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

[felixtb]

The destination charger program is biggest in China, with 800+ installed.

cn.teslamotors.com/destinationcharger

integrering but understandable. in China there is very little public charging infrastructure at this point. so to get acceptance there would have to be a push by TESLA to get this type of charging in the newer malls and resorts. however, 800 is a drop in the bucket i a country like china. also probably easier to get permits for such an infrastructure than for the supercharger network that seems to be taking considerable time. here they might not even need permits. can probably just work directly with the property owner.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I don't think it is fair to compare iphone charging with Tesla charging standards. USB in itself has reached maturity so adoption of the USB makes sense. The charging infrastructure on the other hand is not really ready for a standard. At the very least the standard has to enforce future cars. Aka, every charger has to be above 100kw.

The reason why Apple locks down the iphone charging is their walled garden and they make lots of money licensing to accessory manufacturers. Tesla was ready to work with the standardization but they were not interested so Tesla went out and made the best adapter possible thinking of the future as well.

The CCS is a ridiculous concept of trying to combine the Parallel port and USB port.

I agree. It is true the standards situation is far from settled and standardization efforts have been hampered by the lack of interest and ambition by other car manufacturers. Some might accuse them of downright sabotage to EVs and EV standards, careful not to make them too desireable.

Tesla, of course, is different, doing nothing but trying to make EVs desireable.

Comparing CCS vs. CHAdeMO to Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD and Tesla vs. CCS as Apple lightning port vs. micro-USB is an imperfect parallel. Most parallels are. Certainly a Tesla supercharger is superior to CCS in both speed and elegance.

That said, not always the best standard wins - and I guess Apple also might somewhat plausibly argue their connector is better than micro-USB (at least until the next micro-USB version hits mainstream)...

- - - Updated - - -

integrering but understandable. in China there is very little public charging infrastructure at this point. so to get acceptance there would have to be a push by TESLA to get this type of charging in the newer malls and resorts. however, 800 is a drop in the bucket i a country like china. also probably easier to get permits for such an infrastructure than for the supercharger network that seems to be taking considerable time. here they might not even need permits. can probably just work directly with the property owner.

Also, I guess Europe is special in that Tesla uses an (almost) standard connector here on the car's end. China, Japan, America use the proprietary connector? If so, destination charging might make more sense in those proprietary areas, than in Europe.

 

[Just a Reader]

The solution is pretty simple, add CCS, charge $5000 that has to be paid by check at a Tesla service center. Make the CCS as slow as possible (22.0001 kw?). Put a policy that charges money for leaving your car on the supercharger for too long (above 2h).


What will end up happening is most people won't bother paying $5000 for slow CCS chargers. Superchargers are spaced for 200 miles or more so a low range EV would have little use for them, especially for $5000. The long range EVs that will come in the future such as Bolt and etc would be too slow to charge to full in 2h and would risk extra costs. Making the CCS useless by design.

As for those saying that charging $5000 would be discriminatory as Tesla owners pay $2500. I would disagree. Tesla can argue that superchargers are funded by a 50/50 contribution where owner pays half and Tesla pays half.

Another option would be to offer CCS charging and charge by the KWH. Now Tesla will offer the $2500 option as well. (Not discriminatory if both options are offered). Except the CCS will publicly advertise $10 per kwh rate right on the CCS charger. An keep the $2500 option unadvertised. Nothing in the law forces Tesla to advertise all options right? As long as the option is offered, it is not discriminatory. (Kind of like sweepstakes which makes you buy something to enter, but has small fine print saying you don't really need to buy anything to enter)

Is this supposed to be a suggestion for "How to generate bad press and alienate other EV drivers"?

A common charging standard is in the public interest. Even if this may cause some delays now it's still better than to end up with several competing standards.

 

[Robert.Boston]

A common charging standard is in the public interest. Even if this may cause some delays now it's still better than to end up with several competing standards.

While I would agree in general, when the "common standard" is technically inferior--not just by a little, but a lot--to a proprietary standard, is dumbing down a new technology in the public interest?

The CCS was designed primarily by ICE manufacturers who don't merely have little interest in developing a viable Level 3 charging infrastructure; they have a clear interest in stopping ​such development and protecting their market.

 

[evme]

Is this supposed to be a suggestion for "How to generate bad press and alienate other EV drivers"?

A common charging standard is in the public interest. Even if this may cause some delays now it's still better than to end up with several competing standards.

No it isn't. The fact of the matter is that supercharger stations are paid for by Tesla owners. Tesla does not have billions of dollars to spend to accommodate everyone. When you consider that superchargers come with free charging for life of the car, one can argue Tesla is incurring some cost on their own behalf.

While a common charging standard is in the public interest. That standard has to consider EVs as a replacement for gasoline cars. CCS is not such a standard. If anything, CCS is more of an attempt to sabotage EVs.

It won't generate bad press, and as far as alienate other EV drivers, no. The goal is to get the automakers to consider a serious standard that considers the future of EVs in mind.

That said, not always the best standard wins - and I guess Apple also might somewhat plausibly argue their connector is better than micro-USB (at least until the next micro-USB version hits mainstream)...

The thing is, realistically speaking, everything Apple wanted from their connector could be done while having the connector compatible with micro-usb, even the current one. They could have also petitioned USB to add their specifications. From what I heard Tesla tried to work with SAE and got ignored for the most part.

 

[ScepticMatt]

Apple also might somewhat plausibly argue their connector is better than micro-USB (at least until the next micro-USB version hits mainstream)

There is no next "micro-USB". The next connector version of USB is called USB-C and is reversible and uniform across all devices.
It can carry many types of signals including DisplayPort and Apple is rumored to use this as a replacement for thunderbolt.
Rendering: http://abload.de/img/final_usb-type-c-rendsmb53.jpg

Also, I guess Europe is special in that Tesla uses an (almost) standard connector here on the car's end. China, Japan, America use the proprietary connector? If so, destination charging might make more sense in those proprietary areas, than in Europe.

I think it is important for Tesla to be compatible with China's state grid fast chargers. I'm not sure if it's better to design adapters or entirely switch to GB/T.

 

[Gerardf]

There are several solutions for Tesla.
The one I think would be best is simply to change the supercharger plugs to combo2 plugs and make them CCS compatible. This would of course mean they have to supply CCS adapters to all cars but that also have the benefit that the MS can charge at other CCS stations.
Another alternative would be to put a fence around all new supercharger stations with a gate that can be opened by anyone with a Tesla. Don't know for sure but then I don't think it counts as publicly available anymore.

I do not al all like the idea of Tesla having to change the charge connectors.

I have not fully read through the proposed German requirements, however as I understand the new demand is Superchargers to have a CCS plug, and for other cars to be able to charge assuming they pay for charging.


Why should replace all Tesla charge connectors ?
Instead of modifying all Tesla cars, why not put a simple SuC to CCS adapter at every (new) SuC stall. As I understand this would be a very simple non-active one-on-one inactive adapter.

As Tela uses a pre-payment model, for a non-Tesla car to use the Supercharger, the manufacturer wll have take a license at Tesla, this is the payment.
The Tesla license will also demand the non-Tesla car to implement certain parts of the SuC protocol, as they have to do anyway for authentication to check prepayment. Without that, any CCS compatible car can connect, but of course not charge (which is fair, as they do not pay).

On first glance I would say this complies with the German requirements, as technically any CCS car CAN now connect to a SuperCharger using the simple mechanical adapter available at each stall, but it is up to the car manufacturer to enable the payment by taking a license at Tesla Motors.

No adaptation of Tesla cars and even the SuC needed, however non-Tesla cars manufacturers will have to license and adapt to Tesla's business & payment model for their customers to be able to pay for use of the SuC network.

Next to that Tesla could than also offer an optional CCS to Tesla adapter for Tesla cars to enable us to use the new CCS stalls. Everybody happy.

 

[smac]

What you are describing is not a workaround, superchargers were never meant for use in what you describe. They exist for charging from getting from 1 city to the next. Not in destination charging.

While it does not get as much press attention, Tesla is working on another charging network, not just a supercharger network:

Tesla Expanding Charging Network Beyond Superchargers - TESLARATI.com

Unfortunately, that is the current situation. (Supporting sales to the London market where off street parking required for home charging is scarce is also a motivator here btw)

This leads to an effective "doubling" of the distance between cities, and the midway stop-over is where you are visiting. Currently you need a Rapid of some sort because your chances of finding a working charge-point that isn't ICE'd and allows parking for extended periods is so slim.

I do hope Tesla can roll-out a good slow/medium/overnight charge network. Though I suspect it's a while off here in the UK, they still have their hands full rolling out Superchargers as they were intended, i.e. half way between major cities, not in them.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

ScepticMatt: Of course by next micro-USB I referred to the C version. It is reversible and probably more robust than the current mainstream, taking away one Apple benefit.

evme: I agree on Tesla's efforts being more standards and widespread targeting than Apple's, Tesla's patent approach a major difference, but some parallels in the current end-result at least.

 

[stopcrazypp]

From what I heard Tesla tried to work with SAE and got ignored for the most part.

That's not my impression. Tesla's advice about higher power for level 2 was heard, so I don't think SAE ignores Tesla's advice. It's just CCS wasn't going to be ready before the Model S came out (SAE only decided not to go with CHAdeMO for their standard in March 2012, Tesla started Model S delivery in June 2012).

 

[chickensevil]

CCS should be able to handle at least 100kW, and maybe more, so it isn't that inferior. It was far better than Chademo which said 50kW only and they would never go higher... But yes, if Tesla is able to push 135kW through a "type2" plug, I don't get what the issue here is. Seems like they just wanted to keep things simple by having separate ports for DC vs AC instead of making an internal switch on the car. Annoying...

 

[WarpedOne]

CCS should be able to handle at least 100kW, and maybe more, so it isn't that inferior.

It requires crazy high voltages for those 100kW, so yes it is inferior.

 

[smac]

CCS should be able to handle at least 100kW, and maybe more, so it isn't that inferior. It was far better than Chademo which said 50kW only and they would never go higher... But yes, if Tesla is able to push 135kW through a "type2" plug, I don't get what the issue here is. Seems like they just wanted to keep things simple by having separate ports for DC vs AC instead of making an internal switch on the car. Annoying...

Completely agree.

I do wonder if the standards guys had a safety concern too. Ultimately a (software) switched changeover which determines if lines are connected directly to a battery OR an AC Charging system isn't as fail-safe as dedicated lines. I'm trying to think what would happen if the changeover hardware malfunctioned.. 400V DC back into a 240V AC point isn't going to be pretty, nor is 400V DC into the onboard chargers.

Of course there will be all sorts of clever failure prevention systems in the Tesla, but it's certainly not a KISS approach, like CCS which is inherently safer.

 

[Just a Reader]

No it isn't. The fact of the matter is that supercharger stations are paid for by Tesla owners. Tesla does not have billions of dollars to spend to accommodate everyone. When you consider that superchargers come with free charging for life of the car, one can argue Tesla is incurring some cost on their own behalf.

So what? Complying with regulation is the cost of doing business. People here never complain when Tesla receives huge income from Californian regulation (not least through the dubious battery swapping rule), yet the very moment Tesla is requested to comply with less favourable regulation it's a big issue all of a sudden. Comply with the regulation or kindly take your business elsewhere.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

ELI5 How does Apple get away with selling iPhones in Europe when the EU rule that all mobile phones must use a micro USB connection? : explainlikeimfive

 

[stopcrazypp]

It requires crazy high voltages for those 100kW, so yes it is inferior.

100kW for CCS doesn't actually require crazy high voltages, it's just 500V@200A. It's the 170kW limit that does (850V@200A).

 

[magnet]

The big question is can the Tesla connector do Vehicle to grid as well as CCS? It seems possible with both AC and DC pins CCS maybe be able to DC charge from solar/dc_converter and be grid tied at the same time. I would like Tesla to also enable vehicle to vehicle charging. Tesla (JB) has said vehicle to grid is still far off since no one will want their batteries "used" and degraded, but with next gen solid state cells that barely degrade, it will be stupid to have a 200kwh P200D or whatever not connected to the grid to do useful work when you wont be using it.

It does seem Tesla will be screwed in the near term but it is not their fault as CCS doesnt have the speed they need.

 

[chickensevil]

So what? Complying with regulation is the cost of doing business. People here never complain when Tesla receives huge income from Californian regulation (not least through the dubious battery swapping rule), yet the very moment Tesla is requested to comply with less favourable regulation it's a big issue all of a sudden. Comply with the regulation or kindly take your business elsewhere.

The bigger issue I have with this "regulation" is that this is a crappy standard. Would be like you coming out with... Ummm I don't know, most of these internet arguments end up turning into a car analogy... We are already talking about cars so I am at a loss...

 

[ScepticMatt]

According to TTF forum users there is a hearing with interest groups on Jan 26 or 27.

 

[smac]

The bigger issue I have with this "regulation" is that this is a crappy standard. Would be like you coming out with... Ummm I don't know, most of these internet arguments end up turning into a car analogy... We are already talking about cars so I am at a loss...

Why is it crappy?

It reduces the expensive on board changeover contactors from the vehicles, making every EV cheaper to build, and guarantees isolation of DC from AC power.

The two negatives I can see are: 30% less capacity in the "minimum spec" and a bulkier connection. I'd put up with those draw backs when the nearest CCS point is 1 mile away, and the nearest SpC is 70 miles away. (Which is my case today)

How about this for an analogy.

You turn up at meeting/meal/friends/family/pub/shop and your phone is on it's last drop of battery. In the bad old days if you had a Nokia you were guaranteed not to be stuck, you could ask nicely for a charge and be almost 100% likely someone could help you out.

I remember when I first got an iPhone (early adopter again) you were stuck if you asked someone if you could borrow a charger.

Then iPhones got to be so popular you were back to being able to walk in anywhere and get an emergency charge (now if you have a Nokia you are stuck)

With advent of the iPhone 5, we went back to having to carry our chargers round with us.


TBH I've gone off iPhones into the world of Android, and the micro-usb is so common I can normally get a charge somewhere. It's still not as good as the old Nokia days though