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

[scaesare]

Sure, third parties can certainly put stipulations on when and how services are used - however we as Tesla's owners (not even those who are stockholders, public companies don't work that way) are not a party to that. We'd IMO be spoilsports if we were advocating limiting Destination Charging to Tesla's only. We benefit from the goodwill of many in these pioneering days of BEV ownership, we can share this one IMO.



The only BEV's I've owned are Tesla's. What is my entitlement issue here? I am allowed to have views on where I think the company that manufactures my car should be headed. I think allowing this is/would be simply good BEV citizenship from both Tesla and us. The early pioneers looking after each other a bit, not guarding territory jealously.

My point is that advocating the company have the right to provide resources to their customers as they see fit, especially if it increases the likelihood of the survival of the program, if not the company, is not a "spoilsport" stance just because it doesn't fit your ideal.

It's my opinion that a financially strong and solid Tesla that will be able to continue to push BEV's for the long haul is significantly better than a weakened Tesla attempting to be all things to all people for the short haul. And Tesla not only has the right to make it's own business decisions in that regard, it's in the best position to do so.

I see it as pragmatic. You may choose to call those of us who see it that way "spoilsports", but that's an interesting departure from your historical offense taken at "name calling".

 

[scaesare]

... some will take more...

Yup.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yup.

As we note, even we as Tesla owners take a lot that is offered on goodwill. If Tesla and Tesla owners are the only ones rooting for purely proprietary solutions while the rest of the industry and EV community is open and sharing, that's not a very good place to be either. That would make us the ones who will just take, but not give.

IMO this is one area where Tesla and Tesla owners can easily give and share within reason. So, smart, and Good.

 

[scaesare]

As we note, even we as Tesla owners take a lot that is offered on goodwill.

Such an important distinction.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And Tesla not only has the right to make it's own business decisions in that regard, it's in the best position to do so.

Sure, at the moment Tesla's decision in the U.S. has been not to limit Destionation Chargers just to Teslas. I am merely advocating them on continuing to do what they are doing at the moment.

It's my opinion that a financially strong and solid Tesla that will be able to continue to push BEV's for the long haul is significantly better than a weakened Tesla attempting to be all things to all people for the short haul.

I don't believe this particular area would weaken Tesla or endanger anything. There is a reason why I haven't advocated this for Supercharging, for example.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Such an important distinction.

Sure. I think Tesla would be smart to offer this.

@Canuck got the spirit of this IMO exactly right. Whether Tesla agrees remains to be seen, of course.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The reason why I think this is a bit different in Europe is the connector. An audience using adapters in the U.S. is probably more limited anyway than it would be in Europe where the connector is the same. In Europe I think reserving some chargers for Teslas and others for non-Teslas is understandable, even though I'd prefer perhaps a bit more bias towards open for all than sometimes now is the case.

I see things like Destination Chargers as a temporary sponsorship anyway. Eventually establishments and communities will build infrastructures that will supercede all these efforts. In the meanwhile a good balance of goodwill and competitive advantage would IMO be the nice thing to do. Give a bit to the EV community while get some great goodwill in the process, without endangering much anything... just a smart thing to do.

 

[Curt]

They never offered an adapter to charge other EVs on HPWCs.

They never even offered an adapter to charge other EVs THAT TESLA BUILT on HPWCs.

#RememberTheRoadster

 

[stopcrazypp]

They never even offered an adapter to charge other EVs THAT TESLA BUILT on HPWCs.

#RememberTheRoadster

You know I meant "non-Tesla" . The Roadster certainly Tesla includes as intended to be using Tesla-only HPWCs. That's why they did updates to the Roadster software to get it to work with the new HPWC software mode (see thread I linked previously).

 

[Curt]

You know I meant "non-Tesla" . The Roadster certainly Tesla includes as intended to be using Tesla-only HPWCs. That's why they did updates to the Roadster software to get it to work with the new HPWC software mode (see thread I linked previously).

I did know what you meant.

I was just pointing out that they never offered an adapter to allow Roadsters to charge from HPWCs. They did, however, sell an adapter so Model S/X/Future Teslas could charge from OUR HPCs!

 

[stopcrazypp]

I did know what you meant.

I was just pointing out that they never offered an adapter to allow Roadsters to charge from HPWCs. They did, however, sell an adapter so Model S/X/Future Teslas could charge from OUR HPCs!

Sure, but their move to update the software gives implicit support to the CAN-SR.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

Brand only charging networks are sustainable. Brand only charging networks which other brands (which contributed nothing to the installation costs) freely circumvent are not however.

The fact of the matter is that Tesla alone is not able to provide for all infrastructure for all brands. You are ignoring the fact that it costs Tesla money to provide the HPWCs/Clipper creek units and installation, a limited amount of money that ultimately comes from Tesla owners, which the other EV owners contribute nothing to (given Tesla does not get any revenue back, unlike paid locations where the installer might have some ROI).

The AC charging infrastructure can be broken down as follows:
1) Infrastructure provided by other third parties (not car manufacturers): paid for either by being pay per use/subscription, by government, or by location owner. These are intended for all EVs to use.
2) Dealership chargers. The intended use of these vary: only for dealership use, dealership customer use, brand use, or general use.
3) Car manufacturer installed destination charging not at dealerships/car stores (AKA Tesla equivalent Destination charging network).

There are about 13k AC J1772 charging locations in the US that fall under #1 or #2. About 2.8k (round to 3k for illustration purpose) that fall under #3 (I checked the list, it does not include Tesla store locations).
Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations
US Tesla Destination Charging | Tesla

In your suggested scenario where such adapters are given free reign (and equivalently in Europe Tesla didn't do software blocking), the way I see the infrastructure develop is that:
13k #1 or #2 locations (+ growth)
3k #3 Tesla (+ growth)
#3 would then be congested, leading to a poor experience for everyone, and the cost will be borne by Tesla. The other EV owners will just use the adapter and there would be no demand for a similar network from their car manufacturer.
In economic terms, I think this issue is called the free-rider problem.

In the other scenario, where there are reserved Tesla-only HPWCs (other than a few goodwill exceptions) and other brand only networks, I see the following:
13k #1 or #2 locations (+ growth)
3k #3 Tesla (+ growth)
Xk #3 non-Tesla (+growth)
In this case, even though a good portion of the overall network is brand only, it's sustainable because there is enough infrastructure to provide for the demand.

Of course the ideal situation is all manufacturers band together and jointly invest in the destination charging network (which is what Tesla suggests for their supercharger network), but that is not the case for Tesla's supercharger/destination charging network at the moment.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Guys, put away your Tesla hats for a moment. Do we really want a future where every car brand has its own chargers in public locations, let alone on private properties? Really? No, of course we don't. The burden of such an infrastructure on the world would be far beyond Apple having its own smartphone connector. And no, we don't want a future where only Tesla has its own and everyone else has something else.

What Tesla is doing, to incentivize and to build charging infrastructure is great. They needed to start with some proprietary things to get going, fine. This is a needed step and they are to be applauded for it. But we also need to start looking beyond this first step. If Tesla doesn't, then regulators eventually will, like is happening in China. And here we come to the Destination Charging network - a great opportunity for Tesla to do a bit of that right now, with little harm.

The thing is, I don't view the Destination Charging project as a charging network in the same vein as Superchargers. It is a sponsorship program, where Tesla sponsors devices and installation to help kickstart BEV charging. Tesla doesn't maintain a network, nor does it pay for the electricity, it just sponsors some number of devices each year to get locations started on BEV charging. Great.

Now, this has and is giving Tesla a first mover advantage, great. But as things mature, the transition towards a more general destination charging infrastructure is a perfectly expected and reasonable one. It will happen eventually anyway. The ability of some other EV owners to charge on these Tesla-specific devices through adapters, on the location-owners' electricity dime, is a nice small step towards that.

The last thing we want is a turf-war on the fringes of charging infrastructure such as this. I get it that fast-charging is one thing, and that will be sorted out over time (perhaps Tesla indeed will maintain a proprietary network there), but destination charging by nature is a very, very different beast. It will be in Tesla owner's benefit as well, the faster that moves to a generalized direction, the better. IMO.

I'm perfectly fine with Tesla seeking some balance in how it accomplishes this. In Europe, where lack of needed adapters will make third-party charging much more common, a couple of software-blocked and one non-blocked HPWC seems like a decent compromise to me at least to begin with. That is moving things in the right direction and doing a good deed for the larger sustainable vision. It will also help keep regulators off Tesla's back.

We can share this one, guys, with the others. The bigger thing, the electricity, after all, is paid for by the locations.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Just today I visited a shop with Tesla HPWC's and common wall chargers on each EV stall. (There was a single Ampera charging there. I did not charge.)

I thought to myself, as nice as it is to see Tesla there, this is not the future I want, walls lined up with different branded boxes and different cables for everyone.

We need to do better eventually.

 

[scaesare]

Guys, put away your Tesla hats for a moment. Do we really want a future where every car brand has its own chargers in public locations, let alone on private properties? Really? No, of course we don't. The burden of such an infrastructure on the world would be far beyond Apple having its own smartphone connector. And no, we don't want a future where only Tesla has its own and everyone else has something else.

Unfortunately the OP's approach and your methodology:

- Removes Tesla's ability to determine how they participate in any such convergence, as people silly take the provision not intended for them

- Diminishes incentive for other manufacturers to pitch in as long as their customers get to leech off Tesla-provided infrastructure

- Ignores that other manufacturers could offer to do similar or perhaps license Tesla's connector and share in financially supporting the program


So, if you want to suggest it would be nice or vendor to converge on a singular standard and build it out in an equitable manner? Great.

But to condone the sentiment in this thread that simply leaching off Tesla's infrastructure is the right way to go about it? Nope.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Guys, put away your Tesla hats for a moment. Do we really want a future where every car brand has its own chargers in public locations, let alone on private properties? Really? No, of course we don't. The burden of such an infrastructure on the world would be far beyond Apple having its own smartphone connector. And no, we don't want a future where only Tesla has its own and everyone else has something else.

The #1 category in my post will ensure that not all chargers will be car brand dedicated. But not circumventing the brand only network is the only way to ensure such a network is sustainable in the meantime.

What Tesla is doing, to incentivize and to build charging infrastructure is great. They needed to start with some proprietary things to get going, fine. This is a needed step and they are to be applauded for it. But we also need to start looking beyond this first step. If Tesla doesn't, then regulators eventually will, like is happening in China. And here we come to the Destination Charging network - a great opportunity for Tesla to do a bit of that right now, with little harm.

It's easy to get the standards discussion mixed into this, but this is not a standards issue, but rather an access issue. In Europe, the connector is physically the same, as well as the AC protocol, so it has nothing to do with standards.

The thing is, I don't view the Destination Charging project as a charging network in the same vein as Superchargers. It is a sponsorship program, where Tesla sponsors devices and installation to help kickstart BEV charging. Tesla doesn't maintain a network, nor does it pay for the electricity, it just sponsors some number of devices each year to get locations started on BEV charging. Great.

Now, this has and is giving Tesla a first mover advantage, great. But as things mature, the transition towards a more general destination charging infrastructure is a perfectly expected and reasonable one. It will happen eventually anyway. The ability of some other EV owners to charge on these Tesla-specific devices through adapters, on the location-owners' electricity dime, is a nice small step towards that.

Just because Tesla doesn't pay for the electricity doesn't change that like the supercharger network, the other manufacturers contributed nothing to it (other similarities is that Tesla lists the location on their website and it brings demand from Tesla owners). Tesla's provision for allowing supercharger access is joint investment in capital costs of building the network. And it's that joint investment that will help BEV infrastructure the most (or at the very least provide incentive for other automakers to invest in their own network).

I would argue circumventing the Tesla destination charging network is a step away from that goal because it encourages other automakers to get a free ride and does nothing to make joint investment or self investment attractive.

The last thing we want is a turf-war on the fringes of charging infrastructure such as this. I get it that fast-charging is one thing, and that will be sorted out over time (perhaps Tesla indeed will maintain a proprietary network there), but destination charging by nature is a very, very different beast. It will be in Tesla owner's benefit as well, the faster that moves to a generalized direction, the better. IMO.

I'm perfectly fine with Tesla seeking some balance in how it accomplishes this. In Europe, where lack of needed adapters will make third-party charging much more common, a couple of software-blocked and one non-blocked HPWC seems like a decent compromise to me at least to begin with. That is moving things in the right direction and doing a good deed for the larger sustainable vision. It will also help keep regulators off Tesla's back.

We can share this one, guys, with the others. The bigger thing, the electricity, after all, is paid for by the locations.

I'm all for doing goodwill, which is why I support Tesla's decision to make a small proportion of them for all EVs. However, enough of them should remain reserved to achieve the goals pointed out above.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@stopcrazypp For you and I, it is probably a matter of balance and slight differences on opinion that balance. I doubt we are very much apart. As said, I am obviously fine with Tesla seeking a balance on how to implement this. But in general I am of the opinion that all steps to a brand neutral charging future at least on the destination level are welcome. Some access to non-Teslas on Tesla-sponsored destination chargers (where electricity is paid by location, not by Tesla) would fit this idea very nicely. It doesn't have to be 100% to still be a very nice and smart gesture.

@scaesare For you and I, I think the biggest difference in opinion is that you see Destination Charging as Tesla's infrastructure. I don't. I see them as a temporary sponsorship program and each location's infrastructure that Tesla helps to kickstart (to kickstart BEV charging, so that they can sell BEVs and so that locations start investing into this as well... get things started, so to speak). As such, I can certainly see some balancing act taking place so that Tesla gets reasonable benefit from their sponsorship (and I still think they do, even is some portion would also get used by adapter-folk), but I don't consider it leeching off of them if others benefit from these efforts too to a reasonable extent as long as it is OK with the site owner and electricity payer. Even if Tesla just gets a time-limited benefit, it is still return for their investment, and eventually that rolling over to universal BEV adoption benefit would be a nice secondary end-result...

It is possible Tesla does not see this the same way as I do, and if so, so be it (certainly that would be within their rights, assuming location owners agree), but I do think some goodwill here would be a smart move. That doesn't mean Tesla can't balance it out by, say, doing something similar to what they've done in Europe. Some goodwill as a balancing act would still be nice.

Mind you, I am also thinking forward here. I don't want manufacturer-specific programs to start proliferating around the world. If Tesla takes a very defensive posture about this, that might set an example we don't want repeated. Being inclusive on some balanced level would be IMO smart from this perpective as well.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The thing is, a lot of parties are allowing their infrastructure to be "leeched" at this early stage. It is definitely not Tesla only whose generosity and pioneer mentality has benefited a lot of BEV owners. There are many other parties that have provided infrastructure and electricity to BEV drivers around the world without any direct equivalent return.

A lot of us Tesla drivers have benefited from that goodwill. And most everyone else is working towards standard connections and open solutions (Joint ‘ultra-fast’ electric car charging network unveiled by BMW, Mercedes, Ford and Volkswagen). TMC has a lot of very nice stories of Nissan dealerships providing electricity to Tesla drivers who'd never buy a Nissan. It is just a nice thing to help out a fellow BEV driver.

IMO we don't want a turf war...

 

[scaesare]

I see them as a temporary sponsorship program...

Again that's Tesla's call to make, and absent any such offer on their part[SIZE=2][1][/SIZE], it's presumptuous to help one's self in the mean time by fabricating an adapter designed to get around the issue.

[SIZE=2][1] And indeed the earlier text regarding the destination program as well as the action in Europe are evidence that there is no such offer even implied[/SIZE]

 

[Quick2Judge]

So practically speaking... the ideal consumer state is a built out universal high speed charging network with plenty of destination chargers around until charging gets so fast destination chargers are obsolete. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

It appears Tesla has made many overtures to other manufacturers to share the burden of building it out but found no takers.

What will encourage Nissan, GM, etc to help build out the network? Will non Teslas using Tesla destination chargers help encourage or discourage GM and Nissan from building out a network or ideally teaming up with Tesla?

Having switched from Infiniti to Tesla maybe I need to send Nissan a letter why to further do my part.

Anyways I have loved reading the opinions. Maybe I will start a thread whether it is ethical to take unused shampoo bottles from your hotel room.