Mod: It does now. In future please report such misquotes if they appear intentional (we don't have the capability to track them). --ggr.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass investing TSLA
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Are there any vehicles which can use the full power, and if not, does it really count?
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Just for information:
When I compare the map of planed stations by Ionity in Norway (the only place I cared to compare) with the Tesla supercharger map it does to a large degree match point for point, with an exemption in the northern part of the country where it seams like Ionity will have a denser coverage then Tesla, and one spot in the south that just matches a planed supercharger. In fact it looks like they are targeting the exact same gas station for their charger at this spot.
So my take on this is that they have looked carefully on where Tesla has put their chargers, and copies it as close as they can, or perhaps they are cooperating with Tesla and plan to co-locate both networks. So this network seems to be as good as the supercharger network when it's done if they stick to their plans. But I will not hold my breath waiting
It looks like Ionity is planning 6 charge points per station.
No 40 charpoints per station like Tesla.
If Tesla has roughly 60% long range BEV market share in Norway that should equal the same number of charge points per BEV as Tesla. If everyone else combined gets more than 40% market share then the legacy automakers have more BEVs per charge point trying to get charge. Additionally, Tesla can (with adapter) charge at CHAdeMO charge points. And my guess is that there will be grey market Supercharger/CCS adapters from China via Amazon/Ebay in the not too distant future if new fast chargers are CCS only.
In the one station where we have found that they have applied for construction of a charging station (the one mentioned where it seams like Tesla want to install supercharger at the same gas station) the have applied for 16 charge points to the municipality.
Here is a link to the drawing in the application.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
An adapter should be "invisible" to the charger so I'm not sure how they'd be able to prevent it's use.
They can contractually prevent above board companies like Tesla (a member of CCS) from offering adapters for sale, and play whack a mole when finding gray market adapters for sale online.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Supercharger Network will have at least 2 more chargepoints per station than Ionity.
The average for Ionity will likely be 6 Europe wide. Maybe more in Norway.
But Supercharger Network in Norway will also have more chargepoints per station than the rest of Europe.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I agree.
But also they will not be able to stop the trade of gray market adapters from China.
The Swiss watch industry can't stop the flow of high quality black market counterfeit watches from China.
I'm spacing on the details, but there was a big precedent decision in the US about not being allowed to prevent interoperation of devices. I'll sleep on it, see if it comes to me.
True, but remember this is - as far as I know - their first charger station in Norway, and when Tesla started out here they started with max 8 chargepoints per station. So while Tesla has moved to up to 40 stalls, they do at least start out with doubling what Tesla started out with per station - 5 year ago.
On the other side, Tesla started with 6 charging stations - opened at the same day (aug. 31th 2013), and this is so far the only Ionity station we have seen that will be available. They may be working on more stations, but as far as I know no one is looking for them. This one was found by someone that was looking for the new Supercharger station that should come at about this location...
I haven't read the CCS spec, but there may be some handshaking protocol that would prevent a car that doesn't have built in CCS charger hardware from connecting. An adapter may be able to fake the protocol, but if it's done right, it would be very tough to fake.
I have to correct myself here. They have changed their mind and are now going for 24 charge points instead.
Here is the new map-drawing of that station.
Edit: A better view of the gas station including a 4 stall existing charging station by "Grønn Kontakt"
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Vaporware.
Bluntly, I've seen too many claims of future networks to actually believe it. And of course Tesla will upgrade their network.
*Sigh* No, it's not. Allow for ~30% deep-winter range reduction and 60 mph driving and you have a reliable two hours of driving. Most people need to take a break every 2 hours. That's the theoretical basis. The practical basis was discovered by offering Model S at multiple battery sizes and determining which one sold best, and it confirmed this.
Yes, three cars, one of which isn't available until the end of the year, and one of which has been deliberately limited to <40,000/year worldwide production Good work Renault, though!
Three of those are not being produced in quantities significant enough to be meaningful. Go Hyundai, though!
it's all vaporware.
I don't particularly believe any of them. They have a track record of not delivering on such things when they promise to, or underdelivering by orders of magnitude. "2020" seems to be code for "manana". It'll be 2021 next year, and 2022 the year after that...
I wish I was wrong, but I'm not.
While this will certainly happen eventually, as it must in any industry, it isn't happening when you think it will. The incumbent carmakers are much, much more sluggish than you believe. It won't happen until the Chinese carmarkers start exporting.
The supercharger network is not a moat. Or at least it won't be for very long, and not necessarily because other networks are being built. Tesla has hinted that they would be willing to share their sc network with other brands if the following conditions were met:
- The vehicles have to be able to charge at least as fast as large battery Tesla vehicles.
- The other company has to build enough new stations to match the number of EVs they build. They can do this by paying a fee to Tesla for each new car they sell so that Tesla can afford to expand the network to accommodate the new vehicles.
- Compliance with all fees and other limitations (no squatting etc).
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a Tesla bull. I think they will capitalize on their start-up momentum which is a big advantage over other OEMs. And I think their head start with the gigafactory will give them a leg up.
I'd like to thank @tftf for participating in this thread. I don't agree with much of what he says, but he makes some valid points. Most of us are TSLA bulls and our best friend is somebody who helps us see in our blind spots.
Not claiming this is a blind spot, but it's not helpful that this shows up on the DowJones newswire after Moody's credit downgrade followed by the immature "bankwupt" silliness:
"American Integrated Services Inc. claims Tesla hasn't paid $513,473 for lead and asbestos abatement-related work under a $3.57 million contract signed in January 2016. It filed the lawsuit Tuesday in a California state court in Oakland....
'We paid AIS for all the work we authorized them to do," a Tesla spokesman said in a statement Friday. "The additional payment they're seeking is for work that we did not authorize and that clearly was unnecessary. When we asked for documentation showing that Tesla had authorized this unnecessary work, they were unable to provide it. ' " Small Tesla Contractor Sues Car Maker, Claiming Nonpayment (behind paywall)
Not all publicity is good publicity. Anyone involved in environmental remediation of industrial sites used extensively during the 20th century knows no one really knows the full scope until the field work starts in earnest.
Tesla's arrangement with Toyota on the CERCLA (aka Superfund) strict liabilities was:
"As the owner of the Fremont Site, we may be responsible under federal and state laws and regulations for the entire investigation and remediation of any environmental contamination at the Fremont Site, whether it occurred before or after the date we purchase the property. We have reached an agreement with NUMMI under which, over a ten year period, we will pay the first $15.0 million of any costs of any governmentally-required remediation activities for contamination that existed prior to the closing of the purchase for any known or unknown environmental conditions (Remediation Activities), and NUMMI has agreed to pay the next $15.0 million for such Remediation Activities. Our agreement provides, in part, that NUMMI will pay up to the first $15.0 million on our behalf if such expenses are incurred in the first four years of our agreement, subject to our reimbursement of such costs on the fourth anniversary date of the closing.
On the ten-year anniversary of the closing or whenever $30.0 million has been spent on the Remediation Activities, whichever comes first, NUMMI’s liability to us with respect to Remediation Activities ceases, and we are responsible for any and all environmental conditions at the Fremont Site. At that point in time, we have agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless NUMMI from all liability, including attorney fees, or any costs or penalties it may incur arising out of or in connection with any claim relating to environmental conditions and we have released NUMMI for any known or unknown claims except for NUMMI’s obligations for representations and warranties under the agreement."
IIRC, the closing was in late 2010. Anyone know if more than $30.0 million has been spent on the Remediation Activities at Fremont?
"American Integrated Services Inc. claims Tesla hasn't paid $513,473 for lead and asbestos abatement-related work under a $3.57 million contract signed in January 2016. It filed the lawsuit Tuesday in a California state court in Oakland....
'We paid AIS for all the work we authorized them to do," a Tesla spokesman said in a statement Friday. "The additional payment they're seeking is for work that we did not authorize and that clearly was unnecessary. When we asked for documentation showing that Tesla had authorized this unnecessary work, they were unable to provide it. ' " Small Tesla Contractor Sues Car Maker, Claiming Nonpayment (behind paywall)
Not all publicity is good publicity. Anyone involved in environmental remediation of industrial sites used extensively during the 20th century knows no one really knows the full scope until the field work starts in earnest.
Tesla's arrangement with Toyota on the CERCLA (aka Superfund) strict liabilities was:
"As the owner of the Fremont Site, we may be responsible under federal and state laws and regulations for the entire investigation and remediation of any environmental contamination at the Fremont Site, whether it occurred before or after the date we purchase the property. We have reached an agreement with NUMMI under which, over a ten year period, we will pay the first $15.0 million of any costs of any governmentally-required remediation activities for contamination that existed prior to the closing of the purchase for any known or unknown environmental conditions (Remediation Activities), and NUMMI has agreed to pay the next $15.0 million for such Remediation Activities. Our agreement provides, in part, that NUMMI will pay up to the first $15.0 million on our behalf if such expenses are incurred in the first four years of our agreement, subject to our reimbursement of such costs on the fourth anniversary date of the closing.
On the ten-year anniversary of the closing or whenever $30.0 million has been spent on the Remediation Activities, whichever comes first, NUMMI’s liability to us with respect to Remediation Activities ceases, and we are responsible for any and all environmental conditions at the Fremont Site. At that point in time, we have agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless NUMMI from all liability, including attorney fees, or any costs or penalties it may incur arising out of or in connection with any claim relating to environmental conditions and we have released NUMMI for any known or unknown claims except for NUMMI’s obligations for representations and warranties under the agreement."
IIRC, the closing was in late 2010. Anyone know if more than $30.0 million has been spent on the Remediation Activities at Fremont?
Similar threads
- Locked
