IronCoffee_Max
Member
Reading the tweets - they used the firmware that unlocks 200a charging - which is not what you guys have (again from my reading comprehension). So that's what fried it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Setec CCS to Tesla Adapter
- Thread starter Boeingpilot
- Start date
According to @verygreen, the failure happened when they were running the safe firmware, not the force firmware. Perhaps he can provide a little more color in this thread.
I just re-read the Tweets again, and that's not quite it:
"there's an "experimental" firmware that you can install and "force" the charge current to 200A and in their testing in Korea the car did accept the higher than requested current just fine."
So he is describing someone else's testing using that current forcing firmware, but was not using it.
"Anyway after plugging a model3 into EA CCS on "safe" firmware, port suddenly got disabled"
And then here, he says what he did on a "safe" version of the firmware that was not doing the current forcing to 200A.
im.thatoneguy
Member
There seems to be an implied statement that the Chademo adapter from Tesla works and isn't similarly glitchy. I've found that when it's cold and wet the Chademo doesn't stay secured and errors out as well. And I had to go through months of back and forth with Tesla to get my Chademo to sometimes work with one EVGo station. And the only way to update the firmware on the Tesla Chademo seems to be a Mobile Service appointment.
That being said, if it's only delivering 40kw, no reason to spend 2x as much IMO for the same buggy experience as the Chademo. I wish the EVGO rollout of "official" charging adapters would speed up. Probably 90% of the Chademo users in my area are already Teslas with adapters.
IronCoffee_Max
Member
Re-reading the tweets, he does say that - but he precedes it with the experimental firmware, which led me to believe the user had tried the experimental one first. Since there have been a lot of people in this thread with success, I assumed the block occurred due to the experimental firmware. I'd love to get some clarification.
I'm personally wanting a CCS adapter for Southwestern Colorado, but I think I'll wait for an official Tesla one (which I'm sure will happen); however I love competition and I'd really like there to be a market for Tesla after-market stuff like this so I want to see the Setec succeed.
I'm personally wanting a CCS adapter for Southwestern Colorado, but I think I'll wait for an official Tesla one (which I'm sure will happen); however I love competition and I'd really like there to be a market for Tesla after-market stuff like this so I want to see the Setec succeed.
My sole reason for the CCS experiment, even with lower charge rate cap, was to just have more choice for my specific use cases.
Folks have noted (complaining loudly) how many EA and similar vendor charging locations have maybe one Chademo, if it is even working, but multiple CCS plugs. The CCS side would have opened up a lot more options for me to plug in and charge at a reasonable rate in the case of crowded times, adverse weather conditions in a remote winter location where it might be hard to get to a SuperCharger or any working station, etc.
But I am not going to fry my new vehicle to find out. I had perfect luck on that first 150KW EA station that I tried. But if that means I won at the first go round on Russian Roulette. No thanks. I agree with interpreting the tweets - they tried this on "safe" firmware, just like me. It might be a freak accident and a bad charging station but how the heck do we all figure that out? If it was, then nothing Tesla provides fixes that problem. A bit frustrating.
My .02 worth of reading comprehension tells me they were testing the “forcing” firmware, and then reverted back to the “safe” firmware, after which the failure occurred.
It’s possible that during testing the “forcing” firmware damaged the on board charger, and it was realized after switching back to the safe firmware. I’m thinking possible overheating? But there shouldn’t be much heat generated within the on board charger when DC charging... without knowing more about how the charger isolates incoming DC from the AC to DC components I can only speculate.
It’s interesting, many have been testing this adapter for months in SK and now in the US and CAN? How many cars has the adapter fried? Setec has been very helpful in getting their adapter working here, and I wonder what their response will be to this situation.
Either way I definitely wouldn’t use this adapter as a primary source of charging at this point, only 50kw for 3/Ys and they’re still working out the kinks it seams.
It’s possible that during testing the “forcing” firmware damaged the on board charger, and it was realized after switching back to the safe firmware. I’m thinking possible overheating? But there shouldn’t be much heat generated within the on board charger when DC charging... without knowing more about how the charger isolates incoming DC from the AC to DC components I can only speculate.
It’s interesting, many have been testing this adapter for months in SK and now in the US and CAN? How many cars has the adapter fried? Setec has been very helpful in getting their adapter working here, and I wonder what their response will be to this situation.
Either way I definitely wouldn’t use this adapter as a primary source of charging at this point, only 50kw for 3/Ys and they’re still working out the kinks it seams.
the experimental firmware was mentioned only to say that the promised 200A was not all lies.
In reality there's no way to even get the 200A firmware without first agreeing that you will run it at your own risk.
All charging was performed on the standard firmware that was capped at 125A (which is why we were wondering about the product-documentation claimed 200A and inquired about it and got the answer about the special firmware)
EA is the one doing that. I don't know of any other US major non-Tesla charging provider that's doing that. With all other major providers, at the majority of sites, the ratio of CHAdeMO vs. SAE Combo is 1:1 or not as skewed as EA's typical 1:5 or 1:7...
Reddy_KW
Member
Your analogy is quite correct , that adapter looks like a hand gun if you hold it the right way. It’s a new EVSE Roulette.
I kind of wonder that too. Looking at all the issues Out of Spec motoring has had doing cross country trips on CCS equipped cars, it’s amazing the level of non-success. (Oh yes, Superharger network, you showed the way!)I have one of these too but was really hoping that CCS would open up a bunch of options for when I am in the mountains/snow and I need to get charged no matter what. But this is just so disappointing after an initial great start working with SETEC and my initial try on the latest firmware going perfectly without a hitch. I wonder if the actual EA charger was borked as opposed to the SETEC but who the hell wants to test that out??? Now overnight I am going from "this is the greatest thing" to "wow, what an expensive paperweight" LOL.
hard to to tell if the adapter is flaky or the chargers
Having been paying attention for over 5 years now, I don’t recall hearing about a flaky DCFC actually harming a car. I’d welcome examples, but it’s most certainly uncommon.
Therefore, logic says the adapter is the very likely culprit.
Last edited:
I hope you are right. Elon said they would release one for Korea but didn't specifically say anything about north America. I suppose if they don't release one here there will be black market ones available.
Same here in BC Canada. There are a few Electrify Canada sites. But the vast majority are other companies, and the ratio is always one to one. Chademo isn’t going away anytime soon here. BC hydro coordinates placement of all these sites and they are well aware that Tesla’s are still the biggest users of non Tesla DC fast charging stations. Tesla continues to improve its Supercharger buildout but I doubt they will ever catch up to the CHADEMO/CCS buildout.
JMHO
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Perhaps true in sheer numbers, but I'm not so sure if you add a usability score. E.g,
1. Location
2. Charging speed
3. Reliability
By the way, have you seen the updated Tesla Supercharger map for near future installations ?
Last edited:
The supercharger network is "deep, but narrow". CHAdeMO/CCS charger coverage is mostly "wide, but shallow". For Tesla, it's obviously a chosen strategy. In most places, they are only covering the major travel routes and trying to build enough stations/stalls to ensure that there's extra capacity for every car that wants to charge and that it's resilient to a failure or malfunction. The CCS/CHAdeMO network doesn't really have a strategy as a whole because it's a patchwork of many different smaller networks and individual location builds. This results in more real estate being covered, but mostly without the overbuilding and back-up coverage that Tesla achieves by intention.
Tesla is the only entity that will build superchargers. Anyone who wants to can set up a CCS/CHAdeMO station. This is exactly the result you should expect. And it's why having good adapters available for CCS/CHAdeMO is so important for Tesla owners. There's always going to be areas where superchargers haven't got "good" coverage yet.
Yah. Looks great. There are a couple on there that are really important for us. Nice.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Antecedent to CA annexing coastal OR and WA, and BC
Good to know that at least they warn you seriously before sending you the 200A firmware. I'm curious what caused the damage to the car. Could it be that there are different communication protocols running at different voltages, and messing up communication could lead to some interface chip damage? Thanks
It's not really clear what went wrong, but the leading theory is the high voltage was applied while the car was no ready for it and it was routed some wrong way as the result.
Similar threads
- Article
