I don't really feel it necessary to argue why this is useful to me, because it's clearly not useful to you. But not all of us have fast charging at home, or we might be away from home and that extra 25 miles of range could be the difference between an SC stop and no stop at all. Your use case is not everyone else's use case.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Surprised there's no CCS support. Thoughts?
- Thread starter emir-t
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Supercharging
I don't really feel it necessary to argue why this is useful to me, because it's clearly not useful to you. But not all of us have fast charging at home, or we might be away from home and that extra 25 miles of range could be the difference between an SC stop and no stop at all. Your use case is not everyone else's use case.
Can we all just agree that for at least a good number of us CCS adapter would be extremely useful? Even if there is a supercharger in the area, CCS may be next to a dining that we like or supercharger may have a long line (my personal record is over 1 h wait) or something else. One time I arrived at supercharger late at night and the power was out. There was both CHAdeMO and CCS near by, but my only option was to L2 charge until the car had the range to make it to the next supercharger.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
What definition of "a good number"? 5% of Tesla owners? 2%? Sub-1%?
Incidentally another thread I'm following just came up with this earlier: Electrify America Fast Chargers - Huh?
If you scan back a little further in the thread you'll see this latest flurry in the thread was triggered by EA disabling all their 150kW/350kW chargers (due to safety issue on the liquid cooled hose design that's been used in roll outs so far).
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
No one is adhering to any standard right now. Why should Tesla wait until everyone agrees (if ever) on a "standard"? They had to move ahead with the Supercharger at some point. If they had waited we'd still be waiting for a Supercharger network. They only standard that most cars support is a J1772 plug. Also, if you look for a CCS charger you'll find very few of them.
Last edited:
You're looking at it from a US perspective obviously. I am looking at it from a European perspective and here CCS is very widely adapted. Although you are right that Tesla had to go forward with their own thing back when there were developing the Model S in 2010, now there are standards. At least in Europe. As for US it seems like Tesla 'is' the standard. So my original argument was for European markets.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
A European variant w/CCS support does make a lot more sense. No idea what the pricing difference is in Europe with CCS vs SC for your "it's about saving money on charging", which doesn't hold up here in NA, but CCS coverage is a lot better in Europe than in NA.
However that wasn't the context of your initial argument, 18 months ago, and you certainly didn't make it clear in your argument this was the case. Tesla is still a US company with US centric production and their first market for a product is still NA. This will shift over time but for the Model 3 it made very little sense to have it support CCS initially and still doesn't make sense to support CCS on the base vehicle.
Definitely too simplistic. Realistically many people need CCS and/or CHAdeMO. There are quite a few posts on that subject, with Tesla users whose lived would be far easier with either/and. I am one of them. Do most of us need them to have our Tesla? NO. But, our lives would be easier and more convenient. Logically every charging option would be very good to have.
Arguing that one will dominate the others definitively everywhere ignores a basic fact of electricity distribution: Literally dozens of approved connection standards exist everywhere in the world. The US has as many as anywhere plus consumer voltage levels of 110/115/120/208/220/230/240. Each of those has different connectors depending on amperage and application, plus much more.
Bluntly, we will have more variation in fast charging standards, not fewer. Legacy ones will live on for decades beyond a logical 'sell-by' date. Why? they always do. The faster the charging the more variation in approach will exist. CCS, CHAdeMO, Tesla and GB/T. In an amazing and almost unprecedented move China and Japan have agreed on interoperability:
CHAdeMO to jointly develop next-gen Ultra-Fast Charging Standard with China
Tesla is a full member of CHAdeMO and of charIn, and is already delivering vehicles compatible with non-Tesla standards. Tesla only developed their own standard because none existed at the time. Just as legacy CCS and CHAdeMO vehicles are unlikely to be updated, legacy Teslas are unlikely to be updated either. Thus we'll have multiple future standards, just as we do today.
So, we should not think about which standard will win. We should push for adapters for everything for which we can get adapters. Frankly, as a longtime international traveler I have always carried universal adapters, and frequently small transformers. I use them in my own house in Brazil, equipped as it is with three different connector standards, depending on when they were installed. I recall my house in the UK also had two standards so I had adapters there too.
Finally, I had eight different plug adapters for my Model S. I have only five for my Model 3. I'll buy a CHAdeMO and a CCS when they become available precisely because they make my life simpler. I am not unique, partly because my entire life has been filled with essential adaptations. The electrical ones have been the simplest ones. In short, plug standards are like languages: one size does not fit all; some insist that theirs is the only true correct one. It's easier to just adapt and not rail against diversity.
I agree with this. But to me full support of a standard means you can just plug the charging cable into a car with no adapters. The Leaf has a J1772 plug and a CHAdeMO plug built in. I can't imagine a car with four or five charging receptacles built in. So, while I appreciate that people would like to plug all sorts of power sources into their cars I don't agree that Tesla should support multiple high speed charging standards. I personally could use a CHAdeMO adapter for my Model 3 because the NW is loaded with CHAdeMO chargers. We have far more of those in the NW than anywhere else in the US I think. Unfortunately, I think the price for Tesla's adapter is going to be so high that I won't buy one. I'm hoping that in the long run there will be cheaper aftermarket adapters available for all kinds of "standards".
ℬête Noire
Active Member
*facepalm* You just undercut yourself. "110V" and "115V" don't actually exist. It's 120V, has been for a long time. Why? Because in that range of providing power it makes perfect sense to have a single, as it's serving a specific end purpose. The plugs are all also all shaped the same for those 120V 15A plugs. Why? Because it'd be gonzo to have to have a drawer full of adaptors to try line up some given appliance you have bought with the plugs that happen to have been installed in your house (or a given room in your house).
P.S. 208 is a different thing, because of 3-phase. And typically those are NOT mixed with other stuff, depending on how they are designed, because it's 2 legs of 3 legs of the 3-phase. The single leg of 3-phase is actually 120V indistinguishable from that 120V coming from a single phase service.
Last edited:
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Exactly. A box of adaptors to try sort things out? Please. Hauling around the J-1772 is frankly already sub-optimal, and it is rather svelte. More parts to break. More moving, sliding parts to wear. More points of failure (annoyance and potentially safety, as power levels rise). "Every charging option would be very good to have" it isn't logical when you follow the path to the implications of that.
I agree with your post. Unless competition for adapters develops prices will be high. Also, there is no practical likelihood that a given vehicle will have more than two native plug types, as Chinese Tesla S and X have had for a while. If some really large-scale networks in a given geography/country develop that are high speed and public access it's reasonable to imagine native support might be forthcoming at sometime in the future.
Mains electricity - Wikipedia
Standards varied (and were less standardized in the past), but in the US, the current expectation is of 120V +- 5% (114V~126V). Though you'd be foolish not to design your equipment for at least 10% in the US to better handle brownout conditions (voltage will be sacrificed in favor of maintaining the 60hz AC frequency), which would give you 108V ~ 132V.
Most modern computer and similar power supplies actually will support a much wider range, as they're typically designed for global use (even if they may have non-replaceable power lead sometimes) and as such will operate from ~90V (Japan's 100V nominal minus 10%) to ~253V (EU/other 230V + 10%), though there may be a large gap in the middle between that operation is not supported (between 120V + 10% and below 220V - 10%). It used to be you had to manually switch between "120" and "240" (or similarly labeled, 110, 220, etc) ranges for such supplies but most are auto switching now.
In the US, 120V is still often referred to as 110V, even though we've been standardized on a nominal 120V for some time. In reality you're far more likely to see a few volts more or less than that at any given time versus a perfect 120V, as voltage regulation of the grid is less important than frequency regulation.
Looking at one of our UPSes here at the office, over the last 10 minutes it has seen anywhere from 116V to 121V, mostly between 117V and 119V. Interestingly also seeing that frequency has varied between 60hz and 60.1hz a lot, though I haven't seen it fall below 60hz.
Standards varied (and were less standardized in the past), but in the US, the current expectation is of 120V +- 5% (114V~126V). Though you'd be foolish not to design your equipment for at least 10% in the US to better handle brownout conditions (voltage will be sacrificed in favor of maintaining the 60hz AC frequency), which would give you 108V ~ 132V.
Most modern computer and similar power supplies actually will support a much wider range, as they're typically designed for global use (even if they may have non-replaceable power lead sometimes) and as such will operate from ~90V (Japan's 100V nominal minus 10%) to ~253V (EU/other 230V + 10%), though there may be a large gap in the middle between that operation is not supported (between 120V + 10% and below 220V - 10%). It used to be you had to manually switch between "120" and "240" (or similarly labeled, 110, 220, etc) ranges for such supplies but most are auto switching now.
In the US, 120V is still often referred to as 110V, even though we've been standardized on a nominal 120V for some time. In reality you're far more likely to see a few volts more or less than that at any given time versus a perfect 120V, as voltage regulation of the grid is less important than frequency regulation.
Looking at one of our UPSes here at the office, over the last 10 minutes it has seen anywhere from 116V to 121V, mostly between 117V and 119V. Interestingly also seeing that frequency has varied between 60hz and 60.1hz a lot, though I haven't seen it fall below 60hz.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Functionally I'm dead on. Especially when trying to apply such a metaphor here. They are tiny edge cases and they aren't really even a "standard". There aren't different connectors or anything for that stuff. In part because 120V is only a ballpark anyway. Growing up our farm had roughly 130V measured on a single leg because of where we situated on the local grid. Great for having brighter incandescent lights, no so great on incandescent lightbulb lifespan.
All with different purposes. And you generally don't use one for the other. In fact the very purpose of those differences in connectors is to get in the way of hooking up a load to a source in a way that'll cause damage, a fire, or otherwise malfunction to the equipment that the source isn't appropriate for and/or to the source that isn't up to providing what the equipment wants (although the later is usually not as big a deal, thus people using 14-50 plugs that are backed by only a 40A breaker).
Last edited:
Similar threads
