Big Moe
Member
We paid a premium for these cars. I have two and I bought them for the supercharger network. North Jersey and Annapolis are already jammed up. Let the other auto makers put in charge systems
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla forced to open superchargers to unlock billions
- Thread starter Sambub
- Start date
Tesla has good metrics, they know which stations get impacted. If they are opening up stations they are going to open a few out-of-the way stations first (this is what they did in Europe) then roll it out to more and more locations.
I’m betting if they do add CCS it will be mostly to new stations at first.
My big concern is people who have EVs with the charge port on the wrong side.
On new sites that get government money, just engineer them from day 1 to be more flexible. On existing sites, if there are regular parking stalls on the ends, mark those as EV charging only and make it part of charging etiquette for Tesla drivers to take the inner stalls. Where feasible, pave behind the superchargers and you get the bonus of making people with trailers happy too. Worst case, make a magic dock that includes a ~3ft extension, although that would probably limit power to under 100kW.
"low" is subjective of course. I'm guessing it doesn't cost $250 to make, maybe "lower" is more appropriate.
I’ve seen plans for chargers with slightly longer cables which can service either side of the car so long as the charge port is on the front or rear of the vehicle.
Porsche Taycan and a few other vehicles stupidly put their charge port in the middle of the vehicle which is almost completely incompatible.
When I bought the CHAdeMO adapter it cost me about $500. The CCS adapter works much better, passes more power to the car and costs half as much.
I would say it's a pretty good deal at $250.
As far as Tesla being "forced" to open the supercharger network, it might happen and it might not happen. EA and Chargepoint really appear to be lousy competitors to Tesla SC network. Tesla just might take a pass on the money being offered.
Anyone who can afford a Tesla can afford to pay $250 for a CCS1 adapter. Also, from what I've seen, Tesla doesn't seem to make much on sales of parts and other hardware. The cellular upgrade for the older Model S vehicles was what, $300? That seems pretty close to what it probably costs them to make and install them.
I think they'll open it up, but non Tesla vehicles will pay higher rates. Tesla owners helped subsidize the build out of that network by buying Teslas while drivers of other brands did not, so it seems like some surcharge is appropriate.
Pretty much. But there is no chance Tesla would get all of the $7.5 Billion.
Well, the strings haven't even been created yet. And when they are there will be 52 different sets of strings. (Maybe fewer if some states/territories decide to just duplicate what another one has made for requirements. Like I have seen another state mention that they are likely to adopt the "Oregon Quad Pod" requirements.)
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
California and other states have existing programs and it’s highly likely any new program will be structured based on that.
California’s existing subsidized sites require pay by credit card, pass thru support for other charging networks, per-charger displays showing charging and other things which would be expensive to implement and reduce reliability. Tesla walked away from something like $6 million dollars for a couple of their sites because they didn’t want to mess with it. If each state has different requirements, that makes it even more expensive to support and less likely Tesla does it.
Oregon’s implementation is kind of crap too. I looked it over and much of what they are looking to add is actually well covered by Tesla already and some fairly major uncovered corridors are neglected.
Sure, covered by Tesla, but that is meaningless for people with a car that uses CCS. Now if Tesla wanted to play by Oregon's rules they could apply to get money to upgrade their sites to be compliant instead of Oregon having new sites built in essentially the same locations.
One requirement sticks out: 1 350kW CCS charger, and stubs to be able to add 2 more 350kW chargers in the future. That would likely require Tesla to install third-party CCS hardware, unless their V4 Superchargers support 350kW CCS charging. (Which from what someone shared that they claim is V4 specs, they do not.) And then there is that no NEVI stall having its capabilities limited to below 150kW, which no Tesla site currently supports. (As far as I am aware, most are 75, or ~90, kW per stall.)
Last edited:
Absolutely stupid to not have a minimum requirement of at least 8 stalls/site. EA has this annoying tendency to build sites with 3-4 stalls which means that not only are queues more likely to form, but when they do form, they won't move very quickly. One or two cars charging to 100% can quickly back up the line at the entire site. I pulled up to a EA site with 6 stalls at at the Westfield Galleria at Roseville and there was a line. Went across the street to the Tesla SC site where there were 20 stalls and no line.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Leafs are incapable of backing up the site because EA screwed them over with only 1 CHAdeMO connector per site. But yeah, big problem that could be alleviated by having more stalls. Even if they power share with the others, it's better to let everyone at least start charging and give the other cars more power when the people charging to 100% get close to full. Then they could simply upgrade the transformer later on.
The NEVI funding requires a minimum of 4 stalls. All of which have to be capable of at least 150kW at all times. (Oregon says one has to be 350kW.)
I think a minimum of 4 stalls with sites being every ~50 miles is actually OK. (Tesla sites tend to be larger but further apart.) It gives you some redundancy as well as spreading out the demand. Oregon is, also, requiring site prep for an additional two 350kW stalls, so expansion at high demand locations should be fairly easy.
I think Tesla will be able to support 350 kW, but it also specifically prohibits shared capacity. So if Tesla pushed out v4 chargers and they were released in groups of 4 sharing a 1000 kW transformer, that wouldn’t qualify even though it is effectively far better than a single 350 kW charger.
As I said, too many strings attached.
As for non-Tesla cars. If the government incentive isn’t enough to cover supporting non-Teslas, do they really have any incentive to do this? Tesla could better support non-Tesla’s by selling adaptor so people with CCS vehicles can use existing Superchargers on their web site.
That's crazy. Even rural gas stations tend to have more than 4 nozzles and cars don't stay at a gas pump for nearly as long as they stay at a charger.
The way to do it is what Tesla did along I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley. > 50 stalls at Firebaugh, then > 20 at Harris Ranch, followed by a > 50 stall site in Kettleman City that's literally across the street from a 40 stall site (so over 90 stalls in that vicinity). 40-50 miles between sites. Then there are a few smaller sites (but none with fewer than 10 stalls) until you get to the Tejon Ranch outlets area where there are 56 stalls on one side of the freeway and 24 on the other.
Last edited:
Exactly. Of course, Tesla currently tends to use a ~1000kW transformer for 12 V3 stalls, so they would need to get much larger grid feeds/transformers. Which could be problematic at some sites. (I have even heard that some charge network providers are upset at Telsa, because Tesla has "swooped" in and done a "land grab" of available grid capacity such that they can't get sufficient supply from the utility in some locations without a large/slow/expensive grid upgrade/build-out.)
True, but there are WAY more gas cars on the road. There isn't currently enough demand to justify building out the CCS charging network to be as big as the gas station network. But, it should be planned to be expandable as more EVs are put on the road. (Just like Tesla has done, start with smaller sites, then come back and expand them, or add more sites between, as necessary.)
Last edited:
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
"If you build it they will come"
It's funny reading this thread, a bunch of Tesla owners saying what the CCS guys should do, yet can't even agree on Tesla's charging history.
I think we all agree CCS is shite, and now planning for spending $7.5B on it is also shite, but doesn't seem like a lot that Tesla can do about it, other than quote what they will charge local governments to install their systems and let the elected representatives make their usual terrible decisions and take the blame for the cockup. If you want change, vote.
I was asking an EV repair shop about converting my Mitsubishi to CCS from CHAdeMO and they said it was impossible. You can physically install the connector, but the technology to do the communication standard is the IP of Qualcomm and they won't allow anyone to use it that doesn't buy directly from them. Frickin' corporations. I guess Tesla is no better in that regard.
It's funny reading this thread, a bunch of Tesla owners saying what the CCS guys should do, yet can't even agree on Tesla's charging history.
I think we all agree CCS is shite, and now planning for spending $7.5B on it is also shite, but doesn't seem like a lot that Tesla can do about it, other than quote what they will charge local governments to install their systems and let the elected representatives make their usual terrible decisions and take the blame for the cockup. If you want change, vote.
I was asking an EV repair shop about converting my Mitsubishi to CCS from CHAdeMO and they said it was impossible. You can physically install the connector, but the technology to do the communication standard is the IP of Qualcomm and they won't allow anyone to use it that doesn't buy directly from them. Frickin' corporations. I guess Tesla is no better in that regard.
Last edited:
Similar threads
