[Rant] locals clogging the Highland Park, IL supercharger

[TXjak]

Not exactly. There is no V2G support in the Model S, nor do I expect there to be in the Model 3. It explicitly voids your warranty in the Model S and I expect the same in the Model 3.

What I am saying is that DC charging (whether, CHAdeMO, CCS, or superchargers) already use a DC bypass. The way a DC charger charges the battery is by directly connecting to the battery, bypassing the onboard charger (which takes AC). It would be relatively trivial for Tesla to add V2G support, but not necessarily for you to do so.

The way for someone at home to do it would be to fool the car into thinking it is charging at a DC charger, and then rather than charging the battery, you drain power from it (since you now have a direct connection to the battery). However, depending on how the safety mechanisms are designed, it might cut you off. Once again, however, this voids your warranty. You also need know how the supercharger protocol works (which no one outside Tesla really does, except perhaps wk057).

Although the hardware is not yet available in the US, cars with CHAdeMO are being used in Japan for home back-up power. They're selling devices that work with any vehicle with a CHAdeMO port, apparently, for V2H.

I wonder if anyone over there has tried the Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter for this. Would it void the warranty?

Article here: Use Your Electric Car To Power Your House | Home Power Magazine

John

 

[kort677]

Although the hardware is not yet available in the US, cars with CHAdeMO are being used in Japan

John

help me out here, what does this have to do with locals using a SpC?

 

[TXjak]

help me out here, what does this have to do with locals using a SpC?

Nothing. It's obviously a reply to an OT posting in this thread. Sorry if the conversation got off track, but *it happens.

 

[CatB]

So back on-topic. This morning the LTS ("Loser transport service"?) uber limo was charging at Bethesda Supercharger from 6:55am to 8am. I got there just before 7 and nobody was in the car, so I was hoping he was nearly done, but when I plugged in, I was only drawing 55 amps. My amps peaked at 200 about 30 minutes later (so he was tapering), and then as mine began to taper, the driver came back and decided to take a NAP!! Seriously, nobody was waiting, so I let him be, but that's adding insult to injury, imo. So, I was thinking, maybe Tesla could include a "SC abuse feature" in a future level of software that is activated only for local abusers, that interrupts charging every 5 minutes, so that others plugged in can get max draw, and the local abuse becomes more inconvenient than establishing your own charging infrastructure.

I think we've suggested some variant of this for a while. "unlimited supercharging" doesn't guarantee quality of service or any kind of service level. Heaven help us when M3 comes out if we don't have a way to handle this...

 

[kort677]

the guy is clueless but bethesda must be one of the worst SpC options you can have

 

[nexsuperne101]

In the UK, the Superchargers are in service stations. These have a 2 hour maximum waiting time, otherwise you have to pay for overnight parking (about $10). This stops the issue of charge hogging.

The Chademo chargers also at the service stations, which are owned by Ecotricity, are just about to become a paying service.
This will stop the likes of Mercedes using a Type 2 plug to charge a tiny 6KWh battery for 2 hours, when you could have got 4 Nissan Leafs from 0-80% charged in the same time (approx 80KWh in total).
I will be glad when this is implemented, as those freeloaders just charging for the hell of it "because its free" will disappear overnight. It makes my life in an 80 mile range awkward at best, as I need to rapid charge EVERY day.

As for my Model 3. I won't be paying the extra for a "free" SC service, as I only normally drive 140 miles a day. Should I need to go further, perhaps whilst on holiday, then I will pay for an SC as needed.

 

[bkp_duke]

Hrm, that's a good idea.

Charge for "parking" at the congested SC stations, but the power is free. That would deter a good number of abusers, and for the long-distance travelers they would not care for $5 per hour or whatever "reasonable" rate to charge up and be on their way.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Hrm, that's a good idea.

Charge for "parking" at the congested SC stations, but the power is free. That would deter a good number of abusers, and for the long-distance travelers they would not care for $5 per hour or whatever "reasonable" rate to charge up and be on their way.

I suggested that before, since that's what the Hong Kong stations are doing also. However, the parking rate needs to be high enough to deter people. If it is cheaper than (or even the same as) other parking spots, people might still find it attractive to park a long time at that spot.

 

[David99]

Blink tried that a while a go. They charged a reasonable fee for charging, but once you were full and let you car sit there, they would bill you $5 per hour or something pretty high. It backfired. The response from Blink members was so bad that they decided to not implement that plan before it even went into effect.

 

[CatB]

Re: Blink proposal backfiring
I wonder how long ago that was. My gut says that initially EV owners were aware of the fact that they were taking a space someone else might need and they cooperated better. Now, we have people who think "hey this is cool, it's like parking at the gas station, who knew you could do that?" Maybe the time has come for that plan to work - personally, I think as long as they post those rates and vary them to have the right impact on high-demand spots, it *should* be a win/win to encourage good behavior. So, if I overstay at a slightly used spot, small fee. If I hog a high demand spot for hours, I get hit with something more substantial - as long as I know in advance, I can't complain. We're all used to parking meters that are reasonable until they expire and then you have a parking ticket. Why should this be different?

 

[TaoJones]

Not interested in paying for something that was explicitly included as free at the time of purchase. And neither should anybody else.

Further, senior management has recently stated that the free SC model is sustainable for the foreseeable future. This is a stronger statement than JB Straubel's "we'll revisit at 1,000,000 cars" statement from 2 years or more ago now.

So knock yourself out figuring out how to cost yourselves even more money beyond depreciation and out of warranty costs.

Fortunately:

1) most owners have not, do not, and will not even use SCs. Same will hold for the Model 3 although less so of course. I wouldn't be surprised if the base model came without supercharging enabled (as it used to be), but with the option of so doing at any time (similar to today's AP convenience features).
2) Tesla's 2-year-old commitment to SC density continues to execute - note the current trend to add SCs to existing SvCs (see Buena Park).
3) 2/3 of homes in America have garages.

Now with all of that said, there's a whole 'nother layer of owners coming - those who buy from the post-CPO used market. Different demographic when these cars drop into the $20Ks. We already see higher-mileage Model S in the $40Ks. Just wait 2 years. The handwringing will only get more amusing.

Imagine the day when EVs will have a 400-mile range and people will only need to charge a few times a month. Oh wait - but then the SCs won't be overrun by those darned locals. Oh noes!

Fear not - at least there will still be livery to persecute.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Imagine the day when EVs will have a 400-mile range and people will only need to charge a few times a month. Oh wait - but then the SCs won't be overrun by those darned locals. Oh noes!

A larger battery does not reduce the local charging demand, only the number of sessions. If for example someone drives 10k miles a year, it doesn't matter if the battery is 200 or 400 miles of range, they are still going to put in 10k miles of demand a year on the network if they rely on superchargers for local charging. They might just charge twice as long in one session.

Where the larger battery would reduce demand is if superchargers were only used for long distance trips. Then in the beginning of the trip, the battery would be more charged from home, which reduces demand on the superchargers doing the trip.

Further, senior management has recently stated that the free SC model is sustainable for the foreseeable future. This is a stronger statement than JB Straubel's "we'll revisit at 1,000,000 cars" statement from 2 years or more ago now.

I thought of Straubel's one million remark and it seems like with the accelerated schedule they'll be there by 2019. That's not very far away. I remember reading the recent statement about free SC, but I'm going to have to find the direct quote (perhaps you have a link). I remember it not being exclusive of making SC pay per use in the near future.

Edit: Ben W did a transcript of Diarmuid O'Connell's talk in Amsterdam.

Q: Tesla understood very well that the success of the electric car lies in building the charging infrastructure. How can your supercharger network be a sustainable business model for the long run?

A: As someone once said, in the long run we’re all dead. [laughter]

The supercharging network was set up to address a very practical consideration, which is how do we make the Model S a complete solution, a complete replacement for the other vehicles in the segment: the Mercedes S-Class, the Audi A-8, for which there is already an installed base of gasoline and petrol filling stations. It started with that proposition, and at the scale we introduced it, the scale we’re operating right now, the free-for-forever proposition is sustainable.

We’re pragmatic and as we look to the future, I could imagine our charging network and other charging networks evolving in a number of different ways. The other reason why we put the supercharging network out there is that no one else was doing anything like that, especially in the US, maybe less in the Netherlands where you had some early investments in charging infrastructure, no one was doing anything that made sense. There were a lot of government investments for charging stations that went in front of town halls because that was convenient and graphic for a ribbon cutting ceremony but it had nothing to do with how people would actually want to use a charger, and it had nothing to do with the kind of charging people wanted, which is point-to-point, long-distance charging and quick charging. So we’ll see what the future holds, but for right now we’re holding to our model.

I bolded the parts Ben italicized for emphasis, but in no way does the executive say it is sustainable for the "foreseeable future". He says "right now" very clearly (and twice). And looking into the future (AKA foreseeable future) he imagines the network "evolving".

 

[TaoJones]

A larger battery does not reduce the local charging demand, only the number of sessions. If for example someone drives 10k miles a year, it doesn't matter if the battery is 200 or 400 miles of range, they are still going to put in 10k miles of demand a year on the network if they rely on superchargers for local charging. They might just charge twice as long in one session.

Where the larger battery would reduce demand is if superchargers were only used for long distance trips. Then in the beginning of the trip, the battery would be more charged from home, which reduces demand on the superchargers doing the trip.


I thought of Straubel's one million remark and it seems like with the accelerated schedule they'll be there by 2019. That's not very far away. I remember reading the recent statement about free SC, but I'm going to have to find the direct quote (perhaps you have a link). I remember it not being exclusive of making SC pay per use in the near future.

Edit: Ben W did a transcript of Diarmuid O'Connell's talk in Amsterdam.


I bolded the parts Ben italicized for emphasis, but in no way does the executive say it is sustainable for the "foreseeable future". He says "right now" very clearly (and twice). And looking into the future (AKA foreseeable future) he imagines the network "evolving".

If saturation (the perpetual worry of the handwringing contingent) is a function of frequency, then it is exactly that reduction in the number of sessions that addresses peak period saturation.

Example: 10 people using an SC 6x/month (60 sessions) reduce their usage via greater range to 4x/month (40 sessions). The reason why a simplistic view of us versus them (not your view by any means but a prevailing minority view nonetheless) fails is because peak usage is their worry. Reduce peak demand upon the scarce resource and all is well/better.

Detail: As you know, and as those who persist in debating the issue without the benefit of ownership do not, it won't take 2x as long to charge w/ 400 mile range as it does with 200 mile range. Most people (not all, but most) have figured out that it is more efficient to live between 20% and 80%.

Moving on, thanks for the transcript. The takeaway from that talk is that all is well. Persecuting the amorphous concept of "local" remains counter to the long term objectives of the company and counter to what's actually happening on the ground.

The parallels with voter fraud continue to come to mind because OF COURSE voter fraud is bad and evil and wicked and mean and nasty and we should all rise up to smite same. Problem is it does not exist in any statistically significant manner. Hasn't stopped efforts to make it harder to vote, which so happens to benefit one group over another.

With regard to supercharging, here again a simplistic view (again, not yours) pro or con fails to do the subject justice. Even Tesla's own commitment to density is powered by two distinctly different pots of money - operations, which is *mostly* for distance, and sales/marketing, which is *mostly* for density. The lines blur both regionally (SoCal) and globally (parts of Asia and Europe).

In the end, no amount of lobbying to complicate matters will help the end goal to expand EV adoption mas rapido.

And while I wish we'd be at 1,000,000 cars by 2019, I just can't drink that much Kool Aid in one sitting. I have much more faith in Tesla to manage their SC network without hinky pay per use schemes or geofencing than I do in them to crank out 850,000 cars in the next 30 months. As much as I would love for that to happen.

Either way, your point is well taken - at some point we will be at 1,000,000 cars. My point is that most of them will be owned by garaged owners and that the general problem of supply and demand is largely self-leveling. The exact same argument from the handwringing contingent was made about Costco gas stations when they first started those back in the day. The world didn't end for Costco and it won't end for the SC network

 

[TexasEV]

Blink tried that a while a go. They charged a reasonable fee for charging, but once you were full and let you car sit there, they would bill you $5 per hour or something pretty high. It backfired. The response from Blink members was so bad that they decided to not implement that plan before it even went into effect.

That was a different situation than supercharging. It would take many hours to charge at a level 2 and the car might finish charging in the middle if the night.

 

[stopcrazypp]

...
Either way, your point is well taken - at some point we will be at 1,000,000 cars. My point is that most of them will be owned by garaged owners and that the general problem of supply and demand is largely self-leveling. The exact same argument from the handwringing contingent was made about Costco gas stations when they first started those back in the day. The world didn't end for Costco and it won't end for the SC network

Well the handwringing is coming because people see these frustrating situations happening (as in this thread) when volume is just 50k per year. Tesla is aiming to multiply that 10x to 500k per year and people worry if supercharger network expansion can keep up.

Also, not knowing Tesla's decision on the Model 3 payment model doesn't help either. People's minds would be a lot more at ease after Tesla announces what they plan to do for supercharger payment on the Model 3 (included free with car, one-time payment, pay-per-use, or something else).

 

[Uncle Paul]

Interesting, as I see the same sort of behavior at traditional gas stations.

A car will pull in, the driver inserts the nozzle, clicks on the handle, and slowly ambles into the convenience store. Has lunch or a coffee, uses the restroom, and comes back out 15 minutes later, all the while taking up a filling spot, and making other wait as his 5 minute fill turns into 1/2 hour.

 

[TaoJones]

Well the handwringing is coming because people see these frustrating situations happening (as in this thread) when volume is just 50k per year. Tesla is aiming to multiply that 10x to 500k per year and people worry if supercharger network expansion can keep up.

Also, not knowing Tesla's decision on the Model 3 payment model doesn't help either. People's minds would be a lot more at ease after Tesla announces what they plan to do for supercharger payment on the Model 3 (included free with car, one-time payment, pay-per-use, or something else).

OK, I'll play, but only because I was in South Dakota Sunday and drove to Maine by Tuesday and have some extra time.

Let's kill some FUD...

If we accept that the vast majority of SCs (say 97%) are not significantly impacted at 50K/year car delivery rate,
and that at some point, Tesla will produce tenfold that car delivery rate number,
then it remains upon Tesla to draw from, primary, their sales/marketing pot of money to assuage demand.

Since tenfold cars sold/year results in a commensurately larger pot of money from which to draw, it is plausible that the money will be there.

So in no particular order...

Tesla has barely begun adding SCs to every SvC. Starting in late 2015, if you visit many SvCs now, they will have a plastic mockup of a SC pedestal in the lobby/waiting area. Marketing, sure - but there's more to it than that. And some of these new SvCs have huuuuuuge tracts of land (not to be confused with yuuuuuuge) - I can easily envision 16 SCs at Buena Park, for example. As well as at Fountain Valley and other well-sited SCs.

Many SC sites have room for expansion, whether 4 to 8 or 6 to 12 or 8 to 16. Let's just say 2x for the sake of example with no new siting necessary.

As noted above, additional range will reduce the number of sessions and the impact upon peak saturation points. For me, an S100 will mean an extra 50 miles on top of what is now 264. Ergo, you'll see my local hiney at the local SCs 20% less as a result. Of course, just to stir the pot from the other direction, as range decreases over time across the fleet, SC usage frequency will in turn increase a tad - but again, from a fraction of owners.

Someone will invariably bring up distance chokepoints again - these I expect to be resolved as follows (two examples): For Barstow, open an SC at Baker. For the oft-maligned SJC, continue to open SCs in the OC (the densest county in North America in terms of owners) *and* take the pressure off with an SC in North (San Diego) County. And so it goes. Different pot of money for those, but once it's done, it's done, aside from expansion of individual sites.

Add to the above points of relief the continued reality that most owners are garaged and that most owners don't use SCs, *and* the practical perspective that there's an entire wave of 3rd party technology that will also help, along with a glacially-slow but inevitable municipal push to support the overall endeavor, and the future remains bright.

No handwringing necessary.

Interesting, as I see the same sort of behavior at traditional gas stations.

A car will pull in, the driver inserts the nozzle, clicks on the handle, and slowly ambles into the convenience store. Has lunch or a coffee, uses the restroom, and comes back out 15 minutes later, all the while taking up a filling spot, and making other wait as his 5 minute fill turns into 1/2 hour.

Had this conversation just the other day again - while it's offensive when an ICE ices an EV space, it's just egregiously unconscionable when one of our own ICEs an SC space by not exiting the stall when the charge is complete. Not 15 minutes after - but when the charge is complete. This extends to destination chargers; am learning interesting things from various DestC hosts here on the coast of Maine - and it ain't all pretty. Our own community has some work to do in the margins - especially since we are all ambassadors out here in the hinterlands. But that's the subject of another post.

 

[tomas]

If saturation (the perpetual worry of the handwringing contingent) is a function of frequency, then it is exactly that reduction in the number of sessions that addresses peak period saturation.

Example: 10 people using an SC 6x/month (60 sessions) reduce their usage via greater range to 4x/month (40 sessions). The reason why a simplistic view of us versus them (not your view by any means but a prevailing minority view nonetheless) fails is because peak usage is their worry. Reduce peak demand upon the scarce resource and all is well/better.

Detail: As you know, and as those who persist in debating the issue without the benefit of ownership do not, it won't take 2x as long to charge w/ 400 mile range as it does with 200 mile range. Most people (not all, but most) have figured out that it is more efficient to live between 20% and 80%.

Moving on, thanks for the transcript. The takeaway from that talk is that all is well. Persecuting the amorphous concept of "local" remains counter to the long term objectives of the company and counter to what's actually happening on the ground.

The parallels with voter fraud continue to come to mind because OF COURSE voter fraud is bad and evil and wicked and mean and nasty and we should all rise up to smite same. Problem is it does not exist in any statistically significant manner. Hasn't stopped efforts to make it harder to vote, which so happens to benefit one group over another.

With regard to supercharging, here again a simplistic view (again, not yours) pro or con fails to do the subject justice. Even Tesla's own commitment to density is powered by two distinctly different pots of money - operations, which is *mostly* for distance, and sales/marketing, which is *mostly* for density. The lines blur both regionally (SoCal) and globally (parts of Asia and Europe).

In the end, no amount of lobbying to complicate matters will help the end goal to expand EV adoption mas rapido.

And while I wish we'd be at 1,000,000 cars by 2019, I just can't drink that much Kool Aid in one sitting. I have much more faith in Tesla to manage their SC network without hinky pay per use schemes or geofencing than I do in them to crank out 850,000 cars in the next 30 months. As much as I would love for that to happen.

Either way, your point is well taken - at some point we will be at 1,000,000 cars. My point is that most of them will be owned by garaged owners and that the general problem of supply and demand is largely self-leveling. The exact same argument from the handwringing contingent was made about Costco gas stations when they first started those back in the day. The world didn't end for Costco and it won't end for the SC network

The term "handwringing contingent" is pejorative, unnecessary, and inaccurate. Some members are just expressing a concern that SCs will get too crowded to be reliably practical, too easy to ice, and/or vented regarding abusers. All are legit concerns. Tesla needs a scheme for abusers, and I would not bet against a paid plan for the 3. It is possible to argue here and remain respectful.

 

[TaoJones]

The term "handwringing contingent" is pejorative, unnecessary, and inaccurate. Some members are just expressing a concern that SCs will get too crowded to be reliably practical, too easy to ice, and/or vented regarding abusers. All are legit concerns. Tesla needs a scheme for abusers, and I would not bet against a paid plan for the 3. It is possible to argue here and remain respectful.

"Tesla needs a scheme for abusers..." No, no, and no.

Tesla does not *need* to address a problem that does not exist except in the minds of the fearful, the uncertain, or the doubtful (FUD defined).

How is a "scheme" helpful when the current implementation and strategy have been at least 98% successful? Have a little faith in the existing corporate strategy,

The term "abusers" is pejorative, unnecessary, and careless. "Some people" have actually stated that if you'd don't have a garage, you shouldn't buy a Tesla since such people would "abuse the system". See antithetical above.

The analogy of voter fraud stands. It's being used as an excuse to make it harder to vote, and it doesn't happen to a statistically significant degree. Amazing what a few facts will do to reduce fear.

Same with SC usage. It's fine now with rare exception, and it will continue to be just fine for the reasons stated in previous posts.

Not my job to coddle the overly sensitive. For every person whose feelings are hurt by the word "handwringers", there are people who understand Tesla's mission and recognize how antithetical the FUD is.

In my world, "valid" is inversely proportional to the amount of FUD - mostly because FUD thrives in the absence of facts (e.g., that 2/3 of homes in the US have garages, or that Tesla has committed to density as well as distance for 2 years now, yet some still erroneously claim that SCs are for distance only).

Here's a point upon which I believe we can agree: Perhaps neither of us would object to the base model Model 3 having the option of no SC capability upon delivery, with the option of adding it later. This addresses my recognition of the facts that most owners have garages, most owners never/rarely use density SCs, and my belief that Tesla's strategy will remain sufficient, as well as the concerns of "some people", regardless of how fearful or doubtful those may be. In other words, SCs can't be "overrun" by cars that don't have SC capability.

And we agree with regard to ICEing. Especially by our own - in the end that's an opportunity for continuous user education (and for municipalities to make a few bucks as they do in Washington for the ticketing of vehicles in charging spaces that ain't charging).

 

[ohmman]

Not my job to coddle the overly sensitive. For every person whose feelings are hurt by the word "handwringers", there are people who understand Tesla's mission and recognize how antithetical the FUD is.

I think it's less about coddling the sensitive and more about the fact that denigration waters down the validity of an argument.