SAE J1772 DC (Combo) Connector Adapter for Model S

[gavine]

Any news on a CCS to Tesla adapter? I charged my i3 at a CCS combo charger recently and it worked very well. These CCS chargers are really starting to pop-up and it would be nice to have an adapter for Tesla when away from Supercharger path.

 

[jborak]

FYI, ChargePoint is sending announcements about new DC Fast Charging locations, where the DC option is SAE Combo only:

I live close to Nauna's, they have great pizza The owner Tom is a big proponent of EV driving and has been for many years. I wish this station had a chademo port though...

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Looks like the future is definitely CCS/Combo. I hope we get an adapter from Tesla.

 

[AWDtsla]

22kw is too slow to be meaningful for longer travel outside of the supercharger network. Ohh, and a 22 kw station kind of sucks if there's a 48 kw ccs beside it.

The complaints from Europe are entertaining. Supercharging density in many parts of Europe has exceeded North America already, and the 2016 map is insanity. In addition to this, you have plentiful ~240V outlets. You realize that in North American the standard outlet is 12A @ 115V, basically a meaningless amount of charge. Then almost all the level 2 chargers are <6kW J1772 stations as they are 30A and usually 199V after sag on industrial 208V. You can find ChaDemo (which is fortunatey or unfortunately co-located with CCS depending on how you look at it) if you are very lucky, but mostly they are located in useless places, like in heavily populated places where there is a Nissan dealership or a supercharger already, basically no where you'd need them "outside of the supercharger network".

I'd kill for a 10kW charger in many areas, forget about 20kW, that would be a dream. Well unless Tesla finally decides to add a supercharger in those locations.

 

[widodh]

The complaints from Europe are entertaining. Supercharging density in many parts of Europe has exceeded North America already, and the 2016 map is insanity. In addition to this, you have plentiful ~240V outlets. You realize that in North American the standard outlet is 12A @ 115V, basically a meaningless amount of charge. Then almost all the level 2 chargers are <6kW J1772 stations as they are 30A and usually 199V after sag on industrial 208V. You can find ChaDemo (which is fortunatey or unfortunately co-located with CCS depending on how you look at it) if you are very lucky, but mostly they are located in useless places, like in heavily populated places where there is a Nissan dealership or a supercharger already, basically no where you'd need them "outside of the supercharger network".

I'd kill for a 10kW charger in many areas, forget about 20kW, that would be a dream. Well unless Tesla finally decides to add a supercharger in those locations.

Interesting how opinions can change rapidly, don't you?

I have a 22kW charger on-board and I already find it slow. In the Netherlands (tiny country!) we now have 50 stations from Fastned along our highways: Fastned — Fast charging along the highway

With 43kW charging with the CHAdeMO adapter I really like it.

Still, I think that for Europe Tesla should and probably will change their socket so that it accepts SuperCharging and CCS without any adapter.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Still, I think that for Europe Tesla should and probably will change their socket so that it accepts SuperCharging and CCS without any adapter.

I highly doubt that will happen. The CCS/Combo plug is so large that the current Model S charging port would never accommodate such a plug. I doubt Tesla will ruin the aesthetics of the car for such a plug.

 

[ddimit]

I highly doubt that will happen. The CCS/Combo plug is so large that the current Model S charging port would never accommodate such a plug. I doubt Tesla will ruin the aesthetics of the car for such a plug.

Hence the name "Frankeplug" its a monster!

I would expect to see an adapter that looks similar to the ChaDeMO. CCS will be the standard deployed standard in the US going forward. Chademo will be around awhile due to the Large amount of Leaf's out there.

 

[RDoc]

Hence the name "Frankeplug" its a monster!

I would expect to see an adapter that looks similar to the ChaDeMO. CCS will be the standard deployed standard in the US going forward. Chademo will be around awhile due to the Large amount of Leaf's out there.

Tesla engineers have said a CCS adapter doesn't require any electronics, as the CHAdeMO one does, since both Superchargers and CCS use powerline signalling, not the CAN bus. It should just be a larger version of the J1772 adapter. Tesla was on the group that defined CCS and has stated that the protocols are compatible, whatever that means. SAE took too long to actually approve it and it's a bit under-powered as well.

 

[miimura]

I think once there is a 200A CCS connector defined and chargers start to be deployed for that current level it would be worth Tesla's time to make a CCS adapter for Type 1 and Type 2. Doing another 125A adapter like the CHAdeMO one would not be worthwhile in today's marketplace.

 

[cwerdna]

Tesla engineers have said a CCS adapter doesn't require any electronics, as the CHAdeMO one does, since both Superchargers and CCS use powerline signalling, not the CAN bus. It should just be a larger version of the J1772 adapter. Tesla was on the group that defined CCS and has stated that the protocols are compatible, whatever that means. SAE took too long to actually approve it and it's a bit under-powered as well.

Source?

 

[arg]

Tesla engineers have said a CCS adapter doesn't require any electronics, as the CHAdeMO one does, since both Superchargers and CCS use powerline signalling, not the CAN bus. It should just be a larger version of the J1772 adapter. Tesla was on the group that defined CCS and has stated that the protocols are compatible, whatever that means.

The point about "compatibility" was stated a long time ago (and I've never seen it in words as explicit as yours), but it seems to have been misleading. All indications are that Supercharging starts with the 'go to digital signalling' pulses as specified in J1772 (same as CCS), but then CCS uses powerline carrier while Supercharger appears to use simple CAN.

 

[matbl]

The point about "compatibility" was stated a long time ago (and I've never seen it in words as explicit as yours), but it seems to have been misleading. All indications are that Supercharging starts with the 'go to digital signalling' pulses as specified in J1772 (same as CCS), but then CCS uses powerline carrier while Supercharger appears to use simple CAN.

Maybe. I've not seen anyone doing 'go to digital signalling' with the correct CCS signaling (resistor value). So we simply don't know.
But as you say, what we do know points to CAN. At least in the US.

 

[RDoc]

The point about "compatibility" was stated a long time ago (and I've never seen it in words as explicit as yours), but it seems to have been misleading. All indications are that Supercharging starts with the 'go to digital signalling' pulses as specified in J1772 (same as CCS), but then CCS uses powerline carrier while Supercharger appears to use simple CAN.

JB Straubel disagrees with you, what's your source?

SAE: What about the communication protocol of the Combo Connector? It’s considered essential for V2G.

Straubel: That’s fine. We’re definitely commonizing with all of that. The only thing that’s up for debate in all of these standards is the physical geometries of the pins and sockets. Everything else is pretty easy to adapt to. The communication standards are pretty universal. We’re 100% compliant with all the J1772 communication levels, signaling, voltage, everything.

http://articles.sae.org/11923/

 

[stopcrazypp]

JB Straubel disagrees with you, what's your source?

SAE: What about the communication protocol of the Combo Connector? It’s considered essential for V2G.

Straubel: That’s fine. We’re definitely commonizing with all of that. The only thing that’s up for debate in all of these standards is the physical geometries of the pins and sockets. Everything else is pretty easy to adapt to. The communication standards are pretty universal. We’re 100% compliant with all the J1772 communication levels, signaling, voltage, everything.

http://articles.sae.org/11923/

To be fair, while I also reference that quote, people who have examined the supercharger protocol says that it starts the analog half like CCS, but then the digital part is completely different (as others mention, it uses CAN, not PLC). Of course it is possible that the car has hardware that can support PLC (given how much dissecting has been going on, maybe someone can chime in if they know) and just requires a firmware update to enable it when the adapter comes.

 

[RDoc]

To be fair, while I also reference that quote, people who have examined the supercharger protocol says that it starts the analog half like CCS, but then the digital part is completely different (as others mention, it uses CAN, not PLC). Of course it is possible that the car has hardware that can support PLC (given how much dissecting has been going on, maybe someone can chime in if they know) and just requires a firmware update to enable it when the adapter comes.

Source?
Someone playing with monitoring the supercharger communications really doesn't seem as authoritative a source as JB Straubel speaking to a professional magazine. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

 

[stopcrazypp]

Source?
Someone playing with monitoring the supercharger communications really doesn't seem as authoritative a source as JB Straubel speaking to a professional magazine. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

You can see starting from here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-adapter/page4?p=629916&viewfull=1#post629916
What happens with the supercharger protocol is most definitely CAN (people have even read the VIN numbers from the CAN signal).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...r-Down/page5?p=1338505&viewfull=1#post1338505

The general subject is also discussed in this thread:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/32332-Supercharger-protocol-a-superset-of-CCS

 

[arg]

JB Straubel disagrees with you, what's your source?

Yes, that's the one and only quote (from 2013) that we have all been looking at and originally interpreted to mean that Supercharging used the homeplug-based signalling.

However, numerous people (admittedly, not me) have instrumented what happens at Superchargers and what happens when you apply the J1772 'go digital' signal, and have found CAN rather than carrier-based signalling.

Strictly speaking, that isn't in conflict with the precise words you quoted above - the car does do all that's in J1772, since J1772 itself only covers AC and the initial signalling on the pilot pin to switch to "digital communication" - the carrier modulation, XML messages and so on are in other standards (J2847, J2931 etc.). I have no idea whether he deliberately intended that narrow interpretation, or was just speaking loosely.

I don't entirely understand @matbl 's suggestion that alternative signalling may be present in the car and unlocked by a different resistor value on the proximity pin - is this something in IEC61851? There's nothing in J1772 about a different resistor value for DC vs AC (indeed, the digital signalling is permitted to be used for more sophisticated AC EVSE as well as for DC), although it does specify an extra core in the cable as the DC EVSE is supposed to monitor the voltage at the car-end proximity pin (which has exactly the same resistor values as for the AC case).

So, much as I would love to find that my car does in fact support the standardised digital communication, it now seems extremely unlikely.

 

[RDoc]

The original question was if a "dumb" CCS adapter could be made for Tesla cars' charging connectors. An alternative formulation of the same question is if the Tesla car's connector is "compatible" with CCS.

No one is suggesting that such an adapter would trick a Tesla car into thinking that it was connected to a Supercharger. Why would Tesla make such a thing? They supply both the adapter and the car's firmware, which would likely have to be updated to support the CCS adapter. From what I understand, the car doesn't think it's connected to a Supercharger when using a CHAdeMO adapter, so there's no reason for it to think that when connected to a CCS charger either. The firmware would identify the CCS adapter, then just use the correct protocol with the existing PLC signalling circuitry in the car.

CCS uses "Power Line Control" (PLC) signalling, as does J1772, and apparently the start of the Supercharger protocol, all of which are supported by Tesla cars. The electrical connection is exactly what's used for J1772 and the protocol is an extension. CCS does use a newer version of PLC, so it's not exactly the same, but the protocol is supposed to be backward compatible, and JB Straubel has stated that Tesla does have SAE CCS compatible hardware and protocol support so I'm willing to believe that it does.

- - - Updated - - -

<snip>
Strictly speaking, that isn't in conflict with the precise words you quoted above - the car does do all that's in J1772, since J1772 itself only covers AC ...
<snip>

The quote was in answer to a specific question about the SAE combo connector and DC charging. While I suppose it's possible that the J1772 protocol isn't possible to be changed or extended in the Tesla car's firmware, I find that pretty difficult to believe. The CCS protocol is still HomePlug PLC, the same as J1772 anyway.

 

[CSFTN]

Guys - both J1772 and CCS (and Chademo too) are open standards, no? IMO there is a web site for each, with the protocols clearly delineated .... but I am not an EE, so I won't be the one posting. But, I do recall someone else posting the CCS protocol (not yet final, if I recall) in late 2013.

 

[arg]

The original question was if a "dumb" CCS adapter could be made for Tesla cars' charging connectors. An alternative formulation of the same question is if the Tesla car's connector is "compatible" with CCS.

And most people on TMC who have looked into this now believe that the car does not have PLC signalling hardware, hence a CCS adaptor would have to be a 'smart' adapter like the CHAdeMO one.

CCS uses "Power Line Control" (PLC) signalling,

Yes.

as does J1772, and apparently the start of the Supercharger protocol,

No. The start of the Supercharger protocol does the same "switch to digital" signalling as specified in J1772, but a CCS car at this point would switch to PLC while a Model S does not.

The quote was in answer to a specific question about the SAE combo connector and DC charging. While I suppose it's possible that the J1772 protocol isn't possible to be changed or extended in the Tesla car's firmware, I find that pretty difficult to believe. The CCS protocol is still HomePlug PLC, the same as J1772 anyway.

You missed my point. The CCS protocol is documented in a number of separate documents, of which J1772 is only one. J1772 covers both AC and DC, but only part of the protocol. It documents the plug shapes (you can do DC over the standard connector "DC level 1" as well as the combo connector "DC level 2", both of which are documented in J1772), It also documents the analogue parts of the protocol - resistor values, effect of pressing the button on the handle, the square wave signal used to specify AC current capabilities etc. However, it stops at the point of "switch to digital signalling". The actual use of PLC is specified in other documents.

I agree with you that the quoted statement would seem to imply support for the whole range of standards involved in CCS. I read it that way myself back in 2013 and believed it up until the point where people started doing reverse engineering and found that it did not appear to be true.

As I said, I have no idea whether JB Straubel deliberately chose those words to be truthful but misleading, or if he meant them more generally and something changed after the event. That statement was made in the very early days of Supercharger deployment - maybe the CAN stuff was a quick hack to get them out of the door for the launch and they planned to go back and retro-fit, but then got beyond the point where that was feasible. Or maybe he meant his statement in the context of an adapter comparable to the CHAdeMO one.