Concerns about Tesla to non-Tesla charging adapters

[mknox]

Who pays if someone's custom manufactured adapter is used all over and damages a slew of HPWCs? Who pays if a subsequent Model S owner plugs in a damaged HPWC and their Model S is damaged?

On a somewhat related note, I have noticed many Destination HPWCs (and J1772 stations too) that really appear to have been "used and abused". Handles left on the ground, in a puddle, contacts black with dirt, banged and scratched up pretty good, etc. If damage is caused as a result of careless users, regardless of whether an adapter is used... who pays for that?

 

[Chris TX]

On a somewhat related note, I have noticed many Destination HPWCs (and J1772 stations too) that really appear to have been "used and abused". Handles left on the ground, in a puddle, contacts black with dirt, banged and scratched up pretty good, etc. If damage is caused as a result of careless users, regardless of whether an adapter is used... who pays for that?

Good question. It seems we have other, actual damaging factors that contribute to a less than ideal charging experience with HWPCs. I think the worry of a high quality adapter that's kept clean and dry is a bit overblown. People with these adapters actually want these HPWCs to be available and in working order.

 

[FlasherZ]

In the case of J1772, there are specifications to follow that covers the physical connectors. Of course, it is possible to synthesize sufficiently compatible connectors without going through certification, but is it responsible?

I think it is irresponsible for anyone to synthesize these connectors and use them on HWPC's owned by other people unless they are willing to put up an insurance fund that is pre-funded for the potential damages. It's even worse to use other's people HWPC's without them knowing that you are using something that isn't certified to conform to the specs. Since the specs aren't released and there isn't a certification program, even if a HPWC owner gives consent, they likely don't understand the ramifications and so it is still irresponsible. Of course, if it is your HWPC, then by all means.

For what it's worth, there were a couple of manufacturers who produced J1772 connectors from the specs who didn't get it right, either, and they ended up leaving pieces of their connectors (the outer rings) jammed in car charging connectors as a result. We just need to chalk that up to proper manufacturing practices.

 

[hcsharp]

So a few hypotheticals...

For the sake of argument, lets assume my adapters won't damage any equipment and from a technical standpoint work exactly as intended.
Also let's assume I just made these adapters with no permission or any communication on the matter with Tesla.

• 1) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla HPWC destination chargers?
• 2) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla super chargers? (Assuming custom on board hardware to make this possible was added to the Roadster)
• 3) If I have a Tesla Roadster, should I be allowed to use an adapter to use a Tesla Model S CHAdeMO adatper to charge at a public CHAdeMO charger? (Same note as above)
• 4) If I have a Nissan Leaf, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla HPWC destination chargers?
• 5) If I have a Nissan Leaf, should I be allowed to use an adapter to charge at Tesla super chargers? (Perhaps a supercharger->CHAdeMO adapter)
• If I have a custom EV that utilizes the powertrain components from a Tesla Model S, including the original charge port, HVJB (with supercharger support), charger setup, battery, etc:
  • 6) .... should I be allowed to use Tesla HPWC desination chargers?
  • 7) .... should I be allowed to use Tesla superchargers?

My personal answers are: 1 through 5: No. 6 and 7 yes.

Why?

Well, for 1 through 5 these vehicles were never intended to be used at these chargers, there was no access cost included in the purchase of these vehicles, etc. Specifically for the Roadster, if Tesla intended for Roadster owners to be able to use the destination charger network or the supercharger network they could easily do so.

For 6 and 7, IMO this vehicle would still have the Tesla Model S's "license" to utilize these amenities since it basically is the Model S in a new shell. The Model S was bought (with the supercharging option), and at some point converted into another EV. Arguably supercharging was included with that initial purchase, as would the destination chargers.

Just my 2 cents on the "authorized" portion of this argument.

I agree with your general approach to looking at this issue. ie. Tesla's intent, and who paid for the access cost. Having said that, there is some information you may not be aware of. WRT item 1, a few members of Tesla's senior management have told the Roadster community that they are more than welcome to use the destination network. Roadster owners have heard the same from staff members of the Destination Network team. They have even gone so far as replacing HPWCs that acted up when charging Roadsters although they appeared to work fine with a Model S. Tesla also intended to make an adapter to allow Roadster owners to use TSLA02 charging equipment, similar to the adapter they made (still make?) that allows charging a Model S from Roadster charging equipment. The project was later given low priority for obvious reasons (a high quality alternative became available). They may very well revisit this if engineering resources are freed up (ha! that will be the day!).

I agree that who paid for the network is an important factor in determining who should be authorized to use it. For item 1 I'm not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that "there was no access cost included in the purchase of these vehicles" when referring to the Roadster. The idea of the destination network was not only conceived but also started before the Model S ever went into production. Tesla made an adapter so the Model S could use these stations before they switched over to the much cheaper HPWC.

I don't think you want to make the argument that the Destination HPWCs installed before you bought your car, or even years after, should not be available for your use. The fact that the network continues to grow, even though you might not buy another Tesla, does not mean you didn't help fund the whole network. The same can be said for Roadster owners.

I pretty much agree with your opinion on item 2. Nobody at Tesla has ever said the superchargers were for Roadsters (assuming your statement about safe technical requirements being met). I would feel like I had to get permission from them before supercharging a Roadster.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with you on items 2 - 7. Some people would like to ignore the "who paid for access?" question because they think what is arguably theft would promote the adoption of EVs. Obviously we need an expanding charging network to help EV adoption. But you won't get an expanding network if all the other automakers can just ride on Tesla's back for free using an adapter, removing any incentive for them to contribute to infrastructure.

I don't think TEG's idea is bad. He is suggesting that drivers of other makes should be able to buy into the network, which would provide funds to help expand it. This could apply to superchargers as well.

All of my comments have assumed, as you did, that the technical and safety issues have been removed for the sake of argument.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree that who paid for the network is an important factor in determining who should be authorized to use it. For item 1 I'm not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that "there was no access cost included in the purchase of these vehicles" when referring to the Roadster. The idea of the destination network was not only conceived but also started before the Model S ever went into production. Tesla made an adapter so the Model S could use these stations before they switched over to the much cheaper HPWC.

Good point on the history. The destination network used to be all for the Roadsters (I believe using Clipper Creek units that are easily convertible to J1772) and they switched those out for HPWCs which left the Roadsters without access. Luckily your adapter provided access again.

 

[TEG]

I think if a property owner places a sign or otherwise makes their intentions clear with respect to the equipment then yes, that absolutely should be respected. It is no different than the picture I posted earlier (I think it was in this thread) of a Nissan CHAdeMO charger with a "Nissan Leaf Only" sign on it. Tesla owners should definitely not use that site with their CHAdeMO adapters either.

So, I could see a way to interpret this a bit differently.
Someone could put a sign like "Nissan LEAF only" on a CHAdeMO that they only know for sure works on LEAF, but ~might~ work on another car.
Same with "Tesla Charging Only", it could be more of an information notice / warning that your non Tesla vehicle is unlikely to be able to connect, but not necessarily a directive to say that you must never plug anything else in there.
I would think that the default assumption should be they don't want anyone else / anything else to even try, but sometimes it could just be that they are trying to offer you some info that the charging station was originally designed with a specific vehicle in mind and they don't know (and may not care) if anything else is able to charge there.
Some of those signs are also designed to scare away ICE vehicles from parking in the charging spot.
So, I think some of those signs may not relate the full intentions and sentiments of the site owner.
You basically have to ask for clarification if you think there is some doubt. I don't think those signs are legally enforceable.

 

[dhanson865]

The posts in this thread have identified the concern: non-floating pins could spring the sleeves in the TSLA-02 connector such that the resulting high resistance at higher currents (up to 80A) could be a danger. In addition, once the sleeves have been sprung, the problem remains with the HPWC connector, and could then affect multiple subsequent cars that connect...

What non Tesla are we worried about charging at 80A?

The new Nissan Leaf with 30 kWh battery pack still has a 6.x KW charger (28A).

The Kia Soul still has a 7.x KW charger (30A).

The Chevy Volt 2016 gets an upgrade from 3.3 KW (14A) to 3.6 KW (16A)

BMW i3 has been software limited to 5.5 KW or less for some time but is supposed to go back to 7.x KW in 2016 (16A?).

Take a look at Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard and tell me how far down that list I have to go to find a car that is sold by the handfuls that isn't a Tesla and has a charger on board that is over 30A.

 

[scaesare]

What non Tesla are we worried about charging at 80A?

Perhaps you missed the point that, once sprung, it could affect subsequent cars?

While the Volt may only draw 3.3kW with a poorly made adapter, once the damage is done the next Tesla drawing far more power could be affected.

 

[hcsharp]

What non Tesla are we worried about charging at 80A?

The new Nissan Leaf with 30 kWh battery pack still has a 6.x KW charger (28A).

The Kia Soul still has a 7.x KW charger (30A).

The Chevy Volt 2016 gets an upgrade from 3.3 KW (14A) to 3.6 KW (16A)

BMW i3 has been software limited to 5.5 KW or less for some time but is supposed to go back to 7.x KW in 2016 (16A?).

Take a look at Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard and tell me how far down that list I have to go to find a car that is sold by the handfuls that isn't a Tesla and has a charger on board that is over 30A.

You're making an awfully big assumption to suggest that no other cars will ever be able to charge at more than 6.6kW (30A). Model S's charge at 40 - 80A, Roadsters at 70A. In addition you have no idea what the future holds.

 

[Tedkidd]

You're making an awfully big assumption to suggest that no other cars will ever be able to charge at more than 6.6kW (30A). Model S's charge at 40 - 80A, Roadsters at 70A. In addition you have no idea what the future holds.

Mercedes at 40, rav4 at 40...

Hey Henry, a lot of people may not be aware you've made the mother of all Tesla adapters (I've had my hands on one, f-in amazing piece of art).

What would you say there are things to be concerned about wrt damaging the charging handle with an adapter?

 

[dhanson865]

You're making an awfully big assumption to suggest that no other cars will ever be able to charge at more than 6.6kW (30A). Model S's charge at 40 - 80A, Roadsters at 70A. In addition you have no idea what the future holds.

I never said other cars won't charge above 30A. I didn't even say no other cars currently charge over 30A. What I did say was ask "What non Tesla are we worried about charging at 80A?"

That leaves the possibility open for

* a car built in the past by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A
* a car currently built by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A
* a car that has been announced but hasn't been built yet by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A

I didn't say they didn't exist. I asked which ones he was referring to. It maybe that one or more of those do exist and if so I'd like to know that. If scaesare's concern was hypothetical I'd like to know that as well.

If you want points for being forward thinking don't try to get them at the expense of putting words into my mouth.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I never said other cars won't charge above 30A. I didn't even say no other cars currently charge over 30A. What I did say was ask "What non Tesla are we worried about charging at 80A?"

That leaves the possibility open for

* a car built in the past by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A
* a car currently built by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A
* a car that has been announced but hasn't been built yet by someone other than Tesla that charges up to 80A

I didn't say they didn't exist. I asked which ones he was referring to. It maybe that one or more of those do exist and if so I'd like to know that. If scaesare's concern was hypothetical I'd like to know that as well.

If you want points for being forward thinking don't try to get them at the expense of putting words into my mouth.

The argument is kind of moot in the first place, since as per scaesare's point, the charging current of the car using the adapter is not the concern. It's that such an adapter might damage the HPWC connector and then other cars (Teslas mainly) might be damaged when charging at higher current (even though the issue may not show up while the adapter is being used at lower current).

I don't think scaesare is concerned about someone charging using such an unauthorized adapter and damaging their own vehicle. That is a risk that the adapter user takes.

 

[wk057]

I agree with your general approach to looking at this issue. ie. Tesla's intent, and who paid for the access cost. Having said that, there is some information you may not be aware of. WRT item 1, a few members of Tesla's senior management have told the Roadster community that they are more than welcome to use the destination network. Roadster owners have heard the same from staff members of the Destination Network team. They have even gone so far as replacing HPWCs that acted up when charging Roadsters although they appeared to work fine with a Model S. Tesla also intended to make an adapter to allow Roadster owners to use TSLA02 charging equipment, similar to the adapter they made (still make?) that allows charging a Model S from Roadster charging equipment. The project was later given low priority for obvious reasons (a high quality alternative became available). They may very well revisit this if engineering resources are freed up (ha! that will be the day!).

I agree that who paid for the network is an important factor in determining who should be authorized to use it. For item 1 I'm not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that "there was no access cost included in the purchase of these vehicles" when referring to the Roadster. The idea of the destination network was not only conceived but also started before the Model S ever went into production. Tesla made an adapter so the Model S could use these stations before they switched over to the much cheaper HPWC.

I don't think you want to make the argument that the Destination HPWCs installed before you bought your car, or even years after, should not be available for your use. The fact that the network continues to grow, even though you might not buy another Tesla, does not mean you didn't help fund the whole network. The same can be said for Roadster owners.

I pretty much agree with your opinion on item 2. Nobody at Tesla has ever said the superchargers were for Roadsters (assuming your statement about safe technical requirements being met). I would feel like I had to get permission from them before supercharging a Roadster.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with you on items 2 - 7. Some people would like to ignore the "who paid for access?" question because they think what is arguably theft would promote the adoption of EVs. Obviously we need an expanding charging network to help EV adoption. But you won't get an expanding network if all the other automakers can just ride on Tesla's back for free using an adapter, removing any incentive for them to contribute to infrastructure.

I don't think TEG's idea is bad. He is suggesting that drivers of other makes should be able to buy into the network, which would provide funds to help expand it. This could apply to superchargers as well.

All of my comments have assumed, as you did, that the technical and safety issues have been removed for the sake of argument.

I was unaware that there was a destination charging network for Roadsters (I didn't buy my first Tesla, my Model S P85, until 2013). So, I stand corrected on that point. I do think Tesla should either create their own or officially endorse your adapter (or another's) before they be allowed to be used on that network, at the very least. It seems they have unofficially given yours the wink and nod, though, so there's that.

I had a thought on a supercharger->CHAdeMO adapter or a supercharger->CCS adapter. Perhaps Tesla could make these, and sell them for like $3000 or some amount equal to or greater than the built in buy-in amount for the Model S/X. This would seem to be beneficial to everyone. Tesla gets more money to support the supercharger network, other EVs get access. Win win. Obviously the fine print would need to include some maximum usage amounts and other rules, but overall I think it's a sound idea.

 

[scaesare]

The argument is kind of moot in the first place, since as per scaesare's point, the charging current of the car using the adapter is not the concern. It's that such an adapter might damage the HPWC connector and then other cars (Teslas mainly) might be damaged when charging at higher current (even though the issue may not show up while the adapter is being used at lower current).

I don't think scaesare is concerned about someone charging using such an unauthorized adapter and damaging their own vehicle. That is a risk that the adapter user takes.

Correct.

And dhanson865, please note what I actually said:

In addition, once the sleeves have been sprung, the problem remains with the HPWC connector, and could then affect multiple subsequent cars that connect...

I never claimed that they had to be different make/model vehicles.

Nonetheless, even 3-6KW draws are enough to generate some serious heat if there are faulty/damaged contacts involved.

 

[hcsharp]

...
I had a thought on a supercharger->CHAdeMO adapter or a supercharger->CCS adapter. Perhaps Tesla could make these, and sell them for like $3000 or some amount equal to or greater than the built in buy-in amount for the Model S/X. This would seem to be beneficial to everyone. Tesla gets more money to support the supercharger network, other EVs get access. Win win. Obviously the fine print would need to include some maximum usage amounts and other rules, but overall I think it's a sound idea.

@TEG had essentially this idea up-thread (or different thread?). In theory it could be a good idea. Since none of the other automakers are doing squat to build any significant charging infrastructure, this would enable Tesla to do enough for everybody. There are lots of things that would have to be worked out as you pointed out ("rules, fine print"). The fee would have to be much more than $3,000 I suspect without usage limitations because the adapter could be used by more than one car, and only drivers who used the network a lot would buy it. Currently Tesla's fee is balanced out by a lot of drivers that use supercharging/Destination only rarely. There's also the issue Elon mentioned about cars needing adequate battery capacity. Short-range EVs would be sitting there longer if they only charged at 50kW or so. The fact that they would be full sooner would not necessarily help because they would arrive at the next charger that a high-capacity EV might be able to skip. So in theory it might work but you can see it has complicated issues.

 

[mknox]

Question:

If Tesla is providing an HPWC for Tesla cars and a J1772 station for "all others" at these destination sites, can I as a Tesla owner connect to the J1772 station with my adapter if the HPWC is already in use by another Model S? To be honest, I've done this, but now I wonder if that is appropriate given the conversations here around Tesla's intent for these stations.

Thoughts?

 

[scaesare]

Question:

If Tesla is providing an HPWC for Tesla cars and a J1772 station for "all others" at these destination sites, can I as a Tesla owner connect to the J1772 station with my adapter if the HPWC is already in use by another Model S? To be honest, I've done this, but now I wonder if that is appropriate given the conversations here around Tesla's intent for these stations.

Thoughts?

My view on these sorts of issues:

- Standardized connector for EV usage (J1772, CHAdeMo, 14-50, etc...): The Tesla is of the category "EV", therefore it can charge

- Proprietary connector for specific usage (TSLA02 HPWC/Supercharger): For use by the car specified, unless otherwise permitted (either by station owner, owner of the charge connector intellectual property, or both).

- Specific site restrictions: If the station owner restricts any of the above to a specific subset of users (customers, guests, make/model of car, etc...) than those restrictions should hold.

- Specific intellectual property restrictions: If the manufacturer of the/charger connector wishes to enforce it's patent rights, then it should be able to restrict the sale of any infringing IP (such as connector or protocol implementation) to others, however I don't think it can/should be able to prevent the private manufacture or use of such, subject to the guidelines above.


So, if there's a public CHAdeMo or J1772 station, knock yourself out with your Tesla.

If you have a personal HPWC and want to charge your LEAF with your homemade 3D-printed TSLA02 --> J1772 adapter, go for it.

If you own a roadster, and bought Henry's CAN adapter (which Tesla is aware of, and has not issued an injunction against), and destination charger hotel owner is good with it, although this feels a little grayer, it would seem OK, given Tesla's expression that the destination chargers are for the mutual customer of the hotel owner and Tesla.

If you want to mass produce "Tesla-1772" adapters and sell them and Tesla asks you to stop: no go.

You have a home made adapter for your Volt and want to use a Tesla-provided HPWC: probably not.

You have 14-50 connector for any EV type and want a free charge where there's signage that says "for customers only": nope.

 

[Andyw2100]

Question:

If Tesla is providing an HPWC for Tesla cars and a J1772 station for "all others" at these destination sites, can I as a Tesla owner connect to the J1772 station with my adapter if the HPWC is already in use by another Model S? To be honest, I've done this, but now I wonder if that is appropriate given the conversations here around Tesla's intent for these stations.

Thoughts?

I don't believe Tesla is providing both the HPWC and the J1772.

My understanding is that Tesla supplies the HPWC. If a business wants to install a J1772 on their own, that is up to them, but I don't think Tesla is involved in any way.

As for the ethics of your using a J1772 if the HPWC is taken, I can't really answer that. Certainly if you planned to stay with the car and move it, or leave a note with an offer to move there couldn't be an issue. To be honest I'm not sure if you even need to do that. But I'll leave the finer points of that discussion to others with more experience with public charging.

 

[m6bigdog]

I don't believe Tesla is providing both the HPWC and the J1772.

My understanding is that Tesla supplies the HPWC. If a business wants to install a J1772 on their own, that is up to them, but I don't think Tesla is involved in any way.

As for the ethics of your using a J1772 if the HPWC is taken, I can't really answer that. Certainly if you planned to stay with the car and move it, or leave a note with an offer to move there couldn't be an issue. To be honest I'm not sure if you even need to do that. But I'll leave the finer points of that discussion to others with more experience with public charging.

Yes Tesla will/does supply the J1772 for free.

In some locations (city, state, Fed properties) the installation of EVSE must be universal for all EV's so Tesla has been providing the J1772 EVSE as a way of installing the Wall Charger for the "Tesla Only" for a long time.

Based on the evidence I've seem posted here with official TMC email addresses, etc, it is real and better than you would anticipate.

Tesla will give away as many HPWC as the business is willing to install plus a universal J1772 charger for every 2 HPWC's installed.
Also, they receive $1500 to supplement the cost of installation per charger install so 2 Wall Chargers and a J1772 would be $4500.

I have stayed a number of hotels with Tesla Destination Chargers that had 2ea. HPWC and 1ea. J1772-L2 chargers.
I anticipate they participated in this program.

Tesla has a smart Business Model and they would not let something as small a J1772 universal Charger get in the way of expanding the Tesla Destination Charging Program, as it can be used by a Tesla owner if the 2 HPWC's are occupied and if not it is Good Will to other EV owners. Tesla stepping up where other EV manufactures fall short.

As for the ethics of the adapter?
Beyond the obvious damage a poorly build adapter can do to the Tesla Destination Program and the Tesla's that use the Wall Connector after one of these Bad adapters...
Tesla is providing a J1772 for the non-Tesla EV owner and they want to bite the hand that provides the J1772 for their use, when the non-Tesla manufacture has no destination program.
What can you say...they should use their energy to complain to their EV manufacture to follow the example of Tesla; then there would be plenty of free Destination Charging available without the risk of Bad adapters and a non-Tesla EV blocking a Tesla from charging.

 

[Noel Ingle]

Question:

If Tesla is providing an HPWC for Tesla cars and a J1772 station for "all others" at these destination sites, can I as a Tesla owner connect to the J1772 station with my adapter if the HPWC is already in use by another Model S? To be honest, I've done this, but now I wonder if that is appropriate given the conversations here around Tesla's intent for these stations.

Thoughts?

...the EV would have to relinquish his J1772 spot to the Tesla owner. Since Tesla paid for it. Hope this helps..

If everyone just hangs a placard with his phone number on the connector, everything works out. I always hang my placard when using a public charger.