Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
101 - 120 of 139 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
Isn’t “exclusivity” part of the Tesla mystique (and brand), and isn’t it at least partly why people are buying Teslas?
Sure, and also the reason some don't.

Here are snapshots of DCFC in my state. Left is CCS, right is Tesla. There are a few places where Tesla owners have challenges, needing to find L2, or use adapters at slower charging speeds to reach. CCS is growing fast, with 10+ sites under construction, many in remote, desirable tourist parts of the state. A year ago, common mantra at our EV Events, Tesla owners proudly proclaimed the SC network was second to none. Now, they merely say it is good enough for most places you would want to go.

36042
36043


Don't get me wrong, there are places where Tesla charging is far superior. But the image of second to none is eroding. In 1-2 years, my expectation is a growing number of Tesla owners will acknowledge the lack of CCS charging capability for their cars to be a negative. It is already happening, interest in CCS adapters is growing among the Tesla owners I know. At first, mildly so, but eventually maybe even a big enough factor to consider alternatives.

One member of our group got fed up with Tesla support for his 2012 MS. He was a big Tesla fan, but traded up to ID.4 a month ago and is thrilled with his decision to walk away from Tesla. When asked why, support was his #1 complaint, but he recognizes CCS charging is the wave of the future and sees more travel opportunities than when he owned his MS.

Tesla's network was essential for getting where they are today. But, it may become a liability both from the image of being exclusionary, and being limited compared to CCS.

Presently, CCS networks are under utilized. But as CCS EVs grow in market share vs Tesla, it is conceivable they may adopt EULA similar to what EVGo recently did, restricting use of adapters. Theoretically, they could even restrict Teslas and Tesla made adapters. How? Blacklisting MAC addresses of devices connected to their EVSEs. MAC addresses of hosts connected to networks are 6 octet hexadecimal physical addresses assigned to each network device at the factory. The first 3 octets identify manufacturer.

What would be the justification for blacklisting Teslas and unauthorized adapters? For one, EVSE equipment makers certify equipment with compatible EVs. Using untested devices could have unforeseeable impacts, potentially damaging their equipment. Secondly, if CCS owners complain of being unable to charge because of Teslas using the equipment, given the exclusionary SC practices, the network operator might argue it is equally fair to exclude Teslas on their network as it is to exclude third party EVs on SC.

Do I want to force change? No. Do I think Tesla owes it to the public to open their network? No. Do I think they may eventually find it necessary to adopt CCS and open their network? Yes. Do I think converting sooner will minimize headaches for Tesla owners, and all EV owners? Yes.

Tesla fans will argue I am being overly critical, have an ax to grind, have an agenda, etc. My primary concern is that the current state of exclusionary networks, incompatible plugs, and the confusion created by these is off putting to potential EV buyers, and an unnecessary burden on existing EV owners, including Tesla owners. My dream is of a universal charging plug, all networks being open, and a single billing entity one can choose to use on any DCFC plug in the country, regardless of the network provider. Ideally, such a solution would be as easy to use as Plug & Charge or Tesla SC. I want solutions that work well for all EVs, including Teslas. I want to see all EV manufacturers succeed, not just Tesla or GM. I want to see it possible to pull into any network EVSE and charge, just like we can pull into any network gas station and fill up.
That’s why I think if he does anything it’ll be to sell off the entire network all at once. That way, the new owner can be the “bad guy”.
I agree, if or when it becomes a liability to Tesla, they will look for ways to offload it. If a buyer were an existing network operator, they would likely rebrand the units, add CCS plugs, and open it to all. But, I think it is equally plausible Tesla may offer the units at the existing sites to the site hosts along the lines of how Chargepoint operates. The site hosts are less concerned with profitability, more interested in generating traffic to their businesses where they will make higher margin sales. Similar to gas stations. I see charging networks as three primary business functions, the chargers themselves, which are low margin, the billing services which is reasonably profitable, and maintenance which is also reasonably profitable. I suspect all network operators will eventually look at adopting ChargePoint's model of selling the units to site hosts, and making their money on billing and maintenance.

And I see opportunity for Tesla Energy to play a big role as an energy provider alongside the grid players, providing wind\solar co-generation, and on site storage, on any EV Charging network. I see DCFC sites being micro grids, reducing the demand EV charging has on the national grids. These DCFC sites might even play a bigger role of helping improve the grid reliability for homeowners and businesses through their micro grid contributions.

If we ever move in that direction, I would be all for using public and private funds to assist anyone looking to expand, including Tesla. I think EV manufacturers should get together and create a pool of funds, based on sales volumes that would be used to fund DCFC expansion. These funds might supplement registration fees and public funds awarded to state agencies that are tasked with expanding charging within their states. The state agencies tend to know best where charging needs are in their state. And they are more accessible to EV owners, getting valuable feedback on the needs of the community.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,335 Posts
... entitlement to a whole new level I would use it here.
No one's asking for handouts.
Some are just saying:
"Sell us electrons if you want to make some money. Sock it to us. We don't care."

But now that they are making a profit, why bother? And the CCS network is getting bigger by the day!

Exclusivity has its benefits!
If I had a Tesla I would feel that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
GM is footing the bill for 2700 EVGo chargers which will triple that network's size for the benefit of all brands. That is such a weak argument, and false, yet the Tesla fans continue to try to use that argument. Yet, here you are, a Tesla fan trying to shame GM to deflect blame.

Given GM's EV market share, 2700 chargers is likely to be equal to the effort Tesla has put into SC on a pro rated basis.
So GM drags its feet for a decade, its production is under 1% EV and the majority of its manufacture is ~ 15 mpg vehicles, and that to you is a reason to judge them pro rata !?

Now about the GM PR, you should read it
General Motors and EVgo designed this new endeavor to leverage private investment alongside government grant and utility programs
I don't know how much money GM is spending. Do you ?
I do know that GM made the announcement in 2019. Where are they at two years later, over and above the historical EVGo build-out without GM ?

What have you posted about GM litigation and lobbying efforts to scuttle the Obama era CAFE increases, and the attempt to hobble CA and its CARB ZEV mandate ?

I'm not here to shame GM although I do find them lacking by a country mile behind Tesla. I am telling you that your hypocrisy is outrageous and the temper tantrum I read in this forum over Tesla not giving Bolt owners access to the Supercharger network is nothing short of infantile.

You are welcome to last last word
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Some are just saying:
"Sell us electrons if you want to make some money. Sock it to us. We don't care."
If that was all that was being said, I would have nothing to add other than cautious support.
But you and I know it goes further because Tesla is criticized when they defer. I've read the reasons Tesla has deferred and I think they are interesting but my heartfelt opinion is that Tesla does not owe an explanation to anybody other than their board, their stockholders, and their customers.

And while it is fashionable for Bolt owners to then whine that Tesla is not meeting its mission statement, it is obvious to any casual observer that Tesla is advancing clean transportation and the transition to clean energy in leaps and bounds further than any other company. The criticism here is petty envy.

I find it embarrassing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
My primary concern is that the current state of exclusionary networks, incompatible plugs, and the confusion created by these is off putting to potential EV buyers
It absolutely does. Every time someone has a bad experience at EA (or any other provider, but EA is the easy target) they talk about how these problems need ironed out before EVs adoption will be widespread. Perhaps, although this is always coming from someone who purchased an EV before those problems were ironed out and often had no idea such problems existed before they purchased the vehicle so it's hard to make an argument when their entire argument is "others will do more research than I did before buying"... but I digress.

Alternately, almost every time I talk to someone about charging on the road they bring up seeing "those chargers" at a store. I then have to tell them that those are Tesla and only available to Tesla vehicles. I can then see in their faces the realization that they can't charge every vehicle everywhere and the implied complication has severely damaged any interest they had in EVs. Anyone that thinks SC is a good thing for EV adoption is living in the clouds. It actively hurts EV adoption as a whole while promoting Tesla adoption. They are not advancing clean transportation, they are advancing their own sales. No, those are not the same thing, but I'm sure every Tesla Fan will argue to the end that they are and everyone else is just envious. Yes, we're jealous that you are claiming to be just so EV-positive while keeping a large charging network to yourselves and telling every other EV owner to pound sand.

I do find them lacking by a country mile behind Tesla.
I always chuckle at that idiom. In the country a mile is nothing, a minute of driving away. It's the city where a mile goes on and on, block after block, for several minutes. A holdover from the days when dirt roads and no suspension to speak of were the norm. So when someone uses it I can only smile and think "oh good, that won't take long to cover at all".
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
So GM drags its feet for a decade, its production is under 1% EV and the majority of its manufacture is ~ 15 mpg vehicles, and that to you is a reason to judge them pro rata !?

Now about the GM PR, you should read it

I don't know how much money GM is spending. Do you ?
I do know that GM made the announcement in 2019. Where are they at two years later, over and above the historical EVGo build-out without GM ?

What have you posted about GM litigation and lobbying efforts to scuttle the Obama era CAFE increases, and the attempt to hobble CA and its CARB ZEV mandate ?

I'm not here to shame GM although I do find them lacking by a country mile behind Tesla. I am telling you that your hypocrisy is outrageous and the temper tantrum I read in this forum over Tesla not giving Bolt owners access to the Supercharger network is nothing short of infantile.

You are welcome to last last word
Not defending GM, or demanding anything in the least. Only the argument GM is not funding public DC Charging.

And yes, it has been a bit under 2 years and the first milestone has EVGo lagging on implementation. Perhaps COVID slowed things down? That is what EVGo is saying anyway. As for how much GM has invested in open DCFC, well you say it yourself. With their small EV marketshare, of course they are well behind Tesla in charging infrastructure spending. It is certainly not as critical to their success since they elected to go with the open standards.

One of the benefits of backing open networks is public funding. The public rightfully has concerns with public funds for private use.

I said it at the time, but GM is just as likely to have wanted to see more emphasis on EV and less on incremental investment requirements to improve MPG. We now see them backing the initiatives to accelerate EV adoption. So maybe they were justified in being critical of being forced to improve something they want to get rid of in their product portfolio. But that is an entirely different topic than what is being discussed here.

Temper tantrum? Really? Are you that defensive to not consider the whole post?

What I said is:
Tesla fans will argue I am being overly critical, have an ax to grind, have an agenda, etc. My primary concern is that the current state of exclusionary networks, incompatible plugs, and the confusion created by these is off putting to potential EV buyers, and an unnecessary burden on existing EV owners, including Tesla owners. My dream is of a universal charging plug, all networks being open, and a single billing entity one can choose to use on any DCFC plug in the country, regardless of the network provider. Ideally, such a solution would be as easy to use as Plug & Charge or Tesla SC. I want solutions that work well for all EVs, including Teslas. I want to see all EV manufacturers succeed, not just Tesla or GM. I want to see it possible to pull into any network EVSE and charge, just like we can pull into any network gas station and fill up.
I also said:
Do I want to force change? No. Do I think Tesla owes it to the public to open their network? No. Do I think they may eventually find it necessary to adopt CCS and open their network? Yes. Do I think converting sooner will minimize headaches for Tesla owners, and all EV owners? Yes.
If that is whiny, how do you think the elitist attitude of Tesla owners wanting to have their cake and eat it too sounds? Again, and I emphasize, I want to see it easier for all EV owners, not picking a winner, not demanding anything. I am suggesting it may be in Tesla's best interests to consider changing.

Why do you think I am demanding anything? If I was unclear, I apologize as that was not my intent. But if you are purposely misinterpreting my comments, how is that helpful?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts
Why does this discussion remind me of Mac vs PC, or iPhone vs Android?
Because there are a lot of similarities. -https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/16/the-ongoing-parallels-between-tesla-apple/

I see Tesla as continuing to follow the same path as Apple. They will keep their exclusive connector as long as feasible, but will eventually give in and start using a "standard" connector. They will eventually lose their once unassailable market leading position, but will continue to sell their product at a premium to a loyal fanbase. They will come out with innovations along the way but as everyone makes improvements there simply won't be much difference between them and the other manufacturers.

I do hope they decide to make the model 2 and do it soon. Their long-term niche market will be for high-end cars so it's just a matter of time before they acknowledge that and only make high-priced vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,335 Posts
...Tesla does not owe an explanation to anybody other than their board, their stockholders, and their customers. ..
This sums it up!
Great post! , until the last 2 sentences. ⭐⭐⭐⭐
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
VW is paying a fine. They do not get to choose who connects, the US regulatory authorities decide.

As for the resentment, it is misplaced. Tesla is a privately funded network. If you (e.g.) had paid your share for the network and were denied access, I would understand resentment. As it is you have not paid a penny and I don't understand your feelings of entitlement.
Hmmm, VW didn't get to chose who connects... but there are no Tesla connectors on EA stations.

When the Supercharger network was the only game in town, Elon could have charged $2,000 each for Tesla to CCS adapters, each adapter purchase would have been "buying in" to the system. He chose not to do this while claiming he was all for it. Superchargers are no longer the only game in town, and low and behold he is trying to hold knowledgeable Tesla owners hostage by not providing a CCS to Tesla adapter. Granted, your average Tesla fanboy doesn't know that CCS chargers even exist, let alone understand that they are more capable than V3 superchargers. I would get a CCS to Tesla adapter in a heartbeat if it were available for my MYP! It would make certain trips I take much simpler, and for "holiday" travel it would be a no brainer to have a CCS to Tesla adapter. I am not paying a huge sum for an inferior adapter built in China though, so I am out of luck.

TL/DR People are not entitled to supercharger access. But Elon pissing on our leg and telling us it is raining doesn't endear him to anyone. OK, that is going a bit far... it endears him to the fanboys.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Tesla loves vertical integration and proprietary solutions. They won't even support phone integration by sticking to a proprietary nav. It may be best in class, but unless we are in 2015, it is a total fail.

Unless regulators force them to support CCS like they threatened in Germany, don't expect Tesla to care about the rest of us.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,335 Posts
Unless regulators force them to support CCS like they threatened in Germany, don't expect Tesla to care about the rest of us.
And why should they?
They paid for this feature that is offered to their customers.

And now that they are finally making a profit, there is no reason to sell DCFC to others.
Exclusivity as its advantages. Buy a $60 - 120k car, get access to a private charge network.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
And why should they?
They paid for this feature that is offered to their customers.

And now that they are finally making a profit, there is no reason to sell DCFC to others.
Exclusivity as its advantages. Buy a $60 - 120k car, get access to a private charge network.
It may come in the form of Anti-Trust. If Tesla continues to dominate the EV space, they will likely face pressure from regulators. This may initially be from areas where publicly owned, or co-op utilities operate. Using the public's energy for an unfair advantage or some BS reasoning.

I don't mean to say this is right or wrong, just that society tends to go in this direction when a market dominating player is too vertically integrated. With EV market share as low as it is, they don't attract much attention, but as it takes off, you can expect intervention.

The other possibility, the large sums of public money DC wants to give away to build charging infrastructure may force them to install publicly accessible plugs at new SC sites to qualify for assistance. If they refuse to take the money and terms, they fall behind CCS, turning the perceived advantage into a liability. Imagine the idea of buying a $60-100K car that is limited to an inferior charging network.

Both of these could be avoided if they installed even a few CCS plugs at their sites and welcomed outsiders. In fact, doing this might even encourage regulators to ask that CCS sites install Tesla plugs to qualify for public funds. Initially, it might be a limited number, based on market share figures. But as CCS models catch up to Tesla, the demand could be equal numbers of plugs.

While it may not be ideal, having Tesla + CCS plugs at charging sites wouldn't be as difficult to deal with as the current situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,814 Posts
... or maybe Tesla will get wise and try to get some Infrastructure Bill money, like in Norway, and install some SC stalls with CCS. Tesla can limit those CCS plugs to 150A to frustrate EV owners / promote Tesla. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Superchargers are no longer the only game in town, and low and behold he is trying to hold knowledgeable Tesla owners hostage by not providing a CCS to Tesla adapter.
How does that hold a Tesla owner "hostage" ?
More importantly, how does that improve Tesla sales ?
How does your notion square with the Tesla offer of a car to CHAdeMO adapter ?

Your reasoning strikes me as deeply flawed, so I'll add my two cents: CCS to Tesla is difficult, and it is delaying the product. The SETEC adapter is good evidence that the problem is not on the Tesla side, it is on the CCS side. EA itself is excellent evidence that CCS is immature. Tesla and its car owners are accustomed to Supercharger reliability and ease of use. Until Tesla can provide the same reliability expectation and most of the ease of use, they delay the adapter.

S. Korea may be a different story if the country has a homogenous CCS supply chain, but in the USA I think there are at least 5 different CCS vendors and it causes headaches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,078 Posts
Debunks? How does using the Black Swan defense for a positive claim that Elon's lying, debunk anything? Not only is it weak but also a logical fallacy.
Here's a few more that didn't age well either:

Tesla will never sell a $35 car. Must be a lie.
Actually, I think you're wrong about this one. Four sawbucks for a car really is too good to be true...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
... or maybe Tesla will get wise and try to get some Infrastructure Bill money, like in Norway, and install some SC stalls with CCS. Tesla can limit those CCS plugs to 150A to frustrate EV owners / promote Tesla. LOL
The current administration is so beholden to union labor that Tesla would have to unionize it's work force to get the full benefits of the proposed modification of federal EV incentives, do you think they can get a slice of the infrastructure money without unionizing?

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
How does that hold a Tesla owner "hostage" ?
More importantly, how does that improve Tesla sales ?
How does your notion square with the Tesla offer of a car to CHAdeMO adapter ?

Your reasoning strikes me as deeply flawed, so I'll add my two cents: CCS to Tesla is difficult, and it is delaying the product. The SETEC adapter is good evidence that the problem is not on the Tesla side, it is on the CCS side. EA itself is excellent evidence that CCS is immature. Tesla and its car owners are accustomed to Supercharger reliability and ease of use. Until Tesla can provide the same reliability expectation and most of the ease of use, they delay the adapter.

S. Korea may be a different story if the country has a homogenous CCS supply chain, but in the USA I think there are at least 5 different CCS vendors and it causes headaches.
I am being held hostage by only having access to a borderline inferior charging network. No way in **** would I do holiday travel in an area that has a high population of Tesla owners... but I could drive an ID4 or Mustang Mach E on a holiday road trip with no worries. I want to clog up the EA network with my Tesla darn it! :) A concern of many CCS equipped car owners here is Tesla's flooding "their" stations if adapter became available. I think that most Tesla owners would remain ignorant and would not purchase the adapter.

"CCS to Tesla is difficult" Your ignorance is showing. The SETAC adapter is good evidence that China makes crap electronics. All new Tesla's in Europe can charge at ANY CCS station without problem, and older ones can easily be retro-fitted to work with CCS. A Tesla produced CCS to Tesla adapter would allow the same capability in the US.

Keith
 
101 - 120 of 139 Posts
Top