It works. Used a Tesla wall charger to charge the smart car today.

[stopcrazypp]

You're missing my point. I do not doubt there are instances in Europe with charging that Tesla needs to protect its chargers. It could be a congestion issue, liability issue -- esp. given the risk with third party adapters. As such, I'm certain Tesla would never formally approve this. But again, that's not the point.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. In Europe, the connector Tesla uses is the same type 2 as most EVs use there. So there is no adapter issue at all, unlike in J1772 countries, given they don't use an adapter at all. The software block is purely to block other EVs from using Tesla reserved chargers (other than ones they explicitly left for all EVs to use, the equivalent to the Clipper Creek units we see here).

They have explicit signage even though both are using HPWC (the Tesla-only ones are using a software block)

See this post and thread for details:
Roadster on destination charging doesn't work outside of North America

I think that is very clear evidence Tesla wants to explicitly reserve some chargers for Tesla owners only. In US, the installations allow a 2:1 ratio of Tesla HPWCs to Clipper Creek, same as in that location in Europe (notice the two red Tesla vehicles signs and the single electric vehicles sign). Tesla could easily have made all three "electric vehicles" if they wanted to, but didn't.

The point is: Is the OP's use of the charger against Tesla's policy? That's the issue as I see it.

Tesla does not have a policy on this issue. You can point to signage, software, etc. but no where can you point out to me "Destination chargers are not to be used by any vehicles other than Teslas." If you can find that for me, I'll agree with you. But I doubt you'll find it since Elon has talked about opening up superchargers to other vehicles:

Tesla is ‘actively talking to other automakers’ about opening up its Supercharger network, says CTO JB Straubel

I doubt Tesla will explicitly say that. I don't believe they even say that for superchargers (you can try finding it). Rather, if the adapters become a problem (which they haven't yet), they will just do the same software block they do in Europe.

As for the supercharger talk, I actually addressed that point: one key requirement is that manufacturers that want to use it must invest in the infrastructure together with Tesla. Why would it be any different for destination chargers?

My point is simply that this is not against any Tesla policy. What I have been pointed to are arguments that are easily rebutted. Of course, the signs read Tesla, because this adapter was only recently made, and we didn't want cars parking there that could not be charged which until now has only been Teslas. That's the reason for the sign. I could also go through and make arguments against all else that has been posted since none is directly on point. Instead, what I have been shown are simply arguments in support of your position. In reply, I pointed to Tesla's Mission Statement and there's no doubt what he is doing is part of Tesla's mission. Do you deny that?

The bottom line, in my view, is it's the call of the owner of the destination charger. He's paying the power. Yes, Tesla gave him a charger but again, unless he has a contract with Tesla saying no one else can use it, which I doubt, we should leave it alone. The OP is putting out less greenhouses gasses and driving mainly on rainwater since our power here is 85% hydro. We need more people doing that -- yet he gets jumped all over for posting here as if he's committed some crime. In my view, he's part of Tesla's mission. Plus, no one is going to be put out by this, since he's also leaving notes.

It's Tesla drivers that are parked in J1172 not needing the charge that's the problem, not the OP, at least in my view. My daughters can't take our Leaf to certain malls now because they're full of Teslas charging and it won't make it home without a charge.

To be clear I'm talking about general intention/policy and the future direction of the Tesla destination charger network. I personally have no issue with what the OP did given he left notes and got permission from the property owner. However, as this adapter gets more popular I don't expect other EV drivers to do the same. They will charge at HPWCs as a matter of fact, end up blocking Tesla owners, and then Tesla will be forced to address this given backlash from Tesla owners.

 

[bro1999]

Tesla destination charging via Jdapter Stub FTW!


bro1999's blog: Charging your Bolt EV at a Tesla destination station? Yes, you can!

 

[scaesare]

The protectiveness individual consumers have for Tesla always baffles me. The identification with the company is amazingly strong - the comparison to Apple is probably quite warranted. Sometimes I think the thought of advancing a BEV future is mostly talk only, when I read threads like this.

However, I do think Tesla hopefully is more liberal about this than people think. OP to me seems to have a very sensible and reasonable approach to this. Kudos to the OP.

Your assumption that it's "Tesla protectionism" is rather presumptuous.

If United Airlines provides perks to it's Premier members, do you feel it's OK for others to waltz in to their lounge and drink their coffee and eat their snacks if they manage to forge an access card that grants them entry? I don't... and incidentally I'm not a United premier customer.

My objection is based on intent, which is rather apparent to the person not looking to take advantage of something not intended for them, IMO . Perhaps you are OK with the "opportunistic entitlement" of many today. I'm not.

 

[scaesare]

but if they are smart they'll be more liberal about Destination Chargers than some expect here

And why, exactly, would that be "smart" for HPWC's?

 

[scaesare]

I talked about this elsewhere. While it makes sense have some chargers available for all EVs for goodwill/emergencies (I'm not arguing for all of the chargers to be dedicated to Tesla), it doesn't make sense to reward laziness of the other automakers by letting them use all of them. If other automakers can rely on such adapters, they have no incentive to install a similar network of their own.

Edit: I know that Europe is different and doesn't have the adapter issue, but Tesla uses an equivalent software block.

Agreed.

I find the idea that "well my $EV_MANUFACTURER hasn't invested in infrastructure that benefits me, so I'll siphon some of the provision made by Tesla, even though I've voluntarily opted to not support their initiative with my patronage" a rather entitled stance.

 

[scaesare]

Our smart car and out Leaf work fine for us most of the time but we occasionally go places that we count on having a destination charger. Happens with shorter range EV's. In this situation an adaptor to a Tesla EVSE would have been handy for us. These cars are what we can afford so we won't be looking at a Tesla probably until we retire in about 4 years ish.

Just curious. Why do you feel we will cause damage with using a Tesla EVSE?

Oh, so you only take advantage of services not intended for you when it's deemed particularly convenient?

 

[scaesare]

Tesla's mission statement takes precedent over any other of its statements, as is standard, like with the Constitution.

Just because you assert that doesn't make it so. The entire corpus of an entity's statements should be considered.

Musk made Tesla's patents free to use in good faith in order to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport . What @Webeevdrivers is doing is part of Tesla's plan. He's accelerating the advent of sustainable transport by being able to now go more places in his EV using Tesla's destination chargers. The only one, in my opinion, who can deny him that use is the owner of the destination charger and we know that's highly unlikely, and for good reason. He's just as welcome as any Tesla driver.

You just included a very pertinent point: "In good faith". Given that Tesla also has installed J1772's if the site owner agrees to the stipulations it seems relatively clear that Tesla has use cases for providing Tesla-charging, and general-EV charging. Taking it upon yourself to presume to take advantage despite the explicit provision for your car type not being included is rather presumptuous.

 

[scaesare]

Yep. We are in Vernon BC (although presently in Palm Springs) . We like to take sunday drives out to the many wineries in the valley but some are on the limit of the leafs range (30 KWH battery) so we either have to deviate to a fast charger or pick up an hour at the winery. We prefer the latter as many wineries have a place where you can enjoy a picnic lunch and enjoy a bottle of wine. We usually make an afternoon out of it with a few people but make a point to never charge longer than we need. And we almost always leave a note on the charge station so they no how to find us in the winery..

Is an EV your only car?

 

[scaesare]

You're missing my point. I do not doubt there are instances in Europe with charging that Tesla needs to protect its chargers. It could be a congestion issue, liability issue -- esp. given the risk with third party adapters. As such, I'm certain Tesla would never formally approve this. But again, that's not the point.

The point is: Is the OP's use of the charger against Tesla's policy? That's the issue as I see it.

Tesla does not have a policy on this issue. You can point to signage, software, etc. but no where can you point out to me "Destination chargers are not to be used by any vehicles other than Teslas." If you can find that for me, I'll agree with you. But I doubt you'll find it since Elon has talked about opening up superchargers to other vehicles:

Other signage I don't see:

- Hotel Ice Machines not intended for you to avoid buying a freezer

- McDonald's Ketchup packets not intended to supplement your home pantry

- Work supply room not intended to stock your home office

- All you can eat lunch buffet not intended to replace your entire weeks caloric intake

- Public water fountain not intended to provide your lawn irrigation needs


See also: This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[TaoJones]

See also: multi-quote is your friend.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I think this conversation and policies surrounding it are a real litmus test on how serious Tesla (and the community) really is about that mission statement and how much e.g. the patent play was a PR stunt only.

I got to respect @Canuck being consistent on this part. Many others, and sometimes I fear Tesla included, seem to be less invested in the BEV future and more invested in a Tesla-only future, no matter their occasional statements to the contrary...

We shall see how Tesla plays this. I don't blame them seeking some advantage and return for their investments, but an aggressive take on this one would be unfortunate.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And why, exactly, would that be "smart" for HPWC's?

Because they'll be advancing a sustainable future according to their mission statement. The goodwill will come back to them eventually and it is just a good thing to do.

Building brand-only charging networks is not advancing a sustainable future (beyond a certain necessary inflection point) and Tesla should embrace opportunities to move away from that once possible. This is a clear one: adapters people buy with their own money at sites Tesla doesn't pay the electricity for - IMO a no brainer not to go after these. Goodwill. Better future.

IMO they'll get enough first-mover advantage in other ways, than having to start clamping down on adapter users at third-party sites.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I like to pick up free electrons at the mall, etc. but worry that I don't really need them and think about the time my daughter was crying over the phone to me because the Leaf was at 0 and she's a few miles from home. She made it -- I told her not to cry, we'll just call a tow truck if it runs out, and she always asked me what she will tell her kids like I tell her (no internet, cell phones, etc.) and I said you can now tell your kids this story and they will laugh about the Leaf's low range, and you will tell them barely anyone drove EVs and we had 2.

I must say this short story both broke and uplifted my heart a little. Thanks for sharing.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Other signage I don't see:

- Hotel Ice Machines not intended for you to avoid buying a freezer

- McDonald's Ketchup packets not intended to supplement your home pantry

- Work supply room not intended to stock your home office

- All you can eat lunch buffet not intended to replace your entire weeks caloric intake

- Public water fountain not intended to provide your lawn irrigation needs


See also: This is why we can't have nice things.

But in this case Tesla HAS made clear their wish and intent to support a sustainable future where others follow in their footsteps. I get it that they can't just open up Superchargers for all, but a fringe case of adapters being used on Tesla-paid destination chargers at locations where the big thing, the electricity, is being paid by the location does sound like a great goodwill opportunity for Tesla. Their installations have helped pave way for a sustainable future in general, while still offering PR benefits and advantages to Tesla too (their logo is on those systems and due to needing adapters they will be mostly used by Tesla owners anyway).

If I were Tesla, I would simply embrace this. Many of those people who use those adapters will remember Tesla fondly and calculate that into their next purchase, the locations feel the installations are even more versatile than before and appreciate giving room for those chargers a bit more - and the planet is saved that small bit more too.

We as Tesla owners take advantage of third-party free charging opportunities all the time. Let's not be spoilsports.

There's a larger goal.

 

[Jays200]

We as Tesla owners take advantage of third-party free charging opportunities all the time. Let's not be spoilsports.There's a larger goal.

I'm sorry but I must disagree.

Tesla is a fledgling car company that is up against the big boys. If Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Chevrolet etc, etc, want to start their own charging programs like Tesla's then let them. They haven't. If Tesla opens their patents then let other companies use them and deploy there own infrastructure.

I want Tesla to "Rule the world" in their own right and they are forcing unwilling participants (all other legacy ICE manufacturers) to comply reluctantly. Apple has done very well in a unique ecosystem and I hope Tesla does the same.

Buy a different EV if it suites you and use different charging infrastructure. If that infrastructure doesn't work for you then complain to the manufacturer and your elected representatives.

Tesla doesn't freeload off other charging networks, they are open to all. Tesla's network is a competitive advantage and is owned by us as Tesla owners and investors. Musky has said others can use, at a cost. None have negotiated that AFAIK.

 

[jbcarioca]

The protectiveness individual consumers have for Tesla always baffles me. The identification with the company is amazingly strong - the comparison to Apple is probably quite warranted. Sometimes I think the thought of advancing a BEV future is mostly talk only, when I read threads like this.

However, I do think Tesla hopefully is more liberal about this than people think. OP to me seems to have a very sensible and reasonable approach to this. Kudos to the OP.

Somebody had to point out the Tesla mission that makes them allow others to use their patents. Having an adapter that allows others to use HPWC is part of that story. My personal guess is that a proprietary Tesla plug would never have happened if there had been a mature DCFC standard at that time. Superchargers would still have been Tesla-only or paid by other entities but a proprietary plug was never needed fir that purpose.

That said, we’ll have multiple DC plugs about as long as we have multiple AC plugs. That is, as long as we have electricity. A single DC standard will never happen. Why would it? How many individual countries have a single household low power plug? How many have a single household higher power plug? As most of us know the answer is: almost none. ‘Almost’ is there only because I did not look up every country.

 

[jbcarioca]

I'm sorry but I must disagree.

Tesla is a fledgling car company that is up against the big boys. If Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Chevrolet etc, etc, want to start their own charging programs like Tesla's then let them. They haven't. If Tesla opens their patents then let other companies use them and deploy there own infrastructure.

I want Tesla to "Rule the world" in their own right and they are forcing unwilling participants (all other legacy ICE manufacturers) to comply reluctantly. Apple has done very well in a unique ecosystem and I hope Tesla does the same.

Buy a different EV if it suites you and use different charging infrastructure. If that infrastructure doesn't work for you then complain to the manufacturer and your elected representatives.

Tesla doesn't freeload off other charging networks, they are open to all. Tesla's network is a competitive advantage and is owned by us as Tesla owners and investors. Musky has said others can use, at a cost. None have negotiated that AFAIK.

FWIW, I disagreed with your post but I did not dislike it. I respect that outlook, but I think Tesla officially, plus both JB and Elon have been advocates of anything that increases BEV adoption. I’m certain they’d be pleased if other manufacturers signed up for Superchargers and helped to deploy more of them while reducing Tesla costs. We’re that to happen widely, we would find ease of access enhanced for everyone.

Tesla Energy plays in the utility market, but not Tesla vehicles. That could change, of course. When others step up for offering DC Very Fast with multiple stations urban, suburban, intercity, major highway, large building, public parking, etc; that will be when Tesla will have motivation to deploy interoperability. In practice the CharIN payment systems flexibility or the equal will be absolutely required. As some of us know, Tesla S, X and 3 are all equipped with the technical basis to allow that even though it has not yet been deployed.

Here is the evidence:
News: Charging Interface Initiative e. V. (CharIN e. V.)

 

[scaesare]

Because they'll be advancing a sustainable future according to their mission statement. The goodwill will come back to them eventually and it is just a good thing to do."

In your opinion.

It's also rather more likely, given their statements regarding the intent of the program, actions in Europe, etc.. that they are interested in doing so by paving the way for other to follow. Not necessarily pay everybody's way for them.

Elon recognizes that the long-haul shift to an EV-primary future is best served by a financially healthy Tesla rather than subsidizing the efforts of other players who would rather ride coat-tails is not necessarily a "smart" way to do that.

Building brand-only charging networks is not advancing a sustainable future (beyond a certain necessary inflection point) and Tesla should embrace opportunities to move away from that once possible. This is a clear one: adapters people buy with their own money at sites Tesla doesn't pay the electricity for - IMO a no brainer not to go after these. Goodwill. Better future.

IMO they'll get enough first-mover advantage in other ways, than having to start clamping down on adapter users at third-party sites.

I'll argue that more people know of, use, and factor in to their buying decision, Tesla's charging offerings than all other charging infrastructure combined. I'd say it's advancing a future very well.

Let's not forget that Tesla has offered for other manufacturers to share in the supercharger program. Nobody has thus far. And Tesla has offered to freely license[1] their patents (which likely includes the TS01 connector) to others who what to use them in goodwill, which could mean helping with destination charing infrastructure program. Nobody apparently has.

Whenever Tesla has wanted to altruistically offer goods/services for free, they have clearly done so (see Florida and Puerto Rico disasters). Yet your idealistic approach doesn't seem to be what Tesla has explicitly offered at all.

[1] Which is different than giving the IP away for free...many people make that mistake

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Is an EV your only car?

Yes. A Nissan Leaf and a smart ED.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Oh, so you only take advantage of services not intended for you when it's deemed particularly convenient?

Oh the service was intended for me as explained by the business owner. They didn’t realize that all EV’s couldn’t use it or they would have probably put a standard EVSE in instead of a Tesla destination charger. And in two cases they are trying to find a way to add a non Tesla EVSE. In one instance if she can’t make it work she is going to remove the Tesla EVSE and replace it with a standard EVSE.

Don’t turn this into something it isn’t.