I guess we will agree to disagree on this one. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Stay safe on the roads.
John
Non Tesla charging at destination charger
- Thread starter Blup85
- Start date
I guess we will agree to disagree on this one. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Stay safe on the roads.
John
It's not really an opinion to agree or disagree on. Given that non-Nissan owners have been turned away from Nissan dealerships, it's not the case that "their Level 2 chargers at their dealerships are open to the public".
I suppose you could question the truthfulness of those reported to have been turned away, but I have no reason to doubt them.
Last edited:
wk057
Senior Tinkerer
I've personally been turned away from a Nissan dealer when looking to test out my CHAdeMO adapter. I've also been welcomed at others. It's hit or miss. It's their equipment, and they're welcome to do whatever.
The Tesla destination chargers appear to be licensed and subsidized under contract and essentially not fully owned by the property owner. So the property owner has no right to refuse vehicles that meet the requirements of that contract (usually "patron" and "Tesla vehicle" it seems)... but they also have no right to exempt other vehicles from the requirements of that license and let non-Tesla vehicles use the equipment.
As for the Tesla destination chargers, I would love to see Tesla be more proactive in ensuring that their investments benefit Tesla and Tesla vehicle owners only instead of people who will likely damage equipment by using third party adapters to benefit from infrastructure that is specifically not intended for them to utilize.
The Tesla destination chargers appear to be licensed and subsidized under contract and essentially not fully owned by the property owner. So the property owner has no right to refuse vehicles that meet the requirements of that contract (usually "patron" and "Tesla vehicle" it seems)... but they also have no right to exempt other vehicles from the requirements of that license and let non-Tesla vehicles use the equipment.
As for the Tesla destination chargers, I would love to see Tesla be more proactive in ensuring that their investments benefit Tesla and Tesla vehicle owners only instead of people who will likely damage equipment by using third party adapters to benefit from infrastructure that is specifically not intended for them to utilize.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2007
- 9,862
- 4,795
I had a discussion on this before. Close to all of the Nissan sponsored L2 chargers are at dealerships or in homes (I believe they sponsored some for private owners). The reason Tesla destination chargers are attractive for non-Tesla owners is because they are installed in actual destinations and are truly open access (dealership chargers many times can be blocked and only available during business hours). Rarely are Nissan (or equivalently those other manufacturers) donated chargers installed at actual destinations.
A lot of the people arguing for non-Tesla charging at destination chargers suggest that the adapter is orthogonal to the J1772 adapter used by Tesla's, when in reality it isn't.
Good morning. I'm not sure I follow the last comment. The Tesla male end fits into the adapter female and then adapts to the J1772 on the car .
Last edited:
wk057
Senior Tinkerer
Meaning that the J1772 adapter to charge Tesla vehicles from J1772 chargers are not the same as an adapter to charge non-Tesla vehicles from Tesla-specific chargers.
Clarifying, J1772 stations are intended to charge ALL vehicles using the J1772 standard, which Tesla vehicles are able to do with the included passive adapter and fall under the umbrella of "EVs".
On the other hand, Tesla destination chargers are designed and built specifically to charge Tesla vehicles. An adapter to allow J1772 vehicles to charge from Tesla-specific equipment is not the same as an adapter that allows a Tesla vehicle to charge from generic J1772 EV charging equipment. The latter is an expected and intended use case. The former is not.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
When Nissan has built out a destination charger network on their dime at the same quality, speed, and quantity as Tesla, a discussion of tit for tat charging will be in order.
Actually, I believe Nissan subsidizes the chargers for the third-party dealerships. The situation is analogous to Tesla and third-party destinations, except these are much more expensive if DC ones...
Wholly depends on what the contract is, though. The world is full of subsidization that eventually (or perhaps even right off the bat) benefits others than the subsidizer as well.
If the chargers are, for example, gifted, Tesla relinquishes any control. OTOH if they are more like rented at a subsidized cost with strict contract stipulations, that is again different.
Most Tesla owners have benefited from the subsidized setups offered by someone else. I have charged for free at many subsidized locations. Just something to remember.
IMO Tesla might be wise to share a little in the name of advancing the BEV cause - they still benefit from their subsidization. So far it seems Tesla has been letting this slide too. Wise. The big deal, electricity, is paid for by the location and they can decide who to allow...
As said, those Nissan dealerships helping out in a pinch sure are nice to have.
What happened to wanting to see the BEV cause advanced?
Last edited:
My view is that jealous guarding of territories - especially on grey areas such as subsidized chargers where the electricity is paid for by the location - is not beneficial for the BEV movement, culture or humanity in general. Or even to Tesla.
As long as the location owner is OK with the charge and they pay for the electricity, I find this type of sharing quite OK, be it a Nissan dealership or a Tesla destination charger. If they are not OK, so be it, their call.
Being overly protective is IMO not a good PR strategy, nor is it wise with your fellow human beings. An elitist Teslas only mentality is IMO not necessary or beneficial in this instance. It might also encourage legislature to force their hand sooner rather than later.
In the long-term I really don't think we should support brand-only destination charging networks anyway. These early efforts and subsidization certainly are welcome, and their respective brands will benefit, but it should be seen as time-limited anyway. If the larger EV community eventually benefits too, all good IMO.
I'm not saying I mind some policies or some enforcement on this, just saying that looking at this as an either-or scenario is not wise. Some leeway and a somewhat relaxed way of looking at it seems good. Same with those Nissan dealerships. A Tesla there on occasion might be all good. Only Teslas there every day, perhaps less so...
...and one day standard chargers will be everywhere and all this will be moot, but has helped pave way for that day.
Letting the locations decide seems like a pragmatic approach to me in this case. Adapter users such as this are bound to be a minority in the short-term... and in the long-term brand-specific destination chargers should be IMO seen as an outgoing phenomenon anyway. Tesla will benefit short-term for the charger usage on Teslas and in long-term, as things get shared eventually, they benefit from the goodwill of the name recognition etc. of getting this party started...
As long as the location owner is OK with the charge and they pay for the electricity, I find this type of sharing quite OK, be it a Nissan dealership or a Tesla destination charger. If they are not OK, so be it, their call.
Being overly protective is IMO not a good PR strategy, nor is it wise with your fellow human beings. An elitist Teslas only mentality is IMO not necessary or beneficial in this instance. It might also encourage legislature to force their hand sooner rather than later.
In the long-term I really don't think we should support brand-only destination charging networks anyway. These early efforts and subsidization certainly are welcome, and their respective brands will benefit, but it should be seen as time-limited anyway. If the larger EV community eventually benefits too, all good IMO.
I'm not saying I mind some policies or some enforcement on this, just saying that looking at this as an either-or scenario is not wise. Some leeway and a somewhat relaxed way of looking at it seems good. Same with those Nissan dealerships. A Tesla there on occasion might be all good. Only Teslas there every day, perhaps less so...
...and one day standard chargers will be everywhere and all this will be moot, but has helped pave way for that day.
Letting the locations decide seems like a pragmatic approach to me in this case. Adapter users such as this are bound to be a minority in the short-term... and in the long-term brand-specific destination chargers should be IMO seen as an outgoing phenomenon anyway. Tesla will benefit short-term for the charger usage on Teslas and in long-term, as things get shared eventually, they benefit from the goodwill of the name recognition etc. of getting this party started...
Last edited:
One more thought:
I think this one comes down to, does one believe a "grey area" can be beneficial and can be beneficial in this case. I guess it is obvious I think it can be beneficial in this case.
I'm not advocating Tesla, or Nissan, going out and advertising this great charging opportunity for competing brands. Or encouraging it. What I'm saying a major clamp-down wouldn't necessarily be wise either.
It is IMO wise to see these limited subsidization deals as time-limited sponsorships that go towards building a future that allows selling cars today. That someone else may eventually benefit from those sponsorships is of no consequence. That's normal with sponsorships anyway, after a time the sponsored party will take those benefits and open things to others, and not all deals are exclusive anyway...
That "grey area" may enable BEV usage in some cases that overall helps the market develop and makes people and locations more friendly towards these early sponsors, than strict policy enforcement would. These subsidized chargers seem like a great place to foster this idea, because the financial outlay is limited and the electricity is paid for by the location (assuming it is in the Nissan case).
This should win a few sympathy votes from legislatures too, that may be eager to enforce standardization if some brands are seen as encouraging lack thereof.
I think this one comes down to, does one believe a "grey area" can be beneficial and can be beneficial in this case. I guess it is obvious I think it can be beneficial in this case.
I'm not advocating Tesla, or Nissan, going out and advertising this great charging opportunity for competing brands. Or encouraging it. What I'm saying a major clamp-down wouldn't necessarily be wise either.
It is IMO wise to see these limited subsidization deals as time-limited sponsorships that go towards building a future that allows selling cars today. That someone else may eventually benefit from those sponsorships is of no consequence. That's normal with sponsorships anyway, after a time the sponsored party will take those benefits and open things to others, and not all deals are exclusive anyway...
That "grey area" may enable BEV usage in some cases that overall helps the market develop and makes people and locations more friendly towards these early sponsors, than strict policy enforcement would. These subsidized chargers seem like a great place to foster this idea, because the financial outlay is limited and the electricity is paid for by the location (assuming it is in the Nissan case).
This should win a few sympathy votes from legislatures too, that may be eager to enforce standardization if some brands are seen as encouraging lack thereof.
Nothing. But jeopardizing one planned for usage case in order to satisfy another idealistic one may not make best long term sense.
I reiterate what I've said elsewhere: an economically healthy Tesla is the best option for long term BEV advancement. Subsidizing other manufacturers that are content to ride coat-tails likely isn't.
One thing Elon has grasped all along: advancement of worthy causes need to make financial sense for wide-spread and rapid adoption .Doing it "just fo the cause" is often a short-lived venture.
It is obviously for Tesla, Nissan and the like to decide how they subsidize and what terms they set for it. As it is for the locations to decide whether or not to accept that subsidizations. And locations to decide who to give their electricity to. Plus for legislatures to decide whether to enforce standardization. I respect all that - as I respect different opinions on this matter.
But just to explain and further iterate on my opinion, I would put it like this: I think this particular scenario makes every kind of sense for Tesla and Nissan, IMO. Just let the occasional non-brand car charge as moderated by the location.
Adapter users on partially subsidized (electricity not subsidized) destination chargers are a perfect place to show goodwill, accept a grey area with a nod and a wink - when the electricity payer agrees. It buys goodwill, is good PR and costs very, very little. Fighting it seems unnecessarily unwise and risky, IMO. So far I don't think they really are fighting it either (just some very soft measures here and there), so it seems they see the wisdom. I would encourage them to continue on this route.
This is IMO not the fight to pick with hard measures and strict boundaries.
The idea that eventually there would be several different brands of non-interoperable chargers at destinations will not end well for anyone involved in such a process. Better be ahead of the curve, this is IMO an easy and cheap way to do so. If I were Tesla, I would just let it slide. See the current destination chargers as time-limited sponsorship deals, not an exclusivity build-out. Would be my advice.
wk057
Senior Tinkerer
Everything else aside, the problem still ends up being when a poorly made adapter damages the EVSE side equipment, and then potentially damages the vehicle side equipment of subsequent users. This is very possible with the Tesla connectors and shoddy adapters. The person using the adapter surely isn't going to take responsibility. The adapter manufacturer certainly is going to deny it. Yet there will end up being a damaged EVSE and possibly damaged Tesla vehicle charge ports because of it.
Sure, the argument is going to be that the adapters are safe, yada yada yada. Sorry, no. Just no. Without official specs from Tesla it's going to be very difficult and expensive to do properly.
I would strongly advise destination charger operators and owners of wall connectors against allowing such adapters to be used with their equipment.
Hopefully Tesla pushes an update to the wall connectors that better prevents their use with 3rd party adapters. (Oh, you didn't know? The Gen2 wall connectors can get signed OTA updates via the charge port of a Tesla vehicle.)
Sure, the argument is going to be that the adapters are safe, yada yada yada. Sorry, no. Just no. Without official specs from Tesla it's going to be very difficult and expensive to do properly.
I would strongly advise destination charger operators and owners of wall connectors against allowing such adapters to be used with their equipment.
Hopefully Tesla pushes an update to the wall connectors that better prevents their use with 3rd party adapters. (Oh, you didn't know? The Gen2 wall connectors can get signed OTA updates via the charge port of a Tesla vehicle.)
But they do. They often install one Clipper Creak EVSE along with two HPWCs at a destination. So obviously they are sharing, and obviously way more than BMW/Nissan/GM are.
