[evescu]

Back when Tesla started the development of their Supercharger network, they have invited other vehicle manufacturers to use their seemingly superior technology for electric car charging. Tesla, with some credit due, opened up their patents in the hope that other car manufacturers will use Tesla's technology. No other vehicle manufacturer, however, decided to proceed with that technology, instead most invested in the less innovative, at the time, CCS technology. At that point, Tesla was heralded as doing all it can to further its mission, that of accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, partially through increasing the adoption of electric cars.

Recently, with the release of the Model 3, Tesla has joined almost all other manufacturers in using the CCS connector; whether this means that Tesla's technology was not superior is a pointless discussion. This means that now Tesla had to fit a large number of their charging stalls with CCS connectors. However, in what I perceive to be in disagreement with their stated mission, Tesla does not allow any other vehicle brand to use their CCS connectors.

Back in January 2020, ionity was pretty unfairly and harshly criticised for increasing their pricing for non-contract (i.e. nothing from Audi, BMW, VW, Ford) vehicle charging. However, ionity did not ban Renault-Nissan, Tesla or other electric vehicles from using their charging stations, albeit ionity is requesting a substantial amount of money per kWh in such cases. Yet I find it extremely disappointing that no one is bashing Tesla for not opening its Supercharger network to other brands, now that they are also promoting the CCS connector, even if it's at a higher price point. If I am stranded in my non-Tesla EV and the only option I have is a Tesla CCS connector, I would be happy to pay a premium for the safety net.

To those arguing that no other car can charge as fast as Tesla vehicles hence SC should be only for the elite, I want to remind them that those days are kind of coming to an end. In addition, Tesla strongly instructs their Model 3 owners to avoid supercharging unless necessary which has led, at least in the area the I live in, to a massive misuse of the charging infrastructure, mainly by Tesla Model 3 owners. This has had me recently change my opinion on Tesla's intent and practices, but that's a personal issue.

I would argue that if Tesla's mission is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport, it is against their publicly stated mission to not allow vehicles from other manufacturers use their CCS connectors. How do the Tesla and the non-Tesla communities see this situation?

 

[Todor]

Tesla is in the business of making money. And the SC network is their only USP... they are never going to share it.

 

[cah197]

The Model 3 sells the most, even in Europe. Which is why you see more of them using chargers. If Leaf's sold more then you'd see more of them.

I understand the offer for others manufacturers to access the Supercharger network has always been open, however it hasn't been taken up for number of likely reasons:

• Manufacturers would need to comply with the Supercharger protocol (more cost and risk)
• Manufacturers would have to put their charge ports in the same place (for instance the cable wouldn't work on an eTron).
• The access fee Tesla was charging for use of the network and the billing system.

I guess OEMs felt that sending their customers to a rival manufacturers 'showroom' is a bad idea.

They also fell back on the Ionity network, which puts the infrastructure cost back on the consumer, whereas Tesla carry it as an overhead. Hence the cheaper charging costs at Superchargers.

In any case, it appears to be a big selling point for Tesla and a detractor for the legacy OEMs. Look at what's happened with the French Corri-door network recently - this has really put me off buying a non-Tesla for long road trips.

 

[cah197]

Tesla is in the business of making money. And the SC network is their only USP... they are never going to share it.

Which is not actually their mentality. They are willing to share it, but not give it away for free.

 

[Todor]

Which is not actually their mentality. They are willing to share it, but not give it away for free.

Willing to share it and putting requirements/fees in place? How does that work? It is the best example of duplicity if I have ever seen one.

 

[cah197]

Willing to share it and putting requirements/fees in place? How does that work? It is the best example of duplicity if I have ever seen one.

So you think they should offer access to other marques for free?

Even Ionity have access requirements, so I don't see your point.

 

[Todor]

So you think they should offer access to other marques for free?

Even Ionity have access requirements, so I don't see your point.

Ok, I'll bite: can you provide me with the Ionity access requirements?

 

[evescu]

1 kWh on SC in Germany is 34 eurocents + VAT; that is not cheap by any means!

I could understand that OEMs didn't want to join the bandwagon for Tesla's proprietary technology, but CCS is an industry standard, I don't see that being a Tesla technology. Unless Tesla is using the CCS connector only, but then everything is non-standard... that would be difficult to manage even for them.

I'm mostly talking about access to the network; Tesla can charge 2 eur/kWh for non-Tesla owners, sure, it will be my choice if I'm stranded. Just like i'm having it now with ionity, I'm paying extra because I don't own a Porsche; and that's fine.

 

[cah197]

Ok, I'll bite: can you provide me with the Ionity access requirements?

No, they are commercial in confidence.

 

[cah197]

I'm mostly talking about access to the network; Tesla can charge 2 eur/kWh for non-Tesla owners, sure, it will be my choice if I'm stranded. Just like i'm having it now with ionity, I'm paying extra because I don't own a Porsche; but that's fine.

The main issue is Tesla have simplified the billing system through their back end. This is all managed between the car's software and Tesla's servers. There's not card or RFID payment system involved.

This is the main bit that the OEMs would have to comply with. Everything else should be fairly simple (apart from port location of course).

 

[Todor]

No, they are commercial in confidence.

???????? What?
You can't because there are no access requirements, as long as an EV can pay the cost of charging, they can stop at an Ionity charger, plug in and charge. There are no exceptions to that, even a tesla can charge at Ionity.

 

[cah197]

???????? What?
You can't because there are no access requirements, as long as an EV can pay the cost of charging, they can stop at an Ionity charger, plug in and charge. There are no exceptions to that, even a tesla can charge at Ionity.

I was talking about OEM arrangements. Ionity have a walk-up rate that is stupidly prohibitive.

 

[Todor]

I was talking about OEM arrangements. Ionity have a walk-up rate that is stupidly prohibitive.

And you don't obviously distinguish between the investment in a startup/business (that grants the user a special/discounted access) and "right to access".

With Tesla people are arguing about "right to access", as in "I have an EV so I have the right to access any charger available".

 

[cah197]

And you don't obviously distinguish between the investment in a startup/business (that grants the user a special/discounted access) and "right to access".

With Tesla people are arguing about "right to access", as in "I have an EV so I have the right to access any charger available".

I’ve never heard that from a Tesla owner.

How ever I do have a right to access an Ionity charger because:

1. They allow me to in exchange for money
2. There’s a little EU sticker on it saying that it was paid for out of EU Money.

So we all paid for IONITY chargers, but only some of us paid for Tesla Superchargers.

 

[Todor]

I’ve never heard that from a Tesla owner.

How ever I do have a right to access an Ionity charger because:

1. They allow me to in exchange for money
2. There’s a little EU sticker on it saying that it was paid for out of EU Money.

So we all paid for IONITY chargers, but only some of us paid for Tesla Superchargers.

So much is wrong with your statements... IONITY is a private company, the same as Tesla. It is owned by a range of OEM manufacturers. They have been supported by EU funding, which is available to all EU companies. That is not even close to the total investment that has gone into the company. According to this article here:

Ionity will invest a total of 195.5 million euros in the project, which runs until the end of 2021, of which the EU will provide up to 39.1 million euros through its “Connecting Europe Facility for Transport” (CEF-T) program.

So, let's then assume that IONITY are our "gold standard". Why then I can't drive up to a SC and pay some money (or as you call it exchange) and charge with any EV?

And sorry to be blunt, but with your last statement you have just made the point for me and @evescu. You don't care about EVs and other EV drivers. Exactly the same way Tesla doesn't.

 

[cah197]

Why then I can't drive up to a SC and pay some money (or as you call it exchange) and charge with any EV?

I already explained why previously. It requires the OEMs to comply with Tesla's standards and APIs as a minimum.

 

[cah197]

And sorry to be blunt, but with your last statement you have just made the point for me and @evescu. You don't care about EVs and other EV drivers. Exactly the same way Tesla doesn't.

Eh? You know I own a Zoe?

Why does my explaining Tesla's rationale mean I don't care?

 

[evescu]

One thing I want to mention, Tesla is a business without public funding and they can do whatever they want, of course (although I have concerns as to how they’ve received the parking places at motorway stations in Germany, as they are generally for public and not private use).

My beef is that they’re saying they’re promoting sustainable energy and they’re glad to partner with other manufacturers, but only if everyone follows Tesla, which frankly doesn’t make for good conversation. What if Renault doesn’t want to go into micro-transactions or to give customer data to another entity (see European privacy laws)? Renault cannot ensure my data is treated in accordance to the law, I’d need a contract for that with Tesla anyways, I wouldn’t allow Renault to give my bank details to any other entityz

I’m sure Tesla could, if they had intent, have an intern to program part of their app in a week to allow mortals to put in their bank account details and charge port number for the charging session. Some of us would probably be happy to take part in financing their infrastructure, why do manufacturers have to be involved? Seems pretty obtuse to me. You have a Tesla, you charge cheaper and without the app and have the full Tesla experience. But not all of us can afford a 50+k car nor want such massive vehicles, though we want to support EV adoption and we might be happy to pay for the network expansion.

Hence I believe it would be within Tesla’s mission to allow other vehicle brands to charge at their stations, with some limitations sure (price, speed, time).

 

[cah197]

Hence I believe it would be within Tesla’s mission to allow other vehicle brands to charge at their stations, with some limitations sure (price, speed, time).

Sure, but can you see Renault being competent enough to write an application that worked seamlessly with Tesla’s API for Supercharging?

All of this is fine in theory, but the problem is the legacy OEMs have firmly stated that charging infrastructure is not their problem.

In any case the substantial Tesla destination charging network is open to all comers, and I use it regularly with the Zoe. So you can’t say Tesla isn’t doing their bit.

 

[Mbugsy18]

@cah197 I have BMW i3 94aH do I need an adaptor to use the Tesla destination chargers Or will the type 2 cable work?