Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla will switch to CCS2 (from proprietary connector) in Taiwan starting Q3 2021

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
Looks like Tesla will be switching away from their proprietary connector to CCS2 in Taiwan. The move doesn't make a whole lot of sense practically, given Taiwan is similar to the USA in that other than Tesla proprietary, they mainly use J1772 and CCS1 (and Taiwan's standards authority seems to be pushing for CCS1), so moving to CCS1 would make a ton more sense. The speculation I guess is Taiwan is too small a market to make a dedicated CCS1 port or superchargers using the CCS1 connector, so they just use CCS2 given they can use parts directly from Europe (this also suggests cars for Taiwan may be supplied from Europe in the future, like from Giga Berlin). But if this speculation is true, that also seems to bode poorly for anyone expecting Tesla to switch to CCS1 anytime soon in North America (because if they had any plans to do so, doing it in Taiwan would be a good way to start).
Tesla Deliveries in Taiwan Said to Include CCS2 Charging Port - TeslaNorth.com

The article above doesn't cover it but there's talk this timing is related to the Taiwan trade negotiations, with AIT (which is like USA's embassy in Taiwan) pushing for charge connector standardization and CCS2 specifically. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either (due to reasons above) as wouldn't the USA want to push CCS1? Maybe it has to do with timing (Taiwan's standards body pushing for industry standards, which Tesla's doesn't qualify due to its proprietary nature).
Google Translate

On a related note, the article mentioned a Taiwan manufacturer Pegatron that is planning to open a factory in Texas to manufacture Tesla components. Apparently the Korean Tesla to CCS1 adapter is going to be made by Pegatron.
Ccs1(dc combo) test finish

I guess one thing that might result from this is a Tesla to CCS2 adapter. Shouldn't be too hard given there's already a Type 2 to CCS2 adapter for the European market.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: sdoorex and cwerdna

miimura

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
6,493
6,255
Los Altos, CA
That is strange. I had assumed that the Taiwan government standards body was pushing for CCS2 across the board. It makes no sense for Tesla to to change from TSL02 to CCS2 while other EVs are CCS1.
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
That is strange. I had assumed that the Taiwan government standards body was pushing for CCS2 across the board. It makes no sense for Tesla to to change from TSL02 to CCS2 while other EVs are CCS1.
Yeah, that is the strange thing about it. The public chargers use J1772 and the only CCS2 car in Taiwan is apparently the Fiat 500e, which is very low volume. All the other European EVs like the i-Pace, EQC, Taycan, E-tron all come with CCS1 in Taiwan. This only makes sense if there was a very strict deadline, so Tesla is forced to use existing parts (they have a CCS2 port and superchargers with CCS2 already for Europe, they have none for CCS1 yet). But still seems very short sighted and may make things a mess (it seems existing Tesla owners are quite unhappy about this).
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
Any updates on this? Is an adaptor kit offered?
This is the latest article I could find:

Seems like after strong backlash from existing Tesla owners and a petition from them, the Taiwan government is considering adding TPC (Tesla Proprietary Connector AKA the one we are using here in North America) into Taiwan's standards. Tesla have also since committed to continue installing superchargers with TPC connectors for as long as they are allowed (which under previous requirements seems to be until end of 2022) although they will all be dual head (TPC and CCS2), with existing stations also converted to such.

No news on an adapter, but it might not be required if Tesla is allowed to keep using TPC.

For the adapter, I imagine Taiwan still needs to certify TPC as a standard anyways to even have that be legal under the new requirements (which ban any unrecognized standards). Otherwise owners will have to rely on third party adapters like Setec, and not many may want to take that risk.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: cwerdna

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
That is strange. I had assumed that the Taiwan government standards body was pushing for CCS2 across the board. It makes no sense for Tesla to to change from TSL02 to CCS2 while other EVs are CCS1.
Doesn't it make sense for everyone to switch to J3068 (aka the Type 2 connector) and CCS2? SAE J3068 supports 3Φ charging since it has 3 AC pins, while J1772/Type 1 only has 2 AC pins and therefore can only do split phase/single phase. SAE J3068 is supposedly going to be used to charge trucks in North America because the Type 1 connector provides insufficient power, even at 80A, but running J3068 with advanced contacts at 208V on 3Φ/160A gives you almost 60 kW of charging power, 3 times what you get on J1772. Might as well just switch everyone over to J3068 and only use standard contacts (63A) on vehicles that don't need charging above 23 kW. But at least any vehicle would be able to use any EVSE at that point.
 

RDoc

S85D
Aug 24, 2012
2,753
1,612
Boston North Shore
Doesn't it make sense for everyone to switch to J3068 (aka the Type 2 connector) and CCS2? SAE J3068 supports 3Φ charging since it has 3 AC pins, while J1772/Type 1 only has 2 AC pins and therefore can only do split phase/single phase. SAE J3068 is supposedly going to be used to charge trucks in North America because the Type 1 connector provides insufficient power, even at 80A, but running J3068 with advanced contacts at 208V on 3Φ/160A gives you almost 60 kW of charging power, 3 times what you get on J1772. Might as well just switch everyone over to J3068 and only use standard contacts (63A) on vehicles that don't need charging above 23 kW. But at least any vehicle would be able to use any EVSE at that point.
I'd be very surprised if trucks did much AC charging. It would take a very long time for them to get significant charge. The constant proliferation of new incompatible charging standards is a real problem for EV adoption, not to mention current EV owners.
 

wws

Active Member
Aug 11, 2014
1,040
1,139
Northern California
I'd be very surprised if trucks did much AC charging. It would take a very long time for them to get significant charge. The constant proliferation of new incompatible charging standards is a real problem for EV adoption, not to mention current EV owners.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few years. J3068 is the Type 2 connector already used in Europe and elsewhere. Physically, the connectors are identical. Just the voltages and such are adjusted to North American tastes. I could definitely see banks of them being used at FedEx/UPS/Amazon/USPO/etc distribution hubs for overnight charging their "last mile" delivery trucks. Though even there, J1772 might work just fine.
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
Doesn't it make sense for everyone to switch to J3068 (aka the Type 2 connector) and CCS2? SAE J3068 supports 3Φ charging since it has 3 AC pins, while J1772/Type 1 only has 2 AC pins and therefore can only do split phase/single phase. SAE J3068 is supposedly going to be used to charge trucks in North America because the Type 1 connector provides insufficient power, even at 80A, but running J3068 with advanced contacts at 208V on 3Φ/160A gives you almost 60 kW of charging power, 3 times what you get on J1772. Might as well just switch everyone over to J3068 and only use standard contacts (63A) on vehicles that don't need charging above 23 kW. But at least any vehicle would be able to use any EVSE at that point.
For fleet usage, it seems low power DC chargers (there are some that go down to 25kW) would make sense. Then the trucks don't have to even lug around onboard chargers.
 

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
For fleet usage, it seems low power DC chargers (there are some that go down to 25kW) would make sense. Then the trucks don't have to even lug around onboard chargers.
The OBC is a small fraction of the weight of a passenger car, and an even smaller fraction of the weight of a truck. There's no way they'd cripple a truck like that, such that if it cannot find a DC fast charger, it needs a tow. Which is why I think everyone should switch to J3068 and CCS2, which are compatible and would be a nearly worldwide charging standard. The only two countries that would be forced to fold are Japan (CHAdeMO) and China (GB/T).
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
The OBC is a small fraction of the weight of a passenger car, and an even smaller fraction of the weight of a truck. There's no way they'd cripple a truck like that, such that if it cannot find a DC fast charger, it needs a tow. Which is why I think everyone should switch to J3068 and CCS2, which are compatible and would be a nearly worldwide charging standard. The only two countries that would be forced to fold are Japan (CHAdeMO) and China (GB/T).
It makes zero sense for passenger cars however in the US. Three phase connections are close to non-existent in residential areas in the USA.

If it's fleet usage it doesn't really matter much since it's always going to charge at the depot. I don't think the fleets will ever charge at a public charger, and even if it does, it won't be at a slow L2 charger. There are couple portable DC charging solutions that can be used in a pinch without needing to tow.
SparkCharge Begins Pilot Programs In California To Rescue Stranded EV Drivers

Note that it's not just weight, but volume of the OBC (which tends to matter more for cargo). That's space that can be used to put more packages.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
It makes zero sense for passenger cars however in the US. Three phase connections are close to non-existent in residential areas in the USA.
I'm not sure about Taiwan, but lots of of commercial properties and apartment buildings in the US have 3Φ electricity. And there's no harm in having the J3068 connector as you can run 1Φ AC over it by just using 2 of the 3 pins. And even better, you can transport vehicles across the Atlantic and they still wouldn't need an adapter. Some Teslas would need an adapter but at least you'd be able to use the same one in Europe and the US.
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
I'm not sure about Taiwan, but lots of of commercial properties and apartment buildings in the US have 3Φ electricity. And there's no harm in having the J3068 connector as you can run 1Φ AC over it by just using 2 of the 3 pins.
There's "harm" in that it's unnecessary and you have extra conductors that will never be used by a vast majority of users. The OBC will also have to be designed to handle it (sometimes with compromises when charging on single phase).
Even Renault gave up on higher power AC and Europe had all the necessary infrastructure to support it. It just doesn't make sense vs DC charging.
Renault Ends Sale Of ZOE Q90 With 43-kW AC Charging Capability
And even better, you can transport vehicles across the Atlantic and they still wouldn't need an adapter. Some Teslas would need an adapter but at least you'd be able to use the same one in Europe and the US.
Yes, there are people who transport cars across the Atlantic that would love it, but that's an extremely niche market that makes almost no impact in overall car sales. It's not going to even be a consideration.

Tesla is only doing this in Taiwan given it's the only non-proprietary standard connector they support natively on the car (other than GB/T), so on short notice that's the only thing they can offer. They don't have a CCS1 car (or superchargers) yet and they aren't going to rush to make one just for the Taiwan market.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
There's "harm" in that it's unnecessary and you have extra conductors that will never be used by a vast majority of users. The OBC will also have to be designed to handle it (sometimes with compromises when charging on single phase).
Am I misunderstanding how J3068/Type 2 connectors work? Isn't it possible for a vehicle with a Type 2 connector to only have an OBC that is enabled for 1Φ, and thus only has 2 of the 3 connectors behind the socket actually wired (i.e. one connector is a "dummy")? And isn't this essentially how a J1772 to J3068 adapter would work? The goal is to get every vehicle in the world using the same connector. If manufacturers don't want to support 3Φ, they don't have to, but at least you can plug into every Level 1 and Level 2 EVSE in the world without using an adapter (or in the case of Teslas, you only need one adapter and not two).
Yes, there are people who transport cars across the Atlantic that would love it, but that's an extremely niche market that makes almost no impact in overall car sales. It's not going to even be a consideration.
Even though it's a small market, can you imagine the uproar if the EU used different gas nozzles than other regions and people needed an adapter to get the nozzle to fill their tanks? Or had to dispense into a gas can from which they could pour the gas into their tank? It would be a mess, as the EV charging connectors are today.
Tesla is only doing this in Taiwan given it's the only non-proprietary standard connector they support natively on the car (other than GB/T), so on short notice that's the only thing they can offer. They don't have a CCS1 car (or superchargers) yet and they aren't going to rush to make one just for the Taiwan market.
If Tesla does CCS in North America, I hope they do CCS2, not CCS1. Tesla's the one company that's big enough that they could probably push CCS2 in North America on their own and maybe even flip the entire market over, just like Apple finally got all phone manufacturers to go from mini SIM to micro SIM by first requiring a micro SIM card in the iPad and then in the iPhone.
 

RTPEV

Active Member
Mar 21, 2016
1,016
1,152
Durham, NC
Am I misunderstanding how J3068/Type 2 connectors work? Isn't it possible for a vehicle with a Type 2 connector to only have an OBC that is enabled for 1Φ, and thus only has 2 of the 3 connectors behind the socket actually wired (i.e. one connector is a "dummy")? And isn't this essentially how a J1772 to J3068 adapter would work? The goal is to get every vehicle in the world using the same connector. If manufacturers don't want to support 3Φ, they don't have to, but at least you can plug into every Level 1 and Level 2 EVSE in the world without using an adapter (or in the case of Teslas, you only need one adapter and not two).

Even though it's a small market, can you imagine the uproar if the EU used different gas nozzles than other regions and people needed an adapter to get the nozzle to fill their tanks? Or had to dispense into a gas can from which they could pour the gas into their tank? It would be a mess, as the EV charging connectors are today.

If Tesla does CCS in North America, I hope they do CCS2, not CCS1. Tesla's the one company that's big enough that they could probably push CCS2 in North America on their own and maybe even flip the entire market over, just like Apple finally got all phone manufacturers to go from mini SIM to micro SIM by first requiring a micro SIM card in the iPad and then in the iPhone.

Well for one example, what happens when you plug in a car with a type 2 connector (but with un-wired second and third phases behind the connector) into an actual 3 phase EVSE? I'm sure it could be made "safe", and I suppose ultimately the EVSE would not "care" whether you were consuming power from 2 out of the 3 phases.

I'm just not sure what the problem you are trying to solve by putting a dummy type 2 connector on a vehicle that doesn't support it, and then also putting that kind of connector on all charging stations that will also probably never support it. You say that EV charging connectors are a mess today, but I don't think I see that being the case when it comes to type 1 vs. type 2. Tesla vs. CCS maybe, and I do think it could make sense to switch to CCS1 (well, maybe before the Model Y came out--not sure now) in markets like North America. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for CCS2 though.
 

srs5694

Active Member
Jan 15, 2019
1,178
1,407
Woonsocket, RI
I'm just not sure what the problem you are trying to solve by putting a dummy type 2 connector on a vehicle that doesn't support it, and then also putting that kind of connector on all charging stations that will also probably never support it. You say that EV charging connectors are a mess today, but I don't think I see that being the case when it comes to type 1 vs. type 2. Tesla vs. CCS maybe, and I do think it could make sense to switch to CCS1 (well, maybe before the Model Y came out--not sure now) in markets like North America. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for CCS2 though.
Agreed. I don't have the numbers offhand, but aside from new vehicles imported into particular markets (which of course have charge ports for the target market installed at the factory), I'm skeptical that there are very many cars that move between continents. OTOH, switching North America from J1772 to J3068 would inconvenience every current EV driver in North America. It's not like people pack their cars into their luggage when taking inter-continental vacations. Imports of used cars certainly exist, but as stated in an earlier post, that's a very niche market. I've never looked into it, but I imagine the transportation costs are high enough that adding an adapter to it, or even retrofitting a different charge port, would likely not be an unreasonable extra cost.

As to Tesla's proprietary charge port vs. J1772/CCS1 in North America, I see that as a problem because it fragments the charging infrastructure within a single market. Sooner or later, something will have to give -- either the bulk of charging stations (both Tesla and non-Tesla) will need to support both standards; or Tesla will need to switch to J1772/CCS1. (I don't see the rest of the industry switching to Tesla's connector. I'm sure it would be technically possible, but I'm skeptical that the highly bureaucratic US auto industry, across multiple manufacturers, would move in that direction.) This is different from J1772/CCS1 vs. J3068/CCS2 because the Tesla/CCS1 distinction is within a single market, vs. across markets with natural barriers (oceans) between them.
 

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
Well for one example, what happens when you plug in a car with a type 2 connector (but with un-wired second and third phases behind the connector) into an actual 3 phase EVSE? I'm sure it could be made "safe", and I suppose ultimately the EVSE would not "care" whether you were consuming power from 2 out of the 3 phases.

I'm just not sure what the problem you are trying to solve by putting a dummy type 2 connector on a vehicle that doesn't support it, and then also putting that kind of connector on all charging stations that will also probably never support it. You say that EV charging connectors are a mess today, but I don't think I see that being the case when it comes to type 1 vs. type 2. Tesla vs. CCS maybe, and I do think it could make sense to switch to CCS1 (well, maybe before the Model Y came out--not sure now) in markets like North America. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for CCS2 though.
How do vehicles take power from European EVSEs that plug into single phase power? I'm assuming they'd have to draw only from N/L1 or from L1/L2 and ignore the L3 pin, right? There's no harm in having an extra pin there, even if it's not used, if it makes the connectors universal. And it allows cars to use EVSEs for trucks and vice versa, without fussing with adapters.

Agreed. I don't have the numbers offhand, but aside from new vehicles imported into particular markets (which of course have charge ports for the target market installed at the factory), I'm skeptical that there are very many cars that move between continents. OTOH, switching North America from J1772 to J3068 would inconvenience every current EV driver in North America.
I don't think this is a big deal. EVs are still less than 3% of vehicle sales in North America. Most EVs that will be sold haven't been sold yet. Better to bite the bullet and get this done now than try to do it later. Tesla can continue with its elegant but proprietary connector that shares AC and DC pins as long as it wants but at least you'll only need one adapter (eventually).
 

RTPEV

Active Member
Mar 21, 2016
1,016
1,152
Durham, NC
How do vehicles take power from European EVSEs that plug into single phase power? I'm assuming they'd have to draw only from N/L1 or from L1/L2 and ignore the L3 pin, right? There's no harm in having an extra pin there, even if it's not used, if it makes the connectors universal. And it allows cars to use EVSEs for trucks and vice versa, without fussing with adapters.
This is the opposite issue, and would be much less of a concern. In this example, you are plugging in a connector that does not have any wires on the unused pins, and on the car side, you also would not have any voltages on the two unused pins.

The situation I described would be plugging in a hypothetical 3-phase EVSE into a car that had dummy pins on it. Once the EVSE switched power on, now you have two hot lines terminating in the inlet port. Perhaps this is not a huge electrical safety issue as long as there is suitable insulation protecting those unused pins from touching something, or perhaps even the EVSE could determine that the two extra phases were not in use and open independent contactors on the EVSE side for additional safety (for all I know, maybe they already do that in Europe for cars that don't support 3-phase charging).

But again, I ask why go to all that trouble in markets (such as NA) where it's practically guaranteed that it will never be used? You are saying that it makes connectors universal, but what advantage does this actually have past a certain critical market size? If the North American market was tiny, I can see that there might be an advantage for parts consolidation, but it's not tiny by any measure. I doubt there is any money to be saved by consolidating on a single connector, particularly one that is actually more complex...I think this would be a net money loser.

The one advantage you do list is that it would allow cars to use EVSEs made for trucks. That is based on the assumption that trucks would adopt that connector in North America, AND that those EVSEs would be in publicly accessible areas and relatively widely available. I could be wrong, but I just don't see that scenario as being likely or widespread.
 

STS-134

Member
Aug 8, 2021
27
7
SF Bay Area
This is the opposite issue, and would be much less of a concern. In this example, you are plugging in a connector that does not have any wires on the unused pins, and on the car side, you also would not have any voltages on the two unused pins.

The situation I described would be plugging in a hypothetical 3-phase EVSE into a car that had dummy pins on it. Once the EVSE switched power on, now you have two hot lines terminating in the inlet port. Perhaps this is not a huge electrical safety issue as long as there is suitable insulation protecting those unused pins from touching something, or perhaps even the EVSE could determine that the two extra phases were not in use and open independent contactors on the EVSE side for additional safety (for all I know, maybe they already do that in Europe for cars that don't support 3-phase charging).
Wasn't safety the primary motivation for designing the signaling protocol and EV charging connectors rather than just plugging an extension cord directly into the vehicle? The EVSE does not energize the pins until a vehicle is detected. If a vehicle is detected, it means that the plug is fully inserted into the socket, and there's no possibility that someone could touch the pins.
But again, I ask why go to all that trouble in markets (such as NA) where it's practically guaranteed that it will never be used? You are saying that it makes connectors universal, but what advantage does this actually have past a certain critical market size?
It allows 3 phase charging. And most commercial buildings and many large apartment buildings have 3 phase power. This causes J1772 vehicles to charge more slowly than they otherwise would be able to on split phase, since you're only getting 208V between 2 phases instead of 240V. If manufacturers use a 3 phase OBC, you'd be able to charge at full speed even at buildings with 3 phase power.
If the North American market was tiny, I can see that there might be an advantage for parts consolidation, but it's not tiny by any measure. I doubt there is any money to be saved by consolidating on a single connector, particularly one that is actually more complex...I think this would be a net money loser.

The one advantage you do list is that it would allow cars to use EVSEs made for trucks. That is based on the assumption that trucks would adopt that connector in North America, AND that those EVSEs would be in publicly accessible areas and relatively widely available. I could be wrong, but I just don't see that scenario as being likely or widespread.
Why would Volvo be working on CCS2/J3068 connectors if they didn't plan on using them? Electric Truck Charging Options Broadened in North America Through Volvo LIGHTS Project
 

stopcrazypp

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2007
10,821
5,755
Am I misunderstanding how J3068/Type 2 connectors work? Isn't it possible for a vehicle with a Type 2 connector to only have an OBC that is enabled for 1Φ, and thus only has 2 of the 3 connectors behind the socket actually wired (i.e. one connector is a "dummy")? And isn't this essentially how a J1772 to J3068 adapter would work?
This makes even less sense, now you have a connector where the pins can't even be used. Why not stick with Type 1 if you aren't going to bother putting in a 3-phase compatible OBC?
The goal is to get every vehicle in the world using the same connector.
Why is this even a goal at all? If the reason is to support cars transported across the Atlantic, I already pointed out that that it's such a niche market it's not even worth bothering.
If manufacturers don't want to support 3Φ, they don't have to, but at least you can plug into every Level 1 and Level 2 EVSE in the world without using an adapter (or in the case of Teslas, you only need one adapter and not two).
Adapters are not a big deal to cover the niche usage of people transporting cars across the world.
Even though it's a small market, can you imagine the uproar if the EU used different gas nozzles than other regions and people needed an adapter to get the nozzle to fill their tanks? Or had to dispense into a gas can from which they could pour the gas into their tank? It would be a mess, as the EV charging connectors are today.
Well when people pointed out various DC charging standards in articles, many people argued people are perfectly fine with different nozzles for different grades of fuel or even for diesel, so it's actually not a big deal at all.
If Tesla does CCS in North America, I hope they do CCS2, not CCS1. Tesla's the one company that's big enough that they could probably push CCS2 in North America on their own and maybe even flip the entire market over, just like Apple finally got all phone manufacturers to go from mini SIM to micro SIM by first requiring a micro SIM card in the iPad and then in the iPhone.
Unless there was a big push to use three phase AC power in the US which would actually put Type 2 to use, I vote firmly against using CCS2 instead of CCS1. Tesla will already have to deal with CCS1 if they really follow through with promises to open the network to other EVs. Also I do not look forward to having to use a CCS2 to CCS1 adapter in a future Tesla. Right now there are many charge networks that use CCS1 and none that use CCS2.

Note Tesla got no traction in terms of getting people to adopt their proprietary connector, so I doubt they can work the Apple market share magic. EV charging just doesn't work that way.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top