HPWC to J1772 adaptor

[bonnie]

Tomorrow I'm going to show up at your house and plug in when you need a charge, preventing you from doing so yourself, and I'll be confident that you won't mind. Don't worry I'll pay for the electricity I use but you might have to be late for work to wait for the charger to be freed up when I'm done. Just because you paid for that charger certainly doesn't mean you should have any say over who uses it. We all know a "Smart EV entitlement tribe" is not going to benefit anyone. Just sayin'

I'm sorry but I can't help but feel like the one who feels entitled is you. I've said before that we need to support the whole EV movement. But it would be counterproductive to start acting like you're entitled to something Tesla (or Nissan) paid to have their own customers use.

Personally I think Nissan has been very generous with their charging equipment and I have no problem at all when they restrict charging to Leafs only or when dealers give priority to Leafs for chargers they paid for. I certainly would never accuse Nissan owners as being part of a "Nissan entitlement tribe" as a result of this policy.

I agree as long as no Teslas have an urgent need to use them. The HPWCs are fundamentally different from the J1772 chargers. The difference? Tesla paid for them. To enable their customers to charge their cars.

100% agree. (And I've even let Codas charge at my house!)

 

[Tedkidd]

Tomorrow I'm going to show up at your house and plug in when you need a charge, preventing you from doing so yourself, and I'll be confident that you won't mind. Don't worry I'll pay for the electricity I use but you might have to be late for work to wait for the charger to be freed up when I'm done. Just because you paid for that charger certainly doesn't mean you should have any say over who uses it. We all know a "Smart EV entitlement tribe" is not going to benefit anyone. Just sayin'

I'm sorry but I can't help but feel like the one who feels entitled is you. I've said before that we need to support the whole EV movement. But it would be counterproductive to start acting like you're entitled to something Tesla (or Nissan) paid to have their own customers use.

Personally I think Nissan has been very generous with their charging equipment and I have no problem at all when they restrict charging to Leafs only or when dealers give priority to Leafs for chargers they paid for. I certainly would never accuse Nissan owners as being part of a "Nissan entitlement tribe" as a result of this policy.

Wow, I totally misjudged you

100% agree. (And I've even let Codas charge at my house!)

That's a churlish and illogical argument. First of all, you show up at my house and start charging without asking, when I need a charge, you might find a brick through your window and a 32 to your head. If you ask first, you are welcome to take the electricity as a gift.

The position as stated said nothing about OWNERSHIP of the charger, it said Tesla's get priority treatment IN PUBLIC - all others sit at the back of the bus. You think that my friend with the winery will want you showing up telling some guy in a leaf to stop charging so you can charge because the EVSE was made by Tesla?

And I'm somehow entitled because I think that's absurd? He's going to ask you to leave!

"Using this adapter in public" appears to imply charging IN PUBLIC - such as on the destination network, not on someones private residence. Anyway, since good form would dictate ASKING before charging, if there is some "pecking" order set by the owner that's likely to be communicated by them, NOT YOU.

You, or anyone else that wants to pull an Indiana with your private EVSE, of course you are clearly welcome to. That you think you are more entitled than I to use a HPWC because you own a Tesla (not even a model S - so you are using an "adapter in public" too) isn't absurdly entitled (not even a model S - so you are using an "adapter in public" too)?

I doubt very much that Elon is giving those chargers away with conditions that Tesla owners get to kick other EV's off. He wants to encourage ALL EV adoption. He's made it pretty clear he wants other cars to use Tesla standard, and that kind of narrow self-serving thinking won't further his cause.

Should I feel entitled to use an HPWC over someone else because I'm a shareholder? If I get a Tesla and am a shareholder, can I kick others off the charger? Will priority be based on who paid the most for their car? Is that really how you think? Since you guys are setting the rules, do tell us how they should deviate from common courtesy.

That some others seem to mirror that thinking and tone does seem to suggest Tesla owner population don't all represent the generous early adopter-EV ambassador example I see in Knox and some others. Its a little sad.

 

[hcsharp]

...The position as stated said nothing about OWNERSHIP of the charger, it said Tesla's get priority treatment IN PUBLIC - all others sit at the back of the bus. You think that my friend with the winery will want you showing up telling some guy in a leaf to stop charging so you can charge because the EVSE was made by Tesla?

It has nothing to do with who made the EVSE. It has everything to do with who paid for it. How long do you think Tesla is going to give away free chargers to people like your winery friend if Tesla's customers (who indirectly paid for that charger) are unable to use it? Unable to use it because they have to wait for drivers of other brands who paid nothing and did nothing to get that charger installed? It's likely that your winery friend wouldn't have installed anything if Tesla hadn't offered a free EVSE.

To be clear, I don't mind if you use the destination chargers as long as you work it out with any Tesla owners who might have an urgent need to use it before you. If you don't like that, then get the destination owners to buy their own chargers. The vast majority would not exist if Tesla hadn't paid for them.

...That you think you are more entitled than I to use a HPWC because you own a Tesla (not even a model S - so you are using an "adapter in public" too) isn't absurdly entitled (not even a model S - so you are using an "adapter in public" too)?

I only think Teslas should have priority to the HPWCs that Tesla paid for. As for not having a Model S, senior management at Tesla has told Roadster owners that they should feel as welcome as Model S owners to use the destination network with an adapter.

I doubt very much that Elon is giving those chargers away with conditions that Tesla owners get to kick other EV's off. He wants to encourage ALL EV adoption. He's made it pretty clear he wants other cars to use Tesla standard, and that kind of narrow self-serving thinking won't further his cause.

Elon has made it clear that other manufacturers need to step up to the plate and do their fair share when it comes to infrastructure. It doesn't further the cause to have one manufacturer building out a destination network while the other brands and their drivers take advantage of this effort, meanwhile contributing almost nothing. Instead of complaining to Tesla owners, who made the network possible, why aren't you complaining to the maker of your Smart EV?

 

[NigelM]

That's a churlish and illogical argument. First of all, you show up at my house and start charging without asking, when I need a charge, you might find a brick through your window and a 32 to your head.

Churlish and illogical (in your view) should be met with vandalism and violence?

Maybe take a step back and see that your excitement at free use of a network someone else paid for isn't going to go down well on a forum filled with folks who actually paid (indirectly by buying Tesla cars) for that network to be built.

 

[bonnie]

Elon has made it clear that other manufacturers need to step up to the plate and do their fair share when it comes to infrastructure. It doesn't further the cause to have one manufacturer building out a destination network while the other brands and their drivers take advantage of this effort, meanwhile contributing almost nothing. Instead of complaining to Tesla owners, who made the network possible, why aren't you complaining to the maker of your Smart EV?

This.

 

[davewill]

Look, Tesla doesn't own the equipment, the site owner does. If Tesla wants to require such a restriction as a condition their program, they can, but I think they have much more sense than that...and more sense of EV community, too...certainly more than some of the members here. Until something like that happens, it's entirely up to the site owner who he lets charge. He could even swap the plugs out for J1772 plugs if he wanted to. The stations belong to him. Oh, and BTW, the cost (not even the retail price) of the HPWC is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the install cost for most sites. It hardly serves as even a decent incentive, truthfully.

We've all got to pull together. That means welcoming all. I've chewed out people on the LEAF list for saying that PHEVs aren't worthy of public charging because they can get home without a charge, and this kind of thinking is equally wrong. Nissan has put money into a bunch of public charging, and a lot of it doesn't have their name on it, either. They stuck money into Blink. They stuck money into a lot of CHAdeMO chargers that Tesla owners are now getting some use of. BTW they subsidized a lot of the installs, too, not just supplied equipment. Some of the individual dealers are getting sticky about other cars using them, because, hey they're car dealers (duh!), but they are wrong to do so, IMNSHO.

 

[NigelM]

Look, Tesla doesn't own the equipment, the site owner does. If Tesla wants to require such a restriction as a condition their program, they can.....

Perhaps you want to check out the terms and conditions. I'm mobile right now and don't have a direct link for you but the destination program addressed to third parties offers discounted or free HPWCs:

...for our mutual customers use.

You might also want to note that some of the HPWCs were actually provided by owners (not always by Tesla) and in quite a few cases the install costs were paid for by Tesla owners, and in some cases even the power costs are underwritten by Tesla owners.

Like others here I have no problem with folks using an adapter to acess the Tesla HPWCs for free to charge their Leaf/whatever, but I would expect the common courtesy of them hanging around to make sure they're not blocking the EVSE from someone who actually contributed or paid for it directly or indirectly.

Just FTR: I paid to install one HPWC publicly alongside a J1772 plus a NEMA 14-50 outlet and I personally underwrite the power for all three. I also agreed with George Blankenship that he provide the very first public HPWC at the southern most point in Key West before the destination program ever started, the install was paid for by members of the Florida group and, once again, I personally guarantee to underwrite the power costs every year. In other words, I and a bunch of other folks put our money where our mouth is for the good of the community.....Nobody asks anything in return other than to please not abuse the facilities. (BTW, we've also worked with other folk to get an Eaton J1772 and a NEMA14-50 installed in Key West now).

 

[mknox]

The HPWCs are fundamentally different from the J1772 chargers. The difference? Tesla paid for them. To enable their customers to charge their cars.

FWIW, there are a large number of J1772 stations that were donated to willing hosts here in my neck of the woods. Could you also argue that they were put in place for use by cars with a native J1772 input and that Teslas, with their J1772 to Tesla adapters shouldn't be using those ones for similar reasons?

 

[bonnie]

There are always outlier situations. And to Tesla's credit, at most of the destination charging locations, they've also supplied a J1772 for other PEVs. Paid for by Tesla for the owners of cars manufactured by companies other than Tesla. The Blinks cited? I've PAID when I've used a Blink.

So let's be fair here. Tesla owners have enabled the company to build out a network of destination chargers. That money didn't come from other sources. And yes, I'm all for sharing the plugs. But to expect Tesla owners to cheer on the use of an adapter that, by definition, will reduce the availability of chargers they helped pay for? Seriously? When I see people asking the manufacturer of their car to supply similar network, then I'll take it seriously. Then we're all helping each other. But to expect Tesla and/or Tesla owners to supply charging for all cars, while other manufacturers do nothing is seems unreasonable.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Agree with @davewill, @mknox and @TedKidd here. I've seen Teslas squat at public J1772 chargers for hours on end with smaller battery EVs who may be desperate for a charge having no recourse. Site owners and their funding sources have every right to set their own policies for use but, that should be clearly posted.

We don't have "classes"/tiers of gas stations, do we?! A humble beater is as welcome at any gas station as a Ferrari would be. I guess no gas station network or oil company also manufactures gas cars.

Tesla has always encouraged EV adoption in general and they'd surely not want many of us ardent supporters of Tesla and the EV movement overall to take this narrow stand.

 

[bonnie]

gg, I think most people are saying that everyone needs to pitch in. Right now it's mostly Tesla. I'd like to see people demanding the manufacturers of their cars get active in building out the network.

 

[gregincal]

Mostly I'm not too worried at the moment because other EV's don't have a hope in hell of reaching any of the destination chargers I'm interested in. In my opinion the main advantage of the Tesla HPWC program is to get people to install chargers who wouldn't otherwise because only Teslas can reach where they are.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

gg, I think most people are saying that everyone needs to pitch in. Right now it's mostly Tesla. I'd like to see people demanding the manufacturers of their cars get active in building out the network.

Fair enough, Bonnie. I'm sure some non-Tesla EV owners have been fairly vocal with those manufacturers. But, if anything, Nissan-funded charging stations (at dealerships and otherwise) dwarf Tesla's destination charging installs as of today?!

I'm just wary of the ugly fights that are sure to break out at public charging stations when there's an implied pecking order. As mentioned above, I've already seen firsthand pure BEV owners arguing that they have more of a "right" to use charging stations than plugin hybrids/Volts.

It's hard enough to live down the "smug, rich, something something" stereotype that we automatically get tagged with. We don't need this fight too.

 

[mknox]

gg, I think most people are saying that everyone needs to pitch in. Right now it's mostly Tesla. I'd like to see people demanding the manufacturers of their cars get active in building out the network.

Agree, except that here in Canada we are like the poor cousins when it comes to Tesla-supplied charging. We were a Supercharger-free zone until as late as the end of last summer, and the destination program has just a small handful of takers. It is because of this that other companies and even EV clubs have been donating and installing infrastructure. This might explain the disparity of opinion on the matter here.

 

[hcsharp]

FWIW, there are a large number of J1772 stations that were donated to willing hosts here in my neck of the woods. Could you also argue that they were put in place for use by cars with a native J1772 input and that Teslas, with their J1772 to Tesla adapters shouldn't be using those ones for similar reasons?

Obviously the type of connector, or whether or not you're using an adapter has nothing to do with it. The issue is who paid for the equipment and in many cases the installation and what their expectations were of the host.

...Oh, and BTW, the cost (not even the retail price) of the HPWC is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the install cost for most sites. It hardly serves as even a decent incentive, truthfully.

Tesla paid for the installation at many of the sites in addition to the hardware. As for whether the cost is much of an incentive, the vast majority of Tesla destination chargers would not have been installed without the incentive.

While we're on the subject of incentives, if you really want to move public infrastructure forward, don't expect a subset of car makers to pay for charging for drivers of all the other makes. Nissan has already made it clear that would be a good incentive for them to stop installing chargers.

Agree with @davewill, @mknox and @TedKidd here. I've seen Teslas squat at public J1772 chargers for hours on end with smaller battery EVs who may be desperate for a charge having no recourse. ...

Obviously that's rude behavior that should not be condoned. Not sure what relevance it has to Tesla's destination charging network.

Site owners and their funding sources have every right to set their own policies for use but, that should be clearly posted.

Sounds like we might agree on this since Tesla is the funding source and should, therefore, have every right to set their own policies. I think it's implied that priority should be given to their customers since they provided funding for the chargers even if it's not clearly posted (although it would be nice if it was).

Tesla has always encouraged EV adoption in general and they'd surely not want many of us ardent supporters of Tesla and the EV movement overall to take this narrow stand.

Tesla has offered many hosts a J1772 charger for use by other brands in addition to one or more HPWCs. Seems pretty generous to me, and not what I would call a "narrow stand."

 

[NigelM]

I've seen Teslas squat at public J1772 chargers for hours on end with smaller battery EVs who may be desperate for a charge having no recourse.

That's bad manners, regardless.

Site owners and their funding sources have every right to set their own policies for use but, that should be clearly posted.

I agree, but from what I've read it doesn't look as if everyone you listed agrees.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Most other times, the Tesla-only spots tend to be severely underutilized (given typical commute patterns over the week and the long range on the MS) even with atleast 6 MS on campus but, the 14 J1772 stations have something like 50-odd non-Teslas contending for them!

Your employer should add another (big) block of J1772's. If it doesn't want to cover (all of) the cost, perhaps consider an internal funding campaign a la Kickstarter?

 

[Tedkidd]

I paid to install one HPWC publicly alongside a J1772 plus a NEMA 14-50 outlet and I personally underwrite the power for all three.

I also agreed with George Blankenship that he provide the very first public HPWC at the southern most point in Key West before the destination program ever started, the install was paid for by members of the Florida group and, once again, I personally guarantee to underwrite the power costs every year.

In other words, I and a bunch of other folks put our money where our mouth is for the good of the community.....Nobody asks anything in return other than to please not abuse the facilities. (BTW, we've also worked with other folk to get an Eaton J1772 and a NEMA14-50 installed in Key West now).

^^^^^^ THAT'S accelerating EV adoption!!! Nicely done!

Is there a pecking order? Or is it first come first served with the hope everyone will behave democratically and with consideration?

Seems this is sorting into two distinct camps. Those who lean towards "us vs them" smallmindedness and feel entitled to special dispensation at any Tesla branded EVSE, and those that view all EV owners as equal members of one tribe.

I'm very confused where Nigel stands, his words seem to lean towards the former, but his actions are much more generous and magnanimous, progressive to the extreme even.

 

[brianman]

I'm very confused where Nigel stands, his words seem to lean towards the former, but his actions are much more generous and magnanimous, progressive to the extreme even.

One interpretation is...
1. Keep your expectations of others and sense of entitlement in check.
2. Act boldly and generously.

I don't find it confusing at all.

 

[bonnie]

One interpretation is...
1. Keep your expectations of others and sense of entitlement in check.
2. Act boldly and generously.

I don't find it confusing at all.

Exactly.