Yes, they've been talking about it for two years though and the hardware involved is a known quantity. If they can do it they should be able to do it. Not sure what they're trying to figure out. If it's a safety thing, then I'm fine with an arduous manual process, to get power out of the vehicle.
I had my Ford bidirectional system removed. Can’t discuss due to NDA but it was epic. Google will reveal all. Ford is starting over now with a complete reengineering.
The hardware is known, but none of it was designed with this function in mind. Powerwall wasn't designed to have an additional vehicle battery sometimes supply power to its system, and Powershare was fairly straight forward in terms of having power flow from the battery to a demand.
We'll never know the internal details for sure but the Gateway 3 and the Powerwall 3 came out around the same time and all of this was in mind at the time. Again, they've had two years to see what all the ins and outs of the known devices involved are and they believe they can do it but they're still tweaking(?) something. If they're having to waste months and months on regulatory buy in, I can see that but they should know whether it can work or not by now and with which connector.
I too wonder what is making it so difficult. Another commenter indicated it’s getting priority arranged between the grid, solar, PowerWalls and the CT, along with various generations of hardware, etc.
You're making assumptions that something should be able to be done in a given timeframe without any knowledge about what is involved in completing the task. I don't have a full understanding of the job, but I know enough to know it's very complex.
I understand your point, but you might be taking it to the other extreme here. It cannot be that it is impossible to get Powershare+Powerwall+Solar ready any faster than this - it's been promised for roughly 2 years now, from what I understand. If you threw enough money and engineers at the problem, I can't imagine it would take more than a few months to solve the problem at the very most, regardless of complexity, especially considering that it's long been acknowledged to be just a software issue.
You're assuming it should only take a few months, but you have no idea what the problem is. How un-scientific of you.
It's not that complicated, the issue has been described as they said and it's been a few years not a few months. They are familiar with the ins and outs of all the hardware involved and so far are saying the hardware will not change. They have it working with a Gateway v3. They are not changing how the hardware works but what can do what and when. Its more likely that no one was really working on it and now they are refocusing to put more people on it and get it done in the next 6 to 12 months. They can decide again to put folks on different things and derate the priority again in 6 months.
Maybe you can just draw up a little plan for them and have in done in half that time! Since, of course, you clearly have an understanding of it and it's not that complicated.
I suspect the issue is resource commitment and priorities. It’s pretty tough to commit the best engineers to something where the total installed base is POTENTIALLY 50,000 existing trucks that are selling 1,000 units per month. In reality the ultimate audience for the integrated product is likely fewer than 5,000 customers (assuming 5% of CT owners will do bidirectional installations, which may be generous).
