This is not true. Tesla destination chargers [1] will charge non-Tesla vehicles with an adapter. I have this adapter [2], and my friend's Bolt charges from my home charger (a high power wall charger on a 100A circuit) when he's over for beers.
It is true that the V3 version of the Tesla destination charger (which is relatively new), which has a microcontroller/wifi/etc, has a config flag you can set to only charge Tesla vehicles and can whitelist by VIN, but it's still in the very early stage of release.
@vel0city: In response to your deleted reply to this comment, if legacy automakers want access to Tesla's supercharging network for their own EVs, they should be prepared to contribute towards the enormous capex costs Tesla incurred as well as the ongoing operational expenses. Otherwise, legacy automakers who made no material effort to transition to EVs are free riding off of Tesla's hard work to build the network they now desperately need to remain in business.
> if legacy automakers want access to Tesla's supercharging network for their own EVs, they should be prepared to contribute towards the enormous capex costs Tesla incurred as well as the ongoing operational expenses
While this seems very fair it also seems very problematic. They definitely should do that. But if they chose to not do that and build disjointed infrastructure instead the outcome will be worse for everyone and it will give Tesla an advantage that perhaps would not be unfair to them but at least would be unfair to consumers.
The other side of this is the standard uses a significantly worse connector in terms of weight etc vs the Tesla connector to preserve backward compatibility to an earlier standard at low cost. That’s always the issue with industry standards where it’s less about creating a useful standard than minimizing the changes required to existing infrastructure.
The whole situation sucks. The US Tesla connector can only do single-phase AC charging, which makes it suboptimal for other countries and not fantastic for US commercial installations. The Tesla EU connector is a real standard and can do 3-phase charging. For reasons I haven’t fully deciphered (technical or regulatory?), EU Model 3 cars seem to use the CCS combo connector for supercharging, which is standardized but ugly and heavy. EU Model S cars use the regular (non-combo) adapter in a proprietary mode.
So there is an unnecessary difference between US and EU cars, even from the same manufacturer.
There’s really no good solution for problems like this that don’t make someone upset.
Tesla wants to profit off the fruit of their labor and extract some value from their product that is providing value to others and fund its development. It also is used as a sales vector since their charging network is a huge selling point for their cars.
Consumers don’t want to be stuck with two standards for no reason other than corporate politics and pay higher prices via those licensing fees. Or be locked out from certain charging stations just because of the model of their car.
And other automakers don’t want to be put at a competitive disadvantage because they have little choice but have to license the tech from Tesla.
And the world doesn’t want to put up with having to duplicate the massive human effort of setting up a charging network n times just because of corporate politics.
I always thought this was the basically the perfect situation for gov’t to step in and “fix” the market by just funding the development of the charging technology and providing it to all automakers for free/at cost so everyone gets the best charger on the cheap.
Wouldn’t the normal thing be for Tesla to license/rent their existing infrastructure out to other brands? It mainly becomes an issue if Tesla decides its part of their car value — but otherwise they could basically 100% own and entirely govern the development of America’s charging network
There's also the option of giving a fine to corporations that don't want to cooperate on infrastructure. They should have freedom to shape the deal, in some proportion to their power on the market, but they have to cooperate.
I much agree that the best should build the infrastructure and they should be allowed to profit from their investment.
The problematic part is if they choose to shut out other players without any better reason than wanting to dominate the market.
Free markets aren't infallible and they can quickly become unfree when moats have been established. (Amazon feels like the obvious example of that. Competing with them is close to impossible.)
> You aren't just buying a car with Tesla, you are buying an ecosystem that just works.
This is the key.
You can just punch in a destination in a Tesla, it'll map out the correct route with chargers. Other cars can usually do this too.
The car will pre-heat the battery for optimal charging temperature before arriving at the charging location. Not all EVs do this, they should. Cold-gating during charging is a big deal when traveling long distances in below freezing temperatures.
A Tesla can also check if there are free spots in the charger. No other car does this as far as I know.
Having Apple stores in every big city doesn't represent a considerable moat for Apple. If you had to go to a computer store every couple of hours to be able to use a computer then your analogy would be more applicable. Apple stores are not infrastructure components. If you own infrastructure you have some responsibility to share it.
Sorry, I guess I spoke too broadly. I was intending for this to be about the Supercharger stations as that's what TFA was about. This adapter will not work for any of the Telsa Supercharger stations you'll commonly find around. They'll work for the smaller charging stations that private individuals will own, but you won't be able to use Tesla's charging network with this adapter.
Buying Tesla is supporting vendor lock-in and proprietary standards instead of supporting open standards.
> if legacy automakers want access to Tesla's supercharging network for their own EVs, they should be prepared to contribute towards the enormous capex costs Tesla incurred as well as the ongoing operational expenses
By this logic Tesla should be banned from using all other charging networks. Is that what you're proposing?
What should actually happen is that Tesla should switch to CCS Type 1 Combo plugs in the US and then they should open their chargers to all brands of EV. The way EV owners can contribute to Tesla's charging network is by simply paying for the electricity the charger dispenses, just like ICE vehicle owners pay for fuel.
Tesla switched to CCS type 2 Combo plugs in Europe:
Everyone should switch to CCS Type 2 Combo, like EU already has :)
A big part of the Tesla network is that there are only Teslas in there - vehicles that are guaranteed to have the ability to charge at 150kW+.
If every joe schmoe with a PHEV or Leaf would be hogging the HVDC chargers, the competitive advantage would go away and there'd be a lot more congestion.
So by this logic Tesla should be banned from all Electrify America chargers because Telsas can only charge at 50 to 70 kW with a CHAdeMO or CCS adapter. And older Model Ss should be banned from Tesla's network because they can't charge at 150 kW. Is that your proposal?
Charging a 50kW max car from a 350kW charger is like driving a go-cart on a freeway. Yes, you can do it. Should you? Probably not. Will other people be annoyed by you? Definitely.
Ok, so you'll be able to use some of the Tesla charging stations assuming you're carrying around a bulky $150 adapter cable. You won't be able to use the Supercharger stations which I took as the main focus of TFA. I'm also wondering if this would work for any stations which would be selling power, it seems these are only basic systems without any billing. So mostly only those "patrons only" kind of stations.
Ultimately buying Tesla is supporting vendor lock-in and proprietary connectors instead of industry standards. And what a joke, as if Tesla bothered to even offer such a thing to allow the other automakers to use their connector and signaling.
I support innovation over industry standards that sandbag the innovator ("the industry" came up with J1772 and CHAdeMO, which were both clearly designed by committee). The industry setting the standards is the problem, which is why Tesla had to create Superchargers as a proprietary standard (and CCS is only now catching up to, and is still arguably inferior). The industry should consider setting better standards if they don't want Tesla setting them.
> The industry setting the standards is the problem, which is why Tesla had to create Superchargers as a proprietary standard ..
For one, there is now n+1 standards. For the more important point, tesla could have made their standard free instead of proprietary.
They are in it for the money. Not any "greater good" or "advancement of humanity" or any other such bullshit. Money. And it's obvious if you look and not listen to them (this includes apple and such).
Tesla offered access to their supercharging network, as well. Predictably, the traditional auto makers wanted nothing to do with it, not even as a stop-gap, and instead had committees design inferior plugs for a minuscule and fragmented charging network that reliably fails to charge any vehicle.
Tesla is distinctly not part of the traditional auto industry. Tesla management insight into engineering and the marketplace is a fundamental differentiating factor.
Let’s say you’re a traditional upmarket car maker with a reputation for engineering excellence, and you want to computerize your dashboard. What’s your approach? I can tell you exactly what you’d do, because I’ve seen it: license windows CE and break your requirements down into team-sized chunks. Each team makes its own windows CE device. The devices are all supposed to talk to each other, but the teams implementing them don’t need to talk to each other, because they have formal specs for their components. Shockingly, when all the systems are assembled together, doors lock and unlock randomly, headlights are unreliable, and it’s common knowledge that you better not roll down a window, because you may need to go to the dealer to raise it. So, you try and fail to improve for the next model year. This continues for a decade before you even consider a different approach.
Cool, and we'll have Tesla chargers, and Ford chargers, and GM chargers, and VW chargers, and...
Or, Tesla could adopt the industry standard so I don't have to tear out the charger on the wall every time I want to buy a different brand of car.
Its quite a joke that having vendor lock-in increases competition and innovation. If you've paid the thousands of dollars to have a Tesla wall charger installed, and you'll have to pay to get a different one for a different brand, do you think that'll weigh on your decision to buy another car even if the other car is technically better? Proprietary connectors lock people into the platform and increases friction to customers leaving for a different product.
You say it's a joke, but Tesla setting their own standard is one of the reasons they're the world's most valuable automaker (as it contributes to an amazing user experience). I understand that you may be dogmatic about the desire for open standards, but the evidence is clear it's not necessary (even with the EU requiring fast charger interoperability). My opinion is that this is very similar to those railing against software projects who have to go "fair source" instead of "open source" to protect their financial interests from others, and in the same vein, Tesla should be compensated for their investment in infrastructure.
If you don't want a Tesla, don't buy one. No one is forcing people to buy them, or to use their chargers (fast DC or otherwise). If jurisdictions desire Tesla to open their network for others, compensate them for their private investment they're demanding they open up.
Regardless, I appreciate the conversation and the perspective as an electric vehicle enthusiast.
What if the two-thirds of voters wanted to make a law saying chargers had to interoperate? (using a standard plug)
Tesla could still differentiate themselves through better service and infrastructure (I saw other posts describing how bad Leaf charging stations were). But they wouldn't be able to hassle consumers with lock-in.
When did locking in consumers become a fair way to recoup investment?
Tesla is making themselves very attractive to be nationalized. I hope it happens soon -- making their network available for all electric vehicles would be a massive benefit to the public good.
let's let the proprietary connector play out, and lets say all the other automakers wither and die due to their shortsightedness to help deploy charging stations. Now we're down to only the single Tesla connector out there for charging in the wild, and effectively only Tesla cars. Is this a good thing for innovation? Do you think this will increase or decrease innovation? And all because they were first to market with a proprietary connector they heavily pushed. Effectively, if you want to buy a car with the ability to charge in the wild you will be forced to buy a Tesla due to a monopoly of charging stations. Sounds like a good future filled with innovation to me!
Lets also look at it the other way in a theoretical to analyze the idea of widespread proprietary connectors and their connection to innovation. Say Nissan had a proprietary connector and made the big investment to deploy a massive charging network. The Nissan cars are technically vastly inferior to the Tesla cars, but because Nissan made a well-timed capex they've got a leg up on the chargers. People then tend to buy the inferior Nissan cars because of the brand presence and vast availability of chargers. While the Tesla cars are technically better, all of those owners already have proprietary Nissan connectors at home. Their offices have Nissan chargers. Their grocery store has Nissan chargers. The highway rest stops have Nissan chargers. Truck stops have Nissan chargers. Do you think the technically better Tesla wins? Imagine when new construction of houses starts to have vehicle charging connections common. If your house came with a Nissan charger and it'll cost you $500 to swap it out for a Tesla one, doesn't that raise the price of the Tesla $500 simply because of the cable in your home? Sounds terrible to me.
That wasn't implied to me. When people go out of their way to point out how what you said isn't what you meant to say, and you brush it off as "no no, it's you who don't understand my eloquent prose," you might want to consider taking the feedback as constructive.
It's almost certain that one brand charging station are going to be forbidden soon in Europe, as it is going to create a huge mess. Try to imagine if the gas station were only able to serve one brand...
Yes Tesla should open its chargers to everyone before they are forced to do so. I know some Tesla owners like the exclusivity but I think it will benefit the brand more to open the chargers.
I mean, they can still charge the owners of non-Tesla cars. They should be operating the charging stations to sell charging, not to have an anti-competitive edge on the market.
Does the connector or signaling protocol really matter?
I mean, Android and iOS both connect to other devices over standardized NFC, Bluetooth, WiFi, and mobile data network protocols, but good luck using an Apple Watch or Airpods or Airdrop with a Samsung phone. Your Samsung phone's text messages will never be shared onto your Macbook Pro's iMessage, and your iCloud backups will never be visible in your Google account. Standardized connectors don't mean anything if the vendor controls all sides of the software stack and wants the pieces to only work with that vendor's products.
Tesla for better or for worse pursues Apple-like vertical integration to control the UX of every part of owning the car, from sales to nav to charging. While standardized connectors would be nice, it would mostly be nice for Tesla owners in that they wouldn't need a dongle to connect to public charging networks.
(Maybe you're arguing that Tesla should be forced to provide Supercharger access at no additional cost to non-Tesla owners. I am not certain I agree with the "no additional cost" part, since Tesla had to shoulder the capital burden of building the network in the first place. But the connectors are the least important part of that anyway; non-Tesla owners could worst case use dongles, if Tesla were forced to provide access to the Supercharger network, just as Tesla owners use dongles to connect to public charging networks today. Dongles are stupid, yes, but they're less important than Tesla just providing access in the first place.)
As far as home charging goes, personally I just use a standard 240V dryer outlet in my garage to charge; I plug the cord that came with my Model 3 into the outlet, and the other end of the cord (that has the proprietary connector) into the car. Any electric car would work with that setup, so the proprietary connector at the end of the cable doesn't impact me much; if I got a different electric car, I'm sure it would come with its own charging cable anyway that could be plugged into the 240V outlet.
It is true that the V3 version of the Tesla destination charger (which is relatively new), which has a microcontroller/wifi/etc, has a config flag you can set to only charge Tesla vehicles and can whitelist by VIN, but it's still in the very early stage of release.
@vel0city: In response to your deleted reply to this comment, if legacy automakers want access to Tesla's supercharging network for their own EVs, they should be prepared to contribute towards the enormous capex costs Tesla incurred as well as the ongoing operational expenses. Otherwise, legacy automakers who made no material effort to transition to EVs are free riding off of Tesla's hard work to build the network they now desperately need to remain in business.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/destination-charging
[2] https://smile.amazon.com/Lectron-Tesla-Charger-J1772-Adapter...