Sponsored

VSG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Threads
2
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
2,568
Location
WA
Vehicles
R1T LE/RB/OC/20
This is about access and who pays for it.
Exactly. This is about Tesla wanting to control access to the national network and to profit from it. If they simply wanted to do everyone a favor and improve the national infrastructure then they could do that today at little to no cost by opening up their supercharger network to ALL existing EV models. And still make a boatload of money, BTW.

With 50-100 new EV models being released in the next two years or so, Tesla will inevitably lose their dominant market share, even as the market continues to increase. If each of those models manages to produce *only* 25,000 vehicles their first year (and many characterize this quantity, produced by Rivian in its first partial year of manufacturing, as a major fail) then that's still several million new non-Tesla EVs being sold every year. Tesla's market share is shrinking. They are doing whatever they can to hold on to their dominance, but IMO they are going about it the wrong way. By opening up their network they could use their head start to stay ahead of the pack. This could be the carrot that Tesla could use to lure new customers. But by trying to control and remain proprietary they are trying to use a stick instead - I personally don't think that is a good long-term strategy.
Sponsored

 

VSG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Threads
2
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
2,568
Location
WA
Vehicles
R1T LE/RB/OC/20
So does this mean if we buy a CCS/NACS (Tesla) adapter we can charge our NON Tesla EV at Tesla Superchargers today?
No. Even with an adapter (which doesn't exist) Tesla still has a proprietary protocol for communicating between the vehicle and the charger to authorize payment and start the charging.
If I recall, we can already use destination Tesla chargers
Yes, for the most part. These do not use the proprietary protocol that superchargers use, so with an adapter you can probably use a destination charger. But these can still be configured to reject non-Tesla vehicles so they're not always available.
 

Yellow Buddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Threads
22
Messages
843
Reaction score
1,268
Location
Behind You
Vehicles
Rivian R1T, F-150 Lightning Pro, Model S, Model X
Occupation
Smart Ass
Authentication for payment most likely.
I'd be willing to bet that might be able to go through the Tesla app. Given how much uptime they seem to have, those stalls are probably already internet connected for monitoring. Location -> Stall # -> Start charge.
 

the long way downunder

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
934
Reaction score
985
Location
charging
Vehicles
Tesla
Occupation
WFH
I think the connector hardware is a design from another source in Europe, chosen because it's remarkably compact for DC.
The "proprietary" (fwiw, everything is proprietary) aspect is the software and financial transaction.

Tesla is ever so generously offering to put your credit card on file and bill you for buying what should be a price regulated or even really free resource (since electricity really doesn't cost anything, it's all just the profitability of corporations and governments that creates the cost.)


sidenote:
If it wasn't for egregious government-sanctioned monopolies, how could the banks and credit card companies, working in conspiracy with governments around the world in this accepted racketeering, generate such inconceivable profits to amass obscene wealth and report uninterrupted record profits while the rest of the world goes from fear and famine to poverty and prison?​
For most "human right" commodity and resource transactions, such as energy transactions, the actual cost is the transaction itself (the vendor's business overhead, the bank, the credit card companies, the government taxes) not the goods and services per se. A kW of electricity is all but free (or could be, unless it's artificially connected to expensive, high profit business practices.) It's just expensive to run a highly profitable company selling something that's free … : )​
 

Yellow Buddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Threads
22
Messages
843
Reaction score
1,268
Location
Behind You
Vehicles
Rivian R1T, F-150 Lightning Pro, Model S, Model X
Occupation
Smart Ass
I'll admit that I am ignorant on this topic.
If I had a Lectron Tesla to J1772 adapter, could I use it on my non-Tesla at a Tesla L2 charger?

And shouldn't we expect to see a supercharger version of this soon?
(**EDIT - replaced "ccs" with "j1772" - thank you for the correction)
1st one - yes. It's literally how I charge my R1T every night since I have a Tesla L2 charger. Full 48A.

A supercharger version would theoretically be possible but since the communication protocols are different, it would still require some sort of software beyond just the hardware to match.
 

Sponsored

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Threads
14
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
3,003
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
Hoping to close one part of this thread:

This has zero to do with access to the NEVI funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law or the IRA. All of those funds are explicitly tied to the EV Alternative Fuels Corridor designation and therefore must meet this regulatory requirement:

c) Connector type. All non-proprietary charging connectors must meet applicable industry standards. Each DCFC charging port must have a permanently attached Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connector and must charge any CCS-compliant vehicle. For NEVI projects using FY22 funds, one or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached CHAdeMO connector (see www.chademo.com ). Each AC Level 2 charging port must have a permanently attached J1772 (incorporated by reference, see § 680.120) connector and must charge any J1772-compliant vehicle. One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector.
Note that they can also have a proprietary connector, but they must have a CCS on every fed-funded charger.

My take: this is a Hail Mary. Tesla sees the writing on the wall that CCS is going to win and is hoping a major manufacturer will change course and adopt the NACS. Nobody significant will bite. CCS will win just like VHS.
 

voxel

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nelson
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
76
Reaction score
70
Location
Altamonte Springs, FL
Vehicles
Mach-E 4X, 23 GC Limited, R1S Launch Green
Clubs
 
they could do that today at little to no cost by opening up their supercharger network to ALL existing EV models. And still make a boatload of money, BTW.
I think this comment is a bit delusional. If DC charging was so profitable you would see everybody building chargers at every corner like how new cryptocurrencies popped up every week. DC charging is capital intensive and profits are non existent given how low per kWh rates are (surge charges nuke all profits I suspect). Hence we have $7.5B in Biden bucks to subsidize building them.
 

VSG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Threads
2
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
2,568
Location
WA
Vehicles
R1T LE/RB/OC/20
Regardless of whether the Tesla network is currently profitable or not, opening up their ALREADY EXISTING network to paying customers will make them money. This is not a question of whether building and operating a new network, like Rivian is doing, can be profitable. Tesla already has the network, they have to operate and maintain the network anyway, they just won't let the majority of possible users access it.

Tesla can charge these non-Tesla users whatever they need to charge to make this profitable, in exchange for the convenience and reliability. If no-one wants to pay that much, then Tesla hasn't lost anything at all. If they get ANY customers, it will be pure profit.
 
Last edited:

Donald Stanfield

Well-Known Member
First Name
Donald
Joined
Jul 31, 2022
Threads
37
Messages
4,052
Reaction score
8,029
Location
USA
Vehicles
Rivian R1T, 2024 BMW i4 M50
Occupation
Stuff and things
Hoping to close one part of this thread:

This has zero to do with access to the NEVI funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law or the IRA. All of those funds are explicitly tied to the EV Alternative Fuels Corridor designation and therefore must meet this regulatory requirement:



Note that they can also have a proprietary connector, but they must have a CCS on every fed-funded charger.

My take: this is a Hail Mary. Tesla sees the writing on the wall that CCS is going to win and is hoping a major manufacturer will change course and adopt the NACS. Nobody significant will bite. CCS will win just like VHS.
You're right, they see the writing on the wall but now it's too late. Had they done this 5 years ago and opened their chargers to anyone willing to adapt to their connector they would have many more takers, including some major automakers I'm willing to bet. Then Tesla could charge them different rates if they so choose having the Tesla vehicles getting a deal at the Tesla chargers. ]

That would still provide the same consumer incentive that restricting access does while expanding your revenue stream. The way Tesla played this is a big failure.
 

Dark-Fx

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Threads
91
Messages
8,882
Reaction score
16,578
Location
Michigan
Vehicles
Polestar 2, R1T, R1S, Livewire One, Fisker Ocean
Occupation
Engineering
Clubs
 
Hoping to close one part of this thread:

This has zero to do with access to the NEVI funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law or the IRA. All of those funds are explicitly tied to the EV Alternative Fuels Corridor designation and therefore must meet this regulatory requirement:



Note that they can also have a proprietary connector, but they must have a CCS on every fed-funded charger.

My take: this is a Hail Mary. Tesla sees the writing on the wall that CCS is going to win and is hoping a major manufacturer will change course and adopt the NACS. Nobody significant will bite. CCS will win just like VHS.
You should read the actual bill. There is no connector type called out in it.
‘‘(s) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS.— ‘‘(1) STANDARDS.—Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
installed using funds provided under this title shall provide,
at a minimum—
‘‘(A) non-proprietary charging connectors that meet
applicable industry safety standards; and
‘‘(B) open access to payment methods that are available
to all members of the public to ensure secure, convenient,
and equal access to the electric vehicle charging infrastruc-
ture that shall not be limited by membership to a particular
payment provider.
Tesla's release today is strictly to meet these requirements. It's no longer a non-proprietary connecter and they are trying to get a standards body to call it a standard, so it qualifies, and they don't have to do shit besides allow anyone with the proper hardware to charge.

Your way is certainly one way of looking at the issue at hand, but Tesla would rather pay legal fees fighting it than have to implement CCS chargers at their stations, IMO. They tried that in the EU, but they hadn't been established there in quite the same manner so they failed
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Threads
14
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
3,003
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
You should read the actual bill. There is no connector type called out in it.


Tesla's release today is strictly to meet these requirements. It's no longer a non-proprietary connecter and they are trying to get a standards body to call it a standard, so it qualifies, and they don't have to do shit besides allow anyone with the proper hardware to charge.
Bills are only to be taken that literally until there's an implementing regulation. The quote in my previous post is from the proposed implementing regulation. There's a non-zero chance that specific requirement will be removed, but it's infinitesimal.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ectric-vehicle-infrastructure-formula-program

In case you're wondering why the Secretary has the authority to implement regulations that are more detailed than what's in the statute, see this language from page 118-119 of the bipartisan infrastructure law (officially the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), emphasis added:

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to establish a grant program to strategically deploy publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, propane fueling infrastructure, and natural gas fueling infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors or in certain other locations that will be accessible to all drivers of electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, propane vehicles, and natural gas vehicles.
...
(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021, the Secretary shall establish a grant program to award grants to eligible entities to carry out the activities described in paragraph (6).
The Secretary's grant program was implemented as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI), which is the subject of the regulation I had quoted previously and which is linked above.

As a reference, you can see the various states' plans for using the NEVI funds here: https://driveelectric.gov/state-plans/
 

voxel

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nelson
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
76
Reaction score
70
Location
Altamonte Springs, FL
Vehicles
Mach-E 4X, 23 GC Limited, R1S Launch Green
Clubs
 
Regardless of whether the Tesla network is currently profitable or not, opening up their ALREADY EXISTING network to paying customers will make them money. This is not a question of whether building and operating a new network, like Rivian is doing, can be profitable. Tesla already has the network, they have to operate and maintain the network anyway, they just won't let the majority of possible users access it.

Tesla can charge these non-Tesla users whatever they need to charge to make this profitable, in exchange for the convenience and reliability. If no-one wants to pay that much, then Tesla hasn't lost anything at all. If they get ANY customers, it will be pure profit.

Your statements are contradictory. Tesla is probably bleeding some amount of money on Superchargers so adding more non-Tesla EVs just causes even more bleeding. Superchargers are already FULL in many parts of CA and FL. They might be under utilized in the midwest and states where EV adoption is low. European opening of Superchargers was only in locations of low utilization and kW rates there are 2x-3x higher than here.

It makes zero business sense to open the chargers up. It ONLY makes sense if the government is willing to subsidize building new ones and even then if you've read any of the NEVI plans they might not even fund Superchargers at all.
 

Iwannarivian

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Threads
6
Messages
173
Reaction score
139
Location
Edmond, OK
Vehicles
R1T, Panamera 4, Wrangler, MB C250, Civic Sport
Occupation
pretending to be retired
Clubs
 
No. Even with an adapter (which doesn't exist) Tesla still has a proprietary protocol for communicating between the vehicle and the charger to authorize payment and start the charging.

Yes, for the most part. These do not use the proprietary protocol that superchargers use, so with an adapter you can probably use a destination charger. But these can still be configured to reject non-Tesla vehicles so they're not always available.
Thanks VSG, that’s what I thought, but wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing some new change since the recent talk about Tesla opening superchargers. BTW, looks like you joined the forums on a great day…my B-day! :cool:
 

av8or

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randall
Joined
Mar 1, 2022
Threads
34
Messages
597
Reaction score
934
Location
Oregon
Vehicles
2020 Jeep Wrangler, 2023 Rivian R1T
Occupation
FedEx Retired
Clubs
 
Seems like if this was really about the mission to promote EV adoption, the logical way to have done it is to open up the network and provide an adapter. So since that’s not what they did, it smells an awful lot like a money grab via loophole. JMO
 

av8or

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randall
Joined
Mar 1, 2022
Threads
34
Messages
597
Reaction score
934
Location
Oregon
Vehicles
2020 Jeep Wrangler, 2023 Rivian R1T
Occupation
FedEx Retired
Clubs
 
Question for those smarter than me on this stuff. If somehow the Tesla plug does become more popular with other manufacturers, how hard would it be for say Rivian to retrofit our trucks?
Sponsored

 
 




Top