Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard

[Earl]

To be fair, a universal charging standard (at least on a per country basis) is a good idea for the public.

Agreed. Clearly, developing CCS after Tesla already had a standard out there was intentionally against the best interests of the public.

It's unfortunate that the US seemed to pick the huge ugly CCS1 for it

Actually, the majority of US EV drivers specifically chose TSM/NACS or at least they chose to have access to that network. That is a huge reason many folks I know, after doing the research on where they could easily go, chose Tesla cars over the others. Many despise Musk but buy Teslas anyway, just because it is really the only car you can conveniently do road trips in. Those who chose others generally don't drive on road trips often, or at all. I've also known folks who have bought non-Teslas (Bolts, etc), then, after trying a road trip, traded their fairly new car for a Tesla.

 

[bradtem]

Actually, universal standards are not necessarily a good idea. Innovation is a better idea, as long as you can have adapters.

If the regulations require CCS, Tesla might be able to sue or lobby to fix that. But if they can't, they can just stick CCS cables or adapters on their new stations. If they want to be dicks about it, they could even do that with the current cable length -- they would meet the law in terms of having a CCS connector, but it's not their fault that almost all the current CCS cars put their socket in a place that a Tesla length cable can't reach.

But even if they stick a long cable CCS, sure that will add a few grand to the cost of the station, but the subsidy will make up for that and a ton more, and they can do that while they lobby to say that NACS is the non-propriety connector used by the most cars (natively) and by the most charging stalls, which is true.

Overall they should have done this a while ago. They were probably skeptical of the value of the subsidies. Until not that long ago, the DCFast networks were a joke compared to Tesla, and they probably didn't pay much attention.

 

[moa999]

Pluses and Minuses.
The DC pins make the plug bigger, but there is also a lot more separation (safety) and less complex wiring inside the car (you don't need to switch between AC and DC).

It's interesting that Type1 has the external lock whereas Tesla TPC/NACS and the later CCS Type2 have the better imho internal lock.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Pluses and Minuses.
The DC pins make the plug bigger, but there is also a lot more separation (safety)

Separation basically allows higher voltage (previous Tesla design was 500V only). They released a new 1000V design that is backwards compatible.

and less complex wiring inside the car (you don't need to switch between AC and DC).

Tesla's design allows a shared power line to the port, which actually saves wiring (no separate wires needed for AC). In the Model 3, there is only a short AC line from the onboard charger (which is right on top of battery in rear seats) to the DC pins also in rear seats and then a power wire from the DC pins to the charge port. I don't see how CCS would save on wiring (in fact, probably the opposite, they would have to run another set of wires for AC alongside the DC wires). There is a contactor needed anyways for DC charging either way, so it doesn't save there either.

It's interesting that Type1 has the external lock whereas Tesla TPC/NACS and the later CCS Type2 have the better imho internal lock.

The lock design was chosen already for AC charging, it doesn't really have to do with the CCS part. Type 1 / J1772 used the lock tab, Type 2 used the car side pin lock. Tesla also used pin lock.

 

[Cosmacelf]

So, IF Tesla updated their existing Superchargers to be compliant with NACS (and right now, I doubt they are since NACS calls out a different communication protocol than existing Tesla Supercharging communications), then third parties could make a relatively simple Tesla female to CCS male adapter? Basically, the opposite polarity to Tesla's new CCS adapter.

 

[MP3Mike]

So, IF Tesla updated their existing Superchargers to be compliant with NACS (and right now, I doubt they are since NACS calls out a different communication protocol that existing Tesla Supercharging communications), then third parties could make a relatively simple Tesla female to CCS male adapter? Basically, the opposite polarity to Tesla's new CCS adapter.

Yep.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yep.

Do we know if Tesla CCS adapter is anything other than a simple pin for pin adapter?

 

[terranx]

That’s

Do we know if Tesla CCS adapter is anything other than a simple pin for pin adapter?

That’s all the adapter is. But real superchargers (currently?) use CAN instead of PLC for communications. That’s why older cars need a retrofit to use the adapter

 

[Cosmacelf]

That’s

That’s all the adapter is. But real superchargers (currently?) use CAN instead of PLC for communications. That’s why older cars need a retrofit to use the adapter

Right, so the question is can Tesla Superchargers somehow be software converted to use PLC instead of CAN? Probably ... not? If not, then only new Superchargers could be built to be NACS compatible. As an also Rivian owner, this is distressing!

 

[Rocky_H]

The other reason they adopted the frankenplug was because it was ok with them to have an ugly, kluge of a charge connector.

It's unfortunate that the US seemed to pick the huge ugly CCS1 for it - sort of the USB-A of the charging world.

Agreed. Clearly, developing CCS after Tesla already had a standard out there was intentionally against the best interests of the public.

These are drawing false conclusions because of misremembering the history of what happened in what order. A lot of the misunderstanding is thinking that CCS was developed as one single complete integrated thing with AC and DC charging in one plug in a single development step at a single point in time. And then comparing that integrated thing to Tesla's integrated thing and say, "Ewww, that's huge." But that's not how it happened.

J1772 already existed first for AC only charging BEFORE Tesla came. But there wasn't much thought for DC fast charging (or at least not close to a finalized standard). When Tesla came along, they wanted something more future proof and better for combined AC and fast DC charging. But of course they didn't have the status to drive that in the standards bodies, so that kind of made the decision for them to start from scratch, making something with the goal of integrated AC and DC from the beginning, which can be done well.

Then it was after that, that SAE was making a DC plug standard but felt a bit stuck that they didn't want to orphan the existing J1772 infrastructure by starting over, so they felt they had to include and extend onto it, so cars could have one port that could take either type of plug. So CCS1 was an extension of J1772, but by having to figure out how to add DC after the fact, it obviously wasn't going to be as good.

So assigning fault either way of thinking that either party started from scratch to make a wholly integrated AC/DC plug when the other party already had it just isn't true from either direction.

 

[srs5694]

So, IF Tesla updated their existing Superchargers to be compliant with NACS (and right now, I doubt they are since NACS calls out a different communication protocol than existing Tesla Supercharging communications)

Tesla's announcement specifies:

As a purely electrical and mechanical interface agnostic to use case and communication protocol, NACS is straightforward to adopt.

That is pretty explicit in saying that NACS is "agnostic to... communication protocol." In other words, NACS is a physical and electrical interface that can "talk" the CCS communication protocol, the Tesla communication protocol, or anything else that can be carried over the NACS communications lines. Maybe there's something that contradicts this press release summary buried in the specs, but that's what I take away from the press release.

Also, as I understand it, Tesla's Superchargers in Europe currently use both Tesla's protocols and CCS protocols. If they can do that in Europe, then they can likely do the same thing in North America -- although this might require some software and even hardware upgrades. It doesn't look like an insurmountable hurdle, though, based on the European example.

 

[Rocky_H]

That is pretty explicit in saying that NACS is "agnostic to... communication protocol." In other words, NACS is a physical and electrical interface that can "talk" the CCS communication protocol, the Tesla communication protocol, or anything else that can be carried over the NACS communications lines. Maybe there's something that contradicts this press release summary buried in the specs, but that's what I take away from the press release.

Also, as I understand it, Tesla's Superchargers in Europe currently use both Tesla's protocols and CCS protocols. If they can do that in Europe, then they can likely do the same thing in North America -- although this might require some software and even hardware upgrades. It doesn't look like an insurmountable hurdle, though, based on the European example.

But the communication protocol they use isn't the most relevant, important factor. It's "Can the plug shape on the station physically go into the shape of the port on the car, without having to force people to go find and buy some other adapter?" So this notion of Tesla having just opened NACS and saying, "Use it!" isn't realistic when no other bands of cars have ports for it, and there isn't an adapter for it yet.

That isn't the same as Europe, where Tesla's cars have the CCS2 port just like everyone else.

 

[MP3Mike]

That’s all the adapter is. But real superchargers (currently?) use CAN instead of PLC for communications.

We don't know what the hardware capabilities of the North American Superchargers are, they may already have the necessary PLC hardware. (V2 and V3 Superchargers in Europe do both.) I would guess that all V3 Superchargers already have the hardware to support CCS, V2 sites are more questionable.

Tesla might have to replace some equipment at each site to make it so they can talk CCS over the NACS connector.

That’s why older cars need a retrofit to use the adapter

But we aren't talking about cars. So it might not be relevant to Superchargers.

 

[Genie]

Right, so the question is can Tesla Superchargers somehow be software converted to use PLC instead of CAN? Probably ... not? If not, then only new Superchargers could be built to be NACS compatible. As an also Rivian owner, this is distressing!

Before you get distressed about it, there’s no adapter anyway (Yet)
I thought the idea behind NACS was for subsidy dollars, now car makers have an option to build in the (TPC) connection but I missed where Tesla’s announcement said anything about converting existing SuC in any way.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Before you get distressed about it, there’s no adapter anyway (Yet)
I thought the idea behind NACS was for subsidy dollars, now car makers have an option to build in the (TPC) connection but I missed where Tesla’s announcement said anything about converting existing SuC in any way.

Piggybacking subsidy dollars. The standard required for subsidy is CCS. Maybe they want to stir things up with other manufacturers, but the key practical benefit would be if the subsidized chargers include Tesla cables. Tesla is increasing density on Interstates, and adding on some US and state highways, but if they can get their connectors on the subsidized chargers coming in other areas (a Maine example is that there are RFPs for chargers to be built in Eastern and Northern Maine) it would allow Tesla to focus their own efforts on the more heavily-traveled routes. Tesla could even strategically offer to pay incremental costs on particular chargers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Right, so the question is can Tesla Superchargers somehow be software converted to use PLC instead of CAN? Probably ... not? If not, then only new Superchargers could be built to be NACS compatible. As an also Rivian owner, this is distressing!

That depends entirely on the hardware in them. If it was built with CAN hardware only, no, it's not a software update away. If it was built with PLC hardware, it would support both.

An easy way to see this point is just look at the CCS adapter roll out. Cars without the PLC chips can't be used with CCS regardless of software.

I wouldn't stress over this however. If Tesla wants to retrofit, they certainly can, because they already had CAN + CCS superchargers in Europe.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

These are drawing false conclusions because of misremembering the history of what happened in what order. A lot of the misunderstanding is thinking that CCS was developed as one single complete integrated thing with AC and DC charging in one plug in a single development step at a single point in time. And then comparing that integrated thing to Tesla's integrated thing and say, "Ewww, that's huge." But that's not how it happened.

J1772 already existed first for AC only charging BEFORE Tesla came. But there wasn't much thought for DC fast charging (or at least not close to a finalized standard). When Tesla came along, they wanted something more future proof and better for combined AC and fast DC charging. But of course they didn't have the status to drive that in the standards bodies, so that kind of made the decision for them to start from scratch, making something with the goal of integrated AC and DC from the beginning, which can be done well.

Then it was after that, that SAE was making a DC plug standard but felt a bit stuck that they didn't want to orphan the existing J1772 infrastructure by starting over, so they felt they had to include and extend onto it, so cars could have one port that could take either type of plug. So CCS1 was an extension of J1772, but by having to figure out how to add DC after the fact, it obviously wasn't going to be as good.

So assigning fault either way of thinking that either party started from scratch to make a wholly integrated AC/DC plug when the other party already had it just isn't true from either direction.

I didn't make any assumptions on WHY CCS1 is ugly - just that it is so.

If the ugliness is due to it having AC support, despite being used for DC fast charging... I don't think that makes me love it more

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla's announcement specifies:

That is pretty explicit in saying that NACS is "agnostic to... communication protocol." In other words, NACS is a physical and electrical interface that can "talk" the CCS communication protocol, the Tesla communication protocol, or anything else that can be carried over the NACS communications lines. Maybe there's something that contradicts this press release summary buried in the specs, but that's what I take away from the press release.

Also, as I understand it, Tesla's Superchargers in Europe currently use both Tesla's protocols and CCS protocols. If they can do that in Europe, then they can likely do the same thing in North America -- although this might require some software and even hardware upgrades. It doesn't look like an insurmountable hurdle, though, based on the European example.

It was posted up thread that PLC was specified:
"For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN 70121."

Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard

Did you see that network operators already have plans in motion to add NACS connectors to their sites? (So it is likely that NACS compatible plugs will continue to dwarf CCS Type 1 plugs going forward.) They need people to use their chargers to stay a-float, so they will want to attract all of...

teslamotorsclub.com

Maybe your passage quoted simply means the same connector can be used for any protocol, but PLC clearly is CCS (both Tesla and CHAdeMO is CAN). Or perhaps it means other PLC protocols can be used also, but that has no practical difference given the most universal one would be CCS.

 

[srs5694]

That is pretty explicit in saying that NACS is "agnostic to... communication protocol."

But the communication protocol they use isn't the most relevant, important factor. It's "Can the plug shape on the station physically go into the shape of the port on the car, without having to force people to go find and buy some other adapter?" So this notion of Tesla having just opened NACS and saying, "Use it!" isn't realistic when no other bands of cars have ports for it, and there isn't an adapter for it yet.

Agreed that the communications protocol isn't all that important; but I was responding to @Cosmacelf, who stated (incorrectly, I believe) that NACS specified the communications protocol to be used. The communications protocol is unimportant largely because it's not specified in NACS.

 

[bradtem]

There are 3 things to consider. One is the physical plug, which has been opened.
The other is the communications protocol. There is a CCS protocol, there is the "plug and charge" protocol on top of it and there is Tesla's protocol.
(There is also the use of apps and cards to authenticate out of band with the communications protocol, without plug and charge.)
Then there is the Tesla SC network. Even if you have the plug and the protocol, you still can't charge on it without a way to authenticate to Tesla and of course an account with/permission of Tesla. Tesla SC don't have external UI so this must be either over one of the comm protocols (Tesla of course supports its own and can talk CCS and I believe they have implemented plug and charge) or via the Tesla app.

But the big reason for any automaker to put a NACS on their car is to get access to the Tesla SC network. That still requires the full cooperation of Tesla. However, in order to get subsidies for Tesla SC, Tesla will need to allow that as the rules demand that anybody can pay. (In fact, some rules demand a credit card reader, and those rules are silly and hopefully can be changed.)

If all you want is to use Tesla Destination Chargers on a non-Tesla, there is a Lectron adapter for that. Not much reason to put NACS on a car just for that, though it's not that hard either.

Tesla will need to make a declaration about just how much access to the SC network cars with NACS can get. Auto OEMs will want to know that their customers can charge at SC forever. They don't want to put on a connector that Tesla can turn off.