HPWC to J1772 adaptor

[NigelM]

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.

Thank you, summed up perfectly.

P.S. I'm not unique in acting this way, there's plenty of others (esp Roadster owners) who led the way in privately paying to install chargers.

 

[bonnie]

Thank you, summed up perfectly.

P.S. I'm not unique in acting this way, there's plenty of others (esp Roadster owners) who led the way in privately paying to install chargers.

Yep, a lot of Roadster owners have shelled out $$ to build out the early network of places to charge.

 

[hcsharp]

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.

Ted, I'm not sure you understand the discussion. If you re-read everyone's posts I don't think you'll find a single person who "feels entitled to special dispensation at any Tesla branded EVSE." Not one. That's probably why you don't understand Nigel's position.

I'd also like to suggest that you stop the heavy use of pejoratives and name-calling when referring to people who simply have a different opinion than yours. It doesn't help the discussion. I'm not the first person to ask you for this.

Not to confuse you further, but, like Nigel and bonnie I have also paid to have public chargers installed with J1772 connectors. One of them, an 80A EVSE, I've never asked for or expected any priority when I've showed up to use it. I'm curious how many public chargers you've installed? How many has the manufacturer of your EV installed?

I also paid for a NEMA 14-50 install where I asked for priority use as a condition of donating it. Heaven forbid - a pecking order!!!:scared: Currently there's also a UMC (J1772) that I left there for anyone to borrow. That outlet has helped a lot of drivers. Please consider that it wouldn't have helped anybody if it wasn't there. And it wouldn't be there if I couldn't count on using it as soon as I got there. At the end of the day the whole EV community is better off with what I did, despite the minor restriction I imposed (minor because I rarely use it).

I hope you can see that this last example is not much different than Tesla's destination charging program. It's a large network that's helped promote EV adoption, helped a lot of Tesla and non-Tesla owners alike, and most of it wouldn't exist if Tesla couldn't expect at least some priority for their customers on the HPWCs.

 

[bonnie]

Very well said, Henry. Thank you.

 

[Tedkidd]

Henry, you are attempting to obfuscate as you back away from your stated position, which was HPWC's should have Tesla priority if Tesla provided the charge points.

You want to back away and position yourself to "win" the argument, I'm fine with that. Youve donated to public charging and I haven't, you win. :smile:

I want to kill the thinking of entitlement of one subgroup over another that I view as harmful and divisive to EV acceleration. Coming on top of a discussion doesn't move me. Shining a light on this potential smallmindedness in a way that causes people to not be small minded does.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, if you fund a charge point, clearly you can set the rules and I agree taking priority at your charge point and opening it to public use is very generous, not a sign of selfish entitlement.

I think that Tesla may be funding j1772 with some HPWC as further indication that Tesla's policy is one of inclusiveness:

I've heard that the offer for a single J1772 with a pair of HPWC's happens more often than not for qualifying locations. The only way to find out for a particular location is to apply and see what happens. It does not hurt to ask.

E-mail: [email protected]
Web: Destination Charging Interest Form

 

[bonnie]

Henry, you are attempting to obfuscate as you back away from your stated position, which was HPWC's should have Tesla priority if Tesla provided the charge points.

You want to back away and position yourself to "win" the argument, I'm fine with that. Youve donated to public charging and I haven't, you win. :smile:

I want to kill the thinking of entitlement of one subgroup over another that I view as harmful and divisive to EV acceleration. Coming on top of a discussion doesn't move me. Shining a light on this potential smallmindedness in a way that causes people to not be small minded does.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, if you fund a charge point, clearly you can set the rules and I agree taking priority at your charge point and opening it to public use is very generous, not a sign of selfish entitlement.

I think that Tesla may be funding j1772 with some HPWC as further indication that Tesla's policy is one of inclusiveness:

I think you're reading more into some words here than the original intention. This isn't a 'us vs. them' situation. The only one who has inferred that here is you.

And there's no 'think Tesla has funded some J1772s'. It's been clearly stated by different people (including me) that Tesla HAS funded some J1772s as part of their destination charging program. It's a lot easier for a hotel manager to put in the HPWCs if they also have a J1772 for other customers. It's as simple as that.

Be glad for the free J1772s. Don't read more into it.

 

[Cottonwood]

I think you're reading more into some words here than the original intention. This isn't a 'us vs. them' situation. The only one who has inferred that here is you.

And there's no 'think Tesla has funded some J1772s'. It's been clearly stated by different people (including me) that Tesla HAS funded some J1772s as part of their destination charging program. It's a lot easier for a hotel manager to put in the HPWCs if they also have a J1772 for other customers. It's as simple as that.

Be glad for the free J1772s. Don't read more into it.

I agree completely!

Almost 2 years ago, I started looking into putting High Amp L2 (HAL2) chargers in Salida and Pagosa Springs, CO. This was partly to help me in my regular drive from Pagosa to Boulder and back, but also to help the EV community in general. See 4 Corners EV Charging for a description.

Because I was paying for most of the equipment and install, I looked around for a cost effective solution that was J1772. A general J1772 solu was important for the host sites. At that time, Clipper Creek was having a sale on Roadster HPC's with J1772 connectors, and 70 Amps on a J1772 was the answer that made sense. Since install, both locations have had many Tesla's use them, but the only only other EV users have been the occasional Chevy Volt.

If I were doing this project today, and a Model S to J1772 adapter were available at a reasonable price, that would probably be my choice, especially with the price reduction on the HPWC.

With Tesla footing the bill for their Destination Charging program, they can make whatever deals they want with the host sites, but the fact that Tesla is paying for J1772 EVSE's with the HPWC's seem to solve most issues.

In terms of usefulness and concerns, I really don't think that there are that many HPWC's in the wild that would get regular use by other EV's with an adapter, and the odds of a Tesla being blocked from an HPWC by another EV seem pretty small. I think all the discussion on this thread really may be making a mountain out of a molehill...

More charging choices are good for the entire EV community. CHAdeMO's are good for Teslas, and being able to use HPWC's is good for other EV's. We all win with a little cooperation.

 

[mknox]

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.

Having been involved a little bit around this with an EV club I belong to, I know that isn't always the case. Tesla has donated the HPWC, but not the installation on the one or two situations I'm aware of.

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."

Again, not in my neck of the woods.

 

[hcsharp]

Having been involved a little bit around this with an EV club I belong to, I know that isn't always the case. Tesla has donated the HPWC, but not the installation on the one or two situations I'm aware of.



Again, not in my neck of the woods.

I'm sure you're right. The point remains that the vast majority would not exist if it weren't for the incentives. What they offer likely depends on the nature of the destination, and the policy has probably evolved over time. The Tesla representative that I spoke to said they usually offer up to $1,500 towards installation, and if you get 2 or more HPWCs they usually offer to give you a J1772 to charge other brands.

 

[mknox]

I'm sure you're right. The point remains that the vast majority would not exist if it weren't for the incentives.

Agree. I think the struggle is due mainly to the different connector standards. The EV club I belong to (and some members individually) have donated chargers but always J1772 style to maintain universal compatibility. Our club recently won a lower powered J1772 unit, and members chipped in to upgrade it to a 100 amp (80 amp continuous) model so that Teslas would have the full advantage. Our club's intent with its donations is to ensure universal compatibility. But as I mentioned in this thread or elsewhere, I am starting to see Nissan sponsored CHAdeMO chargers putting up signs to restrict to Leafs only. A Model S owner I know was chased away with his CHAdeMO adapter. It's not out of the realm of possibility that some J1772 stations were put in for lower range EVs and not Teslas, so a Tesla parked there with the owner's adapter would be no better than a Leaf owner at a HPWC with the reverse adapter. I can hardly fault Tesla or anyone else who wants to donate destination charging infrastructure, but just can't get way from the feeling that these different connector standards are going to cause headaches like this as EVs of all stripes become more commonplace.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The core issue under discussion isn't the connector standard, it's the priority of vehicles at different kinds of charging spots. It happens to be the case that the lack of a Model S-to-J1772 adapter means that Model Ss have an absolute priority at HPWCs—no one else can use an HPWC. Likewise, it used to be the case that Leafs had absolute priority at CHAdeMO—again, because no one else (in the U.S.) can use it. The CHAdeMO-to-Model S adaptor has changed the latter situation, making even more salient the core question: do all EVs have equal rights at all charge points?

It's easiest to think about this situation by imagining that there is a single connector standard, so that any car is physically capable of charging at any point (equivalently, that everyone carries a full set of adapters). Stripped to this basic situation, I think it clear that the organization(s) that have a financial stake in the charge point can set whatever rules they like. Tesla has the right to limit Supercharging to Model Ss from which it has received the $2000 fee (or had SC included). A hotel has the right to limit access to customers, and if Tesla donates the HPWC under the condition that it be used only for Tesla vehicles, then that is enforceable.

If one accepts that some customers may be excluded in this way, then it follows directly that there can be different priorities among customers. For example, a Nissan dealership is within its rights to tell a Model S owner that charging is allowed unless the charge point is needed for a Nissan vehicle, a more generous policy than Tesla's.

So with respect to the thread topic, bring on the adapter. Its use, however, should respect the policies of the HWPC owner.

 

[NigelM]

Agree. I think the struggle is due mainly to the different connector standards......
It's not out of the realm of possibility that some J1772 stations were put in for lower range EVs and not Teslas, so a Tesla parked there with the owner's adapter would be no better than a Leaf owner at a HPWC with the reverse adapter. I can hardly fault Tesla or anyone else who wants to donate destination charging infrastructure, but just can't get way from the feeling that these different connector standards are going to cause headaches like this as EVs of all stripes become more commonplace.

The core issue under discussion isn't the connector standard, it's the priority of vehicles at different kinds of charging spots......
So with respect to the thread topic, bring on the adapter. Its use, however, should respect the policies of the HWPC owner.

I agree with Robert that it's not about connector standards; the issue is the same old thorny problem of etiquette when it comes down to who (if anyone) should get priority and whether it's ok to park on an EVSE that someone else really needs. That subject has been beaten to death many times, but the only solution really requires each to do their part.

 

[scaesare]

The core issue under discussion isn't the connector standard, it's the priority of vehicles at different kinds of charging spots.

[Much good stuff snipped for brevity]

So with respect to the thread topic, bring on the adapter. Its use, however, should respect the policies of the HWPC owner.

Well stated. This is primarily an issue of policy. The physical constraints an limitations can and will change as more adapters, etc... become available. Regardless, owners should respect and abide by the policies set by the charging station stakeholders.

 

[hcsharp]

The core issue under discussion isn't the connector standard, it's the priority of vehicles at different kinds of charging spots. It happens to be the case that the lack of a Model S-to-J1772 adapter means that Model Ss have an absolute priority at HPWCs—no one else can use an HPWC. Likewise, it used to be the case that Leafs had absolute priority at CHAdeMO—again, because no one else (in the U.S.) can use it. The CHAdeMO-to-Model S adaptor has changed the latter situation, making even more salient the core question: do all EVs have equal rights at all charge points?

It's easiest to think about this situation by imagining that there is a single connector standard, so that any car is physically capable of charging at any point (equivalently, that everyone carries a full set of adapters). Stripped to this basic situation, I think it clear that the organization(s) that have a financial stake in the charge point can set whatever rules they like. Tesla has the right to limit Supercharging to Model Ss from which it has received the $2000 fee (or had SC included). A hotel has the right to limit access to customers, and if Tesla donates the HPWC under the condition that it be used only for Tesla vehicles, then that is enforceable.

If one accepts that some customers may be excluded in this way, then it follows directly that there can be different priorities among customers. For example, a Nissan dealership is within its rights to tell a Model S owner that charging is allowed unless the charge point is needed for a Nissan vehicle, a more generous policy than Tesla's.

So with respect to the thread topic, bring on the adapter. Its use, however, should respect the policies of the HWPC owner.

All good points. I agree the adapter essentially eliminates the connector type as a factor. I'm hoping Tesla's design will eventually take over as the standard. Tesla may have to make their expectations more clear to the host if they continue paying for destination chargers if this adapter becomes widespread. The hosts might be better served if they post or otherwise make any rules known. Even when there are rules (implied or posted) you can't make any fundamental hard-and-fast statements about EV charging. You have to assess every situation every time before making any decisions even when you have priority, stated or implied.

 

[mknox]

All fair points, but if a Tesla to J1772 adapter becomes available, and now that Teslas can charge (possibly without permission) at Nissan CHAdeMO stations, the only practical solution is to post restrictions at the site. How would I, as an innocent Leaf owner with a theoretical adapter know I shouldn't use a HPWC when I see Model S cars at J1772 stations with their adapters?

 

[hcsharp]

All fair points, but if a Tesla to J1772 adapter becomes available, and now that Teslas can charge (possibly without permission) at Nissan CHAdeMO stations, the only practical solution is to post restrictions at the site. How would I, as an innocent Leaf owner with a theoretical adapter know I shouldn't use a HPWC when I see Model S cars at J1772 stations with their adapters?

How should a Leaf (or other non-Tesla) owner know about HPWC restrictions? That's a good question that nobody had to think about until now because there were no adapters. Nissan knew there were adapters coming and/or other cars so they just posted signs that restrict other users. What would Tesla have done if they had seen the future? The problem with Nissan's policy is that they restrict use even when no Leafs are there. IMHO they should post a sign that says Nissan vehicles have priority, kind of like the shorter ski school line at the chair lift.

BTW, I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Leaf "shouldn't use a HPWC" that's part of the destination program. All some of us are saying is Tesla has said they are for Tesla's customers, we paid for them indirectly, and the other carmakers aren't contributing, so we think we should have some level of priority. If they can't enforce that by posting or other method, unfortunately it promotes what we had before this adapter: different standards so priorities can easily be enforced. Some would say Supercharging is an example of that, and why Nissan has reacted with strong restrictions at some locations. I believe that's why we're better off if rules are enforced when appropriate, to help avoid fragmenting standards and the resulting wasted resources.

I would never show up and demand a non-Tesla unplug right away. You have to assess everybody's needs, and other factors, then discuss it before making decisions. That's why it's important to leave a note on your car with contact info.

 

[mknox]

Ethics / etiquette of charging between Tesla & non-Tesla

All some of us are saying is Tesla has said they are for Tesla's customers, we paid for them indirectly, and the other carmakers aren't contributing, so we think we should have some level of priority.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I just worry about how we make others aware of this, and think the only reasonable way is post a sign at stations with these sorts of restrictions. In other words, if there is no signage, it is open to all on a first-come, first-served basis but if it is equipment (HPWC, J1772, CHAdeMO or whatever) that was paid for or otherwise subsidized by a certain manufacturer, then note that at the site. You can't just assume that people will know this.

 

[hcsharp]

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I just worry about how we make others aware of this, and think the only reasonable way is post a sign at stations with these sorts of restrictions. In other words, if there is no signage, it is open to all on a first-come, first-served basis but if it is equipment (HPWC, J1772, CHAdeMO or whatever) that was paid for or otherwise subsidized by a certain manufacturer, then note that at the site. You can't just assume that people will know this.

I'm coming around to this way of thinking. Although instead of signage you could probably have a policy statement available in the lobby of the hotel or restaurant. That way if people go inside and ask to use it, they'll find out the policy.

I also don't think first-come first-served is necessarily the best policy (absent of other rules), although it's the easiest to enforce. Obviously we would never demand to keep charging somewhere just because we got there first if we had enough charge, and someone else showed up later who was more desperate.

 

[bonnie]

I'm coming around to this way of thinking.

Watch out, mknox! It's a trick. He just wants your beer.

 

[mknox]

II also don't think first-come first-served is necessarily the best policy (absent of other rules), although it's the easiest to enforce.

I was thinking that as I wrote it, but that's probably a discussion for another day. I used to think there should be some sort of pecking order like 1) Low Range BEV, 2) High Range BEV and 3) Plug-in Hybrids but even that has problems. If it were purely based on "need", Plug-in Hybrids, it could be argued, never have the need to use public charging.

- - - Updated - - -

Watch out, mknox! It's a trick. He just wants your beer.