Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Speculation - New charging plug?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I see it as inevitable that the Tesla standard will fade away. They had to persuade the wider industry to adopt their standard, and they failed at that. Now with the Bolt using a CCS Combo connector, and with all of the new upcoming EVs using CCS Combo, the game is over.
This is going to be a 100% US-centric post, but bear with me. I took a 360 mile trip (one way) last weekend in my S 70D--a somewhat reasonable stand-in for a Bolt in this scenario--and charged exclusively via CCS/CHAdeMO stations during the trip. Also keep in mind that I'm in California, so this should be like the best case for EV travel in the US, right? The trip caused me to realize that I've been entirely too charitable toward the non-Tesla DC charging infrastructure.

The entire existing CCS/CHAdeMO network is, essentially, fundamentally incompatible with reasonable long distance travel and any car released in the near-term that relies on said network is dead on arrival when it comes to long distance travel.

There. I said it.

While standards like CCS can support fairly high charge rates, even at the current 400V standard, nearly all of the stations being put in output 50kW or less on the DC side... even on "long distance charging corridors." Heck, some of the CCS stations installed along highway 101 (not the route I took) are only 24kW! For things to even start approaching the realm of reasonable, network operators need to toss everything they've installed along travel corridors and replace the stations with 100-150kW stations. That's step one. I lost about two hours here.

Step two involves filling out network to include one of the most frequented travel corridors in the state, like Tesla did right from the beginning. Seriously, I lost an hour just to this. It's as though the network operators are simply extending their city-focused short range infrastructure to a few towns that happen to be along some highways that can be longer alternates to the main highway that people use for traveling between the LA area and the SF Bay Area. I understand why they would take this approach, though, since it would result in some revenue through local charging at the locations and that could be viewed as a necessary thing given the chicken-or-egg situation that the network builders are faced with right now.

Step three is increasing the number of plugs at each charging location (again, chicken-or-egg problem) and, more importantly in the short term, actually performing the maintenance necessary to keep the stations working. At one of my charging stops, one of the cabinets was occupied by an i3 and the other cabinet was malfunctioning. I called customer support, who validated that the station was experiencing an error (gee, thanks) and then proceeded to keep me on the phone long enough for the i3 owner to arrive and inform me that the cabinet I was having trouble with almost never works and the network operator in question hasn't done anything about it. I lost about 20 minutes here.

Did I mention that the trip probably cost me about $46 in charging fees?

All in all, this little experiment of mine took what's normally about a 6 hour [free] trip via the Supercharger network (probably ~$13 with new vehicle Supercharger pricing, ignoring the free charging allocation granted) and turned it into a 9.25 hour trip that cost around $46.

Can all of this get better? Yes. Will all of this get better? Yes, but it's going to require someone to put up a lot of cash to make it happen. However, if Tesla makes good on their goal of doubling the number of Supercharger plugs in the US over the next year or so and they release the Model 3 with their proprietary connector, it's only going to make the chicken-or-egg problem that the independent network operators are dealing with worse. Also, with regard to the CHAdeMO adapter through the Tesla gear shop, the CHAdeMO adapter can be had through the service centers... but it's becoming increasingly irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Petra references real world experience that illustrates why I- and I think many others- wouldn't be buying a Model 3 (or S,X,Y,etc.) without the supercharging network. It's an integral part of the product.

Now if Tesla can just get people to use it only when they really NEED to..... ;)

My Volt uses a supercharger network too.....they're called Chevron stations! :p
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and Petra
As the picture was slightly wrong and there is still some confusion and weird names, I simplified things even more.
plugs.png

Combo socket (car side) supports plug of the same type without DC part.
Tesla non-US socket (car side) is physically the same, but is enhanced electrically to withstand/switch to Supercharging.


My bet is that Model 3 will have CCS 2 socket (non-US), enhanced to be backward compatible with non-US SC plug.
Tesla US socket in states and CCS 1 on the passenger taillight as an option (until Type1 socket will be mandatory).
ChaDeMo will be phased out* in regions that accepted CCS as "the standard". EU is the first in line. US will follow.
Type 1 will also be phased out of Europe due to CCS agreement (all vehicles with socket must have Type 2, all else optional).

*phased out - all new public DC stations must have COMBO plug. Chademo and all else is optional. Financially charging station providers will not drag along the old standard forever, same applies to vehicle manufacturers: will be forced to have Type 1/2 socket for type approval. I don't think adapters will be accepted. Though this is just speculation.
 
It has also been argued tape length limitations were Betamax's undoing. It was likely a combination of third-party support, practicality and content, each feeding each other... Turns out, people were content even with crap quality as long as they could cram 8 hours of stuff on a tape...

What mattered was when it was released Beta maxed out at 1 hour per tape while VHS was 2 hours. So VHS was your only option if you wanted to record the Friday Night Movie while you were out for dinner.

Eventually Beta machines offered the ability to record at 1/2 speed for 2 hours per tape; of course, that reduced the picture quality which negated Beta's strong point over VHS. VHS countered with LP (long play) 1/2 speed for 4 hours per tape (our first VCR was one of these), while the original 2 hours per tape was called SP (standard play). Eventually EP (extended play) 1/3 speed was added for 6 hours, though so some VCRs called it SLP (super long play) as that allowed them to light up a combination of the 3 letters (S, L, and P) to denote which speed was in use. Eventually thinner tapes came to market which allowed them to put more tape in the cassette, allowing for over 12 hours of content when recorded at 1/3 speed.

Where Beta really shined was making multi-generation copies of tapes(a copy of a copy of a copy ...). When doing that the image quality on VHS rapidly degrades while the picture from Beta will still look good for a number of additional generations. However, not many people were in the position to do that due to how expensive VCRs were, so being able to make copies of copies wasn't an important deciding factor between the formats for most people.

Generation loss for VHS

Couldn't find a generation loss example for Beta, though did find this one for Super Betamax from 1985, at which time prices had dropped enough that people could afford to own multiple VCRs, so it made sense to push that advantage:
 
Interesting read @SpiceWare, thanks! Had some new tidbits for me, too. :)
Your welcome :)

From this wiki article the timelines look to be:
  • 1972 - Philip's VCR (Video Cassette Recording format, not the generic Videocassette Recorder that we take VCR to mean today) released with 30, 45, or 60 minutes per tape (though 60 was unreliable).
  • 1975 - Sony's Beta released with 1 hour per tape
  • 1976 - JVC's VHS released with 2 hours per tape
  • 1977* - RCA VBT200 VHS released with LP mode for 4 hours per tape (earlier than I thought)
  • 1980* - Sony added Beta II speed for 2 hours per tape, and Beta III for 3 hours.
I just noticed you're in Europe. My understanding is the machines came to your markets later, and that your recording times are different, so it's possible you've never seen a Beta machine with a 1 hour limit.

I've been into AV for a while. Was an early adopter of S-VHS. Picture quality was great, especially since I had it connected to my Commodore 1084S monitor via S-Video, but sadly it never caught on. I recall having an Indiana Jones movie in S-VHS format, and maybe one or two others, before they stopped selling prerecorded content for it (at least it was backward compatible with VHS tapes). In the early 90s I had a laser disc player with surround sound. I'm a little behind now, still using an HDTV from 2001 as I'd never cared for the picture quality on flat panels. The 4K sets have finally taken care of that issue, though I'm waiting to see what happens with the HDR format war before buying one.

* from Panasonic's Corporate History page, the longer time was done in order to support the recording of American Football games.

* it states "early 1980s" which might also mean 1981, 1982, or possibly even 1983. Other years are specific.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
OK, Since were into speculation, I'll offer a theory I came up with with absolutely ZERO evidence.

The Model 3 charge door is larger than model S / X, but I don't believe it is large enough for dual ports (i.e. Tesla port and CCS)

N. America variant:
The Tesla port on the S/X is already J1772 compliant electrically, (just not physically)
If Tesla were to add two DC pins below the Tesla connector that extended out to work in combination with the J1772 adapter, we have CCS compatibility.
Charging AC / DC via the Tesla connector is also still supported.

European variant.
All they have to add is the DC pins below the Menneke and CCS is now supported.

Now I've thought about this and I needed to justify it with a why.
Reason 1:
Model 3 will be sold to customers that don't have dedicated parking and may have to rely more heavily on public charging. This allows individuals without home / business charging to charge at places other than Tesla Superchargers.

Reason 2:
With supercharging being NOT free for life, there will be some anti-Tesla pundit that will point out that Telsa sells you a car that can only be filled at a Tesla station that Tesla makes money on. This eliminates that argument, with a simple Charge just about anywhere solution. (I realize that the argument is thin at best as you can charge AC just about anywhere, and Chademo is an option, but, why not eliminate that argument before it starts.)

Like I said, complete and absolute speculation.
 
OK, Since were into speculation, I'll offer a theory I came up with with absolutely ZERO evidence.

The Model 3 charge door is larger than model S / X, but I don't believe it is large enough for dual ports (i.e. Tesla port and CCS)

N. America variant:
The Tesla port on the S/X is already J1772 compliant electrically, (just not physically)
If Tesla were to add two DC pins below the Tesla connector that extended out to work in combination with the J1772 adapter, we have CCS compatibility.
Charging AC / DC via the Tesla connector is also still supported.

European variant.
All they have to add is the DC pins below the Menneke and CCS is now supported.

Now I've thought about this and I needed to justify it with a why.
Reason 1:
Model 3 will be sold to customers that don't have dedicated parking and may have to rely more heavily on public charging. This allows individuals without home / business charging to charge at places other than Tesla Superchargers.

Reason 2:
With supercharging being NOT free for life, there will be some anti-Tesla pundit that will point out that Telsa sells you a car that can only be filled at a Tesla station that Tesla makes money on. This eliminates that argument, with a simple Charge just about anywhere solution. (I realize that the argument is thin at best as you can charge AC just about anywhere, and Chademo is an option, but, why not eliminate that argument before it starts.)

Like I said, complete and absolute speculation.
Interesting idea. So would the charge port be "deeper" into the NA car so that the CCS pins wouldn't be sticking out? And thus there should also be enough room that you could just leave the J1772 adapter in the car at all times, if that's the way you normally charge?
 
Nice idea @Craig-Tx. Sounds plausible.

Eventually they could swap things around if need be (if CCS starts making it and Tesla connector is used less and less) and make Tesla connector to CCS adapter for newer cars and just use CCS in the car...

The downside is no CCS support for existing cars, though they could still solve that with a second - but this time CHAdeMO-like - adapter...
 
Additional point is the future of Supercharging itself. If Tesla feels the need to change their charging plug for future use in any way (i.e. to allow even higher currents), this idea could serve that as well. Basically make a Tesla connector 1.5...

Perhaps the current one can handle all they need, though. Just speculating further.
 
N. America variant:
The Tesla port on the S/X is already J1772 compliant electrically, (just not physically)
If Tesla were to add two DC pins below the Tesla connector that extended out to work in combination with the J1772 adapter, we have CCS compatibility.
Charging AC / DC via the Tesla connector is also still supported.
I think it's more likely that they would just have a separate CCS adapter that would accept a CCS plug and would wire that to the existing power pins on the North American Tesla socket.
 
This whole thread illustrates one of the things holding back EV adoption to the general public.

People want to charge and go. They don't want to have to think...at all. Hell, on the internet, people get annoyed when it takes one extra click to do something. Literally one extra second can piss people off. Gas = Simple. Charging = Complicated (at least for outsiders)

People don't want to have to figure out which charger adapter with which crazy ass techno geek name to use. Can we at least change the awful names like J1772 or CHAdeMO to something fun and descriptive like the Turtle Charger and the Cheetah Charger?

Simplify and consolidate this and EV adoption will become much easier.

But of course, as this thread also illustrates, there is no easy solution. I'm depressed....Lol.
 
Like I said, complete and absolute speculation.
Nevertheless it is not just you that dreamed it out.

Tesla in Europe uses a plug that is shaped as 'DC-Mid' plug. Middle pin (PE) has one additional groove that prevents european superchargers to be plugged into some other non-tesla EV with this same plug. Tesla's version is electrically already 'stronger' as standard dictates.

3.png


Tesla only needs to add those two big PLUS and MINUS pins below and it can use CCS.
This move will enable europeans to charge on SCs and also with CSS, no adapters needed.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: AnxietyRanger