Tesla Stresses Importance/Expansion Of Charging Network Ahead Of Model 3

APR 24 2017 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 156

Tesla Supercharger Rendering

Tesla’s commitment to a global charging infrastructure is unmatched.

Whereas some automakers such as General Motors refuse to support the charging infrastructure, Tesla continues to build upon its world leading Supercharger network and destination chargers.

“As we add more and more Teslas to the road, we’re making charging an even bigger priority. We’re doubling the number of Superchargers globally and adding more destination chargers.”

In a blog post today, Tesla reiterated its stance with the following statement:

“As Tesla prepares for our first mass-market vehicle and continues to increase our Model S and Model X fleet, we’re making charging an even greater priority. It is extremely important to us and our mission that charging is convenient, abundant, and reliable for all owners, current and future. In 2017, we’ll be doubling the Tesla charging network, expanding existing sites so drivers never wait to charge, and broadening our charging locations within city centers.”

Tesla says that it’ll have 10,000 Superchargers online globally by the end of 2017. That’s in addition to the 15,000 destination chargers set connect Tesla owners to electricity around the world. Tesla adds:

“In North America, we’ll increase the number of Superchargers by 150 percent, and in California alone we’ll add more than 1,000 Superchargers.”

But here’s where it gets even more interesting. Tesla says some Supercharger sites will be upgraded to have several dozen charging stalls:

“Toward that goal, Tesla will build larger sites along our busiest travel routes that will accommodate several dozen Teslas Supercharging simultaneously. In addition, many sites will be built further off the highway to allow local Tesla drivers to charge quickly when needed, with the goal of making charging ubiquitous in urban centers.”

Tesla Supercharger Rendering

It seems Tesla is dead set on continuing to lead the way when its come to charging up its electric vehicles.

Of note:  At the same time in the US, the VW’s Dieselgate scandal settlement begins to translated into a massive ultra-fast public charging network of its own, with work on hundreds of locations starting in the next 8 weeks.  Each location will have at least 4 (and up to 10) charge points, with DCFC abilities ranging from 150 kW to 320 kW (details).

Tesla blog post below (highlights bolded by InsideEVs):

Charging Is Our Priority

The Tesla Team April 24, 2017

As Tesla prepares for our first mass-market vehicle and continues to increase our Model S and Model X fleet, we’re making charging an even greater priority. It is extremely important to us and our mission that charging is convenient, abundant, and reliable for all owners, current and future. In 2017, we’ll be doubling the Tesla charging network, expanding existing sites so drivers never wait to charge, and broadening our charging locations within city centers.

As always, the most convenient way to charge is to plug in overnight where you park. However, to better serve the needs of owners who are traveling or those who don’t have access to reliable home charging, we will continue to aggressively expand our public charging networks. Since we first energized the Supercharger network in 2012, Tesla has built over 5,400 Superchargers with the goal of enabling convenient long distance travel for more than 200,000 Tesla owners around the world. In parallel, we’ve built a network of more than 9,000 Destination Charging connectors that replicate the convenience of home charging by providing hotels, resorts, and restaurants with Tesla Wall Connectors. But we know that to truly advance electric vehicle adoption, we must continue investing in charging infrastructure.

We started 2017 with over 5,000 Superchargers globally and by the end of this year, Tesla will double that number to total more than 10,000 Superchargers and 15,000 Destination Charging connectors around the world. In North America, we’ll increase the number of Superchargers by 150 percent, and in California alone we’ll add more than 1,000 Superchargers. We’re moving full speed on site selection and many sites will soon enter construction to open in advance of the summer travel season.

Toward that goal, Tesla will build larger sites along our busiest travel routes that will accommodate several dozen Teslas Supercharging simultaneously. In addition, many sites will be built further off the highway to allow local Tesla drivers to charge quickly when needed, with the goal of making charging ubiquitous in urban centers.

Tesla will continue to lead the industry with the fastest, most advanced charging technology in the world and continue to build the only cars capable of leveraging that power. The ongoing expansion of the networks will ensure that Tesla drivers are able to quickly and easily charge their vehicles no matter what, and that a seamless charging experience remains our priority.

Interactive Supercharger map and network expansion plans here.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

156 Comments on "Tesla Stresses Importance/Expansion Of Charging Network Ahead Of Model 3"

avatar
newest oldest most voted
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Well there’s another reason why buying a Tesla makes more sense.

A company dedicated to supporting their products by providing charge infrastructure where the others turn a dumb blind eye and spend money to fight CARB/EPA.

DJ
Guest
DJ

Or if you don’t plan on using it than it’s a reason to not buy a Tesla. I personally would rather spend less on a car that didn’t have access to SC’s and use public charging on the rare occasions I would need to.

Different strokes for different folks…

Stimpy
Guest
Stimpy

Except there aren’t options to buy a car for less that is any way comparable. With the rest you don’t get access to superchargers AND you pay the same. What a deal!

DJ
Guest
DJ

Well with that argument you may as well buy an ICE. I mean NO EV can currently get 500 miles on a fill up!

Talk about moving goal posts…

Nick
Guest
Nick

wat

AustinAnthony
Guest
AustinAnthony

Ha! Public charging is a joke for long-range driving, unless you plan on staying there for hours waiting for your car to charge. What BEV, other than Tesla, can travel from city to city throughout most of the the USA without spending more time charging than driving. I know of none other than the Tesla Model S and X and the soon-to-be-out Model 3.

Martin Winlow
Guest
Martin Winlow
Any modern EV with a rapid DC charging port can do this – assuming you have the infrastructure and if you don’t now, with this Dieselgate settlement in place, you soon will. The LEAF, e-nv200, i-MiEV, Soul, Bolt, Ioniq and i3 can all be driven for about twice as long as they take to rapid charge, even on a free(motor)way. Typically this means driving for between 45 minutes and an hour and then charging for between 20 and 30 minutes. I’m afraid what you have stated (again, infrastructure permitting) is one of those EV myths which, now busted, means that any of the above EVs *could* be used as a primary car. You just have to accept that it’ll take 50% longer to get anywhere that is more than 100 miles or so away. I used to quite enjoy those enforced stops when I used to take my i-MiEV on long (360 miles round trip) journeys. By the time you had sorted out a cup of tea and done a few emails it was time to crack on. It completely broke up the journey, made it much less stressful and therefore more pleasant – and you had time to meet… Read more »
Dan
Guest
Dan

I just cannot agree that it is the auto manufacturers responsibility to provide you with fueling locations and or free fuel for the vehicle you purchase from them be that fuel electricity gasoline diesel or whatever. It is not a historical president. Everyone loves to make money and when enough battery electric vehicles show up in the wild where the build-out of public charging infrastructure by various entrepreneurs and or the utilities themselves who are in an ideal position to provide electric car charging infrastructure because they’re already in the business of selling electricity. It’s classic chicken and egg.

BenG
Guest
BenG

It’s unpresidented! Indeed!

But you’re right. It’s a chicken vs. egg situation and that’s exactly why Tesla is forging ahead and building the network themselves.

No third party will build out a robust network until there are a ton of EVs on the road, but people are reluctant to buy EVs without a robust network. So Tesla builds a proprietary network and uses it as a sales tool for their cars.

Seems like a solid plan to me, working so far.

koz
Guest
koz

Chicken and egg is an issue but a larger issue is the business fundamentals. It’s hard for a business to offer fee based changing at a price that is attractive and profitable. What make sense for gas stations makes much less sense for charge stations. Cracker Barrel’s are better suited as changing stations than gas stations, even convenience store gas stations. The total shift in where and when charging makes sense makes the chicken and egg issue even more daunting.

At the end of the day significantly more charging will be offered at cost of less as a customer attractor rather than a profit center, e.g. car manufacrturers like Tesla, hotels, highwayside restaurants, amusement parks, state parks, national parks, airports, parking garages, business parking lots, etc.

Car manufacturers can choose to follow Tesla’s path or not. Just don’t shed tears if those that choose not find themselves out in the cold.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Well said, Dan.

It makes economic sense for Tesla to build out its network of Superchargers, to make its cars more attractive to prospective buyers, and to promote sales. It makes sense because 100% of Tesla’s auto sales are BEVs.

Asking for other auto makers to do the same is only wishful thinking. VW is being forced to do this as a result of legal settlement; you can be sure others will not follow. Legacy auto makers have a strong disincentive to accelerate the EV revolution.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan
I don’t know if it’s so much that legacy automakers have a strong disincentive to accelerate the EV revolution as it is that there does not appear to be a plan to profitably monetize a charging network. Tesla treats the SC network as a loss leader (Elon has specifically said they are not trying to make money on it), which is fine if you aren’t yet required to be profitable; no other major automaker is in that position. Commercial daytime charging costs are far above the cheap overnight home charging rates that make EVs so economically attractive. They’re also not competitive with gas at current or recent historical prices. Tesla is gambling that a charging network will ultimately be profitable (in sales, if not directly), and they’re in a good position to do so: they sell luxury cars with a proprietary connector – which means the SC network provides no benefit to their competition – and they’re playing with house (read: investor) money. Even if the entire SC network goes belly up 10 years from now, it was paid for with money that Tesla won’t have to account for at that time. Similarly, VW is in a position where the… Read more »
bogdan
Guest
bogdan

Legacy automakers are braking the EV revolution with maximum force.

Charging infrastructure is a long term investment. They aren’t used to doing business like this. They want profits now, not later.

Tesla will make the SC network profitable sometime in the future. But now it’s not the right time.

Musk wants Tesla to become a major carmaker and survive for many decades from now on. Legacy carmakers CEO don’t realy care, if they go out of business next decade, or they’ll be taken over by chinese carmakers. They want to grab the bonus in 2017, not in 2027.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu
Spider-Dan said: “I don’t know if it’s so much that legacy automakers have a strong disincentive to accelerate the EV revolution as it is that there does not appear to be a plan to profitably monetize a charging network.” I’d like to point out that it’s entirely possible for both of those to be true. As for the first, I won’t claim it as fact, but rather informed opinion. Others have said it better in the past; for example: Until we see Audi, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, GM, Ford deliver a BEV that similarly dusts their own top-of-line ICE product in performance AND value for money, there will be no effective BEV competition for Tesla. And this isn’t going to happen for a LONG time, not for technical reasons, but because ICE carmakers cannot remain viable companies if they start killing off their highest margin products. The ICE carmakers will put batteries into version of their products for the customers who ask for ‘the electric one’. They will build low-end, compliance BEVs to earn the ZEV credits they need without cannibalizing their high-end ICEs. They will build hybrids and PHEVs to get their CAFE and CO2 g/km numbers. But they aren’t… Read more »
Martin Winlow
Guest
Martin Winlow

Not really (and it’s ‘precedent’).

99% of charging will happen at home or at/on the way to work so it is only for long distance driving that a public rapid charging infrastructure is needed, the only exception being those who want to own an EV that can’t charge as above.

About half of car owners in the West have off-street parking so we could go a very long way down the road of mass EV ownership before we needed a ubiquitous rapid charging infrastructure.

That said, we still need *something* to give EV owners the confidence that for that very rare day when you end up needing a quick boost, that the infrastructure is there but this is a small fraction of what the Dieselgate settlement will provide. For instance in the US there are about 110k gas stations. If you put a 20kW rapid charger in each one of 10% of these is would ‘only’ cost about USD50m.

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

Doubling down on proprietary obstruction and fragmentation against single open standard network. As if we would not have enough mess with different charging standards in different countries already!

How great, lets worship EM even more for his unmatched effort to take over the world!

Brian
Guest
Brian

That’s a little harsh, although I do share your sentiment. It is sad that nobody is building out a CHAdeMO or CCS network that is anything like Tesla’s. And Tesla is doing nothing to help anyone but themselves. I mean, they are a business so I don’t fault them. But it sure would be nice to be able to charge up a Bolt at a Tesla Supercharger. And it would be inline with their company vision if they chose to do so.

Some Guy
Guest
Some Guy

But that is what Tesla does. The patents are open. Anyone can build a vehicle which is compatible with the SC network and (here it comes) just ask Tesla to grant access (for a fee per vehicle sold).
However, of all the other mass market EVs, none can currently take the power of a SC (with I think the Ioniq being close for a short time?), and would thus clog up the system.
I’m sure, if a manufacturer comes out with a car capable of using the SC etwork as intended, and wiling to pay Tesla for the service of setting up a worldwide infrastructure, Tesla will not deny access…

John
Guest
John

Now that Tesla has billing built in, how long before *THEY* release a Tesla adapter for other cars with a billing chip inside?

Is that even possible?

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

The dude made PayPal, he’s got to have the smarts to figure out how to bill non Tesla vehicles.

What’s missing on all non Tesla vehicles are hardware ID’s/VIN embedded in the charge interface communications that identifies the car.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

John asked:

“Now that Tesla has billing built in, how long before *THEY* release a Tesla adapter for other cars with a billing chip inside?

“Is that even possible?”

Technically possible, sure. Will it happen? Absolutely not.

The Supercharger network is almost certainly a “loss leader” for Tesla. The auto maker isn’t building Superchargers for the good of humanity as a whole; it’s building them to promote sales of their cars. Tesla’s own cars… not EVs made by other companies. Tesla’s official position is that they welcome competition from other EV makers, but that doesn’t mean they’re gonna spend their own money to support their rivals’ EVs!

Nick
Guest
Nick

They are totally building superchargers for the good of humanity.

Tesla’s whole goal is to save the planet from the likes of GM and they are doing their darndest.

Brian
Guest
Brian

Yes, I am familiar with this argument. And I don’t dispute it. But I would rather Tesla throw a bone to us, the consumers, rather than the manufacturers. It’s not my fault that GM didn’t engage Tesla for shared use of their superchargers. I just wish that I had the option to buy a Bolt and then pay Tesla myself for use of their network. GM management’s decisions be d@^#ed.

paul smith
Guest
paul smith

So you think Tesla should do all the investing and work so that Bolt owners and GM can benefit, despite GM’s refusal to help the cause? Right.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

lol
+1

Nix
Guest
Nix

+1 and double LOL’s

Brian
Guest
Brian

Nope, not at all what I said. But what I am often accused of saying by those who have trouble comprehending. And who says Tesla wouldn’t benefit from opening their “stations” to more customers?

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Brian asked:

“…who says Tesla wouldn’t benefit from opening their ‘stations’ to more customers?”

Hmmm… everyone who understands the economics?

I can’t imagine any scenario where this would benefit Tesla. They’re already having enough problems with clogging of the Supercharger network. If you have a scenario where making this problem worse would benefit Tesla, then please do post it. I’d be interested to see anything reasonable.

Mint
Guest
Mint

I think it’s doable, but Tesla would have to do something a bit selfish, like give priority to Tesla cars if the SC is busy, telling the Bolt owner via app when SCs will be unavailable.

A Bolt charging at 50kW (has anyone confirmed the 80kW at a charger?) is already a poor use of a busy spot, let alone the fact that Tesla didn’t get a sale from it.

WadeTyhon
Guest
WadeTyhon

Tesla doesn’t have to do anything. No one is demanding Tesla or GM do anything to appease anyone.

Although I think it would be smart for Tesla to have a token combo charger at some of their urban locations.

Like Apple releasing iTunes for Windows, it could be a “first taste” or “conquest” effort. Nothing stopping Tesla from doing it and charging drivers for the opportunity.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu
Apple makes a profit on iTunes sales. Contrariwise, Tesla almost certainly spends more on its Supercharger network than the pittance it’s going to get in revenue from the system. The Supercharger network was never intended to make a profit. It was only intended to promote sales of Tesla’s cars. It seems to be quite successful at that. Trying to turn the Supercharger network into a profitable independent business which is open to all, would likely be a disaster. Tesla has to maintain its promise to existing customers for access to Superchargers; it has to stay as close as it can to the original promise of “unlimited free use forever”, or take a major hit to its public image. As I see it, that’s wholly incompatible with opening the network up to use by non-Tesla cars. Let’s be clear: Tesla’s invitation to other auto makers to join its network was based in the idea that those other auto makers would be expected to provide financial support for building out the network. That would benefit everyone whose cars use the network. Contrariwise, Tesla having to build and maintain a network for everyone would be a strong disadvantage to both Tesla and its… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix

If you don’t like it, and want Bolt owners to have access, start an aftermarket company and contract with Tesla to offer your product to Bolt owners in the US.

Tesla absolutely will give you access to their patents and standards for your project (assuming you could negotiate an access fee that Tesla would agree with). But here is the big question. Will GM give you access to their software and patents required to charge the Bolt?

If you think Tesla should do all the work, would GM give Tesla access to GM’s software and patents required to charge a Bolt?

My educated guess would be “no” and “hell no” to my two questions.

Tesla isn’t the problem.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

There are no “software and patents required to charge a Bolt,” because the Bolt – along with every other non-Tesla EV – uses openly available industry standard charging connectors and protocols.

That’s the point.

Nix
Guest
Nix

You don’t get it. Tesla’s chargers don’t use those standards. In order to charge GM’s batteries directly using Tesla’s standards, you would need access to the underlying hardware so that the Tesla charger could charge the GM battery directly on the Tesla Supercharger’s terms.

That means having direct access to underlying controls, like battery temp sensors and coolant pump controls, and access to GM technical battery information. Like GM’s algorithm for battery balancing, and knowledge about charging rates. Those are proprietary GM items.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

You are claiming that GM would have to “give Tesla access” to their underlying hardware. But that is not true, any more than EVGo or ChargePoint need access to the Bolt’s underlying hardware. There is already access provided with fully documented specifications and protocols: it’s called J1772-CCS.

So if Tesla wants direct access to the Bolt’s underlying hardware, all they have to do is make an adapter that translates the well-documented J1772-CCS to a protocol that the SCs understand, and there you have it! That is the wonder of using open standards.

Nix
Guest
Nix

I see, you want Tesla to install J1772-CCS chargers.

Superchargers aren’t J1772-CCS chargers. They don’t charge using J1772-CCS standards. If you want to Supercharge your battery with a Supercharger, you have to use Tesla’s Supercharger standards, not J1772-CCS standards.

What you are saying Tesla should do is install a network of J1772-CCS chargers that charge using J1772-CCS standards. Those are NOT superchargers, those are J1772-CCS chargers. Not the same thing at all.

Why exactly should Tesla be installing a network of J1772-CCS chargers? Now you just sound silly with your expectations, expecting Tesla to install a network of J1772-CCS chargers in top of their existing Supercharger network.

As if Tesla hasn’t done enough for the cause of driving cars on electricity by ALREADY providing roughly half a billion miles worth of Supercharging.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Let me see if I can make this simpler:

You know how Tesla makes an adapter that allows CHAdeMO quick chargers to communicate with Teslas, without providing detailed Tesla schematics to EVgo, ChargePoint, and Nissan dealerships?

Now imagine taking that same process and flipping it around so that a CHAdeMO car can use a Tesla-connector DCFC. What is your argument for why this supposedly cannot work?

Nix
Guest
Nix

“You know how Tesla makes an adapter that allows CHAdeMO quick chargers to communicate with Teslas, without providing detailed Tesla schematics to EVgo, ChargePoint, and Nissan dealerships?

Now imagine taking that same process and flipping it around so that a CHAdeMO car can use a Tesla-connector DCFC. What is your argument for why this supposedly cannot work?”

Dan — That is because Tesla is charging their battery using CHAdeMO standards, not supercharger standards.

Tesla can do this, because Tesla owns the underlying hardware, and they paid to join CHAdeMO and get access to their standards:

https://www.chademo.com/membership/members/

CHAdeMO charger talks to CHAdeMO software in the Tesla, which talks to hardware that Tesla owns. Tesla owns or pays for everything needed to CHAdeMO charge a Tesla. They are not supercharging from a CHAdeMO charger, they are CHAdeMO charging.

__________________________

Tying this back to a Bolt having access to Superchargers to supercharge, GM owns the underlying hardware, they haven’t licensed the Supercharger interface software or installed it to interface between the underlying hardware and the Supercharger charger. Tesla has no access into those items in order to Supercharge a Bolt.

See the difference?

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

So Tesla, who is intimately familiar with the Model S/X charging hardware and protocols, is able to develop an adapter that allows the Tesla car to communicate and charge using the CHAdeMO standard.

Now, why is it that Tesla – who is also intimately familiar with the SuperCharger hardware and protocols – cannot make an adapter that allows SCs to communicate on the thoroughly-documented J1772-CCS standard? (They don’t even have to join a group like CHAdeMO, because it’s an open standard.)

You are basically saying that Tesla cars are capable of communicating to EVSEs that use non-Tesla connectors, but Tesla EVSEs simply cannot be made to communicate with non-Tesla connector cars. The logic behind this claim is puzzling.

And just to reiterate, because you did not address it: Tesla would not need to know what make or model of car is at the end of a CCS connection, or what hardware is in it. All that Tesla would need to do is provide CCS-compatible charging, and the car figures out the rest… exactly like every other CCS EVSE in the world.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, I’ve already explained this. That isn’t allowing the Bolt access to Supercharging at superchargers.

That is Tesla installing a J1772-CCS charging network. Again, why is this somehow a knock against Tesla that they haven’t installed a J1772-CCS charging network? Why would you expect them to do such a thing, and hold it against them?

I don’t know how to say it any clearer. Any piece of hardware that charges using the J1772-CCS protocol, talking to a car’s J1772-CCS software, through a J1772-CCS connector, is by definition doing J1772-CCS charging.

How exactly did you morph this from Tesla allowing companies to buy into accessing Tesla’s supercharger network to supercharge, to somehow Tesla having some obligation to build J1772-CCS chargers?

I think you’ve gone off the deep end, and have lost the big picture of what you are demanding from Tesla.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, let me refer you to an earlier post from another user if you still refuse to understand what you are demanding from Tesla:

“paul smith
April 24, 2017 at 4:24 pm

So you think Tesla should do all the investing and work so that Bolt owners and GM can benefit, despite GM’s refusal to help the cause? Right.”

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Unless you’re claiming that Nissan built “a network of Tesla DCFC chargers at their dealerships” the moment a Tesla-compatible CHAdeMO adapter came into existence, the notion that making a CCS adapter for SCs somehow turns them into “CCS charging stations” is nonsense.

I understand why Tesla does not want their competition using the SC network. It is your continued insistence that 1) SCs are completely incapable of adapting to charge anything but a Tesla and 2) Tesla needs access to vehicle specifications in order to charge a vehicle that I object to.

Mint
Guest
Mint

I don’t think that’s how DC fast charging works. The car decides what current/voltage it wants, and communicates that to the charger (I don’t know the details of the protocol). As long as limits aren’t exceeded, the charger provides the requested power.

The charger doesn’t need to know anything about the car.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Mint — If you have a Supercharger, that connector communicates with Supercharger software that interfaces with the underlying hardware.

If you have a CCS charger, that connector communicates with CCS software that interfaces with the underlying hardware.

If you are Supercharging, you need Supercharger software to talk to the underlying hardware. If you are talking to the CCS layer in the car, you aren’t Supercharging. You are CCS charging.

Charges that charge using CCS are called CCS chargers. They are not Superchargers. They are CCS chargers.

Tesla does not build CCS chargers. They build Superchargers. I highly doubt that Tesla will be building out a CCS charger network, nor do I see any reason for outrage expressed elsewhere on this page that they haven’t already done so.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Using this logic, the Tesla CHAdeMO adapter cannot exist.

And yet it does.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, there is no contradiction at all. Tesla is doing exactly what I’ve described with CCS charging, but with CHAdeMO. Tesla has joined CHAdeMO, and you can CHAdeMO charge your Tesla. You aren’t supercharging your Tesla from a CHAdeMO charger.

In fact, all I have to do is substitute CHAdeMO for CCS in my previous post to see how it works:

If you have a CHAdeMO charger, that connector communicates with CHAdeMO software that interfaces with the underlying hardware.

If you are Supercharging, you need Supercharger software to talk to the underlying hardware. If you are talking to the CHAdeMO layer in the car, you aren’t Supercharging. You are CHAdeMO charging your Tesla.

Since Tesla owns or owns rights to every layer, it is completely different than Supercharging a Bolt from a Supercharger, were Tesla does NOT have that ownership.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

You have repeatedly stated that Teslas uses “CHAdeMO software” to charge via CHAdeMO. Do they use “J1772 software” to charge via the J1772 adapter?

And how does this device work without Tesla having access to the BMW i3 internals?

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, I suspect you didn’t actually read your own source. Because that is A/C charging, not direct DC charging directly to the battery. It is not Supercharging. It says that very clearly right in the link you posted:

“DOES NOT WORK WITH THE TESLA DC SUPERCHARGER!”

Note: I didn’t add any of the emphasis, the all caps and exclamation mark are from the original.

That works because the charger, the charging software, and the battery are all onboard on both the i3 and the Tesla. All of the proprietary stuff is in the car.

I’m sorry if you don’t know the difference between AC and DC charging. I’m not sure further explanations are going to fill your knowledge gap.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

But according to you, even AC charging cannot work unless Tesla has access to GM schematics on how the car charging system works!

In short, it is clear that Tesla EVSEs CAN charge a non-Tesla car without Tesla receiving schematics from the manufacturer. So why would Tesla DC charging need any special manufacturer schematics other than the acceptable amperage and voltage range to charge using CHAdeMO or CCS? Again, those standards are already well-documented.

Nix
Guest
Nix

dan, what part of this do you not understand:

“That works because the charger, the charging software, and the battery are all onboard on both the i3 and the Tesla. All of the proprietary stuff is in the car. ”

This is not at all the same as CCS or CHAdeMO, where the charger is external to the vehicle.

I’m sorry you do not have the prerequisite knowledge required to discuss this topic.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

So once again: how can ChargePoint CHAdeMO chargers work on a Model S without ChargePoint having access to Tesla schematics?

Saying that “Tesla joined the CHAdeMO group” is a meaningless retort, as there is no membership necessary to get the same information about J1772-CCs; it’s an open standard.

Nix
Guest
Nix
Dan, I think you are getting confused again. Tesla would need GM’s IP for their internal parts if TESLA were to write SUPERCHARGER code to SUPERCHARGE a Bolt. Tesla would need that, because GM hasn’t integrated the Supercharger code into their hardware. That code doesn’t exist in Bolts today. Here is what it would take for a Bolt to Supercharge: Tesla Supercharger hardware (Tesla Owned) –> .Tesla Supercharger communication software (TO) –> ..Tesla Supercharger cable (TO) –> …Tesla Supercharger software in car (TO software/GM hardware) –> ….GM underlying battery hardware (GM Owned) Tesla would need access to GM IP in order to be able to push Tesla Supercharger software onto GM’s computers in their car. Tesla would also need GM IP to create interfaces into GM’s underlying battery hardware. That is the definition of Supercharging a Bolt. Stop getting that confused with CCS charging a Bolt. They are not the same. ___________________ The CHAdeMO charges are a completely DIFFERENT situation, because Tesla already spent the money to make THEIR CARS communicate with CHAdeMO chargers. ChargePoint CHAdeMO chargers ALREADY have access into the Model S battery, because Tesla ALREADY licensed CHAdeMO IP, and ALREADY integrated it into their underlying hardware. GM… Read more »
Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

No one is talking about Tesla SuperCharging™ Bolts!

The question is whether Tesla SuperChargers are theoretically compatible with non-Tesla EVs. You have somehow twisted this into some sort of branding exercise, where a SuperCharger that is connected to a CCS EV would not be “SuperCharging™” but would be “CCS Charging,” and that such a scenario would magically change a “SuperCharger” into a “CCS Charger” (because it’s no longer SuperCharging™!).

This kind of logic does not apply to any other adapter for any other technology in existence. An Xbox does not magically become a PlayStation when you use an adapter to connect a PlayStation controller to it.

Nix
Guest
Nix
Dan — you have entirely lost the plot. when you babbled: “No one is talking about Tesla SuperCharging™ Bolts!” Wrong. That was EXACTLY what I was responding to, was Brian’s set of 2 posts ABSOLUTELY talking about Tesla Supercharging™ Bolts!” Sadly, you’ve so lost your mind that you don’t even know what the conversation was about before you jumped in!! Here are Brian’s posts about Supercharging a Bolt: Brian April 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm “…But it sure would be nice to be able to charge up a Bolt at a Tesla Supercharger…” Brian April 24, 2017 at 2:01 pm “…It’s not my fault that GM didn’t engage Tesla for shared use of their superchargers. I just wish that I had the option to buy a Bolt and then pay Tesla myself for use of their network…” In case your reading comprehension is as bad with Brian’s posts as with mine, let me spoon feed you what he is referring to. 1) “GM didn’t engage Tesla for shared use of their superchargers” — this absolutely refers to Tesla’s offer to allow other car makers to buy into the Supercharger network, and charge their cars using the Supercharger standards. 2) “charge… Read more »
zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

> Some Guy

1. All patents in the world are open by definition, but Tesla patents are no way free. Just read the legal terms of their patent publicity stunt. A company would practically need to give up right to defend their own EV patents in return to Tesla offer. An established automaker is likely to have more valuable patent portfolio, so no one has done it yet, it makes no sense.
https://www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-pledge
Tesla doesn’t issue any zero cost licenses under this pledge, the pledge is subject to vague conditions or whims like “doesn’t do bad things”.

2. It has little to do with patents. Charging protocol is closed commercial secret that is not published in any patent or in any other way.

3. Tesla plug is proprietary and incompatible, at least in North American version. European version is Type 2, but it is still used in incompatible way. No corporation in its right mind is going to give up open standard and go under control and mercy of competitor.

unlucky
Guest
unlucky

Their patents are not open. You have to trade all your patents to use even one of theirs.

Using their patents “for free” would be one of the most expensive things a big car company like VW or GM could do.

Anon
Guest
Anon

I call BS on all your groundless assertions regarding this topic, sir.

If you’re going to be anti-Tesla, fine. At least attempt to be somewhat sensical and believable in your lies.

unlucky
Guest
unlucky

I’m calling BS on your calling BS.

It’s right here on Tesla’s site:

https://www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-pledge

‘Tesla irrevocably pledges that it will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith. Key terms of the Pledge are explained below.

A party is “acting in good faith” for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla’

You cannot assert any patent right against Tesla. That means you have to give Tesla the right to use ALL your patents for free in order to use theirs for making EVs.

Just because you don’t understand the situation does not mean someone who does is lying. And you really look foolish for claiming my statements were too outrageous to be even close to believable.

So now that you know my too outrageous to be true statements were actually true, does this change your feelings about Tesla’s patent openness?

Anon
Guest
Anon

You completely misread AND misrepresent the intent of the patent terms. How embarrassing for both of you. 😛

It actually says, “What this pledge means is that as long as someone uses our patents for electric vehicles and doesn’t do bad things, such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement, they should have no fear of Tesla asserting its patents against them.”

It __NEVER__ says YOUR UNIQUE PATENTS must also be transferred to Tesla as part of meeting the terms of this open patent agreement. Please reread it again, until it makes sense. Duh. 😛

unlucky
Guest
unlucky

I did read it. It doesn’t say you have to transfer patents. No one said transfer patents.

It says you cannot under any circumstances sue them for using your patents.

That means they can use your patents for free and you cannot sue them. So it indeed means you cannot charge them for using any of your patents. If you try, they will revoke their license to let you use their EV patents.

It’s you who misinterpreted it, not us. You must let Tesla use ALL your patents for free to use any of theirs for EV uses. Thus, their patents are not free. It is an enforced patent swap. And a one-sided one, as you still don’t get a license to use all their patents for all purposes, just for EV use.

Nix
Guest
Nix
unlucky, you are absolutely incorrect. That clause absolutely does NOT grant Tesla free use of GM’s patents. There is no “trade”, no transfer, and Tesla gets access to nothing for free. 1) If Tesla were to use GM’s patents, and GM decided to sue, Tesla would ABSOLUTELY owe every penny of profits they made on GM patents to GM. GM is NOT granting free access to their patents by agreeing to this deal. GM would absolutely be legally entitled to payment for the use of their IP. Let’s be VERY clear, Tesla does NOT magically gain the free right to use GM’s IP under this agreement. Nor does it signal Tesla’s intent to willingly infringe on GM’s IP. 2) You claim that Tesla would get more value out of GM’s more valuable intellectual property. If true, then GM would be smart to go ahead and sue if Tesla inadvertently gained value from GM’s IP. If GM made $10 million off of Tesla’s patents, and Tesla inadvertently made $100 million on an unintentional use of GM’s “valuable” patents, GM certainly can sue. And when both sides win, GM nets $90 million dollars. More if they prove that it was an intentional… Read more »
unlucky
Guest
unlucky
We agree on one thing. Tesla does not magically get rights to other companies’ patents under this deal. There is no magic. It is explicit. The agreement says Tesla can use all your patents and you cannot sue them for using them. That means they can pay as little as they like, including nothing. Your only recourse is would be to stop using their patents and then sue them. So you are required to allow them to use all your patents for free to use their patents for EV use. Whether Tesla has a willingness to infringe is unstated and immaterial. You cannot stop them from doing so if they wish to do so unless you cease to use Tesla’s patents. You assume Tesla wouldn’t intentionally or unintentionally use others patents under this deal. That seems absurd. It is clear from the terms of the swap that Tesla looks to generate a pool of patents that ANY EV company can use for free. They contribute to that pool and if you use their patents then you contribute also. All your dancing around here somehow ignores that not only are companies required to let Tesla use all their patents for free… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix

Unlucky, clearly you didn’t actually read my post, or simply are unable to read for comprehension.

There is no “swap”. No “trade”. Either you don’t understand what those terms mean in this situation, or you willfully don’t want to understand.

Patent swaps and patent trades are done when BOTH sides agree to an actual exchange, where rights of usage are explicitly transferred between parties. That absolutely does not happen here.

You playing fast and loose with the terminology will never change that. Tesla never gets rights to use any competitor’s IP under this deal.

Now go back and read my previous post. I cover everything already.

unlucky
Guest
unlucky
Nix: If you cannot put any conditions on Tesla using your patents, and other EV companies too, then you have to let them use your patents for free. It’s what I said before and it is the case. A patent swap doesn’t mean signing over patents. It just means allowing someone to use your patents for free. And that’s what this requires. It requires that any company that wants to use Tesla’s patents allow others to use their own for free. That’s a swap. Under this Tesla can use your patents for free as long as you are using theirs. Yes, you can sue them for it but you them immediately cannot use theirs for free either and you will be sued right back if you do. Since you cannot use theirs without allowing them and others to use yours for free this is a swap. And it’s clear from what it does that this is in fact the intent of the agreement. It’s not a side effect, some inadvertent thing like Tesla might accidentally use your patent. You put yours in the pool when you draw theirs from the pool. As I said before, you cannot use their patents… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix
“Whether Tesla has a willingness to infringe is unstated and immaterial. ” Yet another example of why you simply don’t understand what is going on. A willful violation of GM’s patents would trigger 2 different legal situations. 1) In any suit GM would file against Tesla, GM would get punitive damages on top of actual damages. Punitive damages are not available in inadvertent IP violation cases. Sadly you know so little about what you say, you do not know this. 2) Tesla would not have clean hands going to court trying to counter-sue, because Tesla would have induced any GM lawsuit through their KNOWING violation of GM IP. Without clean hands, and being the party to first breach, Tesla would not be able to prevail on any action seeking to block GM from continuing to use Tesla IP. __________________ Absolutely nothing in this offer FORCES GM not to sue. It isn’t like an arbitration agreement that excludes the use of the courts. GM is absolutely free to sue, and Tesla could attempt to counter sue for breach of agreement. GM would win, Tesla would lose in both cases. Because what you don’t understand is that this offer excludes WILLFUL violations,… Read more »
Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan
If you are going to dig into the weeds of complex legal matters, you should start reading the fine print. First, the pledge: “Tesla irrevocably pledges that it will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith.” All well and good. But what’s this five paragraphs later? “In order for Tesla to preserve its ability to enforce the Tesla Patents against any party not acting in good faith, the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages for past acts of infringement) and is not a license, covenant not to sue, or authorization to engage in patented activities or a limitation on remedies, damages or claims.” So in typical Elon Musk fashion, there is a huge song and dance about how great and open Tesla patents are and how irrevocable this pledge is, and then when you scratch just below the surface you see that they built in a legal escape hatch that instantly nullfies all that smoke and mirrors. In case you missed it: the second citation makes it crystal… Read more »
Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu
Nix said: “GM is NOT granting free access to their patents by agreeing to this deal.” Are you sure? I agree that the plain-language summary at the end of Tesla’s “Patent Pledge” agrees with what you’re saying: What this pledge means is that as long as someone uses our patents for electric vehicles and doesn’t do bad things, such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement, they should have no fear of Tesla asserting its patents against them. Unfortunately, the exact wording in other parts of the “pledge” go far beyond that: A party is “acting in good faith” for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not… asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of… any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment I’m no lawyer, but it appears to me that a straightforward layman’s reading of this section would be that another EV maker (such as GM) would have to promise not to assert its rights to its own EV-related patents! In other words, GM would have… Read more »
Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

You are absolutely correct. Use of Tesla patents means that if you were to sue Tesla over (perceived) infringement of your own patents, you would lose the right to use Tesla patents.

Even the most cursory reading of this policy makes it clear that as long as you are using Tesla patents, they get to use yours. And if you choose to sue Tesla, then you lose access to anything you’ve made that relied on their patents.

In practice, this means that you can’t make anything that uses Tesla patents without implicitly giving Tesla permission to use your own, because any attempt to stop them from using your patents means you have to discard anything you made that uses theirs. That is not remotely near “free patents.”

Nix
Guest
Nix
Pushy — That clause would come into play only in cases of inadvertent infringement. And even then it would only mitigate damages, not actually give Tesla the legal right to use GM’s IP for free. Intellectual Property is property. Let me try to explain it with these 2 examples of borrowing/stealing tools between neighbors. PREMISE: Bob lends Jimmy his hammer, and says Jimmy can use it for free as long as Jimmy doesn’t sue Bob for rental fees if he borrows Jimmy’s tools. Otherwise there is $1 dollar/day rental. Hypothetical 1) The next day Bob walks into Jimmy’s garage without permission, and even though he knows that Jimmy didn’t give him permission, Bob intentionally breaks the law and takes Jimmy’s lawn mower, his power drill, his box of hand tools, etc. When the police arrive Bob claims that since he lent Jimmy a hammer, he thought he could take whatever he wanted without permission. Bob refuses to give the tools back claiming that their agreement gives him right to take whatever he wants whenever he wants. Bob is arrested and Jimmy sues for the value of the tools, loss of use for the time Bob had the tools, plus punitive… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix

Spyder-dan, that is an incorrect reading of this clause.

Were Tesla to inadvertently violate GM IP, GM can still send a cease and desist. Tesla would still have to cease their use of GM IP.

At that point that Tesla ceases use, GM indeed would expose themselves to counter suit if GM would use the courts to collect damages for the inadvertent violation of GM’s IP up until the cease and desist letter was issued. That is how this clause would come into play.

_______________________________

However, this absolutely does not give Tesla the right to go and willfully and knowingly make a direct copy of the Chevy Bolt, put the Tesla logo on it and sell it. Tesla would be first to breach, and this clause would become unenforceable. This clause is NOT a license to outright steal intellectual property, and it does NOT at all provide Tesla with the legal right or permission to use anybody’s IP.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan
Nix, you say the word “inadvertent” but companies can still sue for inadvertent violation of patents. They just don’t get the triple damages that you get for willful violation of patents. So then, as you just put it: “At that point that Tesla ceases use, GM indeed would expose themselves to counter suit if GM would use the courts to collect damages for the inadvertent violation of GM’s IP up until the cease and desist letter was issued. That is how this clause would come into play.” In your own words, using Tesla’s patents would mean that GM loses the ability to sue Tesla over any “inadvertent” (as determined by whom?) use of GM patents. Because if GM did sue, they would face a countersuit from Tesla over the supposedly “open” patents that Tesla specifically said GM could use. This is not anything remotely resembling “free” or “open” patents. It is “I promise not to sue you for using mine if you promise not to sue me for using yours,” which is a great deal if the other automaker doesn’t have any EV patents, but not so much if you are GM or Nissan who has billions of dollars invested… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, you are absolutely wrong. There is no patent exchange. That would involve Tesla being given the RIGHT to use GM’s patents. That absolutely never happens.

Tesla NEVER gains the RIGHT to use anybody’s patents under this offer. What is so hard to understand about that?

Mint
Guest
Mint

Tesla is making a public pledge not to sue, not magically imposing a patent swap agreement onto others.

This is a free country. Anyone can sue Tesla if they feel like it.

What Tesla is saying is, “if you sue us, you’re no longer covered by the pledge, and we’ll sue you back.”

If GM used a few Tesla patents, and Tesla decided to infringe on many of GM’s, there’s no way that the fines will balance out after the dust has settled. Tesla will lose billions.

Does it make sense now?

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

So what automaker (with any sort of patent portfolio worth mentioning) would reasonably choose to build products incorporating Tesla patents, knowing fullwell that this could be money down the drain if Tesla decides to use that company’s patents? You might as well just make the patent exchange with Tesla an explicit deal, and at least gain some stability in future planning.

That’s the point. This isn’t explicitly worded as patent exchange, but the terms make it so in practice. And that’s fine; patent exchange is commonly practiced in the open-source software community (by companies like Google and others). But don’t sell me a shoe and tell me it’s a horse.

Nix
Guest
Nix

dan — nothing in this offer excludes GM and Tesla from entering into a separate agreement to actually exchange intellectual property. They can do that, and those terms would supersede the terms of this offer. But that would be a completely different agreement than this one.

There is NEVER a patent exchange in this offer. Tesla would NEVER gain the rights to GM’s IP under this offer. There is NEVER a single point where Tesla could lawfully use any of GM’s IP.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Correct. Tesla does not get the “right” to GM’s IP, but GM cannot sue Tesla for using GM’s IP without also losing the ability to make any product that incorporates Tesla’s “open” patents.

That’s why it’s a patent exchange in practice: any product GM develops that uses a Tesla patent is a hostage in the case that Tesla decides to use GM’s IP.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Just to add: if GM is prohibited from enforcing their own patents without giving up access to Tesla’s patents in the process, it is a patent exchange in every practical sense of the term.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Mint — This is where the WILLFUL violation of GM’s intellectual property rights come in.

You pretend that GM’s ALLOWED AND LAWFUL use of Tesla IP is an equal “exchange” to Tesla UNLAWFULLY and WILLFUL unauthorized use of GM’s IP against GM’s will.

They absolutely are NOT.

Until you understand that, you will continue to keep making the same mistake over and over.

There can be no equal exchange when one party:

1) Is lawfully using IP with the permission of the other party.
vs.
2) Unlawfully, knowingly and willingly using the IP of another company without their permission and against their will.

There absolutely is NO exchange, and there is nothing under the law called a defacto exchange. It simply doesn’t exist, and you pretending that #1 and #2 are the same certainly doesn’t make it so.

Nix
Guest
Nix

woops! While I was hitting the reply button to Mint’s post, my response was actually to dan’s posts.

edit:
%s/Mint/dan

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan — you keep repeating the falsehood that GM cannot sue. They certainly can sue.

You keep repeating the falsehood that GM would lose their rights to use Tesla’s IP if they sued for Tesla’s willful and illegal use of GM’s IP. I’ve ALREADY explained multiple times how Tesla would lose their ability to enforce that clause if Tesla were the party to violate the law in the first place, inducing GM to breach.

You cannot break the law in order to induce a contract breach by the other party. Your violation of the law becomes the PROXIMATE CAUSE of breach, and since YOU were the party who first breached, you do not have clean hands, and cannot ask the courts to enforce a contract your actions first breached.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan
You seem to be caught up on “inadvertent” (again: determined by whom?) vs. “willful,” but that doesn’t really even matter. As YOU describe it, GM’s ability to use Tesla’s patents is contingent upon GM NOT suing Tesla for a perceived patent violation. In other words, if GM attempts to enforce their patents against Tesla, this action necessarily precludes them from being able to use Tesla’s patents. I am fully aware that this is not explicitly a patent exchange under the law; I am saying that it ACTS like one in practice. Furthermore, you’re claiming that “willful” infringement means that Tesla won’t be able to sue for GM’s past usage (because of no clean hands), but that is a minor distinction. GM still has to trash any and all sunk R&D on products that use Tesla patents going forward, regardless of whether Tesla’s infringement was inadvertent or willful. And finally: an attempt by GM to enforce their patents would be heavily leveraged on whether it was determined that Tesla’s infringement was willful or inadvertent. Although they’ll have to discard all Tesla-patent-related R&D in either case, if it is judged that it was inadvertent, GM is now looking at countersuits; i.e. exactly… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix
Dan, I’m not sure if you don’t understand, or if you don’t want to understand. So I will give you one more chance. “I am fully aware that this is not explicitly a patent exchange under the law; I am saying that it ACTS like one in practice.” It absolutely does NOT “act” the same as a patent exchange, because Tesla NEVER gains the rights to use GM’s IP. In a patent exchange both parties gain the right to willfully choose to use the patents being exchanged. Now you have admitted that Tesla never gains the legal right to use GM’s IP, so you cannot claim that Tesla simultaneously has the legal rights the same as under an actual patent exchange. “Furthermore, you’re claiming that “willful” infringement means that Tesla won’t be able to sue for GM’s past usage (because of no clean hands), but that is a minor distinction.” No it isn’t a minor distinction. There can be no patent exchange when one party cannot willfully choose to use the other party’s patents, and the other party can. This distinction is absolutely tantamount to understanding why GM would NOT be giving up free use of their IP, like some… Read more »
Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Put simply:

Your argument rests on the premise that if Tesla makes their patents freely available, they may not later revoke this action going forward without cause. You are wrong.

Regardless of any action that Tesla or GM takes, AT ANY POINT Tesla may revoke their “open” patent license for any reason they so choose. This revocation would not extend into the PAST – they could not sue for actions taken while the patents were “open” – but it absolutely would extend into the FUTURE, preventing any further use of their patents.

If you do not understand this basic principle there is no point in continuing.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Just to clarify, so as to avoid meaningless semantics sidetracking: if Tesla revoked the patent with cause then that revocation could extend into the past and Tesla could sue.

But regardless of cause, or even if Tesla were found liable of violating GM’s patents, Tesla can ALWAYS revoke their patent license going forward. If you disagree then you do not understand the most basic tenets of IP law.

So then, as I have already said: if you use Tesla patents, any attempt to enforce your own patents on Tesla would immediately result in Tesla simply revoking your license to use their patents going forward, which means all your work on Tesla-patent-related projects is instantly in the trash. Therefore, unless you wish to lose access to Tesla patents, you may not enforce your own against them.

Whatever term you prefer to use for that dynamic is up to you. But it’s clearly a losing scenario for any company with a valuable patent catalog of their own.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Dan, congratulations! You have finally been correct about a single point of law in this discussion!

Yes, indeed in general under the law, stuff like this CAN be revoked.

But then you slam headlong straight into the wall and crash and burn. Because Tesla also knew about that part of the law, and 100% remedied the issue.

This is why Tesla said that “Tesla irrevocably pledges” their offer. They did this EXACTLY SO THAT WHAT YOU SAID CAN NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!!

Sadly, even in finally getting one thing right, you still failed to understand what the agreement actually says.

“Tesla IRREVOCABLY pledges”
“Tesla IRREVOCABLY pledges”
“Tesla IRREVOCABLY pledges”

Tesla is bound to that until the end of time, and the minute they lose a lawsuit over their conditions because they themselves induced a breach, it would be FURTHER BREACH to attempt to revoke GM’s rights. If they attempted such a thing, they would have to sue GM again in court. GM would simply refer the courts to the prior ruling and the case would be over.

“Tesla IRREVOCABLY pledges”

Do you get it now?

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan
Oops, replied to the wrong place. This thread is getting unwieldy! Repost below. If you are going to dig into the weeds of complex legal matters, you should start reading the fine print. First, the pledge: “Tesla irrevocably pledges that it will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith.” All well and good. But what’s this five paragraphs later? “In order for Tesla to preserve its ability to enforce the Tesla Patents against any party not acting in good faith, the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages for past acts of infringement) and is not a license, covenant not to sue, or authorization to engage in patented activities or a limitation on remedies, damages or claims.” So in typical Elon Musk fashion, there is a huge song and dance about how great and open Tesla patents are and how irrevocable this pledge is, and then when you scratch just below the surface you see that they built in a legal escape hatch. In case you missed it: the… Read more »
Nix
Guest
Nix

Wow, you really are getting dumber with every post. And good job exposing that you have ONLY NOW actually read what we’ve been discussing. Thanks for exposing yourself as a childish troll who hasn’t even bothered to read the underlying documentation. Now you act surprised to learn of the terms that I’ve been explaining to you for days.

No, absolutely nothing you posted makes “irrevocable and legally binding on Tesla and its successors” into something that is revocable if TESLA were to make an overt act to intentionally violate GM’s IP. I’ve covered this extensively already. You just finally reading the underlying docs just now DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.

Like I’ve said repeatedly, Tesla simply NEVER gets access to shop through GM IP and use whatever they want. Therefore no swap, therefore Tesla can’t revoke their offer that is “irrevocable and legally binding on Tesla and its successors” if Tesla goes shopping in GM’s IP.

All of this has been covered for days. Your failure to read the underlying docs until just now doesn’t change that. Get a life, troll.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

Did you even read my post? The question of whether or not Tesla’s Pledge is revocable DOES NOT MATTER, because Tesla made sure to include in the fine print that the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages for past acts of infringement) and is not a license, covenant not to sue, or authorization to engage in patented activities. And if you read that fine print from the start (as you are now claiming), then you have been wasting multiple peoples’ time in this thread by pretending that the pledge had ANY legal force.

Sadly, you are correct that this is not a patent exchange… because legally, Tesla is offering nothing at all. The pledge has exactly zero legal force, as Tesla built in a trapdoor that says so explicitly.

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

In all sincerity, Nix, thanks for this discussion.

Now in the future, I won’t have to have long, drawn-out discussions about the complexities of IP law and patent countersuits; I’ll simply quote the section of the pledge that says none of this has any legal force and that will be all the intellectual investment necessary on the subject.

In short, you’ve helped to highlight a pretty important example of Elon’s adherence to the Steve Jobs/Apple business model: all sizzle, no steak.

Nix
Guest
Nix
dan, I read you posts, and the arguments you make are all irrelevant (except for the part where you FINALLY understand that it isn’t a patent exchange, after me beating that into your head for days). But you have failed YET AGAIN to read the text. Because you’ve completely ignored this part: “The Pledge, which is irrevocable and legally binding on Tesla and its successors, is a “standstill,” meaning that it is a forbearance of enforcement of Tesla’s remedies against any party for claims of infringement” It is the standstill that keeps all of your latest ignorant mindless lip-flapping BS from happening. (I’ve already covered how Tesla cannot trigger a violation by being the first to do the overt act of intentionally violating other’s IP, so none of your BS about Tesla using GM’s IP applies. That argument is dead.) So do you actually know what a standstill agreement is? Because if you did, you would understand that Tesla CANNOT withdraw from this standstill, because it is “irrevocable and legally binding”. That means other companies are absolutely free to use Tesla’s IP free of lawsuits from Tesla, and Tesla STILL can’t use a single bit of their IP. Sadly, you… Read more »
energymatters
Guest
energymatters

CCS, Tesla and ChaDEMO all amount to less than 20% of the vehicles on the road taken together. So 80% cannot even touch them. Better to push the manufacturers for a 100% coverage format…. oh wait we have it AC.

If we got more , faster AC chargers we get everyone (100%) able to get more access.

100% of vehicle support J1772 which covers up to 20KW which is 60 to 80 miles of range in 1 hour. For city centers and most other uses this is sufficient for personal driving. Trucks, and long haulers etc. need higher of course…

Mikael
Guest
Mikael

I really hope you are not serious.We need fast charging, not slow AC.

By your logic they should rather open a gas station 😉

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

DCFC is best for long distance and is best at rest stops by the freeways. Like the ones seen up and down I-5 here in CA.

AC L2 works best at destinations like hotel/motels. Anything less than a 10KW AC L2 is a waste.
Even with the Bolt, if you’re overnight and you need 56KWh of charge and they have an AC L2 3.3KW EVSE, it will take you 16.9hrs to get to full. 8.48hrs if it’s 6KW EVSE.

When more EV’s with larger batteries are available, it will be even more important to have faster EVSE’s in the range of 10KW-20KW for destination chargers.

Funny thing, I’ve been watching 2 parking lots get built here, not a structure just flat land, and they are almost done. They are open and you can park there now. One side has about 150 spaces and the other side has about 180 spaces.

ZERO EV CHARGERS!!!!

buu
Guest
buu

Bolts charges up to 46 kW, I’m not sure if congestion is Tesla vision

Brian
Guest
Brian

The Bolt charges up to 80kW according to GM. And Tesla could easily make drivers pay by the minute rather than by the kWh. That would encourage Bolt drivers to take just what they need, and leave as the rate tapers off. Seems to me that would fit their mission statement:

https://www.tesla.com/about
“Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”

Nix
Guest
Nix

Have we found out what the Bolt taper looks like at 80 kW? It seems to me that 80 kW feels pretty low for the size of battery that the Bolt has. I’m hoping the Bolt may be able to stay up in that 70-80 kW charging rate for quite a while before tapering off.

But I’m not even aware of any publicly available 80 kW charging stations in the US yet (besides tesla), so I can only wildly speculate at this point.

MTN Ranger
Guest
MTN Ranger

Tesla tapers also. The Model S 60 doesn’t stay above 80 kW for very long. In fact it drops to 60 kW fairly quickly. It will be interesting to see how fast the Model 3 55 kWh charges.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Ranger — you are exactly right, and that’s the point I was trying to make. I’m optimistic that the Bolt WON’T taper off as fast as those original 2012 technology Model S battery packs.

The original Model S 60 didn’t have Tesla’s latest battery cooling system, or the upcoming 2170 cells. We don’t know what the 2170 cells will do for charging, but we do know that Tesla’s revised battery packs push out taper WAY further than that 2014 graph you posted. There are a few recent graphs that show how the significant improvement in less taper from Tesla’s latest battery pack/cooling system upgrades. I don’t have them at my fingertips right now, maybe somebody who does might post them?

So we know that Tesla’s own new technology can beat Tesla’s own ~60 kWh (~350V) battery taper. I’m hopeful that with ~half a decade more development time, that GM will also be able to beat Tesla’s 2012 taper rates with their own ~60 kWh (~350V) battery.

Frustratingly, I still haven’t seen Bolt taper graphs to see if my optimism is correct. Perhaps we will get lucky and somebody will post one.

mustang_sallad
Guest
mustang_sallad

I don’t see anything in this statement that precludes using CCS for this expansion. In fact, a CCS port on the model 3 could explain why they are adding ports to existing sites and not just adding newer sites.

Tech01x
Guest
Tech01x

Right now, there is only one non-Tesla vehicle that could theoretically utilize the Tesla Supercharging network… the Chevy Bolt. And GM didn’t even bother with real SAE L3 DCFC… the taper that kicks on st 53% SoC indicates that the battery chemistry isn’t quite suitable for the Supercharger network anyways.

Again, point to an existing > 200 amp DCFC standard that is ratified today. Oh, right, there isn’t one. Will the up coming CCS or CHAdeMO standards support robotic self plug? If not, why would Tesla go down that route?

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

Existing or close to finalizing CCS or Chademo standards can provide 200 kW or 350 kW which means 350 A and more than current Tesla batteries can take.
Whatever is finalized or not, it was Tesla home work to work within standard bodies to design standard as it needed, or use backwards compatible standard extensions if needed, years ago. Tesla failed to cooperate despite being a member of Chademo and of CharIN now. No Marsians or governments are going to do the work on these standards but members themselves.
I can only hope that EM has come to his senses and Model 3 is CCS compatible, but I’m not holding my breath at all.

Nix
Guest
Nix

“Existing or close to finalizing CCS or Chademo standards can provide 200 kW or 350 kW”

Yes, 5 years after the first Model S, (6 1/2 years after Tesla finalized their charging standard) CCS/CHAdeMO are FINALLY getting around to releasing their FIRST set of standards that would allow 120+ kW charging rates.

Thanks for admitting how inadequate and how far behind CCS/CHAdeMO have been for years, while Tesla has been forced to go it on their own.

If you disagree and want to prove me wrong, simply post a link to ANY official CCS/CHAdeMO standard that was capable of 120 kW charging for a Model S battery. Include a link to when that standard was adopted.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

zzzzzzzzzz posted more FUD:

“Tesla failed to cooperate despite being a member of Chademo and of CharIN now.”

Gosh, if serial Tesla basher zzzzzzzzz says so, then it must be true!

Oh, wait…

Spider-Dan
Guest
Spider-Dan

What reason do you have to believe that SCs are incapable of throttling down power delivery to an amount that any J1772-equipped car can handle?

Tesla doesn’t want lower-powered cars taking up SC stalls, and they have very good reasons to justify it. But to say that other cars can’t theoretically utilize the SC network is ridiculous. Unless you have some information I don’t, there is no lower limit on the amount of power an SC may theoretically output.

unlucky
Guest
unlucky

Agreed a bit.

I find Tesla’s destination charger network to be disgusting. Encouraging individual businesses/operators to put in proprietary chargers is bad for the EV community. They should all be J1772s.

As to Tesla’s superchargers, they are a service you buy with your car. And I also feel that the service would be significantly degraded if measly 40kW cars got on and hogged the chargers for long periods when other cars (Teslas) could be charging at closer to 100kW. So in the current conditions I think it makes sense for that to remain Tesla-only. I’m not sure I’d ever change my mind on this.

SparkEV
Guest

Lower power capable cars using supercharger would be a problem _if_ they charged as often as Tesla. If Tesla price supercharger use by time based on assumption of 120 kW, 40 kW car would pay 3 times what Tesla drivers would pay. I doubt many 40 kW drivers will take that option unless they desperately need it.

And if they need it badly enough to pay 3 times higher cost, I don’t mind helping them out on those rare emergencies.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

EVs with smaller battery packs accessing Superchargers would make crowding at Superchargers even worse than adding more Tesla cars. You’re ignoring the fact that with their greater range, Teslae don’t need to stop at all on trips which would require shorter-ranged EVs to stop to recharge, possibly multiple times.

SparkEV
Guest

At 3X higher cost, it will be lot more expensive to drive EV than rent a gas car. Some emergencies may require paying that, but I doubt slow charging EV will use such expensive option if they can rent a gas car.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

You lost me. There is a comment below suggesting 3x the cost for non-Tesla EVs to use Tesla Superchargers, but I don’t see that either you or I are responding to a post suggesting that.

But it’s possible I lost track of what was said above; this is a very long discussion thread!

SparkEV
Guest

Read the second sentence of my post you replied.

Crowding (shortages) of anything is a function of cost. Make it more expensive, and there won’t be crowding except for absolute emergencies. Very few slow charging EV will use Tesla network if Tesla bill by time based on 120 kW EV.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

I’m not sure why a non-Tesla car having to use an adapter to access a Tesla destination charger (see link below) is any more “disgusting” than a an EV equipped only for CHAdeMO or CCS charging needs an adapter to use the other charging format.

More than just a bit of anti-Tesla bias there, Unlucky?

I’ll be very glad when EV makers finally agree on one actual charging standard. Until then we don’t have a standard, just competing formats. Like the VHS vs BetaMAX format war, only worse. 🙁

http://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-charging-tesla-hpwc-video/

Nix
Guest
Nix

unlucky, do NOT use Tesla’s proprietary supercharging DC charging protocol. Tesla destination chargers are AC, not DC.

If you want to charge from one, get the adpator and knock yourself out:

http://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-charging-tesla-hpwc-video/

Again, if the CCS standard were completed a year and a half earlier, and had more than double the kW charge rate, then Tesla could have used it. But that didn’t happen. So why are you still holding that against Tesla?

Nix
Guest
Nix

oops, lots of typing mistakes today. Must repower fingers with more beer.

I meant to say that Tesla destination chargers do not use proprietary DC supercharging standards. somehow I ended up just typing “do not”….

Nix
Guest
Nix

grr…. Even worse, by the time all the middle posts are bracketed away, it turns out Pushy beat me to posting the exact same point by a whole day!!

*laugh*

Fasteddie2020
Guest
Fasteddie2020

Is it possible that Tesla’s sudden acceleration of its charging network has the additional intent of drawing other manufacturers to an irresistible enabler for their own electric vehicles? For a large initial “entry fee” and a commitment to help expand the network, another car maker could find itself a leader this the EV space in a matter of months instead of decades. As Chevy has shown, an EV has to have the ability to go city-to-city in order to be compelling.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Seems quite unlikely. No legacy auto maker has moved to use Tesla’s charging format, and even aside from how Tesla would require that other company to give up its legal right to defend its own patents, that’s very unlikely to change. Why would an auto maker use a tech format entirely controlled by a rival; a format subject to change without permission or notice?

Tesla is moving to increase the number of stalls in its Supercharger network to get a jump on the sudden increase in demand when it starts making and selling the Model 3 in large numbers. It’s smart for Tesla to plan ahead like that; they certainly don’t need any negative publicity from Model 3 drivers unable to find an available Supercharging stall!

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

zzzzzzzzzz whined:

“How great, lets worship EM even more for his unmatched effort to take over the world!”

I, for one, welcome our new electric car making, Mars colony building Overlord. 😉

Get Real
Guest
Get Real

Zzzz is a serial anti-Tesla troll who obviously has some monetary reason for being so.

Probably works in the fool cell business based on his constant shilling and carpet-bombing of all fool cell threads here.

Basically hostile to the positive change that Tesla and Elon Musk is forcing on the laggard transportation industry through his powerful disruption.

Zzzz on the other hand, just another troll.

bernietx
Guest
bernietx

I like CCS/J1772 because its an open standard. I wish Tesla would have made their standard open instead of going proprietary with a non J1772 connector. This is going to hurt EV growth down the road. But CCS is growing very fast. Its just not as reliable. Of course Tesla has no requirement to service non-Teslas on their proprietary network, but I wish the connector were the same.

John
Guest
John

See above. I think Tesla could make an adapter for CCS that could enable billing. Of course, it would be at a higher rate than what a Tesla driver will pay =)

Tech01x
Guest
Tech01x

SAE members tried to screw Tesla by refusing to adopt a L3 DC charging standard, forcing Tesla to go on its own. Even now, the J1772-DC standard doesn’t yet cover the charging rates that Tesla utilizes today. It will at some point soon, but right now, no one can deploy a standards compliant > 200 amp CCS network.

Further, it is unclear if the existing J1772-DC plug is suitable for robotic plug-in. Tesla’s connector is self centering.

Tesla should not be held hostage by other sutomakers who use the standardization process as a means by which to slow Tesla down on purpose.

unlucky
Guest
unlucky

Tesla’s connector isn’t self-centering in any significant fashion. That taper on the whole is merely for aesthetics. And note that Tesla uses Mennekes for charging in much of the world, so even if you believe the US version of their connector is self-centering they don’t have a world solution.

It’s unclear to me why current charging connector standards were not chosen to be suitable for robotic plug-in. That includes Tesla. I guess the good news is robots continue to get better. They’ll just make ones good at plugging-in connectors which were designed for humans.

Nix
Guest
Nix

“I wish Tesla would have made their standard open instead of going proprietary with a non J1772 connector.”

The J1772 connector standard wasn’t finalized until September 2012. By September 2012, Tesla had already completed construction on 6 supercharger stations and opened them to the public. Tesla had already been delivering Model S cars to customers for 4 months by Sept. 2012.

In order to make that happen, Tesla needed FINALIZED standards by 2011 in order to put their pencil down on Model S design work, and move forward into testing. J1772 came a year and a half too late to be used as the Tesla supercharger standard.

Even worse, when the J1772 standard was released in Sept. 2012, that standard only supported 50 kW charging.

How exactly was Tesla supposed to use a standard that hadn’t been finalized yet, that when finalized, wasn’t anywhere near the kW rating that Tesla needed?

georgeS
Guest
georgeS

A lot of Tesla’s charging locations are in another businesses parking lot. I would think that many of these businesses would be reluctant to give up customer parking spaces for Tesla’s expansion. So I bet Tesla will find this a bit of a challenge.

Some Guy
Guest
Some Guy

If I had a business like a grocery store, I would be happy to trade in a couple of parking spots at the end of the lot that are maybe occupied on Black Friday and empty during the rest of the year to recieve free EV chargers that will be occupied quite frequently by people who will be in the area for around the time it takes to do grocery shopping and are able to afford a Tesla.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

For as many SC’s now, it doesn’t look like much of a challenge.

For business owners, why not have a few spots (4 of them) reserved for those big money spending Tesla owners……lol

John
Guest
John

Businesses do a lot of things that cost them money just to get people in the door. They’re called “loss leaders.”

In the grocery business, they’ll sell ears of corn 10 for a dollar, but put the expensive butter right next to the corn display. They’ll double the money they lost on the corn, plus the sale attracted a lot of people.

scottf200
Guest
scottf200

They put the Tesla SuperCharging spots away from the main parking closest to the door. Keeps them from being ICE’d There is a new SC being constructed near me that is in a Meijer parking lot like this. Similar to Hyvee ones I’ve been at.

Nix
Guest
Nix
george — I disagree. I believe that if Tesla is anywhere near as successful as they show potential to be, within a decade shopping center land owners (the folks that actually own the parking lots) will be bidding on how much they will be willing to pay Tesla in order to get a set of superchargers installed on their property. Currently, electric car owners earn significantly more money than median ICE drivers, and are in the exact same high dollar/age market demographics that shopping centers/malls/outlets want to attract for their client stores. If/when Tesla and other EV ownership penetration starts reaching significant numbers, retail property owners will find they need both Tesla chargers and other chargers to stay competitive. Higher end shopping areas don’t actually care about the total population, and what percent of the total US population owns a Tesla or other EV. They care about what percent of the customers that visit their property and spend money want. Even just a 5% penetration into the total US car market, may end up representing 25% or more EV ownership in certain target demographics in certain markets. That’s the tricky thing. Because even with a macro-economic issue, like nationwide charging… Read more »
Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

I would think that many of these businesses would be reluctant to give up customer parking spaces for Tesla’s expansion.

It’s certainly true that Tesla’s ability to increase the number of stalls at existing locations will be limited or nonexistant in many locations. So Tesla will have to open up new locations, some close to existing ones.

But the same thing will be true of any business trying to establish a nationwide (or continent-wide) EV charging network. So it’s not like Tesla is at any particular disadvantage here. In fact, Tesla has the “first mover” advantage in getting the best locations. That is, “best” for Tesla, which isn’t necessarily the same as the most convenient for its customers.

Rich
Guest
Rich

Tesla doubling its SuperCharger network ahead of the Model 3. Awesome! Hopefully in 2018, they’ll double it again.

James
Guest
James

I’ll be curious to see how much chargers are used on a pay model. For us, in 6 years and 2 EV’s, we’ve probably paid for charging maybe 30 times.

I think a lot of the Supercharger use was cheap rich people driving to the Supercharger and filling it up in the same way they would a gas car using their Costco points. I would imagine most Model 3 owners will prefer to charge it in their garage, unless they live in an apartment with no charging.

Kdawg
Guest
Kdawg

“Whereas some automakers such as General Motors refuse to support the charging infrastructure”
—————-
This isn’t true. You should clarify a DCFC network for long distance travel. GM has supported the workplace charging infrastructure for years now.

u_serious?
Guest
u_serious?

Can you show us the public charging infrastructure map that GM has deployed as well as their future public charging i frastructure map????

Chargers at GM dealers dont count because they either give you the stank eye for using it or outright deny use.

Nix
Guest
Nix

My local GM dealer regularly ICE’s their own charger. They specifically seem to get a big kick out of parking a big Silverado diesel in front of it.

Kdawg
Guest
Kdawg

What part of “workplace charging” didn’t you understand?

Kdawg
Guest
Kdawg

GM had over 500 workplace stations installed back in 2013. That was 4 years ago, and has nothing to do with the 6000 stations at dealerships.

https://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/workplace-charging-challenge-partner-general-motors

HVACman
Guest
HVACman
“Toward that goal, Tesla will build larger sites along our busiest travel routes that will accommodate several dozen Teslas Supercharging simultaneously.” Several dozen Teslas charging at the same time at 100+ kW at a single SC station? We’re talking a multiple-megawatt electrical service. That is something you just can’t order-up from the local utility and stick behind the neighborhood Best-Western. That is a major, major industrial electrical service that can require significant planning and construction on the both the utility and facility owner sides. Many rural areas, even along major interstates, won’t be able to support that. That said, I don’t know that really anyone, including Chargepoint, EVGO, etc. understand how fast the demand for DCFC will grow in certain regions and how hard it will be to quickly respond to that demand as BMW, VW, Nissan, and others join GM with long-range BEV’s. I remember in the early 70’s how rapidly traffic grew on I-5 between SF and LA when it was finally completed and how desperate the lack-of-service-station situation was. You really had to plan your trip well so you wouldn’t run out of gas (or bladder). It took several years for infrastructure to catch up with the… Read more »
SparkEV
Guest

Bladder was never a problem. Lots of yellow bottles…

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous
Guest
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

thasnasty…….

Nix
Guest
Nix

Nix
Guest
Nix

“That is something you just can’t order-up from the local utility and stick behind the neighborhood Best-Western.”

Yes, it does take quite a bit of power. But the type of drop really isn’t substantially different than the drop that powers your neighborhood Best-Western. That Best-Western doesn’t have a residential 220/240V 200A drop like you might have in your home either.

If there is a row of hotels near where the new supercharger station is being built, there is a pretty good chance that the needed power is available.

(Of course each install would depend GREATLY on each local site plan, and each local electrical provider. It isn’t possible to generalize one way or another that would apply to every location.)

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

HVACman said:

“Several dozen Teslas charging at the same time at 100+ kW at a single SC station? We’re talking a multiple-megawatt electrical service.

“That is something you just can’t order-up from the local utility and stick behind the neighborhood Best-Western. That is a major, major industrial electrical service that can require significant planning and construction on the both the utility and facility owner sides. Many rural areas, even along major interstates, won’t be able to support that.”

It’s certainly true that EV fast charging is going to require significant amounts of commercial power to be made available in many areas where currently it’s not.

I’m not sure why that supply-and-demand situation would be perceived as a problem, or at least not anything more than a temporary situation. Supply often lags behind demand, but nearly always grows to meet it.

SparkEV
Guest

This article has maps of where new superchargers will be built.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-to-double-number-of-superchargers-2017-4

Just the us map looks like this. Grey are future SC sites.

BenG
Guest
BenG

Awesome. I hope they pull it off!

Mikael
Guest
Mikael

I’d be happy if they built the superchargers already promised…

If we could get basic coverage in the Nordic countries, Baltics and Poland too then I would be over the moon… 🙂

Anon
Guest
Anon

Anyone else notice the binnacle hump and lack of large central touchscreen in the Model 3’s maroon rendering in the illustration?

Judging by the older TM3’s headlights, this is likely an older rendering, before the central touchscreen became a major change in the cockpit…

The vehicle in the stall directly behind it, also appears to have a different roof-line. Could this be an early sneak peek at a hatchback Model Y?

HMmm…

WadeTyhon
Guest
WadeTyhon

“In addition, many sites will be built further off the highway to allow local Tesla drivers to charge quickly when needed, with the goal of making charging ubiquitous in urban centers.”

Good! Nice to see that they’re making a shift to support local urban charging. An EV makes so much sense in the city. I get far more than the official range on my cars.

Younger professionals live in cities and are more likely to be comfortable making the switch to EVs. We did, and we used public/work/campus charging for about 2 years (until moving to a complex with EV chargers this past winter.)

I see Tesla actually being able to make money on charging this way if they want to. Having this in a suburban area may not make sense. But a city absolutely does. (Especially if they begin including a CCS/CHAdeMO charger or two.)

Don Zenga
Guest
Don Zenga

Its not necessary that only Tesla should setup a supercharging stations, even private companies can setup one and offer charging at the cost of electricity + 10% for their margins and cash in on the rising wave of electric vehicles especially the one led by Model-3.

Even the electric utilities can join in setting up the charging network.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

“Even the electric utilities can join in setting up the charging network.”

Electric utilities should be recruited to partner with EV charger installers. If the utility wants to expand its market for selling electricity, that will be a natural place to do so.

Electric utilities install power lines, cutting holes in pavement and sidewalks, and digging trenches as a part of their everyday operation. That’s what EV owners need to avoid the ridiculous charges of hundreds or thousands of dollars just to dig a trench to bury a power cable for a slow charge point in an apartment parking lot or beside a home owner’s driveway.

I hope that will become commonplace, altho I suppose there are places that have such restrictive regulations on electric utilities that they would think it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

F150 Brian
Guest
F150 Brian

Or just buy a PHEV and don’t care what happens to the public charging network.

The gasoline network will be alive and kicking for longer than any car bought today. And if you only use gasoline on long trips, the total amount consumed will only be a small fraction of what we’re using today.

F150 Brian
Guest
F150 Brian

Tesla will have to redesign those stations once they produce a pickup. Pickups pull these things called trailers, which prevent pulling into a little parking spot.

Bill Howland
Guest
Bill Howland

I have no problem doing anything they feel prudent with their private charging locations.

Part of the deal is, if you want to use their facilities you have to purchase an S, X, and later, a properly equipped/enabled ‘3’.

If I choose to spend the extra cash for a Tesla, I have access to their facilities.

If I don’t feel like spending extra, then I don’t have access to their facilities.

I’m perfectly ok with that choice. It is ultimately up to me whether I do so or not.

Mikey
Guest
Mikey

I think that the way for Tesla to make money on SuperChargers is by letting others pay to use it… at 3x the rate of gas. I would happily pay! Unlike a gas car, where I always have to buy gas at whatever rate the gas station charges, with an EV I only have to pay the high rate when I take an infrequently long trip. I would happily pay that, considering that nobody else I need the country can put together even a half-assed network. And at 3x the cost, they wouldn’t have to worry about clogging the network with locals charging their cars, and they could afford to expand. The current “free” charging incentives are what is killing the expansion of EV charging stations today.

bws
Guest
bws

Yet another reason for manufacturers such as Lucid Motors to join the Tesla network. If Lucid decided to have a Tesla connector on their car and supported Tesla Supercharging stations, it would only make it more appealing imho.

Tyl Young
Guest
Tyl Young

The Tesla Supercharger Network is going to expand and expand, again and again. Tesla indicated as much years ago. Once the 2017 map is built out, we’ll see another map with more and more new locations, along with expansions of current locations. Note: many of the current locations were built with expansion in mind, hence the pre-plumbed supercharger conduits at many locations. A few locations are pre-plumbed for an additional 2 superchargers which equals 4 more supercharging pedestals. Check supercharge.info for details on individual sites. Select the red or blue dot; or orange construction cone, then select discuss to read TMC blogs about a particular site. Endless amounts of information!