Nissan,BMW, Tesla eye collaboration over charging technology

[evnow]

According to Financial Time (via Insideevs.com)

Three of the world’s biggest electric-car makers are interested in collaborating on charging technology, following Tesla Motors’ decision to offer its patents to rivals in an attempt to promote the low-emission vehicles.

Nissan and BMW, two of Tesla’s main competitors, are keen on talks with the US carmaker to co-operate on charging networks, sources at the three companies told the Financial Times.
...

“Nissan welcomes any initiative to expand the volumes of electric vehicles,” the Japanese manufacturer said. “Nissan is the market leader in EVs and has worked with other manufacturers to help proliferate the technology.”

Wondering whether this will actually lead to anything or just talks about talking later.

May be we'll get a Tesla adapter for the next gen Leaf

 

[Turnover]

I wonder if my JESLA is going to have to be retrofitted?

 

[KJD]

How many amps can you pump into a LEAF battery before it starts to melt ?

 

[evnow]

How many amps can you pump into a LEAF battery before it starts to melt ?

Hope you can find the limit and let us know

 

[TonyWilliams]

How many amps can you pump into a LEAF battery before it starts to melt ?

Currently, 120 amps DC is what the LEAF will take.

Since the Supercharger can provide any amount of amps from zero to over 300, I think 120 will be easy.

 

[dgpcolorado]

As discussed in the other threads on Superchargers, a problem with the current small battery LEAF isn't that it can't use the charge stations if the rate of charge were controlled properly so it doesn't fry the battery. Rather, it is that the short range LEAF can't make it from one Supercharger station to another unless they were a lot closer together. And the Tesla drivers don't want their stations blocked by slower charging, small battery, LEAFs trying to get to 100%.

If anything comes of this, I would expect that Nissan is looking forward to larger battery/longer range editions of the LEAF, and future siblings, for which the Supercharger network might be a practical option. And it seems to me that some sort of TMS would be necessary to keep even a "lizard" battery from being damaged by repeated fast charging.

Still, it would be nice if there were cars from multiple manufacturers that could use the Supercharger network and it became an accepted standard for the industry.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Rather, it is that the short range LEAF can't make it from one Supercharger station to another unless they were a lot closer together.

I think this is a rather short sighted statement. If Nissan is going to join Tesla on the Superchargers, why wouldn't they double down and fill in the gaps with even more superchargers? In fact, with two or three of the main EV competitors using the same standard, who is to say that a third party, like Car Charging Group, won't start to develop a network of their own? I think this is the long-term hope of Tesla, Nissan and BMW.

Plus the network doesn't have to fully cover the nation to dramatically increase the utility of an EV. Two or three well-placed CHAdeMOs would move the Leaf's coverage from 50% to may 80% of my annual miles.

And the Tesla drivers don't want their stations blocked by slower charging, small battery, LEAFs trying to get to 100%.

I can't argue with this statement - it is absolutely true that the drivers are concerned. However, I feel the concern is dramatically overblown. Superchargers are set up in pairs, with a shared stack of 10kW chargers. If a Leaf is charging at 50kW (its max), a Tesla can pull in next to it and get something like 100kW. Then as the Leaf ramps down (which will happen after maybe 10 minutes), the Tesla gets even more. By contrast, another Tesla would take much more power and for much longer. An informed Tesla owner would much rather pull in next to a Leaf than another Tesla.

 

[evnow]

And the Tesla drivers don't want their stations blocked by slower charging, small battery, LEAFs trying to get to 100%.

I can't argue with this statement - it is absolutely true that the drivers are concerned. However, I feel the concern is dramatically overblown.

Here is the problem for Musk.

A lot of people buy Model S - because they think it is "exclusive", a status thing, a statement.

If suddenly a decidedly "middle class" Leaf can share the same space as Model S - their perceived value of Model S plummets.

But, to survive Tesla has to rapidly expand and possibly share the infrastructure with others to make it minimally viable.

For someone like Nissan - they can agree to some kind arrangement where they pay as their car owners use the super charger infrastructure without over committing to it (and persue CHAdeMO route too).

 

[GetOffYourGas]

A lot of people buy Model S - because they think it is "exclusive", a status thing, a statement.

If suddenly a decidedly "middle class" Leaf can share the same space as Model S - their perceived value of Model S plummets.

I do understand the image problem. I guess my point was that the concerns about Leafs suddenly "hogging" the superchargers before the network can grow and adapt are largely overblown.

The image issue runs deeper still than letting the Leaf share the supercharger network though. This is a hurdle that Tesla will have to face within the company when they introduce the "decidedly middle class" Gen III. That car will not only have supercharger access, it will also have a Tesla badge. What will this do to the Tesla image, and how will Musk support both of these markets?

 

[evnow]

The image issue runs deeper still than letting the Leaf share the supercharger network though. This is a hurdle that Tesla will have to face within the company when they introduce the "decidedly middle class" Gen III. That car will not only have supercharger access, it will also have a Tesla badge. What will this do to the Tesla image, and how will Musk support both of these markets?

That Gen 3 is the question I pose to all Model S "sky is falling" owners. They have no answers.

Likely they will look at Gen 3 the same way BMW 5/7 owners look at BMW 3 owners. Cheaper but not "middle class".

 

[GetOffYourGas]

The image issue runs deeper still than letting the Leaf share the supercharger network though. This is a hurdle that Tesla will have to face within the company when they introduce the "decidedly middle class" Gen III. That car will not only have supercharger access, it will also have a Tesla badge. What will this do to the Tesla image, and how will Musk support both of these markets?

That Gen 3 is the question I pose to all Model S "sky is falling" owners. They have no answers.

Likely they will look at Gen 3 the same way BMW 5/7 owners look at BMW 3 owners. Cheaper but not "middle class".

I think any owner that feels that way doesn't understand Tesla's mission. They don't want to just be a premium car company, they want to lead us ALL (not just the wealthy class) to an electric future.

That also implies that they don't really buy into that future for all - they see it more as a future for the elite, not the "commoner".

 

[dgpcolorado]

Rather, it is that the short range LEAF can't make it from one Supercharger station to another unless they were a lot closer together.

I think this is a rather short sighted statement. If Nissan is going to join Tesla on the Superchargers, why wouldn't they double down and fill in the gaps with even more superchargers? In fact, with two or three of the main EV competitors using the same standard, who is to say that a third party, like Car Charging Group, won't start to develop a network of their own? I think this is the long-term hope of Tesla, Nissan and BMW...

Simple: increasing the number of Supercharger stations to accommodate a short range LEAF would require a drastic increase in the number of stations, at considerable expense. That is the genius of the current Supercharger network: placing stations every 100 to 120 miles can cover the contiguous states with just a few hundred stations and easily accommodate both 60 and 85 kWh Teslas traveling at 75 mph (the speed limit across much of the country). As more cars use them, more chargers can be added to existing locations. To cover the nation with stations 40 miles apart would require a large increase in the number of stations.

Anyway, I think this issue is moot. My guess is that if Nissan or BMW sign on with Tesla they would do so only with new models that have greatly increased range to take advantage of the Supercharge network as it is currently planned. The current LEAF is not designed for, nor intended for, long distance travel. The Model S, Model X, and Gen III are.

 

[Zythryn]

...

Here is the problem for Musk.

A lot of people buy Model S - because they think it is "exclusive", a status thing, a statement.

If suddenly a decidedly "middle class" Leaf can share the same space as Model S - their perceived value of Model S plummets.
...

I don't believe you are correct, unless by "A lot of people" you mean 4.
I suspect more people buy a Leaf to make a statement than buy a Model S to make a statement.
If your supposition were correct, why in the world would Tesla owners stoop to using public car chargers, much less free ones?

 

[evnow]

I don't believe you are correct, unless by "A lot of people" you mean 4.
I suspect more people buy a Leaf to make a statement than buy a Model S to make a statement.
If your supposition were correct, why in the world would Tesla owners stoop to using public car chargers, much less free ones?

I base my statements on my interaction with (and reading posts by) thousands of Leaf & Model S owners over the last 3 years. What do you base your opinion on ?

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Rather, it is that the short range LEAF can't make it from one Supercharger station to another unless they were a lot closer together.

I think this is a rather short sighted statement. If Nissan is going to join Tesla on the Superchargers, why wouldn't they double down and fill in the gaps with even more superchargers? In fact, with two or three of the main EV competitors using the same standard, who is to say that a third party, like Car Charging Group, won't start to develop a network of their own? I think this is the long-term hope of Tesla, Nissan and BMW...

Simple: increasing the number of Supercharger stations to accommodate a short range LEAF would require a drastic increase in the number of stations, at considerable expense. That is the genius of the current Supercharger network: placing stations every 100 to 120 miles can cover the contiguous states with just a few hundred stations and easily accommodate both 60 and 85 kWh Teslas traveling at 75 mph (the speed limit across much of the country). As more cars use them, more chargers can be added to existing locations. To cover the nation with stations 40 miles apart would require a large increase in the number of stations.

Anyway, I think this issue is moot. My guess is that if Nissan or BMW sign on with Tesla they would do so only with new models that have greatly increased range to take advantage of the Supercharge network as it is currently planned. The current LEAF is not designed for, nor intended for, long distance travel. The Model S, Model X, and Gen III are.

I disagree that it will never make sense for a much denser network. The gas station network today is far more dense than one every 40 miles. It is more like every 2 miles. Yes, it's different (gas stations are needed for local driving in an ICEV, but home charging is there for an EV) but there are reasons I think we need much denser than every 150 miles.

The supercharger network looks great on a map with those overlapping circles, but that isn't a realistic way to travel. People take trips that don't just go from A to B in a straight line. Or you make a trip that's 150 miles each way, without passing a supercharger and no charging at your end point (e.g. driving to a trail head for a weekend of camping). There are a ton of situations one could come up with that even the longest range Tesla and the full proposed network would not be able to handle.

As EVs move from <1% of the market to 10% or more, we will need not only more stalls at existing locations, but also far more locations. Notice that this is true for longer-range cars, but also benefits the shorter-range EVs. I sure hope that Tesla is thinking out that far. I have every reason to believe they're planning for that kind of market penetration.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I disagree that it will never make sense for a much denser network. The gas station network today is far more dense than one every 40 miles. It is more like every 2 miles. Yes, it's different (gas stations are needed for local driving in an ICEV, but home charging is there for an EV) but there are reasons I think we need much denser than every 150 miles...

"150 miles" is a straw man argument. The planned network has stations closer, often much closer, than that in many places. (Like my home turf, where mountains and weather can severely limit range.) Take a look at the stations in densely populated California, for example.

Yes, the gas station model is completely different from the Supercharger network. In part it is because most EV charging is at home where each of us has a "gas station" for our car. But the other reason is that gas stations are driven by sales and competition. The Supercharger network is paid for with a lump sum at the purchase of the car and is free to use after that. It is a completely different model and limits the number of stations that can be afforded until there are vastly more cars paying into the system.

If Tesla and the Superchargers are successful, will more of them pop up in between the current locations, as well as in urban areas? Perhaps. But it would be hard to use a commercial gas station model to pay for them if the main network remains free to use. I could see the "Supercharger fund" paying for more stations over time though. Nevertheless, in most cases it is cheaper to add chargers to existing locations than it is to permit and build new stations.

The supercharger network looks great on a map with those overlapping circles, but that isn't a realistic way to travel. People take trips that don't just go from A to B in a straight line. Or you make a trip that's 150 miles each way, without passing a supercharger and no charging at your end point (e.g. driving to a trail head for a weekend of camping). There are a ton of situations one could come up with that even the longest range Tesla and the full proposed network would not be able to handle.

Yes, you can come up with some situations where the Supercharger network won't help with certain trips. But there are L1 and L2 options for most of those. I think the 150 mile one way trip to a trailhead without passing an L2 station would be uncommon. I do face it here because of the extreme dearth of L2 public charging, but by taking longer routes it would be possible to make most such trips in a Tesla I think. But those are outlier situations. If you want to cover every road in the USA with a Supercharger every few miles, like gas stations, I think that you are being unrealistic. Hence the need for longer range EVs, as opposed to the current LEAF, to use them.

The idea of the Supercharger network is to allow long distance travel by BEVs. Not necessarily by the shortest or most efficient route. Or every possible route. But, with L1 and L2 charging it should make most trips possible with some planning, albeit not nearly as easily or as quickly as just driving the ICE car. But possible. That's good enough for me.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

http://news.yahoo.com/harley-davidson-introduces-electric-motorcycle-115943100.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe HD can get in on the consortium too.

I can see it now, guy pulls up at a supercharger on one of these and jumps the line, "Excuse me, mind if I use that for 30 seconds before you plug in?" (although I never pictured the stereotypical HD rider as beginning a sentence with "excuse me")

 

[GetOffYourGas]

"150 miles" is a straw man argument. The planned network has stations closer, often much closer, than that in many places. (Like my home turf, where mountains and weather can severely limit range.) Take a look at the stations in densely populated California, for example.

Hardly.

I'm happy for Californians. Really, I am. Their state pushes the envelope, and they get the best technology and infrastructure (well, maybe not as good as just north of them)...

As for Colorado, well as you said even Teslas need superchargers closer together due to terrain and weather. But a Leaf suffers the same range degradation in those conditions.

Here in the northeast, the planned network is pretty much every 150 miles. We have mountains too, btw, just the base of said mountains is closer to sea level. It is easy to have plenty of elevation gain in NY, VT or NH though. And we get cold during the winter too. Why they aren't planning for a denser network, I'm not sure. They may have to reconsider.

As for the trailhead example, I used that because it is a trip I take regularly. But I could also talk about trips out to Rochester or the Fingerlakes. A round trip between Rochester and Syracuse is fairly common, not just to me.

A denser network would cost money, sure. But my point was that one could imagine Nissan and/or BMW and/or a charging based company filling in some of the more popular routes with a denser network. (Heck, even gas station density varies by need - in the desert, there certainly isn't a gas station every 5 miles like there is around here). I claim that there is value in building a denser network. Do you disagree with that claim?

 

[Zythryn]

I don't believe you are correct, unless by "A lot of people" you mean 4.
I suspect more people buy a Leaf to make a statement than buy a Model S to make a statement.
If your supposition were correct, why in the world would Tesla owners stoop to using public car chargers, much less free ones?

I base my statements on my interaction with (and reading posts by) thousands of Leaf & Model S owners over the last 3 years. What do you base your opinion on ?

Interesting enought, the same thing.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I claim that there is value in building a denser network. Do you disagree with that claim?

Yes and no. If you are talking about a few dozen stations to fill in large gaps in the network, it would be helpful. (And, by the way, the planned network has most of the Supercharger stations in the NE and mid-Atlantic states considerably closer than 150 miles from the next nearest.)

If you are talking about trying to drastically increase the density of the network to cover small battery cars, including all the current non-Teslas, such as the LEAF, it would not be of value (cost-effective) in my judgment. The cost would be high and it rather misses the point, which is to allow long distance travel in BEVs. Short range BEVs aren't practical for long distance travel, regardless of whether they can use the Superchargers or not.

As I understand it, the purpose of the Supercharger network is not to allow extended or free local travel, although they can be used for that in many densely populated areas. Nor is it to allow travel from a Supercharger to every possible location, on every road, in the 48 contiguous states. Rather, it is to allow cars to get from home to a network node for regional or cross-country travel. The routes taken for that long distance travel won't necessarily be the most direct or shortest. But it should be possible for most trips. And L2 charging can fill in some of the gaps.

If that doesn't make sense, then I give up.