You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, the NACS has a button on it that changes the resistance on the proximity pin to trigger unlock and end-of-charge (not in that order!) However, when you are charging a Tesla from CCS using the adapter (or from J1772) it's annoying because there is no way to signal that on those plugs. Maybe I don't always do it right, but I often find the adapter locked to the car and need to hassle to remove it.NACS does make the port unlock on press if the car is unlocked. They might be able to use the existing signal wires to unlock with a similar button to what they have now, even if unpowered.
Pressing the release lever on the J1772 handle should signal the same thing. The trick is to press the release lever and then release it before pulling it out so the adapter stays clipped on and you pull the adapter out with the handle together in one piece.Yes, the NACS has a button on it that changes the resistance on the proximity pin to trigger unlock and end-of-charge (not in that order!) However, when you are charging a Tesla from CCS using the adapter (or from J1772) it's annoying because there is no way to signal that on those plugs. Maybe I don't always do it right, but I often find the adapter locked to the car and need to hassle to remove it.
I am not a fan of CCS, and I'm certainly not a fan of making a choice based on the interests of an automaker (or automakers) but the numbers don't line up that way forever. Without other OEMs adopting NACS, it's not reasonable to think that NACS will continue to be the most popular connector indefinitely, at least on the car side. There are a lot of other cars coming to market, and their cumulative registrations are continuing to take larger slices of the annual EV registration pie.What I find ridiculous, yet it is made with a straight face, is that people argue that the plug used by the most manufacturers is the best choice, rather than the one used by the most drivers. As though what matters is work or trouble for the vendors, rather than for the customers.
There are twice as many cars with NACS on them than CCS1. And more charging stations. The main valid argument is that those charging stations are not available to the public -- and in spite of press image, Tesla has only committed to make about 10% of them available in this fashion.
Dieselgate has already had a large impact in Maine since most of the pairs of CCS/CHAdeMO across Maine came through that money in Phases 1 and 3.I am not a fan of CCS, and I'm certainly not a fan of making a choice based on the interests of an automaker (or automakers) but the numbers don't line up that way forever. Without other OEMs adopting NACS, it's not reasonable to think that NACS will continue to be the most popular connector indefinitely, at least on the car side. There are a lot of other cars coming to market, and their cumulative registrations are continuing to take larger slices of the annual EV registration pie.
CCS charging stations though, sheesh, it's like they don't even care so much about expansion. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but CCS vs. NACS chargers were a joke last year. Maybe NEVI will change the tide on that.
Is, or they hope it will be? My understanding is that no NEVI funding has been awarded yet, so it is possible that EA won't actually get any. (Or could get very little.)Phase 4 and 5 are NEVI-subsidized.
No, it is actually only ~$3B. The other $2B is for a non-NEVI program to fund more community based chargers. (Likely to be mostly level 2 AC charging.)NEVI is $5B of funding for DCFC in the USA
Is, or they hope it will be? My understanding is that no NEVI funding has been awarded yet, so it is possible that EA won't actually get any. (Or could get very little.)
No, it is actually only ~$3B. The other $2B is for a non-NEVI program to fund more community based chargers. (Likely to be mostly level 2 AC charging.)
Yes, the NEVI funds are sliced up by state/territory, but none of it has been awarded yet. In fact, I'm not sure any state has even started taking proposals yet. (One state had, but I think they had to cancel it and start over.) It is very likely that the first NEVI funded chargers won't go online until 2025 at the rate things are going. (I'm very disappointed with how slow this process is moving.)
I believe that @bradterm's point is that, if we want to standardize on a single plug type in North America, it makes more sense to standardize on the plug type that currently has the most users (cars on the road and/or installed plugs), since doing that will minimize the costs and inconvenience. If Tesla were somehow forced to standardize on CCS (now or in the near future), it would cause more Tesla owners to be inconvenienced than would be caused to CCS owners to switch to NACS; and although Tesla is just one company (vs. several CCS network operators), they'd have to upgrade or replace more stations than would those other operators, even in aggregate. What will happen in the future if we continue with a two-plug situation in North America isn't really relevant to this argument, unless the idea is that we'll stick with two plugs for another x years and then standardize; and of course waiting will just make it worse. Even if we wait, Tesla is likely to stay ahead in both the number of cars and the number of DC fast chargers for the next few years.I am not a fan of CCS, and I'm certainly not a fan of making a choice based on the interests of an automaker (or automakers) but the numbers don't line up that way forever.bradterm said:What I find ridiculous, yet it is made with a straight face, is that people argue that the plug used by the most manufacturers is the best choice, rather than the one used by the most drivers. As though what matters is work or trouble for the vendors, rather than for the customers.
Given that we have ~$4B of funds, from the NEVI program, that are required to be spent on expanding the CCS network over the next 5 years I don't see anything happening but a dual-standard in North America. (That NEVI funding does allow NACS to be installed along side CCS, but that will be up to the individual states/territories and the CPOs that get the funding.)Prior to a week ago, I was kind of resigned to the likelihood of two standards continuing indefinitely, and I thought that if harmonization did occur, Tesla being forced into using CCS1 was more likely than NACS prevailing. With Ford switching to NACS, my estimates have changed; I now think that NACS becoming the standard is the most likely outcome (by a slim margin), followed closely by a dual-standard North America, with Tesla (and Ford) switching to CCS1 being a very unlikely third possibility.
I don't see that as necessarily an impediment, for several reasons:Given that we have ~$4B of funds, from the NEVI program, that are required to be spent on expanding the CCS network over the next 5 years I don't see anything happening but a dual-standard in North America. (That NEVI funding does allow NACS to be installed along side CCS, but that will be up to the individual states/territories and the CPOs that get the funding.)
Do the NEVI regulations explicitly name CCS1? I thought they just required a non-proprietary standard, with NACS now is. I vaguely recall that most of the subsidies, possibly including NEVI, could be used for a CHAdeMO station, though you would be nuts to do that.I don't see that as necessarily an impediment, for several reasons:
- As you say, the NEVI regulations don't forbid NACS plugs from being installed alongside CCS plugs, so if most or all EV manufacturers switch to NACS, then the funding will simply support delivering CCS plugs in addition to NACS plugs. This might be wasteful, but no more so than in a long-term dual-plug scenario, in which we're likely to see both CCS and NACS cables on fast chargers. (At least one DC fast charging equipment manufacturer, Freewire, has committed to adding NACS plugs to their units. Admittedly, Freewire is a minor player, but it is a start.)
- NEVI funds won't last forever. You note a 5-year period for NEVI, and even a fairly rapid transition to NACS would likely take close to that long, if not longer, so in a transition scenario, the final CCS vehicle might well roll off the assembly line more than 5 years from now. Remember, even Ford says that they will begin delivering NACS-equipped vehicles in 2025. There's nothing in the announcements I've seen to say that they'll transition all their EVs from CCS to NACS at the same time. Ford may stagger this transition as they update each model to their next-generation EV platform, so it could be 3 or 4 years before the last CCS-equipped Ford is built. If it takes a year or two for most or all other automakers to come on-board, their transitions are likely to take at least a couple years each, moving the end date for CCS production out to ~5 years from now, if not later.
- Even if production of CCS cars were to stop tomorrow, existing CCS vehicles will remain on the road for a long time, and will need to be serviced. Given that production of CCS cars will continue for at least two or three years in the most wildly optimistic transition scenario, continuing to build out CCS-capable equipment for five years isn't really unreasonable.
- If the industry moves mostly or entirely to NACS, then the automakers and/or fast charging networks may lobby for the law/regulations to be changed. (I don't recall offhand if the relevant CCS requirements are in the law passed by Congress or in the regulations created by the relevant government agencies. The latter could be changed more quickly and easily. Such a change is not certain, of course; partisanship and a dysfunctional Congress could make even a trivial change difficult. It is possible, though.) OTOH, they might not bother; the preceding points may well satisfy automakers, at least; and the need to provide CCS for years to come to meet the needs of older CCS-equipped cars may make the CCS requirement not too onerous to charging providers.
- NEVI funding applies to DC fast charging providers; AFAIK, the law says nothing about what automakers can do. If automakers perceive it to be in their best interests to transition from CCS to NACS, then they'll do so, even if it leaves charging providers with a CCS requirement as a white elephant.
Someone quoted the latest official NEVI rules and they do explicitly call out CCS1. CHAdeMO can be paired with CCS1 only for FY2022.Do the NEVI regulations explicitly name CCS1? I thought they just required a non-proprietary standard, with NACS now is. I vaguely recall that most of the subsidies, possibly including NEVI, could be used for a CHAdeMO station, though you would be nuts to do that.
The post to which you link quotes a bit of the "rules" but doesn't cite them. I tracked it down easily enough in a Web search:Someone quoted the latest official NEVI rules and they do explicitly call out CCS1. CHAdeMO can be paired with CCS1 only for FY2022.
Ford will add NACS to next gen EVs!
Ah. Well, yes, it seems that Tesla, Ford, Aptera and any other companies that adopt NACS could file a petition or even a lawsuit to ask for a change to the regulations, citing that NACS is currently on more cars.The post to which you link quotes a bit of the "rules" but doesn't cite them. I tracked it down easily enough in a Web search:
Notably, this reference to CCS1 appears to be an agency's rules, not the law that authorizes them. This could make it easier to change, should automakers flee CCS en masse. If the law itself also explicitly calls out CCS, then it would be harder to change.
As I noted above, though, given that the rules also permit non-CCS plugs, in the event of mass defection of automakers from CCS to NACS, the practical effect of this rule (even if left unchanged) is likely to be the need to support CCS for a year or two longer than it otherwise would be, not a serious roadblock in a transition.
However, a Tesla SC with magic dock seems to conform to these regulations already.
- Instead of a requirement there be 4 ports capable of 150kW simultaneously, have a requirement there be at least 4 ports and at least 600kW, and if they really insist (they should not) that when 4 cars are present, each can get 150kW if it requests it.
- Remove the requirement for screens and credit card readers and replace it with a requirement that any driver with a mobile web browser can use the station without an account. (ie. there is wifi at the station for access to the billing interface, and you can pay that way, though in reality most people will elect to use an app or plug and charge.) Could go further and demand that the station EITHER have credit card/screen, or that there exists an open protocol which any company can easily support in an app, an in-car function, or over plug and charge. Tesla does not want to put screens on the stalls, and I don't blame them. Another option could be, as many gas stations have, a single payment stall which you punch in what charger you are using and provide credit card there.
No, I don't think it does.
Tesla could make NEVI compliant sites, but I don't think it will be with MagicDock, they would have to go with dual cables. (The MagicDock cable really isn't long enough, which Tesla has acknowledged as part of their V4 stall design that is in Europe.)
- The CCS1 connector/adapter is not permanently attached. (I think I have seen people report that they can, forcibly, pull it off of the NACS cable.)
- The stalls aren't guaranteed a minimum of 150kW. (Most V3 Superchargers have a minimum per stall of about 90kW.)
- You sort of cover that, but are you saying that a site with 24 stalls and only 600kW would be acceptable? (Only 25kW per stall when full?)
- I don't think NEVI requires a screen or card reader. (However, California does.)
- There are lots of other NEVI requirements Tesla doesn't meet, like OCPI compliance, free API access to stall status, ability to activate via phone call, not requiring an account/app for usage, etc.
I fully agree. And the government has already come to them, they are funding the ~3,500 MagicDock retrofits/installations. (Just a drop in the bucket.)I wouldn't chase it at all if I was them. Frankly, the government will come to them, if they do in fact pull this off.
Highly unlikely given how many states are anti-Tesla... Again assuming they even try.I predict 90% will some how end up going to Tesla