The F150 that I see driving around are poser-mobiles. Work trucks are like the F250 or F350 or larger. The CT also fits into the poser-mobile category. If I ever get one, I plan on using it for the occasional camping or fishing trip, but mostly posing around town prentending to "work" going to Home Depot, etc. Rivian R1T designed their truck for the poser-mobile category. Don't get me wrong, poser-mobiles have their place. Just don't pretend they can do really hard work like an F350.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Why is the CCS being adopted as the standard?
- Thread starter Whoze
- Start date
I had a similar hesitation when I heard that news. But seriously though, Teslas are a proven product. Everyone else is just experimenting with Betas. Even the "certified Mercedes is a joke. It ass-kissed the regulators who were pissed off with Musk. The $132,000+ Mercedes can only do its stuff RESTRICTED to 40 mph, AND Mercedes promises to be "held liable" for problems it causes. IT'S THE LAW -MAKERS HAVE TO BE LIABLE FOR THEIR PRODUCTS! The 2023 Tesla 3 will be the last of its kind from Tesla - it sits in that nice space for a car that offers limited autonomy (i call them safety features) at a good price. Future cars will be either drivable battery boxes on wheels or state-of-the-art that I will never be able to afford.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Huge claim? That Tesla was the only company 10 years ago that wasn't making compliance cars, building exactly the number of vehicles required to meet the statue and not a single car more? I was speaking of the working group not wanting EVs to succeed so look at their work product and compare it to the NACS connector. You almost have to get to 2023 before these companies start to even TRY to make an EV (other than Polestar and other EV only companies).
The reason GM sells their Bolt so cheap is because they got screwed by LG and part of their penitence is to sell GM new Bolt batteries cheap, so if they make more Bolts, they get to screw LG even more. There isn't a lot of forward thinking like we saw from Tesla yesterday in this market.
They blame Tesla for screwing them, but they were ripe for the picking, so I don't blame Tesla, Toyota and Honda still don't seem to believe the EV is truly here. It is quite likely that a lot of the car companies from 10 years ago won't be here in 10 years. Like when the car makers arrived and displaced all the buggy makers in the horse drawn carriage days
The reason GM sells their Bolt so cheap is because they got screwed by LG and part of their penitence is to sell GM new Bolt batteries cheap, so if they make more Bolts, they get to screw LG even more. There isn't a lot of forward thinking like we saw from Tesla yesterday in this market.
They blame Tesla for screwing them, but they were ripe for the picking, so I don't blame Tesla, Toyota and Honda still don't seem to believe the EV is truly here. It is quite likely that a lot of the car companies from 10 years ago won't be here in 10 years. Like when the car makers arrived and displaced all the buggy makers in the horse drawn carriage days
Still speculation, that is not to say that your arguments aren't sound. If you have the actual reports from the working group or its members to reference, it would carry a lot more weight. For example, we know that the B737MAx should have never passed the original certification, but Boeing had their top lobbyist as the head of the FAA at the time, and every member in the transportation committee that eventually signed off on the certification process had received political contributions from Boeing directly. Furthermore, FAA inspectors admitted to rubber stamping the process sometimes without even looking at the work. Those are historical facts that add weight to the B737 Max case. If you can produce facts like that, your argument will add so much more weight.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Sure, but I am not trying to win a civil suit, just talking about the fact that if it were not for Tesla we would not have EVs today.
Yet, Tesla has continued to go it's own way for all these years, when it could have quickly pivoted. The decision to be proprietary was a deliberate one, to lock in the charging equipment and infrastructure to their products. That may work when one decides to remain proprietary. It doesn't work so well once you decide to open up.
Once the existing stations have all been equipped with the magic dock, it will be easy for them to migrate to CCS ports for new production vehicles.
Also my understanding. Tesla likely had to lock in well in advance of the CCS decision.
Tesla also decided to 'talk' in CANbus (the same as the CHAdeMO standard) whereas CCS went with PLC. This is why early Tesla's need the CCS upgrade to use the adapter, whereas they could use the CHAdeMO adapter natively.
Also very weird that some effort wasn't made to switch the US from J-1772 to Mennekes (or Type 1 to Type 2, which ultimately became CC1 and CCS2) given the superior locking mechanism on Type 2, and that while not common you can find three phase in the US.
PLC v CANbus is also why you can't just make a NACS to CCS1 adapter - the supercharger itself needs to be upgraded to talk PLC.. and of course Tesla needs to authorise the charging.
My understanding was that Tesla showed up at a SAE meeting with the NACS back in the day before the Frankenplug was developed. The J1772 was sufficient for the low-range compliance cars of the ICE manufacturers at the time. And the SAE committee was loaded with people who weren’t Tesla and didn’t want Tesla to exist. End of discussion.
These days, all these ICE types see Tesla as their biggest, scariest competitor, and are busy throwing obstacles as fast as they can.
Next question?
These days, all these ICE types see Tesla as their biggest, scariest competitor, and are busy throwing obstacles as fast as they can.
Next question?
Right. That is almost certainly not true. It doesn't even make sense. Tesla wouldn't have a fully spec'ed Tesla proprietary connector to present back then. Also, they would have known better than to even try that route, because it never could have had a chance of being accepted as a standard. Remember that Tesla barely existed back then, and all of the other automakers (who were the standards bodies) thought of them as a gnat that wouldn't even exist in business in the next year.
The grain of truth of Tesla being there and participating some was most likely impatience and trying to motivate the process. They were probably pressing for the standards body to hurry it up and make it actually good and high power enough. The dragging their feet and slow rolling the standard and thinking that 30-50 kW was fine was just not going to cut it for Tesla's needs and timeline, so Tesla was probably trying to light a fire under their butts to get a good standard made that they could use. But again, since they thought Tesla was about to disappear and didn't matter, it didn't really move the ball forward.
White Shadow
Member
Not really sure what you're saying here.....my point was that one of the biggest factors for me to consider a Tesla was the supercharger network. Truth be told, I'd 1000% rather have a Rivian over any Tesla because I'm more of a truck and SUV guy, but it just seems like the public charging infrastructure (other than Tesla's) is a huge disaster. So now that Rivian and all other EVs are starting to be able to use Tesla's network, I'm much less inclined to buy a Tesla, especially when they don't sell anything like the Rivian vehicles.
But I will say this---if the R1S was a Tesla product, I'd already be driving one.
If TESLA R1S existed, I probably would be driving it too - BUT it's not, and THAT is my point! You drive the product, not the gas/charge station.
I drive an EV for convenience, not to save the planet. I will eventually install a wall charger but downgrade it to charge at 12 amps for battery longevity. Extension cords are annoying too.
I use the SUPPLIED J-plug supplied "free" by Tesla at the Chargepoint level 2 unit at work - it is a high speed and charges at 20-23 miles per hour. It's free and reasonably convenient, for now. There are a few free chargers that you can use whilst shopping or eating lunch etc - again, it beats waiting at a Supercharger station.
To be honest, I use my mobile charger at 120V at home. I am refueling my EV whilst watching a late-night TV show, making love to my honey, or just sleeping overnight, not freezing my ass off at some gas/charge station for 20-30 minutes. Unless you drive 100 miles each way every day, even a home charger will give you 20+ miles an hour (my T3 charges at 7.7kW) at 13 cents per 1kW. What if I have to drive 400-mile trips?? I use my Prius hybrid. Another point, have you noticed how much time you spend at a freeway gas station stop? I bet it's more than 20 minutes. The supercharger problem is solved. The only reason I object to other EV's using the Superchargers is that I don't want to mix with pheasants! Ok, only joking!
Why do I drive a hybrid? Because I have range anxiety in a regular gas-guzzling ICE vehicle that gives 20 miles per gallon on those long trips. Be honest, how often do you look for the next gas station when doing those 500-mile trips in an ICE vehicle? Why does the AAA have rescue vehicles that carry gas cans? How often do you use the features of a truck? I have carried 12 feet long floorboards, bags of concrete, etc in a minivan. I love its low-loading trunk. I hated doing the same thing in my Toyota T100 bed. I also tow the boat, and trailer with my minivan. Who needs a truck except for contractors? Stupid Useless Vehicles (SUVs) are impractical when compared to minivans. SUVs are for soccer moms.
What you seem to be saying (in the equivalent ICE world ) is, I won't drive a Ferrari because those F150s and Tahoes use the same gas stations that I do, and I hate waiting 10 minutes behind them to get my gas. You seem to have fallen for an ICE propaganda trick.
Speaking as someone that used to work in international standards bodies, I 100% agree with this... There is typically a long gap between when a spec is ratified, and when you have shipping products. I don't know how the SAE process works, but in the standards bodies I worked in, the way the IP pool worked, is that you are only granted IP rights/licenses after certification and logo requirements are met, and usually these processes aren't ready when a spec is ratified. And even if it was ready (which I've never seen), it takes time to actually do a certification and logo run, especially when some standards bodies will require interop testing as part of the process, etc. Which means, even if you had your product ready to go at time of ratification, you can't ship, because until the certification and logo requirements are met, you don't have all the necessary IP licenses in place.
henderrj
Active Member
Something that charges at 20 or 30 mph is by no means fast. Even charging at 50 KW is not fast for these batteries. They're barely getting any exercise. There is no need to charge at 120, unless it's inconvenient to put in a 240. It is actually less efficient, a lower percentage of the amount of power you draw going into the battery. So it's actually costing you more.
We have 264,000 miles on our Model S, most of the charges being done on an Urban supercharger. That is, limited to 70 KW. Our home charging was on 100 amp circuit, 80 amps charging. We've certainly had no problems with the battery, as we still have the original one.
dgodfrey
Member
The research I've done on it disagrees with your claims.
There were valid reasons why in 2008 when Tesla was developing the Model S (this is before the Roadster was even in production)* and all in on a nationwide charging infrastructure, that the CCS specs at the time, was unacceptable. Remember too that the Model S was originally planned to hit production in 2010 but Henrik Fisker threw a wrench in that.
Suffice to say, the first Supercharger was INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONAL before the CCS standard was adopted. This was in 9/2012. This didn't happen overnight.
*p69, Power Play; Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century. Tim Higgins
I also can't see Tesla ever acquiescing to an inferior "standard" if they don't feel it's critical for their mission. The NACS is a good example of that.
There's also the issue of charge rate. The initial CCS specification was limited to 50kW. The 2012 Model S was already capable of 90 kW. As above, for Tesla to take a step backwards seems uncharacteristic to their DNA.
Why is Tesla charging different?
Tesla went it alone to develop the first Tesla EV charging plug, but now there is a push for common standard. So, which will it be when the Model 3 is exported?
thedriven.io
"Following the Tesla plug design, in 2010 the first international EV charging standards for AC and DC were developed. "
"Later EV manufacturers also initially adopted these plugs as it suited their needs and they were not particularly inclined to take up Tesla’s offer to share their plug design and chargers. (Partly because Tesla stipulated that to do so, they had to contribute to the evolving Supercharger network.
Given the skepticism that the major manufacturers had – and to some degree still have – for the longevity of Tesla as an auto manufacturer, it is hardly surprising that they declined the offer!)"
Actually, it's a fact that some ignore.
Here's a video sometime around the release of the Model S of an interview of a Tesla engineer discussing exactly what @Tronguy stated. The good stuff starts around 1:40.
henderrj
Active Member
The research I've done on it disagrees with your claims.
There were valid reasons why in 2008 when Tesla was developing the Model S (this is before the Roadster was even in production)* and all in on a nationwide charging infrastructure, that the CCS specs at the time, was unacceptable. Remember too that the Model S was originally planned to hit production in 2010 but Henrik Fisker threw a wrench in that.
Suffice to say, the first Supercharger was INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONAL before the CCS standard was adopted. This was in 9/2012. This didn't happen overnight.
*p69, Power Play; Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century. Tim Higgins
I also can't see Tesla ever acquiescing to an inferior "standard" if they don't feel it's critical for their mission. The NACS is a good example of that.
There's also the issue of charge rate. The initial CCS specification was limited to 50kW. The 2012 Model S was already capable of 90 kW. As above, for Tesla to take a step backwards seems uncharacteristic to their DNA.
"In this article I will contend that this is not really due to Tesla ‘wanting’ a separate plug standard to the rest of the world – more it is because they needed them right then, and could not delay waiting for the rest of the world’s EV manufacturers to catch up. "Why is Tesla charging different?
Tesla went it alone to develop the first Tesla EV charging plug, but now there is a push for common standard. So, which will it be when the Model 3 is exported?
"Following the Tesla plug design, in 2010 the first international EV charging standards for AC and DC were developed. "
"Later EV manufacturers also initially adopted these plugs as it suited their needs and they were not particularly inclined to take up Tesla’s offer to share their plug design and chargers. (Partly because Tesla stipulated that to do so, they had to contribute to the evolving Supercharger network.
Given the skepticism that the major manufacturers had – and to some degree still have – for the longevity of Tesla as an auto manufacturer, it is hardly surprising that they declined the offer!)"
Actually, it's a fact that some ignore.
Here's a video sometime around the release of the Model S of an interview of a Tesla engineer discussing exactly what @Tronguy stated. The good stuff starts around 1:40.
I thought I had seen most all the early videos on charging, as I was researching for my patent at the same time. I've not seen this one, thank you so much for putting it up. It also pretty definitively squashes the whole idea that CCS proceeded tesla's nacs.
Similar threads
- Article
