this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
99 points (84.6% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3215 readers
310 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My guy…
“Add” and “Update” are the action Supercharge.info performs on a database record for a charging site.
“Add” is used when they insert a new site into their DB for the first time. Most of the time it’ll be added at Permit or Construction, but sometimes the community misses chargers under construction entirely and they get added as they open.
“Update” is used when Supercharge.info updates the status of a site. For example, when someone finds construction has started on a site previously marked as “Permit”, an Update entry is added as they change the site status to “Construction”.
21 sites on Supercharge were “surprises” that nobody reported a permit for or reported as under construction.
Now that I’ve helped you use the site, go back and add up lol
And no, I’m not talking about the destination chargers. I haven’t counted any destination chargers in my counts for anything. They operate as a completely separate group. These are the 16 or whatever Superchargers behind Bloomingdale’s.
Yes, it turns out you don't need to mansplain CRUD to me, nor owning and using a Tesla, because I'm personally familiar with both.
Since "update" can mean changed status in any direction it's the least reasonable metric to use, because you'll also capture closed, permanently closed, permitted, and under construction status updates.
You also don't have to mansplain the site since I've been using it longer than you've been a Tesla fan. After all, you are the one citing Tesla's Quarterly report's global number.
You keep clearly demonstrating that you aren't reading what I'm writing. And you seem to think you're telling me something even though you've very obviously got things supremely wrong. Again, global figure as one example and now you think I'm talking about Tesla adding destination chargers when what I very clearly said was that the SUPERCHARGER SITE has been planned every since they installed that shitty destination charger.
Do read the entirety of what I've written if you're going to try to argue against it. This is like for fourth or fifth time you've done this.
Here's the thing, I was accused of screwing up my numbers up by a factor of ~20. At that scale, one of our numbers are wildly off. I pointed out how your method is significantly inaccurate and why by explaining how your filter is incorrect. I'm not sure what you want me to do about this.
Given the data on their site doesn't show specifically-US-chargers over time, yes, the numbers I have are rough estimates. If we want exact counts of the current number of Superchargers, there's the
/mapsURL which shows the current total of a given search criteria.Let's compare this to the technically flawed mechanism I used, where I just counted up:
(Count of Transitions to Open) + (Count of entries added as Open).Here's the real count: https://supercharge.info/map, Set Country to USA, status to "Open": 2082 sites
And my inaccurate method's count: https://supercharge.info/changes, Set Country to USA, status to "Open": 2196 sites
That is a difference of 114 across all open chargers, regardless of deployment date. This is an error of 5.2%, I'd say that's pretty darn good for an internet debate. It at least qualifies for a "Mostly True" on Politifact.
Now tell me why it is unreasonable to correlate this number with the total number of North American chargers. There are only ~250 Superchargers in Mexico/Canada. Practically 90% of their North American deployment is in the US.
In the absolute worst case that Tesla deployed all of their Canada/Mexico chargers this year, I'd still be off by... 15%?
With my claim that they've dropped 400-ish chargers, who cares about even a 15% error? My point still stands, Tesla is dropping chargers and charging sites faster than everyone else.
I'm stating that your usage of the site is incorrect and your understanding of how to query the site is fundamentally flawed. Sorry?
OK, you're right. I did respond carelessly to your last statement here. To be completely honest though, I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. You aren't citing anything nor do you acknowledge your errors as they're called out. You've only responded with baseless accusations that I'm grossly incorrect or denial that Tesla can deploy chargers.
I've showed my method and suggested evidence as to why my number is at least reasonable.
I can't help that you're unwilling to admit errors in an internet forum thread.
To which you responded with global figures. And this is all in service of you claiming new chargers from other brands isn't going to make an appreciable difference. Really? Then why keep installing new sites if Tesla's got this done and dusted. Unless, or course, one company won't be keeping up with dozens or hundreds of companies installing new sites in new locations.
They have an API. Why would we rely on the map page?
Again, you're showing that you don't even remember your argument at this point, and it's crazy. You said they opened 1.5 NACS sites per day (in the US). Then you showed GLOBAL figures, and corrected it to 1.4 per day. Now, incredibly, you're counting all sites found on supercharge.info in the US as though they were all installed in the past year. What are you doing, dude. You very clearly already proved yourself wrong by using global supercharger install figures from the quarterly report and dividing it by (hopefully) 75% of a year. Their global number was less than your swag by about 10%, which would be totally fine I agree. If we were talking about global sites. But since we aren't, the debate is over.
Like, this is going to surprise you, I think, but some of us have scripts that pull data from these APIs. You can do the same thing, and collect the stats for yourself over time.
Uh huh. And they've been installing them since 2012. So you might be able to see why dividing all north america (or even US) sites by days in THIS YEAR is a problem, I'm sure.
lmao
Says the dude using the maps page instead of the open API endpoint they've got sitting right there. Kay.
You're having a difficult time staying on task. We're currently talking about how you got charger numbers for 2023 wrong, when the conversation started off with my saying it's entirely possible that if auto manufacturers saw charger manufacturers deploying Combo 1 connectors, that they'd drop NACS since they only "requirement" to use it is their own press releases saying they'd adopt it in 2025. If chargers start showing up in 2024 with more Combo 1 connectors, it wouldn't make much sense to switch to NACS instead of offering an adapter for the times you're stuck using one of Tesla's sites and you don't mind financially supporting an antisemite that cavorts with an admitted rapist and alleged sex trafficker online.
On the other hand, and this is what you could have said many posts ago if you fully read what I wrote, since NACS is an SAE standard at this point and Tesla has no licensing rights to it anymore (not royalty free, but none at all), charger manufacturers could just as easily use it and retrofit their older sites. Then start a nice boutique business offering adapters themselves for anybody with a Combo 1 port on their car currently. Looking at the state of ChaDeMo, though, that seems somewhat unlikely in the near or even medium term.
If you want to get back to the original point rather than going off on these tangents, we could have had a more interesting conversation.
Then why did you correct yourself several times in the comments above? Your global number was 1.4 per day, therefore the US number is necessarily lower than that.
…why do you spend so much time on pedantry instead of arguing like a rational participant?
Yes, the investor slides are global numbers. The intent was to compare against the global Supercharge.info numbers to reasonably justify how close the two are because I’d need to use the supercharge numbers on my next point.
Fact of the matter is, you just aren’t accepting data that opposes your narrative, and I’m not sure what to say besides “sorry buddy”.
We’re at the point where I’m saying the earth is round and having to defend that it’s not a perfect sphere where you’re refusing to believe it isn’t flat.
You haven’t correctly pointed any actual errors out and defer to pointing out the lack of clarity of my intent with the global stats.
You still have yet to demonstrate how tesla only built 21 supercharger locations over 1 year in a correct manner.
Ultimately, have fun with NACS and I hope you take a moment to reflect on your responses to engage productively in the future.
Still skipping the Cruz of the topic. Nice. Anyway, bye.
No, you’ve simply shown to be unable to cite your point.
I've restated it several times, and you keep bringing up straw man arguments. Possibly because you skim rather than reading, perhaps because you're unable to fully grasp what I said. But either way, you've demonstrated that you're hung up on nonsense, so I think it's best we both move on.