• Lucid Owners Notice: Text messaging to Customer Care unavailable for two weeks starting the week of July 8th. Click Here for further details.

Tesla Superchargers to open to all EVs in California

Tesla may soon have to confront the lesson many other companies had to learn: the entrepreneurs who founded them are often not the right people to run them. Very different skill sets are in play.
Once again, I feel it is imperative to reiterate: Elon Musk did not found Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did.
 
Once again, I feel it is imperative to reiterate: Elon Musk did not found Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did.
And they were also the ones with electronics experience who thought to use lithium ion batteries for EVs. Musk then removed Eberhard, the one with the experience and the ideas, from his role as CEO.

I can't see into alternate universes, maybe that did somehow lead Tesla to become more successful, but it's just one more thing that people attribute to Musk that isn't his work.
 
Once again, I feel it is imperative to reiterate: Elon Musk did not found Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did.

True, and I know that history. I was perhaps trying to keep things too concise in my post. I was meaning to deal from the assumption that most people have -- especially the fan crowd -- that Musk was the founder.

And they were also the ones with electronics experience who thought to use lithium ion batteries for EVs. Musk then removed Eberhard, the one with the experience and the ideas, from his role as CEO.

Also true. But my understanding is that, although lithium ion was thought to be the right chemistry for powering EVs, there was also thought to be an issue with balancing and managing the huge numbers of small batteries required in a car battery module and that car manufacturers were waiting for lithium ion cells to become practical in much larger form factors. It was Musk who sought out a way to manage the large numbers of computer battery cells for application in vehicle propulsion so that development of a practical EV could proceed. And that was where Lotus came into the picture.

(I'm not a historian of technology, so keep any corrections on this narrative coming. I'm still happily educable on the topic.)
 
That's very late news. It was first announced on 3/1/2023 or more than a year ago:


The devil is in the details, and it takes time. The earliest Lucid estimation is in 2025, more than two years after the first Tesla announcement.
If I go to the section in the Tesla app that's now called "charge your other vehicle," I see three Superchargers in my entire state. If I tell the app that my "other vehicle" is a Ford, I see lots of Superchargers. As far as software issues go, there are obvious ones if the car is going to tell people where it can be charged. But when using the Tesla app (I already checked the box saying that I have the adapter) it should be a matter of paying through the Tesla app, turning on a specific charger, and having it go through the same handshake as CCS. So the only real "detail" to open things up would be to make an adapter ready. I don't know what would happen if I used a Ford adapter and told the app that my car is a Ford. Regardless, since it can work at those three stations, which have Magic Docks that are essentially snap in adapters, it's already known that the app/adapter system will work. So it should be no different with the Ford adapter, which shouldn't be doing anything more or less than the adapter built into those few Superchargers at those stations.

From the point of view of other manufacturers than Tesla, the issues will be integration with their navigation systems as well as plug and pay and payment handling. From Tesla's point of view, they already say that you'd need an adapter from either them or the vehicle's manufacturer, so they'd have to actually offer an adapter if they wanted to open things up. I can't think of anything stopping them unless they don't think that their network can handle the load.
 
Once again, I feel it is imperative to reiterate: Elon Musk did not found Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning did.
Musk sued to be considered a founder. So it must be true. There is that detail about him not even being part of the company when it was founded, but if you broaden the definition of founding to include everything up until the Roadster came out, he was a founder. The problem is that he changed the meaning of a word as if he gets to decide what words mean. If you consider that the company was already established when Musk joined, then dictionaries disagree with him. Let him sue Webster's and then get back to this.
 
Although I don't agree with the Supercharger layoff but I don't expect it has much effects to non-Tesla such as Lucid.

I suspect EV charging is not a very profitable business just like gas stations and movie theaters that rely on pop corn and soda sales.

Thus, it's a blinking target in a layoff.

This is not the first layoff. In the past, Tesla did lay workers off then rehire them back with a cheapet wage.

We'll get what was announced at the time and not more: same number of Superchargers, same 50kW capability. No significant growth in numbers. No faster speed at 350kW.

There is a concern that non-Tesla cars will not be added. I doubt that will happen because Tesla will hire Supercharger workers again. GM should be the next to get the access and adapters after the current batch of Ford and Rivian will be done. We'll know by the end of this year whether GM's turn is honored or not.

There's a concern that broken chargers will grow. Tesla could hire a temporary contractor to the broken site to service it without paying all the workers' benefits of vacation, sick, health care, jury duty...

In summary, it's alarming because we won't get explosive growth in new Supercharger locations, we won't get our 350kW, but most likely, we will get what were announced and no more.
 
...Regardless, since it can work at those three stations, which have Magic Docks that are essentially snap in adapters, it's already known that the app/adapter system will work. So it should be no different with the Ford adapter, which shouldn't be doing anything more or less than the adapter built into those few Superchargers at those stations...
Agreed. The adapter does not have the processing power to filter out ineligible cars that are not on the contract list.

From the point of view of other manufacturers than Tesla, the issues will be integration with their navigation systems as well as plug and pay and payment handling.
Agreed.
From Tesla's point of view, they already say that you'd need an adapter from either them or the vehicle's manufacturer, so they'd have to actually offer an adapter if they wanted to open things up. I can't think of anything stopping them unless they don't think that their network can handle the load.
True, but there's more than that.

Tesla is adding other companies in batches: Ford and Rivian now and GM next. A slow rollout can solve the problem of being overloaded.

However, Tesla can also control a slow rollout by direct registration, such as Magic Dock. Well, Magic Dock is a very slow rollout, as there are only 3 for the entire state of California.

The need for a "deal" with other car companies is to ensure the mass adoption of NACS and the extinction of CCS1.
 
Agreed. The adapter does not have the processing power to filter out ineligible cars that are not on the contract list...
Though somehow stations with Magic Dock will charge any CCS EV, while Ford's adapter will not allow any other EV brand to charge. I suspect Magic Dock stations have a different vehicle validation criterion.
 
Though somehow stations with Magic Dock will charge any CCS EV, while Ford's adapter will not allow any other EV brand to charge. I suspect Magic Dock stations have a different vehicle validation criterion.

There have been reports that the Ford adapter does not work on Bolt and Rivian:


That is expected because Rivian and Bolt were not registered by their own companies at the time when the video was made.

It's not the adapter. It's the registration. Registration must be done either by the car companies for V3 and above access (15,000 stalls) or by the Tesla app for Magic Dock access only (3 in the whole state of CA).
 
As Musk had already done in his career, he astutely maneuvered himself into a position to attach his own name to everything that proceeded and blithely assemble the work of others into the monument of his own genius through hype, public antics, pseudo-visionary pronouncements, and making himself the darling of a press hungry for outrage and titillation.
This could almost be interpreted as political allegory these days, but I think it doesn't need to...people do this in all arenas. Musk has done an incredible job of leveraging this approach for his own benefit.
 
There have been reports that the Ford adapter does not work on Bolt and Rivian:


That is expected because Rivian and Bolt were not registered by their own companies at the time when the video was made.

It's not the adapter. It's the registration. Registration must be done either by the car companies for V3 and above access (15,000 stalls) or by the Tesla app for Magic Dock access only (3 in the whole state of CA).
Do we know when Lucid is registering?
 
I didn't get this article until now:


It's a well known secret of layoffs and rehires.

It teaches workers who is the boss. Also, in a layoff, some workers might lose some benefits such as incentive cash/stock bonuses due to not being "vested."

Bad for workers but good for the CEO compensation.

It's a wage redistribution scheme but usually, the company business still continues.
 
I didn't get this article until now:


It's a well known secret of layoffs and rehires.

It teaches workers who is the boss. Also, in a layoff, some workers might lose some benefits such as incentive cash/stock bonuses due to not being "vested."

Bad for workers but good for the CEO compensation.

It's a wage redistribution scheme but usually, the company business still continues.
The only problem with that plan is that the best people already have offers because their skills are in demand and will fly the middle finger at being rehired. The worst performers that cannot easily find another job will take the rehire. The result is a big downgrade in the quality of your team.
 
It's a well known secret of layoffs and rehires.

It teaches workers who is the boss. Also, in a layoff, some workers might lose some benefits such as incentive cash/stock bonuses due to not being "vested."

Bad for workers but good for the CEO compensation.

It's a wage redistribution scheme but usually, the company business still continues.

I dealt with restructurings and layoffs during a large part of my career. The tactic of laying off and rehiring workers is not widely used except in industries that are predictably cyclic and in which the employees understand that is the structure of the work arrangement. For instance, many school systems were structured on this arrangement, and some still are. The cruise industry works that way. It is typical of segments of the construction and agricultural industries which have seasonal cyclicality.

A company that does it randomly for reasons of reducing wages or trying to manipulate stock prices runs serious risks. The last thing well-run businesses would want to do is anger workers by such ploys and then bring them back into the workforce.

When workers are laid off due to temporary conditions with any expectation that they might return to work, responsible companies doing so usually take extraordinary measures to explain their reasons to departing employees and provide programs such as benefits gap plans, seniority and vesting restoration upon return where applicable, etc.

Musk is notorious for particularly heavy-handed treatment of his employees impacted by layoffs, and that reputation only worsened with his behavior in the Twitter takeover.

In order to avoid the risks of sabotage or industrial espionage alone, Tesla would be insane to rehire workers that were treated the way these Supercharger team workers were. Of course, since the company is run partially on insanity, who's to say they won't try.
 
I dealt with restructurings and layoffs during a large part of my career. The tactic of laying off and rehiring workers is not widely used except in industries that are predictably cyclic and in which the employees understand that is the structure of the work arrangement. For instance, many school systems were structured on this arrangement, and some still are. The cruise industry works that way. It is typical of segments of the construction and agricultural industries which have seasonal cyclicality.

A company that does it randomly for reasons of reducing wages or trying to manipulate stock prices runs serious risks. The last thing well-run businesses would want to do is anger workers by such ploys and then bring them back into the workforce.

When workers are laid off due to temporary conditions with any expectation that they might return to work, responsible companies doing so usually take extraordinary measures to explain their reasons to departing employees and provide programs such as benefits gap plans, seniority and vesting restoration upon return where applicable, etc.

Musk is notorious for particularly heavy-handed treatment of his employees impacted by layoffs, and that reputation only worsened with his behavior in the Twitter takeover.

In order to avoid the risks of sabotage or industrial espionage alone, Tesla would be insane to rehire workers that were treated the way these Supercharger team workers were. Of course, since the company is run partially on insanity, who's to say they won't try.
Why would anyone work in his company after this, he treats his employees like doormats…..
 
As the dust is beginning to settle around the firing of most of the Supercharger team and all sorts of guesses about Musk's reasons continue to multiply, two stand out to me as those most bearing the signature of his psyche and MO.

The first is that he was not getting the layoff actions he desired from his senior staff, and Rebecca Finucci's pushback about her team ignited his fury, with him firing her and her whole team to make a point without any forethought as to consequences inside and outside the company.

The second -- which actually links to the first -- is that Musk who, tempted by federal NEVI funds, signed on to the NACS project but later came to realize how much it could bolster rival brand sales. Since many agreements had already been reached with these rival brands, his only exit ramp was to scare the NACS partners away by throwing the Supercharger network's future into doubt.

Meanwhile, the Tesla Board has submitted Musk's latest $55 billion compensation demand to a shareholder vote, supported by a threat to strip AI -- which he now claims is, along with robotics, the core of the Tesla brand -- out of the company, thus indicating the state of general corporate governance at Tesla.
 
The first is that he was not getting the layoff actions he desired from his senior staff, and Rebecca Finucci's pushback about her team ignited his fury, with him firing her and her whole team to make a point without any forethought as to consequences inside and outside the company.

Yes. Layoff can be a tool to demonstrate which one is the boss. Rebecca Finucci pushed back, so collective punishment was deployed, and her whole department was gone.

The second -- which actually links to the first -- is that Musk who, tempted by federal NEVI funds, signed on to the NACS project but later came to realize how much it could bolster rival brand sales. Since many agreements had already been reached with these rival brands, his only exit ramp was to scare the NACS partners away by throwing the Supercharger network's future into doubt.

Maybe, but I think it's more about personality conflicts. He doesn't like Rebecca Finucci talking back to him instead of obeying him just like a robot.

Other brands have committed to building their own 350kW NACS stations. NACS is now a public SAE J3400 standard, so even when Tesla goes down, the SAE still survives.


Meanwhile, the Tesla Board has submitted Musk's latest $55 billion compensation demand to a shareholder vote, supported by a threat to strip AI -- which he now claims is, along with robotics, the core of the Tesla brand -- out of the company, thus indicating the state of general corporate governance at Tesla.
The optic is bad: Layoff workers to compensate the CEO.
 
Other brands have committed to building their own 350kW NACS stations. NACS is now a public SAE J3400 standard, so even when Tesla goes down, the SAE still survives.

The question is still open and might be for some time as people wait to see what shakes out of this confusion about Supercharging. Kyle Conner of "Out of Spec" said his contacts at German automakers report they are already holding meetings about sticking with the CCS1 standard in their cars.

Much still has to happen for Tesla Superchargers to work seamlessly with non-Tesla brands, from complicated voltage upgrades to things as basic as lengthening charging cables. NEVI funding also requires the installation of credit card readers on Tesla charging stations. With almost the entire Supercharger team gone, how will this work get directed? Will contractors want to continue to work on Tesla Superchargers or instead seek out work with current CCS suppliers? Will current CCS suppliers now feel any pressure to adapt their equipment if non-Tesla carmakers get cold feet about putting J3400 hardware in their cars? And if they don't, does that mean that owners of J3400 cars will have to live with adapters indefinitely to use a non-Tesla charging network.

Perhaps the best outcome would be if IONNA gathered momentum with all the current CCS automakers coming together on J3400 in their own counterpart to the Tesla network.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read much about this, but an I wrong in assuming there will be new hires for the Tesla SC group? I can’t begin to imagine they’ll abandon their efforts, it will be too much of a money maker. I think too much is being read into this.
 
Back
Top