Supercharger [should] Require Adapter from Tesla Plug to CCS Plug?

[finman100]

get rid of the stupid ccs. Tesla connector is the standard. done.

next.

 

[Mockingbird]

I expect Tesla will dual-head new SCs in order to get the rebate money along with access to public areas (think highway rest stops, etc). In a few years (once a sufficient number of SCs are dual-headed) Tesla will switch the cars to CCS. At that point new SC will be CCS only. Owners with the old Tesla Plug will need a CCS adapter. Opening up the SC network is the best way to maximize EV adoption.

I think some people in this thread don't understand that the ship has sailed.

Had Tesla made the TPC available free of charge without strings attached, it could have been standardized as THE connector, but Tesla didn't.

 

[ucmndd]

get rid of the stupid ccs. Tesla connector is the standard. done.

A "standard" controlled by one company that is not interested in sharing is not a standard. Even a "standard" controlled by one company that IS interested in sharing is a dubious standard.

Tesla is proprietary.
Chademo is dead, even Nissan is moving away from it starting with the Ariya.
Every single other manufacturer in the US uses CCS1.

CCS1 is the standard. The quicker the entire industry adopts the standard, the better off everyone is.

 

[bradtem]

I think some people in this thread don't understand that the ship has sailed.

Had Tesla made the TPC available free of charge without strings attached, it could have been standardized as THE connector, but Tesla didn't.

True enough. If they were to do it tomorrow, it is perhaps too late as you suggest about the ship. Even though it would be less work and displacement. In this discussion, I have always presumed that Tesla declared on day one anybody can make and use the connector or make adapters, and Tesla even started selling adapters at low margin in order to make it happen.

The reason it can still happen, though, is that adapters don't belong with cars. That's stupid. There are way more cars than fast charging stations. The adapters belong with the stations. All Tesla would need do is send CCS adapters to all CCS stations so anybody with a Tesla connector can charge there. Then there is every incentive for car makers to put Tesla connectors on their cars so they can charge at superchargers or CCS stations with adapters.

But it is odd that the argument can be made that the ship has sailed when the vast majority of cars sold have Tesla connectors on them, and still most fast chargers have that too. (J1772 outnumbers Tesla I think outside of homes, but a large majority of the J1772 stations are useless, while almost all the Tesla Destination chargers are in useful places, ie. hotels.) Homes have whatever charger the homeowner wanted.

 

[Mockingbird]

True enough. If they were to do it tomorrow, it is perhaps too late as you suggest about the ship. Even though it would be less work and displacement. In this discussion, I have always presumed that Tesla declared on day one anybody can make and use the connector or make adapters, and Tesla even started selling adapters at low margin in order to make it happen.

The reason it can still happen, though, is that adapters don't belong with cars. That's stupid. There are way more cars than fast charging stations. The adapters belong with the stations. All Tesla would need do is send CCS adapters to all CCS stations so anybody with a Tesla connector can charge there. Then there is every incentive for car makers to put Tesla connectors on their cars so they can charge at superchargers or CCS stations with adapters.

But it is odd that the argument can be made that the ship has sailed when the vast majority of cars sold have Tesla connectors on them, and still most fast chargers have that too. (J1772 outnumbers Tesla I think outside of homes, but a large majority of the J1772 stations are useless, while almost all the Tesla Destination chargers are in useful places, ie. hotels.) Homes have whatever charger the homeowner wanted.

The ship has sailed.

The government has decided to provide $7.5 billion in subsidies to install CCS fast chargers, ensuring CCS dominance.

The CCS adapter is to help those stuck with legacy TPC vehicles from being left behind.

 

[ucmndd]

The ship has sailed.

It’s hilarious to me that people actually disagree with this.

Come on Elon Army. Reality is calling.

 

[Mockingbird]

It’s hilarious to me that people actually disagree with this.

Come on Elon Army. Reality is calling.

I am not sure what they are worried about.

Surely, they can each afford a ~$300 adapter.

 

[ucmndd]

But it is odd that the argument can be made that the ship has sailed when the vast majority of cars sold have Tesla connectors on them, and still most fast chargers have that too.

Nobody else in the industry is willing to be beholden to a proprietary “standard” controlled in its entirety by a company like Tesla.

I sure as hell can’t blame them.

The rest of the industry has decided what the standard is, and have participated in its development and governance. It’s done.

Yes, popular proprietary connectors can exist for a long time and even be dominant (see: Apple Lightning) - but even a big walled garden is still a walled garden. Even Apple knows the ship has sailed on Lightning - they’re just dragging their feet at this point to squeeze a few more billions from their MFi program.

 

[bradtem]

One way Tesla could stamp out CCS would be to make a deal with Kia/Hyundai and Ford. In the deal, they would put Tesla connectors on their cars. Tesla would provide charge controller chips as they wish, and allow them to make the CCS adapter.

Based on last quarter EV sales were Tesla 114K, Ford 7.5K, Kia/Hundai 15.5K, other CCS 17K. So it would be Tesla adapter 137K, CCS 17K. Not even a horse race. (Not sure why it is one now.)

The Ford and Kia/Hyundai customers would be thrilled at being able to charge at superchargers. As well as old CCS chargers with the adapter. The other vendors would probably ask Tesla to please allow them to use the connector too.

Tesla would no longer be proprietary, but we would have a plug designed by engineers, not by committee aiming for backwards compat with J1772.

 

[Mockingbird]

One way Tesla could stamp out CCS would be to make a deal with Kia/Hyundai and Ford. In the deal, they would put Tesla connectors on their cars. Tesla would provide charge controller chips as they wish, and allow them to make the CCS adapter.

Based on last quarter EV sales were Tesla 114K, Ford 7.5K, Kia/Hundai 15.5K, other CCS 17K. So it would be Tesla adapter 137K, CCS 17K. Not even a horse race. (Not sure why it is one now.)

The Ford and Kia/Hyundai customers would be thrilled at being able to charge at superchargers. As well as old CCS chargers with the adapter. The other vendors would probably ask Tesla to please allow them to use the connector too.

Tesla would no longer be proprietary, but we would have a plug designed by engineers, not by committee aiming for backwards compat with J1772.

Wrong again.

Even if Tesla licensed the TPC to other automakers, the TPC would remain proprietary and controlled by Tesla.

Other automakers would have no say in the TPC, while Tesla would be able to change any aspect of the TPC at will, hence why other automakers won't accept it.

...and furthermore, as I pointed out before, the ship has sailed

 

[Zoltrix77]

Supporting 3 phase makes your connector bigger, and your internal charger has to be ready to work with 3-phase even if it's rarely found in homes. Tesla connectors are often found with 20kw of single phase AC, above that it's time to look at DC and most cars can't even take that much AC.

In other words, it's not clear to me that type 2 (and CCS based on it) is superior to Tesla connector, which is one single, smaller connector able to do 20kw AC and 250kw DC at 400v, more if it put it to 800v.

What is it that makes type 2 superior? CCS2 is much larger than Tesla connector, and plug to charge on it still rare. Of course Tesla switched but because the law demanded it, not because it was a superior connector. I prefer connectors designed by engineers in response to customers, not mandated by government officials.

Every modern EV for international markets, ie, most of them already has onboard three phase chargers. Sure, there would be differences for North American cars, but that would be be a big deal.

Yes, its a smaller connector, but 90pc of the time, you are handling only the Type 2 part of the plug at AC charging sites, at home work etc. If you look at the Tesla Type 2 plugs it its supercharger sites, there are anything but unweidly.

The advantage of three phase from an electrical installation point of view is that it makes load balancing at a site easy and keeps cable sizes smaller. Plenty of medium speed charging at businesses and shopping areas will become normal over time. For instances, in 230/400v countries, nearly all the commercial AC charging you find will be support 22kW 3ph (Modern Tesla vehicles can charge at 11kW 3ph AC).

As mentioned earlier, this is obviously somewhat of an issue in North America for bigger vehicles as SAE has released J3068 as a standard.

 

[strider]

Nobody else in the industry is willing to be beholden to a proprietary “standard” controlled in its entirety by a company like Tesla.

I sure as hell can’t blame them.

Agreed. Especially when that company has a very impulsive and unstable CEO.

One way Tesla could stamp out CCS would be to make a deal with Kia/Hyundai and Ford. In the deal, they would put Tesla connectors on their cars. Tesla would provide charge controller chips as they wish, and allow them to make the CCS adapter.

Why would Tesla want to stamp out CCS? What purpose does that serve the industry and EV adoption? True open standards are a good thing. It has worked well in IT. It will work well with EVs.

The ergonomic trade-offs are really tiny. For L2, it's a wash. I had a Volvo XC40 Recharge w/ CCS for a few months while I was waiting on my MX. It was just as easy to use at the TPC. Yes, when DC fast charging it is bulkier, but how often do you do that? Plus the difference is still incredibly minor.

 

[bradtem]

Agreed. Especially when that company has a very impulsive and unstable CEO.

Why would Tesla want to stamp out CCS? What purpose does that serve the industry and EV adoption? True open standards are a good thing. It has worked well in IT. It will work well with EVs.

The ergonomic trade-offs are really tiny. For L2, it's a wash. I had a Volvo XC40 Recharge w/ CCS for a few months while I was waiting on my MX. It was just as easy to use at the TPC. Yes, when DC fast charging it is bulkier, but how often do you do that? Plus the difference is still incredibly minor.

They would want to stamp out CCS because:

1. Tesla connector is superior, and they already have it deployed on all their cars, and the alternative is a likely need to switch to CCS, retrofitting all their charging stations, destination chargers and possibly getting adapters and controller upgrades for all their cars! Yikes, that's a lot.
2. They would show their leadership by having designed the better and winning connector
3. While they would give up ownership of the connector and need to collaborate on improvements, this is a minor cost (especially compared to having to switch to CCS.)

However, the other plan is to not switch to CCS, but to start putting CCS cords on some superchargers over time, and by either shipping CCS to Tesla adapters to CCS stations to use (as EVgo does) or helping those stations put on Tesla cords, or alternately to try to sell CCS adapters and charge controller upgrades to some fraction of Tesla owners who want them.

Of these, I think making Tesla connector be the standard is the best outcome for Tesla, and for other cars too. There's just so much Tesla connector out there in the world, not that much CCS. To have the world that is 75% Tesla Connector switch to CCS when CCS is inferior makes no sense for anybody.

 

[Mockingbird]

They would want to stamp out CCS because:

1. Tesla connector is superior, and they already have it deployed on all their cars, and the alternative is a likely need to switch to CCS, retrofitting all their charging stations, destination chargers and possibly getting adapters and controller upgrades for all their cars! Yikes, that's a lot.
2. They would show their leadership by having designed the better and winning connector
3. While they would give up ownership of the connector and need to collaborate on improvements, this is a minor cost (especially compared to having to switch to CCS.)

However, the other plan is to not switch to CCS, but to start putting CCS cords on some superchargers over time, and by either shipping CCS to Tesla adapters to CCS stations to use (as EVgo does) or helping those stations put on Tesla cords, or alternately to try to sell CCS adapters and charge controller upgrades to some fraction of Tesla owners who want them.

Of these, I think making Tesla connector be the standard is the best outcome for Tesla, and for other cars too. There's just so much Tesla connector out there in the world, not that much CCS. To have the world that is 75% Tesla Connector switch to CCS when CCS is inferior makes no sense for anybody.

You can talk on and on and on about how great TPC is, but unless relinquish ownership of TPC, other automakers with patents worth protecting are not going to adopt it.

Tesla has shown no indication of relinquishing ownership of TPC.

 

[bradtem]

You can talk on and on and on about how great TPC is, but unless relinquish ownership of TPC, other automakers with patents worth protecting are not going to adopt it.

Tesla has shown no indication of relinquishing ownership of TPC.

Yes, that is correct. As I and others have said a few times, this is a discussion of what could, or should happen, if Tesla put up no impediment - or in fact actually encouraged -- other cars and charging stations to use TPC. So while you can repeat that it won't happen if Tesla doesn't want it to happen, you can now presume we all agree with that and have said so.

But I do think about what I would do if I were Tesla, and if the choice is two worlds:

1. CCS is declared a standard and mandated by law by governments. Tesla is eventually forced to switch to CCS or spend a lot of money and effort supporting CCS in stations, and with upgrades and adapters for customers, or both.
2. Tesla does what is needed to make TPC the standard. Tesla makes money selling TPC parts to other carmakers and stations, or at worst provides adapters to selected CCS stations that are not near superchargers

I would definitely pick #2

 

[Mockingbird]

Yes, that is correct. As I and others have said a few times, this is a discussion of what could, or should happen, if Tesla put up no impediment - or in fact actually encouraged -- other cars and charging stations to use TPC. So while you can repeat that it won't happen if Tesla doesn't want it to happen, you can now presume we all agree with that and have said so.

But I do think about what I would do if I were Tesla, and if the choice is two worlds:

1. CCS is declared a standard and mandated by law by governments. Tesla is eventually forced to switch to CCS or spend a lot of money and effort supporting CCS in stations, and with upgrades and adapters for customers, or both.
2. Tesla does what is needed to make TPC the standard. Tesla makes money selling TPC parts to other carmakers and stations, or at worst provides adapters to selected CCS stations that are not near superchargers

I would definitely pick #2

You are talking about a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Why don't we talk about something that will happen?

CCS will be ubiquitous.

Why would someone want a new TPC vehicle?

Sure, he/she can use the CCS adapter, but why not have CCS on the vehicle?

 

[bradtem]

You are talking about a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Why don't we talk about something that will happen?

CCS will be ubiquitous.

Why would someone want a new TPC vehicle?

Sure, he/she can use the CCS adapter, but why not have CCS on the vehicle?

Do you not drive a Tesla? Today, most people (by a very large margin) choose a vehicle with a TPC on it. Only a fraction want the CCS adapter, and only recently have they wanted them at all. CdM adapters never sold that well, I think.

CCS on the vehicle (combined with TPC) would make a very large charging port that would not fit the current design. It would cost a bunch extra but some might want it.

Today most Tesla drivers are content to charge only at superchargers, with very rare visits to DC Fast if they have an adapter. Superchargers are fast, much, much more reliably up, and up until now where cheaper though that is changing. We'll see how the price moves in the future.

Why would anybody buy a car with CCS on it if they could get a TPC? Today, I bet if you asked the buyers of any of the popular CCS cars if they would prefer a TPC on it, if that were offered as a substitute, I suspect almost all of them would say yes. If you were to ask buyers of Teslas if they would want a CCS connector instead of a TPC, amost none of them would say yes. Do you doubt this?

 

[Mockingbird]

Do you not drive a Tesla? Today, most people (by a very large margin) choose a vehicle with a TPC on it. Only a fraction want the CCS adapter, and only recently have they wanted them at all. CdM adapters never sold that well, I think.

CCS on the vehicle (combined with TPC) would make a very large charging port that would not fit the current design. It would cost a bunch extra but some might want it.

Today most Tesla drivers are content to charge only at superchargers, with very rare visits to DC Fast if they have an adapter. Superchargers are fast, much, much more reliably up, and up until now where cheaper though that is changing. We'll see how the price moves in the future.

Why would anybody buy a car with CCS on it if they could get a TPC? Today, I bet if you asked the buyers of any of the popular CCS cars if they would prefer a TPC on it, if that were offered as a substitute, I suspect almost all of them would say yes. If you were to ask buyers of Teslas if they would want a CCS connector instead of a TPC, amost none of them would say yes. Do you doubt this?

I was talking about in the future when CCS is ubiquitous in the US, not today.

I thought I made this pretty clear in my post.

Also, Tesla vehicles in Europe already use CCS, so clearly, the design is not the problem.

 

[bradtem]

I was talking about in the future when CCS is ubiquitous in the US, not today.

I thought I made this pretty clear in my post.

Also, Tesla vehicles in Europe already use CCS, so clearly, the design is not the problem.

No, Tesla could switch to CCS as the sole adapter in their new cars. However, all those cars would not work with superchargers but they could include an adapter with them (the reverse of the CCS adapter we've been trying to get) to solve that.

But I see no reason for them to do that, and I am not sure they would have in Europe if not for a law demanding it.

In the USA, there have been some subsidies for stations that require they have CCS/CHAdeMO. To get those subsidies Tesla has designed stations which have both TPC and CCS. While Tesla built its open supercharger network at prices around $25K to $30K per station, a large fraction of the CCS network has been built using government subsidies of $100K per station or more.

Why Tesla would switch without subsidies is clear. Tesla connector cars still outsell CCS cars by a very, very large margin. You think there's lots of CCS out there because more different car models have CCS, but far fewer cars. A large amount of stations subsidized by government or a VW fine have CCS, but still fewer than the number of Tesla stations. CCS is "the standard" only because people want to say it is, not because it meets any of the penetration criteria one would expect of a standard.

 

[Mockingbird]

No, Tesla could switch to CCS as the sole adapter in their new cars. However, all those cars would not work with superchargers but they could include an adapter with them (the reverse of the CCS adapter we've been trying to get) to solve that.

But I see no reason for them to do that, and I am not sure they would have in Europe if not for a law demanding it.

In the USA, there have been some subsidies for stations that require they have CCS/CHAdeMO. To get those subsidies Tesla has designed stations which have both TPC and CCS. While Tesla built its open supercharger network at prices around $25K to $30K per station, a large fraction of the CCS network has been built using government subsidies of $100K per station or more.

Why Tesla would switch without subsidies is clear. Tesla connector cars still outsell CCS cars by a very, very large margin. You think there's lots of CCS out there because more different car models have CCS, but far fewer cars. A large amount of stations subsidized by government or a VW fine have CCS, but still fewer than the number of Tesla stations. CCS is "the standard" only because people want to say it is, not because it meets any of the penetration criteria one would expect of a standard.

As we already saw in Europe, after a transition period, new Tesla Superchargers are now CCS only. Expect the same in the US (and NA).

I don't know who wrote that stupid Forbes article, but you cannot determine the cost of the charging station by how much the company asks for in reimbursement.

With other automakers all releasing BEVs, Tesla will not be able to maintain >50% market share. The majority of BEVs will be CCS.

Furthermore, because of government subsidies, the majority of charging stations will also be CCS. (There might be fewer chargers per charging, but there will be more charging stations).

It simply doesn't make much sense to keep TPC around since it will in the minority (both in vehicle count and in chargers count).