MSHampton
Member
Okay, thanks for the clarification.Mine is already at 1.61-1 when I tried it unfortunately.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.Mine is already at 1.61-1 when I tried it unfortunately.
Sounds like it's going to become a cat and mouse game between Setec and Tesla. I understand the flash arc issue. From a liability point of view, I get it, if Tesla knows the adapters are out there, and can be used, they are the deep pocket that gets sued (not like anyone can go after Setec in China).Okay, thanks for the clarification.
The S probably won't be supported on the Tesla adapter (and I doubt they will even retro the older S like mine any way for any amount of money). This was a great solution. Oh well.
Let us not neglect the fact that multiple people have had the charging systems in their cars destroyed from using this adapter. So I think that would qualify as "issues".That said, the adapter has been out for over a year, and no issues noted so far.
Those people were knowingly trying out an experimental firmware to charge at higher speeds. That was a risk they chose to take. To my knowledge, no damage has been caused by normal use.Let us not neglect the fact that multiple people have had the charging systems in their cars destroyed from using this adapter. So I think that would qualify as "issues".
Consider yourself fortunate. Used they tend to go north of $500 if you can find one.I'm a co-owner of a CHAdeMO adapter we bought recently for $150 ($50 each.) Since my Supercharger lite trips are mostly into S. Colorado where CHAdeMO has been built alongside CCS, I'm in pretty good shape until the Tesla CCS adapter is available.
^^ This is not meant to annoy, but to suggest that CHAdeMO might be a reasonable transition or emergency tool for some people.
Let us not also neglect that the two (at least that's all that has been reported) had been using admittedly 'experimental' versions of the firmware. Not as if they were not aware of the possible risks.Let us not neglect the fact that multiple people have had the charging systems in their cars destroyed from using this adapter. So I think that would qualify as "issues".
Those people were knowingly trying out an experimental firmware to charge at higher speeds. That was a risk they chose to take. To my knowledge, no damage has been caused by normal use.
I was already fully aware of that. But to say that there have been literally no issues at all is just flat-out dishonest. Your continuing to support that falsehood is not helpful.Let us not also neglect that the two (at least that's all that has been reported) had been using admittedly 'experimental' versions of the firmware. Not as if they were not aware of the possible risks.
I thought at least one of them, that reported via GreenTheOnly, said that they weren't running the experimental firmware.I was already fully aware of that. But to say that there have been literally no issues at all is just flat-out dishonest. Your continuing to support that falsehood is not helpful.
I was already fully aware of that. But to say that there have been literally no issues at all is just flat-out dishonest. Your continuing to support that falsehood is not helpful.
I never said that; please don't put words in my mouth.It sounds to me like you've read about anecdotes where non-experimental firmware has caused "the charging systems in their cars [to be] destroyed from using this adapter". I'm interested to learn more to better understand the risk - could you link to these cases?
I never said that; please don't put words in my mouth.
Someone said there were "no issues".
I pointed out there have been issues.
Then two people replied with: Oh, but the issues were because of ________. (excuses)
No, again, there is one report of someone having their car fried when not using the experimental firmware:Ah ok - I misread and apologize. I’m actually genuinely concerned here - but in that case it sounds to me like there aren’t any issues if you don’t use experimental firmware?
No, again, there is one report of someone having their car fried when not using the experimental firmware:
Nothing in that Tweet says they ever tried the experimental firmware. They were just describing the adapter and its limits.It’s actually not clear to me what happened in that tweet.
it sounds like they attempted an experimental firmware, charged, then switched to a “safe” one? From my read of it, it seems possible that just attempting the experimental firmware caused the actual damage, not the “safe” one.
Are there incidents where only a “safe” firmware was used and it caused an issue?
in that case it sounds to me like there aren’t any issues if you don’t use experimental firmware?
I had to re-read the Tweet again to fully get the context - to me that's a really badly worded tweet because it talks about experimental firmware then talks about charging with safe firmware. I think just mentioning that the adapter out of the box failed, without talking about experimental firmware would have been crystal clear about how it caused a port malfunction. To me, it's now unclear how exactly the car got disabled through using that charger.Nothing in that Tweet says they ever tried the experimental firmware. They were just describing the adapter and its limits.
Define 'experimental.'
SETEC is obviously using its customers for alpha software testing. I understand why, but anybody who does not see the risk is being a fool and/or hoping that Tesla will cover when things go wrong.