EVgo DC chargers were horrible up until the beginning of 2018. They're still not perfect, but improvement is being made.

[DNAinaGoodWay]

But those subsidies are supporting the build out of an infrastructure still in it's infancy. When the market matures we'll enjoy price competition and better utilization, but we're far from that yet.

Sure, free promotion users tie Stations up, but those programs also help provide more stations in more locations.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

But those subsidies are supporting the build out of an infrastructure still in it's infancy. When the market matures we'll enjoy price competition and better utilization, but we're far from that yet.

Sure, free promotion users tie Stations up, but those programs also help provide more stations in more locations.

This. Without those programs, the stations wouldn't be there in the first place. I'd rather wait in line for a busy station than have to resort to L2 (or just burn gasoline!)

 

[michaellax]

It is a bit mind boggling to me that anyone complains about a program where Nissan and BMW have chosen to pay to give their customers priority when GM clearly refuses to do so!

And why not complain about Tesla SuperChargers that don't allow our Bolt EVs to utilize them AT ALL; admittedly with a different non-compatible technology, but the theory is the same: Tesla paid for the infrastructure and limits it to Teslas!

I agree with the other viewpoint: At least EVGo infrastructure is out there for me to use, and in my case frequently enough to be on the $15 per month plan!

I go to a concert: I can sit in the $250 seats or the $75 seats; but I don't sit in the $75 seats and complain about all of the $250 people sitting in front of me! hahahaha :lol:

 

[SeanNelson]

And why not complain about Tesla SuperChargers that don't allow our Bolt EVs to utilize them AT ALL; admittedly with a different non-compatible technology, but the theory is the same: Tesla paid for the infrastructure and limits it to Teslas!

Yes, and their refusal to allow other vehicles to pay for access to their chargers goes flatly against their stated goal of encouraging widespread adoption of EVs. In other words, their money is not where their mouth is.

 

[michaellax]

And why not complain about Tesla SuperChargers that don't allow our Bolt EVs to utilize them AT ALL; admittedly with a different non-compatible technology, but the theory is the same: Tesla paid for the infrastructure and limits it to Teslas!

Yes, and their refusal to allow other vehicles to pay for access to their chargers goes flatly against their stated goal of encouraging widespread adoption of EVs. In other words, their money is not where their mouth is.

Given their financial situation and the upcoming need for capital to build out the Model 3; they will probably have to license out their charging infrastructure.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

And why not complain about Tesla SuperChargers that don't allow our Bolt EVs to utilize them AT ALL; admittedly with a different non-compatible technology, but the theory is the same: Tesla paid for the infrastructure and limits it to Teslas!

Yes, and their refusal to allow other vehicles to pay for access to their chargers goes flatly against their stated goal of encouraging widespread adoption of EVs. In other words, their money is not where their mouth is.

Given their financial situation and the upcoming need for capital to build out the Model 3; they will probably have to license out their charging infrastructure.

Here's to hoping they go to the consumers and not the manufacturers. I still dream of a day (yeah I know - keep dreaming) when I could plug my Bolt into a supercharging station. I would gladly pay $1k for a Tesla-to-CCS adapter and then EVGo-type rates to use the network.

 

[sgt1372]

I would gladly pay $1k for a Tesla-to-CCS adapter and then EVGo-type rates to use the network.

Really? :roll:

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I would gladly pay $1k for a Tesla-to-CCS adapter and then EVGo-type rates to use the network.

Really? :roll:

Yes, really. Unlike you, I want an EV to replace gasoline. Judge me if you want, but that is my personal goal. Superchargers are well placed and always in groups of 4 or more. You never have to think about whether they'll be working when you get there. No other charge network is anything like it.

 

[cyaopec]

I would gladly pay $1k for a Tesla-to-CCS adapter and then EVGo-type rates to use the network.

Really? :roll:

Yes, really. Unlike you, I want an EV to replace gasoline. Judge me if you want, but that is my personal goal. Superchargers are well placed and always in groups of 4 or more. You never have to think about whether they'll be working when you get there. No other charge network is anything like it.

NRG is a pretty big company. Let's not pretend otherwise. This entire debate would be settled if they would simply up their installations from 2 to 4. I can live with 50 kWh charging. But they need to up their game. And for occasional inter-city travel I'll pay a premium to fund more chargers.

 

[cyaopec]

It is a bit mind boggling to me that anyone complains about a program where Nissan and BMW have chosen to pay to give their customers priority when GM clearly refuses to do so!

And why not complain about Tesla SuperChargers that don't allow our Bolt EVs to utilize them AT ALL; admittedly with a different non-compatible technology, but the theory is the same: Tesla paid for the infrastructure and limits it to Teslas!

I agree with the other viewpoint: At least EVGo infrastructure is out there for me to use, and in my case frequently enough to be on the $15 per month plan!

I go to a concert: I can sit in the $250 seats or the $75 seats; but I don't sit in the $75 seats and complain about all of the $250 people sitting in front of me! hahahaha :lol:

I guess there's some confusion. The issue is what's the purpose of the L3 charger. If everyone has a 240 circuit in their garage then it must be for inter-city and inter-state travel. If apartment, cheap homeowners or condo dwellers are getting into the game then over utilized L3 stations will make inter-city travel difficult and hurt the BEV movement.

 

[michaellax]

I guess there's some confusion. The issue is what's the purpose of the L3 charger. If everyone has a 240 circuit in their garage then it must be for inter-city and inter-state travel. If apartment, cheap homeowners or condo dwellers are getting into the game then over utilized L3 stations will make inter-city travel difficult and hurt the BEV movement.

I don't know what you are talking about here:

First you question the purpose of the L3 charger.

Then you go into a discussion of the L2 charger (240 circuits) in garages, apartments, cheap homeowners and condo dwellers.

Then you are back to L3.

So, yes, there is much confusion here!

Please clarify what you are trying to say.

 

[sgt1372]

Really? :roll:

Yes, really.

I'd pay $100-200 for an adapter plus a reasonable cost for the charge but $1k just for the adapter just seems WAY TOO much to me.

But that's neither here nor there, since there aren't any such adapters available and the Supercharger network still isn't available for use by non-Tesla owners.

Musk has reportedly said that he would be open to allowing EVs made by other mfgs to use the Supercharging network but that would probably require costly licensing fees and technical adaptations to the vehicles that other mfgs would not be willing to pay for

They certainly haven't indicated any willingness to do so to date and as long as the Suoerchargers are branded TESLA, probably never will.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Really? :roll:

Yes, really.

I'd pay $100-200 for an adapter plus a reasonable cost for the charge but $1k just for the adapter just seems WAY TOO much to me.

But that's neither here nor there, since there aren't any such adapters available and (despite rumors) Tesla still hasn't given any clear indication when (if ever) it will make the Supercharger network available for use by non-Tesla owners.

Yeah, so $200 for the piece of hardware and $800 for the access. Or you can say $800 is towards the build out of the network.

As you say, in the end what you or I would be willing to pay is moot. It's not available at any cost.

 

[michaellax]

Yes, really.

I'd pay $100-200 for an adapter plus a reasonable cost for the charge but $1k just for the adapter just seems WAY TOO much to me.

But that's neither here nor there, since there aren't any such adapters available and (despite rumors) Tesla still hasn't given any clear indication when (if ever) it will make the Supercharger network available for use by non-Tesla owners.

Yeah, so $200 for the piece of hardware and $800 for the access. Or you can say $800 is towards the build out of the network.

As you say, in the end what you or I would be willing to pay is moot. It's not available at any cost.

And the reason it's not available at any cost is that the two technologies cannot be effectively mated! Hence the cost of the adapter can be determined by the use of this mathematical formula:

$1,000 divided by [[6 of one] minus [a half dozen of the other!]] hahahaha :lol:

 

[GetOffYourGas]

And the reason it's not available at any cost is that the two technologies cannot be effectively mated!

I would place a bet on that. We'll know that to be false if Tesla ever makes a CCS-to-Tesla adapter like they have made for CHAdeMO. Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec, but not exactly the same. Hence the adapter.

No, the reason it's not available at any cost is because Tesla would lose the real reason they build the network in the first place - as a means to sell their cars! And it's working. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people say that they cannot buy a non-Tesla EV because of the Supercharging network!

 

[michaellax]

And the reason it's not available at any cost is that the two technologies cannot be effectively mated!

I would place a bet on that. We'll know that to be false if Tesla ever makes a CCS-to-Tesla adapter like they have made for CHAdeMO. Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec, but not exactly the same. Hence the adapter.

OK: I'll bet dollars to donuts!

Please provide a link for your statement:

That Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec.

The fact that Tesla made a CHAdeMO adapter is proof of nothing in this regard.

Thank you.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

And the reason it's not available at any cost is that the two technologies cannot be effectively mated!

I would place a bet on that. We'll know that to be false if Tesla ever makes a CCS-to-Tesla adapter like they have made for CHAdeMO. Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec, but not exactly the same. Hence the adapter.

OK: I'll bet dollars to donuts!

Please provide a link for your statement:

That Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec.

The fact that Tesla made a CHAdeMO adapter is proof of nothing in this regard.

Thank you.

I'll do you one better. Here is Tesla's own patent application for a CCS-to-Tesla adapter.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20160036256/

You're welcome.

The fact that Tesla made a CHAdeMO adapter is proof of nothing in this regard.

Thank you.

No, it's not. And I never claimed it to be.

 

[DucRider]

And the reason it's not available at any cost is that the two technologies cannot be effectively mated!

I would place a bet on that. We'll know that to be false if Tesla ever makes a CCS-to-Tesla adapter like they have made for CHAdeMO. Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec, but not exactly the same. Hence the adapter.

OK: I'll bet dollars to donuts!

Please provide a link for your statement:

That Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec.

The fact that Tesla made a CHAdeMO adapter is proof of nothing in this regard.

Thank you.

Anyone vaguely familiar with how charging protocols work would realize that a small circuit board could handle the "translation" of the pilot signals for various charging standards, but it is unlikely to be needed.

Tesla CTO JB Straubel:

Tesla sat on the SAE J1772 charge-connector development committee, then your company introduced its own hardware set, the Tesla Supercharger. Walk me through your decision making for this.

We’ve been working on DC and fast-charge capability for a long time. I feel that’s transformational for EVs. It totally untethers an EV. You can go on trips like a normal car.

There still is no really good standard on this. The SAE committees finalized the new Combo Connector standard, which I’m a little frustrated with because the new combo-standard plug doesn’t have the current-carrying capability of our existing DC plug, in terms of current on the DC pins. I feel that a standard needs to project out at least five, ten years.

What about the communication protocol of the Combo Connector? It’s considered essential for V2G.

That’s fine. We’re definitely commonizing with all of that. The only thing that’s up for debate in all of these standards is the physical geometries of the pins and sockets. Everything else is pretty easy to adapt to. The communication standards are pretty universal. We’re 100% compliant with all the J1772 communication levels, signaling, voltage, everything.

We provide adaptors for all the charging types. The challenge we didn’t want was two plugs. That really left us to differentiate from the physical pin-and-socket combination.

http://articles.sae.org/11923/

 

[michaellax]

That Patent application NEVER mentions CCS!

I like Chocolate donuts; thank you!

It's like if Sony had only developed an adapter to allow its Betamax to play DVDs hahahaha! :lol:

And some SONY executive making pie in the sky promises in the early 1990's about the viability of Betamax into the future!

That Tesla executive's article is in 2013!!!

 

[GetOffYourGas]

So because the patent doesn't use the acronym "CCS", that proves that it is not technically feasible? You do realize that J1772 is an SAE standard which includes both AC and DC charging, right? It seems pretty clear to me that this application is talking about the protocol we know of as "CCS".

From my previous link:

More particularly, however, each type of EVSE can operate according to any of multiple different protocols for charging of electric vehicles. One such example is the SAE J1772 standard which was established by SAE International. In particular, the protocol for DC charging under the SAE J1772 standard specifies that the bus must be energized (i.e., must be at a certain voltage level) by the time the contactors close onto the bus.