Powerstream SAE charger at 400 & MajMack

[sandpiper]

Ummm... the Tesla connector was designed by engineers. They just did a better job.

I understand something about engineers. I am one. That said, in my experience too many engineers strictly focus on the technical minutiae and forget about what's important to the user, and regard any consideration around aesthetics or ergonomics with utter disdain.

I perhaps mis-worded my comment and should have said that "you have this enormous horrible mish-mash of a contraption that does work, but looks like it was aesthetically designed by a "stereotypical nuts&bolts engineer"

 

[stopcrazypp]

Is there any doubt why people compare Tesla to Apple? On one side you have this enormous horrible mish-mash of a contraption that does work, but looks like it was produced by an engineer. On the other side you've got something small, clean, attractive and that functions even better. Tesla realizes, as Apple does, that it's not just about functionality - that it's also about the details and elegance of design that make a product attractive to people.

I see a different Apple analogy, which is the willingness to throw backwards compatibility out the window for new connectors in favor of adapters. CCS is about as elegant as you can get while maintaining backwards compatiblity with J1772-AC. Tesla's solution is the Soda Can adapter that comes with the car.

The best design is Tesla's European connector which maintains backwards compatibility with Type 2 AC. However, they had more power pins to work with on that design.

 

[sandpiper]

I see a different Apple analogy, which is the willingness to throw backwards compatibility out the window for new connectors in favor of adapters. CCS is about as elegant as you can get while maintaining backwards compatiblity with J1772-AC. Tesla's solution is the Soda Can adapter that comes with the car.

The best design is Tesla's European connector which maintains backwards compatibility with Type 2 AC. However, they had more power pins to work with on that design.

Calling this "elegant" is a loooooong stretch - no matter the reason. Eventually there comes a time when you need to throw out the 9 pin RS232 and replace it with USB!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Calling this "elegant" is a loooooong stretch - no matter the reason. Eventually there comes a time when you need to throw out the 9 pin RS232 and replace it with USB!

The only more elegant design is like the European Tesla design where they didn't have to add any pins. However, the J1772 has less power pins so may not have been an option. The reason to design for backwards compatibility is that it doesn't require users to carry around an adapter for AC charging or for them to switch all the AC chargers already installed and leave older users stuck (kind of like what happened to Roadster users). This design, while it looks ugly, has similar insertion and removal force as the AC design and is just as intuitive to use (unlike the first-gen CHAdeMO connector).

Given the design constraint of:
Backwards compatible socket
DC current 200 amps

There's not a whole lot of options (we all thought Tesla used deeper pins, but users in Europe say pin depth actually is the same).

As for the USB analogy, it's similar to the 3.0 Micro-B and 3.0 Standard-B sockets, which add an extra section to accommodate more pins with little change to insertion effort.

 

[sandpiper]

The only more elegant design is like the European Tesla design where they didn't have to add any pins. However, the J1772 has less power pins so may not have been an option. The reason to design for backwards compatibility is that it doesn't require users to carry around an adapter for AC charging or for them to switch all the AC chargers already installed and leave older users stuck (kind of like what happened to Roadster users). This design, while it looks ugly, has similar insertion and removal force as the AC design and is just as intuitive to use (unlike the first-gen CHAdeMO connector).

Given the design constraint of:
Backwards compatible socket
DC current 200 amps

There's not a whole lot of options (we all thought Tesla used deeper pins, but users in Europe say pin depth actually is the same).

As for the USB analogy, it's similar to the 3.0 Micro-B and 3.0 Standard-B sockets, which add an extra section to accommodate more pins with little change to insertion effort.

Right. I get that backward compatibility drove this horrendous contraption of a plug, and that if backward compatibility is a must then you're limited to producing such a thing. And I get that technically it works fine. I stand by my initial point that that Tesla, like Apple, has provided a better product - from technical and aesthetic perspectives. It's early days yet in the EV industry. Now is the time to be willing to move on with better technologies before the installed base gets too big. It's relatively easy to change now - and likely a whole lot tougher in a decade.

 

[Smiley Face]

The Chevy Bolt 2017 may have the DC CCS plug as it's standard. But, we will have to see as there are no production cars made yet.

 

[EVFest]

looks like it was produced by an engineer.

Actually - that line maybe should be - "looks like it was produced by an engineer (with Poor vision, so they made it big to see it better!)."
Also - I understand CHAdeMO - is Analog, while Tesla Model S & Supercharger Plug/Communications are in Digital format - so multiplexing of data can be done on just a fraction of the connections!
(I might be wrong, but that is something I remember hearing/reading back a while)

On a Different Note - Maybe sometime in the Future - Tesla Motors could make an Adapter for Cars like LEAF, iMiEV, and Soul EV - that use the CHAdeMO, so that they could buy it from Tesla - to Access the Supercharger Network!

Since the Input (Supercharger) is a smaller plug than the output (CHAdeMO) - it could be even more compact that the Current Tesla CHAdeMO Adapter! Also - this would be a chance for Tesla to both Maintain Control, of other vehicles accessing the Network, and promote their statement - anyone (CHAdeMO Equipped) can access the EV Transportation Solutions of the Supercharger, and the Adapter could be programmed for the Specific Model and Serial Number of user Vehicle, for the Supercharger to Track Access. Selling Price could be about $2,500 - $3,000 For Lifetime Access to the Network.

Tesla Get's the money directly be Selling the Adapter to the Owner, without an OEM involved or in the way! Sure it would be nice if they got on board, but I bet owners are more interested in using the network, than OEM's are interested in doing anything in any way that is looking like Tesla Won! EV Owners, not so much concern about that - they just want to get moving! The Adapter could tell the Superchargers what initial rate to start charging at - and the Tesla Superchargers would be like in a partly tapered off state, right from the start, for vehicles like the iMiEV!

My Adapter thoughts for the day!

 

[Doug_G]

but looks like it was produced by an engineer.

Speaking as an engineer, I'm officially insulted.

There are lots of talented engineers out there who are entirely capable of producing an attractive product. Some of them work at Tesla.

 

[beeeerock]

Speaking as an engineer, I'm officially insulted.

There are lots of talented engineers out there who are entirely capable of producing an attractive product. Some of them work at Tesla.

Me too. Engineering is about taking ideas and making them reality. If it's ugly, it's because the people responsible for the final aesthetics failed to provide adequate input into the design process. Those people would have most certainly NOT been engineers.

This is similar to 'rocket scientists' getting credit for a successful space flight, and 'engineering failure' being cited when something goes wrong. There aren't very many 'rocket scientists' involved in rocket development... they're mostly engineers of various disciplines. Scientists learn about chemistry, engineers take that knowledge and actually make the rocket fuel.

It must also be recognized that a good engineering design is one that safely does the job intended, within the budget allowed, satisfying the needs of the client. In this case, it's more important to put the design and production costs into safety and reliability than pretty shapes and colours. If there's money for aesthetics forthcoming after the important factors are looked after, great. The alternative is the grieving widow at the wake, saying "my poor husband was electrocuted charging his car... but oh my, it was such a pretty charger!"

 

[mknox]

On a Different Note - Maybe sometime in the Future - Tesla Motors could make an Adapter for Cars like LEAF, iMiEV, and Soul EV - that use the CHAdeMO, so that they could buy it from Tesla - to Access the Supercharger Network!

I'm kind of intrigued by what is going on with Tesla vs. the "industry standards" and some of the conflicts that are starting to bubble up. And I'm not talking about which is "better", just some of the fallout from it.

For example, Teslas come with a J1772 to Tesla adapter so that we can use those chargers, but other vehicles have no HPWC to J1772 adapters so that they can charge at hotels who have installed them. I have actually gotten into debates with Tesla owners over this who think it's perfectly fine for them to charge at J1772 stations, but on the other hand they would be very offended to find a (for example) Leaf charging at a HPWC with the reverse adapter. (Those HPWCs are obviously for Teslas only, they say).

As a business owner, I would much rather install a 100 amp J1772 than a Tesla HPWC just to avoid this controversy.

Now that Tesla has introduced the CHAdeMO adapter, the plot thickens. Nissan Canada's CHAdeMO station near the airport has a "Nissan Leaf Only" sign at it now, and they'll chase you away if you show up in a Model S. I think their position is "if we can't use your Superchargers, you can't use our CHAdeMOs".

I've heard it said that if all the other makers would just adopt the Tesla connector, then these issues would go away, but then so too would it if Tesla adopted CCS (and I'm not suggesting they should).

I just find this all very interesting :smile:

 

[Spurkey]

I've heard it said that if all the other makers would just adopt the Tesla connector, then these issues would go away, but then so too would it if Tesla adopted CCS (and I'm not suggesting they should).

Sadly even this isn't true as the Tesla European connector is different than the North American one:

Tesla Model S Charging Inlet In Europe | Inside EVs