Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard

[voxel]

10000V?! Yea good luck trying to have a battery that operates in that range and be able to handle arcing hazards in such a system.
That screenshot I believe shows a connector in its higher power form; for trucks and stuff the can be slimmer and don't look as unwieldly as the above screenshot makes it out to be (though obviously it is bigger than CCS).

CharIN Officially Launches The Megawatt Charging System (MCS)

CharIN has officially launched at the EVS35 in Oslo, Norway, the Megawatt Charging System (MCS) DC fast charging connector for heavy-duty vehicles.

insideevs.com

You can see a charging session for MCS, doesn't look to bad to plug (especially for its intended purpose).

10000V was an example. There are other methods to reduce amps/heat in charging. I've heard of a split battery pack idea with separate charging systems.

 

[israndy]

I just saw a photo of a Megawatt connector. Yikes.

I have been unable to find out if MCS is the Megacharger that Tesla is building, but this doesn't look like something Tesla would adopt. Although the initial BETA Tesla Semi's used adapter cables to plug into several Superchargers so they probably didn't have a Megacharger port on them.

 

[stopcrazypp]

10000V was an example. There are other methods to reduce amps/heat in charging. I've heard of a split battery pack idea with separate charging systems.

Splitting the battery doesn't solve arcing hazards at the connector.

 

[voxel]

Splitting the battery doesn't solve arcing hazards at the connector.

Sorry... I didn't mean a 10000V battery. I meant to say four 1200V packs (or let's say 2000V) each charging at 1000A instead of one connector pushing 3000A to a single pack.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I have been unable to find out if MCS is the Megacharger that Tesla is building, but this doesn't look like something Tesla would adopt. Although the initial BETA Tesla Semi's used adapter cables to plug into several Superchargers so they probably didn't have a Megacharger port on them.

This was the earliest version:

Close-up look at the Tesla Semi "Megacharger" charging port

This is the latest version that was captured this year (in the Frito Lay trucks):

An up-close look at Tesla's liquid-cooled Megachargers at Frito Lay

You will notice this is the same as draft version 2 of MCS:

Megawatt Charging System - Wikipedia

The latest version of MCS however is that triangle shape:

Not sure if Tesla will stick with draft 2 or move to the triangle. I imagine this time around Tesla does not want to support a standard that will not be adopted by others however.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Sorry... I didn't mean a 10000V battery. I meant to say four 1200V packs (or let's say 2000V) each charging at 1000A instead of one connector pushing 3000A to a single pack.

You were talking about a 10000V connector. Splitting the battery doesn't solve things at the connector end. Having 4 packs at 1000A means your connector still needs to support 1000A*4 = 4000A. I guess that's kind of similar to the original version of the megacharger port (which basically is like 4 supercharger ports combined into one, it had 8 pairs of pins).

 

[voxel]

You were talking about a 10000V connector. Splitting the battery doesn't solve things at the connector end. Having 4 packs at 1000A means your connector still needs to support 1000A*4 = 4000A. I guess that's kind of similar to the original version of the megacharger port (which basically is like 4 supercharger ports combined into one, it had 8 pairs of pins).

I was talking about a hypothetical 10000V battery and connector to be clear. With the goal to reduce amp/heat and improve reliability. The cooling required to push 3000A must be insane. Even 1000A is completely crazy to me. 500A with liquid cooling is also nutty.

I’d rather see 2000V sub 200A with smaller/thinner cables. Hence the split battery pack design with two charge ports. I recall an EV might be attempting this.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I was talking about a hypothetical 10000V battery and connector to be clear. With the goal to reduce amp/heat and improve reliability.

For that case people were saying the connector would have a huge arcing hazard. Splitting the battery doesn't solve this, because at the connector end it'll still be 10000V.

The cooling required to push 3000A must be insane. Even 1000A is completely crazy to me. 500A with liquid cooling is also nutty.

You can see the examples of both Tesla and the MCS cables in the other posts I gave. It looks fine to me. The picture you chose was of a beefier example. It's the equivalent to FloMAX diesel nozzles used by some of the larger industrial equipment, so not going to be unusual to those users either:

FloMAX Diesel Fuel Nozzle | Dixon

They also demoed other versions that seem fairly easy to use (not a whole lot different than a consumer gasoline or diesel nozzle):

Liquid cooling allows thinner cables (versus a conventional uncooled cable required to handle the same current), so I don't see what's "nutty" about it.

I’d rather see 2000V sub 200A with smaller/thinner cables. Hence the split battery pack design with two charge ports. I recall an EV might be attempting this.

That only gives you 400kW each, not the up to 3.75MW that the MCS connector would support. You would need to connect 9 of your suggested cables to support the same power. I think a slightly larger cable like MCS supports would be preferred by most truck drivers than having to plug multiple cables.

They probably are used to heavier nozzles and cables than regular car drivers, given the high flow diesel pumps (even the ones at truck stations, not the industrial version mentioned earlier) use bigger nozzles and cables.

 

[MP3Mike]

I have been unable to find out if MCS is the Megacharger that Tesla is building, but this doesn't look like something Tesla would adopt. Although the initial BETA Tesla Semi's used adapter cables to plug into several Superchargers so they probably didn't have a Megacharger port on them.

Why do you think it wouldn't be something that Tesla would adopt? They were part of the group that designed the MCS standard, so it is highly likely that they will use it. (That and people saw that they were using one of the draft designs, so it is likely that they will switch to the final version.)

 

[israndy]

Just expecting a better design, perhaps they will keep pushing for a better design as we get closer to building a Megacharger network. It's not like you can still see a bunch of v1 Superchargers on the road. And Tesla has been pretty mum about the specs on the Megachargers and they haven't been calling them MCS. But I do know that they are part of the MCS group, would love to have truck charging on the CyberTruck, especially the 500 mile model. Can't imagine the monster in the photo above being on anything but a Semi

 

[Genie]

Yes but honestly why does it matter? You’re not keeping this in your pocket

There are plenty of people with carpal tunnel and other challenges, details like connector size and shape would matter.

 

[MP3Mike]

Can't imagine the monster in the photo above being on anything but a Semi

I think that one picture is misleading, as I'm pretty sure that the MCS connector is about the same size as the Type 1 CCS connector.

 

[israndy]

It does look monstrous (wide angle?), I had a hard time believing it too. I would assume MCS is a LOT bigger than the CCS however, just by virtue of the 4x in power, perhaps it's as efficient in size as the Tesla (err.. NACS) connector but it carries a ton of electricity.

 

[philly4]

This will be interesting to see how it plays out. IF Tesla can get most the other charging networks to install NACS in most/all of their chargers, I can see other auto makers switching over in 2-3 years. If not, then CSS will win out and this is mostly irrelevant.

 

[bradtem]

Here's my story on the effort by Tesla.

Tesla Opens Up Its Charging Connectors To All, But The World Probably Won’t Listen

Tesla today declared it was opening up the Tesla charging connector for use by anybody, and renaming it the “North American Charging Standard” (NACS.) Here's why the world may still resist using this superior and popular connector

www.forbes.com

There are a variety of issues to consider, including how a transition happens, subsidies, anti-Tesla politics, the fact that the cords on existing superchargers are too short for other cars even if they replace their CCS socket with a Tesla one (retrofit) etc. Also, since the main advantage of going to "NACS" for a vendor is access to the Tesla SC existing network, and that network uses billing via Tesla via plug-and-play, will non-Tesla OEMs be willing to depend on a relationship with their competitor to give customers good charging?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It does look monstrous (wide angle?), I had a hard time believing it too. I would assume MCS is a LOT bigger than the CCS however, just by virtue of the 4x in power, perhaps it's as efficient in size as the Tesla (err.. NACS) connector but it carries a ton of electricity.

The MCS Is wide, but it has the outside triangle, where CCS has the the 3 circles.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It does look monstrous (wide angle?), I had a hard time believing it too. I would assume MCS is a LOT bigger than the CCS however, just by virtue of the 4x in power, perhaps it's as efficient in size as the Tesla (err.. NACS) connector but it carries a ton of electricity.

Here's a picture of it next to a CCS connector for scale:

MCS, the fast charging standard for electric trucks reaches 3,750 kW of power | EVspias

It's definitely bigger, but not too much more, considering the amount of power it supports.

The picture linked had a optional top handle, which makes it look much bigger than the standard version.

 

[Olle]

Here is a nice nugget of information, from the spec sheet. I had been wondering about this:

This means that without cooling the two versions can handle 450 kW and 900 kW respectively. Nice!

 

[bradtem]

Here is a nice nugget of information, from the spec sheet. I had been wondering about this:

View attachment 873953

This means that without cooling the two versions can handle 450 kW and 900 kW respectively. Nice!

I did notice that claim of a megawatt. Possibly more with cooling in the inlet (I presume the plug is cooled in SCv3 and not the cable, or it could be.)

While planes and semi-trucks may want the 3mW of the MCS, the reality is that a megawatt is too much for cars, and smacks of gasoline thinking and recreating the 3 minute "fill-up" of gasoline. Sure, if you're in a crazy hurry and don't even have time to pee, you might want that, but I think you usually don't

• With a megawatt charger, you really don't want to leave it while charging because you need to unplug and move as soon as it's done. These units will be expensive and scarce, and I expect very fat idle fees at them. They are much more expensive than gas pumps
• Apropos of that, the cost of the power circuits and megawatt device are going to be a lot more, so expect megawatt charging to cost quite a bit more than 150kW charging.
• In addition, expect a car able to take 1mW to also cost more, though once you have bought it it won't cost more to use it, except...
• It seems unlikely that mW charging won't degrade your battery more than 150kW charging
• mW charging will probably max out at some lower SoC, to the point that by the time you get to 70% SoC, you will be down under 150kW and encouraged/required to unplug and charged more if you don't. If you want more, you will need to move over to a slower charger to pick up those last few kW. Maybe even at 60% though I have not seen final results on that.
• In the end, I would rather use a cheaper 500kW charger which takes 10 minutes but lets me go pee and shop while charging, then a 5 minute recharge where I must stay with my vehicle, move it and then spend 5 minutes peeing/shopping. (At a station with lots of empty mW stalls I could presumably pee while it charges, but not a busy one.)

So if, when buying a car, I can get 400kW for the base price and I have to pay a surcharge to get 1mW, and another surcharge when I use it, I might not bother buying it. Depends on the surcharges, of course. Right now more kW have a diminishing return because charging slows as you get over 50% SoC. Your charge time to 80% or 90% is only modestly different on a 250kW station than a 150kW station. You only see a big difference when charging from 10% to 50% on the two different stations.

 

[terranx]

This means that without cooling the two versions can handle 450 kW and 900 kW respectively. Nice!

Without cooling at the car side. The cable side is almost certainly actively cooled to support that current.