TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Supercharger protocol a superset of CCS?

Discussion in 'Charging Standards and Infrastructure' started by Cosmacelf, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,399
    Location:
    San Diego
    A poster on the BMW i3 facebook page stated (without links or backup) that the Supercharger communications protocol between the car the Supercharger was essentially the same as CCS (SAE Combo), with a few Tesla specific additions. CCS is the new DC fast charge standard that the European car manufacturers (principally BMW) are trying to get adopted. Anyone here have any info about this?
     
  2. matbl

    matbl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Sweden
    Link?
     
  3. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,496
    Location:
    Maine
    Tesla Motors CTO talks future batteries and charging protocols - SAE International

    I think it's compatible.

    It's an old article (March 2013), but that interview is a must read, and his storage keynote's a must watch.
     
  4. renim

    renim Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    Oz
    whether its protocol compatible or not, the construction likelihood is that a Supercharger to Chaedemo adapter will be cheaper than a Supercharger to CCS adapter, and that a Supercharger to CCS adapter may actually be a Supercharger to Chademo to CCS design.

    from Ingineer (Mynissanleafforum.......the guy who made/sold the majority of the world's plug in prius conversions, and also sell a jailbreak/upgrade for OEM EVSE allowing faster charging)
    mitch672 wrote:
    [There are some who have se listed on the TMC forum, that many of te Chademo chargers will be getting the new SAE J-1772 DC Frankenplug added to them. If that becomes a reality, Tesla will just produce a J-1772 adapter with the Frankenplug, which is electrically compatible to the Tesla protocol/standard. Those adapters will be a lot less expensive, since the will just be physical connector adapters, and not likely to have much, if any electronics in them.]


    This is not correct. The "Frankenplug" is not upward compatible with J1772, only backward compatible. This means that while the Tesla can accept standard L1/L2 J1772, it will not be able to use the Combo without adding a lot more stuff, including the power-line communications system used in the Combo system.

    Actually, I posit that a CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger!

    -Phil

    me
    All the Tesla hacking Supercharger protocol for diy CHAdeMO adapter seem to validate Ingineer's posit, that CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger
     
  5. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,038
    #5 stopcrazypp, Aug 13, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2014
    Do we know for certain there is no power-line communications support in the Model S? That seems to go against what Straubel is saying (Tesla is not 100% compliant if it has no power-line communications support).

    As far as I can tell from that thread, we know the superchargers use a hybrid between a CAN bus and J1772, but the tinkering is not deep enough to eliminate the possibility of power-line communications support behind the scenes (with possible firmware lock). Someone will have to dig into the car side and see what kind of electronics are there. We don't even know how close the CAN signaling is to CHAdeMO (and also how the CHAdeMO adapter works).

    And I'm not seeing how it can be possible that a "Supercharger to Chademo to CCS" route would be cheaper than Supercharger to CCS. With CCS, the adapter will have the challenge of the power-line communications (assuming the car has no support), but it will not have to deal with any of the analog components of CHAdeMO.
     
  6. matbl

    matbl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Sweden
    We basically have no idea if there is PLC in there. As far as I know, no-one has tried to signal CCS mode to the car (PP resistor value of 1500 and 5% duty-cycle PWM) and measured what happens.
     
  7. arg

    arg Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    What about the work discussed on this thread?

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/19591-Supercharger-protocol-for-diy-CHAdeMO-adapter?p=629916&viewfull=1#post629916

    We were all hoping that it would turn out to be CCS compatible, based on those earlier Tesla statements, but there are extremely strong indications that it isn't. People have applied the pilot signalling that would engage PLC on a CCS car and got this proprietary CAN-like signalling, and also monitored supercharger sessions and observed that same signalling.

    So there's an outside possibility that the cars have PLC support for future use and just have it disabled it in software for now - but it seems extremely unlikely given that it's not used at superchargers.
     
  8. matbl

    matbl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Sweden
    ?
    I haven't seen anyone claiming to signal CCS? 5% duty cycle on the PWM, yes. But not combined with 1500 ohm resistor which the standard specifies.
    But with that being said, I don't find it very likely that the car can switch between PLC and CAN on the same wire (although theoretically possible). CAN on that wire is used for supercharging, that has been quite clearly established.
     
  9. arg

    arg Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    The document you found specifying 1500R says that the 1500R value signals a combo2 connector (which the Tesla obviously doesn't support), and uses the same values as for AC when doing DC over the pins of a standard type 2 connector (which is closer to the Tesla configuration). Also, someone measured a Supercharger at 450R. So while it would be good to do that experiment, the chances of it doing anything interesting are extremely low.
     
  10. matbl

    matbl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Sweden
    I agree that it is extremely low. Combo2 is CCS. There is no other CCS connector, DC over Type2 is not CCS.
     

Share This Page