-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It works. Used a Tesla wall charger to charge the smart car today.
- Thread starter Webeevdrivers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
To seek some common ground, would we all agree that the disagreement for adapters like this are the Tesla-installed/paid Destination Chargers, not the existence of the adapter itself? After all, there are probably more privately bought and installed HPWCs in the U.S. than there are Destination Chargers and adding interoperability to those through an adapter is not wrong in any way?
I see no evidence of Tesla actively pursuing collaboration on this during the current decade. They've made some offers on the PR level, have they done anything on the private level I wouldn't assume so. My personal feeling is that Tesla has indeed been far more active than anyone in seeking proprietary solutions (and installing some non-proprietary capable ones in the process), while the rest of the industry has been more active in seeking collaborations and non-proprietary solutions on the charging question (but indeed have been overall less active than Tesla in this space).
It may have been very different in the early days, but at some point Tesla decided to go and push proprietary solutions instead of standards and collaboration - and they've been at it since. The first step backwards from that, really, is the situation in China. How they plan to play this in other region remains to be seen.
I agree there is some presumption. However the way I see it is this: Tesla installed and offered these chargers on certain terms that existed at the time, and there was no lock-out for non-Tesla charging. Given that an adapter is a normal interoperability device and not a device to circumvent, say, a digital protection, unless they specifically forbade this with the location owner they provided the chargers with (and the location owner agreed), then it seems fair game to me. After all, the location owner is paying for the on-going cost, the electricity, and Tesla did not forbid offering interoperability.
The European situation is different in the sense that the lack of need for adapters makes non-Tesla charging much more common. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla has and would simply calculate the equation differently in the U.S. thinking that some level of interoperability is just fine, they won't worry about it, at least not if it doesn't become an issue. This returns to the balancing act I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting Tesla go recommending or marketing non-Tesla charging on Tesla-sponsored destination chargers, but I also don't see this necessarily as a black and white issue for the company - let alone the community.
So, I am perfectly fine sharing Tesla destination chargers with other brands, independent of who paid for the actual charging device. I think that is the decent thing to do in the early EV landscape. We're stronger together. We can share.
Now, it may be that Tesla decides to fight this or even fight the physical adapters. In the EU interoperability devices are to an extent protected by law, but perhaps no such protections exist in the U.S. where this would matter. I would find this very unfortunate, though. Tesla themselves have benefited from many kinds of adapters, and us Tesla owners as well. More interoperability is better than less. So I am hoping Tesla sees the value in this in general, independent of how they might adjust charger firmware of sponsored chargers down the road. (For the latter, some balancing act IMO is/would be understandable, but I hope they are more liberal than conservative about it.)
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I doubt anyone will have issue with someone buying such an adapter to use their own HPWC at home or if a business with a HPWC that they installed on their own dime, using such an adapter. That case is no different from the UMC or HPWC J1772 conversions offered by the same company (where they take off the Tesla plug and swap with J1772), except this adapter makes it so it's not permanent. I believe that was the original primary use case.
The issue is purely with the usage of such adapters to charge at Tesla's Destination Charging network. That gets into the question of Tesla's intentions for HPWCs on the network and also on the ethics of that. Keep in mind Tesla explicitly installed extra Clipper Creek J1772 units in the US for other EVs to use, and also explicit unblocked HPWCs in Europe for other EVs to use.
I've recently been reading more on articles on Inside EVs and the creator has talked about testing software in Europe that will circumvent Tesla's software block. I think that is a clear ethics violation and beyond fair use.
You keep bringing things back to interoperability and standards issue when it's not that at all. It's purely a reserved network issue. Think of the charge networks that use a keycard. The standards are all the same, but the keycard is used for access control.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Actually the adapter is not just a dumb adapter, as most people assume (I thought it was this also), it apparently circumvents the "Tesla" mode in the newer HPWCs toggled to the Tesla setting (vs legacy setting that supports all EVs).
Comment from the seller:
"The second DIP switch to the right is for either the upper “TESLA” position, or the lower “J1772” position. The upper position sends a signal the the Tesla car over the proximity wire. The HPWC waits for the return information from a Tesla car for up to 30 seconds.
We have electronics installed In JDapter Stub(tm) to tell the HPWC that it is ready to charge from a non-Tesla car."
"The “TESLA” switch on the HPWC is indeed an attempt to limit HPWCs to Tesla cars, while allowing all Tesla cars to use J1772.
This switch is quite successful in Europe, where most cars have the Menekkes Type 2 plug, including Tesla. That means that most cars in Europe can already plug into a Tesla HPWC, but they won’t charge without our electronics."
Charging A Bolt EV At A Tesla Destination Station? Sure You Can!
I think the second comment makes it clear the seller does know Tesla's intentions for the mode, but he went right ahead to design the adapter to circumvent that. I think this makes for an interesting ethics discussion (also it is unclear at the moment the difference between the European mode, US mode, and commercial vs general HPWCs).
Last edited:
Fair enough @stopcrazypp, I stand corrected on that part.
In any case, interoperability is a controversial but important topic. I think the world would be a worse place without seeking it. There is enough of an euro-socialist in me to think that interoperability should, to an extent, be guaranteed and enforced or at least protectected by law, as it is not always in the interests of individual makers, but IMO is in the interests of society as a whole...
I readily concede this is an area where there is a great Atlantic divide... And even I think this is a balancing act. I would welcome solutions that leave sufficient consideration for both interoperability and the interests of makers to finance certain things. That makes it a difficult topic at times.
In any case, interoperability is a controversial but important topic. I think the world would be a worse place without seeking it. There is enough of an euro-socialist in me to think that interoperability should, to an extent, be guaranteed and enforced or at least protectected by law, as it is not always in the interests of individual makers, but IMO is in the interests of society as a whole...
I readily concede this is an area where there is a great Atlantic divide... And even I think this is a balancing act. I would welcome solutions that leave sufficient consideration for both interoperability and the interests of makers to finance certain things. That makes it a difficult topic at times.
Last edited:
It's not quite simple as that, IMO. There are two separate things:
1) First there is the future outlook in general: These "keycards" are tied into a brand of vehicles and are not available to others even at fair cost, that is an interoperability issue. It is something that IMO socities and companies will eventually have to revisit in some manner. This is the reason why in most of the world there is legislation regarding utilities. When something becomes a fundamental part of society, protections for the general good will often be legislated. I can see this happening with EV charging and IMO Tesla would be in this instance smart to be ahead of the curve and find a balance on this adapter issue. Fighting it will probably get them unwanted attention faster. Figure something out: maybe arrange for collection of small fixed payment from non-Tesla vehicles charging there or something.
2) Second is the incentivization question: If you view destination chargers as a reserved network, that is one thing. If you see them as a temporary sponsorship program to kickstart EV charging at locations, it becomes quite another. I argue it would be smart for Tesla to see them more and more as latter. And if you see it as such, the fact that eventually that sponsorship also helps other brands is not an issue. It helps the worldview and mission statement of Tesla, helps Tesla gain positive PR and brand recognition amongst EV owners in general, and has a very limited impact on Tesla themselves as the on-going cost - electricity - is paid for by the location. Tesla still retains the first-mover advantage, they benefit from that every day at this time, even if on a time-limited basis and less and less over time as interoperable solutions take hold.
IMO this is a positive outcome of early proprietary projects. For a time there are closed solutions advocated by the early players, that benefit the early players and pioneering customers, and enable the earlybird market overall, but over time transform into helping standardized and interoperable solutions to take over the market. This is IMO how it should play out for EVs as well, and while we're not there yet, the destination chargers are an area where Tesla could simply look the other way and let the mission statement future be that much closer...
We shall see how Tesla takes this.
Last edited:
Seeking it without consent becomes tantamount to stealing.
Is it ok to "seek interoperability" with my WiFi access point via the recent WPA2 crack? After all, I'm broadcasting the signal for you to hear and I have no terms of service posted that explicitly forbids it. Heck, if my WiFi access point was open, do you feel it's ok to help yourself?
It boils down to: don't take what's not offered to you. Ask first.
Last edited:
This is the sort of rationalization that makes people think they are entitled to anything they can manage to take unless it's explicitly forbidden or locked.
"I put my quarter in the newspaper machine and when it opened, there was nothing stating I couldn't take the whole stack of papers..."
AnxietyRanger said:
And that is not your call to make. So until the corporate entity who can grant that permission does so, why are you condoning the behavior?
It's pretty easy to fix if Tesla Energy wanted to.
Just limit destination chargers to 277v. Teslas support that voltage, other cars do not.
Most commercial buildings support 277v, it's the normal power used for exterior (and often interior) lighting and A/C systems.
But seriously, apparently this adapter has been out for months. IIRC the spring?
Why aren't people reporting: "Could not charge my Tesla at a HPWC, a XXXXX was plugged in charging!!"
But I can tell you there have seen in both real-life and internet postings about Teslas blocking CCS-only spots or using L2 charging spots for parking without even plugging in. One of the free charging stalls was even sponsored by Chevrolet and the picture is somewhere on the net of a Tesla parked at it without plugging in. Santa Barbara?
In fact, the EV-parking-not-charging problem had become so bad that Tesla changed their policy at SuperChargers to stop folk from using them as parking stalls.
Cliff Notes: There isn't a problem at this time. Worry about something else.
Just limit destination chargers to 277v. Teslas support that voltage, other cars do not.
Most commercial buildings support 277v, it's the normal power used for exterior (and often interior) lighting and A/C systems.
But seriously, apparently this adapter has been out for months. IIRC the spring?
Why aren't people reporting: "Could not charge my Tesla at a HPWC, a XXXXX was plugged in charging!!"
But I can tell you there have seen in both real-life and internet postings about Teslas blocking CCS-only spots or using L2 charging spots for parking without even plugging in. One of the free charging stalls was even sponsored by Chevrolet and the picture is somewhere on the net of a Tesla parked at it without plugging in. Santa Barbara?
In fact, the EV-parking-not-charging problem had become so bad that Tesla changed their policy at SuperChargers to stop folk from using them as parking stalls.
Cliff Notes: There isn't a problem at this time. Worry about something else.
Good morning.
That is exactly what happened to us here. I was initially really ticked but then realized that what could have happened was there were two Teslas charging and one left. This is at the predator ridge golf course near Vernon BC. The EV scene is picking up fast there so I hope they add additional chargers soon. Great spot for destination charging and a good loss leader for the restaurants.
Anyway, that day I could have really used the adapter.
Good morning.
That is exactly what happened to us here. I was initially really ticked but then realized that what could have happened was there were two Teslas charging and one left. This is at the predator ridge golf course near Vernon BC. The EV scene is picking up fast there so I hope they add additional chargers soon. Great spot for destination charging and a good loss leader for the restaurants.
Anyway, that day I could have really used the adapter.
I would agree with the theory that 2 Teslas were there or the HPWC is off-line.
At least the MS is plugged in. Some will just nose in, and not bother plugging in.
Perhaps there is some analogy there, but there is deeper thought into my thinking I should imagine. I am explaining why I think Tesla should embrace this (to some balanced extent anyway) and also why I think they are so far letting it be without too vocal action. IMO it is smart and it is a nice gesture. Maybe they will act differently down the road and so be it, I am only commenting on the current situation. If Tesla does come out swinging against this, then we'll talk how one should react to that, when we see what their reaction is.
Personally, if this was my project, I would be pragmatic about this. This is a not a Tesla-operated network, merely a Tesla-sponsored one. Someone else pays for the electricity and will make the day to day calls as to what happens at the charging location. If those people are OK (they need to be!) with the charging, then why not. If it does help the overall mission to change the world a little at the same time, why not. There is no need to be too cold and calculating about this particular scenario. Give a little to the wider community and reap the PR benefits of that... would seem like a smart move to me.
Quietly they can certainly try to limit the exposure and balance this out, but if I were them, I wouldn't come out fighting this. I'd shrug it as a neutral occurrence and remember that Tesla drivers too have benefited from various early infrastructures without paying. I would just try to be wise and smart about it. Keep finding the balance...
It is neither my call to make nor mine to condone or not. All I am saying as a Tesla car owner I wouldn't mind sharing - and explaining my view on what I would recommend Tesla do.
I do think the acceptance of the location owner - the electricity payer - is the most important.
Last edited:
Well, it is called socialism when the government does it...
The thing is: I think Tesla can fend of government interference longer with their proprietary charging networks if they are proactive in sharing a little. I'd just say be smart about it, not too strict, not too open arms. The balance is somewhere in there to be struck.It also is just good business sense for Tesla to walk the fine line between allowing this while not exactly promoting it. Remember, 99% of the car market is still ICE and 90% of that market is people convinced that range on any EV is horrible. Tesla is better served with having that myth disproved than confirmed.
A great post, thanks @schonelucht. That's what I'm saying when I'm advocating a "smart" approach to this. IMO it is just a good move to find some balanced approach to this. You add a nice angle to it.
Look, it isn't that I don't get @scaesare's approach to the question. I do. I really do. Some time in my life I might have been even on the side right-fighting this. Because from a certain perspective what @scaesare says certainly is Right.
But then there's the real world, the practical considerations, what overall is the best approach to this. And that's where I'm inclined to believe that "walk the fine line between allowing this while not exactly promoting it", as @schonelucht so well puts it, is smart. Smart for business. And to me it seems, so far, Tesla is doing exactly that. Being smart about it. I hope it continues.
It is also a nice gesture, good EV citizenship, good PR and good for the overall vision. So, IMO a no brainer. The only thing that needs some thinking is how that balance is struck exactly. I wouldn't blame Tesla for seeking some balance by some limitations (e.g. future HPWC's might have a revised Tesla-only mode etc.), but I wouldn't recommend the outright start fighting this (e.g. start going after locations allowing it or anything like that). Just let it be, let locations help non-Tesla EV drivers if technically the solutions happen to work and the locations that pay for the electricity want to do it, and keep focusing on the important stuff...
I agree consuming a space an not plugging is wrong. Many spaces are marked for EV/Tesla Charging, not "parking".
Heck, I think consuming a space and charging when you don't need it is inconsiderate. There are a few stores/malls/theaters around me I could plug in at to get a "premium" space and technically comply with the "while charging" proviso, but I don't. I don't need the 4 miles of range I'd get while in the store so why block the space for someone who does?
Similar threads
