German bill requires CCS and L2 plugs at every new fast charge point.

[arg]

I think the base assumption is that the adapter will be "dumb" adapter and all the logic built into the car itself. Unlike CHAdeMO, they are not going from a smaller amount of pins in the car socket to more pins on the connector (in which they need electronics in the adapter to simulate the expected signals in the extra pins). SAE actually had a slide about this in a presentation.

One possibility is that future Tesla cars could have the signalling protocol built into the car (as many of us believed it was going to originally), needing only a simple mechanical adapter for the plug shape - which could probably handle the locking issue by some kind of hinged flap such that inserting the plug+adapter into the car locks it. Would need a hardware upgrade on existing cars however.

For future Tesla vehicles, yes. Current ones can't generate the required signalling (so far as we know - and I think we do know now), and generating it in the adapter will need a fair bit of power - much more than can be leached from the pilot pin.

All interesting and valid points. My take on the situation:

I can see how you could provide a mechanical linkage inside the adapter that was acted upon by the cars locking solenoid and effectively locked the CCS pin too. This would solve the locking issues, but also negate the need for electrical power.

Easy for a small passive adapter, quite a tricky mechanical design job for one in the form-factor of the CHAdeMO adapter, but probably solvable as you say.

However, it doesn't negate the need for power unless the signalling has all been implemented inside the car - the chipsets for the carrier-based signalling probably need a watt or so.

I think CCSs spec has provision for CANbus too. In fact this is how the Supercharger protocol works as I understand it (the guys at EVTV did a video showing how the trace logs they took tapping into the cars wiring during a Supercharger session). There's an initial PWM handshake, then the EVSE and the car between them agree to go digital, and use CANbus. This is in the standard, but AFAIK only Tesla have implemented it.

Not unless you've found a standard that I haven't. The standards and Tesla agree with the PWM signalling on the pilot pin to say 'go digital', but Tesla interpret that as 'go CANbus' while the standards say 'go to Greenphy carrier and exchange XML-formatted messages'.

I'd go further and say Tesla are VERY close to being within standards for Type 2 DC mid charging. The biggest contention is they are drawing a higher rating than the physical standard the pins were rated for. Of course this is a 1hr continuous rating, and SC are not at full power throughout a charging session, owning both the car and the charging equipment they have provided a level of engineering they are comfortable with from a product liability POV. A public charge station manufacturer, where any car could turn up and simply draw max current for extended periods does not have the same luxury and is constrained to the letter of the standard. (Is this why Elon walked away from the standards committee? )

Any charger manufacturer can instrument the temperature inside the connector (indeed, they are required to do so by at least the SAE version of the standard; I can't remember if it's explicit in the IEC version). So they could if wanted implement a higher initial current that ramps down with connector temperature. Doing so doesn't impact cars that aren't expecting this scheme, as they won't ask for that much current in the first place.

However I think the simplest thing for the EU market would be simple installing a CCS port on the car. A redesign of the rear tail light would probably give enough physical space to fit one. I suspect this will be mandated sooner rather than later for WVTA rules into EU anyway. IOW it won't be the CCS chargers that drive this, but the type approval rules for new vehicles. (2017 will see the end of Type-1 ports for all new models, and I suspect all the manufacturers faced with moving away from Type-1 to Type-2 may very well just go the whole hog and opt for CCS.)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A more rational outcome would be to end up on the Tesla connector (ie. standard type2) and the carrier-based signalling, but it's easy to see political factors that stop us getting there.

BMW drivers seem to be having a lot of trouble with the Ecotricity CCS units where they have to hold the connector 'just so' to get it to work. That doesn't sound like a problem to be solved by a software upgrade, though I suppose it's possible that DBT and/or BMW have got the connector geometry slightly wrong.

 

[smac]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A more rational outcome would be to end up on the Tesla connector (ie. standard type2) and the carrier-based signalling, but it's easy to see political factors that stop us getting there.

BMW drivers seem to be having a lot of trouble with the Ecotricity CCS units where they have to hold the connector 'just so' to get it to work. That doesn't sound like a problem to be solved by a software upgrade, though I suppose it's possible that DBT and/or BMW have got the connector geometry slightly wrong.

Yep definitely interesting to find out. My view is with the latest Bolt going for CCS and VW committing across all new products, I personally think the writing is on the wall, and the political forces will overcome any engineering benefits. This isn't too bad a place for Tesla actually, effectively a CCS port instead of the current EU port would give them the only car that had cross public charging compatibility.

I am struggling to see why the SC wouldn't simply plug into a Type-2 CCS anyway, maybe even an off the shelf one if the measurements taken by German owners of pin depth, and test fitting a SC gun into an i3 are accurate. The biggest challenge I can see is physical space for the charge port.

As for if DBT can ever make a decent product that actually has a semblance of reliability or user friendliness, I'm much less certain

 

[Model 3]

Yep definitely interesting to find out. My view is with the latest Bolt going for CCS and VW committing across all new products, I personally think the writing is on the wall, and the political forces will overcome any engineering benefits. This isn't too bad a place for Tesla actually, effectively a CCS port instead of the current EU port would give them the only car that had cross public charging compatibility.

Maybe one of the surprises we get when they show the Model X is that it got an CSS port (at least in EU)? It should be no problem for Tesla to make it backward compatible with the existing SC plug.

In the long run maybe the SC network is changed to CSS (you still have to have SC enabled to use it), and the existing Model S'es get an adapter CSS to "Tesla Type 2"?

 

[matbl]

Not unless you've found a standard that I haven't. The standards and Tesla agree with the PWM signalling on the pilot pin to say 'go digital', but Tesla interpret that as 'go CANbus' while the standards say 'go to Greenphy carrier and exchange XML-formatted messages'.
.

But the standards also say that there have to be 1200 ohm signalled on the pilot. Have anyone actually tried that together with the 'go digital' pwm?
On a european MS...

 

[smac]

But the standards also say that there have to be 1200 ohm signalled on the pilot. Have anyone actually tried that together with the 'go digital' pwm?
On a european MS...

Not that I'm aware of. The tests were done by EVTV, so US firm with deep enough pockets to risk the warranty issues. Not sure there are any EU based EV conversion/builders/specialists large enough to risk the warranty on the Tesla.

AFAIK the Type-1 and Type-2 signal protocols are identical though. IMO a little short sighted too as Type-1 was only ever designed for single phase, and there have been some issues when 3 phase comes into the picture. (Using a UMC on a Zoe for example the UMC just announces 32A not how many phases, the Zoe then tries to pull 3x32A on synchronous phases due to the UMC's bridged wiring. This results in magic smoke escaping the Zoe)

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe one of the surprises we get when they show the Model X is that it got an CSS port (at least in EU)?

It certainly wouldn't be a surprise to me

I'd not be at all surprised either if a facelifted S may also come with a CCS port. (I'm expecting one in 2016, which would be the right time if Tesla are expecting a 2017 European conformity change too).

 

[matbl]

Not that I'm aware of. The tests were done by EVTV, so US firm with deep enough pockets to risk the warranty issues. Not sure there are any EU based EV conversion/builders/specialists large enough to risk the warranty on the Tesla.

AFAIK the Type-1 and Type-2 signal protocols are identical though. IMO a little short sighted too as Type-1 was only ever designed for single phase, and there have been some issues when 3 phase comes into the picture. (Using a UMC on a Zoe for example the UMC just announces 32A not how many phases, the Zoe then tries to pull 3x32A on synchronous phases due to the UMC's bridged wiring. This results in magic smoke escaping the Zoe)

- - - Updated - - -



It certainly wouldn't be a surprise to me

I'd not be at all surprised either if a facelifted S may also come with a CCS port. (I'm expecting one in 2016, which would be the right time if Tesla are expecting a 2017 European conformity change too).

Sorry, My memory was slightly wrong. It should be 1500 ohm.
link: Supercharger protocol for diy CHAdeMO adapter - Page 11
unfortunately the page I linked there is now a dead end...

 

[widodh]

I'd not be at all surprised either if a facelifted S may also come with a CCS port. (I'm expecting one in 2016, which would be the right time if Tesla are expecting a 2017 European conformity change too).

Like I mentioned here: CCS Charging options for Model 3


Anyway, is there any news on this? The SLAM project in Germany is installing CCS chargers: SLAM - Schnellladenetz für Achsen und Metropolen

 

[VolkerP]

Ricardo Reyes paid a visit to the IAA. He mentioned that a lot of fighting is going on behind the curtains...

 

[Hans (Amsterdam)]

Like I mentioned here: CCS Charging options for Model 3


Anyway, is there any news on this? The SLAM project in Germany is installing CCS chargers: SLAM - Schnellladenetz für Achsen und Metropolen

Video Audi presentation IAA 2015 from 14:00
Audi e-tron quattro electric SUV Introduction at the 2015 Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) - YouTube

"Quick Charge network available on German highways starting 2017 / 30 minutes for 400 km of range".

CCS: 800V x 200Amps = 160 kW x 5 km = 800 km/h = 30 minutes for 400 km of range (well, we know it doesn't work like that).

UPDATE: Porsche promises 80% of 500km in 15 minutes. Since I believe CCS is limited to 200Amps, this seems impossible with current technology. http://www.popsci.com/porsche-mission-e-might-be-concept-but-its-innovative-ev-technology-is-real

Images of Audi Q6 and Porsche E-Mission:

 

[EdA]

View attachment 95065View attachment 95064

I guess the electrons will be flowing so fast that people will be standing at the charge port holding the nozzle in place.
Then with the display, they can see the appropriate level of electrons and replace the handle and gas cap and be on their way.

 

[Oba]

I'd not be at all surprised either if a facelifted S may also come with a CCS port. (I'm expecting one in 2016, which would be the right time if Tesla are expecting a 2017 European conformity change too).

Theres physically no room for either a CCS or CHAdeMO inlet in the current cars. Both are official EU standards. Why would Tesla want to adopt either, and not keep with Type 2, which is also :

1) an EU standard
2) fits in the car
3) handles AC and DC charging

 

[smac]

Theres physically no room for either a CCS or CHAdeMO inlet in the current cars. Both are official EU standards. Why would Tesla want to adopt either, and not keep with Type 2, which is also :

1) an EU standard
2) fits in the car
3) handles AC and DC charging

I agree CCS won't fit the current bodywork. (I really don't think CHAdeMO will win here). I'm not saying Tesla "want" to, rather they will be forced.

1) So is CCS
2) If, as ACEA is pushing for, it becomes a mandatory requirement for WVTA Tesla will have to design future cars* if they want to sell it in Europe. It's a simple as that.
3) EU Type-2 does handle DC, but only in "mid" configuration. Tesla are exceeding the specs for type-2 in their implementation.

(* inc any major face lift)

Tesla are facing a battle on numerous fronts here with all these important bodies that have stated they want a single standard and it to be Type2-CCS:
- EU Parliament
- National Governments
- ACEA (ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association)
- VW, BMW, Mercedes directly
- Mennekes
- Various charging providers

So while Mr. Reyes may very well be "fighting" at the IAA, sometimes you just need to know which battles to fight.


The first EU X deliveries will be interesting for sure, even if CCS is not present, the aperture for the charge port will see if Tesla are hedging their bets.

 

[ScepticMatt]

Tesla Germany posted an official complaint letter (Nov. 1st).

http://tff-forum.de/download/file.php?id=14506

Tesla understands the goal to standardize charge points in Europe. However, since electric mobility is still in an early stage it requires a balance between standardization and innovation, to incentivize private investment in better goods and services

 

[chickensevil]

Tesla Germany posted an official complaint letter (Nov. 1st).

http://tff-forum.de/download/file.php?id=14506

Woah, there is a lot in that Letter. Someone mind running it through a translator?

 

[renim]

FWIW excerpt (google translate- Tesla)
'If the LSV is implemented in its current form, however, operators of charging points would even when privately financed and privately held stationary as the Tesla forced to in Additional connectors to invest all new charging points and all other electric cars access to the Superchargers grant. This not only hinders the expansion of the charging infrastructure in general, but also leads to a limitation of the necessary free space for private investment in innovative technologies and Business models for charging services.
The LSV requires the establishment of type 2-- or Combo 2 - terminals and in future also a Third party access for all . After the LSV be determined this on the Basis of accessibility in the spatial sense. After that would hardly be a loading point in Germany
to view private charging point, even if it is privately funded 100% to 100% in private ownership and is located on privately owned land.'

...

'the LSV would already planned investments of Tesla and endanger other companies in Germany and thus also to an end of the expansion Supercharger - lead network in Germany. The LSV should in this regard clear declaration of intent'


other letters (eg by the EU) suggest the German bill effectively makes virtually all DC chargers to be considered public, which apparently is not the EU's intent.
the UK letter focuses on the UK having a different interpretation of payment requirements for use of DC charger.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Reading the other letters kind of gives a general idea even in the absence of a good translation. Basically the way it is currently written, it can be interpreted that any charger that can be physically accessed by the public (meaning not in a fenced in area) is considered public regardless of if the land is private, chargers privately owned and maintained, or if the access is limited to private use via digital means (as with the superchargers, they are limited by VIN), etc. This obviously would be detrimental to the supercharger network (means every supercharger station must be converted to be compatible with CCS and also allow third party payment options).

Of course, I would not be surprised if that was the intention of the German automakers during their lobbying.

 

[bwa]

Reading the other letters kind of gives a general idea even in the absence of a good translation. Basically the way it is currently written, it can be interpreted that any charger that can be physically accessed by the public (meaning not in a fenced in area) is considered public regardless of if the land is private, chargers privately owned and maintained, or if the access is limited to private use via digital means (as with the superchargers, they are limited by VIN), etc. This obviously would be detrimental to the supercharger network (means every supercharger station must be converted to be compatible with CCS and also allow third party payment options).

Of course, I would not be surprised if that was the intention of the German automakers during their lobbying.

Excuse me, but didn't the politicians just hand Tesla a loop hole to the lobbyist's language?:

Tesla can fence in all of the Germany superchargers. Yes, as the Tesla car drove up, the fence would automatically open. Then the Tesla car would drive in, and the fence would automatically close. Legal problem solved. Also, since it requires money, permits, and a bunch of construction activity, it can be done with enough flair from Tesla that it LOOKS like the lobbyists got their comeuppance and everyone is happy. Until the construction is finished, to reveal a bunch of totally cool fences, if that's the direction Tesla wants to take it (which would cause backfire to the ICE companies).

Is it grandfathered? New superchargers could be done in this fashion.


P.S., it looks like I'm missing the point of this discussion: innovation vs. standardization. But I'm not. Let me explain. As I understand it, charging standards in Europe aren't yet to the point that they can flash-charge a 1Mwh battery pack in 5 seconds from 0% SOC to 100% SOC. If this capability came out in the future, would it work in the current legal framework? If it doesn't, then that means the current legal framework is faulty. I'm intentionally using a standard that is about half a century in the future because that's about how long these types of standards will often last. But there's another important point:

Today I was changing the oil filter in my oil based car (easy enough to do in MB W211 chassis, but WAY TOO MESSY). I was thinking how most of the time I feel like I'm born 30 years too early, but as I was changing the oil filter, I felt like I was born 100 years too early. Then it dawned on me: that's because the car is 100 years out of date (except for EVs, which are less so). That's because it's a stagnant industry.

So, the ICE car industry thinks in long term innovation lengths, like 1,000 years, to innovate on an ICE engine. Basically, they're not only stick-in-the-muds, but they are also competing against new car companies.

Therefore, the only proper response from anything newer than 100 years in basis is to say "politicians, you're wrong" and when the politicians do the wrong thing to put your thumb in their eyes and do the future thing. That actually gives politicians LESS control. It's much like anything, including driving a car: if the politicians want to steer the country, they can, until they turn the wheel beyond the ability of the car to keep on the path the politicians want, then the car does its own thing. We're only debating whether or not there is roadway underneath in the direction the politicians want to head.

 

[chickensevil]

Don't worry, BWA, I think we all here "get it". Especially considering the Combo charger is ALREADY inferior to the Tesla Charger. I think this is why Tesla is complaining on the grounds of innovation. They have already innovated beyond the capabilities of the "standard" and now the government wants to "protect" consumers by forcing Tesla to downgrade to an inferior product for something that the consumer (I.E. Tesla Owner) never asked for.

Based on the new liquid cooled cables and the idea of sticking a battery storage on site leads way to the idea that Tesla is already working on the problem of getting beyond 135kW and here Germany wants to lock them backwards to 90kW which we haven't been on since, what? Early 2013? Glad I'm not in the EU, but I feel sorry for you guys and hope they can fight this.

 

[ScepticMatt]

other letters (eg by the EU) suggest the German bill effectively makes virtually all DC chargers to be considered public, which apparently is not the EU's intent.
the UK letter focuses on the UK having a different interpretation of payment requirements for use of DC charger.

This is exactly true, as you can see in the discussion of the draft bill at earlier parts of this thread.
Also each new or upgraded supercharging cabinet (counting as "public") would have to enable Combo 2 charging and be certified regularly.

Key parts translated:


§ 3 Minimum requirement for the construction of operation of fast charging point


During the construction of normal charging points which enable alternating current charging every charge point, due to interoperability, must at least be equipped with plugs or adapters of Type 2 under norm DIN EN 62196-2, december 2014 issue.
During the construction of fast charging points which enable alternating current charging every charge point, due to interoperability, must at least be equipped with plugs or adapters of Type 2 under norm DIN EN 62196-2, december 2014 issue.
During the construction of normal and fast charging points which enable direct current charging every charge point, due to interoperability, must at least be equipped with plugs or adapters of Type Combo 2 under norm DIN EN 62196-3, july 2012 issue.

§ 4 Notification and verification obligations


Fast charging operators have to notify the government body in written or electronic form:
At least 8 weeks in advance of planned construction of charge points and immediately after decommissioning of charge points.
Operators of fast charge points have to verify by apposition of appropriate documents the compliance with the technical requirements listed in § 3 section 2 through 4
During the construction of fast charging points and at the request of the government body during operation of fast charging points.
Operators of fast charge points, which operate fast chargers before commencement of this regulation have to notify the government body of the operation and verify compliance with the technical requirements in line with § 3 section 4 by apposition of appropriate documents.


§ 5 Responsibilities of the government body

The government body can regularly review compliance with the technical requirements for fast charging points listed in § 3 section 2 to 4
The government body can prohibit the operation of fast charging points if the technical requirements listed in § 3 section 1 to 4 are not met or the compliance with the requirements listed under § 3 cannot be verified.

§ 6 Transitional arrangement

Charging points which are in operation before [deployment: Date three months after commencement of this bill], are exempt from the requirements listed in § 3 section 1 to 3

 

[HansWurst]

Excuse me, but didn't the politicians just hand Tesla a loop hole to the lobbyist's language?:

Tesla can fence in all of the Germany superchargers. Yes, as the Tesla car drove up, the fence would automatically open. Then the Tesla car would drive in, and the fence would automatically close. Legal problem solved. Also, since it requires money, permits, and a bunch of construction activity, it can be done with enough flair from Tesla that it LOOKS like the lobbyists got their comeuppance and everyone is happy. Until the construction is finished, to reveal a bunch of totally cool fences, if that's the direction Tesla wants to take it (which would cause backfire to the ICE companies).

Is it grandfathered? New superchargers could be done in this fashion.


P.S., it looks like I'm missing the point of this discussion: innovation vs. standardization. But I'm not. Let me explain. As I understand it, charging standards in Europe aren't yet to the point that they can flash-charge a 1Mwh battery pack in 5 seconds from 0% SOC to 100% SOC. If this capability came out in the future, would it work in the current legal framework? If it doesn't, then that means the current legal framework is faulty. I'm intentionally using a standard that is about half a century in the future because that's about how long these types of standards will often last. But there's another important point:

Today I was changing the oil filter in my oil based car (easy enough to do in MB W211 chassis, but WAY TOO MESSY). I was thinking how most of the time I feel like I'm born 30 years too early, but as I was changing the oil filter, I felt like I was born 100 years too early. Then it dawned on me: that's because the car is 100 years out of date (except for EVs, which are less so). That's because it's a stagnant industry.

So, the ICE car industry thinks in long term innovation lengths, like 1,000 years, to innovate on an ICE engine. Basically, they're not only stick-in-the-muds, but they are also competing against new car companies.

Therefore, the only proper response from anything newer than 100 years in basis is to say "politicians, you're wrong" and when the politicians do the wrong thing to put your thumb in their eyes and do the future thing. That actually gives politicians LESS control. It's much like anything, including driving a car: if the politicians want to steer the country, they can, until they turn the wheel beyond the ability of the car to keep on the path the politicians want, then the car does its own thing. We're only debating whether or not there is roadway underneath in the direction the politicians want to head.

A nice fence would have been my idea too, but the regulators foresaw that.
In the current draft it explicitly says that if an operator installs measures that are only (or mainly) intended to restrict access, the charging point still counts as public. This is just unbelievable.

"a charging point is available to the public when it is either in the publicIs road space or on private land, provided that the loading point for
Their passenger car park of an undetermined or only after general
Features identifiable group of people can actually drive on;
different types of authentication, use and payment as well as all
Measures which are intended exclusively or predominantly to
other drivers of electric vehicles to the loading point to access
refuse to stay for the allocation of a charging point when public"