Featured 1 in 5 Californians have swapped their EV for a gas car — and this is to blame

Is that like investing in growing your own garden? Raising chickens and goats so you have your own meet, milk, eggs, cheese, butter for your family? You offer to trade or sell your sustenance with neighbors? But they don't want to invest or help you? rather simply take, take, take? Thanking Karl Marx for such pearls of wisdom.
.

 

No Hill, that is not a valid analogy. A barrier to entry is more like when you make it more expensive for any of your neighbors to get the materials needed to start / run their own garden. A simple case is routing the local stream so that it flows through your property so that YOU are ensured of sufficient irrigation but everyone else has to build cisterns to capture whatever water you let through.

 

How does Tesla building Superchargers restrict others from building fast DC chargers of another standard?

 

And yet Tesla made it cheaper for other competitors to get materials (like batteries) by driving down costs as first movers.

 

Tesla saw what the future could be like 10-15 years ago. The incumbents laughed and mostly did nothing, waiting for Tesla to go bankrupt. They should all have to pay to build a similar charging network or have to pay Tesla for access to Superchargers and pay to expand it to bring on more cars.

Mike

 

Not "they" - the EV-owners should. And Tesla has said that they are going to allow that.

 

Tesla is going to allow what? A non-Tesla car to be charged via a Supercharger?
I think that that will require the car maker's help, since the Supercharger knows who to bill based on getting the ID of the car which is linked to a credit card on file in a secure Tesla payment server.
I'm pretty sure that Tesla will require some kind of payment for the car maker to put this into the car.
Sure, technically the consumer will be paying for this.

Mike

 

You are saying the EV owners should pay to build the infrastructure?
I suppose they do, indirectly. However, there is always someone else that pays for the infrastructure up front. Customers than pay for it later.

Tesla asking other companies that want their cars to use the supercharger network, to pay for the added traffic the network will see, seems quite reasonable.

 

That's what Elon said.

Or via an app.

 

That was a response to, "...have to pay Tesla for access to Superchargers..."

But, yes, the owners are the only source of funds so ultimately they pay for everything.

 

It does not restrict others from building chargers. It removes incentive for landlords to install other technologies.

 

I believe Aptera is getting access to Supercharges for their prototypes.
Bollinger Motors has also asked about access.

 

What incentive is removed if a landlord leases parking spaces for Tesla to build superchargers?

 

What type of landlord are we talking about? Tesla is already installing Superchargers in commercial and retail zones. So are the other DC charging networks.

Residential landlords weren't likely to install DC chargers with or without Tesla. They are expensive, and make about as much sense as installing a gas pump for tenants. They are going to install Level 1 or 2. Perhaps a nearby DC charger will deincentivize them from doing so, but that would happen whether it was a Supercharger or not. Of course DC chargers aren't as common as gas stations yet, and most plug in owners would prefer to charge at home. Having overnight charging available is a perk that will attract tenants.

 

Name one person who has charged a non-Tesla car at a Supercharger so far.
If it was just a matter of building an app it could have been done in a couple of months

Mike

 

It was in response to dbstoo's statement. I am trying to understand his position.
Call me an eternal optimist

 

My understanding is Europe mandated a CCS-2 connector even on Teslas and SuperChargers. Regardless, only Teslas can use the SuperChargers regardless of plug, Tesla or CCS-2. And this reveals the truth that SuperChargers are a powerful sales instrument for Tesla cars.

The clever EU regulators forced CCS-2 connectors but failed to gain access to Tesla SuperChargers. My understanding is CCS-2 equipped Teslas may be able to use non-Tesla, fast DC chargers. Worse, the Bjørn Nyland videos show EU fast DC chargers remain an integration and testing mess.

Bob Wilson

 

Thought it was just "Tesla bad".

The EU directive had nothing to do with Tesla. It came out less than a year after the first Model S delivery, and Tesla's Supercharger network isn't a public charger one under it. It was to enable rational growth of alternate fuel infrastructure(includes natural gas). Mainly by calling for a plan for station deployment, instead of going with the willy-nilly free market approach that leads to too many in an area, and none in another. It also required that networks couldn't hinder access with preregistering or using a unique access or payment type.

In regards to CCS, it just states public Level 3 chargers had to have it, but they were free to have other standards or Level 3 AC. Technically, Tesla didn't have to switch to CCS at all. It just made sense for their customers when every public fast charger would have CCS available.

Standardization Of EV Charging In The EU

 

As the article points out, Tesla SuperChargers are a private, not open to public resource, and as such, perfectly OK.

As for other EU based EVs, not Tesla’s problem. Give how common 3-phase is, the Mennekes connector makes sense.

Bob Wilson

 

Mennekes is Europe's j1772. IIRC, they, and the CCS, were codeveloped. Small appliances have different plugs in many countries because of grid differences. Plug ins having a different Level 1 and 2 AC plug is to be expected. CCS (type)1 is j1772 with the two DC pins, and CCS 2 is the pins with Mennekes.