Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Biden administration wants to standardize electric vehicle charging, like gas stations

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Oh yes they are, at least in California. California Air Resources Board denied them permission to discontinue it at new sites.
I never understood CHAdeMO, with its absolutely giant connector and no fewer than EIGHT signal wires. I'm not sure what those eight wires are for, but it seems to me that four would be way more than enough to communicate what needs to be communicated. I'd also wager that three or even two might be sufficient, with a little work. Heck, with wifi ZERO signal wires might be enough(although its probably quite a stretch, since you'd want to be able to tell which car was plugged in to a particular stall). You clearly don't want to accidentally energize a thousand volt DC connector without it being plugged into a vehicle. That said, it wouldn't be THAT hard to design a protocol that says "Hey, try 10V on the connector and we'll see if the car sees it. If not, lets try another connector"
 
I never understood CHAdeMO, with its absolutely giant connector and no fewer than EIGHT signal wires. I'm not sure what those eight wires are for, but it seems to me that four would be way more than enough to communicate what needs to be communicated. I'd also wager that three or even two might be sufficient, with a little work. Heck, with wifi ZERO signal wires might be enough(although its probably quite a stretch, since you'd want to be able to tell which car was plugged in to a particular stall). You clearly don't want to accidentally energize a thousand volt DC connector without it being plugged into a vehicle. That said, it wouldn't be THAT hard to design a protocol that says "Hey, try 10V on the connector and we'll see if the car sees it. If not, lets try another connector"

3883FE40-F590-4A1F-9999-779D51E02C52.jpeg


I guess they couldn’t find a DB-25 that they liked
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Sophias_dad
  • Like
Reactions: nativewolf
There was an interesting article in this morning's Wall Street Journal with some issues that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread: in a lot of the country, particularly "the west", things are rural enough that even good ol' gas stations are more than 50 miles apart, sometimes with no electric service for large areas. How, then, can one meet a requirement of charging every 50 miles? There was mention of proposing roving charging trucks to rescue cars that hit zero. And, frankly, I don't remember if the 50 miles thing was administration rhetoric or if it was part of the law.

It also mentions that the 2015 "FAST Act" determines which highways should have chargers. Apparently this has two problems in some rural states: sometimes those highways aren't near people, and sometimes roads near people aren't covered by the FAST Act. Reading the article gave me no sense as to the size of that problem: is it a real problem? Or is it an incredibly miniscule thing being used for talking points by opposing politicians?

Here's the article, I'm a subscriber so no clue about paywalls.

 
There was an interesting article in this morning's Wall Street Journal with some issues that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread: in a lot of the country, particularly "the west", things are rural enough that even good ol' gas stations are more than 50 miles apart, sometimes with no electric service for large areas. How, then, can one meet a requirement of charging every 50 miles? There was mention of proposing roving charging trucks to rescue cars that hit zero. And, frankly, I don't remember if the 50 miles thing was administration rhetoric or if it was part of the law.

It also mentions that the 2015 "FAST Act" determines which highways should have chargers. Apparently this has two problems in some rural states: sometimes those highways aren't near people, and sometimes roads near people aren't covered by the FAST Act. Reading the article gave me no sense as to the size of that problem: is it a real problem? Or is it an incredibly miniscule thing being used for talking points by opposing politicians?

Here's the article, I'm a subscriber so no clue about paywalls.

Impossible? Never.
Expensive? Definitely.

EA has solar powered Level 2 chargers across California. With enough financial incentive, just about any area could be cleared and made into a road side rest stop along a highway. With a Solar Canopy added, batteries added and sattelite-based internet connectivity added, it could support a DC fast charger. While I have been critical of FreeWire's reliablity, if that was fixed it would make an easy but expensive solution to this problem in tandem with Solar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyberGus
There was an interesting article in this morning's Wall Street Journal with some issues that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread: in a lot of the country, particularly "the west", things are rural enough that even good ol' gas stations are more than 50 miles apart, sometimes with no electric service for large areas. How, then, can one meet a requirement of charging every 50 miles? There was mention of proposing roving charging trucks to rescue cars that hit zero. And, frankly, I don't remember if the 50 miles thing was administration rhetoric or if it was part of the law.

It also mentions that the 2015 "FAST Act" determines which highways should have chargers. Apparently this has two problems in some rural states: sometimes those highways aren't near people, and sometimes roads near people aren't covered by the FAST Act. Reading the article gave me no sense as to the size of that problem: is it a real problem? Or is it an incredibly miniscule thing being used for talking points by opposing politicians?

Here's the article, I'm a subscriber so no clue about paywalls.

It said in the draft that the Secretary of Transportation can waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC
It's Tesla's fault for keeping its connector proprietary, so now we are stuck with we have.
Similarly, it is the fault of the insignificant compliance EV producers for developing and sticking with CCS so we are now stuck with what we have (ie their drivers don't support, and can't benefit from, the only reliable reliable, and well-deployed charging network in the USA.
Clearly, @Mockinbird is either a shill for Electrify America or an ignorant fool pushing an agenda with incorrect facts.
Tesla's charging connectors proceeded any standard connectors other than CHAdeMO, AVCON, LPI, and SPI and I'm sure we can all agree that none of those were particularly worth emulating going forward.
I'm fine with any reasonable (or even slightly unreasonable) dialog about the merits of CCS -vs- Tesla connectors or whether it might be better for Tesla or the others to select one standard or the other.
I would hope the any moderators would eliminate this member's incessant, incorrect, and annoying postings pushing mis-truths.
 
It could have been the standard connector but Tesla kept it proprietary so it isn’t.

They could have easily submitted the design to CharIN and had it formally designated a standard but that just didn’t happen.
They did submit it to the SAE (owners of the standard at the time CCS was developed) but were rejected as the majority of the committee had no interest in a good charging standard, finishing the standard before Tesla's cars were ready for production, or supporting fast charging speeds suitable for road trips (50 kW was the target). You, as a newcomer, apparently swayed by the rhetoric of shills such as mockingbird, should not spout or parrot that about which you know nothing as you simply will create a false history.
 
They did submit it to the SAE (owners of the standard at the time CCS was developed) but were rejected as the majority of the committee had no interest in a good charging standard, finishing the standard before Tesla's cars were ready for production, or supporting fast charging speeds suitable for road trips (50 kW was the target). You, as a newcomer, apparently swayed by the rhetoric of shills such as mockingbird, should not spout or parrot that about which you know nothing as you simply will create a false history.
Got a source on that? I've only ever seen the story of Tesla suing a European charging company early on trying to make their own supercharger using a reverse engineered port.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mockingbird
Got a source on that? I've only ever seen the story of Tesla suing a European charging company early on trying to make their own supercharger using a reverse engineered port.
There weren't reporters there. As an enthusiast, I was in meetings with folks from Tesla and other charging station vendors just afterwards where it was discussed.
You can look at the timelines of certification for the SAE standards (both J-1772 and CCS) compared with release dates for the Roadster and Model S though if you want documented evidence of the BS the Tesla haters are spouting.
Someone trying to use Tesla's patents and IP to develop competing standards/products is totally different from whether Tesla would have played nicely if the others had wanted to play nice. Tesla said they would play nice but, since nobody ever took them up on it, we'll never know whether they were sincere or not.
I did work for a company that had a division that was an automobile supplier (I am just an amateur EV enthusiast and was not part of that division) for a while during the initial Supercharger rollout. The word promoted by executives (as told to me by our president) within the auto industry was that Tesla was begging for someone to bail them out by adopting their standard and helping deploy systems. Clearly, there were several narratives at play.
History shows that the Tesla Superchargers were a great thing and that Tesla did well. Whether there was contrary talk in secured boardrooms, we can probably never actually know.
Personally, since the true story really cannot be verified (there was probably no recorded evidence), I'd rather just ignore history and try to figure out the best way to move forward.
I see 3 options:
1) Tesla adopt CCS - this, in addition to multiple world wars, seems to be the only thing the European nations can agree upon but I can't see any practical or economical benefit to Tesla or Tesla drivers to make this switch at present, given a choice. Maybe if the CCS network was a shining example of convenience, reliability, and economics, my opinion on this option would be different.
2) The rest adopt Tesla - I don't see this as being likely, given what I know about the still-existing motivations behind the creation of CCS, but it is clearly the better standard
3) Live with adapters. As we have at least 5 different standards for automobile ICE fuel and fueling (High-octane, mid-grade, regular, diesel, CNG, LP, and LH2), and there are at least a dozen different 240v electrical outlets in the USA alone, maybe we can live with adapters, at least for a while while we see whether the CCS industry can make them worth (price, reliability, convenience) using. There's plenty of room left in my frunk for a simple Tesla2CCS adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genie and Rocky_H
On a related note:
It looks like CharlN may have a winner this time, now that the industry seems to be getting less balkanized and focusing on actually producing EVs.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC
They did submit it to the SAE (owners of the standard at the time CCS was developed) but were rejected as the majority of the committee had no interest in a good charging standard, finishing the standard before Tesla's cars were ready for production, or supporting fast charging speeds suitable for road trips (50 kW was the target). You, as a newcomer, apparently swayed by the rhetoric of shills such as mockingbird, should not spout or parrot that about which you know nothing as you simply will create a false history.
1. That's just an urban tale.

2. Tesla could have made the specifications of the Tesla connector available to the public regardless of what SAE/ACEA did.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ElectricIAC
2. Tesla could have made the specifications of the Tesla connector available to the public regardless of what SAE/ACEA did.
Yes, they could have. But that would have made it harder to maintain quality control that was so important when opening up a new market against such hostile, powerful competitors (the ICE industry). Besides, given the reception they met at the committee, It wouldn't surprise me, nor would I hold it against them if they decided to go it alone - just for spite - "if you can't join 'em, beat 'em"
Clearly, that is what they're doing.