It works. Used a Tesla wall charger to charge the smart car today.

[scaesare]

But in this case Tesla HAS made clear their wish and intent to support a sustainable future where others follow in their footsteps. I get it that they can't just open up Superchargers for all, but a fringe case of adapters being used on Tesla-paid destination chargers at locations where the big thing, the electricity, is being paid by the location does sound like a great goodwill opportunity for Tesla. Their installations have helped pave way for a sustainable future in general, while still offering PR benefits and advantages to Tesla too (their logo is on those systems and due to needing adapters they will be mostly used by Tesla owners anyway).

They have said moving the world to a sustainable future is their goal. They also get to decide how best to go about it. Elon has clearly indicated that he is wanting other manufacturers to follow their lead, so that's a pretty clear indication of how he'd like to accomplish that goal.

I say the provider of goods or services gets to decide to whom he provides them. This thread is about someone taking that good or service despite it not being offered to him. And you are applauding that behavior, because it's "fringe" usage.

A great litmus test for folks is to ask oneself "If a significant fraction of folks did what I'm doing, what's the impact?"

If I were Tesla, I would simply embrace this. Many of those people who use those adapters will remember Tesla fondly and calculate that into their next purchase, the locations feel the installations are even more versatile than before and appreciate giving room for those chargers a bit more - and the planet is saved that small bit more too.

And there will be those that will sue both Tesla and the site owner the first time a faulty adapter burns the location or car down.

We as Tesla owners take advantage of third-party free charging opportunities all the time. Let's not be spoilsports.

There's a larger goal.

And those 3rd parties who offer it put stipulations on usage all the time (while patronizing the establishment, etc...). What's more those typically aren't paid for by the EV manufacturer. So now believing Tesla has the right to do the same with their adapter design is being a "spoilsport"??

The sense of entitlement baffles me at times.

 

[scaesare]

Somebody had to point out the Tesla mission that makes them allow others to use their patents. Having an adapter that allows others to use HPWC is part of that story.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Are you equating Tesla taking action regarding the patent situation as tacitly approving 3rd party adapters to take advantage of their destination program?

 

[jbcarioca]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Are you equating Tesla taking action regarding the patent situation as tacitly approving 3rd party adapters to take advantage of their destination program?

Yes.

 

[scaesare]

I think Tesla officially, plus both JB and Elon have been advocates of anything that increases BEV adoption.

If this is true, why would they require:

... other manufacturers signed up for Superchargers...

They should be advocates of other folks reverse engineering their supercharger design in order to charge their Leafs, Smart Cars, Bolts, etc... right?

 

[scaesare]

Yes. A Nissan Leaf and a smart ED.

So what do you do for trips/destinations for which there's inadequate charging available?

 

[scaesare]

Oh the service was intended for me as explained by the business owner. They didn’t realize that all EV’s couldn’t use it or they would have probably put a standard EVSE in instead of a Tesla destination charger. And in two cases they are trying to find a way to add a non Tesla EVSE. In one instance if she can’t make it work she is going to remove the Tesla EVSE and replace it with a standard EVSE.

It may have been the site-owner's intent. But there are two parties providing that offering, with Tesla being the other one. While I applaud the site owner for being forward thinking enough to install EV charge station, they clearly didn't understand some things.

If she decides to remove the HPWC, then certainly her prerogative, but that illustrates the point: Destination site owners voluntarily sign up for the program which saves them money and increases patronage at Tesla's expense. They can certainly opt to NOT participate I'm the program... in which case they bear the cost burden of paying for the charge station an install.

The last bed & breakfast I went to had one of each.

Don’t turn this into something it isn’t.

I'm not attempting to vilify you personally. But also don't pretend that if a significant fraction of EV folks going forward opted to do what you do it doesn't have an impact.

If 90% of the time I went to a destination location participating in Tesla's destination charging program only to find other makes of cars tying up the resource, it would affect my patronage decisions. That will affect the destination location. That in turn will affect Tesla's participation in the program.

 

[scaesare]

Yes.

So as far as you are concerned, Tesla explicitly offering to freely license patents to those to "agree to use them in good faith" means they also approve of third parties using non-licensed hardware and making no good-faith agreements to take advantage of their charging offerings despite no such explicit statement from Tesla whatsoever?

I wish there was a "vehemently disagree" button.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

So what do you do for trips/destinations for which there's inadequate charging available?

Well, we are in that group of EVers who rarely travel more than a couple hundred kilometers from home. When we do our area has fairly good DCFC coverage so we are okay. Straight up we could deal with it that way as well, its just a lot more fun hanging out at a winery than a DCFC station. And in these cases the business owners are in tune with that.

And from your other post, yes I understand it could get out of hand and impact Tesla users. But I'm guessing that it probably wont happen. As well, my guess is Elon anticipated this happening and could have prevented it with software if he really wanted to. The reality is hooking up to a Tesla only makes me want a Tesla more. I just can't afford one yet. He is probably counting on that as well. Good marketing approach.

 

[scaesare]

Well, we are in that group of EVers who rarely travel more than a couple hundred kilometers from home. When we do our area has fairly good DCFC coverage so we are okay. Straight up we could deal with it that way as well, its just a lot more fun hanging out at a winery than a DCFC station. And in these cases the business owners are in tune with that.

And from your other post, yes I understand it could get out of hand and impact Tesla users. But I'm guessing that it probably wont happen.

So as long as it's more convenient for me, and everybody doesn't do what I do, it's OK.

As well, my guess is Elon anticipated this happening and could have prevented it with software if he really wanted to.
The reality is hooking up to a Tesla only makes me want a Tesla more. I just can't afford one yet. He is probably counting on that as well. Good marketing approach.

Clearly Tesla has NOT marketed them this way, your rationalization notwithstanding.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

So as long as it's more convenient for me, and everybody doesn't do what I do, it's OK.



Clearly Tesla has NOT marketed them this way, your rationalization notwithstanding.

How about, as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone and it serves the purpose the business owner intended. I think you are probably more ticked with the business owner for not doing enough research about EV's. You are obviously passionate about the company and that is good but I don't see us agreeing on this topic or finding common ground.

Cheers and safe travels.

 

[jbcarioca]

So as far as you are concerned, Tesla explicitly offering to freely license patents to those to "agree to use them in good faith" means they also approve of third parties using non-licensed hardware and making no good-faith agreements to take advantage of their charging offerings despite no such explicit statement from Tesla whatsoever?

I wish there was a "vehemently disagree" button.

I understand your views, but...
Tesla makes and sells a CHAdeMO adapter. That is the precise analogy. Other entities, including Nissan in many markets, have subsidized those installations. Many are actually in Nissan dealers. Even Nissan dealers ahem allowed me to charge for free (of course I actually helped sell two Leaf's in one hour when I was charging one time-another story).
This Destination Charger story is analogous. Site sponsors pay.

 

[MP3Mike]

Even Nissan dealers ahem allowed me to charge for free

Not all Nissan dealers allow other vehicles to charge. Some do, some don't. It is up to the individual dealer.

 

[scaesare]

How about, as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone and it serves the purpose the business owner intended. I think you are probably more ticked with the business owner for not doing enough research about EV's. You are obviously passionate about the company and that is good but I don't see us agreeing on this topic or finding common ground.

Cheers and safe travels.

I don't understand a beef with the business owner justifying being entitled to something not intended for you by another party.

 

[scaesare]

I understand your views, but...
Tesla makes and sells a CHAdeMO adapter. That is the precise analogy. Other entities, including Nissan in many markets, have subsidized those installations. Many are actually in Nissan dealers. Even Nissan dealers ahem allowed me to charge for free (of course I actually helped sell two Leaf's in one hour when I was charging one time-another story).
This Destination Charger story is analogous. Site sponsors pay.

You know what they say about analogies ...

CHAdeMO is an open standard explicitly intended for all general EV usage. Tesla's connector is not.

A Nissan dealership is a representative of Nissan corp. A destination owner is not a representative of Tesla corp.

Nissan's subsidizing an installation and exercising their right to allow other EV charging does not invalidate Tesla's right to decide what it allows of it's subsidized provisions.


Not precisely the same thing at all.

 

[scaesare]

Not all Nissan dealers allow other vehicles to charge. Some do, some don't. It is up to the individual dealer.

And in some cases other EV owners have been told it was corporate direction to deny. Which really reinforces the point that Tesla has the right to decide to whom it offers a provision, it's not the right of other's to see if they can game the system.

In other news, I have fabricated an adapter that allows me to fill my irrigation tank from a fire hydrant. I only do it when it's particularly convenient to me. There shouldn't be a problem with inadequate system pressure during a fire emergency unless everybody does the same thing I do. Besides, I've seen the fire dept crack a hydrant for the kids to play in during the summer, so clearly they want people to take the water.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

In your opinion.

Of course, what else do any of us have to offer?

It's also rather more likely, given their statements regarding the intent of the program, actions in Europe, etc.. that they are interested in doing so by paving the way for other to follow. Not necessarily pay everybody's way for them.

Yes, I agree it is possible that Tesla is all talk and no action about the wider BEV future. It is possible the patent exercise was only a PR game and nothing more. I am well aware of Tesla's tendency to say one thing and then do another. However, in the instance of U.S. Destination Charging, I am still an optimist - I think embracing this would be smart, feasible and within their mission statement.

Whenever Tesla has wanted to altruistically offer goods/services for free, they have clearly done so (see Florida and Puerto Rico disasters).

So far I have seen no evidence of Tesla providing anything free there. As far as I can tell they merely prioritized their business towards deliveries there?

 

[kevinof]

Here in Europe there are lots of places with Chaedemo BUT the difference is that you pay to use them. You sign up online, add your cc, get your card or fob and off you go. But it costs you.

Tesla can recoup some of the costs of running it's charging network through its vehicle sales, but if non-tesla cars start charging there for free then ultimately the cost could be borne by us (Tesla owners) if Telsa find the costs too much to bear.

I understand your views, but...
Tesla makes and sells a CHAdeMO adapter. That is the precise analogy. Other entities, including Nissan in many markets, have subsidized those installations. Many are actually in Nissan dealers. Even Nissan dealers ahem allowed me to charge for free (of course I actually helped sell two Leaf's in one hour when I was charging one time-another story).
This Destination Charger story is analogous. Site sponsors pay.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And those 3rd parties who offer it put stipulations on usage all the time (while patronizing the establishment, etc...). What's more those typically aren't paid for by the EV manufacturer. So now believing Tesla has the right to do the same with their adapter design is being a "spoilsport"??

Sure, third parties can certainly put stipulations on when and how services are used - however we as Tesla's owners (not even those who are stockholders, public companies don't work that way) are not a party to that. We'd IMO be spoilsports if we were advocating limiting Destination Charging to Tesla's only. We benefit from the goodwill of many in these pioneering days of BEV ownership, we can share this one IMO.

The sense of entitlement baffles me at times.

The only BEV's I've owned are Tesla's. What is my entitlement issue here? I am allowed to have views on where I think the company that manufactures my car should be headed. I think allowing this is/would be simply good BEV citizenship from both Tesla and us. I would be glad to share Tesla Destionation Chargers with other BEVs as a user. The early pioneers looking after each other a bit, not guarding territory jealously.

I think mine is more empathy than entitlement.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla can recoup some of the costs of running it's charging network through its vehicle sales, but if non-tesla cars start charging there for free then ultimately the cost could be borne by us (Tesla owners) if Telsa find the costs too much to bear.

We are talking Destination Charging here, Tesla does not pay for the electricity. It is more a sponsorship program than a charging network they are maintaining, so it is a very different scenario than, say, Superchargers which I agree are a completely different question. (I am not expecting Tesla to open those up at least not as a no-cost service.)

Look, the thing is, in these early days there are a lot of players that are pitching in to the early BEV infrastructure without corresponding return for that investment. Many members here do that through plug sharing, many facitilities offer their charging for free at least for some early period etc. Even though some benefit from patronage, not all even get or expect that. Some just want to be a part of this. The Tesla owner charging at a Nissan dealership probably won't buy a Nissan, ever, realistically. In Sweden there is a private Supercharger that is still open to all Tesla owners and the electricity is paid for by an office company that doesn't benefit from patronage at all.

Some will set more limits than others. Some will give more and some will take more, as is always the situation with these things. I think in this particular instance, Tesla would be smart to keep on giving - IMO Tesla is currently and would be smart to continue allow adapter charging by other makes. Or put it this way: not try to stop it. They don't have to advertise or officially support it IMO, they could just not take any action and, if they so wish, could take some PR goodwill benefit by casually mentioning they're not against it but can't support it or something like that...

Of course they will do whatever they will do (maybe they will take action against it), but my opinion is they would be smart to give out that goodwill. Their exposure is limited (after all, they are not paying for the electricity) and every one of those Tesla chargers would be an advertisement for other BEVs charging there for the next time they are buying a car.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The way I basically see this is that whatever happens with Superchargers and the fast charging portion, Tesla is probably smart to consider the Destination Charging program more of an incentivizing infrastructure program than a continued competitive advantage. Peppering the world with charging points that then encourages locations to think about it more and more in the future themselves, not really a network they'd "maintain" per se.

I think that goal fits both the nature of the program as well as Tesla's mission statement better. So while I agree Tesla certainly has the right to impose other rules for their freely provided gear (and location owners can opt in or out based on it), I think being more open-minded about this particular area of activity would be smart and I am hopeful Tesla remains so. I also hope that eventually the charging connectors will be standardized and this will morph more into a PR exercise than a proprietary network.

I agree Apple has done well with a unique connector, but I do not consider it in the interests of BEV adoption and infrastructure that proprietary networks remain the name of the game beyond some initial period. Frankly, it would be better for mobile devices too that we didn't need so many connectors... Imagine if everyone used a proprietary one... Tesla's approach in China is already a positive step in that direction and I would expect Tesla to adopt CCS in Europe also eventually.

It is one thing to use a proprietary connector and network to drive early adoption and an early competitive advantage, than to seek to maintain a proprietary position on what is basically a utility. I remain hopeful that Tesla is not aiming to do "Apple" here, but is actually just using this to get things started and will eventually morph more into a standardized player, who then makes their business on selling cars, solar infrastructure etc. in that glorious future...

This is my wish for Tesla. This is what I'd consider smart of them. I am perfectly aware it is within their rights to choose otherwise.