CCS Adapter for North America

[SalisburySam]

And a massage chair, and a slurpee machine! I spent more on my Tesla than any car EVER. How DARE they only sell me the best car on the market for that price.

Let’s not forget the bar. The automated martini machine is an obvious and required piece of kit for an automobile at this price point certainly, especially given my FULL SELF DRIVING option to totes avoid any nasty DUI threats. Just what have they been thinking regarding this stunning omission?

 

[israndy]

There's been some reporting that Tesla is planning to implement something called a "Magic Dock," which will use a single cable and a "built-in adapter."

Certainly the photos in this thread indicate a need for greater CCS compatibility, we can't have half the EVs parking in the space NEXT to the charger they are plugged into, I guess the cars with the charger port on the side, that we have seen perpendicular parking at the Superchargers, are the biggest issue, that and trucks with trailers. The idea of a quick way to get all the Superchargers to support CCS seems attractive, but if only v4 Superchargers were compatible in NA that would keep confusion down.

Since they won't get any federal dollars for converting old stations to support CCS it could be the best solution to bring out v4 sooner rather than later.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Certainly the photos in this thread indicate a need for greater CCS compatibility, we can't have half the EVs parking in the space NEXT to the charger they are plugged into, I guess the cars with the charger port on the side, that we have seen perpendicular parking at the Superchargers, are the biggest issue, that and trucks with trailers. The idea of a quick way to get all the Superchargers to support CCS seems attractive, but if only v4 Superchargers were compatible in NA that would keep confusion down.

Since they won't get any federal dollars for converting old stations to support CCS it could be the best solution to bring out v4 sooner rather than later.

Totally agree. I rather doubt tesla will put any money into converting V2 or V3’s.

 

[MP3Mike]

I was fully aware it has to be for all 4 stalls. I would be curious not just what the cars can pull but what they do in the real world. Because most of the reports I hear from all types of cars is the cars don't do nearly as much as they should in theory. Also cars that can pull 150kw at 800v would not do it at 400v, so it's that true for the taycan and other 800v cars?

All of those numbers I supplied are from real world charging sessions logged by Bjorn. The Taycan can charge at 150kW from a 400v charger if it has the optional 150kW CCS module. (Which I think most do, and it may be standard now.) The Kia/Hyundai vehicles use the motor's inverter to step up the voltage, so they too can charge at 150kW on a 400v charger.

No, I don't think there would be outrage from teslas pulling low wattage in this situation. Because it would not happen often and it would not happen for long, and those other cars got there first, and some of them will be drawing less than 150kw soon.

Ok, how about when a Telsa is getting 100kW and a EV6 plugs in taking 150kW and the Tesla suddenly drops to 30kW? There absolutely would be a lot of outrage. Shoot there will be a lot of outrage just from Tesla opening to CCS vehicles even if it didn't negatively impact charging speed.

At least the way I charge, the difference between 150 and 100 is pretty small

Not everyone charges like you... But we are talking about the difference from 150kW and potentially 30kW here.

 

[srs5694]

Totally agree. I rather doubt tesla will put any money into converting V2 or V3’s.

It seems possible, and maybe even likely, to me, but only in the medium--to-long term. Consider: No Supercharger hardware will last forever; sooner or later, it will all need to be replaced. When doing so, upgrades will be in order, and if V4 hardware with a "Magic Dock" is the standard (or V5, V6, etc.), that's what will likely replace the old hardware.

Even before then, if the "Magic Dock" can be retrofitted onto older Superchargers with minimal cost, Tesla might do so for economic reasons -- if they start earning profit from CCS charging, then retrofitting existing stations might be in the cards.

That said, I agree that Tesla is unlikely to retrofit most existing V2/V3 Superchargers right away. They'll probably want to work out the kinks with CCS1 support on new V4 stations first, since that limits the risk of widespread problems that could be costly to fix, either technically or from a PR point of view. From then on, who knows? If they think they can earn enough money from retrofitting existing stations, they might do it, at least for stations that aren't already at or near capacity. If they won't be earning much money on CCS1 charging, and/or if retrofitting them would cause problems (say, by delaying deployment of new V4 stations), then we're likely to see little or no retrofitting. I don't know what Tesla's plans or expectations are for this.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

It seems possible, and maybe even likely, to me, but only in the medium--to-long term. Consider: No Supercharger hardware will last forever; sooner or later, it will all need to be replaced. When doing so, upgrades will be in order, and if V4 hardware with a "Magic Dock" is the standard (or V5, V6, etc.), that's what will likely replace the old hardware.

Even before then, if the "Magic Dock" can be retrofitted onto older Superchargers with minimal cost, Tesla might do so for economic reasons -- if they start earning profit from CCS charging, then retrofitting existing stations might be in the cards.

That said, I agree that Tesla is unlikely to retrofit most existing V2/V3 Superchargers right away. They'll probably want to work out the kinks with CCS1 support on new V4 stations first, since that limits the risk of widespread problems that could be costly to fix, either technically or from a PR point of view. From then on, who knows? If they think they can earn enough money from retrofitting existing stations, they might do it, at least for stations that aren't already at or near capacity. If they won't be earning much money on CCS1 charging, and/or if retrofitting them would cause problems (say, by delaying deployment of new V4 stations), then we're likely to see little or no retrofitting. I don't know what Tesla's plans or expectations are for this.

Interesting take. Thanks for sharing.

 

[RTPEV]

Again, I don't think it increases install cost at all. It's a software change. Just set the software so that the designated NEVI stalls all get 150kw at the expense of the non-Nevi stalls IF, and it's a big IF, that should happen.

Is it just me, or is this starting to sound a lot like emissions testing defeat devices? And we all know how that turned out!

 

[bradtem]

All of those numbers I supplied are from real world charging sessions logged by Bjorn. The Taycan can charge at 150kW from a 400v charger if it has the optional 150kW CCS module. (Which I think most do, and it may be standard now.) The Kia/Hyundai vehicles use the motor's inverter to step up the voltage, so they too can charge at 150kW on a 400v charger.


Ok, how about when a Telsa is getting 100kW and a EV6 plugs in taking 150kW and the Tesla suddenly drops to 30kW? There absolutely would be a lot of outrage. Shoot there will be a lot of outrage just from Tesla opening to CCS vehicles even if it didn't negatively impact charging speed.



Not everyone charges like you... But we are talking about the difference from 150kW and potentially 30kW here.

Yes, and sometimes you get only 30KW from a V2 charger which is still a lot of chargers, if you come in and park next to a model X. Most drivers don't seem aware of the A/B sharing that I talk to, but there's no outrage.

If the Tesla gets there before the EV6 it would (if aware of the difference) take the Nevi rated charger most of the time.

Anyway, all of this depends on real world usage. How often will the NEVI slots be full, and how often will most of those cars be pulling 150kw for more than a short period? I suspect the answer to that is "not often enough to cause an outrage." But we would need hard data to answer the question. I fully understand that it's possible that the other stalls could find themselves underpowered in certain situations. What we don't know is how often they are.

Now, if you have a larger station, like a 20 stall station with 8 guaranteed 150kw, it actually gets less likely that they saturate most of the power. Because again, when a car charges to 80-90% it spends only a small bit of time on the first half of its kwh, and much longer on the 2nd half at lower rates. To make the problem show up, you need most of the cars in these slots following the "lots of short charges from 5% to 60%" strategy which is not a majority strategy. Many more follow the "15% to 80-90%" strategy from my estimation, though I would love to see data.

One would have to dig into the rules but I wonder if Tesla could also meet them with virtual NEVI stations. Which is to say, A station with 12 chargers, all with CCS, and which it is assured that 4 of them (marked with LEDs) are guaranteed 150KW while the car can take it. But not the same 4 at any given time.

Tesla's plan of having more stalls per megawatt is actually the right, customer centric plan. It is far better with a megawatt to have 12 stations sharing than to have 6 which can all do 150K at once. The latter approach is stupid.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

If the NEVI stalls are clearly identified it will get out that they have faster and more consistent charging. Tesla drivers will choose them first no? At least it will be obvious for the non tesla drivers which chargers are the CCS compatible stalls. They are the ones that are always…full.

 

[MP3Mike]

Now, if you have a larger station, like a 20 stall station with 8 guaranteed 150kw, it actually gets less likely that they saturate most of the power.

I still think that is too many dedicated 150kW "NEVI" stalls. My understanding is that there is a limit of three linked V3 cabinets. So a 20 stall V3 site would really be two separate sites. One with 3 cabinets/12 stalls and another with 2 cabinets/8 stalls.

To get 8 NEVI stalls I think that you would have to put 3 of them on the 2 cabinet set, and 5 on the 3 cabinet set. But again, it would depend on how much utility/transformer power each of those sets have.

But I think it is unlikely that the states would fund any 8 stall sites at this point. They need all the money they have been allocated to get 4 stall sites every 50 miles.

 

[israndy]

I think it's like 28 chargers can be on the same transformer, at least that's what's at Firebaugh and the new Kettleman City sites. Can't wait to count transformers at Harris Ranch, 80 stations!!! (The math says 3)

 

[miimura]

I still think that is too many dedicated 150kW "NEVI" stalls. My understanding is that there is a limit of three linked V3 cabinets. So a 20 stall V3 site would really be two separate sites. One with 3 cabinets/12 stalls and another with 2 cabinets/8 stalls.

To get 8 NEVI stalls I think that you would have to put 3 of them on the 2 cabinet set, and 5 on the 3 cabinet set. But again, it would depend on how much utility/transformer power each of those sets have.

But I think it is unlikely that the states would fund any 8 stall sites at this point. They need all the money they have been allocated to get 4 stall sites every 50 miles.

The standard maximum V3 setup is 7 cabinets (28 stalls) linked together on a 2500kVA transformer. Each V3 cabinet can draw a maximum of 350kVA from the transformer. There is a 575kW DC bus linking the cabinets. This allows the spare capacity on one cabinet to be shared with pedestals that are connected to other cabinets. If a V3 Supercharger site is completely slammed, the total power available is only an average of about 79kW/stall unless there is a Megapack on site that can supplement the DC bus. I have never seen confirmation that this peak power increase can actually be done. The Megapacks may only be smoothing the AC draw from the transformer to reduce demand charges.

If you want to guarantee 150kW is available to certain stalls, the best way is to only deploy 3 pedestals per cabinet, which is commonly done in some Asian markets. So, with 7 cabinets and 21 stalls, if you have 8 designated NEVI stalls, there would be 1,200kW that could be dedicated to those stalls. That would leave about 1,000kW available for the other 13 stalls, which would be 77kW per stall in the worst case where the 8 NEVI stalls were actually pulling 150kW each. If the actual draw from the NEVI stalls is lower, then the power would not be reduced as much for the others.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

The standard maximum V3 setup is 7 cabinets (28 stalls) linked together on a 2500kVA transformer. Each V3 cabinet can draw a maximum of 350kVA from the transformer. There is a 575kW DC bus linking the cabinets. This allows the spare capacity on one cabinet to be shared with pedestals that are connected to other cabinets. If a V3 Supercharger site is completely slammed, the total power available is only an average of about 79kW/stall unless there is a Megapack on site that can supplement the DC bus. I have never seen confirmation that this peak power increase can actually be done. The Megapacks may only be smoothing the AC draw from the transformer to reduce demand charges.

If you want to guarantee 150kW is available to certain stalls, the best way is to only deploy 3 pedestals per cabinet, which is commonly done in some Asian markets. So, with 7 cabinets and 21 stalls, if you have 8 designated NEVI stalls, there would be 1,200kW that could be dedicated to those stalls. That would leave about 1,000kW available for the other 13 stalls, which would be 77kW per stall in the worst case where the 8 NEVI stalls were actually pulling 150kW each. If the actual draw from the NEVI stalls is lower, then the power would not be reduced as much for the others.

Again though, to me this means that everybody will want to use those 4 stalls first. Tesla or non tesla users. The people with CCS cars might get uppity if they are showing up at superchargers and all the CCS capable stalls are occupied by Tesla owners. I mean I really don’t care, I’m just sayin that this kind of special configuration will lend itself to that behaviour.

 

[bradtem]

The standard maximum V3 setup is 7 cabinets (28 stalls) linked together on a 2500kVA transformer. Each V3 cabinet can draw a maximum of 350kVA from the transformer. There is a 575kW DC bus linking the cabinets. This allows the spare capacity on one cabinet to be shared with pedestals that are connected to other cabinets. If a V3 Supercharger site is completely slammed, the total power available is only an average of about 79kW/stall unless there is a Megapack on site that can supplement the DC bus. I have never seen confirmation that this peak power increase can actually be done. The Megapacks may only be smoothing the AC draw from the transformer to reduce demand charges.

If you want to guarantee 150kW is available to certain stalls, the best way is to only deploy 3 pedestals per cabinet, which is commonly done in some Asian markets. So, with 7 cabinets and 21 stalls, if you have 8 designated NEVI stalls, there would be 1,200kW that could be dedicated to those stalls. That would leave about 1,000kW available for the other 13 stalls, which would be 77kW per stall in the worst case where the 8 NEVI stalls were actually pulling 150kW each. If the actual draw from the NEVI stalls is lower, then the power would not be reduced as much for the others.

The regs simply say the station is capable of providing 150kw to 4 stalls simultaneously. Not that it always does so. It obviously doesn't do so if one of the cars in the stalls is not drawing 150kw. Tesla stations are capable of powering 4 stalls with 150kw. However, they currently choose not to if there are other cars in other stalls.

I wonder if the real intent of the rules is to say that you can't get these grants for things like 50kw or 100kw stations, or the fairly common 2x150kw stations that are found all over the country. That it's got to be at least 600kw, with 4 stations that can do 150kw at the same time. Tesla SCs are capable of this.

As currently configured, they will share the power over more stations if there are more cars. Now, I think the main goal of the rules should be to meet the public interest. The rules were written to say, these stations should process at least 4 cars at a time with decent power.

But if you were to ask any driver to choose:

1. A station with 4 stalls of 150kw each. However, 2 cars are waiting, so you will sit in line for 20 minutes, then charge in 30 minutes
2. A station with 8 stalls, 2 of which are free. You will park immediately and complete your charge in 40 minutes due to power sharing.

One would be crazy to pick the former offering. The latter offering is clearly more in the interest of drivers, of getting more cars through the system, of giving a superior charging experience. In fact, the latter offering is superior to me even if it will take 55 minutes to charge (5 minutes longer total time) because I don't have to wait around to move my car in, and I can eat or do other useful things.

So if I were interpreting those rules I would say, "what best serves the public?" and as long as the system meets the letter of the rules, being capable of 4x150, I would say it should be approved.

 

[Earl]

Again though, to me this means that everybody will want to use those 4 stalls first. Tesla or non tesla users. The people with CCS cars might get uppity if they are showing up at superchargers and all the CCS capable stalls are occupied by Tesla owners. I mean I really don’t care, I’m just sayin that this kind of special configuration will lend itself to that behaviour.

Its no worse than showing up to a mixed V2/V3 Supercharger site and seeing Model S and Xs tying up all of the V3s, drawing 120 Kw when you have a Model 3 and get to share a V2 with another Model 3. It happens, it sucks, it's just another growing pain.

 

[bradtem]

Again though, to me this means that everybody will want to use those 4 stalls first. Tesla or non tesla users. The people with CCS cars might get uppity if they are showing up at superchargers and all the CCS capable stalls are occupied by Tesla owners. I mean I really don’t care, I’m just sayin that this kind of special configuration will lend itself to that behaviour.

Note that the right thing to do is not to have special stalls. The only reason to have special stalls would be if the states (or feds) say that it is required by a very strict reading of the NEVI rules.

Once CCS adapters become widely available, CCS drivers are going to have to expect that their stations are going to be crowded with Teslas. Teslas are 3/4 of all EVs, and I think they are a larger chunk of road tripping EVs because they are much better at road trips. I don't think they will be surprised to see that Tesla stations are also crowded with Teslas.

In looking at Plugshare, I noticed that for CHAdeMO stations, the majority of check-ins were from Teslas with adapters, even though very few Tesla owners had this adapter. And now, even though only a few people have CCS adapters via Korea or SETEC, I am seeing CCS stations which are getting dominated by Teslas!

 

[Genie]

^^”Once CCS adapters become widely available,”
As more time goes by since the oem adapter arrived in South Korea but not North America, I’m wondering if they have not been for sale here because once owners have them, Tesla loses their monopoly on fast charging Tesla cars.
The SuC I have used are all better experiences than other dcfc I’ve used, but I haven’t had a dcfc fail to charge me yet and I’m pleased that I can charge anywhere I want and not just where Tesla chooses to build SuCs.

It also seems the only thing that would keep SuC prices competitive is enough Tesla owners having the ability to charge elsewhere, and there being more ‘elsewhere“ dcfc built.

 

[brainhouston]

I am seeing CCS stations which are getting dominated by Teslas!

I'm sure this is either due to price or convenience... But its like a gas station, u can't discriminate by the type of car

Its no worse than showing up to a mixed V2/V3 Supercharger site and seeing Model S and Xs tying up all of the V3s, drawing 120 Kw when you have a Model 3 and get to share a V2 with another Model 3. It happens, it sucks, it's just another growing pain.

For the purpose of educating myself n not doing this (i'd hate that to happen to me), how much can 2016 MX 90D pull?

 

[Mockingbird]

^^”Once CCS adapters become widely available,”
As more time goes by since the oem adapter arrived in South Korea but not North America, I’m wondering if they have not been for sale here because once owners have them, Tesla loses their monopoly on fast charging Tesla cars.
The SuC I have used are all better experiences than other dcfc I’ve used, but I haven’t had a dcfc fail to charge me yet and I’m pleased that I can charge anywhere I want and not just where Tesla chooses to build SuCs.

It also seems the only thing that would keep SuC prices competitive is enough Tesla owners having the ability to charge elsewhere, and there being more ‘elsewhere“ dcfc built.

Obviously.

In Europe, some Tesla owners rarely fast charge at Superchargers because they can fast charge elsewhere for cheaper.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The regs simply say the station is capable of providing 150kw to 4 stalls simultaneously. Not that it always does so. It obviously doesn't do so if one of the cars in the stalls is not drawing 150kw. Tesla stations are capable of powering 4 stalls with 150kw. However, they currently choose not to if there are other cars in other stalls.

I wonder if the real intent of the rules is to say that you can't get these grants for things like 50kw or 100kw stations, or the fairly common 2x150kw stations that are found all over the country. That it's got to be at least 600kw, with 4 stations that can do 150kw at the same time. Tesla SCs are capable of this.

It says this in the register:

(d) Power level. (1) Maximum power per DCFC charging port must be at or above 150 kilowatt (kW). Each charging station must be capable of providing at least 150 kW per charging port simultaneously across all charging ports. DCFC must supply power according to an EV's power delivery request up to 150 kW. DCFC may participate in smart charge management programs so long as each charging port continues to meet an Electric Vehicle's request for power up to 150 kW.

Federal Register :: Request Access

This source says similar to what you suggest:

Corridors are considered fully built out if: (i) EV charging infrastructure is installed every 50 miles along the designated corridors; (ii) the charging stations are capable of simultaneously charging four EVs; (iii) the charging stations have a capacity at or above 600kW total or at least 150kW per port; and (iv) the corridor meets any additional considerations required by the Secretary of Transportation.

U.S. DOT Releases NEVI Formula Program Guidance, Giving Public and Private Stakeholders a Roadmap for EV Infrastructure Funding | Foley & Lardner LLP
California's implementation plan seems to be following the above:
"Each NEVI-funded DC fast charge station will have a minimum of four 150 kW combined Charging System (CCS) connectors and total station power of 600 kW."
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (NEVI)
The above seems to indicate as long as your station is above 600 kW total, you would be fine, so the issues brought up by @MP3Mike would not be an issue if that were the case. That would be more in line with how other federal standards are done (for example subsidized broadband, the speeds may be lower when there is higher congestion).

I couldn't find the actual law section, so really it comes down to how the actual wording in the law says. If someone has a direct link, please post.

As currently configured, they will share the power over more stations if there are more cars. Now, I think the main goal of the rules should be to meet the public interest. The rules were written to say, these stations should process at least 4 cars at a time with decent power.

But if you were to ask any driver to choose:

1. A station with 4 stalls of 150kw each. However, 2 cars are waiting, so you will sit in line for 20 minutes, then charge in 30 minutes
2. A station with 8 stalls, 2 of which are free. You will park immediately and complete your charge in 40 minutes due to power sharing.

One would be crazy to pick the former offering. The latter offering is clearly more in the interest of drivers, of getting more cars through the system, of giving a superior charging experience. In fact, the latter offering is superior to me even if it will take 55 minutes to charge (5 minutes longer total time) because I don't have to wait around to move my car in, and I can eat or do other useful things.

So if I were interpreting those rules I would say, "what best serves the public?" and as long as the system meets the letter of the rules, being capable of 4x150, I would say it should be approved.

What you point out makes a lot of sense. A strict reading of each station must be 150kW (regardless of total stalls) is actually worse in a practical sense than it there are more stalls (as long as station meets a minimum of 4 and total of 600 kW). Hopefully the implementations of NEVI stations are actually common sense (as it seems to be at least in California).