Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Vendor specific charging networks, yay or nay?

  • 28-01-2021 1:44pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭ rocketspocket


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This is why you need to buy a Tesla tbh, or a car supported by anyone else with a charging network (like Ionity) that provide adequate fast charging support.

    Can not see how having vendor only chargers is not something outlawed by the EU - they should do something like they did with Mobile phone roaming charges as it only slows the conversion to EVs..

    Mod Note: Spun off from eCars thread


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    Can not see how having vendor only chargers is not something outlawed by the EU - they should do something like they did with Mobile phone roaming charges as it only slows the conversion to EVs..

    EU regulations would probably only come in if every manufacturer started doing it. For all the bickering about the EU, we do prefer to let the marker find a solution before regulating.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    Can not see how having vendor only chargers is not something outlawed by the EU - they should do something like they did with Mobile phone roaming charges as it only slows the conversion to EVs..


    Tesla are offering other manufacturers access to the SuperCharger network. The problem is no manufacturers are interested in the Tesla offer.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ slave1


    Can not see how having vendor only chargers is not something outlawed by the EU - they should do something like they did with Mobile phone roaming charges as it only slows the conversion to EVs..

    Why, it's a private company, no public funding of any description (unlike ecars or Ionity), to suppress the Supercharger network would be illogical and take away expensive foresighted competitive advantage.
    Look at the UK supercharging network now, if you were iffy between a Model 3 and their competitors and everything else being equal you would go for the ultra reliable Tesla Supercharger network.
    The amount of times I've arrived at broken/occupied charge points (EV driver 4 years +) is off the charts.
    I have never in almost one year of multi Tesla Supercharger use here and in Scotland had to either queue or end up hooked up to a broken charger


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ slave1


    Tesla are offering other manufacturers access to the SuperCharger network. The problem is no manufacturers are interested in the Tesla offer.

    Been like that for years, the other manufacturers are not interested as they would have to pony up huge amounts of cash to contribute to their installation/upkeep/usage costs.
    I'm delighted being honest and if it does happen I would like just a proportion of non-Tesla cars at each Supercharger hub, e.g. 2 of 6 or 3 of 8 etc.
    I paid good money for access to the Tesla Superchargers and don't want to rock up and see a car making me queue as it sucks at 43kW


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    slave1 wrote: »
    Why, it's a private company, no public funding of any description (unlike ecars or Ionity), to suppress the Supercharger network would be illogical and take away expensive foresighted competitive advantage.

    That's exactly why it should be regulated out of existence over time. It would be incredibly wasteful to have motorway service stations with 60 CCS chargers, of which only 5 could be used by any one car as they were all tied to individual manufacturers. The defence of we're a private company and therefore shouldn't be forced to give up a competitive advantage doesn't work for infrastructure as physical infrastructure naturally leads to monopoly positions and vendor lock in.

    Tesla will get to enjoy their first mover advantage for a decent period of time and have profited from doing so.
    Tesla are offering other manufacturers access to the SuperCharger network. The problem is no manufacturers are interested in the Tesla offer.

    As with most open offers from Tesla, it's a bit of a poisoned chalice. Their open patent initiative was just as bad, you could gain access to Tesla's patents with regard to electric vehicles, but gave up the right to protect your own organisations patents against Tesla in any form.

    It's not public info, but it's widely believed that Supercharger access comes with it's own poison pills. If Tesla were truly interested in expanding the electrification of private transport as per their mission statement, they'd allow individual user buy in, instead of requiring vendor buy in to what will remain a solely Tesla branded service.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ slave1


    I think your stance would be strengthened if Tesla were putting "exclusive" clauses in whatever agreements they have in place for their Supercharger locations but they don't, there is nothing stopping any company of any description in putting in chargers right next to the Tesla's.
    These already exist in Ireland/UK, the Gridserve is a perfect real world example with 36 chargers of which just 6 are Tesla.
    There is loads of room in the vast majority of Irish motorway service stations to put in HUBs whether Tesla presence or not.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    slave1 wrote: »
    There is loads of room in the vast majority of Irish motorway service stations to put in HUBs whether Tesla presence or not.

    Which is where it becomes a wasteful operation, I don't want to see 4 sets of grid connections and 4 sets of substations all to deliver charging via a universal standard, but 1 set is for Tesla, 1 for Ionity, 1 for Stellantis and a final set for eCars. The only people who suffer from this setup are consumers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭ Busman Paddy Lasty


    liamog wrote: »
    Which is where it becomes a wasteful operation, I don't want to see 4 sets of grid connections and 4 sets of substations all to deliver charging via a universal standard, but 1 set is for Tesla, 1 for Ionity, 1 for Stellantis and a final set for eCars. The only people who suffer from this setup are consumers.

    The EU should compel VW to invest billions into Ionity as punishment for Dieselgate. $2 billion for Electrify America was a fraction of the fines paid in the US. €6 billion for Europe would do nicely.

    Legislating for the public use of Tesla's private property in Europe wouldn't look great. Maybe another few million to each member states' climate action fund, to bring it back to eCars expansion.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    The EU should compel VW to invest billions into Ionity as punishment for Dieselgate. $2 billion for Electrify America was a fraction of the fines paid in the US. €6 billion for Europe would do nicely.

    It would be hard though, as you'd also take every other manufacture that sold cars in Europe, the only reason you car about VW and Dieselgate is they were the only ones daft enough to push Diesel in the USA. Pretty much every one of them has been impacted by Diesel emissions and defeat devices in some way or the other.
    Legislating for the public use of Tesla's private property in Europe wouldn't look great.

    We legislate for open access for all kind of infrastructure networks. Whether it's state funded or not. Not sure why Mr Musks empire should be treated differently. I'm pretty sure if BMW bought Shell and tried to make their petrol stations exclusive access we'd come down like a ton of bricks on them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,910 ✭✭✭✭ ELM327


    Can not see how having vendor only chargers is not something outlawed by the EU - they should do something like they did with Mobile phone roaming charges as it only slows the conversion to EVs..

    Mod Note: Spun off from eCars thread
    Tesla offered access to all OEMs but none were interested.
    Since then Aptera are now working with Tesla and rumored to have SuC access.


    Tesla spent the money on their network so should not be forced to do anything against their commercial interests. Not to mention the owners that funded it too.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭ liamog


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Tesla spent the money on their network so should not be forced to do anything against their commercial interests. Not to mention the owners that funded it too.

    Mobile Networks are probably the closest analogy to current charging network providors. Especially as we move toward Plug&Charge which is very much a model of installing a membership in your vehicle. We have a number of in country operators, we have a few regional operators and two EU wide operators.

    Forced open access, i.e. roaming is a model that goes against the commercial interests of an individual company.


  • Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭ rocketspocket


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Tesla spent the money on their network so should not be forced to do anything against their commercial interests. Not to mention the owners that funded it too.

    Same argument could be made as to why not allow ESB exclusive monopoly on the grid & eir on the phone/broadband


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,910 ✭✭✭✭ ELM327


    ESB has been de integrated, and ESB networks do have exclusive monopoly on the grid.
    The customer supply business is separate.

    Similar to Eir, there's two separate distinct arms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭ Busman Paddy Lasty


    liamog wrote: »
    It would be hard though, as you'd also take every other manufacture that sold cars in Europe, the only reason you car about VW and Dieselgate is they were the only ones daft enough to push Diesel in the USA. Pretty much every one of them has been impacted by Diesel emissions and defeat devices in some way or the other.



    We legislate for open access for all kind of infrastructure networks. Whether it's state funded or not. Not sure why Mr Musks empire should be treated differently. I'm pretty sure if BMW bought Shell and tried to make their petrol stations exclusive access we'd come down like a ton of bricks on them.

    Could all be fined in proportion to their cheating. VW were caught doing it on a massive scale and it sets a very bad example if they get away scot free in the EU. Most manufacturers are being fined for missed CO2 targets so it is doable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,556 ✭✭✭ Miscreant


    I am actually surprised that the fuel retailers have not got in to this game by now. I know that Circle K have chargers at some of their locations but others are being very slow about it.

    I think more competition in the market is a great thing for providing access to chargers but a payment method needs to be looked at. Currently it is very confusing for someone new to EVs to navigate through all the different providers, having to create an account with each of them and then have some sort of "fob" or key to access their charge facility. I recall a video about a year ago from Bjorn Nyland in Norway where he had 5 or 6 fobs in his car just in case he needed a random one.... This system is inherently flawed and should be replaced by a universal payment system like you have at a current fossil fuel filling station (tap your Debit/Credit card and away you go).

    The landscape does not need to be complicated at all, we have CCS and ChaDeMo as the 2 main charging methods. Tesla is out on it's own with their connector but are providing CCS compatibility with the Model 3. If a newer, more efficient charging method (requiring a new plug design and hardware) were to come along then I think it should be an open standard.

    Electricity is an agnostic commodity (as is petrol or diesel) so excluding vehicles based on vendor is counter productive and smacks of a Monopoly to me. As with everything, the charging infrastructure landscape will eventually find a level where some players will have come and gone over time and only the stronger ones will remain. Whether that is a vehicle manufacturer or fuel provider doesn't really matter as long as it is open to as many vehicles as possible for a fee.

    .
    .


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    ^^ Tesla don’t provide CCS compatibility on the Model 3 because the Model 3 (in Europe) is CCS

    Also, all new Model S & X cars have been CCS (via a small adaptor) for the last few years.

    Tesla’s new V3 supercharger is CCS only.

    CCS is the European standard, and I’d say already outnumbers CHAdeMO by at least 2:1 in Ireland, with the gap growing larger by the day!!! Heck even Nissan are abandoning CHAdeMO in favour of CCS on their new Ariya.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,556 ✭✭✭ Miscreant


    ^^ Tesla don’t provide CCS compatibility on the Model 3 because the Model 3 (in Europe) is CCS

    Also, all new Model S & X cars have been CCS (via a small adaptor) for the last few years.

    Tesla’s new V3 supercharger is CCS only.

    CCS is the European standard, and I’d say already outnumbers CHAdeMO by at least 2:1 in Ireland, with the gap growing larger by the day!!! Heck even Nissan are abandoning CHAdeMO in favour of CCS on their new Ariya.

    I clearly stand corrected however ChaDeMo is not going to suddenly disappear overnight here. For quite some time to come, anyone rolling out a charging network will need to keep both current standards in their minds. CCS being the majority should not mean that ChaDeMo is shut out of the market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,927 ✭✭✭✭ Calahonda52


    Miscreant wrote: »
    1: I am actually surprised that the fuel retailers have not got in to this game by now. I know that Circle K have chargers at some of their locations but others are being very slow about it.

    2: I think more competition in the market is a great thing for providing access to chargers but a payment method needs to be looked at. Currently it is very confusing for someone new to EVs to navigate through all the different providers, having to create an account with each of them and then have some sort of "fob" or key to access their charge facility. I recall a video about a year ago from Bjorn Nyland in Norway where he had 5 or 6 fobs in his car just in case he needed a random one.... This system is inherently flawed and should be replaced by a universal payment system like you have at a current fossil fuel filling station (tap your Debit/Credit card and away you go).

    The landscape does not need to be complicated at all, we have CCS and ChaDeMo as the 2 main charging methods. Tesla is out on it's own with their connector but are providing CCS compatibility with the Model 3. If a newer, more efficient charging method (requiring a new plug design and hardware) were to come along then I think it should be an open standard.

    Electricity is an agnostic commodity (as is petrol or diesel) so excluding vehicles based on vendor is counter productive and smacks of a Monopoly to me. As with everything, the charging infrastructure landscape will eventually find a level where some players will have come and gone over time and only the stronger ones will remain. Whether that is a vehicle manufacturer or fuel provider doesn't really matter as long as it is open to as many vehicles as possible for a fee.

    .
    .

    1: have you any idea of the ESB-N network charges for the CPs? There is another thread that I'm contributing on that issue.

    2: I recall a video about a year ago from Bjorn Nyland in Norway

    A year is a life time in this space, we are just installing CPs where you just rock up with a debit or credit card from anywhere and get juiced up, so don't be fobbed off by old stories.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    Miscreant wrote: »
    I clearly stand corrected however ChaDeMo is not going to suddenly disappear overnight here. For quite some time to come, anyone rolling out a charging network will need to keep both current standards in their minds. CCS being the majority should not mean that ChaDeMo is shut out of the market.

    I would agree, and maintain that CHAdeMO will actually grow here as long as Nissan sell the LEAF with CHAdeMO plug in it.

    However, CCS will grow at a much faster rate, because it's what everyone else uses (even Nissan in the Ariya).

    This is why I take umbrage with ESB's 50/50 CHAdeMO/CCS installation philosophy. We are at a point now where they should be installing their hubs in a 2:1 ratio.

    An existing site with a 150kW & 50kW (of which there are only 4) unit can charge 3 cars at once, 2 CCS & 1 CHAdeMO or 2CHAdeMO & 1 CCS..... if/when the 2nd 150kW unit goes in to that site, it should be either twin CCS or Twin CCS + 1 CHAdeMO, but we all know it'll be another 1 CCS & 1 CHAdeMO.

    In fairness ESB are making it very easy and attractive for potential EV buyers to by a Leaf, as they will effectively have their own private charging network within eCars, sharing only with Outlander PHEV's...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,177 ✭✭✭ Kramer


    Miscreant wrote: »
    For quite some time to come, anyone rolling out a charging network will need to keep both current standards in their minds. CCS being the majority should not mean that ChaDeMo is shut out of the market.

    The largest & fastest network here, in terms of actual hubs, nearly all with 4x 150kW chargers, did exactly that - CCS only.

    Ionity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,931 ✭✭✭ zg3409


    At the start Nissan rolled out their own network in Ireland a zero cost to users, but presumably substantial cost to themselves.

    Tesla rolled out their own network mostly in advance of opening an Irish dealership. They have teased at new sites for years and years.

    Ionity rolled out a CCS network, incompatible with Nissan and specific dealer discounts to their partner brands.

    These all have been done to benefit sales of specific brands over others. (Nissan could have gone to CCS years ago)

    Tesla allowing others is a joke. If the deal was good, someone would have taken it. As said they could offer it today direct to users. In the USA the connector is not standard. Assuming Tesla uses 5000 euro from each vehicle sale for the charging network, the users also value the network to pay a oremiyk for access to a private charging network. Its less of an issue in Ireland due to small size, but a cross Europe trip could really be much more difficult in a same battery size EV without access.

    In the UK they introduced regulations so all new chargers accept credit cards (often a higher fee) and easygo here has that at at least 2 sites. These days an app might be easier than credit card readers, but visa/MasterCard is a good standard.

    If they introduced rules in Ireland to force Tesla to take any CCS car, would the uptake of EVs increase, and would Tesla abandon new planned sites?

    It seems crazy drivers running out of power at sites where a public charger is broken, next to a bank of barely used one brand only chargers. Thus is the sort if thing where Europe should make rules, even if they are only enforced in say 4 years time


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators Posts: 81,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ biko


    It's just the usual grappling for standard that happens for everything.
    Once the market settles a bit it tends to work out by itself.

    Until then people will have to buy adapters.
    https://shop.tesla.com/product/chademo-adapter


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    zg3409 wrote: »
    If they introduced rules in Ireland to force Tesla to take any CCS car, would the uptake of EVs increase, and would Tesla abandon new planned sites?

    they'd probably install more sites than currently planned!!

    They'd make a fortune from them (they probably earn next to nothing from them now anyway between free supercharging & referral km's etc..).

    If suddenly they started earning Tesla decent revenue, then there'd be an appetite for more locations.

    I however don't want this. As a Tesla owner, I want the network exclusive to Tesla.
    I do however want more Supercharger sites.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    biko wrote: »
    It's just the usual grappling for standard that happens for everything.
    Once the market settles a bit it tends to work out by itself.

    Until then people will have to buy adapters.
    https://shop.tesla.com/product/chademo-adapter

    It usually always follows whatever standard the porn industry adopts...

    It was about 6 years ago that the porn industry went for CCS, and the rest is history..


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,556 ✭✭✭ Miscreant



    I however don't want this. As a Tesla owner, I want the network exclusive to Tesla.
    I do however want more Supercharger sites.

    So you would be happy with Tesla only chargers then. Would you be happy to have all non Tesla CCS type chargers locked out from Tesla vehicles?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ slave1


    zg3409 wrote: »
    ...
    It seems crazy drivers running out of power at sites where a public charger is broken, next to a bank of barely used one brand only chargers...

    As an early adopter going into my 4th year of EV driving what you point out is 100% a fair point but the angle you should be coming from is that the Public Charger should also be in a Hub so that if one is broke (or occupied) then there are others still available, this is why the Ionity and Tesla Hubs work.
    Single chargers is such a poor strategy, sounds like eCars just want to penetrate with numbers but they would be way better off in taking out half what they have at the minute and putting in Hubs of twos, at least that's a start....


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AndyBoBandy


    Miscreant wrote: »
    So you would be happy with Tesla only chargers then.

    I am already happy with Tesla only chargers.

    Miscreant wrote: »
    Would you be happy to have all non Tesla CCS type chargers locked out from Tesla vehicles?

    That's an irrelevant question, as the 2 main charging providers in Ireland are not affiliated to any car brand (though if I was to answer the question, I'd say it wouldn't really bother me a whole lot, as there is also an extensive network of Tesla only destination chargers in Ireland too, I did a 2 day 700km drive back in August, and used nothing but a Tesla supercharger, and 3 Tesla destination chargers).

    I do feel that I am somewhat 'locked out' of using Ionity, simply because it's so expensive to me as opposed to an Audi or VW driver.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,515 ✭✭✭✭ Lumen


    I would be happy with a system of prioritisation.

    So other cars can use Tesla chargers as long as there are (say) at least 2 other chargers free.

    In return, Tesla owners could get VW/Porsche rates at Ionity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,177 ✭✭✭ Kramer


    Lumen wrote: »
    I would be happy with a system of prioritisation.

    So other cars can use Tesla chargers as long as there are (say) at least 2 other chargers free.

    I reckon that's pretty hard to implement. Say there are 2 superchargers free at Ballacolla on the M8, when you set off to Cork, from Dublin. 2 Model 3/S/X/Y arrive while you are on route.

    You could be looking at 4 non Teslas & 2 Teslas charging, or even a 3rd Tesla waiting ahead of you. If annual EV penetration continues at 5%, or increases, as forecast, that could well happen in the next year or 2.

    Arguably, you've already paid for the Tesla supercharger network, if you have a Tesla. Being unable to utilise that, while looking at other non-Teslas charging ahead of you, wouldn't go down too well.

    Something needs to be done though, as previously said. Multiple separate companies, installing separate chargers, for different car owners, benefits no one in the long term.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,832 ✭✭✭ markpb


    This all feels like a non-issue in the long run. The only reason Tesla SCs exist and the only reason anyone cares that they exist is because of the shortfall in other high-speed charging networks. As EV ownership grows, the demand for SCs will grow and it will either be met by private investment or, if that’s not commercially viable and the government are serious about wanting good EV penetration, it will be met by substantially increased public investment. When either of those finally happens, the Tesla network will be less necessary and will probably fall away. It will be many years before that happens though.

    The real question is can privately-funded charge points be commercially viable, especially in Ireland.


Advertisement