Tesla Charging cannot be the standard NA adopts to.

[DevSecOps]

I will never trust anything elon says unless it required for him to do it by law.

But you want to use Superchargers with the adapter? So, you're fine lining his pockets, but you just don't trust him?

Sponsored

 

[emoore]

But you want to use Superchargers with the adapter? So, you're fine lining his pockets, but you just don't trust him?

No I won’t use a supercharger unless it’s an emergency. I will start using them if he gives up control of the NACS.

 

[FooF]

No I won’t use a supercharger unless it’s an emergency. I will start using them if he gives up control of the NACS.

Booting musk from Tesla would be acceptable as well

 

[SoCal Rob]

I don't see it that way. Tesla is a public company and Elon has a fiduciary duty that he must uphold. Comparing Tesla to "X" is not the same. One is public, one is private. He can do whatever he wants with "X". The comments surrounding him pushing the limits with technology and vehicle safety are likely not all him. He has a bunch of younger go-getters working at Tesla that all have visions. I think you'd be giving the man too much credit to say that he is the one pushing all these different things (i.e. yoke). Additionally, I commend Tesla for pushing the limits. Because he pushed the envelope, we have EVs. As someone myself in my late 30's and having been a key player in one of the largest global cloud networks, I love pushing those envelopes and always reaching for the sky. I'm not worried about Elon one bit.

As I pointed out, there's more non-Tesla DCFC units in the USA than Superchargers. We wouldn't be elevating one company to hold a monopoly. My hope is that EA and all the other charge networks will see it as a threat and improve if they want to stay viable. It could easily spur creativity and improvements across the board.

Another point that we differ on to a major extent is that I have far and above more faith in a for profit company than our government. Yes, Tesla has a duty to make their shareholders a profit. That's not a secret. That's also the reason that they wouldn't do anything shady.

My distaste with this thread is that the OP is advocating that we don't move to NACS because of Elon. I think that's a selfish stance. NACS has been proven to be the superior connector and it will be an SAE standardized format by the time it's implemented in non-Tesla vehicels. It will not be owned by Tesla. Not wanting something because some rich guy funded it's development is weird. No one will be forcing the OP or anyone else to use Superchargers. It's just a connector that was likely designed and engineered with little input from Elon. It's the same as all those who say "If -insert name here- becomes president I'm moving to Canada".

You keep misinterpreting, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting things I’ve written in this thread. Beyond that, you seem to cite some bad data or used the wrong link to uphold your assertion that “In the USA there are more L3 chargers that are non-Tesla than Superchargers, by 4000 (cited).” In fact, you seem to have gotten that backwards since Tesla has 4,000 more in the U.S. than all others combined.
“Tesla is known for its supercharging network, which it began building over a decade ago (eschewing a previous plan to build battery swapping stations).

In the US, it is actually bigger than all other such networks combined, with just over 19,000 fast chargers installed, compared with just over 15,000 from all other operators.” from
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/15/1074775/ev-chargers-tesla-nacs-superchargers/amp/

You don’t seem to be discussing anything in good faith. You even imply that someone acting as an executive for a for-profit corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the public in some way. “Tesla is a public company and Elon has a fiduciary duty that he must uphold. ” How does that address my concern that Tesla could gain a near-monopoly and drive competitors out of business? My understanding is that an officer of a corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation and its stockholders. There is no conflict as a fiduciary in eliminating or minimizing competition so the for-profit corporation can maximize profits.

If you can establish some credibility with your claim of Tesla having 4,000 fewer chargers than the rest combined and maybe respond to what I actually wrote then I’m happy to continue a civilized discussion. Maybe you could even explain how the fiduciary role in a for-profit corporation prevents the use of any legal means of increasing profits, in case I inferred something from your statement which you didn’t imply. As it stands, from my perspective, it just seems like you don’t want to discuss anything. Instead you want to argue and it seems you’ll write whatever it takes to continue arguing, regardless of the accuracy or veracity.

 

[Thedude]

So much butthurt about one man. This forum (and Rivian) wouldn’t exist if not for Musk.

 

[DevSecOps]

You keep misinterpreting, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting things I’ve written in this thread. Beyond that, you seem to cite some bad data or used the wrong link to uphold your assertion that “In the USA there are more L3 chargers that are non-Tesla than Superchargers, by 4000 (cited).” In fact, you seem to have gotten that backwards since Tesla has 4,000 more in the U.S. than all others combined.
“Tesla is known for its supercharging network, which it began building over a decade ago (eschewing a previous plan to build battery swapping stations).

In the US, it is actually bigger than all other such networks combined, with just over 19,000 fast chargers installed, compared with just over 15,000 from all other operators.” from
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/15/1074775/ev-chargers-tesla-nacs-superchargers/amp/

You don’t seem to be discussing anything in good faith. You even imply that someone acting as an executive for a for-profit corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the public in some way. “Tesla is a public company and Elon has a fiduciary duty that he must uphold. ” How does that address my concern that Tesla could gain a near-monopoly and drive competitors out of business? My understanding is that an officer of a corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation and its stockholders. There is no conflict as a fiduciary in eliminating or minimizing competition so the for-profit corporation can maximize profits.

If you can establish some credibility with your claim of Tesla having 4,000 fewer chargers than the rest combined and maybe respond to what I actually wrote then I’m happy to continue a civilized discussion. Maybe you could even explain how the fiduciary role in a for-profit corporation prevents the use of any legal means of increasing profits, in case I inferred something from your statement which you didn’t imply. As it stands, from my perspective, it just seems like you don’t want to discuss anything. Instead you want to argue and it seems you’ll write whatever it takes to continue arguing, regardless of the accuracy or veracity.

The article I linked says, and I quote "S&P Global Mobility estimates that there are presently around 16,822 Tesla Superchargers and Tesla destination chargers in the United States, along with 126,500 Level 2 and 20,431 Level 3 charging ports."

I interpret that quote as 16822 Tesla L2+L3 and then there's 20431 L3 from others. If the article is wrong and your article is correct then it's still about 50%. I'm willing to accept other numbers. That's still not a monopoly and more importantly, it's still nothing more than status quo for us at this point in time. I fail to see how allowing us to use previously unavailable charge units affects us in a negative way.

As for the fiduciary duty, of course it's not to the public, it's to the shareholders, I said as much. If Elon unilaterally kicked the competition off superchargers that would likely be in breach of his fiduciary duty. It would severely impact revenues and corporate reputation. Additionally, it would likely be in violation of the contracts with Ford, GM, Rivian etc.

The fact is that we don't know what arrangements have been made with Tesla. I'm willing to bet that the CEOs for all these major legacy and new manufacturers know better than anyone spewing conspiracy theories or speculation as they have the fiduciary duty to their respective brands. Do you suppose RJ is just setting us up for failure? In my opinion there's zero supporting facts to these conspiracy theories.

If you think so poorly of me because I have different opinions and I think hating on Tesla/Elon to the point of conspiracy is weird, please just click ignore and you'll never have to see anything I post again. I don't believe in attacking people, forum members or CEOs. There's a lot of people who I don't agree with, but I don't let anyone live rent free in my head.

 

[SoCal Rob]

If you think so poorly of me because I have different opinions and I think hating on Tesla/Elon is extremely childish please just click ignore and you'll never have to see anything I post again. I don't believe in attacking people. There's a lot of people who I don't agree with, but I don't let anyone live rent free in my head.

I think poorly of you because you continuously build straw man arguments by ascribing things to me which I do not write and then trying to argue about what you made up. As I wrote, I’m fine with discussion and I don’t need to agree with people in order to have a productive discussion. I don’t hate Tesla or Elon Musk. I think that Tesla will do what is best for Tesla and Elon will do and say whatever fancies him.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also don’t believe in attacking people. I don’t know what you’re getting at with letting people live rent free in your head and I don’t need deeper insight into your inner workings, thanks.

 

[DevSecOps]

...you continuously build straw man arguments by ascribing things to me which I do not write and then trying to argue about what you made up.

You asked me to prove my numbers to you so I did, using a quote from the article I linked and even said that I'm open to using your numbers for the sake of argument so then you come at me with this...

You and others are making up conspiracy theories. It's nothing more than what-if-isms without basis other than anti Tesla/Elon rhetoric. That's what I've taken issue with.

I'll go ahead and believe that the CEOs of Ford, GM, Rivian, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, Polestar, Volvo and per the investor relations possibly Kia/Hyundai, are doing what's best for their consumers. I'll also choose to believe that NACS, per multiple sources, is superior to CCS1. If all those CEOs thought that Tesla would create a monopoly and possibly hurt their consumers do you think they would go to NACS?

In 2 years let's come back here and see who was correct. I have zero issue admitting when I'm wrong and will be happy to do so if there's some monopoly and Tesla forces us off their Supercharger network.

I don’t know what you’re getting at with letting people live rent free in your head and I don’t need deeper insight into your inner workings, thanks.

Maybe you should Google the phrase, it has nothing to do with my inner workings, it's been around in American English since the 50s.

 

[voxel]

My argument has been "Electrify America is the worst thing to happen to CCS1 charging in the US"

I think they've done more damage than good and pushed carmakers to Tesla's NACS.

 

[Dark-Fx]

My argument has been "Electrify America is the worst thing to happen to CCS1 charging in the US"

I think they've done more damage than good and pushed carmakers to Tesla's NACS.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...tandard-nacs-connector-by-2025-301867143.html

My magic 8-ball predicts lots of repeating of this with "Electrify America is the worst thing to happen to NACS charging in the US" in 2025.

 

[pc500]

Nobody did nacs because Tesla wanted to license it

Tesla gave it away for free when they lost the standard to CCs and people are like why not, it's free, we will use it.

Tesla knows exactly what they are doing. They wanted others to do the redesign work, not them.

CCs and nacs are otherwise interchangeable. Tesla wins.

 

[voxel]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...tandard-nacs-connector-by-2025-301867143.html

My magic 8-ball predicts lots of repeating of this with "Electrify America is the worst thing to happen to NACS charging in the US" in 2025.

Assuming they won't be bankrupt by then lol.

 

[a76marine]

COdogman said:

He is a toddler with a big bank account.

----

Don’t throw shade at toddlers like that...

My lord... the amount of butthurt over Elon and how you all let your opinion of Tesla/NACS get influenced by him is hilarious!

Let's not forget that Elon started Tesla and led the development of NACS. Yes, he holds patents and will continue to hold patents, why shouldn't he? His team invented the protocol.

The new standard will be based on the Tesla protocol , but it will not be controlled by Elon... just based on Tesla's patented protocol.

 

[defcon888]

Came across this article in the Newyorker,
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule | The New Yorker
and a couple of quotes stood out,

'Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”

“Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official told me. “That sucks.”

“In the areas he wants to compete in, he has a very hard time sharing the spotlight, or not being the center of attention.”

And I am sure we will read more about this when the Walter Isaacson biography of Musk comes out.

This article sums up why I don't want BEV makers in North America to adopt to the Tesla charging network and keep upgrading the CCS networks, because we cannot go into a BEV reliance and give complete control and monopoly to a megalomaniac like Musk who would love nothing but the type of control he loves.

I do wish that North American regulators would push Tesla towards CCS like they did in Europe for federal funding, but short of this happening if BEV makers are going to adopt the Tesla standard, then I would like them to push Tesla to divest the Super Charger Network into it's own company, with an independant board of governors where Musk has absolutely no rights or say in it's operations or directions.

Personally, I don't understand how adopting to Tesla will fix the current issues with CCS, which is not the standard itself, but rather the integration. And this issue would absolutely be there when other BEVsstart accessing the Tesla SCs. Tesla also has to upgrade all current SC stationg to their V4s if the experience is even going to be somewhat smooth.

All of this also goes without saying, that there is absolutely no guarantee Musk would not do a complete 180 and say 'Nope, not happening', which I absolutely expect him to do.

If he changes his mind, the government will probably restrict the incentives.

 

[Alley Miller]

So much butthurt about one man. This forum (and Rivian) wouldn’t exist if not for Musk.

…or chocolate, the sun, trees and the internet - wait, that was Al Gore.

Sponsored