TMC Connect 2014 - Save the Date - July 18-20

[Owner]

I agree with you Bonnie. Silicon Valley is successful and continues to be for a reason even if it is very pricey here. Ideas are really not just one person although the media loves to glam onto that idea.
I would have preferred more Q&A in all of the sessions that would have helped spark more interesting discussions along these lines. Most sessions the Q&A was very short.

I think my favorite official "session" was the lunch table discussion because it was exactly what you are referring to.

Steve said something interesting that most blew right over ... that most new ideas come from urban areas and universities, because of the exchange of ideas / ideas building on ideas / leapfrogging / etc. Conferences ARE important, because even though you can get presented information sitting in front of your computer, you cannot get the EXCHANGE of ideas that happen at conferences. And that's why people heard me say multiple times that it's the attendees that make the conference. Presenters are the spark. Attendees are the real reason for being there.

 

[spaghetti]

Apparently way back when she made some disparaging comments about the announcement of Tesla's new Superchargers network along the lines of it being the opposite of what the movement needed. Fewer charging standards, not more, something to that effect.

The question was whether she still stood behind that position after seeing the success of the network and what it's done for EV adoption.

The answer was a qualified yes. She felt the media mischaracterized her statements, that the Supercharger network was successful for Tesla, and in a lot of ways what's good for Tesla is good for the EV movement, but she still felt that multiple proprietary standards aren't a good way to spread EVs to the masses.

The above is all from memory and may not be 100% accurate, but that's what I recall. I think videos of the presentations will get posted eventually so you can hear it right from her. Her presentation was fantastic, IMO.

Thanks for the clarification. I firmly believe in technology standardization if one wants to accelerate said technology adoption. Imagine if we did not have WiFi and 3G standards for LAN and WAN - the world would be a different place. That being said, creation of standards has its own share of headaches, especially when you have different parties with varied agendas - which is almost always the case - and hence I can completely understand why Tesla would choose to go the proprietary SC route. There is no doubt that the SCs have been critical to Tesla's success thus far. But the longer-term mass-adoption question remains open.

 

[TEG]

Not all EV pundits are fans of SuperCharging for reasons besides "yet another standard".
A common view is "they are solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved".
Or "this highlights an EV limitation that shouldn't stop adoption."

The basic premise is that EVs are used for 99% local driving, and someone could always rent a hybrid for a long distance road trip.
Also, it is rare for people to want to do multi-thousand mile road trips. So basically a lot of effort to answer the "corner case".
They view it as Tesla having to put in a lot of resources that could be better used on more common use cases.

Unfortunately, EV nay-Sayers basically force Tesla to answer this challenge so that Tesla can claim "no compromises" compared to ICE vehicles.


Some of this goes back to the argument that a 100 mile range EV should be good enough for the driving habits of most people...

 

[bonnie]

Not all EV pundits are fans of SuperCharging for reasons besides "yet another standard".
A common view is "they are solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved".
Or "this highlights an EV limitation that shouldn't stop adoption."

The basic premise is that EVs are used for 99% local driving, and someone could always rent a hybrid for a long distance road trip.
Also, it is rare for people to want to do multi-thousand mile road trips. So basically a lot of effort to answer the "corner case".
They view it as Tesla having to put in a lot of resources that could be better used on more common use cases.

Unfortunately, EV nay-Sayers basically force Tesla to answer this challenge so that Tesla can claim "no compromises" compared to ICE vehicles.


Some of this goes back to the argument that a 100 mile range EV should be good enough for the driving habits of most people...

I wonder how that crowd rationalizes the actual use the superchargers are receiving. Can't be dismissed as merely an anomaly ....

 

[Bgarret]

Not all EV pundits are fans of SuperCharging for reasons besides "yet another standard".
A common view is "they are solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved".
Or "this highlights an EV limitation that shouldn't stop adoption."

The basic premise is that EVs are used for 99% local driving, and someone could always rent a hybrid for a long distance road trip.
Also, it is rare for people to want to do multi-thousand mile road trips. So basically a lot of effort to answer the "corner case".
They view it as Tesla having to put in a lot of resources that could be better used on more common use cases.

Unfortunately, EV nay-Sayers basically force Tesla to answer this challenge so that Tesla can claim "no compromises" compared to ICE vehicles.


Some of this goes back to the argument that a 100 mile range EV should be good enough for the driving habits of most people...

Unfortunately, not everyone wants to eat their vegetables. What TESLA is doing is challenging the realm of the possible. I really enjoyed Chelsea's presentation, but the road of compromise is the road to niche player. If we only need 100 mile range, then we only need 0-60 in 22 seconds and we only need really poor styling and everything can look like a Prius. It was interesting to talk to different people about 500 mile batteries and the cost/benefit and practicality of them. People were arguing that we don't need 500 mile batteries...while I advocated for the 500 mile batteries so I could drive 300 miles with my hair on fire.

As far as conference attendance and need - there are times when any forum or discussion online becomes 2 dimensional. It can only go so deep, be so interactive (even if it is a teleconference). TMC Connect provided the extra dimensions - the color to the black and white we see in the written word. I appreciated seeing a bunch of you in color, live and in extra dimensions. Too bad about the hot tub security and the 9pm city ordinance....damn rules - there are only so many times you can get chased out of a hot tub by security with dignity - and that is probably, at most, once. Hope to see everyone and more next year.

 

[dirkhh]

I wonder how that crowd rationalizes the actual use the superchargers are receiving. Can't be dismissed as merely an anomaly ....

They don't. Instead they come up with "but if I want to drive to XYZ" scenarios - places that aren't served by super chargers.

I can actually relate to both sides of this argument. Through my wife I used to have some contact with planners. The people who tell you that you don't need a car because there's public transport, etc. So having someone tell me that I don't need to have a car that can drive xxx miles because I usually don't drive that far and that I could always rent something else for the five times a year that I do... That just gets me angry. Don't tell me what I should want to do.
On the flip side, yes, long distance travel is more complex, even with the supercharger network as built today. A week in the Bay Area shower clearly that away from home and convenient overnight charging things are indeed a lot more complex and require more planning.

Hey, any moderators around here who could move these posts into an appropriate thread? O

 

[Doug_G]

Some of this goes back to the argument that a 100 mile range EV should be good enough for the driving habits of most people...

My round trip to work and back is under 40 km, but a "100 mile" EV wouldn't come close to meeting my "use case". I often have to drive larger distances to meet suppliers, etc., and it wouldn't be anywhere near adequate - especially in winter.

I never have any problem with range in the Model S or Roadster, although I had one major outlier day last year when I drove the Model S all over town all day, and did some charging at work to add some safety margin (and ironically that got cut short when a Tesla arrived from out of town and needed juice!).

I wonder how that crowd rationalizes the actual use the superchargers are receiving. Can't be dismissed as merely an anomaly ....

If you haven't used them, you don't understand it. Just like how ICE car people don't understand overnight home charging.

I always assumed Superchargers would be wonderful, but only got to try them for myself in the last few days while in California. They're more wonderful than I imagined.

 

[JPP]

My round trip to work and back is under 40 km, but a "100 mile" EV wouldn't come close to meeting my "use case". I often have to drive larger distances to meet suppliers, etc., and it wouldn't be anywhere near adequate - especially in winter.

I never have any problem with range in the Model S or Roadster, although I had one major outlier day last year when I drove the Model S all over town all day, and did some charging at work to add some safety margin (and ironically that got cut short when a Tesla arrived from out of town and needed juice!).



If you haven't used them, you don't understand it. Just like how ICE car people don't understand overnight home charging.

I always assumed Superchargers would be wonderful, but only got to try them for myself in the last few days while in California. They're more wonderful than I imagined.

Funny, I live in the SF Bay Area and, like Doug_G, had not experienced the joy/utility of Superchargers until I drove to/from TMC Connect. In an abstract way it is sort of like Steve Jobs/Apple who strove to give people what they needed, not what they asked for. People often do not know what they need and cannot articulate an idea that is a quantum leap from their own experiences. That is the beauty of Elon et al and TM...looking far ahead.

 

[Owner]

Maybe I am an outlier, but one of the big reasons I switched from a Roadster to a Model S is because of supercharging.
I like my road trips, perhaps too much and wanted to be able to get away from frequent ICE usage.

Do I use it weekly? No.
Do I use it monthly? Maybe every other month?
Did I drive across country? Yes

I always assumed Superchargers would be wonderful.

 

[brianman]

I wonder how that crowd rationalizes the actual use the superchargers are receiving. Can't be dismissed as merely an anomaly ....

People dismiss my driving habits as an anomaly all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

I appreciated seeing a bunch of you in color, live and in extra dimensions.

I really should get into the gym.

- - - Updated - - -

I always assumed Superchargers would be wonderful, but only got to try them for myself in the last few days while in California. They're more wonderful than I imagined.

Really interesting feedback from a Tesla veteran. Thanks for sharing it, sir.

 

[dsm363]

I think they believe Tesla could have easily achieved the same goal by either waiting for the CCS plug to finish and delay the Model S by an additional year or two or going with CHAdeMO and going at 30-50% less power and also risk having the spots Leafed (for lack of a better term). The thing they miss is that while it is another standard, it doesn't matter. There is really only one other practical DC standard in CHAdeMO and it is a horrible and slower design that only works with the Leaf right now (yes, I know other cars can use it but they aren't sold in volume).

 

[evchels]

Thanks for the kind comments about my presentation; I was nervous! :smile:

Don't leave us folks who could not attend hanging . What was the supercharger question?

As other have described, the gist of the question (as I understood it) was whether I would change my original position about Tesla doing proprietary SCs given how well they've turned out from a marketing perspective (taking the road trip question off the table) and in particular whether I'd retract a comment about the industry not needing another standard.

Knowing the crowd's sentiment, it indeed may have been easier to do just that- especially as I was aware of the time crunch by the time we got to Q&A. But I tried to explain the comments I made then in part because I don't think the position was ever as extreme as it may have appeared to some, and because it was somewhat context specific to where Tesla, in particular, was at the time. The industry/movement has had multiple connectors since the 1990's- and while annoying, I've never seen it as a deal-breaker. At the same time, it has delayed non-Tesla fast charger deployment, which has caused some to anecdotally delay/avoid buying (non-Tesla, at least) EVs because of lack of infrastructure. And both then and now, the industry/movement itself doesn't specifically need another connector entrant (which is different than whether it can accommodate another, especially as the SC deployments have not particularly affected the others). So, to his specific question, I stood by the comment about the industry not needing another connector.

The context-specific part is that I'd also questioned Tesla's choice of launching a proprietary network in that moment a) because Tesla itself was particularly low on financial resources at the time, b) it seemed to be pursuing it in a particularly cost-intensive manner with all of the specialized architecture, etc. (and having to re-design after not noticing (?) the original monument's resemblances), and c) that Ted Merendino and others at Tesla repeatedly described the project's genesis as being rooted in the fact that Elon thought available connectors were "ugly". Technically, they could have done a network and achieved much of the PR/marketing success with an existing connector, and in particular the "ugly" reasoning made the expense and effort of a proprietary system questionable.

I do realize that once they decided to pursue their own path, they ultimately made the SCs more capable than other chargers, and these are all moot points now given how well the SCs have worked out. Both the industry and Tesla are each now in a different place, and I don't think there is any legitimate question of the success of the SCs. But under similar circumstances I'd raise similar questions- so while my current view of SCs may be different, I didn't retroactively change that original position when asked.

I've always appreciated--and said--that Tesla has taken a thoughtful, judicious approach to deployment- sprinkling a relatively small number of sites in precisely the right locations, creating 24/7 availability to facilitate the trips they're aiming for and best serve its drivers, and adding more locations over time. It is part of the reason Tesla has gotten far more credit and public buzz than others with a fraction of the infrastructure. All public infrastructure is, to some degree, a marketing effort intended to answer that "what if?" question, and Tesla is answering it very well for its own community.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Thanks for the kind comments about my presentation; I was nervous! :smile:

couldn't tell:smile: you were great.
and good answers too

 

[FlasherZ]

The context-specific part is that I'd also questioned Tesla's choice of launching a proprietary network in that moment a) because Tesla itself was particularly low on financial resources at the time, b) it seemed to be pursuing it in a particularly cost-intensive manner with all of the specialized architecture, etc. (and having to re-design after not noticing (?) the original monument's resemblances), and c) that Ted Merendino and others at Tesla repeatedly described the project's genesis as being rooted in the fact that Elon thought available connectors were "ugly". Technically, they could have done a network and achieved much of the PR/marketing success with an existing connector, and in particular the "ugly" reasoning made the expense and effort of a proprietary system questionable.

I think people tend to underestimate the aesthetics of the connector.

I'm a geek and engineer who cares more about function - so I don't care whether the connector is horrible or not...

...but I've observed my wife (a former teacher and a more form-over-function person) and her approach to the Model S over the past couple of years. And I've quietly observed her reaction to various things about the car, and really the aesthetics and ergonomics play an important part. With the Tesla connector, she "got it" right away - it felt natural to her, and she didn't think twice about plugging it in.

With the J1772 connector, I could see she was more nervous. Tesla's connector naturally aligns, but J1772 is mostly round, so you don't get instant alignment based on shape (you have to ensure the key is lined up in the keyway versus simply matching the shape). In electricity, bigger cables signal - consciously or not - bigger and more dangerous currents. Bigger connectors can do the same, and can intimidate. You might argue it was the need for the adapter, but I mostly controlled for that by placing the adapter myself.

I heard comments along the same line when I showed her the first CHAdeMO charging station we saw in the wild. The connector is big (subconscious: DANGER), and yes - it's round, so there's not instant alignment. In fact, when you need videos to demonstrate to consumers how to properly connect to a quick-charger without breaking the charger, you're probably Doing It Wrong(tm). (How To Use a Yazaki CHAdeMO Connector - YouTube)

I offer that Tesla was smart here to reject the existing connectors in favor of a better design.

 

[Doug_G]

Thanks for the kind comments about my presentation; I was nervous! :smile:

It didn't show at all. You looked relaxed. I guess if you can't actually be relaxed, you've learned to fake it lol.

Great talk by the way, I really enjoyed it.

On the topic of the connector, I agree that standards proliferation is one of those I-wish-we-could-avoid-it things. On the other hand, the "standard" Level III plugs are horrendous, and I do believe they are a barrier to adoption.

xkcd: Standards

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

I submit that Elon, JB and others had even more of an "evil" plan in mind. By building a vast SC network using this simple and efficient plug design, they'd eventually compel the entire industry to adapt to this or die. Generating revenue in making others co-opt the design and use the Tesla SC network is the "ulterior" motive.

Yes, we had "smartphones" - all those berries - before we had a physical-keyboard-less touchscreen phone. Now, a physical keyboard seems quaint. A poor parallel maybe, but, sort of applies.

 

[dsm363]

Thanks for the kind comments about my presentation; I was nervous! :smile:



As other have described, the gist of the question (as I understood it) was whether I would change my original position about Tesla doing proprietary SCs given how well they've turned out from a marketing perspective (taking the road trip question off the table) and in particular whether I'd retract a comment about the industry not needing another standard.

Knowing the crowd's sentiment, it indeed may have been easier to do just that- especially as I was aware of the time crunch by the time we got to Q&A. But I tried to explain the comments I made then in part because I don't think the position was ever as extreme as it may have appeared to some, and because it was somewhat context specific to where Tesla, in particular, was at the time. The industry/movement has had multiple connectors since the 1990's- and while annoying, I've never seen it as a deal-breaker. At the same time, it has delayed non-Tesla fast charger deployment, which has caused some to anecdotally delay/avoid buying (non-Tesla, at least) EVs because of lack of infrastructure. And both then and now, the industry/movement itself doesn't specifically need another connector entrant (which is different than whether it can accommodate another, especially as the SC deployments have not particularly affected the others). So, to his specific question, I stood by the comment about the industry not needing another connector.

The context-specific part is that I'd also questioned Tesla's choice of launching a proprietary network in that moment a) because Tesla itself was particularly low on financial resources at the time, b) it seemed to be pursuing it in a particularly cost-intensive manner with all of the specialized architecture, etc. (and having to re-design after not noticing (?) the original monument's resemblances), and c) that Ted Merendino and others at Tesla repeatedly described the project's genesis as being rooted in the fact that Elon thought available connectors were "ugly". Technically, they could have done a network and achieved much of the PR/marketing success with an existing connector, and in particular the "ugly" reasoning made the expense and effort of a proprietary system questionable.

I do realize that once they decided to pursue their own path, they ultimately made the SCs more capable than other chargers, and these are all moot points now given how well the SCs have worked out. Both the industry and Tesla are each now in a different place, and I don't think there is any legitimate question of the success of the SCs. But under similar circumstances I'd raise similar questions- so while my current view of SCs may be different, I didn't retroactively change that original position when asked.

I've always appreciated--and said--that Tesla has taken a thoughtful, judicious approach to deployment- sprinkling a relatively small number of sites in precisely the right locations, creating 24/7 availability to facilitate the trips they're aiming for and best serve its drivers, and adding more locations over time. It is part of the reason Tesla has gotten far more credit and public buzz than others with a fraction of the infrastructure. All public infrastructure is, to some degree, a marketing effort intended to answer that "what if?" question, and Tesla is answering it very well for its own community.

I think you did a great job. While I understand your main point I still disagree. Of course the world doesn't need another standard but it's not like CHAdeMO was well thought out or designed. It truly is an ugly plug and yes, that does matter. If Apple has proved anything it is design does matter. The feel of the plug and the weight do matter. If CHAdeMO was amazing and if Nissan had bothered to build stations every 50 miles along major highways then you'd have a good argument but they didn't. Tesla couldn't wait for CCS to come out or Model S design would have been set back a year or more costing Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars. CHAdeMO wasn't great either. Hopefully we will get your wish and they'll all realize Tesla has the best solution and adopt that.

 

[tomsax]

Several conference attendees have asked about getting a copy of my slides from the conference. They are now available here:

Model S Battery Pack Longevity

Model S Performance (all but the first slide appear in the Battery Longevity slides)

They are just the slides with no additional commentary, so they probably won't make a lot of sense unless you attended the talks. I plan to update the charts with the data that has been added to the Model S survey since I finalized the presentations for the show (including Dante's 91,500-mile report), add a chart comparing "A" batteries to later versions, and write a paper to explain it all. That's at least a few weeks out, but I wanted to make the slides available for TMC Connect attendees right away.

 

[brianman]

@evchels - Agreed with Doug_G, you faked it composure well.

@FlasherZ - Well put.

 

[SteveG3]

Several conference attendees have asked about getting a copy of my slides from the conference. They are now available here:

Model S Battery Pack Longevity

Model S Performance (all but the first slide appear in the Battery Longevity slides)

They are just the slides with no additional commentary, so they probably won't make a lot of sense unless you attended the talks. I plan to update the charts with the data that has been added to the Model S survey since I finalized the presentations for the show (including Dante's 91,500-mile report), add a chart comparing "A" batteries to later versions, and write a paper to explain it all. That's at least a few weeks out, but I wanted to make the slides available for TMC Connect attendees right away.

Thanks Tom