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

[mgemmell]

Just ran into this thread now...

Here in Spain, despite being one of the worst places in the EU for EVs with the least infrastructure, they have already put this requriement into law!

The logic of forcing CCS but not Chademo escapes me. I don't buy into there being any regulations here (makes about as much sense as forcing by law that every restaurant have vegetarian, vegan and celiac dishes) but it makes less sense to force one standard and not another that is used by many cars already on the road.

When did the German car makers get to run the show?

 

[Model 3]

When did the German car makers get to run the show?

1. November 1993.

 

[jkn]

Just ran into this thread now...

Here in Spain, despite being one of the worst places in the EU for EVs with the least infrastructure, they have already put this requriement into law!

The logic of forcing CCS but not Chademo escapes me. I don't buy into there being any regulations here (makes about as much sense as forcing by law that every restaurant have vegetarian, vegan and celiac dishes) but it makes less sense to force one standard and not another that is used by many cars already on the road.

When did the German car makers get to run the show?

There is a simple solution: Add all plugs required and make parking in charger cost 10 e/h. You may charge as quickly as you can.

Of course somebody, perhaps car manufacturer, can sponsor your parking.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Just ran into this thread now...

Here in Spain, despite being one of the worst places in the EU for EVs with the least infrastructure, they have already put this requriement into law!

The logic of forcing CCS but not Chademo escapes me. I don't buy into there being any regulations here (makes about as much sense as forcing by law that every restaurant have vegetarian, vegan and celiac dishes) but it makes less sense to force one standard and not another that is used by many cars already on the road.

When did the German car makers get to run the show?

To me the issue is that contention is such a huge deal that _private_ networks make sense. But otherwise picking a standard is rational. It's not like it's a big deal to add more cables and protocols. There's already a bunch of dual-protocol chargers installed. It's the L2 requirement that's really the turd in the pickle jar, because that's a parking spot that could have been assigned to fast charging instead.

 

[igotzzoom]

CHAdeMO got a head-start on CCS, but I think the latter will prevail in the longer-term. It simply has a much larger body of manufacturers that have signed on to the standard. If the typical EV range goes from around 70-80 miles today to 120-200, it will be somewhat of a moot point, as there would arguably be less of a need for public charging. I think the main idea behind CCS is that it wouldn't require a completely separate plug for DC fast-charging, although that's essentially what the two prongs below the J1772 plug are.

 

[mwulff]

Please remember that we use the Type-2 plug as another standard here. This plug supports DC fast charging as well, it's being used by Tesla to push 135 kW at the super chargers.

If they had selected Type 2 it would have been a lot better for everyone involved. Only VW, BMW or Mercedes does not control the type 2 plug, it's owned by Mennekes.

 

[matbl]

Please remember that we use the Type-2 plug as another standard here. This plug supports DC fast charging as well, it's being used by Tesla to push 135 kW at the super chargers.

If they had selected Type 2 it would have been a lot better for everyone involved. Only VW, BMW or Mercedes does not control the type 2 plug, it's owned by Mennekes.

Euro ccs is still a type 2 version and is still a mennekes plug.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Just ran into this thread now...

Here in Spain, despite being one of the worst places in the EU for EVs with the least infrastructure, they have already put this requriement into law!

The logic of forcing CCS but not Chademo escapes me. I don't buy into there being any regulations here (makes about as much sense as forcing by law that every restaurant have vegetarian, vegan and celiac dishes) but it makes less sense to force one standard and not another that is used by many cars already on the road.

When did the German car makers get to run the show?

CCS was a open international IEC standard that was created by the joint development of US and European automakers. On the other hand, CHAdeMO was a closed standard developed by Japanese automakers and TEPCO. While the EU requirement was being drafted this was still true. CHAdeMO only recently opened their standard in Japan and applied to be an IEC standard. Obviously the EU will choose an open standard over a closed one.

The main advantage CCS has is it allows the same port in the car to handle both AC and DC charging. The standard was also built with V2G and subscription/payment processing in mind.

 

[dgpcolorado]

1. November 1993.

Good one!

 

[mgemmell]

CCS was a open international IEC standard that was created by the joint development of US and European automakers. On the other hand, CHAdeMO was a closed standard developed by Japanese automakers and TEPCO. While the EU requirement was being drafted this was still true. CHAdeMO only recently opened their standard in Japan and applied to be an IEC standard. Obviously the EU will choose an open standard over a closed one.

The main advantage CCS has is it allows the same port in the car to handle both AC and DC charging. The standard was also built with V2G and subscription/payment processing in mind.

Ok... I feel a little better about CCS now. I still fail to understand why ANY legislation is required here, but if this is the way things have to be then when will there be CCS to Tesla adapter? It can't be much more complex than the chademo adapter right?

 

[andrewket]

Ok... I feel a little better about CCS now. I still fail to understand why ANY legislation is required here, but if this is the way things have to be then when will there be CCS to Tesla adapter? It can't be much more complex than the chademo adapter right?

Or a combo adapter. Who wants to carry around all these adapters?

 

[ScepticMatt]

Here in Spain, despite being one of the worst places in the EU for EVs with the least infrastructure, they have already put this requriement into law!

I've heard about that, and I reckon that's why there are no Spanish superchargers yet.

 

[Bulletproof]

Those sort of industrial collision happen unfortunately. What is sad in this case is that it restricts consumer's choice. It's either CHAdeMO or CCS, but not both, which means half as less chargers to chose from. In the case, it's the defacto standard versus the SAE's, both of which are compatible with future upgrades (I believe). It makes no sense having three standards when all cars need the same electrons! I don't want another middle man in the road. That's why many people choose an EV.

 

[arg]

Ok... I feel a little better about CCS now. I still fail to understand why ANY legislation is required here, but if this is the way things have to be then when will there be CCS to Tesla adapter? It can't be much more complex than the chademo adapter right?

Unfortunately, it's a bit trickier than the CHAdeMO:

• Connectors for DC must be locked. For CHAdeMO, the lock actuation is in the plug, so that handles the plug->adapter lock, while the standard Model S connector lock handles the adapter->car lock. CCS expects the lock at the car end, which means the adapter itself needs to provide a lock mechanism.
• The adapter requires power. CHAdeMO conveniently provides 12V on one of its pins. CCS does not (or not a useful amount of power anyhow) - the car is supposed to power its own end of the connection.
• The signalling is altogether more complex than CHAdeMO. CHAdeMO is Canbus-based (as is Supercharger), while CCS uses a high frequency carrier superimposed on the pilot pin. Not a huge deal, but it does make the job more complex.

So an adapter isn't out of the question, but you can understand Tesla not wanting to race to build one.

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.

Another factor is that Tesla's connector (in Europe at least) _is_ one of the standard connectors supported for DC charging in the same IEC/EN standards that define CCS - the CCS connector with the two extra pins is only required for high current applications (which is perverse since VW et al are using CCS for lower currents than Tesla). So depending how any of this legislation is worded, the Tesla connector may be permitted, albeit not with Tesla's protocol. Hence you might have a charging station that supports the IEC61851 DC charging protocol on the type2 connector, and happens to also support Tesla's protocol for backwards compatibility reasons....



Do you have any more info on this Spanish legislation?

 

[mwulff]

An adapter for ac charging over CCs would be trivial. CCS includes the type 2 plug that is standard on the EU Model S. DC charging a tesla from the CCS is probably doable with a minimum of fuss. The type 2 plug in the tesla already accepts dc power from the superchargers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Ok... I feel a little better about CCS now. I still fail to understand why ANY legislation is required here, but if this is the way things have to be then when will there be CCS to Tesla adapter? It can't be much more complex than the chademo adapter right?

The legislation is the same idea behind EU requiring microUSB on phones: having a common standard eliminates market uncertainty and makes it easier for people installing chargers to know what kind of standard to support.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Connectors for DC must be locked. For CHAdeMO, the lock actuation is in the plug, so that handles the plug->adapter lock, while the standard Model S connector lock handles the adapter->car lock. CCS expects the lock at the car end, which means the adapter itself needs to provide a lock mechanism.

This is the biggest problem that I didn't think would be an issue, but it certainly needs some thinking (not impossible to do though).

The adapter requires power. CHAdeMO conveniently provides 12V on one of its pins. CCS does not (or not a useful amount of power anyhow) - the car is supposed to power its own end of the connection.

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.

Another factor is that Tesla's connector (in Europe at least) _is_ one of the standard connectors supported for DC charging in the same IEC/EN standards that define CCS - the CCS connector with the two extra pins is only required for high current applications (which is perverse since VW et al are using CCS for lower currents than Tesla). So depending how any of this legislation is worded, the Tesla connector may be permitted, albeit not with Tesla's protocol. Hence you might have a charging station that supports the IEC61851 DC charging protocol on the type2 connector, and happens to also support Tesla's protocol for backwards compatibility reasons....

I mentioned something similar in another thread. Tesla can get away with just the type 2 if they built the CCS protocol into their stations since that is a valid charging mode in the IEC standard.

 

[jkirkebo]

The legislation is the same idea behind EU requiring microUSB on phones: having a common standard eliminates market uncertainty and makes it easier for people installing chargers to know what kind of standard to support.

Thankfully MicroUSB is currently not required as all Apple products come with the vastly superior lightning connector. Mandatory standards like that just stifle innovation. Also the argument is moot for mobile phone charging as all tje charging equipment have USB ports anyway. You just use the correct cable from charger to phone, no need to swap the charger if you buy a different phone. This is the same type of standard as the Type 2 standard: All public outlets must have Type 2 outlets (after a certain date of which I am not sure) but the car can have whatever port the manufacturer want to use. That doesn't matter since one just uses the correct cable between Type 2 outlet and car.

The analogy doesn't work for fast chargers since those have fixed cables.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Thankfully MicroUSB is currently not required as all Apple products come with the vastly superior lightning connector.

Apple still complies with the microUSB law by including a microusb adapter with the phone in the EU. There is talk the EU intends to end that policy in 2017 and force microUSB with no adapters.

All public outlets must have Type 2 outlets...
The analogy doesn't work for fast chargers since those have fixed cables.

Both situations describes the same problem: what to have on the charger. The EU doesn't care what the car port is, only what the charger/EVSE has. Right now for AC charging it is Type 2 only, while for DC charging it is Type 2 Combo minimum (other DC connectors allowed as a compromise to continue supporting CHAdeMO). Both of these policies are under the same law.

 

[smac]

Unfortunately, it's a bit trickier than the CHAdeMO:

• Connectors for DC must be locked. For CHAdeMO, the lock actuation is in the plug, so that handles the plug->adapter lock, while the standard Model S connector lock handles the adapter->car lock. CCS expects the lock at the car end, which means the adapter itself needs to provide a lock mechanism.
• The adapter requires power. CHAdeMO conveniently provides 12V on one of its pins. CCS does not (or not a useful amount of power anyhow) - the car is supposed to power its own end of the connection.
• The signalling is altogether more complex than CHAdeMO. CHAdeMO is Canbus-based (as is Supercharger), while CCS uses a high frequency carrier superimposed on the pilot pin. Not a huge deal, but it does make the job more complex.

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.

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.

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? )

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.)