CCS Adapter for North America

[STS-134]

There is no obstacle on the horizon to drive such a migration for light duty automotive DCFC. The drive for a new charging connector standard is all concentrated on heavy duty trucks and eVTOL. The existing CCS and TPC connectors are sufficient for light duty vehicles and will be for the foreseeable future. GB/T and CHAdeMO are moving to ChaoJi because they have their own limitations that don't apply to CCS and TPC.

When solid state batteries bring megawatt charging to passenger vehicles, we'll need a new connector.

 

[miimura]

When solid state batteries bring megawatt charging to passenger vehicles, we'll need a new connector.

I am willing to bet that will take a lot longer to become a commercial reality than you think it will.

 

[miimura]

In addition, I expect that solid state batteries as they are currently imagined, will make packs physically smaller, lighter, and cheaper but not contain much more energy capacity. Adding 50kWh to a car at a constant 350kW is only 8.6 minutes. Pushing to higher power is really not necessary and existing CCS & TPC connectors may be able to be pushed to 500kW for short periods.

 

[STS-134]

At minimum, you're going to want to put about 100 kWh into a battery in 5 minutes to make it reasonably competitive with liquid fueled vehicles, which can refuel 300-400 miles of range in the time you use the restroom and buy a soda or coffee. That's about 1.2 megawatts which is beyond the capabilities of any existing connectors.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There is no obstacle on the horizon to drive such a migration for light duty automotive DCFC. The drive for a new charging connector standard is all concentrated on heavy duty trucks and eVTOL. The existing CCS and TPC connectors are sufficient for light duty vehicles and will be for the foreseeable future. GB/T and CHAdeMO are moving to ChaoJi because they have their own limitations that don't apply to CCS and TPC.

And that connector isn't even physically compatible with either standard. They need to use an adapter, just like Tesla is doing with TPC. They are also sticking with it being a DC-only standard, so it won't replace the older AC standard.

And looking at the article, it looks like even the charging protocols will not be compatible, it's just both can share the same connector (CCS also may also be supported).

 

[Sporty]

Yup. I am sure that eventually - and I don't mean all that long into the future - some further new 'standard' will be developed. EVs are still relatively early into their development and I do not think that any of the current charging connectors are sufficiently advanced to hold up in the long term. Hopefully, the new 'standard' when it comes out, will be adopted universally and be able to stand a considerable test of time, though I am not entirely confident about that: experience has shown that true universality is hard to achieve and also that standards, in any event, do tend to get upgraded with the passage of time.

Some “standards” have a way of sticking around. The universal 12v plug comes to mind. I doubt it was even intended to be a power plug.

As for CCS I happy my Tesla supports so many standards. Can’t wait for the adapter so I have more charging options.

 

[kayak1]

If I was working in the Tesla charging group, I would advocate for dual cable (TPC + CCS) on Superchargers going forward. This would make them eligible for Federal Infrastructure $$$ and provide an easy path for opening up the SC network. As stations need maintenance, change existing stations to the dual cable setup. They know how to do this since they already did it in Europe, albeit with smaller installed base of stations / stalls. After a few years, Tesla could start changing cars over to CCS because the vast majority of stations will have both connectors. Maybe CyberTruck could be CCS from the beginning. If they don't start converting the SC network, they can never change the cars over. It's hard to see this perspective now because Tesla has the majority of the North American EV market. This cannot last unless the rest of the automotive industry completely fails at the EV transition. That would be bad for everyone.

Forget CCS for the Cyber Truck. Let's have it include a mega charger port. No need to unhook the trailer charge with the big boys. LOL

 

[RTPEV]

At minimum, you're going to want to put about 100 kWh into a battery in 5 minutes to make it reasonably competitive with liquid fueled vehicles, which can refuel 300-400 miles of range in the time you use the restroom and buy a soda or coffee. That's about 1.2 megawatts which is beyond the capabilities of any existing connectors.

I remain to be convinced this is universally a real requirement (although there are some who insist it is real for them).

One point: pumping the gas (and paying for it), using the restroom and buying a drink is a 10-11 minute process, not 5. Granted, since you can simultaneously charge your vehicle and do the restroom/drink thing, the 10-11 minutes will seem longer than a fuel stop, but in reality it won't be.

Another is that adding 400 miles of range (6 hours of non-stop driving) is overkill for many drivers. It's an arbitrary benchmark based on what most ICE vehicles are capable of, but not a hard and fast requirement. Plus, if you alternate short stops with longer stops (to accommodate the need to ingest more than just a cup of coffee), even 150kW charging rate is sufficient to support many driving styles. 250kW charge rates, even if tapering relatively quickly, is sufficient for most travelers.

But I know I am mostly preaching to the choir.

That said, your point is valid. If there is a need for faster charging (to support Cybertrucks towing for example), then the connector, as well as possibly the electric infrastructure at the site, is probably going to be insufficient. A possible solution would be to adopt island-mounted pedestals and architect the CT with a charge port on both sides of the vehicle to support charging from two stalls at once, similar to the semi's ability to connect to multiple Supercharger pedestals.

 

[STS-134]

I remain to be convinced this is universally a real requirement (although there are some who insist it is real for them).

One point: pumping the gas (and paying for it), using the restroom and buying a drink is a 10-11 minute process, not 5.

You're supposed to do things in this order:
1. Pay at the pump.
2. Start pumping the gas and engage the trigger lock.
3. Run inside to use the restroom while the pump is running. The pump will stop automatically when the tank is full.

Another is that adding 400 miles of range (6 hours of non-stop driving) is overkill for many drivers. It's an arbitrary benchmark based on what most ICE vehicles are capable of, but not a hard and fast requirement. Plus, if you alternate short stops with longer stops (to accommodate the need to ingest more than just a cup of coffee), even 150kW charging rate is sufficient to support many driving styles. 250kW charge rates, even if tapering relatively quickly, is sufficient for most travelers.

Well here's the thing: 400 miles of EPA range has a lot of assumptions behind it. Things like doing the speed limit, not blasting the AC, etc. You can easily lose 40% of that if you are cruising at 95 mph through the desert on a hot day. At 240 miles of range, that's only about 2.5 hours of drive time, full to empty! And at 2.5 hours, all you really need to do is run in and use the restroom, especially if you came prepared and have drinks with you in the car. You can easily do 3 such sessions between actual meals. I've certainly used liquid fueled vehicles in this manner before. Not very often, but I have done it multiple times. In addition to that, it's nice to be able to stop anywhere for a meal, including places that don't have fast chargers in their parking lots, something I currently cannot do in my Tesla without going out of the way to do it and having to plan stops, but doesn't feel like a chore in my PHEV.

If charging gets to the point where all parking lots have fast chargers, great, we don't have as much of a need for megawatt charging anymore. But unless you want to oversize the batteries of these vehicles for 800-1200 miles of EPA range (and pay the penalty associated with the extra weight), it's better to have smaller batteries and faster charging, and make it where the stops you make are limited by the bladder sizes of the driver and passengers.

 

[MP3Mike]

You're supposed to do things in this order:
1. Pay at the pump.
2. Start pumping the gas and engage the trigger lock.
3. Run inside to use the restroom while the pump is running. The pump will stop automatically when the tank is full.

Pretty sure you aren't supposed to leave the pump running unattended. (Some states don't even allow a trigger lock.)

Of course here in Oregon we don't have to worry about that because we aren't allowed to pump our own gas, we have gas jockeys for that.

 

[miimura]

I remain to be convinced this is universally a real requirement (although there are some who insist it is real for them).

One point: pumping the gas (and paying for it), using the restroom and buying a drink is a 10-11 minute process, not 5. Granted, since you can simultaneously charge your vehicle and do the restroom/drink thing, the 10-11 minutes will seem longer than a fuel stop, but in reality it won't be.

Another is that adding 400 miles of range (6 hours of non-stop driving) is overkill for many drivers. It's an arbitrary benchmark based on what most ICE vehicles are capable of, but not a hard and fast requirement. Plus, if you alternate short stops with longer stops (to accommodate the need to ingest more than just a cup of coffee), even 150kW charging rate is sufficient to support many driving styles. 250kW charge rates, even if tapering relatively quickly, is sufficient for most travelers.

But I know I am mostly preaching to the choir.

That said, your point is valid. If there is a need for faster charging (to support Cybertrucks towing for example), then the connector, as well as possibly the electric infrastructure at the site, is probably going to be insufficient. A possible solution would be to adopt island-mounted pedestals and architect the CT with a charge port on both sides of the vehicle to support charging from two stalls at once, similar to the semi's ability to connect to multiple Supercharger pedestals.

The only reason that the Semi is able to charge from multiple Supercharger stalls is that it has separate parallel packs for redundancy. I don't expect the Cybertruck to use that architecture. I expect it to be a single pack just like the Model S Plaid.

 

[RTPEV]

You're supposed to do things in this order:
1. Pay at the pump.
2. Start pumping the gas and engage the trigger lock.
3. Run inside to use the restroom while the pump is running. The pump will stop automatically when the tank is full.

I didn't see a smiley here, so not sure whether you were serious about #3, but that is definitely illegal in many areas (not to mention quite unsafe)

Well here's the thing: 400 miles of EPA range has a lot of assumptions behind it. Things like doing the speed limit, not blasting the AC, etc. You can easily lose 40% of that if you are cruising at 95 mph through the desert on a hot day. At 240 miles of range, that's only about 2.5 hours of drive time, full to empty! And at 2.5 hours, all you really need to do is run in and use the restroom, especially if you came prepared and have drinks with you in the car. You can easily do 3 such sessions between actual meals. I've certainly used liquid fueled vehicles in this manner before. Not very often, but I have done it multiple times. In addition to that, it's nice to be able to stop anywhere for a meal, including places that don't have fast chargers in their parking lots, something I currently cannot do in my Tesla without going out of the way to do it and having to plan stops, but doesn't feel like a chore in my PHEV.

If charging gets to the point where all parking lots have fast chargers, great, we don't have as much of a need for megawatt charging anymore. But unless you want to oversize the batteries of these vehicles for 800-1200 miles of EPA range (and pay the penalty associated with the extra weight), it's better to have smaller batteries and faster charging, and make it where the stops you make are limited by the bladder sizes of the driver and passengers.

Yep, this is the typical argument I hear all the time...for sure there are extreme cases like that (although you did use 400 miles/100kWh as your example, which does not imply 95mph travel.

Sounds like if this is a regular occurrence for you, you need to continue to do what you do. For the bulk of travelers that are not regularly criss-crossing the desert at 95mph, a 350 mile, 250kW charging vehicle suffices just fine.

 

[RTPEV]

The only reason that the Semi is able to charge from multiple Supercharger stalls is that it has separate parallel packs for redundancy. I don't expect the Cybertruck to use that architecture. I expect it to be a single pack just like the Model S Plaid.

Sure, I expect that too...but if Tesla intends to market the Cybertruck for uses that include long distance towing, they may have to architect it such that it supports that kind of charging.

 

[miimura]

At minimum, you're going to want to put about 100 kWh into a battery in 5 minutes to make it reasonably competitive with liquid fueled vehicles, which can refuel 300-400 miles of range in the time you use the restroom and buy a soda or coffee. That's about 1.2 megawatts which is beyond the capabilities of any existing connectors.

I'm not going to want that.

 

[Rocky_H]

I didn't see a smiley here, so not sure whether you were serious about #3

Don't worry--I gave it one.

 

[Dave EV]

For the bulk of travelers that are not regularly criss-crossing the desert at 95mph, a 350 mile, 250kW charging vehicle suffices just fine.

This is true - to reach parity with your typical gas vehicle for road trips, it'd be nice to be able to charge around 375 kW and pick up 250 miles of range in 10 minutes. 250 kW is close enough - just need to be able to charge at 250 kW for longer. If the batteries could take 250 kW up to 60-70%, that would be awesome.

After driving 3000+ miles in road trips over the past couple months in my '18 Model 3 at high speeds, Supercharging wasn't a big deal and only nominally added to stop times provided you combine charging stops with bathroom and food breaks. This was noticed most at slower V2, especially when shared, and urban SCs.

If the car had another 30-50% more range and all Superchargers were V3s, you'd hardly notice a difference compared to gas. 400-450 mile EPA range should do the trick, so in the Model 3 about a 100 kWh battery pack. The bigger pack would also charge proportionally faster, as well.

 

[STS-134]

Pretty sure you aren't supposed to leave the pump running unattended. (Some states don't even allow a trigger lock.)

I didn't see a smiley here, so not sure whether you were serious about #3, but that is definitely illegal in many areas (not to mention quite unsafe)

I'm unaware of a law against this (at least in CA) and I've definitely done it before, if I can see that the restroom is open and there's no line. It's not too hard for me to be in and out of the restroom before it even finishes pumping, so long as it's not #2. I wouldn't do it if I weren't reasonably sure that I could be back out by the time the pump finishes because it's rude to block the pump.

This is true - to reach parity with your typical gas vehicle for road trips, it'd be nice to be able to charge around 375 kW and pick up 250 miles of range in 10 minutes. 250 kW is close enough - just need to be able to charge at 250 kW for longer. If the batteries could take 250 kW up to 60-70%, that would be awesome.

After driving 3000+ miles in road trips over the past couple months in my '18 Model 3 at high speeds, Supercharging wasn't a big deal and only nominally added to stop times provided you combine charging stops with bathroom and food breaks. This was noticed most at slower V2, especially when shared, and urban SCs.

If the car had another 30-50% more range and all Superchargers were V3s, you'd hardly notice a difference compared to gas. 400-450 mile EPA range should do the trick, so in the Model 3 about a 100 kWh battery pack. The bigger pack would also charge proportionally faster, as well.

Yeah but there's a lot of people (mainly non EV owners) who will need more convincing. Plus, although you are correct that it's absolutely not an issue if you combine charging stops with bathroom and food breaks, that severely limits your options as far as where you can get food. If you want to get food at a place that has no fast charger in its parking lot, you're going to have to make a special stop just to charge, and at that point, the difference between 5 minutes and 15 minutes matters. And we really need batteries that can go all the way to 100% at the maximum charging power so that you don't end up in a situation where you can only use 60% of your battery and you're also losing 40% of your EPA range due to speed -- something that can turn a 400 mile range vehicle into something that can only do 144 miles between stops.

 

[sdmack]

All this back and forth about CCS1/CCS2/Tesla/J1772/whatever reminds me of the Betamax/VHS wars way back when. Yea I know it ages me. ;-) Which is better? Doesn’t really matter in the long run because the charging solution when EVs REALLY take off will surely not resemble any standard we have today. Maybe it will be a coil in the ground that you park over, similar to the pad I park my phone, watch, and AirPods each night now.

The charging tech will slowly evolve, much slower than the EVs we buy get replaced by something shinier.

Until then give me access to adapters to get me the service I need where I need it.

 

[kayak1]

All this back and forth about CCS1/CCS2/Tesla/J1772/whatever reminds me of the Betamax/VHS wars way back when. Yea I know it ages me. ;-) Which is better? Doesn’t really matter in the long run because the charging solution when EVs REALLY take off will surely not resemble any standard we have today. Maybe it will be a coil in the ground that you park over, similar to the pad I park my phone, watch, and AirPods each night now.

The charging tech will slowly evolve, much slower than the EVs we buy get replaced by something shinier.

Until then give me access to adapters to get me the service I need where I need it.

Where a Tesla is not Betamax, is that you are not limited, if you have the adapters you can charge at:
Tesla Connector, L1, L2 or Supercharger.
Chadamo.
J1772,
CCS1 (soon).
Most AC plugs.

We aren't limited to just CCS1 or have a mobile connector limited to 120 volts at 12 AMPS or 240 volts at 27 AMPS like the mobile connector included with my Leaf. I have a number of adapters from Tesla and 3rd parties to where we can charge Model Y for example 120 volts at 24 AMPS (RV Travel trailer). My leaf doesn't even have an option to charge at 120 volt at 16AMPS (likely the 2nd most popular plug in the USA).

Once the CCS1 adapter ships in volume, I would say that they will have the most versatile cars in terms of charging.

Tesla would be a Betamax deck that can play and record on VHS without skipping a beat.

 

[bradtem]

When solid state batteries bring megawatt charging to passenger vehicles, we'll need a new connector.

Actually, we want a new connector now, probably on the front, back or bottom of the vehicle, so cars can plug themselves in. "FSD" for passengers is a long way away. Being able to drive a mile late at night on empty roads at low speed to a charging station, that's doable now. But then it has to plug in. The car is a robot, so it should do all the moving needed for plugging in so the charging station can be cheap. If you want to use today's connector you need some robotics at those stations. Inductive is inefficient and expensive, and is a "new connector" so there might as well be one for robotic plug-in, where the car is the robot and drives into the connector.