Tesla forced to open superchargers to unlock billions

[texas_star_TM3]

Their claim of doubling includes L2 destination chargers too.

isn't infrastructure money only to be used for stations at a minimum delivering 150kw?

 

[buckets0fun]

IMHO, not opening the Tesla connector specification until now was a major strategic blunder on the part of Tesla. It could easily have become the industry standard and they pissed away that chance.

Since the beginning they've offered OEMs to use their connector/standard. No one wanted to abide by tesla's terms of said offering.

 

[E90alex]

Since the beginning they've offered OEMs to use their connector/standard. No one wanted to abide by tesla's terms of said offering.

That was a BS publicity stunt and Tesla knows it. It only sounds good as a headline, but no company in their right mind would give up all their intellectual property rights to Tesla in exchange for using their charging plug design or any part of Teslas patents.

 

[buckets0fun]

additionally... if substantial Supercharging is open to non Tesla's by the time the Cybertruck comes out... it makes the case for the F150 Lightning/ Rivian / Silverado/Sierra EV and the RAM EV a lot more appealing... might hurt the Cybertruck even more

The lightning is nothing but problems for owners. read the horror stories and look at lemons running through auction sites.

Rivian, you can't even order replacement body panels. body shops are having major issues getting customers back their cars.

How many dodge Evs have ever been made? I'm not sure I want a fiat 500e truck. That car's ownership experience was enough of a headache when they were 89$/mo.

 

[buckets0fun]

That was a BS publicity stunt and Tesla knows it. It only sounds good as a headline, but no company in their right mind would give up all their intellectual property rights to Tesla in exchange for using their charging plug design or any part of Teslas patents.

Why do you say publicity stunt? Aptera sure did it.

Also... you realize Tesla themselves open sourced their patents on EVs.

 

[E90alex]

The lightning is nothing but problems for owners. read the horror stories and look at lemons running through auction sites.

Rivian, you can't even order replacement body panels. body shops are having major issues getting customers back their cars.

How many dodge Evs have ever been made? I'm not sure I want a fiat 500e truck. That car's ownership experience was enough of a headache when they were 89$/mo.

And the cybertruck is still non existent so….

 

[buckets0fun]

And the cybertruck is still non existent so….

You sure about that? Seems to be a few driving around. Not to mention they literally use a plaid X for them, as seen by MCU shots of said Alphas/Betas. It's a Tesla, using known Tesla architecture. you're trying a bit too hard to drill your point home. it's a bit comical.

Interesting people seem to forget that the press to make the truck only arrived a few months ago. Glass suppliers have been making the ~7ft long windshield longer than the press has been in the factory.

 

[@heist80]

Anyone else dreading the day they open superchargers to other OEMs? I think that’s gojng to really suck and make Tesla ownership a lot less special..

Routers: Open Superchargers to Unlock Billions

most people charge at home. I've got a slow charging at home because I live in a townhome and it would require a huge headache to put in a faster charger that can reach my parking spot. so i have to charge in a regular wall outlet with an extension cord. even with all this i still rarely go to a supercharger and by the time this kicks in more and more people will have home charging anyway. in fact if you look at homes for sale for the first time i am seeing 'EV charging included' in listings

also like the other person said above. the whole idea for us buying a tesla is to stiff it to oil/gas companies and save the planet, so it is selfish to not welcome other EV drivers too. also nobody is forcing tesla to do this, they are CHOOSING to do it cause the current administration and people who run and work for tesla actually wants to save the planet

PS if you read the deal that was struck it also means tesla will triple the number of superchargers. so this is a win/win for everyone

 

[E90alex]

Why do you say publicity stunt? Aptera sure did it.

Also... you realize Tesla themselves open sourced their patents on EVs.

Aptera doesn’t have a huge patent and copyright portfolio they want to protect like the legacy automakers.

It’s a publicity stunt because they knew it would generate headlines and the public would think it’s an amazing altruistic thing they’re doing, but in reality they knew no major manufacturer would take them up on it because of all the stipulations in the fine print.

 

[E90alex]

You sure about that? Seems to be a few driving around. Not to mention they literally use a plaid X for them, as seen by MCU shots of said Alphas/Betas. It's a Tesla, using known Tesla architecture. you're trying a bit too hard to drill your point home. it's a bit comical.

Interesting people seem to forget that the press to make the truck only arrived a few months ago. Glass suppliers have been making the ~7ft long windshield longer than the press has been in the factory.

Did I miss when they started delivering to customers?

Prototypes and concepts don’t count as being a finished product that’s actually available.

 

[@heist80]

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

they aren't keeping the same number of superchargers... the deal means superchargers will triple in numbers. it is a win/win for everyone.

 

[MP3Mike]

Why wouldn’t V3 sites qualify? Each one goes up to 250kw. Provided they add a CCS1 adapter of course.

No, that is the maximum per port. (A typical 12 stall site can only support 250kW on 4 stalls at the same time, it could support 150kW on 6 stalls at the same time.) The requirement is a minimum of 150kW per port, and sharing can only happen above that. And typical V3 infrastructure only supports ~83kW per port if they are all in use with sharing above 83kW. (For example, a typical 12 stall V3 site only has 1000kW available to share across all 12 stalls, so only ~83kW per stall.)

 

[texas_star_TM3]

You sure about that? Seems to be a few driving around. Not to mention they literally use a plaid X for them, as seen by MCU shots of said Alphas/Betas. It's a Tesla, using known Tesla architecture. you're trying a bit too hard to drill your point home. it's a bit comical.

Interesting people seem to forget that the press to make the truck only arrived a few months ago. Glass suppliers have been making the ~7ft long windshield longer than the press has been in the factory.

so what. can't order one, can't get one delivered, don't know the specs, don't know the price.... therefore it doesn't exist from a consumer perspective. Unlike the Lightning or Rivian. The Cybertruck is as real as the RAM EV. At least we know the specs of the Silverado EV.

 

[nativewolf]

The lightning is nothing but problems for owners. read the horror stories and look at lemons running through auction sites.

Rivian, you can't even order replacement body panels. body shops are having major issues getting customers back their cars.

How many dodge Evs have ever been made? I'm not sure I want a fiat 500e truck. That car's ownership experience was enough of a headache when they were 89$/mo.

Love our Lightning thank you very much

 

[E90alex]

Love our Lightning thank you very much

Same here. No major problems or “horror stories” to speak of.

 

[STS-134]

No, that is the maximum per port. (A typical 12 stall site can only support 250kW on 4 stalls at the same time, it could support 150kW on 6 stalls at the same time.) The requirement is a minimum of 150kW per port, and sharing can only happen above that. And typical V3 infrastructure only supports ~83kW per port if they are all in use with sharing above 83kW. (For example, a typical 12 stall V3 site only has 1000kW available to share across all 12 stalls, so only ~83kW per stall.)

I wonder what kind of idiots have been writing these regulations. It shouldn't be a minimum power of X per stall, the minimum power should vary with the bundle/trunk size: the more stalls that share a cabinet/transformer, the lower the minimum. If it's 2-4 stalls per cabinet/transformer, then the minimum should be much higher, because it's that much more likely that all of the other vehicles will be demanding the maximum at any given time. ISPs for example oversell their available bandwidth many times over, but only at the level of the main switching center. They do give you enough bandwidth back to the switching center so that you and your neighbors can almost max it out, because the chance that a small group of people is maxing it out at any given time is much greater than the chance that a large group of people is all maxing it out at any given time. This is such a basic concept from mathematical analysis of signals and systems that they should know this. 150kW max with 2 stalls per cabinet/transformer makes for a really crappy experience, while 150kW max with 25 stalls per cabinet/transformer is overkill.

 

[buckets0fun]

so what. can't order one, can't get one delivered, don't know the specs, don't know the price.... therefore it doesn't exist from a consumer perspective. Unlike the Lightning or Rivian. The Cybertruck is as real as the RAM EV. At least we know the specs of the Silverado EV.

The Silverado EV that doesn’t exist? No customer deliveries? Can’t order one.

How about the hummer, you can have anything as long as it’s white.

 

[buckets0fun]

Same here. No major problems or “horror stories” to speak of.

Interesting about that stop sale. And no “horror stories”, must not pay much attention.

 

[buckets0fun]

Aptera doesn’t have a huge patent and copyright portfolio they want to protect like the legacy automakers.

It’s a publicity stunt because they knew it would generate headlines and the public would think it’s an amazing altruistic thing they’re doing, but in reality they knew no major manufacturer would take them up on it because of all the stipulations in the fine print.

It was offered, it’s up to the companies to take Tesla up on it. No amount of forum sadness will remove that the option was / is there to join the most reliable charging network.

 

[MP3Mike]

I wonder what kind of idiots have been writing these regulations. It shouldn't be a minimum power of X per stall, the minimum power should vary with the bundle/trunk size: the more stalls that share a cabinet/transformer, the lower the minimum.

Yep, people argued that but the FHWA said, nope.

The FHWA received a significant amount of comments on the proposed rule’s discussion of minimum power per DCFC charging port. Many commenters expressed general comfort with a requirement for a minimum power per DCFC charging port of 150 kW; however, some commenters requested that the final rule clarify that the minimum station power capability be required at or above 450 kW, rather than 600 kW, in order to provide for more realistic maximum simultaneous usage of charging infrastructure.

Commenters clarified that EVs demand the greatest amount of power at the beginning of their charging session, so rarely would four cars be charging at the full 150 kW simultaneously. Requiring less power per charging station would allow sites to be less demanding on the power grid and also generally less expensive to install and operate. Other commenters recommended that, to address this dynamic of maximum grid power needed per site and to facilitate power sharing or smart charge management more vigorously, this final rule removes the word simultaneous from the requirement to provide at least 150 kW per charging port “simultaneously” across all charging ports. Commenters indicated that facilitating power sharing or smart charge management could have significant positive impacts on the reduction of peak load, which provides value to all charging stations but is particularly critical in providing for MD/HD charging. One commenter asked that charging stations with greater than 2.5 MW capacity be exempted from simultaneous minimum charging power requirement of 150 kW.

And their response:

FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that, in general, requiring less power per charging station, either by installing chargers with lower power capacity or by allowing dynamic power sharing, would allow sites to be less demanding on the power grid and also generally less expensive to install and operate. However, charging station power requirements must also be set to ensure a consistent and satisfying customer experience regardless of which charging port a customer selects and how many other ports are currently in use. Therefore, the requirement that each DCFC must simultaneously deliver up to 150 kW, as requested by an EV, was retained as a minimum requirement to provide a standard, reasonably high level of charging service for DCFCs.
Furthermore, FHWA updated this final rule to clarify that power sharing is permissible above the minimum 150 kW per-port requirement for DCFCs and 6 kW per port requirement for AC Level 2 chargers

Note they don't even allow power sharing on Level 2 chargers below 6kW.

But they did put one good thing in there:

Regardless of the operating voltage of the battery, so that EVs are able to receive at least 150 kW per port, FHWA suggests that DCFC connectors be rated with a current carrying capacity of greater than or equal to 375 Amps.

So, no cheating and putting a 200A rated capable on a charger and call it 150kW, when most vehicles wouldn't be able to get 150kW because of their pack voltage.