[zamfi]

Almost everything you say is spot on, but unrelated to my claims about whether a mandated standard is preferable at this point in time in the US:

> The thing is, Tesla wants to push their proprietary connector and have that be the dominant plug. Its their connector which will only be featured on Tesla cars.

Yes

> You really think Tesla would be going along with retrofitting in Europe if it wasn't for regulations? That they'd just willingly give up their market dominance position in charging network just because they feel like it and have some altruistic desire to embrace some future connector?

No, and no.

> The industry standard answer to the Supercharger connector exists. Its available on multiple brands of cars today.

CCS1? CCS2? CHAdeMO?

> The day for a single shared plug could be today if Elon says so.

Not exactly, but very close.

> Retrofits for charging stations could start happening tomorrow. They could probably start cranking out CCS compatible cars for the US market within a quarter. But Tesla doesn't want a single shared plug, they want to own the market for chargers.

Yes.

> They want to use the wide spread proprietary connector as a selling point to sell their cars.

The connector is only loosely related to the network. Tesla prevents other cars from using Superchargers both by connector and software. But the connector is irrelevant, really: they could just as easily prevent non-Teslas from using Tesla Superchargers with just software, as they do (for now) in Europe.

Given that they have a proprietary network, why not use a nice plug designed for this purpose, instead of a garbage monstrosity with a bunch of extraneous pins? (This is mostly directed at CCS1 and CHAdeMo. CCS2 is slightly less terrible.)

> Which is exactly the concept in my "straw man" post. Its not really a straw man when its literally the exact scenario that's currently playing out in the market though, a car manufacturer using a dominant position in deploying chargers to push their cars.

Yes.

> For evidence, see TFA. Do you think Tesla owners are installing J1772/CCS chargers at their homes and using adapters

Yes.

> or are they installing Tesla chargers?

Also yes. Anecdotally, in my neighborhood, I see a lot of both. More J1172's though.

> When someone sees an article like this, is that not convincing shoppers to look at Teslas first over other brands of electric cars? Seems less like a straw man and just taking a hard look at the objective reality of today.

Yes.

> Buying Tesla is supporting vendor lock-in. Its obvious to you that a single, open connector is better for the market and yet you'll continue to support a proprietary one.

Yes.

None of this has dissuaded me from the argument I made earlier, which is: other manufacturers, aside from Tesla in the US, need to care about charging networks in order for fast charging to become widespread, and for EV adoption to increase. Right now, they don't, and so Tesla is eating their lunch on EV sales and charging.

Let's be clear, the straw man argument you are arguing against is "The world as-is with proprietary Tesla connectors is preferable to consumers, compared with a single shared standard" -- and you are arguing "if you don't support mandated standards, that means you don't care about standards, and if you don't care about standards, you support a world of vendor lock-in that reduces competition and results in Tesla winning with their proprietary stuff."

It's a straw man because no one is saying "it's preferable for consumers for Tesla to have a proprietary connector". And it's not Tesla's desire for a proprietary network to support its EV sales that causes fast charging to be a disaster in the US for non-Teslas.

Let's be clear again why fast charging is a disaster in the US: it's not because of Tesla's proprietary connector, or proprietary charging network, no, it's that other manufacturers don't care! It's that they don't really care about EVs (or haven't, anyway, can't know if they actually do care now) and so don't care about charging networks, and Tesla has no incentive to play nice because it gains nothing from other EVs using their superchargers.

Obviously Tesla has a profit motive, obviously it's using the charging network to push its EV sales, but if any other manufacturer had a comparable network, or even if the others combined did, or if EV chargers were sufficiently available, it would be a no-brainer for all parties to agree to share: all their customers would benefit, and they would incur no real costs because a proprietary network is no longer a competitive advantage.

We want that world, not the world in which we force Tesla to use a crappy connector, and to open its limited supercharger network to other EVs, and end up with Tesla's near-capacity network becoming even-more-stretched, eliminating Tesla's incentive to keep building it out (since it doesn't provide a competitive advantage anymore), and also not incentivizing anyone else to build out a fast charging network that's well-placed, well-maintained, and available-—because they can just use Tesla's!

The US may at some point want to mandate a standard connector. But to do so now, without also making manufacturers care about building more fast charging, will just make the situation worse, not better.

[vel0city]

As a port, CCS2 is backwards compatible to CCS1. You can take a CCS1 (J1772) cable and plug it into a car with a CCS2 port. And yes, the J1772 (CCS1) is by far the standard connector in the US market. I see that connector everywhere.

And yes, Elon could easily say "Tesla is moving all production to CCS2, all future Teslas manufactured after today will be CCS2, all Supercharger stations will be retrofitted with CCS2 cables" and we would be living in that standard where pretty much every car on the road can receive power at pretty much every car charging station. Pretty much every car in the US sold with CHAdeMO also supports CCS1 (J1772), I don't know of a single model which doesn't. We don't live in this world because Elon would prefer for everyone to be locked into proprietary cables and a proprietary network. This is the *only reason* why. Sure, things were different 10 years ago when CCS was barely even on paper. As it stands in the market where I live there's many more CCS chargers around than Superchargers, and many more J1772 cables (going by data from https://www.plugshare.com/ ). And yet articles like this tell everyone that this is not the case, that if you buy a non-Tesla you're not going to be able to have any luck charging it out in the world, so no point in buying anything that's not a Tesla.

> It's a straw man because no one is saying "it's preferable for consumers for Tesla to have a proprietary connector". And it's not Tesla's desire for a proprietary network to support its EV sales that causes fast charging to be a disaster in the US for non-Teslas.

By buying a Tesla you're supporting the notion that proprietary connections are good. You're choosing to buy a car with a proprietary connector. You agree earlier that Tesla wouldn't move to an industry standard unless they were forced by regulators, and yet you also think they're not purposefully pushing their proprietary connector for vendor lock-in reasons. It seems you're trying to argue it both ways; that clearly it would be better for the consumer to have an industry standard connector and yet its a good thing for Tesla to continue to push their proprietary one continuing to split the market. You're supporting a proprietary connector and pushing for that in the market while suggesting that nobody is pushing for proprietary connectors. How is what I'm saying a straw man?

I do agree fast charging is a disaster due to poor investment by the incumbent auto industry. They were hoping the 3rd party market for DC fast chargers would grow faster. A lot of 3rd parties have been slow to roll it out due to not having as much capital and not having as much of a market to cater to, as a good percentage of electrics being made and sold today in the US are Teslas. But, don't you think if Tesla supported CCS2 we'd see a ton more third party CCS2 chargers spring up? Currently third parties are completely unable to build Tesla charging stations. You can buy a Tesla charger and freely offer it to your customers (and try and shoo away moochers), but you cannot build your own to sell electricity. There isn't a 3rd party market for Tesla chargers, all Tesla chargers exist to push the Tesla brand and push vendor lock in. Sure, you can use an adapter to plug in a J1772, but you'll never be able to use a CCS2 cable for fast charging and we're really talking about fast charging here. On top of that, I've known a few Tesla owners who were unaware they could use an adapter to plug in to J1772 ports; they saw the cables were different and assumed it didn't work.

An answer to the vendor lock-in exists today. Tesla can switch at any time. Continuing to support Tesla is continuing to support vendor lock-in. But they won't, because then articles like TFA won't scare people away from looking at anything other than a Tesla.

[zamfi]

> By buying a Tesla you're supporting the notion that proprietary connections are good.

You continue to say this, but your evidence is nonexistent for this claim. Standards exist, Tesla doesn't use them for <reasons>, therefore if you buy a Tesla you disagree that standards are good.

I bought a Tesla, I agree standards are good, I wish Tesla would use a standard connector. They don't, because of vendor lock-in. We agree.

We agree that a standardized port is both good and possible. You keep arguing with me like I'm arguing against you on this point, I am not. That is the straw man.

Also:

> yet you also think they're not purposefully pushing their proprietary connector for vendor lock-in reasons

No, I know that they are doing this for lock-in reasons. That was literally in my prior post, perhaps you missed it.

What I AM saying is that the claim that eliminating vendor lock-in will make DC fast charging better for everyone is false. You're right that I care more about fast charging and increased adoption more than standards, because I think we will eventually have standards and it will all be fine.

I don't think that mandating standards now will make fast charging better, which is the thing I care about. I argued strongly for this and you did not refute any of it, instead continuing to argue that those who buy Teslas must not care about standards and are supporting vendor lock-in. Even if true (and I disagree), it's irrelevant.

If you care about standards more than about EV adoption, fast charging proliferation (which I think is a prereq for adoption), then sure, I disagree with you. I think the latter are net better for humanity than avoiding a fragmented charging ecosystem.

You seem to think that a fragmented ecosystem is what will suppress adoption, but I think you are wrong -- I think taking away the incentives of those who are deploying fast charging at scale (i.e., Tesla, for vendor lock-in) will do much more harm than good: in that world, no one will be financially incentivized to build fast charging without market intervention, which perhaps you support but are not arguing for.

And I think present-day vendor lock-in is a small price to pay for 10-years-from-now higher EV adoption.

[vel0city]

> It's a straw man because no one is saying "it's preferable for consumers for Tesla to have a proprietary connector". And it's not Tesla's desire for a proprietary network to support its EV sales that causes fast charging to be a disaster in the US for non-Teslas.

>> By buying a Tesla you're supporting the notion that proprietary connections are good.

> You continue to say this, but your evidence is nonexistent for this claim. Standards exist, Tesla doesn't use them for <reasons>, therefore if you buy a Tesla you disagree that standards are good.

> And I think present-day vendor lock-in is a small price to pay for 10-years-from-now higher EV adoption.

You're literally making the argument that you're suggesting nobody is making. That ultimately its better for consumers if Tesla has a proprietary connector. Your reason for that line of thinking is because you assume if Tesla didn't have a proprietary connector there would be no market for fast charging at all, or that it would have been massively delayed. You even acknolwedge at some point in time in the future maybe we'll have a standard connector, but clearly there's some reason why it can't be done now and we shouldn't really be demanding for a standard. It took a few comments to draw that out, but as you can see clearly some people are making such an argument as that's ultimately the root of your postiion.

I disagree with that basic premise. Look at the massive amount of J1772 chargers out there in the wild. They're mostly J1772 chargers because when they were built several years ago CCS2 didn't exist except on paper and J1772 was seen as the industry standard connector in the US market. Now that CCS2 is a real standard and is on real cars driving on real roads, CCS2 chargers are starting to exist. Imagine a world where Tesla did open the connector back when CCS2 was just a spec on paper. Anybody in this market could have built a DC fast charger. Any other car company could have built a Supercharger compatible car, so there would have been more on the market. With such a wider possible market at both ends, do you think there would be more or less widely compatible fast charging stations? Note that Tesla could still have made up for other companies piggybacking on their initial investment of the chargers, as the earlier Teslas had free charging. I imagine the free charging wouldn't have applied to a Ford or VW or Nissan at a Tesla station. Or do the massively anti-consumer move of not allowing other brands to charge at their stations. So boom, there's the whole argument of "but why would Telsa want to invest if not for the vendor lock-in?"

If third parties could have manufactured Tesla/Superchargers or cars, I imagine there would be a lot more Tesla/Supercharger compatible chargers in the wild today.

[zamfi]

> You're literally making the argument that you're suggesting nobody is making. That ultimately its better for consumers if Tesla has a proprietary connector. Your reason for that line of thinking is because you assume if Tesla didn't have a proprietary connector there would be no market for fast charging at all, or that it would have been massively delayed. You even acknolwedge at some point in time in the future maybe we'll have a standard connector, but clearly there's some reason why it can't be done now and we shouldn't really be demanding for a standard. It took a few comments to draw that out, but as you can see clearly some people are making such an argument as that's ultimately the root of your postiion.

I think you may be confusing an argument about a connector standards with an argument about proprietary networks. I'm saying the connector is basically irrelevant, and not the reason that Tesla's network is proprietary; I'm agreeing that that standards are better than nonstandards for all consumers today, and in the future. A standard connector would make the transition to shared, nonproprietary networks less expensive in the future, but this is basically noise as Tesla's transition from its proprietary connector to CCS2 in Europe shows.

Forcing Tesla to use the CCS standard in the US is a basically irrelevant move unless you also force Tesla to share its fast charging network. So, let's ignore the connector for a moment and focus on the network.

> Imagine a world where Tesla did open the connector back when CCS2 was just a spec on paper. Anybody in this market could have built a DC fast charger. Any other car company could have built a Supercharger compatible car, so there would have been more on the market. With such a wider possible market at both ends, do you think there would be more or less widely compatible fast charging stations? Note that Tesla could still have made up for other companies piggybacking on their initial investment of the chargers, as the earlier Teslas had free charging. I imagine the free charging wouldn't have applied to a Ford or VW or Nissan at a Tesla station. Or do the massively anti-consumer move of not allowing other brands to charge at their stations.

Except Tesla tried exactly this, to make its network shared in the past [0], in part to encourage cost-sharing and all those other good things, and other automakers were not interested. Why wouldn't the other automakers take up Tesla on their offer to share capital costs and join the largest-at-the-time fast charging network?

Because, again, in 2014 (and probably still today), the problem was not an incompatible connector, for which there could be adapters aplenty—it's that legacy manufacturers don't care about EVs, and don't want to spend money on fast charging as a result. Tesla still has a patent reciprocity offer for anyone who wants to support the supercharger connector—but the connector difference is a red herring.

Why would Tesla opening up its network to other vehicles have led to a larger fast charging station network? You are stating this as though it's obvious, but it implies that the only thing stopping anyone else from building fast chargers is that they couldn't use the Tesla connector—which makes no sense.

What has stopped every other manufacturer from building, or partnering, or funding, a fast charger network? Why did VW have to be forced to fund Electrify America because of Dieselgate?

Do you think that if VW honestly thought its future were EVs, and that the reason VW EVs weren't more popular is the lack of a fast charging network, that they would be behaving as they are now? Of course not—they would be building/funding fast chargers as quickly as possible. Instead, they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the EV future by regulation and by the market. They are not building a fast charging network because they do not care about selling EVs.

So, does Tesla benefit from vendor lock-in from the supercharger network and its proprietary connector? Sure. Would there be a larger more compatible network of fast chargers available today if Tesla had made their connector open from the start (i.e., 2011 instead of 2014)? If so, barely—Tesla was, for years, by FAR the largest fast charger network. Nothing prevented other networks from charging Teslas for a fee (and indeed they do now), but they still didn't build.

The reason is not the connector. It's the incentives—we don't have a wide, compatible fast charger network in the US not because Tesla selfishly had a proprietary network, but because no one else wanted to build a large network, and no one else wanted to pay Tesla to share theirs, because prior to 2019, no legacy automaker thought EVs were the future.

Forcing Tesla to open its network today without requiring a cost-sharing on capital expenditures would reduce Tesla's incentive to make its supercharger network larger, because there wouldn't be a competitive advantage anymore. You would have to also incentivize the industry to build fast charging as a whole, and provide capital to do it, and the EA example shows that this is easier said than done.

Hopefully this helps explain how I can support standards and wish everyone used the same plug, but also be ok with temporary vendor lock-in (via the network, not the connector) so that there's incentive for both Tesla and others to build more fast chargers. These are not mutually incompatible.

[0] https://insideevs.com/news/322223/tesla-to-make-supercharger...

[Rafert]

> As a port, CCS2 is backwards compatible to CCS1. You can take a CCS1 (J1772) cable and plug it into a car with a CCS2 port. And yes, the J1772 (CCS1) is by far the standard connector in the US market. I see that connector everywhere.

CCS type 1 (J1772) and type 2 (aka "Mennekes" used in Europe) are not compatible? Both are described in IEC 62196-2 so I am not sure which other connectors could be compatible here.

> And yes, Elon could easily say "Tesla is moving all production to CCS2, all future Teslas manufactured after today will be CCS2, all Supercharger stations will be retrofitted with CCS2 cables"

This already happened in the European Union FWIW.

[caf]

No, CCS2 is not backwards compatible with CCS1.