If charging infrastructure is going to be critical to someone's buying decision, they care about what's available right now. They'll be looking at both 2018 maps to make a decision, not 2014 Tesla Map vs 2018 CCS map.
100% agree on both points.
The important thing for us to be real about is the fact that the 2018 CCS map will satisfy most of the practical needs along most of the practical routes for most of the prospective CCS owners. IMHO it is absolutely relevant that the story for prospective CCS owners today is exactly the same as it was for prospective Tesla owners in 2014...back then the more established alternative just happened to be ICE. Regardless the history of legacy reluctance toward BEVs, supercharger expansion history is, near as makes no difference, repeating itself with CCS. Why wouldn't we want to encourage that?
And very much on point, don't lose sight of the bigger picture intent here: marginalizing Tesla alternatives, whether intentional or not, is bad for BEVs. Not everyone can afford a Tesla, and those who can might prefer another make. We Tesla owners shouldn't be in the business of perpetuating untruths about the away team, regardless if through ignorance or through malice. We don't need to Trumpify the reality of BEV ownership in an effort to sway people away from anything without a Tesla badge on the hood, we should simply be honest about the benefits and limitations of all options. To wit, discouraging I-pace ownership because there's 'no travel infrastructure' can only be the result of 1) ignorance or 2) deceit.
Furthermore, Tesla has always been all-in with EVs (they don't sell any other type of car), so they built up the infrastructure because it was critical to their business model. Tesla is serious about SuperChargers. Can't say the same thing for the other auto-makers.
100% agree.
Last edited: