SAE vs CHAdeMO

[Robert.Boston]

> In my opinion Tesla has adopted the proper priority in rolling out the Supercharger network starting with locations with high owner density and working to areas of lower owner density. After the high traffic areas and routes are adequately addressed I am sure Tesla will shift its emphasis to low traffic routes. [Larry Chanin]

The 'Routes' from the beginning seemed rather arbitrary and possibly done at the whim of TM Board Members rather than from a logical plan to bridge Pacific > Atlantic and Minneapolis > Houston. I would have preferred to see that big cross of SpCs on the map from the git go, a Grid of 4 sectors - wall to wall and floor to ceiling. Simple completion process to follow.
--

Tesla more rationally chose an "H" patten instead of a "+", reflecting the very high concentration of population and Tesla owners on the coasts. Although Minneapolis > Houston may be right on average, it isn't useful to the vast majority of owners.

I agree with your comment that the original west-east route was chosen to meet Elon's whim rather than any rational coverage plan. That is slowly getting rationalized with the build-outs on I-90/80, I-70, and I-20/10.

But back on topic -- CHAdeMO coverage is extremely localized, with many pockets scattered nationally, while the Superchargers form a useful network. Also the fact that each CHAdeMO charger is a singleton puts the driver at great risk of single point-of-failure. Combined that with thin coverage, and there's no way I would be comfortable planning a long-distance trip on CHAdeMO. Of course, the SAE coverage is even worse...

 

[Larry Chanin]

> In my opinion Tesla has adopted the proper priority in rolling out the Supercharger network starting with locations with high owner density and working to areas of lower owner density. After the high traffic areas and routes are adequately addressed I am sure Tesla will shift its emphasis to low traffic routes. [Larry Chanin]

The 'Routes' from the beginning seemed rather arbitrary and possibly done at the whim of TM Board Members rather than from a logical plan to bridge Pacific > Atlantic and Minneapolis > Houston. I would have preferred to see that big cross of SpCs on the map from the git go, a Grid of 4 sectors - wall to wall and floor to ceiling. Simple completion process to follow.

--

Tesla more rationally chose an "H" patten instead of a "+", reflecting the very high concentration of population and Tesla owners on the coasts. Although Minneapolis > Houston may be right on average, it isn't useful to the vast majority of owners.

I agree with your comment that the original west-east route was chosen to meet Elon's whim rather than any rational coverage plan. That is slowly getting rationalized with the build-outs on I-90/80, I-70, and I-20/10.

But back on topic -- CHAdeMO coverage is extremely localized, with many pockets scattered nationally, while the Superchargers form a useful network. Also the fact that each CHAdeMO charger is a singleton puts the driver at great risk of single point-of-failure. Combined that with thin coverage, and there's no way I would be comfortable planning a long-distance trip on CHAdeMO. Of course, the SAE coverage is even worse...

As Robert states your point regarding the first cross-country route being a whim has some validity. However, while cross-country routes are an eventual objective, it was never a priority over serving the maximum number of owners in the least amount of time.

Regardless, it is not relevant to the topic at hand which is the emergence of a de facto fast charging standard. I maintain that the Supercharger specification has the greatest chance of doing that in North America.

Larry

 

[Thumper]

We know that the Tesla plug can pass at least 135kw. I have seen much speculation that it can handle 150. Do we have numbers for SAE max for the plug itself? If BMW and others want to have large batteries and long distance travel someday, they will need a charge connector and protocols that can handle a lot of current. What are they restricted to with SAE?

 

[Robert.Boston]

We know that the Tesla plug can pass at least 135kw. I have seen much speculation that it can handle 150. Do we have numbers for SAE max for the plug itself? If BMW and others want to have large batteries and long distance travel someday, they will need a charge connector and protocols that can handle a lot of current. What are they restricted to with SAE?

DC Level 2 caps out at 100 kW, at 200 A @ 500 V. EV Fast Charging, whether standardized or not

 

[Cottonwood]

We know that the Tesla plug can pass at least 135kw. I have seen much speculation that it can handle 150. Do we have numbers for SAE max for the plug itself? If BMW and others want to have large batteries and long distance travel someday, they will need a charge connector and protocols that can handle a lot of current. What are they restricted to with SAE?

Not exactly.

The current Supercharger Cabinets can put out 135 kW DC, but that is for two cars. The most that has been seen to a single car is slightly over 120 kW and slightly over 333 Amps. There appears to be a limit of about 333 Amps somewhere in the path from the Supercharger Cabinet to the battery. Because the battery in an 85 is at about 360 Volts when it can accept the greatest charge power, it is limited to 360 Volts * 333 Amps or 120 kW. The 60 has a battery Voltage of about 315 Volts (7/8 of 360) at min charge, and has a max charging power of about 315 Volts * 333 Amps or 105kW.

 

[ggr]

DC Level 2 caps out at 100 kW, at 200 A @ 500kV. EV Fast Charging, whether standardized or not

Thanks for the link to that article. The best part was finding out what CHAdeMO (the name) came from. But I think you mean 500 Volts, not kiloVolts.

 

[Thumper]

Well if the SAE plug is limited to 100kw, it is simply not going to cut it for the future. Truly fast charging requires lots of kw. If BMW et al ever do produce a long distance EV, they will need a different plug. That would be a good time for them to throw in the towel and adopt the Tesla plug.

 

[Saghost]

Well if the SAE plug is limited to 100kw, it is simply not going to cut it for the future. Truly fast charging requires lots of kw. If BMW et al ever do produce a long distance EV, they will need a different plug. That would be a good time for them to throw in the towel and adopt the Tesla plug.

For most EVs, you wouldn't even get 100 kW - that's only if the battery is right at the max voltage and still taking the max current, which seems highly improbable. A Model S would never see more than 86 kW, and likely not that; as pointed out up thread, when taking the maximum current from superchargers now the 85 kWh battery is at about 360V which would mean a 200A limit would give ~72 kW for the middle portion of the charge.

I'm wondering what the two Tesla plugs are capable of. If the plugs are what's limiting current Supercharging to 333 amps, that might be a challenge for the future, if/when higher capacity batteries become available. There's no real reason that the European Mennekes based plugs should have exactly the same capability as the US custom plugs, either - so Tesla may have two different levels of capability out there right now.
Walter

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well if the SAE plug is limited to 100kw, it is simply not going to cut it for the future. Truly fast charging requires lots of kw. If BMW et al ever do produce a long distance EV, they will need a different plug. That would be a good time for them to throw in the towel and adopt the Tesla plug.

I think they will be moving to SAE level 3 (400A@600V) when they have cars that can take it. Right now their cars have batteries that are too small to require beyond 100kW, so the current spec is okay for them.
http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf

 

[matbl]

My point of course was that despite having first-mover-advantage, CHAdeMO has now been surpassed by the number of Supercharger DC fast charging outlets in North America and that this supports my original premise that the Supercharger specification has an ever-increasing probability as emerging as the dominant DC fast charging "standard" over both CHAdeMO and the SAE Combo.

In the US or NA maybe. But certainly not in Europe where the major german manufacturers Mercedes, BMW and VW (which includes Audi) have agreed on the CCS using the type2 Combo connector. I think Germany have announced that they will heavilt subsidize charging installation. Count on that being CCS only...
ohh and I think there are well over a thousand chademo points across Europe as well...

 

[GRA]

In the US or NA maybe. But certainly not in Europe where the major german manufacturers Mercedes, BMW and VW (which includes Audi) have agreed on the CCS using the type2 Combo connector. I think Germany have announced that they will heavilt subsidize charging installation. Count on that being CCS only...
ohh and I think there are well over a thousand chademo points across Europe as well...

There are already over 600 CCS-2 in Europe: Europe Exceeds 600 CCS Chargers Installed (w/statistics)

 

[kbrandes]

We need a CCS adapter for Germany

 

[cwerdna]

The best part was finding out what CHAdeMO (the name) came from. But I think you mean 500 Volts, not kiloVolts.

It's been up on What is CHAdeMO for ages but that page looks like it was part of their old, semi-orphaned (?) version of their site. While looking for that page, I stumbled across CHAdeMO suggests drinking green tea while recharging your electric car.

 

[matbl]

There are already over 600 CCS-2 in Europe: Europe Exceeds 600 CCS Chargers Installed (w/statistics)

But not many of those seem to be 50 kw or more DC.
Yet!

- - - Updated - - -

We need a CCS adapter for Germany

And sweden.

 

[wws]

It would be interesting to know how many of the L3 CHAdeMO and CCS chargers are at car dealerships vs others. It is great that many dealerships make theirs available to the public. But that is not a long-term solution. Japan seems to have quite a lead on that front.

Here in the U.S., I would think few (besides a dealer with vested interest) would install a single standard charging station, when a dual standard charger adds very little added expense. Given the huge head start CHAdeMO has, both in number of cars on the road and current charging sites, it will be a long time before there are more CCS sites than CHAdeMO.

...

We need a CCS adapter for Germany

And sweden.

Given how long it is taking for Tesla to produce a CHAdeMO adapter, would a CCS adapter be any easier to implement?

 

[Cosmacelf]

Given how long it is taking for Tesla to produce a CHAdeMO adapter, would a CCS adapter be any easier to implement?

Almost certainly yes. CHAdeMO was a proprietary standard, so the specs probably weren't very tightly done. CCS was a public standard with lots of input from the community at the outset. CHAdeMO is an extension of the car's CAN bus, which was never designed to be used externally in an EVSE, which no doubt adds much interoperable complexity. CHAdeMO EVSEs were only designed and tested to be running with less than one hour continuous loads, which worked OK for all cars except the Tesla. Finally, Tesla has no doubt learned a lot from the design and testing of the CHAdeMO adapter that they can replicate to a CCS one.

 

[Cosmacelf]

There are already over 600 CCS-2 in Europe: Europe Exceeds 600 CCS Chargers Installed (w/statistics)

Just want to dispell any misinformation that this article might convey since people routine conflate Tesla Supercharger LOCATIONS with CCS (or CHAdeMO) PLUGS.

Comparing apples to apples, Europe has 599 24x7 CCS stalls according to ccs-map.eu. Tesla has 657 24x7 stalls according to supercharge.info, with 47 more stalls known to be in permitting or construction.

The overwhelming majority of CCS locations have just one CCS plug available (actually I couldn't find a location that had more than one by randomly clicking on the map), making the CCS network far inferior to Tesla's even if the number of charging plugs or stalls was equivalent.

Tesla Superchargers output more power than CCS chargers.

In the US, it isn't even a race, there effectively is no CCS network, likewise for Asia.

 

[wycolo]

> Well if the SAE plug is limited to 100kw, it is simply not going to cut it for the future. Truly fast charging requires lots of kw. [Thumper]

TM can easily double their charging capacity by adding a 2nd charge port to the passenger side, so you would use the SpC cable in the bay next to yours. If you are in a rush you wouldn't mind having to plug/unplug twice. Cars, battery pack and even cell chemistry would have to be modified to achieve the 200+ kw charge rate. But todays cables and plugs are good to go.
--

 

[scaesare]

Just want to dispell any misinformation that this article might convey since people routine conflate Tesla Supercharger LOCATIONS with CCS (or CHAdeMO) PLUGS.

Comparing apples to apples, Europe has 599 24x7 CCS stalls according to ccs-map.eu. Tesla has 657 24x7 stalls according to supercharge.info, with 47 more stalls known to be in permitting or construction.

The overwhelming majority of CCS locations have just one CCS plug available (actually I couldn't find a location that had more than one by randomly clicking on the map), making the CCS network far inferior to Tesla's even if the number of charging plugs or stalls was equivalent.

Tesla Superchargers output more power than CCS chargers.

In the US, it isn't even a race, there effectively is no CCS network, likewise for Asia.

This.

Sites != charging stalls

 

[green1]

This.

Sites != charging stalls

and coincidentally charging stalls != Sites.

It all depends what you are going for, is it better to have more places you can go to charge? or more chargers at the same location? There isn't a straightforward answer to that one either, all these people saying SC is so much better because it has more total charging heads are missing the idea that many of those charging plugs are empty while someone wishes they could charge somewhere that doesn't have any SC.

Both approaches have advantages, and ideally you'd have both more sites and more plugs at each, but the advantage the SC network has is in the planning of their locations, not in their number.