[HN Gopher] Ford EVs gain access to Tesla Superchargers starting...
___________________________________________________________________
Ford EVs gain access to Tesla Superchargers starting today
Author : nickthegreek
Score : 145 points
Date : 2024-02-29 17:36 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| blcknight wrote:
| Dongles are great but supercharger cables are relatively short,
| we're going to see Fords blocking multiple chargers in various
| ways so they can connect. There's usually only one pull-in spot.
| jmacd wrote:
| The F-150 Lightning has a charging port on the front driver's
| side.
|
| Tesla Superchargers are meant to be backed in to with a read
| driver's side charging port.
|
| A F-150 will need to drive in to the spot adjacent to the
| charger they want to use and bring the charging cable across,
| effectivly using 2 stalls to charge, as far as I can tell.
| jhickok wrote:
| So basically the same experience we all have with them in
| grocery store parking lots.
| cyberax wrote:
| EV charger cables need to conduct hundreds of amps of
| current. You can't easily make them much longer without
| losing efficiency.
| ajross wrote:
| > effectivly using 2 stalls to charge
|
| Only for stations that aren't at the end of a row or lack a
| parking spot adjacent. And only if the "blocked" spot can't
| be used by another "mirror image" car design.
|
| I mean, gas stations have been dealing with this problem for
| decades (different car designs need to pull through along
| different sides, so sometimes my Mazda "blocks" the two pumps
| because other cars can't pull in until I move) and we've all
| survived.
|
| And in any case, unless you're trying to charge on major
| corridors on high traffic weekends, it's academic anyway.
| Over 30k miles and almost three years, I can count on one
| hand the number of times my Model Y has had to wait for a
| charger spot.
|
| People are making way to big a deal out of a minor issue,
| basically. Standard Tesla discussion form.
| jmacd wrote:
| There is 1 stall on a single set of superchargers which can
| be charged by a F-150 without blocking 2 stalls, that is if
| there is an adjacent spot on the right side/end of the
| chargers, which is not always the case.
|
| This is a post about Ford's getting access to
| Superchargers, so I don't think it's making a "big deal"
| about anything to simply describe the configuration of the
| trucks and how that impacts their ability to use the
| superchargers. It just is what it is.
| ajross wrote:
| > There is 1 stall on a single set of superchargers which
| can be charged by a F-150 without blocking 2 stalls
|
| Verifiably false. Put a F-150 in every stall, and only
| one on the very end is blocked, and only if there isn't
| an open parking space next to it. If F-150's make up a
| significant fraction of the charging population, then
| you're looking at half the impact (25%) at most, not even
| including the spots on the ends that don't have a spot to
| block (most rows are 4-8 spots wide, so that's another
| 12-25% recovered). And of course if F-150's _don 't_ make
| up a significant fraction of the charging population,
| then you're not looking at a significant impact by
| definition.
|
| I repeat, in exhaustion: This Is Not A Big Deal. Please
| stop making everything a big deal Because Tesla. It's
| exhausting.
| bombcar wrote:
| Sir, sir!
|
| Logic and reason have no place in a discussion that still
| needs to find reasons to hate the F150. ;)
| jsight wrote:
| > People are making way to big a deal out of a minor issue,
| basically. Standard Tesla discussion form.
|
| Yeah, I've seen way too much stress about this issue. I'm
| sure there will be a few stations that have issues for
| short periods of time, but the overall picture just doesn't
| change that much.
|
| And the solution is the same anyway. Just keep building.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > I mean, gas stations have been dealing with this problem
| for decades
|
| Given the much longer time it takes to charge an EV it's
| not comparable.
|
| It becomes a serious issue based on demand, obviously,
| where a dearth of chargers becomes even worse. It'll be
| sorted out over time but meanwhile there's more pain for EV
| users even as the number of compatible chargers increases,
| lessening the positive impact.
| Torkel wrote:
| In Sweden this is a pain at super charger locations that
| allow non-Tesla vehicle charging. The almost randomized
| charge port locations makes lots of non-Tesla vehicles park
| in the wrong place and take up two spots.
|
| Not really sure what can be done about it except just hoping
| for more charge infrastructure to be built fast... If Tesla
| would go back to only offering charging for Tesla vehicles
| that would be nice when driving Tesla but a step back for the
| overall electrification so I'm actually ok with some minor
| annoyance on this.
| blcknight wrote:
| They could make the cables longer but there's definitely a
| cost aspect given they're liquid cooled.
| datameta wrote:
| I think it's a maintenance decision. Probably less wear
| and tear on the internal layers in a shorter cable that
| can't be spaghettified as easily. Could be off here.
| Torkel wrote:
| Hey! I just learned they are actually doing exactly that
| for V4 - Yay!
|
| https://electrek.co/2023/07/26/tesla-confirms-
| supercharger-v...
| p1mrx wrote:
| They just need to fix this cable-snagging lip design:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mox4tL3dR8o&t=1403s
| brummm wrote:
| I mean, this was essentially solved for gas stations with
| long, flexible cables. That is the obvious solution here.
| asabla wrote:
| Usually it's not that bad. But those times when a 12 slot
| charging spot is almost filled by 4 or 5 vehicles is so
| frustrating.
| avalys wrote:
| But two F150s can still park next to each other and use two
| chargers, yes? The only wasted spot is at the interface
| between a Tesla and non-Tesla.
| adolph wrote:
| Do you wind up wasting the next one in the row, so only
| wasting half as many slots?
|
| Reminds me of the 1/3 coin revolution problem: _Circle A
| has 1 /3 the radius of circle B. Circle A rolls around
| circle B until it returns to its starting position. How
| many revolutions of circle A are there in total?_
|
| https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2015/07/05/everyone-
| got-t...
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe, but if you are towing a trailer most charging
| locations are setup such that you have to block several
| different chargers in some way.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Probably. It'll get worse as different manufacturers gain
| access. This change is about ubiquity, and Tesla knows it may
| make things less convenient for current Tesla owners.
| jsight wrote:
| This is why it is so important for stations to support sharing
| power between stalls via shared cabinets. Lowering the cost per
| stall makes it much easier to install additional posts to limit
| the impact of that problem.
|
| IIRC, Tesla is currently installing ~2,400 stalls per year in
| the US. It could be higher now as the rate tends to trend up
| over time.
|
| Of course, lots of third parties are ramping up now too (Pilot,
| Flying J, Circle-K, and the non-EA/Wal-Mart branded sites).
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Wouldn't it make more sense for manufacturers to ... put the
| charge port in the same spot?
| blcknight wrote:
| Front center (like the LEAF) or passenger side makes most
| sense to me (for street parking), but it's just a free-for-
| all right now.
| vel0city wrote:
| Putting it in the front means its more likely to take
| damage. No thanks.
|
| Putting it on the passenger side means I need to walk
| around the car nearly every time even though I pretty
| much never street park the car. No thanks.
| jsight wrote:
| Yes, and I believe Tesla proposed that >5 years ago. The
| industry chose to make it a free for all instead.
| sib wrote:
| I mean, after 120+ years that's still not the case for gas
| filler ports, so I don't hold out hope...
| bombcar wrote:
| Gas filler ports is actually an advantage being a free-
| for-all, because it means that roughly half are on one
| side, and half the other, which fits pumps quite nicely.
|
| The problem is when 80% or more are on one side (like
| Teslas are all on the same side now) and the rest are
| not.
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not. I expect to see trailers come with range
| extender batteries (very useful for RVs where those
| batteries can also provide power for whatever you do when
| there) this means ports on the back, but those will not be
| accessible when towing so you want one in front too...
|
| The important thing to take away from this is we are still
| figuring out details and so should not lockin yet.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Or make the cables a bit longer, like all the other
| chargers do.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Tesla already does this.
| jsight wrote:
| I know, and it has been a significant advantage for them.
| Others have been using a similar approach recently too (EA
| "balanced" chargers, Kempower, newer Chargepoint setups,
| and quite a few others).
| MBCook wrote:
| Or you could just make the cable a little longer, like they
| did with the V4s.
| dheera wrote:
| Just build more chargers. When chargers are as ubiquitous as
| gas stations this won't be an issue.
| bluGill wrote:
| They won't be though. Most charging will be at home. Your
| neighborhood gas station's days are numbered. There may be
| more chargers on rural highways (charging spends more time at
| the "pump"), but overall there will be less charging and so
| chargers will never be as ubiquitous.
| pa7ch wrote:
| Neighborhoods with higher density housing won't be able to
| charge at home so likely EV stations will be easier than
| widespread curbside charging in cities.
| dheera wrote:
| Yeah this. I live in Silicon Valley, can't afford a house
| here (almost nobody can), but have an EV and rely on
| public charging infrastructure. Most people, and even
| most EV owners, don't and will never own a single family
| home here.
|
| It works totally fine, my office has slow charging, the
| public library a short walk from my apartment has slow
| charging, and many supermarkets have superchargers or
| other DC fast charging so I almost never waste time
| dealing with charging.
| ChadMoran wrote:
| v4 dispensers have longer cables and are centrally mounted
| allowing vehicles to only use one stall regardless of port
| location.
| usrusr wrote:
| How wasteful would it be to build a car with charging ports on
| both sides?
|
| Would use far more resources than most other conveniences you
| find in a car, but would also be a far more substantial quality
| of life improvement than the other stuff.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I think more likely if Tesla charging is becoming the
| standard, just build all cars to have a charge port in the
| same place. I've never understood the need to be creative
| with where you put a plug/gas nozzle. If that's your
| differentiation you've got worse problems.
| simmonmt wrote:
| I doubt they're being creative. Far more likely they're
| locating the charging port based on the needs of the
| vehicle's internal layout. Or to be consistent with the
| manufacturer's standard, which was likely set by the needs
| of their first EV's internal layout.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Audi do.
| jmacd wrote:
| This is for access to compatible 250kW Supercharges. There are a
| lot of them, but it is a subset of the total Supercharger
| network. [1]
|
| If you check the Find Us map and select "Superchargers Open to
| NACS" then you will see which ones are compatible and their
| associated 'Charging Fees for NACS EVs' rates.
|
| 1:
| https://www.tesla.com/findus?v=2&bounds=53.02665397538087%2C...
| jsight wrote:
| Yeah, it is a subset of the v3/v4 chargers. It isn't clear how
| they selected them either. Some very busy sites have been
| added, but other v3 sites that aren't as busy were left off.
|
| Some have speculated that it relates to the stall layout, but
| if that is the case the differences must be really subtle.
| tw04 wrote:
| Has anyone physically inspected the sites. I wonder if
| they've started installing longer cables at the sites on the
| list
| jsight wrote:
| Cable lengths seem to be the same. They did have to upgrade
| control boards, though, supposedly at each stall.
|
| The few v4 sites that are available do have longer cables.
| ChadMoran wrote:
| They require a board upgrade at -each- dispenser. Likely they
| are still upgrading many of them.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Let's hope. Though vertical integration always invites
| suspicion.
| gonesilent wrote:
| If you see the two little white stickers on each charger it
| has been updated. These are unique IDs for each charger.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| The earliest sites were likely not engineered with those
| capacity transformers to feed the chargers.
|
| Its going to be a dance with the power engineers to evaluate
| the oldest sites to balance out what it may cost to upgrade
| the transformers feeding the site, and if the cables from the
| transformers to the chargers are adequate or not.
| Distribution devices from the transformer will need to be
| evaluated as well.
|
| Simplest would be perhaps adding a 250kw charger here and
| there to the site, dependant on transformer capacity. This
| would also be the most confusing for users.
|
| Interestingly in LAS, the tesla charging station behind
| Flamingo (near the monorail) has "destination (basically 240v
| home chargers)" chargers intermixed for adding overall
| vehicle capacity.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Tesla still has a bunch of 120kw chargers around that
| throttle when 2 cars charge next to one another.
|
| All of the 250kW chargers support full speed at all stalls.
| That was one of the major changes with v2+ of the
| supercharger.
|
| IDK what would be confusing, they have the ability to
| throttle when over capacity already implemented and every
| car will ultimately have a charge curve that prevents them
| from charging from 0% -> 100% at 250kW the entire time.
| brianwawok wrote:
| V2 charges are 150kW not 120kW
| bombcar wrote:
| It many cases it's probably easier/better to build a _new_
| site nearby that is 250kw capable rather than simply
| upgrade an existing site; you get a second site and
| increased total capacity.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The feed isn't an issue if Tesla doesn't want it to be.
| Tesla and others have been deploying stations with local
| battery reserves because getting a big enough utility feed
| is a deployment time problem in many, many locations or
| cost-prohibitive. Utilities are (not surprisingly) a bit
| pissy about where you drop a megawatt or few load.
|
| I'm guessing it is the result of site negotiation between
| Tesla and Ford, coupled with firmware/hardware/signage
| changes.
|
| Ford wants chargers where they think they'll be most likely
| to sell cars, and might have handed off a list to Tesla
| where market research showed they'd sell the most EVs and
| there is the worst charging infrastructure, for example.
|
| Tesla might be u an algorithm to pick stations they think
| that adding smelly Ford-driving plebs to will irritate the
| fewest Tesla customers but still meet their contraction
| obligations to Ford.
|
| There may also be agreements with the host site - malls and
| the like may have agreed to lease land for the chargers and
| spaces etc in exchange for the wealthy people the stations
| will bring to the area.
|
| Ford et al are crazy to do this, frankly. Musk is
| incredibly unstable, extremely self-serving, and while I
| think Musk ultimately wants to become the Mobil/Shell/BP of
| electric charging, they're still competitors.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> This is for access to compatible 250kW Supercharges. There
| are a lot of them, but it is a subset of the total Supercharger
| network.
|
| It would be useful to compare to the publicly available
| "standard plug" chargers out there. Cars using the adapters are
| gaining charging options, while presumably near-future models
| might have access to the entire Tesla charging network.
|
| Meanwhile, all those existing "standard" changers are going to
| need an upgrade...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Question: Could ford one day be denied access? I know there is a
| physical adapter, but could a certain mercurial billionaire one
| day decide to restrict access via software?
| baron816 wrote:
| Hopefully they structured the contract so that no vehicles sold
| under it could lose access even if the contract is not renewed
| for new vehicles.
| blibble wrote:
| I thought the evidence was Musk considers adherence to signed
| contracts as something only his counterparty needs to comply
| with
| basiccalendar74 wrote:
| Twitter board disagrees
| justrealist wrote:
| I'm sure Ford's agreement with Tesla ensures continuity of
| service, with a lot of heads-up if Tesla wants to terminate.
| bdcravens wrote:
| They block access to current Tesla owners for different
| reasons, so of course.
|
| https://www.carscoops.com/2023/09/tesla-owner-loses-supercha...
| ggreer wrote:
| That's not "no reason". The insurance company incorrectly
| listed the car as totaled and the DMV issued a salvage title
| for it. Tesla doesn't want chargers or vehicles to be damaged
| or destroyed, so they have a policy of disabling
| supercharging on cars with salvage titles.
|
| That Tesla didn't fix the issue until a news crew contacted
| them is an indictment of Tesla's customer support, not some
| sort of fickleness where they gleefully disable supercharging
| for random cars.
|
| Edit: The parent comment originally said "They block access
| to current Tesla owners for no reason."
| jsight wrote:
| Ultimately that depends on how the contract is structured. It
| is technically possible for them to remove third party access.
|
| Having said that, I think this actually solves some problems
| for them in the long run. I doubt they'd have any interest in
| limiting access.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I would prefer agnostic hardware, a scheme that would not
| allow anyone to cut off access. Car companies long ago
| abandoned similar attempts to limit gas for particular
| vehicles, the one remaining limit being the nozzle standard
| so diesel doesn't get pumps into non-diesel cars, but even
| there there is a bypass. The concept of DRM to "gas up" my
| electric car just rubs me the wrong way. I hesitate to trust
| that Ford and Tesla will always remain friends.
| jsight wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by that. A gas station owner is
| certainly free to onyl service certain brands and control
| access in any way that they choose. Customers would simply
| be free to take their business elsewhere. In practice,
| station owners would rarely (if ever) choose such an
| option.
|
| Similarly, these NACS equipped vehicles can use any open
| NACS station, or any open CCS station via an adapter. There
| is nothing in the standard that limits charge station
| providers to only Tesla.
|
| Any charge station (whether CCS or NACS) could implement
| restrictions in any way that they see fit. The most common
| cases of this are CCS stations at dealers, where they often
| restrict it to their company's vehicles.
|
| It is unlikely that a public charge company would want to
| cut themselves off from revenue by severely limiting who
| could use their site.
| NewJazz wrote:
| It is a lot easier to restrict charging because of how
| payments work.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Technically, of course. Contractually, I am pretty certain the
| Ford lawyers had thought about it when they negotiated the
| contract.
| rs999gti wrote:
| It depends on the contract. Everyone thought Android and Car
| Play were a standard for cars, but nope GM went their own way
| with it.
| Tagbert wrote:
| not really a contract issue. GM was not under any obligation
| to Apple to continue to use their service. GM seems to not
| care about it's customer's desires in this issue, either.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| > Ford EVs aren't compatible with every Tesla Supercharger,
| however. They must be the more recent units, which are able to
| charge at up to 250 kW, identified by a black collar at the base
| of the charging plug.
|
| > And the adapter is only for DC fast charging, not for Tesla's
| AC destination chargers.
|
| While charging interoperability is a great step forward, all
| these conditionals will make the transition to EV's much slower.
|
| Imagine if gas stations had a different charger for each vehicle
| manufacturer. Now imagine that gas station (really ought to
| rebrand them as refuel stations) had to replace charge points
| every 2-5 years when newer charger models are made.
|
| And this model is supposed to be more sustainable? We really need
| a standard charging plug / port for EV's, and it needs to be
| enforced by the relevant authorities.
| jbellis wrote:
| That's why everyone is standarizing on NACS for new models. Not
| much you can do about old ones.
| MBCook wrote:
| Right. And ford is giving one free adapter for EVERY ford EV
| for people who already own them or buy them through June(?).
|
| Free shipping too.
|
| So you put in your order, your vehicle gets a software
| update, and you're ready at any station. You don't have to
| wait for a new vehicle with the NACS plug. The car doesn't
| need to be retrofit.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Just FYI this is only for 2021 and newer vehicles:
| https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/electric-
| vehicles/publi...
| vel0city wrote:
| Did any of their pre-2021 EVs even support DCFC at all?
| MBCook wrote:
| I don't believe so, only AC charging with a J-1772. So I
| don't think this would apply anyway.
|
| The Mach-E's first year was 2021 so this all modern Ford
| electrics.
| briffle wrote:
| In some areas, a green nozle means diesel. In others, a yellow
| one means diesel... And different states have different levels
| of ethanol added that can mess with your older hoses and
| fittings. But most of us got quickly used to that
| kccqzy wrote:
| Europe already did what you described: standardized charge port
| standard (CCS2) and Tesla chargers already open to non-Tesla
| vehicles. It was glorious.
|
| The United States dropped the ball here.
| MBCook wrote:
| Our government doesn't do anti-business things like pick
| winners and losers.
|
| We let the market do a 15 year free-for-all so we can end up
| with as many incompatible options as possible.
|
| We don't support communist concepts like sharing and working
| together.
|
| ---
|
| /s, obviously. They should have picked something before a ton
| of DC chargers had to be built with multiple connectors, both
| of which are now dead.
| samatman wrote:
| Do you know what a DE-9 port is, by any chance?
|
| I'm glad the federal government isn't forcing computer
| manufacturers to include them.
|
| Guess we better hope USB-C is the best port a phone can
| possibly have, because the EU is hell-bent on locking it in
| for eternity.
| bombcar wrote:
| How _exactly_ did the EU define "USB-C" because there
| are all sorts of ways it could have been defined that
| leave wiggle-room for future advancements (even now, I
| believe the USB-C port on an iPhone may actually be a
| Thunderbolt port ...)
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| It only concerns charging not data.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > the EU is hell-bent on locking it in for eternity.
|
| No it hasn't. The EU Commission also gets the right to
| examine future common charging solutions.
|
| Also your comparison is not apt. The USB-C port is not
| required if the device does not require a wired charging
| port just as a computing device without a serial
| interface does not need a DB9 connector.
| kube-system wrote:
| The US's reluctance to regulate emerging tech is both why
| they take longer to standardize, and it's also part of the
| reason why so much emerging tech comes from the US. It's a
| trade-off.
| panick21_ wrote:
| As a consequence Europe has a much worse standard and the US
| has a better one.
|
| Tesla should have opened the spec much earlier (independent
| from if they actually wanted other car companies to use their
| super charger). Had Tesla done this they would be in a much
| better position now.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| What was not open? Tesla chargers have had CCS-2 in Europe
| for nearly six years now.
| alwa wrote:
| Perhaps we could call it the North American Charging Standard,
| and get the SAE to formalize it as an automotive standard! It
| looks like the standard got published in December-
|
| https://driveelectric.gov/charging-connector
| pests wrote:
| Well, already different nozzles/sizes for different fuel types.
| pugworthy wrote:
| For good reason. You don't want to mix up diesel and
| gasoline.
| vel0city wrote:
| IRT the AC charging situations, it seems _far_ more likely to
| come across a J1772 AC charger instead of a Tesla destination
| charger. I don 't know of a single place that offers public AC
| charging that has only Tesla destination chargers around me.
| Back when Teslas were still pretty new I would see only Tesla
| destination chargers at some hotels, but even now most hotels
| I've been to that had charging had J1772 or J1772 + Tesla.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| How does the billing work? I know with our Tesla it just billed
| our Tesla account and knew our car. How do other manufacturers
| using these work? Will my Volvo EX30 just talk to the Tesla
| equipment when I get it?
|
| Edit: Sorry I see it says this in the article.
|
| > Ford EVs already use the ISO 15118 "plug and charge" protocol,
| which means they give the charger their billing details as part
| of the electronic handshake, obviating the need to use an app or
| credit card to start a charging session.
|
| Are the prices the same as the rates that Tesla charges for Tesla
| vehicles? It was really cheap for our Tesla and we loved that.
| MBCook wrote:
| It will be billed through ford just like any other Plug &
| Charge station would be.
|
| It's not clear at the moment if you can start a session in the
| Tesla app and be billed that way.
| davedx wrote:
| Yup that's how it works in NL. My wife uses the Tesla app to
| start a supercharger session with her Mach E
| pests wrote:
| I believe the physical aspect is described via CCS1 and CCS2.
| But yes the charging cables also carries the information.
|
| ISO 15118 does include provisions for wireless communication to
| support eventual wireless charging.
| amluto wrote:
| It's interesting that Tesla shows pricing for non-Tesla EVs using
| Tesla superchargers but does not (AFAICT) show pricing for Tesla
| cars.
|
| It's extra odd given that Tesla's sort-of-sister-company SpaceX
| is notes for its transparent pricing.
| pests wrote:
| Hmm? Do you mean online or something as the car does show the
| price (per min or per kwh, depending on jurisdiction) in-car
| when you are browsing the superchargers on the map.
| amluto wrote:
| Online, or any way if you don't own the relevant car.
| pests wrote:
| ah okay yeah no idea
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| The price of the electricity delivered by the supercharger is
| shown when you use the Tesla app or the in car navigation. At
| least in Australia it does.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| It shows it for me as well in the US. All of this info is
| transparent
| amluto wrote:
| And if you are considering buying a car and want to know
| what charging costs?
| ascorbic wrote:
| Download the app?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The order will be Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo..it's the same order
| the OEMs decided to make a deal. Elon won't let anyone get ahead
| of anyone else, because money is not the objective.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| > money is not the objective
|
| What is the objective in your opinion?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| A shockingly useful, working, and reliable nationwide
| supercharger network. Take the pun.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| So money is the objective, but with extra steps ;)
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If money was the objective, they would have vending
| machines and unskippable ads on superchargers. Monetizing
| EV charging would be a complete disaster, and Tesla can
| always leverage it years and years after the adoptions
| are complete.
| organsnyder wrote:
| > If money was the objective, they would have vending
| machines and unskippable ads on superchargers.
|
| Perhaps. Or maybe they decided that having ads would
| cheapen their brand and hurt sales in the long term.
| josefresco wrote:
| The ads will come once (if) Tesla matures. Mass adoption
| comes first.
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| Capture the market first, and only then monetize full
| tilt until the experience is unbearably bad. The
| shareholders will love it!
| itsyaboi wrote:
| Money is __a__ objective not __the__ objective.
| malfist wrote:
| I hope the charging stations aren't shocking people
| ChadMoran wrote:
| Opening them up was part of NEVI grants, no?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| That is a separate deal from the NACS adoption deals as it
| involved adding CCS to the superchargers.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I thought that was only for the "magic dock" stations?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Is there any EV with the uninterrupted glass sunroof of the Tesla
| Model Y but doesn't look like a Tesla?
|
| I would be in the market for that with the fast charging
| standards rolling out
| ChadMoran wrote:
| Rivian R1S is interrupted but only between 2nd/3rd rows. Which
| technically is the same as the Y since it supports a 3rd row.
| dgolds wrote:
| Audi e-tron GT. Sounds expensive but in the USA, there are huge
| lease incentives from Audi. Take a look on leasehackr.com
| eichin wrote:
| Polestar 2 (looks enough like a volvo that volvo fans will come
| up and ask about it, partly because the only branding is the +
| logo.)
| kristofferR wrote:
| Well, Polestar is a Volvo brand.
| JojoFatsani wrote:
| Volvo and Polestar are both Geely brands. Volvo is
| decoupling from Polestar and they'll each be pretty
| independent at that point, although the corporate lineage
| may lead to technology sharing you would think.
| recursive wrote:
| My Mustang Mach E has an all-glass roof. I guess it's available
| on the Premium and California Route 1 trim levels.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Looks like this is the winner since it now inherits the Tesla
| fast charging network in the article
|
| All the government standard ones are broken
| heywoods wrote:
| Take a look at the Hyundai Ioniq 5 Limited trim.
|
| https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/eco/ioniq5/design
| https://www.hyundai.com/content/dam/hyundai/ww/en/images/fin...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| My Ioniq 5 does, but I don't think it'll natively support NACS
| until next year's model... That said using most Superchargers
| would be a step down in terms of charging speed, I think it
| would mostly be helpful in areas where there's low coverage for
| 350kW stations
| p1mrx wrote:
| > the adapter is only for DC fast charging, not for Tesla's AC
| destination chargers
|
| I wonder what actually happens if you try to use a Tesla
| destination to J1772 adapter with a NACS DC charger? In that
| case, the 400-1000VDC pins are connected to the 240VAC pins on
| the vehicle. Is the NACS handshake smart enough to detect this
| fault before the power turns on?
|
| I have one of those adapters, but I stuck a "120-240V AC ONLY"
| label on it because I don't want to find out.
| 0xfae wrote:
| In NACS the DC and AC pins are the same pins. The car only
| connects the charge port pins to either the AC/DC charger or to
| the DC battery after it communicates with the charger and tells
| the charger what voltage / amps it wants.
| nunez wrote:
| This is incredible news...and might also be the death knell to
| the Cybertruck (traditional pick-up vs antialiased 3D polygon)
| blehn wrote:
| You might be underestimating how many Cybertruck buyers are not
| pickup truck buyers.
|
| Also not sure that a little added charging convenience is going
| to sway Cybertruck buyers to an F150. The "antialiased 3D
| polygon" design is a big part of the appeal.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Not really. Nobody is cross shopping Cybertruck (novelty
| expensive toy) with Lightning (somewhat practical truck option)
| chikitabanana wrote:
| In practice, both are often used as expensive toys.
|
| But you're correct, very little substitution. One targets
| gangly code monkeys, the other targets the bearded and obese
| bluGill wrote:
| Ford at least is attempting to go after the pro market
| though. You are correct it is mostly toys, but I expect the
| pro market will start buying them more as they figure out
| how nice it is. (in many areas the first thing the pro does
| is unload the generator - the truck can provide all the
| power they need for a day and get back home, thus saving a
| ton of money in gas)
| chikitabanana wrote:
| Agreed. F-150 has far more commercial applications than
| the Cybertruck.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| The ford f150 lightning is an amazing truck. Love
| everything about it
|
| It's excellent for any working professional that remotely
| deals with any power tools or other electronics at job
| sites and wants to always be ready and charged
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Note really. Cybertruck has a foot longer bed and more
| payload/towing capacity. Faster charging. I'm not saying it's
| the best in every category, but people are definitely cross
| shopping, and will be choosing it more as the supply goes up
| and costs come down. Video comparison -
| https://youtu.be/fxqpFI-vJpo?t=853
| nunez wrote:
| People are definitely cross-shopping Cybertruck with Rivians
| and the F-150L
| hyperthesis wrote:
| Edison is famous for his lightbulb, but more significant was his
| electric power stations and infrastructure (via GE). Similar for
| Birdseye frozen fish and freezer infrastructure in supermarkets.
|
| Selling some of the cars is one thing; selling fuel to all of the
| cars is another. Who's richer: car manufacturers or oil
| companies?
| decafninja wrote:
| Supercharger stations are Tesla's killer app though. Say what
| you want about their cars or Elon but no one else comes close
| to their Supercharger network in both coverage and reliability.
| It's one objective reason why you'd pick a Tesla versus another
| EV.
|
| Now that they're opening it, it's a competitive advantage lost.
| You could argue that it was always a matter of time before
| everyone else caught up, but this is accelerating the schedule.
|
| Tesla (the company, the stock) seems to be a time bomb of
| trying to outrun the competition before they catch up. Lately
| they seem to be squandering the massive lead they had,
| partially because of Elon's stupid shenanigans.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| Forcing all of their competitors to pay 35% more at their
| fast charging network and being known as the only viable EV
| in North America is enough of a benefit still.
|
| Nobody is selling NACS cars with the Tesla connector yet.
| They will soon but why bother with a cheap imitation of Tesla
| when you could go with the clear market leader and not do any
| mental gymnastics?
|
| Seems simple to me
| decafninja wrote:
| Depends if you see Tesla cars as the best EVs or not,
| especially if the Supercharger network is no longer
| exclusive.
|
| I don't, and I know a lot of other people think likewise. I
| see this becoming a wider phenomenon as the competition
| continues to grow. Hence, what I referred to as the "time
| bomb".
|
| I say this as someone with a huge number of TSLA shares,
| albeit someone that wants to dump them sooner rather than
| later because of reasons like this.
| aquova wrote:
| The argument could be made that as they're losing the
| advantage in the vehicle space, they're transitioning to be
| the leader in the charging station space, which I think is
| honestly a wise move on their part
| decafninja wrote:
| I don't think it's necessarily a bad move, per what you
| say.
|
| If you go by what Elon and fanatical TSLA "uberbulls" say,
| Tesla is no longer a car company but an AI company that
| just happens to make cars on the side. So there's that.
|
| Then it's a matter of whether you think that's a worthwhile
| investment, or just more Elon BS.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| While it's a good point, I think the electricity/oil comparison
| breaks down slightly when you remember that, at best, you are
| probably selling a small minority of the total fuel. Most
| people charge most of the time at home and buy from their home
| electricity provider. This will continue to be true probably
| forever, with fast chargers only providing energy only longer
| road trips. I don't know what percentage of driving occurs on
| those kinds of trips, but my guess is "not very much".
|
| Yes, you have the issue with many urban dwellers not having a
| garage/private parking space in which to install a home
| charger, but I think that cheap, ubiquitous, lvl 2 chargers are
| going to become more and more common in apartment parking
| complexes, office parking lots, parking structures, and more.
| And these much cheaper, slower chargers are always going to
| have more competition simply by virtue of not needing a large
| "network" and therfore having very low entry costs.
|
| Tesla very well might come to completely dominate the lvl 3
| fast charging space. But I think that that is always going to
| remain a pretty small part of EV fuel sales.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-29 23:01 UTC)