevaluate the issue with the new information and try to resolve.Then once a fix found and tested, to release an updated version of the CAN, CAN-S_v2 and ensure its clearly marked. If I had the CAN-S_v1, I'd still be happy with it and sure it would satisfy my charging needs. Plus there's a good bit of S HPC and UMC chargers out there, if one didn't work I'm sure there's another a short distance away. And if not I have the original CAN / j1772.
I have faith Henry "CAN" make it happen
Last edited:
ElectricLove
Member
It wouldn't require Henry to "eat the production cost" because he would be able to take it back as a return (buyer pays shipping) and then he can test it and resell it, at least that is how I would do it, because what if you were the unlucky one who just needs this for their home charger and it doesn't work on your home charger so now its totally useless to you, someone else would still buy it, I would think...
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Henry isn't exactly making money on these - especially when you consider the number of hours that he's spent tracking down the multiple issues to be resolved. IF people need to return and they knew there was a 5% chance it wouldn't work for them, I think it would be more than reasonable on Henry's part to charge a handling fee or to give a limited time after receipt that it could be returned.
This is a service to the Roadster community. Anything we can do to minimize the impact on Henry should be done, whether we're talking additional time spent or money out of pocket (shipping isn't free).
Personally, I expect incompatibilities with some chargers. As people said there are lots of J1772 stations which do not work with Roadsters. And even 1.5 HPCs will not work with 2.x Roadsters. That still makes the adapter useful. My charge style on trips tends to be to pick up charge where I can and not depend on any specific charger being available. Having the adapter opens up more possible places to pick up charge.
All Roadster owners should realize that their cars are pretty much hand built prototypes. Each car will have nuances and might be more picky or less picky about power sources. The car may change over time also. I expect that.
The Roadster is a car for the adventurous. Embrace the adventure!
All Roadster owners should realize that their cars are pretty much hand built prototypes. Each car will have nuances and might be more picky or less picky about power sources. The car may change over time also. I expect that.
The Roadster is a car for the adventurous. Embrace the adventure!
djp
Model 3 Performance
Model S to Roadster adapter
The easy solution is to only deliver to people who understand and are happy with the 95% rate, with an option to return (less shipping) if it doesn't work with their home HPWC. Besides that the sale is final with no upgrade path to an improved version (besides buying a second SR CAN).
Those who prefer to wait can move to the end of the queue and potentially benefit from the larger group of SR CANs in the wild (but with no guarantee that the remaining compatibility issues will be solved).
The easy solution is to only deliver to people who understand and are happy with the 95% rate, with an option to return (less shipping) if it doesn't work with their home HPWC. Besides that the sale is final with no upgrade path to an improved version (besides buying a second SR CAN).
Those who prefer to wait can move to the end of the queue and potentially benefit from the larger group of SR CANs in the wild (but with no guarantee that the remaining compatibility issues will be solved).
ElectricLove
Member
I agree with you! Handling fee is a good idea...
I mean, realistically the person could just resell on the boards themselves so a no-returns policy would be ok...
I mean, realistically the person could just resell on the boards themselves so a no-returns policy would be ok...
Henry's question was essentially "Should I start delivery or not?"
There seems to be a lot of confusing tangential chatter that is clouding the Yea/Nay voting.
Shipping, restocking fees, and blood signed contracts all seem off-sides. This is all diluting the voting.
Best,
T
There seems to be a lot of confusing tangential chatter that is clouding the Yea/Nay voting.
Shipping, restocking fees, and blood signed contracts all seem off-sides. This is all diluting the voting.
Best,
T
wiztecy
Active Member
It might be best for Henry to create any poll. It is ultimately and after-all, his product and his decision.
I re-state that my vote is wait a little longer, but I trust his judgment.
I'll leave it at that, and I won't clutter up this thread any further.
Best,
T
djp
Model 3 Performance
Wow what a great discussion! I'm surprised at how many people still want one even though 1-in-20 chargers will fault. I'll try to answer some questions. I would not feel good about selling this without a guarantee that it works on your home and work and/or other primary charging station. So I may go forward with a 30-day return policy. Thanks to everybody for support and great input to this conversation!
I'm leaning towards djp's solution to deliver to people who understand and are happy with 95% of chargers success rate, and let others wait to see what happens. But I want to offer a cheap or no-cost upgrade path if I find a better solution. As long as they understand there may never be an upgrade. And I would offer a 30-day 100% return policy, no handling fee, if it doesn't work on your primary charger(s). It would have to be returned in like-new condition so I could clean it, test it, and re-sell it to another customer.
95% is actually no better than 0% when you're on a long trip and depending on the only HPWC at a destination. Most seasoned EV travelers have learned to have a plan B and C but these are often very difficult to implement.
Good idea!
TOBASH thanks for your support. You're a little unusual in that you paid before I sent you one. For the most part nobody paid except the gang of 12 who got a prototype or production model. About half paid by check and I have not deposited any of them. I've also kept my PayPal balance high enough to cover refunds for anybody who requests one, but so far nobody has.
The curve is asymptotic; it will never reach 100%. I'm still hoping to make it better but the chance for further improvement is only about 50% give or take.
You're right there is no easy answer. I've had people complain loudly when the CAN JR didn't work on the early Schneider stations even though I told them it wouldn't. Home Depot sells chargers from Siemans that don't work on Roadster 2.x. The biggest problem is I'll get a phone/email asking for tech support to determine why it won't charge on X charging station and I have to spend a lot of time figuring it out. I really can't afford to sell them if the phone/email takes a lot of time and I'm worried about that with 95%.
Thanks for the support! The problem is I couldn't sleep at night if I charged a fee to return it. It would no longer be a labor of love.
He has a pretty good spot, too, because it's already paid for! I'm sure he won't mind... Oh, but he's after you. Sorry!:smile:I'll take @TOBASH's spot in line if he's ahead of me.
I'm leaning towards djp's solution to deliver to people who understand and are happy with 95% of chargers success rate, and let others wait to see what happens. But I want to offer a cheap or no-cost upgrade path if I find a better solution. As long as they understand there may never be an upgrade. And I would offer a 30-day 100% return policy, no handling fee, if it doesn't work on your primary charger(s). It would have to be returned in like-new condition so I could clean it, test it, and re-sell it to another customer.
NigelM
Recovering Member
I'm a little late with my comment but I'm happy to take the risk Henry. I always travel with a back up plan and I see this as a way of increasing my chances of rapid recharge opportunities.
spaceballs
Member
Is there any leftover room in the device to add in module later? Say after you dig deeper you find a solution, so you create a module that can slip in and modify the J1772 signaling properly.
Also not sure if I missed it in an earlier thread, did you ever find out why some chargers don't work? Like connecting up scope with long capture memory, etc...
Similar threads
