Pardon my ignorance, but how is this enforced? If Tesla (or any company) makes and sells an adapter, what would the consequences be?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bokonon
Title-customizing Member
Tesla is a member of the CHAR1N association, so I suppose they could kick them out, for whatever that's worth...
Do we know whether the adapter prohibition only applies to CCS-to-[x] (where [x] is any other DCFC standard)? Or does it also apply to [x]-to-CCS adapters?
Wacky thought experiment: if only "CSS-to-[x]" adapters are prohibited... couldn't Tesla theoretically work around this rule by standardizing on J1772/CCS for charging while offering a Tesla-to-CCS adapter? Yeah, it seems like a lot of trouble to get around a silly little rule, but if they built the "adapter" into the chargeport itself (e.g. pursuant to my "even crazier idea" a few pages back -- oh yes, I totally brought that up again
) it could be a workaround. Whether such a configuration would add convenience (and what advantage it would have over simply adding a second J1772/CCS port) is another question entirely.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
In general, this is incorporated into local electrical code. So use of such an adapter may be a code violation (and then up to whatever local mechanism is used to enforce such violations).
If there are patents involved in the standard, they can also enforce by refusing to license patents.
So far in Europe, where such provisions apply (following the IEC standard), Tesla made a Type 2 port so the point is kind of moot (it's trivial for them to make it into a CCS just by adding pins). In the USA, the standard is under SAE, and SAE allows vehicle side adapters (again, the J1772 adapter is an example).
Yes it does - or to be more precise: it does apply to extension cords of any type or length, no matter what is on the other end.
... if a fire should happen during charging, what do you think the insurance would say if you are using an extension cord or adapter of any kind while the manufacturer of the charging station and the standard the station is using forbids it?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I didn't mention the fire example, but yes, that's another way too. Presumably though whatever adapter Tesla makes would be made quite safely, so the chances of that might not be as high. Some people are willing to take that risk (for example extension cords / adapters being used even when appliances prohibit it).
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
There's no evidence that CharIN disapproves of adapters. Rather there is an IEC standard that disallows vehicle side adapters. The SAE in the USA does not follow that requirement. I don't see how CharIN will change that (and no evidence they are pushing to change that). I think they realize regulations in the US and Europe will be different.
Now, I haven't looked at the SAE document if the CCS part is different and disallows adapters though. Currently I'm only assuming that it'll be similar to J1772 AC where it's allowed.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
The doesn't alleviate the problem.... it treats a symptom and not the disease.
timk225
Active Member
I certainly hope the 3 comes with a CCS port in addition to the usual Tesla charge port. I live in a second floor apartment, and although I have no problem with making a heavy duty extension cord and hanging it out the window to charge my 3 which is parked right below, I can see the apartment manager having a conniption fit over it.
The closest supercharger is 20 miles away, and there is an NRG EVGO Chademo / CCS station less than a mile away.
Since CCS is an extension of the J1772 standard, why can't there be a modified J1772 to Tesla adapter? Screw the CCS corporation (not a corporation, but you know what I mean) if they do not "permit" it, if they want their standard to be used they better get a whole lot more flexible.
One article I read said a Tesla to CCS adapter is electronically impossible, but I can't see that being accurate, since CCS is based on J1772.
The closest supercharger is 20 miles away, and there is an NRG EVGO Chademo / CCS station less than a mile away.
Since CCS is an extension of the J1772 standard, why can't there be a modified J1772 to Tesla adapter? Screw the CCS corporation (not a corporation, but you know what I mean) if they do not "permit" it, if they want their standard to be used they better get a whole lot more flexible.
One article I read said a Tesla to CCS adapter is electronically impossible, but I can't see that being accurate, since CCS is based on J1772.
I see no reason why such an adapter would be "electronically impossible". The main issue is the communication protocols that go back and forth between the car and the charger. Tesla uses an adaptation of "CAN bus" whereas CCS DC charging uses Internet Protocol and related standards. Plain old J1772 AC charging does not require the fancy CCS DC digital protocols and can just fallback on old analog signaling originally designed 20+ years ago.
In the worst case, an adaptor can pretend to be the car and talk CCS protocol to the charger and then pretend to be a Supercharger when talking CAN bus to the car.
For a simpler adapter, it could be possible to have the hardware and software for talking CCS built into the car and the adapter would just be a passive physical adapter between CCS and the car's Tesla inlet. That requires that the car can somehow distinguish which protocol to talk when the charger cable is plugged in. I suspect Tesla's engineers are smart enough to make it work.
Anyone who claims "it can't be done!" probably isn't an engineer.
Last edited:
As Jeff says, problems like this can absolutely be solved by engineers with enough money and regulatory permission.
CCS is an extension of J1772 in the same sense that Supercharging is an extension of J1772 - they both use the 5% "initiate digital communication" pilot duty cycle of the J1772 to launch their (different) digital communication schemes.
If the car has the hardware to understand CCS (I don't believe it does currently,) then the only thing preventing a simple Dumb adapter (besides regulations) would be the car needing to know which protocol to use (unless it reaches out with both and sees what responds?) and a firmware update to implement CCS, of course.
If Tesla was going to do a retrofit to add a CCS port they could easily slip the hardware to speak CCS in at the same time. I still don't think it's terribly likely but they could do it, and a redesigned tail light assembly could probably house both ports without issues and fit on all existing X/S cars.
Alternatively, Tesla could add (or add as an option) a built-in CCS inlet alongside the usual Tesla inlet on the larger tail assembly of the Model 3. Then, they could modify the S and X to include the new CCS protocol hardware and software stack but instead of adding a built-in CCS inlet (which would require redesigning the S and X tail assemblies) they would make available a passive physical CCS adapter like they do today for AC J1772 charging.
timk225
Active Member
Ask him about the 3 having an actual CCS port along with the Tesla port, while you're at it.
We'll probably be able to see that for ourselves during the private viewing.
Interesting if CCS adapters are only disallowed in Europe for Type 2 CCS combo, but not disallowed by SAE for Type 1 CCS combo.
Regardless, in Europe they can simply have a CCS port (with the Type 2 portion modified per usual for Tesla's oversized conductors for DC charging at Superchargers), no adapter needed, since they already use a (modified) Type 2. Since they had to adopt Type 2 (and managed to modify it for their needs) by law in the first place, CCS in Europe is a convenient extension rather than entirely different physical interface. They'll need extra software and HVDC contactors and such to route power and speak CCS of course, but that's all low hanging fruit, engineering-wise.
For the US, a plug in adapter might be an option (like the ChaDeMo one), if SAE doesn't disallow it. And that's assuming they don't just shoehorn a Tesla connector next to a Type 1 CCS combo and sidestep adapters altogether. From the size of that RC's charge port, they might just go the simple route of sticking both in there.
If either of the above comes to pass, I'd expect to see an updated tail light assembly on the S/X first before it's confirmed, in the same fashion. Hopefully they'll offer an upgrade service for existing S/X (even with labor, it could be less than $1k with profit margin to swap the assembly if they can put the extra HVDC contactors and such inside of it, though it may require some clever engineering to signal which ones to engage if they didn't plan ahead for it - if they need to rewire anything beyond the tail light assembly itself though, all bets are off).
Regardless, in Europe they can simply have a CCS port (with the Type 2 portion modified per usual for Tesla's oversized conductors for DC charging at Superchargers), no adapter needed, since they already use a (modified) Type 2. Since they had to adopt Type 2 (and managed to modify it for their needs) by law in the first place, CCS in Europe is a convenient extension rather than entirely different physical interface. They'll need extra software and HVDC contactors and such to route power and speak CCS of course, but that's all low hanging fruit, engineering-wise.
For the US, a plug in adapter might be an option (like the ChaDeMo one), if SAE doesn't disallow it. And that's assuming they don't just shoehorn a Tesla connector next to a Type 1 CCS combo and sidestep adapters altogether. From the size of that RC's charge port, they might just go the simple route of sticking both in there.
If either of the above comes to pass, I'd expect to see an updated tail light assembly on the S/X first before it's confirmed, in the same fashion. Hopefully they'll offer an upgrade service for existing S/X (even with labor, it could be less than $1k with profit margin to swap the assembly if they can put the extra HVDC contactors and such inside of it, though it may require some clever engineering to signal which ones to engage if they didn't plan ahead for it - if they need to rewire anything beyond the tail light assembly itself though, all bets are off).
I can't see that he'll respond; he's a busy guy.
But... there are 2 possibilities.
1. There is a CCS port: In this case Elon/Tesla would definitely not respond as it will have no good effects. It could lead to more S/X buyers delaying purchase.
2. If there is no CCS port, they MIGHT respond. There needs to be an adapter, or a plan to include a CCS port, or something. If the plan is simply an adapter, then that might knock a few prospective S/X buyers / upgraders off of the fence.
Similar threads
- Question