Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[mknox]

As for claim that Chargepoint/Blink might think the Tesla adapter is "unauthorized", even putting aside for the moment that those companies are offering their chargers for *all* EVs, that seems to be completely false.

That is not entirely true. I am aware of many locations (usually dealers) who will say that their station is for Leaf, Volt, <insert manufacturer name here> use ONLY.

But really, what I'm sensing here is "Wah, Wah, we don't want other cars using our Tesla HPWCs!!" This flies in the face of Tesla's stated goal of accelerating the adoption of sustainable transportation by putting in a proprietary charging solution and restricting it's use. Imagine if every EV had it's own proprietary connector standard and people got all bent out of shape over a Ford plugged in at a Chevy station. It's nuts. Lately, Tesla has been donating a HPWC and a J1772 station. To me, it would make a whole lot more sense to simply donate 2-J1772 stations since Teslas can use them with their adapter. J1772 stations can be had in flavors up to 80 amps (same as the HPWC) so there is no downside to this.

- - - Updated - - -

His warning does generally apply though, even the custom 14-50/14-30 adapters people have made for the UMCs are very much "use at your own risk". If anything were to happen, the liability is all on the person who made the adapter. I think it is fair to note that.

No, I think the liability is on the person who uses the adapter if it comes to that. No different than if a Tesla adapter caused a problem at a J1772 station. The liability would surround the user of said adapter.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Originally Posted by Max* Egotistically I'd hate to sit at a supercharger and wait for a leaf to charge, one thing that sold me on the Tesla was the exclusive charging network.

Actually, IF it was possible (and I don't know if it is), then I would imagine after the handshake, the Leaf would only request/receive 48 KW initially, reducing down to 20 KW pretty quickly. So thus, I think any self-respecting and knowledgeable Tesla owner, wouldn't curse the Leaf, but rather would plug into the paired stall and receive anywhere from 87 KW up to 110 KW. This would certainly be better than plugging into a paired stall with a Tesla on the other side.

Again, I'm not advocating this and don't believe it's possible today (but someone much smarter than I can probably hack it). I'm just saying that given the choice of a Leaf or Tesla at the other paired stall, I would choose a Leaf (of course empty is always nicest).

 

[TexasEV]

That is not entirely true. I am aware of many locations (usually dealers) who will say that their station is for Leaf, Volt, <insert manufacturer name here> use ONLY.

But really, what I'm sensing here is "Wah, Wah, we don't want other cars using our Tesla HPWCs!!" This flies in the face of Tesla's stated goal of accelerating the adoption of sustainable transportation by putting in a proprietary charging solution and restricting it's use.

1. What dealers do with their charging stations is irrelevant to any discussion. Dealers don't want EVs to exist so they're not going to make it easy for anyone driving an EV. Some won't even allow their brand of car to charge there unless the car was bought at that dealership. Just mentally filter out dealers when looking at Plugshare and it will reduce everyone's stress level.

2. No it doesn't contradict Tesla's goal of accelerating sustainable transport (meaning EVs that have the range to replace ICE cars). This goal will only be accomplished if Tesla is successful. The traditional ICE manufacturers aren't going to make compelling EVs without being pushed by Tesla or another start-up that doesn't have a massive investment in ICE technology. If Tesla makes it easier for crappy EVs to exist then the public perception of EVs will continue to be that they're not a practical replacement for ICE. When the public sees that Tesla has a better way it will help Tesla succeed and that will eventually force ICE companies to make EVs that anyone would want to buy, not just EV enthusiasts.

 

[davewill]

While I can appreciate your ingenuity, I am disturbed by your egoism.
While you are getting a free charge you may very well be the HPWC Typhoid Mary ... I do not think it is cool at all.
I could care less about the cost of the electricity it is the abuse of the EVSE hardware that I need to use that disturbs me.

Your concern is duly noted.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Noel, can your adapter withstand 80 amps?

Maybe. The target audience is 40A max users. Runs 24x7 at 50 amps without getting hot. It might thermal limit at 80A or it might not. There are thermal cutoff devices securely attached to each Tesla power pin. If either pin reaches 145 degrees, the pilot signal is cut and contractors in the HPWC and EV open. I researched thermal info for the HPWC that other folks have performed. Figured that 145 degrees would be a good value for thermal protection.

 

[TexasEV]

Actually, IF it was possible (and I don't know if it is), then I would imagine after the handshake, the Leaf would only request/receive 48 KW initially, reducing down to 20 KW pretty quickly. So thus, I think any self-respecting and knowledgeable Tesla owner, wouldn't curse the Leaf, but rather would plug into the paired stall and receive anywhere from 87 KW up to 110 KW. This would certainly be better than plugging into a paired stall with a Tesla on the other side.

Again, I'm not advocating this and don't believe it's possible today (but someone much smarter than I can probably hack it). I'm just saying that given the choice of a Leaf or Tesla at the other paired stall, I would choose a Leaf (of course empty is always nicest).

This is a ridiculous discussion. It's not possible today and it won't be possible tomorrow or ever. If you want to use a supercharger, buy a Tesla.

 

[m6bigdog]

....

No, I think the liability is on the person who uses the adapter if it comes to that. No different than if a Tesla adapter caused a problem at a J1772 station. The liability would surround the user of said adapter.

Interesting discussion and I will never use a DIY adapter because unforeseen outcomes are to fraught with issues.
If using one caused adjacent cars to be destroyed in a fire... who pays and someone gets seriously injured or killed from an electrical shock... who's liable!!

So you believe you can sell a product for consideration that violates US federal/state laws and the NEC in the locations it is intended/likely to be used and not face a product liability claim?
It is called consumer protection laws and the US has many, also OSHA regulation protect the individual worker and their personal property from the employer and other employees that may choose to not follow the federal/state OSHA regulation requiring NRTL listed electrical equipment.

Also, Make one for yourself and if your house burns down your insurance co may very well refuse to cover the damages based on the investigation that will show the adapter is in violation of Tesla User Manual instructions alone. Have one you purchased and the Ins. Co. will attempt to recover the damages from the company/individual that built the non-listed adapter.

The whole reason for UL Listing and/or Certification is to show you have done the due diligence for the product design/engineering/safety and have an NRTL that can witness that fact in court.
Without it. I anticipate you could be held negligent and personally liable even if the product is manufactured behind an LLC since you must adhere to acceptable/normal industry standards and practices to put the liability on the end user.

 

[mknox]

1. What dealers do with their charging stations is irrelevant to any discussion. Dealers don't want EVs to exist so they're not going to make it easy for anyone driving an EV. Some won't even allow their brand of car to charge there unless the car was bought at that dealership. Just mentally filter out dealers when looking at Plugshare and it will reduce everyone's stress level.

Is the converse true then that Tesla doesn't want EVs other than their own to exist? I don't think so.

2. No it doesn't contradict Tesla's goal of accelerating sustainable transport (meaning EVs that have the range to replace ICE cars). This goal will only be accomplished if Tesla is successful.

Sure it does. Elon has publicly stated that even if Tesla fails as a company, but the acceleration of EV adoption is realized, he would consider that a success. He says the only reason he got involved with Tesla is for this very reason. He assumed GM would make an EV-2, EV-3 and so forth, but when that didn't happen, he had to take action.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, IF it was possible (and I don't know if it is), then I would imagine after the handshake, the Leaf would only request/receive 48 KW initially, reducing down to 20 KW pretty quickly.

Even though Tesla uses the same connector, Supercharging is a direct DC connection to the battery whereas Level 2 (HPWC etc.) is AC to the car's on-board charger(s). It simply wouldn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe you can sell a product for consideration that violates US federal/state laws and the NEC in the locations it is intended/likely to be used and not face a product liability claim?

Since an adapter is not wired to the building, the NEC (nor the Canadian version) applies. Tesla's own UMC and J1772 adapter, for instance, do not have UL or any other safety certifications.

Also, Make one for yourself and if your house burns down your insurance co may very well refuse to cover the damages

That is true.

The whole reason for UL Listing and/or Certification is to show you have done the due diligence for the product design/engineering/safety and have an NRTL that can witness that fact in court.

This, I believe, is why Tesla is currently in the process of recalling and replacing UMC kits in Ontario, Canada right now (separate thread on this). Right now, the US UMC and adapters have no such certification.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

That is funny,
How many LLC CEO's and corporate manager are in jail for negligence? all of them...

Well I guess I must have dodged more than a few bullets, then...

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting discussion and I will never use a DIY adapter because unforeseen outcomes are to fraught with issues.
If using one caused adjacent cars to be destroyed in a fire... who pays and someone gets seriously injured or killed from an electrical shock... who's liable!!

Certainly not me because I would have high-tailed it out of there. And nobody should be touching my stuff anyway. Hey, I use an extension cord even though Tesla says I shouldn't. Which policing authority should I fear for that transgression?

So you believe you can sell a product for consideration that violates US federal/state laws and the NEC in the locations it is intended/likely to be used and not face a product liability claim?

Well, regarding the first part of your statement it didn't stop Samsung. Regarding the rest of your sentence...

It is called consumer protection laws and the US has many, also OSHA regulation protect the individual worker and their personal property from the employer and other employees that may choose to not follow the federal/state OSHA regulation requiring NRTL listed electrical equipment.

Also, Make one for yourself and if your house burns down your insurance co may very well refuse to cover the damages based on the investigation that will show the adapter is in violation of Tesla User Manual instructions alone. Have one you purchased and the Ins. Co. will attempt to recover the damages from the company/individual that built the non-listed adapter.

The whole reason for UL Listing and/or Certification is to show you have done the due diligence for the product design/engineering/safety and have an NRTL that can witness that fact in court.
Without it. I anticipate you could be held negligent and personally liable even if the product is manufactured behind an LLC since you must adhere to acceptable/normal industry standards and practices to put the liability on the end user.

Now you're just being a Debbie Downer!

 

[FlasherZ]

Would have been nice. Wonder why they didn't use that standard here?

Because in the US, the J1772 is the "standard". But the J1772 connector is not very user-friendly; the Tesla connector is compact, auto-centering, and is strong. I can't count the number of J1772 plugs I've found on public chargers that have their rings cracked, or whose lock no longer works, or whose pins show cracks from trying to ram the connector in.

The Mennekes type 2 connector is slightly better - it has a better keying mechanism to line it up better for insertion but still is not as easy as the TSL02.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting thought. The currently implemented UMC has no safety inspection or certification. And I checked my Tesla J1772 adapter again... label is scratched from use, but no certification stamp that I can see. I would expect that any permanently installed and wired EVSE would indeed have to be certified, but what you plug in to it (or a 120 volt outlet for that matter) is another matter. All this aside, I think a J1772 station makes a lot more sense for public use in a condo, or anywhere else for that matter.

The Tesla J1772 adapter is indeed listed. You can find it on the UL site when you search for Tesla.

 

[Noel Ingle]

I would venture to guess Tesla did not spin the adapter pins from a lathe.

Serious question. How else would Tesla make their Model S inlet pins? CNC mill? It's basically the same thing. Maybe I'm not understanding your comment.

 

[Noel Ingle]

What can I say: Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

The Boss is yet to be aware that the adapter violates the Tesla UL listing for the HPWC, NEC Article 625 for EVSE and therefore OSHA regulations for the workplace. Yep, the parking lot is included since it is controlled by the business!! So inform them of these conditions and see how they react. If you doubt this call the local OSHA office (phone number on the wall of the break room) for advice or the Local AHJ.

I guess we will see how long the adapter venture last.

From the peanut gallery:
I hope you have liability insurance for your product or have at least consulted a product attorney?
All though, it may be difficult to secure or enforce for an electrical product built with no UL listing and obvious NEC and CFR violations.
So with or without insurance you could loose everything you own with a single property damage or personal injury misshape/accident associated with your adapter product.

Now you've me worried. Could all this product liability stuff jeopardize my standing at the homeless shelter where I currently live?

 

[Rocky_H]

Serious question. How else would Tesla make their Model S inlet pins? CNC mill? It's basically the same thing. Maybe I'm not understanding your comment.

Serious answer then. I have a friend who does have a milling prototyping business at home in his garage workshop. He does have a CNC mill, but that would not be used for those pins. Milling would be for objects that need to be carved in several dimensions and sides. For things like those pins, yes, they would be turned on the lathe, because anything that is cylindrically symmetrical can be done much more quickly with the spinning/carving of a lathe. However, that is for smaller volume production, because you’re carving them one at a time. For larger volume, they might be making those in a mold, where they pour in the metal as a liquid, to make 100 at a time, but I don’t know if they are doing it that way or not. Or, they could actually be doing it another way, where they are getting long metal rods in that diameter and cutting them into the shorter lengths and rounding off the ends to make the pins. Just semi-educated guesses there.

By the way, good luck to you with this. m6bigdog is bothering me, because of his Typhoid Mary bull^%#$, where he thinks you’re going to destroy the plug heads. He doesn’t seem to realize that carving things to a dimension with a lathe is a pretty exact process, and matching the pin diameter to another pin that has been measured isn’t a half-assed thing, and getting metal that conducts high currents is also reasonably done, and isn’t only possible by high tech companies. I am an engineer, and I approve this message. J

 

[HankLloydRight]

they are getting long metal rods in that diameter and cutting them into the shorter lengths and rounding off the ends to make the pins. Just semi-educated guesses there.

After watching hundreds of episodes of "How It's Made" -- this is the method I would guess they use.

 

[TEG]

Even though Tesla uses the same connector, Supercharging is a direct DC connection to the battery whereas Level 2 (HPWC etc.) is AC to the car's on-board charger(s). It simply wouldn't work.

For J1772 to Tesla connector, yes. But most LEAF have CHAdeMO DC/QC. So a Tesla to CHAdeMO adapter could conceivably do what they said (let LEAF do a Supercharge, albeit at a reduced rate limited by the smaller battery.)

Tesla already makes a CHAdeMO to Tesla adapter so Model S & X can make use of a LEAF style DC/QC (at a reduced rate limited by the CHAdeMO charger), but no one has offered the reverse.
At some level it would "only be fair" to offer both. I would like to use the local Supercharger with my LEAF, but Tesla may well not want such a thing, and it is unclear if they would even allow it, if, for instance, Nissan asked permission to make such an adapter.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Serious question. How else would Tesla make their Model S inlet pins? CNC mill? It's basically the same thing. Maybe I'm not understanding your comment.

Rocky already answered with some common methods that pins would be mass manufactured. The comment is mainly related to the original comment's false equivalency of your custom adapter and the J1772 adapter Tesla is selling. The manufacturing methods would be completely different.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Or, they could actually be doing it another way, where they are getting long metal rods in that diameter and cutting them into the shorter lengths and rounding off the ends to make the pins. Just semi-educated guesses there.

You can use 9 mm round stock, but you then have to find a clean and reliable method for securing it to the housing. Ultimately, I decided on using 13 mm hex rod stock. I turn the front and back sides to 9 mm leaving an integrated 13 mm hex feature in the middle. Then I thread and bolt it from the back side. The connector housing has 13 mm hex recesses to hold the pins steady while tightening.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That is not entirely true. I am aware of many locations (usually dealers) who will say that their station is for Leaf, Volt, <insert manufacturer name here> use ONLY.

But really, what I'm sensing here is "Wah, Wah, we don't want other cars using our Tesla HPWCs!!" This flies in the face of Tesla's stated goal of accelerating the adoption of sustainable transportation by putting in a proprietary charging solution and restricting it's use. Imagine if every EV had it's own proprietary connector standard and people got all bent out of shape over a Ford plugged in at a Chevy station. It's nuts.

Dealer chargers aren't even necessarily open to the general public (meaning they can even limit access to the chargers to their customers only, not just the same brand). I'm mainly responding to how your comment implies that either of the charge networks view Tesla adapter as "unauthorized". Again, Chargepoint and Blink seems to welcome Teslas charging at their public network with the adapter, while there is zero indication Tesla is welcoming non-Tesla EVs to charge using the HPWCs as part of their destination charging program.

Lately, Tesla has been donating a HPWC and a J1772 station. To me, it would make a whole lot more sense to simply donate 2-J1772 stations since Teslas can use them with their adapter. J1772 stations can be had in flavors up to 80 amps (same as the HPWC) so there is no downside to this.

This example nicely illustrates how Tesla's intentions does not match what you keep suggesting. If Tesla wanted the HPWC to be accessible to non-Tesla EVs, they would install two J1772 instead of one HPWC and one J1772. That would be the only way the makes sense. It seems obvious to me that they install the HPWC so that it keeps at least one spot always open to Tesla customers only. This avoids the situation that a Tesla customer ever has to wait for a non-Tesla. When they want to support non-Tesla EVs, they do it in a way that does not inconvenience Tesla customers.

No, I think the liability is on the person who uses the adapter if it comes to that. No different than if a Tesla adapter caused a problem at a J1772 station. The liability would surround the user of said adapter.

In my example, the one who made and uses it would be interchangeable (as the adapter is DIY-made), although not the case here (necessarily). In the case where it isn't though, I'm not sure the maker would escape all responsibility either.

 

[TexasEV]

Tesla already makes a CHAdeMO to Tesla adapter so Model S & X can make use of a LEAF style DC/QC (at a reduced rate limited by the CHAdeMO charger), but no one has offered the reverse.
At some level it would "only be fair" to offer both. I would like to use the local Supercharger with my LEAF, but Tesla may well not want such a thing, and it is unclear if they would even allow it, if, for instance, Nissan asked permission to make such an adapter.

It's not a matter of fairness at all. CHAdeMO is an international standard. Tesla owners using a CHAdeMO station pay to use it as anyone else does, and Tesla's new compatibility with it gives more business to the companies installing those stations. Conceivably that extra business could make some of those locations profitable when they wouldn't be otherwise if just charging Leafs. For those CHAdeMO stations that don't have a fee, they're installed to attract customers to that location and if a Tesla charges there it accomplished it's purpose.

On the other hand, Tesla builds the supercharger network in order to sell its cars. It removes the obstacle of "how do I get to X, even when the person hasn't driven to X in years and has no intention of driving to X", as Steve Jurvetson said. For Tesla it's a marketing expense, and more effective than spending that money on any advertising.

Apples and oranges. Nothing to do with fairness, at any level.

 

[Oba]

You can use 9 mm round stock, but you then have to find a clean and reliable method for securing it to the housing. Ultimately, I decided on using 13 mm hex rod stock. I turn the front and back sides to 9 mm leaving an integrated 13 mm hex feature in the middle. Then I thread and bolt it from the back side. The connector housing has 13 mm hex recesses to hold the pins steady while tightening.

Ugg !!! PM as to why this is a bad idea. Those pins must FLOAT !!!