Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard

[gnuarm]

Yes, you are in the reasonably small subset of people for whom a 350 mile car is the right choice. There are such people, but for most people a 250 mile car, or even less, is more than enough because they just don't take those longer trips, except on intercity road trips.

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. What I am describing is an inter-city road trip. With a 250 mile range, subtracting for 20% at the top, 10% at the bottom, gives 180 miles, useful range the day you drive it off the lot. Factor in ignoring temperature issues and wear on the battery and the spacing of chargers, and you will be doing well to drive 120 miles between charging stops. No one wants to charge every two hours!

Even without wear on the battery, I experienced this when I first got my car, on a drive to Tennessee. Rt 81 had chargers spaced 100 or 125 miles apart, and the car recommended I stop at most of them. It was seldom they were close enough together to go further.

If we made all the cars have 350 mile range with today's batteries, it would cause a lot of waste. Wasted money, wasted battery materials (which are, for now, in limited supply but this will change.) Wasted energy. Wasted tires, and rubber particles on the road. Wasted space in the car. More severe collisions with heavier vehicles.

Not really waste. In the previous generations, the big V8 was not really needed in cars. But when you had one, you knew it was going to hold up, because the RPM were so low. My brother had a '72 LTD which got 250,000 before it was getting ragged out. That's a good number even today!

With a large battery, it wears slower, because you can keep it in the mid-range of charge level and you do less charging overall. If my car had a 50 kWh battery like the Nissan Leaf, it would wear out twice as fast. So, not money wasted.

Building batteries is not limited by raw materials. It is limited by the availability of silicon, in the form of chips.

We want most people to get a car with the right range for their daily life, plus a fast charging ability for those long road trips. There are people who need more than that, but only they should get the heavier, more expensive cars.

Sure, every car should match every user. But it is the rare case where someone doesn't have a use for longer trips. That is the minority of drivers and people are already hesitant about BEVs and range. I'm never going to tell someone to get a car with a small battery unless they are absolutely sure they will hardly ever take it on trips. It's just too big a PITA to stop every two hours or so.

I remember years ago in a gas crunch, Ocean City, MD had an ad campaign in DC saying they were just "half a tank away". In a BEV, it would be a charge away, and a charge to get back.

 

[gnuarm]

Is this a case of bearing replacemet or does the motor need a rewind when this happens? I’m not sure if a rewind shop can get the same wire, it seems like I saw a Munro youtube where the windings are much different than normal induction motor/ generatators. If that makes no sense, I’m just out of surgery and dopey.

It's the bearings. Not the Jeremy Bearimy.

I'm pretty sure you can't get to the bearing in a motor to replace it. I know you don't "rewind" these motors. They are made in ways that you can't repair the insides. But then you don't need to, the windings and such don't contact anything, so don't wear. The bearings are the problem. They wear from induced currents from the motor's EM field.

This is not 20th century technology.

 

[cleverscreenam]

Yes, you are in the reasonably small subset of people for whom a 350 mile car is the right choice. There are such people, but for most people a 250 mile car, or even less, is more than enough because they just don't take those longer trips, except on intercity road trips.

If we made all the cars have 350 mile range with today's batteries, it would cause a lot of waste. Wasted money, wasted battery materials (which are, for now, in limited supply but this will change.) Wasted energy. Wasted tires, and rubber particles on the road. Wasted space in the car. More severe collisions with heavier vehicles.

We want most people to get a car with the right range for their daily life, plus a fast charging ability for those long road trips. There are people who need more than that, but only they should get the heavier, more expensive cars.

I realize this doesn't cross Californian minds, but every single person in the northern half of America (everywhere north across the globe, for that matter), should have these longer range cars you describe. People who might get stuck in a snowstorm, they will freeze to death if they don't have extra reserve battery to run the heater for unplanned hours. That's on top of the fact that our "250 miles" cars can only reach 250 miles at 48mph, then colder winter air is more dense taking more energy. You'll travel just half those miles during winter 65 mph, and if it's snowing or raining, you might travel just 1/3. Yeah, staying alive is wasteful

 

[cleverscreenam]

Not really waste. In the previous generations, the big V8 was not really needed in cars. But when you had one, you knew it was going to hold up, because the RPM were so low. My brother had a '72 LTD which got 250,000 before it was getting ragged out. That's a good number even today!

LOL not really. Travel 300,000 miles and look inside a Saturn 4cyl 1.9 liter engine, any Honda engine, or any Toyota engine including the 4cyl 1.5 liter in the old Prius (constantly high RPMs), and you'll see the cross-hatch marks on the piston walls (meaning pretty much no wear has occurred, the engine will keep pumping 700,000 miles more)
But if it's domestic Ford/GM/Chrysler, yeah it's likely to die between 100,000-200,000 miles, that's how they're still in business.

 

[gnuarm]

LOL not really. Travel 300,000 miles and look inside a Saturn 4cyl 1.9 liter engine, any Honda engine, or any Toyota engine including the 4cyl 1.5 liter in the old Prius (constantly high RPMs), and you'll see the cross-hatch marks on the piston walls (meaning pretty much no wear has occurred, the engine will keep pumping 700,000 miles more)
But if it's domestic Ford/GM/Chrysler, yeah it's likely to die between 100,000-200,000 miles, that's how they're still in business.

I can tell you are talking nonsense, because that cross hatch pattern causes leakage. Brand new engines have more friction from the tight fit of the piston, while at the same time letting more leakage past the rings, because of this rough surface. It tends to wear down very quickly. It used to be 10,000 miles or so. Now it's more like 500 miles.

If your engine still shows those original lapping marks in the region where the rings travel, there's something wrong with your engine.

 

[KJD]

Silly me. I thought that this thread was about the Tesla charge connector and standards of some sort.

 

[israndy]

Yeah, I thought I was good at throwing in tangents, I'm not as argumentative though

 

[lynyrdM]

I’m sure EV-Go will be among the first to add the NACS plug to their chargers but do you all think they’ll add them to the Pilot Flying J EV-Go Extend chargers?

Given they’re being built with GM funding I kind of doubt it but then again Pilot may want that to drive more traffic through Tesla’s native navigation.

 

[gnuarm]

And do you know how they do this? Because I sure do.
They make a network connection to the salvage vehicle through the vehicle's cellular antenna, and change the DCFC flags stored in gateway.cfg on the MCU.
But yeah, every word of my post was completely true, even if you didn't know/understand it.

wk057, the supreme authority on this topic, has posted that there's no known instances thus far of Tesla using the supercharger-to-vehicle command to permanently disable DCFC (with an EMMC write that root access can't modify, you'd have to replace the chip.)

Why do you qualify your claim with “permanently”? Tesla can, and does, disable cars from being charged on their network.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why do you qualify your claim with “permanently”? Tesla can, and does, disable cars from being charged on their network.

There was a function rumored to be introduced where it does a permanent write to the memory (in a section that typically is used for factory initialization) to disable supercharging. That means without swapping the chip, the car will never be able to supercharge (can't be software hacked to be supercharged again).

 

[Spaghett]

With regards to non-Tesla charging providers making use of the Tesla connector, Kyle Conner (Out of Spec Reviews/Motoring) had this to say after going to ACT 2023:

Source: (70) Full Tour Of This Insane Electric Conference! Everything We Talk About Under One Roof - ACT 2023 - YouTube (link is supposed to be the actual comment, hopefully it works!)

 

[h2ofun]

With regards to non-Tesla charging providers making use of the Tesla connector, Kyle Conner (Out of Spec Reviews/Motoring) had this to say after going to ACT 2023:
View attachment 936467

Source: (70) Full Tour Of This Insane Electric Conference! Everything We Talk About Under One Roof - ACT 2023 - YouTube (link is supposed to be the actual comment, hopefully it works!)

What does the cables are just starting to come out to support them mean? Tesla seems to have cables and connectors?

 

[MP3Mike]

What does the cables are just starting to come out to support them mean? Tesla seems to have cables and connectors?

Tesla probably doesn't/won't sell their cables to other people. And even if they did, they are too short to be useful at most third-party sites.

Other vendors had to design, test, and build NACS cables to the lengths/specs that the charging network providers require.

 

[wws]

Tesla probably doesn't/won't sell their cables to other people. And even if they did, they are too short to be useful at most third-party sites.

Other vendors had to design, test, and build NACS cables to the lengths/specs that the charging network providers require.

EVgo, for one, seems to have some sort of internal connection to get cables from Tesla.

 

[MP3Mike]

EVgo, for one, seems to have some sort of internal connection to get cables from Tesla.

We don't know where they got them from, but they only need to be good to ~45kW since they are just an extension to the Tesla CHAdeMO adapter that is mounted to the side of the cabinet.

 

[Genie]

Tesla probably doesn't/won't sell their cables to other people. And even if they did, they are too short to be useful at most third-party sites.

Other vendors had to design, test, and build NACS cables to the lengths/specs that the charging network providers require.

If Tesla does sell the cable/NACS sets to 3rd party chargers the only ones to benefit will be everyone who owns a Tesla.

 

[wws]

We don't know where they got them from, but they only need to be good to ~45kW since they are just an extension to the Tesla CHAdeMO adapter that is mounted to the side of the cabinet.

IIRC, the plug is Tesla branded. Not 100% sure, as it has been a while since I've used one.

 

[Spaghett]

IIRC, the plug is Tesla branded. Not 100% sure, as it has been a while since I've used one.

Seems your memory is correct. See here:

 

[MP3Mike]

The first OEM has signed up for adding NACS, with Supercharger access, to their vehicles: https://media.ford.com/content/ford...n-access-to-12-000-tesla-superchargers--.html

Ford EVs will have access to the entire Supercharger network next year, and after that Ford will start putting NACS receptacles in new vehicles.

 

[Danny Brown]

This is a bigger deal than most realize…