Supercharger to Chademo Adapter?

[stopcrazypp]

My point about the smaller capacity Teslas was in response to those saying anything that less than fully utilizes a Supercharger's capacity is kind of not worthy...for lack of a better term.

The main issue could be under-utilization, but another conceivable scenario is that:

-These Leafs and Souls are paying to use currently unused capacity. Win

There won't be unused capacity the way things are going. The Model X and Model 3 will mean an explosion of demand.

-The Leafs and Souls don't do the same trips, they do trips with one SC stop, mainly. Win

That just means they are likely offloading local trips onto stations that were intended to serve longer trips. That has continually been an issue that Tesla is actively trying to change.

-The money they pay allows for denser SC placement, SCs that Teslas can use. If this was the case Tesla would win in terms of $$$, Tesla drivers would win in terms of SC density, and we would all win in terms of EV adoption.

They will have to pay money regardless of if Tesla sets a requirement of higher power or not. If they pay twice as much as a 100kW EV then that might be fine, but as I say it doesn't make sense compared to just making the EV support higher power in the first place (it'll be less expensive overall and the EV also benefits from being able to charge faster). Tesla has already said they won't support slower charging EVs with the network, so the point is kind of moot anyways.

From what I have read the Leaf can take 62.5kw, not 50kw.

It can take 50kW max with the CHAdeMO port. The battery charging voltage is 400V, the port is limited to 125A. 400V*125A = 50kW.

62.5kW is the theoretical limit of the port when using a 500V charging voltage (which the Leaf doesn't use).

Somebody said an Audi EV would not have a Chademo, what DC port would it have? Just curious.

Audi will use CCS.

 

[Cottonwood]

My view is pretty simple: Tesla should design and sell a Supercharger to CHAdeMO adapter for $2,000 each with unlimited charging for single vehicle use. They could do the same for CCS, but my guess is there is already a lot of CHAdeMO protocol expertise within Tesla, so the CHAdeMO adapter will take less effort. Does the CHAdeMO protocol report VIN?

Such an adapter would be a nice additional source of funds for building more Superchargers!

 

[DavidM]

My view is pretty simple: Tesla should design and sell a Supercharger to CHAdeMO adapter for $2,000 each with unlimited charging for single vehicle use. They could do the same for CCS, but my guess is there is already a lot of CHAdeMO protocol expertise within Tesla, so the CHAdeMO adapter will take less effort. Does the CHAdeMO protocol report VIN?

Such an adapter would be a nice additional source of funds for building more Superchargers!

That's like asking a real estate investor to allow a renter to move into a Million dollar house and only pay enough rent to cover the utilities. As a TSLA stockholder, I believe that whole idea is bad for business. Tesla was smart enough to design an EV platform that was NOT inferior to gasoline cars. Tesla is not building hobbled cars (as other automakers choose to do - even today). Tesla's cars have adequate power, adequate storage, adequate range, etc., and can be used on road trips as well as in town. The other automakers have every opportunity to do the same, but they've decided to build hobbled electric vehicles, to preserve their profitable ICE business. It's not Tesla's responsibility to help make hobbled EVs more usable. Wasn't it enough for Tesla to share their patents?

The other automakers want to primarily build PHEVs. Nissan being the exception. The Leaf was always supposed to be a city, commuter car. The next gen Leaf will be a better city commuter car. The GM Bolt will be produced in limited numbers, and in limited markets, according to GM. None of them want to genuinely partner with Tesla to expand the supercharger network. Given half a chance, they'd put Tesla out of business and get back to building ICEs and hybrids.

I'm anxiously looking forward to 1,500 supercharger stations in 2020, with Tesla selling more than 500,000 non-crippled EVs per year. Model 3s for everyone!

 

[Cottonwood]

That's like asking a real estate investor to allow a renter to move into a Million dollar house and only pay enough rent to cover the utilities.

At my suggested price of $2,000 per adapter (limited to a single car per adapter), the cost of the adapter is far more than enough to cover the utilities, and in fact, will help to pay for future penthouses.

 

[DavidM]

At my suggested price of $2,000 per adapter (limited to a single car per adapter), the cost of the adapter is far more than enough to cover the utilities, and in fact, will help to pay for future penthouses.

No. $2,000 (per adapter) doesn't cover Tesla's cost of the existing and future supercharger infrastructure (including fuel costs). Tesla charged Model S40 owners $10,000 for the battery upgrade to 60kWh, and another $2,000 on top of that for supercharger access. Nobody knows how much of the battery upgrades (60kWh, 85kWh) went towards paying for the supercharger infrastructure. There is a whole department of people within Tesla who scout locations and negotiate each supercharger site. Then there is the permitting, the installation, and the ongoing maintenance as required. In addition, there is the ongoing fuel cost. Finally, there is an unquantified lost opportunity cost, because currently some percentage of Tesla customers purchase a Tesla vehicle over another EV mainly because of access to the supercharger network. That will impact sales of Tesla vehicles. And who's to say that your proposed adapter won't be shared between multiple cars, as Tesla owners currently do with ChadeMo adapters?

Providing supercharger access to EVs produced by other automakers, makes them more capable cars. Why is it in Tesla's best interest to make competing vehicles more capable? How is that in the best interest of a Tesla stockholder?

 

[TEG]

Summarizing some thoughts:

#1: (Unlike with HPWC which is a 'dumb' device), Tesla can control what cars and devices get permission to charge at Superchargers.
#2: Tesla has said that they are open to the idea of non-Tesla cars charging at Superchargers (someday) assuming they can negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement. (So far we don't see any of that happening though.)
#3: Tesla has said that they are proceeding to pursue something like that with a (so far unnamed) European car manufacturer.
#4: If Tesla approved a Supercharger to CHAdeMO adapter, I think technically they could configure Superchargers to allow the device to work.
#5: We think Tesla expects anything using the Supercharger to charge at full rate (90kW+), but I think it would be theoretically possible for a car to charger slower if Tesla allowed it.
#6: Cars can tell the Supercharger how fast to charge themselves by requesting appropriate voltage output from the Supercharger. The car would need to have a battery pack voltage that is in range of what the supercharger can output. If, for instance, a Supercharger can output voltage in range of a LEAF pack, I think a LEAF could theoretically charge at a Supercharger through an adapter if Tesla allowed it. The car would be telling the Supercharger to never deliver more than ~50kW since that is all the LEAF pack can handle.
#7: The Lifetime use of the Supercharger is a 'cost' baked into the Model S & X for those customers that got Lifetime supercharging as part of their sales agreement. It goes with the car, so a 2nd hand Model S or X can still use Supercharging for free.
#8: If someone else gets to use the Supercharger network it is assumed that they would need to pay fees for that benefit. It has been said that a Lifetime / one-time fee could be less likely for an adapter, since it would work with multiple cars, not just "life of the car". I would think 3rd parties would be likely to expect "pay per use" instead of unlimited use, but that is up to Tesla.

 

[TEG]

Some posts from this thread have been moved here:
Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

 

[shokunin]

No. $2,000 (per adapter) doesn't cover Tesla's cost of the existing and future supercharger infrastructure (including fuel costs). Tesla charged Model S40 owners $10,000 for the battery upgrade to 60kWh, and another $2,000 on top of that for supercharger access.

So true. My wife's 40 can't even supercharge unless I pony up 12,500 to unlock it to 60kw ($10k) and then for supercharging ($2500). If I wanted to even use CHAdeMO it's around $2400 for the adapter and to unlock DC charging. Back in the day, they surmised that the 40 couldn't make the distance between supercharging stations to bother even offering it.

If the S40 could supercharge it would be one of the first ones out of the stalls since it's capped at 68% SoC on the 60kw battery. Just saying that if Tesla's mission was for wide-spread adoption of EV's and supercharging, then they would have unlocked the supercharging access for the older 60's and 40's or at least offered some sort of discount and let's not forget about the true early adopters, the Roadster owners.

 

[Evbwcaer]

So true. My wife's 40 can't even supercharge unless I pony up 12,500 to unlock it to 60kw ($10k) and then for supercharging ($2500). If I wanted to even use CHAdeMO it's around $2400 for the adapter and to unlock DC charging. Back in the day, they surmised that the 40 couldn't make the distance between supercharging stations to bother even offering it.

If the S40 could supercharge it would be one of the first ones out of the stalls since it's capped at 68% SoC on the 60kw battery. Just saying that if Tesla's mission was for wide-spread adoption of EV's and supercharging, then they would have unlocked the supercharging access for the older 60's and 40's or at least offered some sort of discount and let's not forget about the true early adopters, the Roadster owners.

That is not "so true." At best, it might be true. In reality, it depends. Tesla would know best, but if there is a model for this that allows more EV's to make use of more Superchargers, and Tesla to make more money, and Superchargers to be less crowded and/or more numerous, then who does not win?

I don't know if such a model exists, but it surely within the realm of possibility. If it were not, there would be no privately owned Chademo networks.

If you are a concerned shareholder, you better hope they are not overlooking a potential profit center.

 

[DavidM]

We've seen what happens when EV owners habitually charge at their "local" supercharger station. Quite often, all of the bays are full and drivers on road trips are inconvenienced, because they are forced to wait while someone who could have charged at home for $5 (overnight), charges for free at the supercharger station. Tesla is currently the only automaker selling a long range EV, capable of road trips. Every other EV today is either a PHEV, or it's a short range city car. So, this whole discussion about allowing "city car" EVs to pay for an adapter, goes against Tesla's intended use of the supercharger network.

Yet, my KEY question remains unanswered:
Why should Tesla compete against themselves by taking $2K and enabling a competitor's EV to become more capable? Meanwhile the other automakers have no intention on funding the expansion of Tesla's supercharger network.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That is not "so true." At best, it might be true. In reality, it depends. Tesla would know best, but if there is a model for this that allows more EV's to make use of more Superchargers, and Tesla to make more money, and Superchargers to be less crowded and/or more numerous, then who does not win?

I don't know if such a model exists, but it surely within the realm of possibility. If it were not, there would be no privately owned Chademo networks.

If you are a concerned shareholder, you better hope they are not overlooking a potential profit center.

The problem is none of the CHAdeMO networks are profitable. They are all money losers, even though CHAdeMO costs far less to install than a supercharger. Thus any such adapter will need to cost far more money than those estimated here.

It bears repeating for the millionth time: Tesla does not see it viable to support slower charging EVs with the supercharger network, which is why one of their requirements is it must be able to meet the existing charging speeds (this can be interpreted to mean 90+kW).

 

[Tedkidd]

1 Short range cars are bridge cars, they need to go the way of the dodo. hopefully there will not be truly meaningful numbers of them.
2 Chademo is to slow for long range travel. hopefully it will also go the way of the dodo.
3 Hopefully Musk's offer will come with range constraints for both market reasons, and taper avoidance/congestion issues.
4 it doesn't encourage adoption of Tesla charging standard in car design.

 

[Enadler]

Yet, my KEY question remains unanswered:
Why should Tesla compete against themselves by taking $2K and enabling a competitor's EV to become more capable? Meanwhile the other automakers have no intention on funding the expansion of Tesla's supercharger network.

This is simple. By allowing Non-Tesla vehicles to utilize the Tesla Supercharger Network Tesla would be enabling a tremendous marketing opportunity. It will further demonstrate the foresight of Tesla to locate SC along routes for long distance travel. in addition, it would open an additional revenue stream to further enhance the network. Yes there are details that would need to be worked out. What would be the cost of the access? I am not certain $2000 is correct but we do not know the true economics of the network. Additionally I don't believe that any of the existing EV's could truly utilize a SC as they do not have the capacity or the internal cooling systems to take advantage of the higher power outputs. The last thing that Tesla would want to do is "hobble" their own network by creating a system that would allow cars to charge at an extremely slow rate. The whole point is of the system is speed. In and out in no more than 45-50 minutes. So this whole discussion is academic until other automakers step up and create a car with the capability to utilize the network as it is designed to work even if an adapter is needed.

 

[DavidM]

This is simple. By allowing Non-Tesla vehicles to utilize the Tesla Supercharger Network Tesla would be enabling a tremendous marketing opportunity. It will further demonstrate the foresight of Tesla to locate SC along routes for long distance travel. in addition, it would open an additional revenue stream to further enhance the network. Yes there are details that would need to be worked out. What would be the cost of the access? I am not certain $2000 is correct but we do not know the true economics of the network. Additionally I don't believe that any of the existing EV's could truly utilize a SC as they do not have the capacity or the internal cooling systems to take advantage of the higher power outputs. The last thing that Tesla would want to do is "hobble" their own network by creating a system that would allow cars to charge at an extremely slow rate. The whole point is of the system is speed. In and out in no more than 45-50 minutes. So this whole discussion is academic until other automakers step up and create a car with the capability to utilize the network as it is designed to work even if an adapter is needed.

It's not a "tremendous marketing opportunity" to provide a pair of jogging shoes to a man with a crutch. It's just cruel.
Tesla has said over and over, if other automakers want to invest in the supercharger network, and in long range EVs, then Tesla would welcome them to share in the benefit. So far, none of them have come forward. But the longer they wait, the supercharger network continues to grow in size and value, and the more expensive it becomes for another automaker to buy into this asset. Tesla's business relationship should primarily be with other automakers, and not with the owners of competing cars.

I honestly believe that the other automakers want to make EVs that are inferior to their gasoline counterparts. This perpetuates the sale of profitable ICE cars as long as possible. At some point well into the future, it will be common knowledge that for the same money, an EV can be a better purchase than an ICE alternative. I believe that Tesla is the only company willing to prove that point today, and for the next several years. In the meantime, Tesla has to stay in business, and to stay in business, they have to sell lots of cars. $2K transactions don't keep them in business. It's the $90K transactions that keep them in business.

 

[Enadler]

DavidM I agree it makes no sense "to provide a pair of jogging shoes to a man with a crutch". That's why i said in my original post that the adaptor should not be made to work with any existing EV's. Until an EV is able to take advantage of the benefits of the SC Network an adaptor would simply add vehicles to the network that would just take up space. When an EV has the range and the charging capabiilites to take advantage of the network then it would be advantageous to Tesla to allow them to use the network providing it makes economic sense.

 

[TexasEV]

It's not a "tremendous marketing opportunity" to provide a pair of jogging shoes to a man with a crutch. It's just cruel.
Tesla has said over and over, if other automakers want to invest in the supercharger network, and in long range EVs, then Tesla would welcome them to share in the benefit. So far, none of them have come forward. But the longer they wait, the supercharger network continues to grow in size and value, and the more expensive it becomes for another automaker to buy into this asset. Tesla's business relationship should primarily be with other automakers, and not with the owners of competing cars.

I honestly believe that the other automakers want to make EVs that are inferior to their gasoline counterparts. This perpetuates the sale of profitable ICE cars as long as possible. At some point well into the future, it will be common knowledge that for the same money, an EV can be a better purchase than an ICE alternative. I believe that Tesla is the only company willing to prove that point today, and for the next several years. In the meantime, Tesla has to stay in business, and to stay in business, they have to sell lots of cars. $2K transactions don't keep them in business. It's the $90K transactions that keep them in business.

This is absolutely correct. No ICE manufacturer is going to make an EV good enough that it might cannibalize its ICE sales anytime soon. They have too much invested in that legacy technology.

 

[stopcrazypp]

DavidM I agree it makes no sense "to provide a pair of jogging shoes to a man with a crutch". That's why i said in my original post that the adaptor should not be made to work with any existing EV's. Until an EV is able to take advantage of the benefits of the SC Network an adaptor would simply add vehicles to the network that would just take up space. When an EV has the range and the charging capabiilites to take advantage of the network then it would be advantageous to Tesla to allow them to use the network providing it makes economic sense.

But your premise is already wrong. As you have seen with the existing CHAdeMO adapter, the current limit is 125A, which effectively is 50kW at 400V. It was set that way because of the physical/safety limitations of going through an active adapter (otherwise Tesla would have supported 200A, which the CHAdeMO standard does allow). Whenever Tesla supports other EVs on the supercharger network, it would not be based on an adapter (at least for CHAdeMO, CCS might be a different case if it can be made as a passive adapter), but an actual port in the car with the Tesla socket.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I thought I would put this idea out there and see what people think:

What if there was a Supercharger to Chademo adapter that any car with a Chademo port could use. It could be an unlimited deal, buy the adapter and it works forever for "free", or pay a fee for each use or KwH.

I'd really like to hear what a Leaf driver, for example, would think of this. I know if might have limited appeal given the short range of EV's currently and geography of the Supercharger placement, but if/when the Bolt comes to be, it could be a game changer.

It seems in-line with what Elon generally thinks, but what do you all think?

Here's what Elon thinks about other manufacturers accessing the Supercharger network:

Tesla will open up its Supercharger patents to boost electric car adoption

Journalist: You talked earlier in the week about sharing patent technology. You hinted at that during a BBC interview yesterday.

Musk: Right.

Journalist: Is that sort of aimed towards the superchargers and allowing other car manufacturers to use your charger network?

Musk: That was already said. Actually we've already said that. The intent of the Supercharger network is not to create a walled garden. Any other manufacturer that's interested in using them, we'd be happy to accommodate. It's just that they need to be able to accept the power level of the Superchargers, which is currently 135kW and rising, so any car needs to meet the Supercharger standard. And they'd also need to agree with the business model, which is we don't charge people on a per-charge basis. They'd need to contribute to the capital costs proportional to their fleet's usage of the network. So we think that's pretty fair.

You'll note that I highlighted Elon's requirement that the other manufacturer's car needs to meet the Supercharger standard. In other words, Tesla wants others to adopt its charging specifications.

Building an adapter as you suggest is at odds with that fundamental objective.

Larry

 

[Mark Z]

IMHO, when Nissan or any other EV manufacturer does ALL of the following, then Tesla can consider sharing the Superchargers:

1. Manufacturer must expand the Supercharger network at the same ratio as Tesla has done.
2. Manufacturer can charge for use or they must pay Tesla for KW used.
3. Vehicles must have equivalent EV range and Supercharger charge speed as the current manufactured Tesla EVs.
4. Vehicles must use the Tesla connector at the same position on the car as Tesla.