Why Tesla doesn't make a CCS adapter like Chademo?

[jbcarioca]

So...does anyone actually think there will be fewer BEV charging standards?

If anyone does please look at the global and national AC connector standards. I still carry around pin adapters to allow connection to almost all the typical L1 AC standards. My gizmo (a gift from Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia) adapts to more than a dozen. I’ve used as many as four of them in a single country.

I cannot imagine any of the current (pun intended) standards will go away. As new development happens higher charge rates will also happen. That will spawn new highly secure and stable connectors (translation: bigger and clumsier but safe and very fast). We should face the major impediment to all this is that high power connections are normally extremely robust, very secure, isolated electrically, electrician installed and inspected after nstallation before turn on.

We’re going to have easy plug by novices, no supervision and ultra high power too? Sure, why not? Maybe we should eliminate aircraft operators licenses too, and why should only MD’s do operations?

Sorry for sarcasm. We are forgetting about high electrical power risks, concentrating on convenience.

 

[Naonak]

As already mentioned, people have accepted the risk of gasoline, which is way more volatile and deadly than high current, since a mishap at a charger is likely only to affect one person directly, vs an explosion at a gas station or a spill.

I can see the argument that if gasoline were introduced today, it would be outlawed and I'd buy it, but I think it's just a matter of an education campaign and a mindset adjustment.

But you are probably right, it will require large, clumsy connectors to protect the idiotic from themselves. In my opinion, they shouldn't be protected and should be weeded out of the gene pool, but I know I always hold the unpopular opinion in such matters.

 

[jbcarioca]

As already mentioned, people have accepted the risk of gasoline, which is way more volatile and deadly than high current, since a mishap at a charger is likely only to affect one person directly, vs an explosion at a gas station or a spill.

I can see the argument that if gasoline were introduced today, it would be outlawed and I'd buy it, but I think it's just a matter of an education campaign and a mindset adjustment.

But you are probably right, it will require large, clumsy connectors to protect the idiotic from themselves. In my opinion, they shouldn't be protected and should be weeded out of the gene pool, but I know I always hold the unpopular opinion in such matters.

Ancient history:
Since The War of the Currents in the 1890's there has been a greater fear of electricity than of hazardous explosive liquids and gasses, perhaps because various flammable substances had been used for lighting, heating and cooking for centuries. Bluntly, the fear-mongering about electricity was a Thomas Edison effort to protect his patent royalties exacerbated by his hated for his former employee, N. Tesla. Here's the US DOE description, pretty heavily drawn to minimise teh personal conflicts between Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse, who licensed Tesla's A/C technology:
war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power

All the over-protective electrical rules coupled with under-protective explosive materials rules seem to stem from that period in the 1890's. Similar events were happening in Europe around the same time.

Sorry about my habit of going to history to explain. If I were less inhibited I'd cover why household electricity has so many connectors, voltages and rules about neutrals and grounds/earths. That is an even longer subject.

 

[miimura]

@rhyd Two main problems with what you said:

• The CCS standard doesn't allow adapters.
• Current Teslas can't use the "mid-DC" because you couldn't plug the cable in since there isn't room for the extra 2 pins to clear the car. (Unless someone made a "mid-DC" CCS charger that didn't have the two extra pins, but that is highly unlikely.) And again adapters aren't allowed so you can't use an adapter to go from full CCS Combo2 to the Type2 port on the car.

And then CHAdeMO standard isn't limited to 50kW, but the Tesla adapter is. So if Tesla makes a CCS adapter, after the standard allows it, it too might be limited to 50kW.

"DC-Mid" has a very specific meaning which you clearly don't know about. It is a variation of the 62196 standard that allows DC on 4 of the large pins of the Type-2 plug. This is basically what Tesla has done on the European Superchargers. Nobody else in the industry has used this variation of the standard. Below is a very old graphic produced by Mennekes. Newer versions of the standard like what CharIN is working on clearly exceed the specs shown below.

 

[rypalmer]

If they have to sign a license to buy connectors, or to legally implement the protocol they’ll have to play by the rules.

Tesla most definitely plays by the rules of CharIN, they are a full member. Anyway Tesla does not want the liability associated with high power uncertified connections. They Will Not do that. When CharIN permits to they might. They might make a native connector on board like they already do for China.

Awaiting our NA Tesla CCS adaptor, as we knew would be the case.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If they have to sign a license to buy connectors, or to legally implement the protocol they’ll have to play by the rules.

Tesla most definitely plays by the rules of CharIN, they are a full member. Anyway Tesla does not want the liability associated with high power uncertified connections. They Will Not do that. When CharIN permits to they might. They might make a native connector on board like they already do for China.

Awaiting our NA Tesla CCS adaptor, as we knew would be the case.

Nott sure what is the point in reviving a zombie thread at this point, but the people you quoted were right, Tesla pretty much worked with Charin to release their adapter.

Charin issued a policy paper in April 2019, clarifying that they don't comment on vehicle side adapters to proprietary standards like Tesla (they explicitly showed those in the chart, even mentioning the Tesla CCS2 adapter). Basically it was implicit approval. They however, clarified they don't endorse or support developing adapters to any of the IEC standards (so when Tesla does an adapter to allow CCS vehicles to charge, it'll be an issue).
https://www.charin.global/media/pag...s_within_the_combined_charging_system_v08.pdf

Tesla released their CCS2 adapter around the same time as the policy paper:
First look at Tesla's highly-anticipated CCS adapter

It's extremely hard to find a free copy of the IEC 61851-1 (which have been updated multiple times), but I found an old draft from 2012. Charger side adaptors were not allowed (European AC charge stations tend to have outlets to plug a cable in). Vehicle side adaptors were given an exemption, but mode transitions were not allowed. See page 52. That may explain why Tesla went with a dumb adapter with no electronics (instead requiring retrofits for older vehicles). The contact switching (AC/DC pin) you suggested previously would not be allowed and Tesla didn't attempt.
https://www.speakev.com/attachments/full-draft-iec61851-69_219ea_cd-1-pdf.12081/

The vehicle vs charger side thing was very confusing (I remember older discussions on IEC 61851-1 and it was far from clear), but the Charin paper had some handy diagrams to show the differences:

 

[miimura]

My takeaway from the chart above is that the only red X mark indicating "Existing products in conflict with position paper" are TeslaTap style adapters that incorporate a J1772 plug and North American Tesla Proprietary socket.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's extremely hard to find a free copy of the IEC 61851-1 (which have been updated multiple times), but I found an old draft from 2012. Charger side adaptors were not allowed (European AC charge stations tend to have outlets to plug a cable in). Vehicle side adaptors were given an exemption, but mode transitions were not allowed. See page 52. That may explain why Tesla went with a dumb adapter with no electronics (instead requiring retrofits for older vehicles). The contact switching (AC/DC pin) you suggested previously would not be allowed and Tesla didn't attempt.
https://www.speakev.com/attachments/full-draft-iec61851-69_219ea_cd-1-pdf.12081/

The vehicle vs charger side thing was very confusing (I remember older discussions on IEC 61851-1 and it was far from clear), but the Charin paper had some handy diagrams to show the differences:
View attachment 739498

Too late to edit, but actually in reference to the diagram, it would seem actually vehicle inlet adapters would be the one not allowed, EVSE socket adapters are allowed under the 2012 version, although mode transitions are not allowed regardless.

1617 11.2 Adaptors
1618 [R1102-010] Adaptors shall not be used to connect a vehicle connector to a vehicle inlet.
1619 [R1102-020] A conversion adaptor from the socket-outlet of the EVSE shall only be used if
1620 specifically designated and approved by the vehicle manufacturer or by the EVSE
1621 manufacturer.
1622 [R1102-030] Such conversion adaptors shall comply with the requirements of this standard,
1623 IEC 60884-2-5 and the other relevant standards governing either the plug or socket-outlet
1624 portions of the adaptor.
1625 [R1102-040] The manufacturer shall clearly indicate the obligation to use these conversion
1626 adaptors with such a specific designation.
1627 [R1102-050] Such adaptors shall be marked to indicate their specific conditions of use.
1628 [R1102-060] Such adaptors shall not allow transitions from one mode to another. They shall
1629 meet the requirements of this standard and IEC 62196-1.

 

[stopcrazypp]

My takeaway from the chart above is that the only red X mark indicating "Existing products in conflict with position paper" are TeslaTap style adapters that incorporate a J1772 plug and North American Tesla Proprietary socket.

Yes, that is the one explicitly in violation, so is in direct opposition. That example violates other provisions like the part in IEC 61851-1 about "A conversion adaptor from the socket-outlet of the EVSE shall only be used if specifically designated and approved by the vehicle manufacturer or by the EVSE manufacturer." Basically unless Tesla comes out with one of those themselves, with all the proper testing and approvals, it's going to remain in violation. Tesla is a core member of Charin however, so it may be self serving.
Tesla – CharIN

The rest highlighted in red they don't support/endorse, but don't explicitly oppose. Things in white or blue like the CCS1/CCS2/CHAdeMO charger to Tesla vehicle adaptors there seems to be implicit approval (not covered by the policy paper).

 

[rypalmer]

@rhyd Two main problems with what you said:

• The CCS standard doesn't allow adapters.
• Current Teslas can't use the "mid-DC" because you couldn't plug the cable in since there isn't room for the extra 2 pins to clear the car. (Unless someone made a "mid-DC" CCS charger that didn't have the two extra pins, but that is highly unlikely.) And again adapters aren't allowed so you can't use an adapter to go from full CCS Combo2 to the Type2 port on the car.

And then CHAdeMO standard isn't limited to 50kW, but the Tesla adapter is. So if Tesla makes a CCS adapter, after the standard allows it, it too might be limited to 50kW.

For the 100th time... who cares if the standard doesn't allow adaptors.. Tesla will do whatever they want. As far as every CHAdeMo station is concerned, the adaptor IS the vehicle. There is no distinction at the interface. The adaptor emulates the car and the charger can't tell the difference.

edit: @MP3Mike do you really think Tesla plays by the "rules"?

Anyway..

 

[MP3Mike]

Anyway..

I'm pretty sure that since that was written, 5 years ago, the CCS standard was modified to allow adapters...

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm pretty sure that since that was written, 5 years ago, the CCS standard was modified to allow adapters...

Yeah last year, I addressed the points he raised already, even though it was a zombie thread. Not sure why he decided to dig it up again now.