Electrify America Network

[WetEV]

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

Tesla was just asking for their souls, nothing much. All of their patents, full access to all upcoming EV designs, just little stuff.

 

[WetEV]

I don't see how Rivian can win this game. Too small of market share.

Yes, which could mean that Rivian would be better off to allow all CCS folks to utilize their new network, but simply give Rivians free charging and everyone else not. And put time limits on your charge for non Rivians. It would be a balance of Rivian trying to recoup some cost and increase utilization, while also not crowding the stations to the point the Rivian owners have to wait.

But it did work for tesla, so given enough $$$ and Rivian owners, it could work for them.

It did work for Tesla, as Tesla has the largest market share. Rivian doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Network effects give rise to the potential outcome of market tipping, defined as "the tendency of one system to pull away from its rivals in popularity once it has gained an initial edge". Tipping results in a market in which only one good or service dominates and competition is stifled.

To make Musk the first Trillionaire, competition needs to be stifled. That's why there is a Supercharger network.

 

[jlv]

Tesla was just asking for their souls, nothing much. All of their patents, full access to all upcoming EV designs, just little stuff.

Not true. The terms were along the lines "you can't sue us over patents or be a party to some who is".

 

[WetEV]

Tesla was just asking for their souls, nothing much. All of their patents, full access to all upcoming EV designs, just little stuff.

Not true. The terms were along the lines "you can't sue us over patents or be a party to some who is".

All of your patents are belong to us. Trade secrets, source code, all of it.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35030461/why-other-car-companies-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/

 

[jlv]

Tesla was just asking for their souls, nothing much. All of their patents, full access to all upcoming EV designs, just little stuff.

Not true. The terms were along the lines "you can't sue us over patents or be a party to some who is".

All of your patents are belong to us. Trade secrets, source code, all of it.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35030461/why-other-car-companies-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/

That article doesn't say trade secrets, EV designs, or source code belongs to Tesla. Where do you get that?

It does say:

To access Tesla's patents, it appears as though you not only forfeit your ability to assert patent claims over Tesla, but also your ability to defend your patents against any company using them to make electric vehicles.

E.g., basically you want in on free access to Telsa's patents, expect to give yours out, too.

 

[danrjones]

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

Tesla was just asking for their souls, nothing much. All of their patents, full access to all upcoming EV designs, just little stuff.

That seems like a fair trade. A Kia for a charging network. :lol:

 

[WetEV]

Not true. The terms were along the lines "you can't sue us over patents or be a party to some who is".

All of your patents are belong to us. Trade secrets, source code, all of it.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35030461/why-other-car-companies-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/

That article doesn't say trade secrets, EV designs, or source code belongs to Tesla. Where do you get that?

It does say:

To access Tesla's patents, it appears as though you not only forfeit your ability to assert patent claims over Tesla, but also your ability to defend your patents against any company using them to make electric vehicles.

E.g., basically you want in on free access to Telsa's patents, expect to give yours out, too.

First, the Pledge states that those acting in good faith will not assert any patent or intellectual property right against Tesla. Note that a company using Tesla’s patented technology is not only giving up the ability to bring an action against Tesla for patent infringement, but any form of intellectual property infringement. This includes trademark and copyright infringement, as well as trade secret misappropriation. Thus, for example, if Tesla copied a company’s source code line-for-line, that company would be required to forfeit the protection provided by the Pledge in order to enforce its rights.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm pretty sure that the lion's share of the cost is going to be the installation, so if non-Rivian EVs are not putting in their fair share of that cost, Rivian will not be interested in granting them access. The public charging networks are a different story because it is almost universally true that the money came from either VW, the gov, or gov subsidy.

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

Details are lacking. Elon has said multiple times that Tesla would accept partners if they meet conditions. Price was never disclosed, and until recently non-Tesla EVs did not meet the charging speed requirement. I'll guess that 125 kW is a minimum.

The trope about Tesla demanding IP immunity and free access to the other company's IP is BS. Tesla uses IP that is covered under the GNU license, and they are extending its provisions (as required in the GNU license.)

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Yes, which could mean that Rivian would be better off to allow all CCS folks to utilize their new network, but simply give Rivians free charging and everyone else not. And put time limits on your charge for non Rivians. It would be a balance of Rivian trying to recoup some cost and increase utilization, while also not crowding the stations to the point the Rivian owners have to wait.

I'm pretty sure that the lion's share of the cost is going to be the installation, so if non-Rivian EVs are not putting in their fair share of that cost, Rivian will not be interested in granting them access. The public charging networks are a different story because it is almost universally true that the money came from either VW, the gov, or gov subsidy.

Extend that to include Nissan and BMW, who both helped fund EVgo with their respective free charging promotions on the network. Yes, EVgo came initially out of a settlement, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that Nissan and BMW have both put money into the company as well. And it seems that GM is also working with EVgo these days, to "more than triple the network".

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

This does sort of highlight the problem with charging and EVs, and moving from early adopters to the "rest". If you pull your gas er up to a gas station you expect to be able to fuel. As long as you don't accidentally use a green handled pump...

But with EVs we have multiple connectors, brand specific... and now Rivian will have a CCS that nobody else can use.

I almost wonder if we don't need the feds to step in and mandate one universal charging standard, open to all. Perhaps allowing companies like rivian or tesla to set higher prices for other brands, but never leaving any stranded.

I totally get the value of the tesla charging network, and rivian to follow, for their brand. But I'm not convinced it's helpful to EV adoption as a whole.

Well, you "can't" use the green handle and in that regard, public charging is even. People who show up to Sam's Club trying to use their Costco card for discounts will see the same issue. Plugshare PLAINLY lists what plugs are available but apparently, not plain enough.

Not sure, I can use edge cases as ammunition for "how it should be" especially in this case or any other mistaken plug cases.

Speaking of gas; you should look up gassing up challenges of the 30's. You will find a lot of the same issues with compatibility and that continued until there were rules requiring standards. So can we expect the government to step up and do the same?

Maybe it depends on the country you are in. I had a coworker many years ago who was over in Europe and had a rental car, and on the way back to the airport he filled it up. A few miles later, it died. He realized he had put regular into a diesel. I believe you are right that in the US, you can't put diesel into a regular but you could potentially do it the other way.


Maybe the better question would have been, how would people feel if they showed up to a gas station that sold regular gas they needed, but they weren't allowed to fill up. It was for Honda owners only.

TFL cars just did a update that touched this topic, and their verdict is that charging is still a bit of a mess.
How many apps do each of you have just to be able to charge? I have plugshare, EA, Chargepoint and EV Connect. I'm sure other folks have more. I can't disagree with TFL.

As I said, obviously good for Tesla and Rivian owners but perhaps not good for eVs overall.

I can't say I have the slightest clue where you are going with all this but the ideology of eliminating stupid by providing only one choice isn't going to fly. It didn't work for gasoline and it aint gonna work for EV charging.

 

[danrjones]

Well, you "can't" use the green handle and in that regard, public charging is even. People who show up to Sam's Club trying to use their Costco card for discounts will see the same issue. Plugshare PLAINLY lists what plugs are available but apparently, not plain enough.

Not sure, I can use edge cases as ammunition for "how it should be" especially in this case or any other mistaken plug cases.

Speaking of gas; you should look up gassing up challenges of the 30's. You will find a lot of the same issues with compatibility and that continued until there were rules requiring standards. So can we expect the government to step up and do the same?

Maybe it depends on the country you are in. I had a coworker many years ago who was over in Europe and had a rental car, and on the way back to the airport he filled it up. A few miles later, it died. He realized he had put regular into a diesel. I believe you are right that in the US, you can't put diesel into a regular but you could potentially do it the other way.


Maybe the better question would have been, how would people feel if they showed up to a gas station that sold regular gas they needed, but they weren't allowed to fill up. It was for Honda owners only.

TFL cars just did a update that touched this topic, and their verdict is that charging is still a bit of a mess.
How many apps do each of you have just to be able to charge? I have plugshare, EA, Chargepoint and EV Connect. I'm sure other folks have more. I can't disagree with TFL.

As I said, obviously good for Tesla and Rivian owners but perhaps not good for eVs overall.

I can't say I have the slightest clue where you are going with all this but the ideology of eliminating stupid by providing only one choice isn't going to fly. It didn't work for gasoline and it aint gonna work for EV charging.

You can call the masses stupid, and sometimes you might not be wrong, but if you want mass market adoption, charging needs to be easier.

The masses, dumb or not, expect to be able to pull into a charging station and charge, just like they can pull into *any* gas station and find the gas they need. So maybe it doesn't HAVE to be one standard, but more of being able to charge any place that has a charger. Obviously that's not what we have now.

The only place I'm going is what I've already said, and polls seem to agree, that the myriad of charging networks, proprietary networks, multitude of charging Apps, and such, is BAD for the EV movement in general. The solution may be at local level, or it might be for federal standards, or something else. Maybe do nothing at all. That's partly up to your politics and where you think solutions should come from. Europe seems to be doing it better, what did they do?

 

[SageBrush]

Europe seems to be doing it better, what did they do?

The European governments put up the lion's share of the money for the non Tesla network and were therefore were in a position to dictate a standard.

In the USA the lion's share of DC money is Tesla and VW, and a minor share from companies like EVgo.

Incidentally, prior to Europe mandating CCS2, they mandated Type 2. That turned out to be a choice they regretted, so they mandated a different one. The Tesla Supercharger in Europe pre CCS2 was a standards compliant Type 2 that no other company implemented.

Irony, eh ?

 

[WetEV]

The trope about Tesla demanding IP immunity and free access to the other company's IP is BS. Tesla uses IP that is covered under the GNU license, and they are extending its provisions (as required in the GNU license.)

GNU license(s) do not require invalidation of all existing patents, copyrights, trademarks, and/or trade secrets. They do put limits on future copyrights, but not on patents, trademarks or trade secrets. For example, Microsoft (and others) have used GNU licensed software modified purely for internal purposes without release of source code, as allowed under the license. The company could not copyright this software, but could use it and keep the modifications as a trade secret.

Tesla access to SuperCharging(TM) required invalidation of all "intellectual property" aka patents, trademarks, and/or trade secrets of any car company dumb enough to sign up.

Electrify America is a free (as in freedom, not in free beer) charging network.

 

[salyavin]

I agree with Dan. We need charging as simple as possible preferably one type and with every charger able to take a credit car like a gas pump can.
I want EVs to propegate and to do that it needs to be very simple. People don't want to install several apps and get confused. We just dealt with a normie we converted who wanted to be taken to EA and such to be walked through it as he was intimidated. He got it I think.

I would love the Biden administration to push like Europe did but I doubt it will happen.

 

[matson]

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

Yes. Not quite, yes. There isn't well-circulated history on that.

I asked a Tesla employee about this, here's what ey told me: Years ago, Ford preliminarily discussed using Tesla's Superchargers, and declined because they wouldn't/couldn't accept Tesla's terms. To access Tesla's Supercharger network requires Tesla-made parts: the EV charge socket inlet, and a communication module. Because Tesla would be acting as ODM (original design manufacturer) of these parts, said parts would bear Tesla's name. For Ford, that was not acceptable. Perhaps Ford might have bought-in to Supercharging if Tesla were willing to privide whitelabel OEM parts. But neither would budge: Tesla would not become a white-labeller of parts for access to Supercharger network, and Ford would not put a competitor automaker's name in their assembled vehicles. End of discussion for Ford. Ford would not or could not accept Tesla Supercharging, because of a culture/policy to not use parts which bear names of their competitors.

My takeaway is, Tesla wants total control of Supercharger reliability and reputation. Exclusively Tesla parts shall engage with Superchargers, connect physically or communicate electrically. Having it their way, then anybody (mechanic, government/vehicle administration, insurance/safety inspector) could disassemble a questionable automobile and find that it contains Tesla parts. I think this is fair and reasonable. (Don't anybody accuse me of holding a double standard, for being critical of EVgo and a Tesla apologist.)

This Ford+Tesla conversation took place years ago, certainly before Ford put CCS in any North American vehicles. (Ford's conversation with Tesla possibly predates their use of CCS in Europe and rest-of-"Type 2"-world vehicles; that's if they have CCS; I don't know, and I don't plan to check.) This is all I know about it. I have no insider juicy gossip regarding any other automakers, nor do I know whether Tesla's terms have changed.

I was optimistic that Lucid and Rivian would adopt Tesla's North America connector design, and partner for Supercharging. I am disappointed in both of them. I still have hope for Aptera, Canoo.

As for open history:

Elon Musk said that, as of mid-2019, nobody stepped up. 2019-06-02 «Ride the Lightning: Tesla Motors Unofficial Podcast: Episode 200: My Elon Musk Interview»

Ryan McCaffrey: Have any other manufacturers come to you about the Supercharger network, about getting on there? Because you've said you're open to the idea.

Elon: None of the manufacturers have contacted me and said that they want to use it.

At 2020-12-21, Elon answered Marques Brownlee on Twitter, that electric car makers are taking-up the Supercharger network, that "Superchargers are being made accessible to other electric cars".

The trope about Tesla demanding IP immunity and free access to the other company's IP is BS.

Thank you for calling it. I don't believe WetEV's rhetoric nonsense "all patents, all designs, stifle competition's souls" narrative.

Incidentally, prior to Europe mandating CCS2, they mandated Type 2. That turned out to be a choice they regretted, so they mandated a different one. The Tesla Supercharger in Europe pre CCS2 was a standards compliant Type 2 that no other company implemented.

Yes, and North America has something very similar. Off-board DC Level 1 charging via stock design Yazaki AC coupler, up to 80 ampere DC on its two poles. No company implemented it; likely, it never will be implemented.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1772_201210/
This recommended practice defines AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charge levels and specifies a conductive charge coupler and electrical interfaces for AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charging. This revision incorporates DC charging. DC Level 1 and DC Level 2 charge levels, charge coupler and electrical interfaces are defined. The DC Level 1 charge coupler is identical to the AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charge coupler. DC Level 2 charging is achieved by adding 2 high current contacts to the AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charge coupler.

Did any one in SAE really believe this (bolded)? Or, why wasn't the wonderful CHAdeMO chosen for all?

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1772_201202/
This recommended practice redefines AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charge levels and specifies a conductive charge coupler and electrical interfaces for AC Level 1 and AC Level 2 charging. The coupler and interfaces for DC charging are currently being developed and will be added to this document upon completion. Adoption of multiple standard charge couplers based on charge level will enable selection of an appropriate charge coupler based on vehicle requirements thus allowing for better vehicle packaging, reduced cost, and ease of customer use. This revision includes technical and editorial clarifications based on feedback from vehicle and equipment manufactures on the January 2010 revision.

edit: removed veiled insult

 

[cwerdna]

Perhaps discussion about US Tesla Superchargers and its openness/lack thereof, patent and IP obligations/encumbrances, should be carved off in another thread?

We can start off with https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you and https://www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-pledge along with the interpretation at https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35030461/why-other-car-companies-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/.

Apparently, we've discussed this before at https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=595754#p595754 and I posted that R&T piece at https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=595753#p595753, receiving no replies.

GNU licenses (e.g. for open source software) seem pretty unrelated to Supercharger networks w/non-Tesla automakers.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

You can call the masses stupid, and sometimes you might not be wrong, but if you want mass market adoption, charging needs to be easier.

The masses, dumb or not, expect to be able to pull into a charging station and charge, just like they can pull into *any* gas station and find the gas they need. So maybe it doesn't HAVE to be one standard, but more of being able to charge any place that has a charger. Obviously that's not what we have now.

The only place I'm going is what I've already said, and polls seem to agree, that the myriad of charging networks, proprietary networks, multitude of charging Apps, and such, is BAD for the EV movement in general. The solution may be at local level, or it might be for federal standards, or something else. Maybe do nothing at all. That's partly up to your politics and where you think solutions should come from. Europe seems to be doing it better, what did they do?

I do call them stupid because they are. No simplification of the network will account for Tesla drivers being frustrated at a gas station wondering why it doesn't work like their old car.

What regulates stupid is "group realization" We don't need "mass" acceptance of EVs. A trickle (like we have) will do just fine (since it is) and people will make mistakes until they figure it out. With 3 choices it won't take "most" people more than 4 tries.

So we can print on bags "This is not a toy. Do not place over head" all we want and guess what? Regulators missed one vital thing; gotta know how to read and know WHEN to read...

So we can do the "gas station" thing and simply provide the 3 current options like EVgo or be stupid like EA.

 

[danrjones]

You can call the masses stupid, and sometimes you might not be wrong, but if you want mass market adoption, charging needs to be easier.

The masses, dumb or not, expect to be able to pull into a charging station and charge, just like they can pull into *any* gas station and find the gas they need. So maybe it doesn't HAVE to be one standard, but more of being able to charge any place that has a charger. Obviously that's not what we have now.

The only place I'm going is what I've already said, and polls seem to agree, that the myriad of charging networks, proprietary networks, multitude of charging Apps, and such, is BAD for the EV movement in general. The solution may be at local level, or it might be for federal standards, or something else. Maybe do nothing at all. That's partly up to your politics and where you think solutions should come from. Europe seems to be doing it better, what did they do?

I do call them stupid because they are. No simplification of the network will account for Tesla drivers being frustrated at a gas station wondering why it doesn't work like their old car.

What regulates stupid is "group realization" We don't need "mass" acceptance of EVs. A trickle (like we have) will do just fine (since it is) and people will make mistakes until they figure it out. With 3 choices it won't take "most" people more than 4 tries.

So we can print on bags "This is not a toy. Do not place over head" all we want and guess what? Regulators missed one vital thing; gotta know how to read and know WHEN to read...

So we can do the "gas station" thing and simply provide the 3 current options like EVgo or be stupid like EA.

I get your point but I can only imagine pulling up on fumes in an ICE to some remote Nevada town - say Tonopah (you can do far worse, but good enough for an example) - and you go to the only gas station in town, but find out they don't serve the right gas. Or you find out they have the right gas, but only serve Honda vehicles.

Of course that's silly. It is ridiculous even!
You can pull your gas vehicle to any service station and expect to get the right gas.

I don't blame Tesla or Rivian, they are doing what's best for them and their customers. But I am still going to disagree that its in the long term best interest of converting everyone to EVs. I also don't think people are stupid to expect to charge at any station given their expectation is a carry over from traditional gas stations.

Anyway, back to EA specific network discussion I suppose...

 

[WetEV]

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

I asked a Tesla employee about this, here's what ey told me: Years ago, Ford preliminarily discussed using Tesla's Superchargers, and declined because they wouldn't/couldn't accept Tesla's terms.

I'm sure a Tesla employee would be the most accurate source. At the time it was happening, years ago, I was hearing Ford's side of the story from a Ford employee, I should just forget about that.

Electrify America is free, as in freedom, not as in free beer. As is EVgo and any other public standard based charging.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Didn't Tesla also look for partners and nobody stepped up? Can't remember the history on that.

I asked a Tesla employee about this, here's what ey told me: Years ago, Ford preliminarily discussed using Tesla's Superchargers, and declined because they wouldn't/couldn't accept Tesla's terms.

I'm sure a Tesla employee would be the most accurate source. At the time it was happening, years ago, I was hearing Ford's side of the story from a Ford employee, I should just forget about that.

Electrify America is free, as in freedom, not as in free beer. As is EVgo and any other public standard based charging.

... except for the Rivian Adventure network