CCS Charging truth?

[EcoCloudIT]

Is there any truth to CSS battery tech being better than Tesla's?

Maybe charging is constant therefore overall faster to charge however is longevity is compromised? Nissan CSS batteries have a shocking life compared to Tesla's thus far, or so I've heard (read)....

Tesla Is About To Be Shocked By Jaguar's Charging Advantage - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

-ECIT

 

[Blue heaven]

Is there any truth to CSS battery tech being better than Tesla's?

Maybe charging is constant therefore overall faster to charge however is longevity is compromised? Nissan CSS batteries have a shocking life compared to Tesla's thus far, or so I've heard (read)....

Tesla Is About To Be Shocked By Jaguar's Charging Advantage - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

-ECIT

I had a quick glance at that article without trying to be judgemental and linking it to Tesla's share price, my personal opinion is it makes very little difference if the car charges 0-80% in 40 minutes or 45 minutes, who cares I'm enjoying a coffee or lunch while the car is charging on a long trip, the other 95% of the time the car charges while parked during the 22 hours per day every car EV or ICE is parked.

 

[perkz]

Well, first off, CSS is Cascading Style Sheets. It's what makes websites look pretty (or not pretty)

CCS is a set of charging standards, not a battery technology. It's not better or worse than what Tesla uses. Just different.

As far was the Jag goes, everything I've seen from the I-Pace so far, it's using standard lithium ion batteries, like Tesla. Nothing crazy new.
I imagine they'll run into the same issues that Tesla has when it comes to charging speeds and tapering off. We'll see, when it's actually available for people to buy

 

[baillies]

Interesting the manufacturer only quotes 0 to 80% charge rate, the writer seems to extrapolate this to flat charge rate 0-100% then shows a charging graph for Leaf and i3 showing diabolical tapering above 80%.

I have seen lots of reviews from Leaf and Zoe owners showing that long distance trips are challenging due to the lack of active cooling. Bjorn Nyland is the best reviewer of this type of trip and even though he is obviously pro Tesla he does seem to give balanced reviews of other cars.

The article forgets to mention the obvious solution which is that Tesla has to support CCS going forward. Once the cars support this there is no advantage to CCS only cars but Tesla may still have the advantage of low rates/free charging for Tesla vehicles on its own network. If Tesla is forced to allow CCS cars to charge on it’s superchargers I guess they will charge rates competitive to other CCS networks but Tesla customers may we’ll be charged less.

The affect in Aus is that hopefully our government will mandate a similar CCS standard with generic payment so there is only one type of connector but this is not a disadvantage to Tesla, just an advantage to all EV’s.

I really wish CCS would adopt the more compact Tesla connector without 2 extra dedicated DC pins though.

 

[reecho]

Very real chance the Model 3 will have CCS2 when it arrives in Oz. In regards to tapering during charging all EV's are affected some more than others...

 

[EcoCloudIT]

@reecho what is CCS2?

 

[widodh]

@reecho what is CCS2?

Updated version of CCS which supports up to 150kW of power and 350kW in the future with a higher voltage.

CCS = Combined Charging System

See: Combined Charging System (CCS) 2.0

 

[EcoCloudIT]

@widodh thanks...much appreciated.

So, is there any truth to the link I provided at the start that the Jag's I-Pace uses a different structure to that of Tesla and will be able to charge at a higher constant rate from the 0 - 80% therefore charging to 80% much quicker than Tesla?

Also, if yes, will this come at a cost such as reduced longevity of the battery?

-ECIT

 

[evster]

To begin with, the article is very biased written. But there are of course points of relevance in there.
CCS is the standard in EU on top of the standard Type-2 plug (the one Tesla uses in current EU-cars). Type-2 plug is the standard for all AC-charging in EU.
Tesla will of course add CCS port to Model 3 when released in EU and update S/X with the additional DC-pins to support CCS. Those new cars will still be able to charge at the 120kW existing SuCs due to the fact that it is the Type2-connector which is the top-port in the CCS-port. When time moves on Tesla will probably upgrade the SuC to higher kW/voltage and at the same time either add new charging stalls at the SuC location with these new chargers or upgrade the existing. Not more strange than the current Eu-charger with combined CCS/CHAdeMO outlets (50kW DC is the most common version currently).
Tesla also need to update with CCS to some extent to allow for expansion of the SuC network in Germany. So it will happen in EU sooner or later. And this is no disadvantage at all for Tesla. All newer Tesla cars will be able to charge at any CCS-location, they will be backwards compatible with existing Type-2 SuC and also able to charger at newer CCS-SuC, where other brands like VW, Jag etc also might be able to charge for a cost.

The funny thing about the article is that there actually is no difference between the upcoming Jag i-Pace 0-80% charging time of 45 minutes. A Tesla 100D (which it should be compared with, and not the discontinued 90-pack which clearly charges slower and taper faster). The Tesla 100kW pack will charge above 100kW until about 63% State-of-Charge. At 80% it will taper off to about 60kW. But in terms of added miles it will be very equal since a 100kW pack is bigger than the 90-pack in the Jag. Adding 80% out of the Jags NEDC-rated 500km gives 400km NEDC. A Tesla S 100D in Europe is rated at about 620km NEDC and to reach 400km NEDC charge that is about 67% charge of the Tesla battery. Hence the average kW-charge rate for the Tesla from 5%->67% to reach 400km NEDC will actually average above 100kW for the charge session because it will pace at 115kW between 10%->50%. So gaining 400km NEDC in a 100D will go faster than Jags 45 minutes. Probably 40 with the Tesla

The general mistake when these kind of articles is written is that they consider other companies future infrastructure (ready 2020 or so) with what Tesla got today and in the comparison they count on that Tesla stand still and do nothing at all. Of course Tesla will develop it's stuff and 2020 it will probably have happened a lot, both in terms of the cars/batteries and also the SuC network. Not speaking about the MW-chargers and how they will be rolled out...

And PS. Maybe should rename the thread title. It's so wrong in many ways. CCS is a charging standard and has NOTHING to do with batteries and CSS does not exist at all in the EV-world

 

[meloccom]

Moderators note:
Changed thread title from "CCS Battery truth" to "CCS Charging truth" to be more accurate.
@EcoCloudIT if this is a problem let me know and I will change it back.

 

[meloccom]

I'm not sure why so many companies are working on ultra quick charging as unless you can resolve the tapering issue 125Km Versus 150Kw versus 350Kw will not make a whole lot of difference in the total time to charge from flat to full and only 10 minutes ore so to 80%. In addition the infrstructure required to recharge a line of 100Kwh battery electric vehicles will be significant and very expensive.
Having travelled with 125w and at times 55Kw charging the difference is not as great as people expect.
Sub 15 minute recharging is really only achived with battery swaping as demoed by Tesla.

 

[strykeroz]

I'm not sure why so many companies are working on ultra quick charging as unless you can resolve the tapering issue

Caveat: I don't have an EV yet; however I have installed a bunch of EV Trip planners while I wait and dream, and usually they indicate dropping into a supercharger for 10mins or so then doing the next hop. If that's the mode of use rather than waiting for a full charge, that first blast probably matters I'd think.

The other thought I have about the Jag is maybe the advertised battery capacity is lower than the actual capacity by a margin to allow it to appear like it doesn't taper until later than others.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

(Caveat: I am a Tesla owner and looking for as much info to convince my wife on the Model X over the I-Pace)

If one reads the original link I posted it talks about the battery design and chemistry (I think) as reasons why they can achieve linear charging rather than the very large tappering that occurs with Tesla's SC.

See a small copy from the link:

Now some may point to the 100kW number and wonder why, with the Tesla Superchargers running at a higher headline figure, I found this so interesting. Surely Tesla’s 120kW is better than Jaguar’s 100kW?

However, the devil is in the detail. The most devilish detail is called tapering. Jaguar’s tweet has profound implications in this regard – it implies the Jaguar must be able to charge at a near constant 100kW across the important 0-80% range.

By contrast, a Tesla can charge at its 120kW for only a small range of specific levels of charge. Once a Tesla battery reaches a state of charge of around 30%, the charge rate drops below that of its British rival, and the Supercharger rate continues to drop off as the battery’s state of charge increases. In other words, the first 30% for a Tesla is zippy, but things then slow to a walk, and finally a crawl.

So, what might the comparative charge rates look like between a Tesla and an I-Pace of similar battery size? Well, by taking data points from videos like this of a 90kW Tesla charging, we can plot the expected results.




Here’s the simple truth: The pouch prismatic cells using NMC chemistry offer a superior charging experience to Tesla’s cylindrical cells using NCA chemistry. So, Jaguar’s more desirable charging curve is not magic. It’s exactly what one would expect by doubling the size of the battery used in cars with similar cell types.

Tesla is alone in its choice of cylindrical cells based on NCA rather than NMC chemistry. And in Europe (and China), at least, that's shaping up to be a very real disadvantage.

Summary
They say that true CSS used in conjunction with NMC chemistry is far superior to Tesla...this is what I would like debunked by someone with more knowledge than I. Sorry, my original and even the changed "Title", may not be right.

-ECIT

 

[strykeroz]

That part of the article was problematic for me. The author says the devil is in the detail, but he's comparing a real car experience with the brochure of a future one. The assertion is made without any supporting evidence that doubling the battery capacity will have the same charge curve. Will it though? The devil will be in the detail - for sure.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

@strykeroz so lets assume it is as the graph says (so the I-Pace goes release and the graph above prooves correct, it's also how Porsche is basing their charging rates)....What then? Everything said is right or?

-ECIT

 

[widodh]

I'm not sure why so many companies are working on ultra quick charging as unless you can resolve the tapering issue 125Km Versus 150Kw versus 350Kw will not make a whole lot of difference in the total time to charge from flat to full and only 10 minutes ore so to 80%. In addition the infrstructure required to recharge a line of 100Kwh battery electric vehicles will be significant and very expensive.
Having travelled with 125w and at times 55Kw charging the difference is not as great as people expect.
Sub 15 minute recharging is really only achived with battery swaping as demoed by Tesla.

Future! Chargers will be around for a long time. By installing 150kW and faster now you do not have to change when the cars arrive within a few years.

Chicken and egg problem

 

[evster]

Read my previous post about tapering for a 100kW Tesla pack. The article says that a Tesla taper off at 30% to lower levels than the Jag. This is just not true. A 100kW-pack stay >100kW to at least 60% SOC. At 80% charging speed is about 70kW for the 100-pack.

Charging a 100-pack from almost zero up until 400km NEDC will take just little more than 30 minutes. This is 10 minutes faster than the Jaguar...

 

[EcoCloudIT]

@evster Playing devils avocate here, so a 90kw battery is nearly as Tesla 100kw battery? I can see the field days those at Seeking Alpha will have....whilst I agree with you the tapping isn't dramatic at 30% it does indeed "start" to tapper off until when reaching 60% has a massive drop off.

What I am assuming, and no one has bought this up (as I am not sure if it's factual or not, think Nissan Batteries, not really known for life length) is maybe one gets a good 10+ years of life from a Tesla battery whereas NMC due to the higher constant charging rate with CSS (correct me if I am wrong) will mean longevity is greatly reduced.

-ECIT

 

[strykeroz]

@strykeroz so lets assume it is as the graph says (so the I-Pace goes release and the graph above prooves correct, it's also how Porsche is basing their charging rates)....What then? Everything said is right or?

-ECIT

If it's proven true (for the Jag, a Volkswagen, a Hyundai or a Honda) I'll be delighted to have more than one choice.

 

[evster]

Here is the real tapering-curve for Tesla 100kW-pack (as a contrast to the incorrect one in the article)... As you can see it will keep charging speed above 100kW over 60% and then taper off to 60kW at around 80%. But at the same time you pace at 117kW from 10% -> 50%. The charge time to reach 80% will keep an average above 100kW in total. Also, there is a reason why Jaguar speak about 80% figure, because they have the same constraints that all batteries today have. It's not that they can hold a exact constant speed from 0-80 and then drop off. That is just marketing bull s**t and we all know that everything about the i-Pace is still very vague and speculative.