Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Supercharging & Charging Infrastructure' started by ScepticMatt, Jan 17, 2015.
Hindsight is 20/20. And by "easily" you mean "inconveniently".
From the google:
Hmm. Tesla could put a flyer on every supercharger telling each person about the inferiority of the ICE-backed EV charging standards and the proposed law, and contact information for every politician. They can post QR codes on fixed signs that people could scan to read more while they wait in their car. The government wants a buyout, so go ahead and let the citizens buy them out on their own time in their own way; Tesla doesn't have to impose its foreign ideas on the locals -- it can inform them and let them take their own actions.
P.S., in my experience, multinationals ruin local chains whenever the multinational takes over. Myspace, Safeway, Trader Joe's -- the first two were bought by foreign interests and tanked. Beautiful when bought, garbage now. I suspect the same of TJ. My point is that Tesla already is a foreign multinational with respect to Germany, so let me recommend to Tesla not to do the foreign multinational failure mode: they need to have local interest in local terms do the local work. That is to say, they need to have sort of a diplomatic core that positions in each country and does the local negotiation. This is multilevel: there's the Tesla <-> Diplomat level, and the Diplomat <-> local politician level. In each case, there is a local counterpart: there would be a local German in Germany who works for Tesla, that interacts with a German counterpart at Tesla HQ, and negotiates carefully with them, who then negotiates with the rest of Tesla HQ. When necessary, the local German (in Germany) would do local political work there in their own way. It's a lot of money and work, but isn't that the cost of success?
So, if Telsa balks at my QR code with signs everywhere idea (not necessarily the specifics but the generalities) because it is "too much work to do in someplace that is too far away", then my opinion is that Tesla is taking the failure mode for all of Germany and is happy to just fail anywhere it meets the least amount of resistance.
I'm mainly responding to his point that the standard allows it. The standard only allows 200A max (same as CHAdeMO), it doesn't allow higher current than that. There is speculation that a new draft will do so, but it is unknown if it will still keep the same physical connector.
I'm not sure it was just hindsight, they were on the standards committee, and when it looked like the CCS would usurp DC-Mid (with greater tolerances AKA EU Supercharger connector) Tesla walked away.
Now it certainly would have been inconvenient (read expensive) to redesign the sheet metal presses for Tesla to accommodate CCS, so Tesla did the Tesla thing and fought it via their PR machine and made a big fuss of publicly ridiculing the standards body.
My personal view is for a standard (which we all should look for) is unfortunately a regime of high tolerances need building in to the spec, we can moan about this, but it's a pragmatic reflection on current business/economic practices, where material and QC slip over time.
This is where Tesla's proprietary approach is IMV a little short sighted, because CCS is physically superior. But yes we know DC mid is capable outside spec with good QC and materials of delivering higher currents (especially over shortened duty cycles due to tapering), in a CONTROLLED SYSTEM. But we don't know if it would become a limitation in 10 years if battery sizes grew significantly, or quality slipped.
We are where we are, and in my mind there is no doubt if CCS had been ratified pre-EU Model S's that's what the cars would have. Tesla were too far down the line, and had no choice but to take this course of action rather than delay the cars and involved significant re-tooling and development costs.
BTW I'm not being down on Tesla here, it's a big testament to Tesla's engineers to work through this problem, and it's very clever technically how they have done so. Will it stand 10 years, or will Tesla have to fall back to CCS, time will tell.
I suspect Tesla will wait for the standard after CCS to adopt (that standard may not necessarily have the same physical compatibility). 200A is way too little current carrying capacity to make sense as a long term standard to adopt.
Btw, a charging provider here in Norway is now starting to give CCS/ChaDemo a boost. 120 kW CCS and 70 kW ChaDemo:
Anything more specific? Such as volts/amps for those 120 KW?
- - - Updated - - -
This ^ was going to be my answer as well. Thanks smac.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't know anything more then what's in that article I linked to:
Yesterday the Spanish government officially announced an exception for Tesla through to Nov 2017 to allow them to deploy superchargers without a CCS for every (yes it was EVERY) supercharger connection.
This is great news for us down here who have been waiting 2 years for them to deploy. Spain had been the first country in the EU to implement this law obliging CCS for each supercharger connection. Hard to understand why the Spanish rush until you realise we are the #2 car manufacturer in Europe but all the car plants are owned by non-Spanish companies who are "less motivated" to see Tesla succeed. Hence the Spanish government's enthusiasm to please these car plant owners by imposing strict "anti-Tesla" laws.
And why the sudden change? Good question. I have been involved in talking to the government previously about this but the actions leading to this about-turn are unknown to me. I'm just enjoying the thought that my third drive from Madrid to the Alps is going to be purely on superchargers
Tesla's modus operandi is fast & loose! Thank god it is... otherwise we'd not have the Model S nor the supercharger network.
You clearly know your stuff smac and you are absolutely right about the compromises standards impose as well as the justifications for having them. In the IT World I've seen both sides... TCP/IP was the fast & loose version of the ISO stack, but GSM was the EU standard version of others like CDMA. In the first case TCP/IP won out, and on the other GSM won out. Standards need to compete against pragmatic work arounds, and then the market will decide which needs to dominate. Standards are vital to protect the public from danger and to build in future-proofing, but where possible governments should not impose one over the other. The choice should still be influenced by the market.
BTW I've melted several UK 13A plugs running them at 13A all night when on tour and charging the Model S (via a portable wallbox). Aluminum foil around the fuse was the best workaround there. Interestingly with the EU plugs (also rated at 13A) I can run them at 16A without things melting. No fuse helps I suppose.
That´s really great, thanks for reporting! Maybe an example for other EU countries to consider...
Dieselgate? Interest in hosting a future Tesla factory?
Tesla was involved in the development of the CCS standard, but was not happy how it turned out. JB Straubel has publicly stated that Tesla gave up on the CCS standard when it became clear that it was not going to have enough ampacity for high power charging. He rightly said that standards must have room for future growth in capability. CCS was not even enough to handle the first Model S.
Of course, Elon was not happy with the bulky, industrial, design of the CCS plug.
Expanding the capability of Type 2 DC-mid, like Tesla did, is a much, much, better solution for the general public.
I hope Tesla is allowed to continue to provide their superior technical solution, and superior business model (pre-pay to auto OEM, and just plug in as soon as you arrive) in Europe. Other OEMs can join Tesla, build their own network, or band together to offer a generic competing network. Relying on government or third party installed standardized chargers should not be the only legal option, since it will make EV much less practical for many people.
Fast & loose, but well engineered, would be my view on the current SpC situation. But you are right
I'm torn. Professionally I'm in IT so I see the benefits of pushing the specs, especially when it's only dropped packets at stake. Heck I've run cat 5/6 at home well outside what the book says, next to cables when it should be shielded, excessive bend radii etc. etc. Written HTTP and IMAP services to how the clients work, done crazy stuff with COM vtable rewriting (sorry showing my age), etc. etc. Amazingly it all works
However historically I'm from an electrical engineering family, so I'm not surprised how much "surplus" copper things like building code require, to ensure personal safety. I've seen the results of electrical fires, and it's far more serious than the odd "Method ~ of object ~ not found" pop up dialog
As ever it's risk probability vs. impact analysis.
Yep the big build up of heat is around the fuse/ fuse carrier interface which is little more than a pressure fit. This creates resistance across the fuse / fuse holder boundary as the cross surface of poorly pressed holders, and slightly out of round fuses reduces surface contact. Wrapping them in foil increases the clamping pressure and reduces resistance. Other options are using a bolt of a wider diameter, soldering (better option), or ideally swapping the socket with hardwired outlets or unfused sockets like the commando (aka BS EN 60309) where the circuit is designed upfront to support load at a continuous rating all the way back to the board, where it is ultimately protected by distribution board fusing based on fixed wire cable sizing including (de-rating for running through insulation, and is best option ).
One note. The destination charger is not operated by Tesla. I guess this means that the hotels restaurants etc will have to add a similar number of ccs chargers. (Maybe Volkswagen will provide them for free?)
Do we have destination chargers in Europe? Anyway destination charging is AC and Tesla connector is already the one that EU wants (Type2).
As destination chargers are <100kW where is no need to offer a Combo/CCS. I am not aware of any destination chargers in the EU, but we don't need Tesla to do that for us... I've already set up over 35 22kW outlets in hotels around Spain and all you need to do is call them to book a room or a meal. True, you need to carry a portable wallbox, but then that is just good sense when you are on the road in the EU.
For what it's worth (albeit slightly tangential), anyone who ever had to implement or work with an ISO-based network implementation knows why TCP/IP was successful. It was far easier to work with and was more practical.
That's the situation we find ourselves in with regard to CCS as well... it's an academic standard, defined by a committee who didn't care about the owner experience but rather the slide-rule details. It took Apple to introduce the Lightning connector before the USB folks "woke up" to the bad experience that was the USB micro connector.
- - - Updated - - -
You need to define "physically superior". Perhaps in heft and bulk, but in practicality? It's a Frankenstein disaster!
You do realize that we are comparing the european CCS to the european type 2 (which is in european teslas) right? And not the US CCS to the US tesla plug which is a much much bigger difference.
CCS in Europe is not just the Type 2 inlet, but includes the two extra large pins for "DC-High" level 3 charging. Tesla's approach to extend Tyoe 2 "DC-mid" to higher power and current does not have the bulk of the industrial looking CCS plug. I think FlasherZ's comment applies well to both North America and European CCS charging standards.
Yes. In my opinion, the connector doesn't need to be as large as it is - whether J1772-DC or EU CCS. The adapted type 2 connector (and the TSL02 in the US) are both far more elegant than the frankenplugs (whether J1772-DC or EU CCS).
There are also some psychological reasons for this as well -- the perception is that the bigger the connector, the more anxious and nervous people will be in using it - it's scary and dangerous when it's a bigger connector! Just as a simple example, my wife has no problems whatsoever plugging in the TSL02 at home and she does it daily. Ask her to plug the CHAdeMO connector from the level 3 station into the CHAdeMO adapter? "You can do it."
This makes a big difference for a good amount of the driving public, and will be a big issue for Model X users.