Submitted by 10MinsForUsername t3_112ytbi in technology
happyscrappy t1_j8ou35g wrote
Reply to comment by greatersteven in Tesla Agrees To Open Thousands Of Its Chargers To Other EVs By 2024 by 10MinsForUsername
> You mean why should only Teslas be allowed to use the charging network that Tesla solely funded and built themselves?
Yes. That's what I mean. Why should Tesla be allowed to build an exclusionary network? They aren't allowed to in Europe. The US should show the same vision.
> I'm glad they're opening the supercharger network up but you're comparing a privately owned and funded charging network to public ones.
All the networks are privately owned. There as far as I know no publicly-owned DCFC charging networks.
Tesla's stations are not privately funded, they charge people to charge their cars. It used to be free to Tesla owners (part of the purchase price) but not for a long time now.
Yes, I'm asking why one company should be allowed to build out an EV charging system that creates vendor lock in for them when a wider EV infrastructure is a benefit to all. Again, the EU prohibited it. Seems like a great model to follow.
If a company like say Walmart wants to put in chargers at their distribution centers and say that they are private to them, only for charging their trucks they own, then that's one thing. But if a company wants to build out a network that is usable by members of the public and it charges them to do so then they shouldn't be allowed to exclude some members of the public just because of what car they own.
Bensemus t1_j8p3yim wrote
> Why should Tesla be allowed to build an exclusionary network?
They built it first. The US is terrible at doing public infrastructure.
happyscrappy t1_j8p5958 wrote
First of all, I don't care if they built it first. EV infrastructure is too important to let one company monopolize it.
Second, if they want to go it alone then let them do it alone. Ban Teslas from the CCS network that everyone else is collaborating on.
But Tesla doesn't appear to be happy with that. They created an adapter so that their cars can use CCS chargers, released it last year.
Tesla sees the value in their customers being able to use a large charging infrastructure that includes CCS chargers. If they want that, then they should have to join it and make their chargers part of it. Get a little, give a little.
Or just go it completely alone. Ban them from CCS chargers. And no tax breaks for them installing chargers, since they are not adding to public infrastructure. And no relief from electricity demand charges as public chargers get, as they are not public infrastructure.
California already implemented some of this, the Feds other parts. Let's just wrap it all up together and let Tesla decide if going it alone really is better than being part of the shared build out.
Hilarious how you say the US is terrible at doing public infrastructure. Might that be because people such as yourself reject proposed plans like mine which would create a better public infrastructure?
greatersteven t1_j8p984f wrote
> let one company monopolize it
How have they monopolized EV infrastructure? How could they even if not forced onto CCS? Interested in your argument here.
happyscrappy t1_j8pdwzb wrote
I never said anything about forcing Tesla to use CCS for their own cars.
lordkiwi t1_j8ptc1u wrote
What CCS collaborative network do you speak of?
happyscrappy t1_j8pvh1i wrote
The one which is made up of all the different companies building out CCS chargers.
ChargePoint, Shell Recharge, SemaConnect, EVgo, ElectrifyAmerica, Blink, and a whole lot more.
Anyone with a CCS car can use any of those. Regardless of the make of their car.
It forms an infrastructure enabling long trips in EVs for anyone who has an EV.
Unlike Tesla's network which only serves them.
lordkiwi t1_j8q3qd4 wrote
There is very little collaboration between those networks. A few do honor each other's payment systems, so you have one less membership to worry about but CCS. As for being able to charge any car. Those networks do a poor job validating their chargers with every car on the road. That comes down to which vendor they buy their chargers from and whom support them better.
As a Bolt driver I welcome access to the Tesla network. But that's because the other options are so bad and in some areas few an far between. When Tesla opens their network some of the other networks are going to find it very hard to compete, with Tesla taking there business.
EVgo will be fine they have been deploying Tesla connectors since 2019
happyscrappy t1_j8q5kxn wrote
> There is very little collaboration between those networks
I agree. Their collaboration is only of the form of accidentally working toward a more comprehensive infrastructure.
So what?
> As for being able to charge any car. Those networks do a poor job validating their chargers with every car on the road. That comes down to which vendor they buy their chargers from and whom support them better.
You're going to suggest to me that your chances of the chargers working with your car are slim even though CCS is standardized?
If your Bolt didn't have a weak charge port on it it would work with pretty much every charger (that isn't broken which sadly is a lot of them). Instead you likely have to hold the handle up to get charging started on the faster chargers simply because their charge handle is too heavy for the car.
> When Tesla opens their network some of the other networks are going to find it very hard to compete, with Tesla taking there business.
Don't bother me none. Although I don't really expect Tesla to open their network. Musk said he'd do it last year. He's just buying time while he continues his vendor lock-in.
However you do kind of seem to simultaneously assuming that a charger that isn't tested with a given model car isn't going to work. And then assuming that Tesla's chargers are going to work with non-Teslas. Why would you assume that? By your thinking even if they put a CCS handle on them they are unlikely to work with your car.
lordkiwi t1_j8qf2q6 wrote
Last year's reliability statistics where pretty bad for all but Tesla.
I have never had a bad experience with the charging port on my Bolt EUV. Maybe the Bolts had an issue.
All of the announcements came out yesterday about the network opening officially. The Tesla website has been updated to include CCS compatible stations
Tesla has 4 or 5 EV chargers they designed to update and certify.
Electrify America has worked with more multiple vendors and multiple models. Read the issue from the own words.
I am thinking Tesla will work with everyone due to having to validate fewer combinations of systems.
happyscrappy t1_j8qhaig wrote
> Last year's reliability statistics where pretty bad for all but Tesla.
Okay? Certainly a lot of chargers are broken. It's disgusting. Not sure how that to what you said about testing with different cars.
Do note that report includes AC charging, not just DC. And AC charging is often even less reliable than DC simply because there are a lot of AC chargers that are unmaintained. They were put in on a tax credit and even the nominal operator doesn't care if they continue to work.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/j-d-power-electric-car-charging-getting-worse/
Also note some of the failures are due to billing issues. Something which hopefully will get better as plug-n-charge rolls out. Then again, maybe that's being too hopeful.
Additionally the figures will get better as there are a larger number of people familiar with how to charge an EV. You have a lot of people who are trying it for their first time and they don't know the ins and outs. You can say they shouldn't have to, but in practice they do. And they will over time.
> I have never had a bad experience with the charging port on my Bolt EUV. Maybe the Bolts had an issue.
You shouldn't with that car. That's the 2nd gen. Neither the EUV or 2nd gen EV should have that particular issue.
I've had the problem with my 1st gen Bolt. Have to learn to hold the handle up. It's a drag. But the car was made when a fast CCS charger was 50-60kW and now it's 350kW. The cables got bigger, the handles got bigger. Maybe they should have seen it coming, but they didn't.
> All of the announcements came out yesterday about the network opening officially. The Tesla website has been updated to include CCS compatible stations
I don't care what Tesla puts on their website. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
Right now Tesla is trying to brag about 12.5% by end of 2024.
Screw 'em. Take money away and lock them out of all CCS chargers. They're just buying time to extend their vendor lock in.
That link adds nothing at all to what you already said.
> Electrify America has worked with more multiple vendors and multiple models. Read the issue from the own words.
The statement given is about the Spark EV. Literally the 2nd ever type 1 CCS car and one that came out in 2013. I would not suggest that the levels of variance from the standard would be the same for cars released in 2022 as in 2013. Especially given CCS 2.0 didn't even come out until 2018.
> I am thinking Tesla will work with everyone due to having to validate fewer combinations of systems.
I don't understand what that means. And BTW, Tesla has at least 4 variants of their chargers. And that's before any one they would make with Type 1 (US) CCS.
And I certainly see less reason for Tesla to do a good job working with other cars when they are only doing it to get a handout. They are in it for the handout, not the money made from charging other cars. I expect malicious compliance. It's what they are doing with their driver assist ("autopilot") and advanced driver assist rollout ("FSD"). It's what they did with the requirement for their cars to make noise at low speeds. It's what Musk plans for wing mirrors on the new Roadster (he said so publicly). It's what I expect from them here too. They're that kind of company.
lordkiwi t1_j8rsz05 wrote
>plug-n-charge
plug-n-charge is not a billing system and will not fix billing system issues.
plug-n-charge is directly analogous to the chip in modern credit cards. scanning the chip is not the payment processor. Visa, MasterCard, square, paypal etc still have to receive the payment data and process it. If you can't get your systems to reliability send payment data it does not matter if its a credit card or virtual chip in the car itself.
what is this 12.5% about?
How is it vendor lock in when your opening up?
locking Tesla out of the funds would do what for the US charging infrastructure?
Changing side mirrors to allow cameras was proposed years ago by many more companies then tesla. You could have filed a public comment on it till 2019 and since they they have just been drafting the actual standards for the rule change.
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?RIN=2127-AM02
Sometime after march 2023 side mirrors will be replaceable with camera.
To summarize my points. Tesla opening up is great for the EV driver.
Tesla opening up is bad for other charging companies. They neither provide a better service, more service or a better experience. The EV funds being directed to the highways makes it even worse as thats where the majority of the charging companies' moneys are likely made.
happyscrappy t1_j8s907a wrote
> plug-n-charge is not a billing system and will not fix billing system issues.
I don't know what you are talking about. Plug-n-charge means you don't use an app or a screen on the charger to set up your payment info. Instead your car is identified when you connect it. With no way to set billing information that means the billing information will be looked up in a database run by the charger operator.
So yes, that means Tesla will have a database of everyone who owns an EV who uses their chargers. A database to spam. And they will have an app (Already do) you use to set your billing information. That puts them in the pocket of every (okay, a lot of) EV owners.
But it also means billing can be handled like how your cell phone billing is handled. When you roam to another place you may be on a different network but your SIM identifies you and a backend can route the validation so that someone can attest you are allowed to call on that network and so that you are billed for what you do as applicable.
The idea of plug n charge is similar. You just go and the billing takes care of itself behind the scenes. You don't get to a charger and find you can't use it because you don't have a membership card. Or their app. Or the screen is broken. If you can plug in, it'll work. Like a Tesla Supercharger does. This will reduce failed attempts to charge which failed due to billing issues.
> what is this 12.5% about?
That is the percentage of chargers Tesla runs that it is going to make available to non-Teslas before the end of 2024. Only 12.5%.
> How is it vendor lock in when your opening up?
What? They are only opening up 12.5% of their chargers and only by the end of 2024. That means 87.5% of chargers are still only their own connector. That's vendor lock-in.
> locking Tesla out of the funds would do what for the US charging infrastructure?
The money would go to other companies who are committed to an infrastructure instead of vendor lock-in. It turns out most of the $7.5B is going to other companies, I corrected myself in an edit. The reporting implied it all goes to Tesla. It does not.
> Changing side mirrors to allow cameras was proposed years ago by many more companies then tesla.
What I'm talking about was Musk opining that since not having wing mirrors was illegal in the US he would put both wing mirrors and side cameras on the car and then customers would remove the wing mirrors and use just the side cameras.
Malicious compliance.
> Sometime after march 2023 side mirrors will be replaceable with camera.
Maybe. Or not. The rulemaking isn't done yet. None of that is material regardless, as Musk was proposing to release the car before the rule change.
> To summarize my points. Tesla opening up is great for the EV driver.
Tesla opening up 12.5% shows really that they aren't opening up at all. They are instead buying time to extend their vendor lockin.
> Tesla opening up is bad for other charging companies.
I don't care if companies that do a worse job have a hard time. I presume you don't either.
Call_Me_Thom t1_j8qjm6n wrote
Electrify America and other companies that build out ccs networks can definitely ban Tesla vehicles but currently am guessing they make more money from Teslas than all other EV’s combined even though Tesla superchargers are everywhere. That’s the reason they won’t block Tesla vehicles.
happyscrappy t1_j8qnj6s wrote
I don't think they make more from DC charging Teslas given you can't even connect a Tesla without buying the CCS adapter which only came out late last year in the US and is not selling 1:1 with cars. And it's $250. And it doesn't work with every car they made, only ones made very recently. "Check back in 2023 for retrofit information."
https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter?web=true
Also, I can see their banks of chargers around the corner from my house. No, it's not Teslas there. It's VWs and Polestars. Why? Because those companies give out a bunch of free charging at Electrify America chargers with their cars.
Which means those chargers which others could use to take long trips are instead clogged up with cars from people trying to save a dollar or two charging their car.
Giveaways of free charging at DCFCs should be banned.
> That’s the reason they won’t block Tesla vehicles.
I'm not talking about the companies making the decisions. I'm talking about the government making the decisions.
greatersteven t1_j8p6ztt wrote
Because there WASN'T a fast charging DC infrastructure or standard when they started building their network. At this point you'd be asking them to retrofit thousands of stations at their cost because the standard is now set. That's the argument.
I happen to be on your side and think it's better to open the network than not.
happyscrappy t1_j8pel3s wrote
> Because there WASN'T a fast charging DC infrastructure or standard when they started building their network.
That was then. This is now.
And for the record, I DC fast charged my Nissan LEAF before Tesla even built a single Supercharger. No, not using CCS, but still.
So suggesting Tesla had to decide to go it alone doesn't work. They chose to.
> At this point you'd be asking them to retrofit thousands of stations at their cost because the standard is now set
If they want to ask for financial aid to adapt chargers I'm fine with that. If instead of retrofitting their chargers they simply are prevented from building any new ones that only work with Teslas I'm fine with that.
For a person who is on my side you sure are making up a whole lot of roadblocks to my side. Why?
Yes, I'm saying Tesla should have to decide:
Is CCS infrastructure an asset?
If yes. Then it's time for them to join in it.
If no, then ban Teslas from using CCS infrastructure. Ban them from other (DC) chargers other than their own monopolistic network.
If their idea is "it's useful so we want our cars to use it but we're not going to help anyone else" then they can go hang.
fuzzytradr t1_j8qo40t wrote
And hasn't this deal come about via a substantial financial incentive? I'd say that's $7.5B reasons why Tesla is taking the deal.
happyscrappy t1_j8qoj9r wrote
The money is ridiculous.
I would give them $0. Just do like Europe and say you're prohibited from making any more DC chargers that don't support CCS (at least in addition to your proprietary connector). You're not required to retrofit the old ones, and so we're not going to pay you anything for it.
Tesla is right now saying 7500 chargers. It's not even clear they are all DC. Some may be Level 2.
[edit: It's 3500 DC and 4000 L2!. But also the entire $7.5B does not go to Tesla. Just part of it. So my $1M below figure may be far too high.]
$1M a charger? Ridiculous.
Plus Tesla will use the billing system in place to create a database of EV owners for them to market to. And force them to download the Tesla app, giving them a line direct to their pocket.
California law requires them to make their chargers available to everyone without joining a club (no memberships). I hope that law sticks here. But this is Musk. The same guy who refused to close his plants during COVID because he's too damn important for it. He made false claims that he had permission to operate.
I don't really expect them to follow the California law.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments