SAE J1772 DC (Combo) Connector Adapter for Model S

[TonyWilliams]

JB was refering to question regarding combo/frankenplug adapter, not type2. I was in the audience at the Oslo Q&A today.

Unamerican versions of Tesla Model S doesn't need an adapter for type2, as type2 is the connector in our cars.

Perfectly reasonable that they wait and see just how widespread the combo chargers will be. However I think they'll have to make the combo adapter sooner or later anyway. Many chademo fast chargers here seems to be upgraded with both chademo and combo.

Good points. I wish we had the Menekkes Type 2 in the US.

Obviously, they still have their hands full with the CHAdeMO adaptor, but I suspect Frankenplug is a slight pain in the ass since they actually need a US-Frankenplug and a Euro-Frankenplug adaptor.

 

[ebullio]

Good points. I wish we had the Menekkes Type 2 in the US.

Obviously, they still have their hands full with the CHAdeMO adaptor, but I suspect Frankenplug is a slight pain in the ass since they actually need a US-Frankenplug and a Euro-Frankenplug adaptor.

Just like the CHAdeMO adaptor

 

[ZBB]

Just like the CHAdeMO adaptor

And just like the UMC...

 

[JoeNe]

Standards are nice... Once the fight is done. A bit the downside of being early adopters.

 

[renim]

There is a distinction between the car and the charger
A global spec Tesla Car has a 'type 2' port which also accepts Tesla supercharger
but
a Tesla supercharger is not a 'type 2' port (it has a discrete key, and it obviously much more powerful)

The EU is proposing a directive (law) about charging and hydrogen and natural gas etc.
Some have correctly interpreted that directive as being anti-Chademo. Perhaps they are correct, but the directive is even more anti tesla supercharger. Chademo at least has recongnition as being a pre-existing standard in the directive

Tesla supercharger is a DC fastcharger that is not the CCS Combo Frankenplug whatever it is called, for various obvious reasons
1) manufacturers can't use supercharger without payment to Tesla (even Chademo is now 'open')
2) cars with DC Combo port can't use DC supercharger (ie BMW i3)
3) EU directive has colour about required payment methods and consumers to be disuaded from peak charging etc.

perhaps this should be moved to the investors section, but the EU CPT directive has a greater threat to stifle Tesla supercharger deployment (particularly post 2020) than say Chademo depolyment.

Cars are OK, cars can have whatever ports they want, and the Tesla with AC 22kW Mennekes type 2 port is a very good option for European Teslas now and in the future. The issue is that while EU CPT directive may be bad for Chademo, its worse for Tesla Supercharger.

This should be expected, does Audi and BMW really want to pay Tesla a fee? or do they lobby against Tesla.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The issue is that while EU CPT directive may be bad for Chademo, its worse for Tesla Supercharger.

The EU directive only affects public chargers, but Tesla superchargers are not public (in both meanings: "publicly funded" or "publicly accessible").

And the detail is that recently it has been changed to having all public chargers support CCS at minimum rather than explicitly supporting CHAdeMO only chargers until 2019. So it does not disadvantage Tesla vs CHAdeMO (but ensures all public chargers will support CCS, even if it has multiple connectors supporting other standards).

Tesla's superchargers can actually support Type 2 DC (without the two extra pins) given it uses a Type 2 socket, but would need a connector swap or addition to support CCS (with the two pins).

 

[renim]

The EU directive only affects public chargers, but Tesla superchargers are not public (in both meanings: "publicly funded" or "publicly accessible").

That was my first thought, but it was wrong, because Tesla superchargers are public chargers just like gasoline stations and diesel stations, cng stations are public stations.

No, it is not about publicly funded, the directive makes no requirements about how the chargers are to be funded or if they are to be publicly funded. The directive does not even delve into the issue of ratio between fast chargers and normal chargers. There is a target for chargers per country but no ratio setting minimum amounts for DC fast charging. (ie a country could fully comply using normal AC charging only, or perhaps a combination of normal and fast charging using AC only.)

Tesla cars are good to go as far as this legislation is concerned.

tesla superchargers are worse than Chademo as far as this legislation is concerned.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That was my first thought, but it was wrong, because Tesla superchargers are public chargers just like gasoline stations and diesel stations, cng stations are public stations.

Not really, because superchargers don't allow any cars except for Teslas to charge at them. So basically it's a private network that Tesla owners have prepaid for. I don't see how the directive can govern something like that. The only "teeth" it has is that the EU governments will be using it to guide their funding/subsidizing of public chargers, not really making legislation to "ban" chargers that don't fit the directive. At worse, Tesla won't get any public funding or tax subsidies for their superchargers, but I don't see superchargers being banned.

 

[renim]

Not really, because superchargers don't allow any cars except for Teslas to charge at them. So basically it's a private network that Tesla owners have prepaid for. I don't see how the directive can govern something like that. The only "teeth" it has is that the EU governments will be using it to guide their funding of public chargers, not really making legislation to "ban" chargers that don't fit the directive.

European directives result in actions like the EU suing Germany because Daimler refuses to use flammable refrigerants that make poisons gases.
Environmentally Safe Refrigerant Can Blow Up And Poison You If You Aren’t Dead Already | The Truth About Cars
EU Starts Legal Proceedings Against Germany in R134a Dispute With Daimler | The Truth About Cars

The teeth the directive has is to be able to sue european government that don't comply it. It is not about the direction of public funding, it is about obligation/permission to use or phase out clean transport infrastucture. If an European country achieved the stated charging quota's with no public funding (ie using development approvals only) they would not be in breach of the directive.

The directive proposal page 3
'This proposal requires establishing a minimum number of recharging points for electric vehicles by each Member State, with 10% of them being publicly accessible. '

The directive's proposal is very much about networks like Tesla's supercharger or even the charger in someone's garage.

here is a link to the EU CPT page, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt/
instead of reading it like a consumer, read it like BMW's / Combo's lawyer/lobbyist. It is very adversarial to Tesla's superchargers, which are treated worse than Chademo.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The teeth the directive has is to be able to sue european government that don't comply it. It is not about the direction of public funding, it is about obligation/permission to use or phase out clean transport infrastucture. If an European country achieved the stated charging quota's with no public funding (ie using development approvals only) they would not be in breach of the directive.

The drafter seemed to have said the directive (even when it still included the 2019 deadline for CHAdeMO) will not be banning any chargers:
http://fionahall.org.uk/en/article/2013/713537/no-electric-car-charger-ban-hall

Sure they can implement a ban for any chargers not meeting the specifications (nothing stops them from doing so), but I don't see how that makes much sense in the context of the quota for the directive (they need incentives to install chargers that meet specs, and such bans do not help). And I'm not sure if Tesla's chargers would meet that quota anyways (as it's not for general public use, but only for Tesla owners who have prepaid for service). They would have to first force Tesla to open the network to general public use and I'm sure Tesla will lobby against that.

But anyways, with the current changes that strike out any mention of CHAdeMO, the directive only favors CCS (not CHAdeMO or Tesla).

 

[renim]

Fiona Hall MEP Member of the European Parliament for North East England will represent the interests of England, Nissan is England's largest car manufacturer, so Fiona Hall will be batting for Chademo. Likewise the French due to their ownership of Nissan and affiliation with Mitsubishi will not be atagonisitic to Chademo, but make no mistake, the intent of the directive's drafters was to eliminate the challengers to CCS Combo, be it Chademo or Supercharger.

The different drafts are yet to merged, they will be discussed clause by clause before they are made law, so the threat remains live, even if it is diminished.

seriously, read through the EU's CPT page http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt/
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0018:FIN:ENDF

The idea of an free 24/7 elite private recharging network may not appeal to those who don't appreciate Tesla.

Superchargers are a competitive advantage for Tesla, that makes it a target.

For the next few years it is of little consequence, due to Renault's ownership Nissan has long been including AC fast charging with their European Chademo rollout, and if that is OK then Tesla can include some AC fast chargers with their European Supercharger rollout and all can stay happy....for now.. But longer term, the directive is dangerously adversarial to Tesla's supercharger and potential limits the ability of Tesla supercharger to renew inline with the renewal/growth of European highways.

 

[cwerdna]

Standards are nice...

Because there are so many to choose from.

 

[JoeNe]

Because there are so many to choose from.

I just viewed JB's answer on the dc combo question in Amsterdam. The car is ready, but an adapter needs to be developed. But the bottom line is, why would you even pay for DC charging if you'd have a denser supercharger network where you charge for free.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The different drafts are yet to merged, they will be discussed clause by clause before they are made law, so the threat remains live, even if it is diminished.

seriously, read through the EU's CPT page http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt/
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0018:FIN:EN:PDF

The idea of an free 24/7 elite private recharging network may not appeal to those who don't appreciate Tesla.

At worse, Tesla will have to add a CCS plug (which no one will use) to the superchargers, but none of the drafts say anything about forcing non-public chargers to being public. They have to make exceptions anyways for industrial equipment (like chargers for forklifts, golf carts, baggage tractors, etc). The other strategy is just to make the superchargers "DC-mid" compatible and then lobby to say it meets the spirit of the law already (although it's unclear if CCS cars are also guaranteed to be DC-mid compatible, but it's certainly a good possibility as it's at least pin compatible).

- - - Updated - - -

But the bottom line is, why would you even pay for DC charging if you'd have a denser supercharger network where you charge for free.

The thing is, the supercharger network will never be as dense as other DC charging networks. The superchargers are designed for long distance use, while the other charging networks are designed for destination use. Therefore there will still be plenty of cases where you do want to pay for those other networks.

 

[JoeNe]

The thing is, the supercharger network will never be as dense as other DC charging networks. The superchargers are designed for long distance use, while the other charging networks are designed for destination use. Therefore there will still be plenty of cases where you do want to pay for those other networks.

I agree with you on this. Allthough I'm still hoping the supercharger network will be dense enough to cover my 5% needs which cannot be fullfilled by charging at home.

 

[widodh]

The thing is, the supercharger network will never be as dense as other DC charging networks. The superchargers are designed for long distance use, while the other charging networks are designed for destination use. Therefore there will still be plenty of cases where you do want to pay for those other networks.

+1

I also don't want Tesla to dictate where I have to charge my car. If there is a CCS charger on my route I want to use that and don't want to divert let's say for 30km. I don't care that it's free, I want freedom.

With FastNed deploying 201 CCS 175A chargers in the Netherlands I want to be able to charge there. The CHAdeMO goes to 125A, so I prefer the 175A CCS.

 

[JoeNe]

+1

I also don't want Tesla to dictate where I have to charge my car. If there is a CCS charger on my route I want to use that and don't want to divert let's say for 30km. I don't care that it's free, I want freedom.

With FastNed deploying 201 CCS 175A chargers in the Netherlands I want to be able to charge there. The CHAdeMO goes to 125A, so I prefer the 175A CCS.

I agree. But I think CHAdeMO deserves its higher priority because of its denser network.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree. But I think CHAdeMO deserves its higher priority because of its denser network.

I agree with this too. Plus Tesla already promised a CHAdeMO adapter before the winter is over, so they are under pressure to meet that promise. For this reason, I don't expect them to start talking about CCS until at least the CHAdeMO adapter is out.

 

[Mario Kadastik]

Can someone point out in the CPT regulation that this is anything beyond public usage stations and how they define it. I doubt they could ban a private installation of propriotory tech. Just dictate all SC locations as private property and be done with it... The way I see it is they want to make CCS prevail in new installations that qualify fir the requirement. If you have beyond that non compliant installations (i.e. SC-s), then who cares...

 

[miimura]

At worse, Tesla will have to add a CCS plug (which no one will use) to the superchargers, but none of the drafts say anything about forcing non-public chargers to being public. They have to make exceptions anyways for industrial equipment (like chargers for forklifts, golf carts, baggage tractors, etc). The other strategy is just to make the superchargers "DC-mid" compatible and then lobby to say it meets the spirit of the law already (although it's unclear if CCS cars are also guaranteed to be DC-mid compatible, but it's certainly a good possibility as it's at least pin compatible).

- - - Updated - - -
The thing is, the supercharger network will never be as dense as other DC charging networks. The superchargers are designed for long distance use, while the other charging networks are designed for destination use. Therefore there will still be plenty of cases where you do want to pay for those other networks.

I just listened to JB's answer about FastNed at the Amsterdam SC meeting. I was surprised that he did not mention "DC-Mid" as a possible way for Tesla owners to charge their cars on a public network. The Dutch owners were asking for support from Tesla so that they could make use of the aggressive build-out coming to their country. The answer for now was the CHAdeMO adapter.

To me, it does not make any sense for public networks to install Tesla SuperChargers and it does not make sense for Tesla to install anything BUT their own SuperChargers. I like the idea of the Mennekes DC-Mid interface and that is essentially what Tesla has implemented on their EU vehicles with some proprietary enhancement. However, I don't think any other automaker will actually implement this interface. It requires high current contactors to allow switchable connection to the on-board charger and battery. DC-High allows for permanent non-switchable connections. Maybe I shouldn't say permanent... it probably isn't safe to have the battery voltage always present at the vehicle inlet. I guess it would be on-off contactors, not A-B contactors.