GM not planning to fund CCS fast chargers

[Tessy]

For individuals living in the city I'm sure charging stations and charging time will not be an issue as they stay within the city limits but for people living in Suburban areas charging stations and charging times are definitely an issue and should not be overlooked or undermined

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Why do you say that charging stations are not a problem for city dwellers? Many (most?) city dwellers lack access to a garage, or even a driveway. So they cannot necessarily charge overnight. Whereas most suburbanites have both, and can easily charge overnight.

 

[ssspinball]

As much as Tesla claims they want to change the world, their actions have shown otherwise. They are actively discouraging other EVs through their infrastructure efforts. It's not just supercharging grabbing all the ideal locations. They have put a lot of time and money behind destination charging too. And the EVSEs they install are all their proprietary plugs rather than J1772s. And all Teslas can charge from either, but nobody but Tesla can charge from their plug. Hmmm...

There is a lack of historical information here. Tesla would have chosen a standards compatible charger if one existed that met their needs at the time they designed their charge port in 2011 (and the design probably began earlier). Can you really blame them for going their own way and not waiting for the standards bodies to come up with something capable of 150 kW in a similar size? Even today in 2016 the CCS standard hasn't caught up to to Telsa's plug from 2011.

So you say "well Superchargers should use one port and destination chargers should use J1772" but Tesla chose from the start to use one port for all power levels. One port has advantages for both Telsa and their customers. It is an extremely elegant solution that works better in practice than both CCS and Chademo.

I do think there is a market for both CCS-to-Tesla and Tesla-to-CCS adapters. Unfortunately the differences in design doesn't make this easy/cheap.

 

[DucRider]

.....One port has advantages for both Telsa and their customers. It is an extremely elegant solution that works better in practice than both CCS and Chademo.

CCS is a one port design for car manufacturers, which is probably the primary force driving everyone but Nissan (and their semi-subsidiary Mitsubishi) to move away from CHAdeMO.
There are 2 different plug designs for AC vs DC for CCS, but there is still a single port on the car.

I do agree that Tesla had no choice but to create their own standard. They were part of the SAE discussion that resulted in the CCS spec, but needed something capable of higher charge rates than was being discussed.

 

[ssspinball]

I have a CCS car and it clearly has 2 physical ports with different pins for AC and DC charging. There are even separate dust caps for the 2 separate ports on the i3.

I agree it's a preferable design to Chademo because both ports are inline and can be plugged in simultaneously with one massive "combined" plug, but at least in my option the Telsa port is still better because they use shared pins for both AC and DC power making it a truly "1 port" design. Plugging in a CCS car is not a great experience as the plug is so big and clumsy. J1772 is much easier, as is Tesla.

 

[SeanNelson]

I have a CCS car and it clearly has 2 physical ports with different pins for AC and DC charging. There are even separate dust caps for the 2 separate ports on the i3.

Its just semantics, but for the record your CCS car actually has just one "port". If it had two ports then it would look like a fast charge-equipped Nissan Leaf, with two separate places to plug in. CSS uses one place to plug in with two sets of connectors combined into the same "port" / "plug".

 

[GetOffYourGas]

There is a lack of historical information here. Tesla would have chosen a standards compatible charger if one existed that met their needs at the time they designed their charge port in 2011 (and the design probably began earlier). Can you really blame them for going their own way and not waiting for the standards bodies to come up with something capable of 150 kW in a similar size? Even today in 2016 the CCS standard hasn't caught up to to Telsa's plug from 2011.

So you say "well Superchargers should use one port and destination chargers should use J1772" but Tesla chose from the start to use one port for all power levels. One port has advantages for both Telsa and their customers. It is an extremely elegant solution that works better in practice than both CCS and Chademo.

I do think there is a market for both CCS-to-Tesla and Tesla-to-CCS adapters. Unfortunately the differences in design doesn't make this easy/cheap.

I'm familiar with the history, I just didn't feel like recapping it. I often forget that others are not as familiar, so thanks for doing so.

Do I blame them for going their own way with the port? No. They really had no choice if they wanted to get started rolling out their network. CCS isn't that different from Tesla, though, once you get past the physical connector. Making an adaptor should be easier than a CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adaptor (which exists). There isn't yet a need, since most CCS chargers are colocated with CHAdeMO.

What I do fault Tesla for is designing their system specifically to exclude other EVs. Yes, they've said they are open to talks, but that's with manufacturers. GM has declined. If I buy a Bolt, I cannot approach Tesla to charge it on their network, regardless of price.

The other thing I mention is their destination chargers. They could have installed 80A J1772 chargers. These would have charged any EV on the road today at full L2 speed. Instead they chose to cater only to their own drivers, and snub other EVs.

 

[ssspinball]

I have a CCS car and it clearly has 2 physical ports with different pins for AC and DC charging. There are even separate dust caps for the 2 separate ports on the i3.

Its just semantics, but for the record your CCS car actually has just one "port". If it had two ports then it would look like a fast charge-equipped Nissan Leaf, with two separate places to plug in. CSS uses one place to plug in with two sets of connectors combined into the same "port" / "plug".

True, it's semantics on the definition of "port" but I will concede that. The difference is that CCS uses separate pins, which makes for a bulky and clumsy plug where Tesla shares the same pins for AC/DC.

 

[ssspinball]

CCS isn't that different from Tesla, though, once you get past the physical connector. Making an adaptor should be easier than a CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adaptor (which exists). There isn't yet a need, since most CCS chargers are colocated with CHAdeMO.

I don't believe this is accurate. I have followed discussions from a company that sells Chademo-to-Telsa adapters and though I don't remember the technical details, it was clear that CCS has quite a lot more different than the physical connector. I believe it was due to the way the protocol works and how the control signaling works. If you want more detail than that, I'm sure I could find it. There does not exist CSS to Tesla adapter today because of this. I have heard there is already a market for it if there was such a thing.

What I do fault Tesla for is designing their system specifically to exclude other EVs. Yes, they've said they are open to talks, but that's with manufacturers. GM has declined. If I buy a Bolt, I cannot approach Tesla to charge it on their network, regardless of price.

What about their system is designed specifically to exclude other EVs? I thought we just agreed that Tesla had to do their own thing in 2011 because nothing else existed (and largely still doesn't)?

The other thing I mention is their destination chargers. They could have installed 80A J1772 chargers. These would have charged any EV on the road today at full L2 speed. Instead they chose to cater only to their own drivers, and snub other EVs.

I already mentioned how using J1772 would have required 2 separate ports, which is clearly negative in cost and physical size to both Tesla and their customers. They already have a port that completely solves this issue, why make their own product worse? It sounds like you are saying Telsa should create GM-compatible chargers, making their own cars worse, all while GM won't even create OR fund their own chargers.

I think you should be mad at GM, not Tesla.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I'm clearly not explaining myself well enough, but thanks for bearing with me.

CCS isn't that different from Tesla, though, once you get past the physical connector. Making an adaptor should be easier than a CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adaptor (which exists). There isn't yet a need, since most CCS chargers are colocated with CHAdeMO.

I don't believe this is accurate. I have followed discussions from a company that sells Chademo-to-Telsa adapters and though I don't remember the technical details, it was clear that CCS has quite a lot more different than the physical connector. I believe it was due to the way the protocol works and how the control signaling works. If you want more detail than that, I'm sure I could find it. There does not exist CSS to Tesla adapter today because of this. I have heard there is already a market for it if there was such a thing.

Tesla was part of the consortium to design CCS in the first place. They have come out and stated that their supercharging standard is very close to CCS, Much closer than to CHAdeMO, which is the one with a completely different protocol.

What I do fault Tesla for is designing their system specifically to exclude other EVs. Yes, they've said they are open to talks, but that's with manufacturers. GM has declined. If I buy a Bolt, I cannot approach Tesla to charge it on their network, regardless of price.

What about their system is designed specifically to exclude other EVs? I thought we just agreed that Tesla had to do their own thing in 2011 because nothing else existed (and largely still doesn't)?

For one, they could offer a Tesla-to-CHAdeMO connector and sell it to owners of other EVs. Or install other protocol ports, and become a vendor for the entire market. There are any number of ways that they could have built the supercharging network to support all EVs, and not just your own.

The other thing I mention is their destination chargers. They could have installed 80A J1772 chargers. These would have charged any EV on the road today at full L2 speed. Instead they chose to cater only to their own drivers, and snub other EVs.

I already mentioned how using J1772 would have required 2 separate ports, which is clearly negative in cost and physical size to both Tesla and their customers. They already have a port that completely solves this issue, why make their own product worse? It sounds like you are saying Telsa should create GM-compatible chargers, making their own cars worse, all while GM won't even create OR fund their own chargers.

I think you should be mad at GM, not Tesla.

You are talking about the cars. I am talking about the EVSEs (the "destination chargers"). Any Tesla can pull up to a public J1772 EVSE and charge. If instead the EVSE is the HPWC variety, well that's Tesla proprietary. They can use that too (well, Model S/X can, Roadsters are SOL). No other EV on the road can use the HPWC connector. And that is exactly what they are installing.

 

[SeanNelson]

For one, they could offer a Tesla-to-CHAdeMO connector and sell it to owners of other EVs. Or install other protocol ports, and become a vendor for the entire market. There are any number of ways that they could have built the supercharging network to support all EVs, and not just your own.

To be fair, I believe Elon is on record as saying they would open their charging network to other cars as long as those other cars could charge as quickly as Teslas do. Some of the charging locations are already suffering from overcrowding and opening them to cars that take two to three times as long to charge is only going to make a difficult situation worse.

One could look at this negatively as Tesla trying to keep out other cars, or positively as Elon trying to give the other car manufacturers an incentive to incorporate faster charging rates into their products - something that would benefit us all.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

For one, they could offer a Tesla-to-CHAdeMO connector and sell it to owners of other EVs. Or install other protocol ports, and become a vendor for the entire market. There are any number of ways that they could have built the supercharging network to support all EVs, and not just your own.

To be fair, I believe Elon is on record as saying they would open their charging network to other cars as long as those other cars could charge as quickly as Teslas do. Some of the charging locations are already suffering from overcrowding and opening them to cars that take two to three times as long to charge is only going to make a difficult situation worse.

One could look at this negatively as Tesla trying to keep out other cars, or positively as Elon trying to give the other car manufacturers an incentive to incorporate faster charging rates into their products - something that would benefit us all.

True he said that, and currently only the Soul EV (other than Tesla) can charge in the triple digits (>=100kW). But there would be lots of benefit for cars charging at lower rates. With a 30kWh Leaf, SC access would allow me to travel to neighboring cities easily. With a 60kWh Bolt, SC access would let me do pretty much every trip I take today, leaving the hybrid at home. Time could be managed somehow, maybe a time limit of 30 minutes. If your car doesn't charge in that time, sorry, you need to move along.

Again, the problem is that he is going after the manufacturers instead of the consumers. The manufacturers have little if any incentive to subsidize a competitor. Whereas a Bolt owner would likely jump at the chance to hook up to the SC network. From my house in Syracuse, there are maybe 2 or 3 single-port CCS chargers within the Bolt's range. There are over half a dozen supercharger stations, each with 6+ stalls in that same radius.

 

[JPWhite]

Again, the problem is that he is going after the manufacturers instead of the consumers. The manufacturers have little if any incentive to subsidize a competitor.

OK So I'm the consumer that wants to hook up to the SC network. Elon sends me an invitation via email to start using his SC network. Now my car (whatever EV I own) has to be able to charge at say 100kW charge rate. Where do I take my LEAF or Bolt etc to have it modified to take that charge rate? Elon can send me a golden ticket in the mail, as a consumer I am unable to make my vehicle compatible with his network, even if I were capable, would it be prudent for me to make field modifications?

If Musk sets a minimum standard for using the SC network, isn't his only choice to go to the manufacturers to make their cars compatible with his SC network?

How open Musk's SC network really is is subject to debate. On the one hand he's made it "open" by sharing patents which will have the effect of keeping the govt at bay, (AT&T were forced to open their telephone network to other devices), Musk maybe playing a clever game here. He may have made the "openness" commercially unattractive to other OEM's. I don't know the details of what Tesla require of other OEM's and their vehicles to use the SC network. It could be Musk is being deliberately obstructive, or it could be the OEM's are being deliberately obstinate. We simply don't know what was discussed behind closed doors when Tesla met with OEM's after opening up its patents.

 

[ssspinball]

So your argument boils down to you think that Telsa should build EVSEs that support other non-Tesla EVs, increase their costs, reduce the availability for Telsa models (they can't charge when another EV is using it), and ultimately offer zero benefits and purely negatives to actual Telsa buyers?

This seems like a rather fantastical request to me that would only makes sense for a third party network or government, not a car manufacturer.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

So your argument boils down to you think that Telsa should build EVSEs that support other non-Tesla EVs, increase their costs, reduce the availability for Telsa models (they can't charge when another EV is using it), and ultimately offer zero benefits and purely negatives to actual Telsa buyers?

This seems like a rather fantastical request to me that would only makes sense for a third party network or government, not a car manufacturer.

Hardly. The only effect on Tesla drivers is a mild inconvenience of using a J1772-to-Tesla adaptor. Have you see them? They are trivial to use.

http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-adapters/products/sae-j1772

My argument is that Tesla is stating one thing (they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road, from any and all manufacturers) and doing something completely contradictory (installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road). If Tesla wants to support their own business and customers, that's great. That's what keeps businesses going. But they should stop talking like they are some altruistic company only out for the good of the world. They are not. They are in business to make money, just like GM.

 

[Anonymous]

:roll:

Really?

Tesla is not in the business of propping up GM, Ford and other EV laggards. The supercharger network is a key differentiation for Tesla's cars, and it's something other manufacturers are ignoring at their peril. Tesla also doesn't need to conform to the dealer model, which is stifling EV sales.

Yes, Tesla is a public company, but they are deliberately not turning a profit, as they are spending/investing in infrastructure (supercharging, gigafactories, etc) to pass the do-little automakers. Tesla is on a mission.

The others are on a different mission, to make money on the backs of the environment, polluting our world with their "good enough for now" gas powered vehicles. Tesla is so small in comparison, they cannot spend any money to subsidise anyone else, instead, Tesla needs to take any possible advantage of subsidies themselves so they can grow large enough to force action in the other car makers.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

You roll your eyes at me and then prove that you have no idea what my argument is. I have failed in explaining this too many times, I give up.

 

[Anonymous]

My argument is that Tesla is stating one thing (they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road, from any and all manufacturers) and doing something completely contradictory (installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road). If Tesla wants to support their own business and customers, that's great. That's what keeps businesses going. But they should stop talking like they are some altruistic company only out for the good of the world. They are not. They are in business to make money, just like GM.

:roll:

Your argument is based on false claims:

Your claim:

1. Tesla claim they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road. But they also are installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road.

Untrue!

Tesla have openly said they would welcome other cars on their network given appropriate funding of the network by said competitor. No competitor has joined the network. There has been NO claim by any competitor that Tesla has shut them out, rather, every other competitor has openly said their is no reason to build a network themselves, see GM, VW, etc.


2. They are in business to make money, just like GM.

Untrue.

Tesla is not ONLY in the business to only make money, that's GM of course, Tesla has openly stated their primary mission is to accelerate the change to sustained transportation. Making money is something that is necessary to achieve that goal, and is not the end goal itself.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

My argument is that Tesla is stating one thing (they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road, from any and all manufacturers) and doing something completely contradictory (installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road). If Tesla wants to support their own business and customers, that's great. That's what keeps businesses going. But they should stop talking like they are some altruistic company only out for the good of the world. They are not. They are in business to make money, just like GM.

:roll:

Your argument is based on false claims:

Your claim:

1. Tesla claim they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road. But they also are installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road.

Untrue!

Tesla have openly said they would welcome other cars on their network given appropriate funding of the network by said competitor. No competitor has joined the network. There has been NO claim by any competitor that Tesla has shut them out, rather, every other competitor has openly said their is no reason to build a network themselves, see GM, VW, etc.


2. They are in business to make money, just like GM.

Untrue.

Tesla is not ONLY in the business to only make money, that's GM of course, Tesla has openly stated their primary mission is to accelerate the change to sustained transportation. Making money is something that is necessary to achieve that goal, and is not the end goal itself.

And so you do it again. Both of your interpretations of my position are incorrect.

But you can do it a third time if you wish. You'll even get the last word this time; I promise not to reply again.

 

[ssspinball]

My argument is that Tesla is stating one thing (they want to actively encourage more EVs on the road, from any and all manufacturers) and doing something completely contradictory (installing a wonderful network which purposely excludes all other EVs on the road).

I still don't see any evidence of this claim.

No company is going to make their sole product objectively worse intentionally. And yes, adapters are clearly worse than no adapter.