Supercharger - Federal Way, WA

[Big Earl]

Are you kidding? It isn’t obvious you are. Your Tesla came with one, it’s mandatory that all EVs sold in USA are compatible with J-1772 chargers. Hence Tesla provides the adapter.

SAE J1772 Charging Adapter $95.

I only wish Tesla would provide the NEMA 14-50 adapter to the mobile charger unit with ALL Tesla vehicles. They used to, I got mine, but I understand that at least the 3 and Y only get the 110volt lead for some time now.

What? I am not asking for an adapter. Let me try this again:

I wish Tesla sold the J-1772 wall connector on their website so I could buy one to install as a destination charger to supplement an existing Tesla wall connector while retaining the same aesthetic. That way a non-Tesla can charge and all of the wall connectors have a similar appearance.

 

[andrewFW]

Same. I have a tesla and a non-tesla EV, and I would love to get two HPWCs, one in J1772, and daisy chain them so they can share the same 50 amp breaker. Since I can't do that, I have to use a J1772 handle and deal with the adapter.

 

[andrewFW]

Around 5pm today (2/12), no change.

 

[Rocky_H]

Piling in to that question of why, there are a few good reasons:

1. Tesla's value for the higher power. The Gen2 Tesla wall connector was a freakin' steal at $500 that could be installed on circuits up to 100A and supply 80A. You couldn't find anything close to that price from anyone else at that power level. So if you need a J1772 unit, this would be a great one if you could buy it.
2. Tesla's circuit sharing on the Gen2 units was fabulous, and way better (and cheaper) than what anyone else offered. So this would be like Nirvana to just have 2 or 3 of these units talking to each other, but you could mix and match them, with some having the Tesla handle and some having the J1772 handle.
3. More convenient sharing one unit: If you do have two EVs, with one a Tesla and one some other car brand, you might want to share one unit. It's possible to use the one with the Tesla handle, but then you have to buy one of those 3rd party, unofficial adapter cable things, that are dangly and about a foot and a half long and cumbersome. It's not a very smooth and convenient thing to have to switch back and forth. If you start from J1772, the Tesla official adapter to convert from that is awesome and fits in your hand--definitely the way to go.

 

[mociaf9]

Piling in to that question of why, there are a few good reasons:

1. Tesla's value for the higher power. The Gen2 Tesla wall connector was a freakin' steal at $500 that could be installed on circuits up to 100A and supply 80A. You couldn't find anything close to that price from anyone else at that power level. So if you need a J1772 unit, this would be a great one if you could buy it.
2. Tesla's circuit sharing on the Gen2 units was fabulous, and way better (and cheaper) than what anyone else offered. So this would be like Nirvana to just have 2 or 3 of these units talking to each other, but you could mix and match them, with some having the Tesla handle and some having the J1772 handle.
3. More convenient sharing one unit: If you do have two EVs, with one a Tesla and one some other car brand, you might want to share one unit. It's possible to use the one with the Tesla handle, but then you have to buy one of those 3rd party, unofficial adapter cable things, that are dangly and about a foot and a half long and cumbersome. It's not a very smooth and convenient thing to have to switch back and forth. If you start from J1772, the Tesla official adapter to convert from that is awesome and fits in your hand--definitely the way to go.

Bingo. Though as a caveat to points #1 and 3, Tesla's J1772 HPWC units have a thinner cable and are only rated to 40A--I'm not sure if that's the peak rating or the continuous rating though (i.e. whether they're actually capable delivering 40A continuous charging or only 32A). So, the value might not be quite as good as you're assuming in point #1 and the utility isn't quite the same if the Tesla sharing it via an adapter in point #3 would ideally like to charge at higher power.

 

[Rocky_H]

Bingo. Though as a caveat to points #1 and 3, Tesla's J1772 HPWC units have a thinner cable and are only rated to 40A--I'm not sure if that's the peak rating or the continuous rating though (i.e. whether they're actually capable delivering 40A continuous charging or only 32A). So, the value might not be quite as good as you're assuming in point #1 and the utility isn't quite the same if the Tesla sharing it via an adapter in point #3 would ideally like to charge at higher power.

Oh, interesting. I had only seen some pictures, so I didn't know they only make them from the thinner cable.

 

[andrewFW]

Almost forgot! No changes as of last night.

 

[fajitamondays]

Still no change at Federal Way as of about 11 this morning. We're gonna have weeds growing over the cabinets and pedestals before this transformer gets here.

 

[hmmwv]

Wait, so since destination chargers are free which means this will be a free station for all EVs.

 

[andrewFW]

Most likely. I know they're working on a way for destination chargers to require payment, but so far the ones that have appeared at superchargers have been free. Examples off the top of my head: downtown Seattle and Vancouver, WA.

 

[acarney]

Most likely. I know they're working on a way for destination chargers to require payment, but so far the ones that have appeared at superchargers have been free. Examples off the top of my head: downtown Seattle and Vancouver, WA.

I don’t think it’s “require payment” but instead “offer the ability for payment,” I would like to think Tesla will keep destination chargers free for Tesla owners unless of course the destination chargers isn’t one that’s controlled by Tesla (so mainly non-supercharger locations).

 

[andrewFW]

Sorry, could have phrased that better.
"working on a way for destination chargers to optionally require payment". As in, make "requiring a payment" a feature that the owner could control. I believe we are in agreement.

 

[acarney]

Sorry, could have phrased that better.
"working on a way for destination chargers to optionally require payment". As in, make "requiring a payment" a feature that the owner could control. I believe we are in agreement.

Yes, I just didn't want people to think that Tesla was going to try to skim some profit off all destination chargers. This will be up to the owner to decide if they want to charge for or not (hotels likely won't charge if this is behind a gate, etc).

 

[andrewFW]

As of ~noon today, no box.

I may be misremembering, but I could have sworn I saw a meter on the side of the cabinet. Guess I should have taken a picture.

 

[bruce4000]

Still completely surrounded by no beer and no green xfmr.

 

[acarney]

New/updated permit for this location

https://www.searchandstatus.com/warecApp/ticketSearchAndStatusView.jsp?enc=GNSBF5kdvpQcC2we9Cga0xTLQkp2jQY9N0k03ygg%2BtvS1YqazEEdTpE4MnfaAnob

 

[andrewFW]

I'll try and take a peek tomorrow if I can get away from work.

 

[andrewFW]

No box yet, but maybe soon. There was definitely recent activity. Looks like a hole was dug behind the rite aid. Not sure what that's about. There's also some construction equipment on site and a blackstone sign warning about a hole on top of the plywood helpfully labeled "HOLE".

 

[Dhealy P100D]

Transformer has arrived

 

[Dhealy P100D]

Destination chargers are active