Free Tesla supercharger update from MG dealerships

[shpub]

The bottom line is only one of these can be true:

- Tesla produced a charger that has some non - compliance to the standard. All manufacturers other than MG did something to handle the non-compliance (either intentionally or unintentionally)

No the bottom line is none of them are true.

No it caught out other manufacturers as well as MG. This option is not the case as it ignores the other manufacturers and cars that experienced similar problems. The dogmatic approach that only MG have had problems has no foundation. It can be repeated many times but it doesn't change the fact that this not true: Tesla have added to the implementation and this caught out Ford, Chevy,Rivian, Kia, Hyundai and MG to name but a few. This option is not true irrespective of how many times it is repeated.

Or

- Tesla chargers are compliant, as are other manufacturers and MG failed to be compliant (presumably because Tesla are doing something within the handshake that MG don't typically see from other charging providers, but is to standard)

This is not a true option either. Given that Tesla admit that they do a superset using messaging protocol that is not defined in the CCS standard yet used the same CCS powerline comms , given that they have charging issues with 800V cars that are covered in the standard, they cannot be classed as complient in the true sense. They provide an implementation which works most of the time, but this is not complience. They impose messages that are not in the spec so any other CCS device would not expect to see them or know what they were and suddenly manufacturers were suddenly locked out when they worked previously. You constantly forget that MGs and others worked before the upgrades and the fact afterwards that other manufacturers had similar problems. Again the claim that CCS is a standard and if it works, you are compliant, and thus it must always work is another myth. Want to see that document of how many ways you can implement the standard but still not be work?

Tesla amongst many others funded an organisation called Charin who developed a compliance test which was initially released around 2018. If Tesla and others were compliant why have they not certified themselves? The only charger that has passed so far is from ABB. If Tesla were so compliant it would have been a doddle to go through the process. They and everyone apart from ABB have not. So the term compliant is meaningless in this situation as no one apart from ABB has had the compliance tested. Even that was a basic certification.

You constantly rant about it being an MG and only an MG problem with no explanations for the evidence that says otherwise but it is not going to change things or make the evidence go away.

It seems to me that the real crux is that you don't want to pay for an upgrade to work correctly with a Tesla CCS charger because CCS is a perfect standard and it is thus 100%MG problem. The problem is that the facts indicate that Tesla were the cause and at least partially responsible for the issues associated with their charger. Valid point of view but not when it ignores facts and evidence. such as these.

 

[Gadget Geek]

I think somebody needs to calm down a bit.

 

[DB Go Rex]

It seems to me that the real crux is that you don't want to pay for an upgrade to work correctly with a Tesla CCS charger because CCS is a perfect standard and it is thus 100%MG problem.

Nope. I didn't pay a penny for my fix, nor should anyone else ?

 

[shpub]

I think somebody needs to calm down a bit.

No problem with point of view that it should be free.

Major issue with people who state things that are clearly not true to try and justify it.

 

[johnb80]

No problem with point of view that it should be free.

Major issue with people who state things that are clearly not true to try and justify it.

Well OK, my BMW i3 and my mates VW ID3 work fine on the Tesla chargers so there must be something to be gleaned from that? The fact that MG can do a firmware mod and then it works would suggest to me that the incompatibility / fault is firmly in the MG camp (and possibly others).

 

[shpub]

Not a rant. I have calmed down.

Bit of an explanation.

I've had an EVSE suddenly change behaviour after an upgrade that broke a car's charging system. Was car specific. Customer blamed the car. Actually the customer used the other cars work but yours does not argument and it did get a bit aggressive. I could not reproduce the fault despite having a test bed that I had designed to introduce faults. After a lot of work and I mean a lot of work - involved megabytes of data logs to try and trap the issue - I found the EVSE change and the manufacturer refused to do anything about it as he claimed compatibility because it worked with other cars. Also found out that others didn't check this data and ignored it. Which is why others would work. The spec said it should but it was difficult to do reliably so many didn't.

End result was a complete reengineer of the car charging system because that EVSE was the main one in the customer's neighbourhood. Cost a fortune to rectify something that the EVSE did. We had complied with the spec and it was that diligence that had been the problem. If we had taken the short cuts, it would have been fine. The customer saw it as being 100% our fault despite the fact that other chargers worked perfectly. Yes "they are complient so must work as they use the same standard" argument came up.

This is one of the reasons I struggle with claims that such and such works but this car doesn't so it must be that car's fault. Real life is so different.

So what have I gleaned from that? BMW and ID3 and the other owners that work can enjoy the benefits. Good. I don't know why? Did those guys got told by Tesla what the issues could have been so had time to sort it out, their implementation was not a thorough as the spec required or it is a really good one? Really difficult to know unless you have all the facts and these guys will rarely reveal what any issue really are. Safest to simply assume nothing and that the responsibility is probably between the EVSE and car. Unfortunately the customer is in the middle.

I hope that explains why I see such comments and such assertions that it is 100% MG's fault when it never is.

 

[johnb80]

I hope that explains why I see such comments and such assertions that it is 100% MG's fault when it never is.

Sorry, I have to disagree, how can you be so sure to make such a statement?

If you consider MG's track record with software / firmware related issues eg MG4 auto headlights, LKA and more for example. They don't have the best reputation for sure. IMHO it is more likely that MG got this wrong rather than Tesla hence why MG do the bu fix FOC.

 

[DB Go Rex]

Really difficult to know unless you have all the facts

Which if you believe, I'm surprised you are coming down so heavy with the opinion.

 

[shpub]

I know a lot about these systems to know that suggestions that it is 100% one parties problem is a gross over simplification. I know how these systems are designed and built and I know that no ccs system is completely compliant and free from errors. I know how to build a complient system that would not work with most cars.
I know the issues with standards to make them work. Given the level of issues with have gone across manufacturers and that it was a tesla update that stopped several different cars from working it is reasonable to assess that the blame is not a single party.

The reasoning that mg have a bad reputation for software so it must be them at fault is another oversimplification. Dig deep and you will find id3s having a lot of problems which took almost 2 years to address. The cars were stored in carparks because they could not be sold because they were so bad. And yes they started to corrode. VW were the company that got caught claiming compliance for the emission standards.

 

[johnb80]

I know a lot about these systems to know that suggestions that it is 100% one parties problem is a gross over simplification. I know how these systems are designed and built and I know that no ccs system is completely compliant and free from errors. I know how to build a complient system that would not work with most cars.

Good to know that you know.

I know the issues with standards to make them work. Given the level of issues with have gone across manufacturers and that it was a tesla update that stopped several different cars from working it is reasonable to assess that the blame is not a single party.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one

The reasoning that mg have a bad reputation for software so it must be them at fault is another oversimplification.

It is for sure BUT if looks like a duck, waggles like a duck and quacks like a duck theres a very good chance that it is a duck. MG are not known for great customer support, they are known for loads of errors in their firmware and the fact that they are doing changes which resolve this issue tends to point to us mere mortals that know nothing that it IS an MG issue in this case.

Dig deep and you will find id3s having a lot of problems which took almost 2 years to address.

Yes they did, rushed to market and got it wrong.

The cars were stored in carparks because they could not be sold because they were so bad.

I remember it well

And yes they started to corrode.

Unusual for VAG group due to their galvanising etc.

VW were the company that got caught claiming compliance for the emission standards.

Im sure you will 'KNOW' VW were ONE of the MANY companies that got caught with the emission standards cheat programming.

 

[amheuwrfi]

Could we restart this thread and focus on its original purpose? Specifically, let’s gather information about who has received the ‘fix’ and whether it was provided free of charge. I’ll share my update once I hear back from Threeways in Abergele, the dealership where I purchased my 2023 MG ZS LR.

 

[tsedge]

I have worked building software to meet standards compliance in other industries.

Standards are anything but - they are always an imperfect nightmare of ambiguity and missing steps or information. They are built by committees. Then there's the different versions/revisions to cope with.

It is entirely possible - I would say the common situation - for two parties to believe they are fully compliant, to pass their own tests (which are of course based on their own interpretation of the standard) and yet find they don't work together; failing in surprising and unforeseen ways.

While I have never worked with CCS, I have seen this enough across a variety of industries to know it is the norm.

It is kind of amazing that public charging works as well as it does.

But I'm certain there are no simple answers on "fault" with something like this.

 

[DB Go Rex]

I have worked building software to meet standards compliance in other industries.

Standards are anything but - they are always an imperfect nightmare of ambiguity and missing steps or information. They are built by committees. Then there's the different versions/revisions to cope with.

It is entirely possible - I would say the common situation - for two parties to believe they are fully compliant, to pass their own tests (which are of course based on their own interpretation of the standard) and yet find they don't work together; failing in surprising and unforeseen ways.

While I have never worked with CCS, I have seen this enough across a variety of industries to know it is the norm.

It is kind of amazing that public charging works as well as it does.

But I'm certain there are no simple answers on "fault" with something like this.

I agree. But, if all your competitors got it right (with the slight exception of the instability issues with the 800v Kia/Hyundai's) then you have to question whether the problem isn't with general compliance to the standard across everyone, but it's just your own team's issues...

 

[JimD]

I have worked building software to meet standards compliance in other industries.

Standards are anything but - they are always an imperfect nightmare of ambiguity and missing steps or information. They are built by committees. Then there's the different versions/revisions to cope with.

It is entirely possible - I would say the common situation - for two parties to believe they are fully compliant, to pass their own tests (which are of course based on their own interpretation of the standard) and yet find they don't work together; failing in surprising and unforeseen ways.

While I have never worked with CCS, I have seen this enough across a variety of industries to know it is the norm.

It is kind of amazing that public charging works as well as it does.

But I'm certain there are no simple answers on "fault" with something like this.

So assuming that's true, it's a bit rich of any company, whether they make chargers or cars, to claim that a problem is definitely not caused by their software.

 

[shpub]

MG5 Tesla Supercharger problems: FAQ 1 - Timeline of events

MG5 Supercharger problems: Index and FAQ 1 - Timeline of events See also these other Supercharger FAQs: https://www.mgevs.com/threads/mg5-supercharger-faq-2-what-upgrades-does-my-mg5-need-to-use-a-tesla-charger.17570/...

www.mgevs.com

Read the timeline FAQ for the MG5 Tesla problem. Really enlightening as the information came from members on this forum. People might not agree with my contributions but that time line came from nearly 1000 other contributions. I was really shocked about how many times the situation changed. Especially as initially, owners were really critical of Tesla until Tesla were late on their fix, changed tack and blamed MG.

 

[johnb80]

At the end of the day, we want what Tesla have got. Tesla have made their world leading network available to others at very competitive prices. MOST other EV's can connect and use the Tesla chargers, a lot of MG's cant. IMHO it's for MG to sort out at their expense, not for Tesla or MG Owners to resolve.

 

[DB Go Rex]

MG5 Tesla Supercharger problems: FAQ 1 - Timeline of events

MG5 Supercharger problems: Index and FAQ 1 - Timeline of events See also these other Supercharger FAQs: https://www.mgevs.com/threads/mg5-supercharger-faq-2-what-upgrades-does-my-mg5-need-to-use-a-tesla-charger.17570/...

www.mgevs.com

Read the timeline FAQ for the MG5 Tesla problem. Really enlightening as the information came from members on this forum. People might not agree with my contributions but that time line came from nearly 1000 other contributions. I was really shocked about how many times the situation changed. Especially as initially, owners were really critical of Tesla until Tesla were late on their fix, changed tack and blamed MG.

What did Tesla 'fix'?
The timeline that's listed in thread is dubious as many were charging successfully before these dates with either other manufacturer cars or patched MG's - including mine.

 

[shpub]

I am not getting into a discussion over what is dubious or not. That time line stated that MGs initially worked then they didn't. That seems to be in line with your experience. It is based on MG5 owner experiences and I don't know if the ZS experience is/was different.

The fix was promised by Tesla after MG, VW and JAG all experienced problems. They stated that they had to change their software to address the problem. They promised a fix in a few weeks but it didn't happen. Subsequently they started to blame MG and blocked them. There was no Tesla fix as such.

 

[KennyK]

As there are a few threads about this, if you have received a free Tesla supercharger update, please post the name, address and contact details of the dealership which performed it.

Edit moderator: Added "supercharger" to the thread title.

Hi - I was charged £144 by Arnold Clark in Seafield, Edinburgh. They checked with MG UK, who told them that this is a chargeable service.

Then I tried to charge my ZS EV at a Tesla supercharger (authorised for non-Tesla vehicles), and the app returned with a "Vehicle not authorised"

 

[siteguru]

Have you been back and got a refund?