-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
After some googling, I'm pretty sure this is the final requirement issued by the EU:
http://www.charinev.org/fileadmin/D...ons/022_Doc_Directive_CELEX_32014L0094_EN.pdf
The three parts you'll want to read are (33) on page five, 4 on page 12, and 1.2 on page 20.
It looks to me like Tesla would be compliant if they did something similar to their Destination network in the US - installed a bunch of the current Superchargers at a location and then put a single off the shelf 50kW CCS charger in at the same time.
The document is very explicit that retrofitting existing units is not required.
Indeed.
(1) Redesign the Supercharger so that it's ostensibly a single modular unit with lots of plugs
(2) Add 1 CCS plug
(3) Allow public charging by other vehicles with "reasonable" pricing.
@Saghost @ItsNotAboutTheMoney While that is one interpretation of the directive, the important distinction here is that EU law is not law of the land by itself. It places a demand on member states to update their local regulation to comply with said EU law. The states may comply by varying interpretations and levels of enforcement. So, say, Germany or Spain can actually require more than this and may in fact already do so as has been discussed.
Your interpretation, thus, is an optimistic one. It may not stick in all member states, if it sticks at all. I would say the idea that a 20 Supercharger stall station having one CCS would not be in the spirit of said directive anyway... We shall see.
That this does not apply retroactively to already installed charging points is, of course, clear and without dispute.
Your interpretation, thus, is an optimistic one. It may not stick in all member states, if it sticks at all. I would say the idea that a 20 Supercharger stall station having one CCS would not be in the spirit of said directive anyway... We shall see.
That this does not apply retroactively to already installed charging points is, of course, clear and without dispute.
Well, one Combined Charging System 2 plug (CCS2) per location is actually fine. It just
needs a stall and not a stand-alone charger. Will not cost a fortune and a good ad for Tesla.
Tesla can still stand for their philosophy that "to get access to SC vehicle must talk with
supercharger and VIN must be allowed to charge". Tesla will not allow people fiddling at
the spot trying to pay, to understand, to read instruction or other silly things that waste stall time.
And all manufacturers are allowed to join.
And that "350kW is child toy" hints that this will change. This change would also solve the new plausible requirement that every
charger (not stall) must have one CCS. If Tesla designs a 400kW charger that serves 8 stalls (plus one CCS), that's fine.
needs a stall and not a stand-alone charger. Will not cost a fortune and a good ad for Tesla.
Tesla can still stand for their philosophy that "to get access to SC vehicle must talk with
supercharger and VIN must be allowed to charge". Tesla will not allow people fiddling at
the spot trying to pay, to understand, to read instruction or other silly things that waste stall time.
And all manufacturers are allowed to join.
Any current SC location is exempt.
As I understood, there must be one CCS plug per one charger. Tesla currently has 2 stalls (usually, not always) per charger.
And that "350kW is child toy" hints that this will change. This change would also solve the new plausible requirement that every
charger (not stall) must have one CCS. If Tesla designs a 400kW charger that serves 8 stalls (plus one CCS), that's fine.
Be aware that they are talking about "Recharging points". One interpretation of this is that for each supercharger plug, it may be a Chademo plug, maybe even a Type2 AC plug or some other plugs, but it has to be a CCS DC plug.
Page 12.
CCS is the DC charging alternative. If it was an AC only station (destination charger?), you would have been correct - they just need one Type2/mennekes plug. But as Tesla uses Type2 for AC in EU/EEA, it will not affect them at all. But for an DC (re)charging point, they have to have the DC standard alternative - CCS. See page 20 #1,2 as Saghost pointed to when he linked the document.
I think you're talking past my timeline. I completely agree that the world will shift to EVs. I just think its hopes and dreams to think such a transition will really take hold within the next few years. Once all the early adopters are gone, an EV has to make straight up financial sense to the consumer base, including the residual value of the ICE cars they're all stiff buying.
In fact, in context of a 'new plug' I wouldn't be surprised if today's CCS is OBE by some other standard, even before the CS buildout is complete. In 10 years, will we be satisfied with 350kw? I bet not.
I neither said or intimated that. Tesla will do what is best for Tesla first, and the world at large a close second. What I do assume is that Tesla does not need to jump off the fence yet. It seems feasible for Tesla to offer both native and CCS ports on their car for some time and wait to see how the reality of CCS and the reality of technological progress plays out.
To wit, you're suggesting Tesla give up their record player and go all in for CCS's 8-track.
Fair enough, that is possible.
Fair enough as well. I have speculated one solution for Tesla would be to use two port proprietary + CCS in U.S. etc. and one port CCS in Europe, for example.
I get the reference, but I think your view might still be a little exaggerated.
It is actually still quite possible CCS as a physical connection is better suited for the future than that - and better than Tesla's proprietary connector in the same regard. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see CCS simply going through several iterations of performance improvements, while the mechanical connector were to remain the same and fully backwards compatible.
Not saying Tesla couldn't do it with their own connector as well, but if CCS takes hold, the incentive for Tesla to do that may be less - and CCS is also more robust in terms of physical elements and known performance plans... So when then next-gen Supercharging comes, Tesla might see CCS as a more suitable solution for that, rather than continuing to work on their own connector.
Just speculating of course. Tesla's plans on this are not known.
Thanks for the note! That is probably @cizUK the opposite side, though, not necessarily the charge port hole itself. Unless they are planning on putting charge port on either side or even both sides...
But yes, makes sense the opening is same on the other side. It makes sense for them to leave room for future changes even if nothing changes immediately.
But yes, makes sense the opening is same on the other side. It makes sense for them to leave room for future changes even if nothing changes immediately.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
I honestly think this whole thread is wishful thinking and it would be silly for Tesla to release anything except their existing charge port(s).
However, the photos of the cars they are testing now match this image and support the idea that the charge port door is much larger (which may or may not mean anything.)
You can clearly see the crease line on the right side here. Yesterday I was looking at a new silver spy shot that showed the same on the left I my home computer, but Google isn't finding it for me today.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Would the same charge port handle a much faster charge rate? How much power can they push through that thing safely?
Similar threads
- Question