[HN Gopher] Opening the North American charging standard
___________________________________________________________________
Opening the North American charging standard
Author : executive
Score : 108 points
Date : 2022-11-11 18:19 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tesla.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tesla.com)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I have to admit, taking your own closed, proprietary standard,
| then opening it up while single handedly declaring it the "North
| America Charging Standard" takes a level of chutzpah that would
| make, well, Elon Musk blush.
| binkHN wrote:
| Yay--wish they did this sooner. Anyone know if this is one of
| those "we will give you a royalty-free license to use our patent
| for this if you promise never to sue us?"
| thevoiceless wrote:
| Tesla said in May that it would be adding CCS adapters to its
| Supercharger stations, already used in Europe:
| https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/tesla-add-ccs-connectors-supe...
|
| Now they're trying to declare their own charger as a "standard",
| after launching a $250 adapter in September to use the _actual_
| standard plug?
|
| Also, obligatory Technology Connections video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZOuz_laH9I
| _joel wrote:
| The T.C. video is very thorough and worth a watch for all EV
| related shennanigans.
| darknavi wrote:
| That's most T.C. videos I've seen. Often niche topics but I
| sat* through (and enjoyed) 20 minutes of why an obscure can
| opener is superior than the mainstream ones.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Can you please share a link - who/what is TC?
| masklinn wrote:
| Also why the best toaster was created in the 50s, how
| petrol lamps work, the wild story of video on discs, and
| dumb US. automotive standards (or less dumb ones). Followed
| by a speed run through the entire history of analog
| photography.
|
| It's wild not just how varied Alex's interests are, but how
| he'll find interest in the most mundane subjects (christmas
| lamps) and how well and thoroughly he's able to present
| them.
| darknavi wrote:
| A bit more electrics based but Big Clive also tears down
| the most random pieces of technology. It's quite fun to
| watch him take a dollar store toy apart and see how it
| ticks.
| _joel wrote:
| You guys are pretty much listing my subs. Adrian's
| Digital Basement, 8-bit guy, Curious Marc, LGR, Usagi
| Electric and Techmoan also feature.
| wilg wrote:
| I think it's a good strategy given how people are standardizing
| on CCS1 in NA. They're embracing CCS1 to a large degree,
| offering adapters for plugging your car into a CCS charger and
| allowing CCS cars to charge at Superchargers.
|
| But the connector is definitely better, so they may as well
| open it up in the hopes that people adopt the nicer plug and
| then they won't have to change it after all. Basically no
| reason not to given how things are going with CCS1. I certainly
| think from a usability perspective it would be preferable if
| "NACS" was the winner. CCS is not a great design.
| mertd wrote:
| > and allowing CCS cars to charge at Superchargers.
|
| I'm reading the announcement differently. They are saying
| future non Teslas who adopt NACS can use the Tesla chargers.
| It doesn't say anything about current CCS cars being able to
| use Tesla charging.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Tesla announced a plan to open superchargers to non-Tesla
| EVs earlier this year; Musk announced that they would be
| adding CCS to US superchargers back in May. Unfortunately
| Musk is both the official Press contact for Tesla and also
| a guy who says a lot of random half-baked things, so it's
| impossible to determine if this was an official policy or
| just an idea he had one morning. [1]
|
| Even after this move I don't see any way that the Tesla
| standard gains enough momentum to take over from CCS in the
| _non-Tesla_ US EV market. If Tesla had done this in 2015
| there 's a chance it might have caught on globally. With
| the non-Tesla US EV market locked into CCS and growing
| rapidly (and Tesla itself already committed to CCS in
| Europe), it feels like the Tesla standard is doomed. (In
| fact today's move is actually sort of bad news, since it
| indicates that maybe Tesla hasn't quite accepted this
| reality.)
|
| [1] https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/tesla-add-ccs-
| connectors-supe...
| AlanSE wrote:
| My thoughts as well, this is their business advantage to
| lose.
|
| > NACS is the most common charging standard in North
| America: NACS vehicles outnumber CCS two-to-one, and
| Tesla's Supercharging network has 60% more NACS posts
| than all the CCS-equipped networks combined.
|
| Yet, in your link it's complained about that the
| Supercharging network capacity is already strained.
| Bottom line is that the vast majority of the charging
| stations that will exist 10 years from now are still yet
| to be built.
|
| Tesla may still be hoping for a regional break, as their
| standard wins in some geographies but not for others.
| This would be a loss for all of us all collectively.
|
| Certainly feels like they should have known better. Past
| greed will leave them (and their customers) with a
| massive writeoff in the future if your prediction comes
| to pass.
| akozak wrote:
| Doesn't really matter even if it's slightly technically
| better. We are WAY too late in the game here (US is already
| deploying federal funds!), and they should have engaged with
| open standards a decade ago.
| gibolt wrote:
| This implies they didn't, which is false.
|
| CCS was released slightly before the Model S (first to use
| Tesla's connector). Both were developed at the same time.
| At the time, there was no viable alternative for Tesla.
| Now, there is no reason to revert to a significantly subpar
| option.
| akozak wrote:
| Yes there is - because their proprietary (until today)
| plug is not the industry standard.
| [deleted]
| kelnos wrote:
| Yup, I don't think it matters which one is technically
| better. They both get the job done, and one is an actual
| standard that many car makers have agreed upon -- "many"
| meaning "every single one except Tesla".
|
| If Tesla wanted theirs to be standard, they should have
| made this move years ago. They missed the boat, and are now
| scrambling to avoid having to change their own sockets.
| politician wrote:
| Looks at Apple.
| akozak wrote:
| It's an apt comparison, and obviously there has been
| movement (eg the EU) to push them onto usb, but I think
| cars are a slightly different context than laptops/phones
| where there us much more of a social incentive to
| standardize early, given the high cost, low turnover,
| lower availability of fuel/energy during transport with
| competing plugs, etc.
| robin_reala wrote:
| EU managed to get Tesla to standardise onto a common plug
| (CCS2) too, but unlike with USB-C it Tesla are happy to
| not roll it out globally.
| Bud wrote:
| Bud wrote:
| nomel wrote:
| What "game" are they too late for? The number of ports _is_
| the game, and the reason my next EV will be a Tesla.
|
| It's very difficult to find charge stations that aren't
| Tesla, and when you do, they're often used for general
| parking.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Out of curiosity, where in the US are you?
|
| Where I am (Oregon), public CCS charger locations
| outnumber Tesla chargers several times over. There are
| huge areas of the state that have CCS chargers, but no
| Tesla charging capacity.
|
| My next EV will certainly not be a Tesla, for that
| reason.
| nomel wrote:
| California, near a city of over a million people. It's
| maybe 4 (Tesla) to 1 where I am, physically, with most
| non-tesla ports being 240V. I've even run into 120V.
| Available port wise, it's much much worse. Until these
| other companies implement a fee/reporting system, for
| sitting in the charge spot all day, it's going to remain
| very painful.
|
| A family friend returned her EV after realizing how dumb
| the situation is here. Perhaps it's a regional problem.
| chroma wrote:
| Tesla Superchargers outnumber all other HVDC chargers in
| every state, usually by a factor of 2. Maybe you're
| thinking of the chargers that use the J1772 connector?[1]
| Those charge via AC, and every Tesla comes with an
| adapter for them. Tesla also sells a CCS adapter in case
| you want to use other high voltage chargers such as
| Electrify America.[2] Though honestly, other charging
| networks are a shitshow. A friend of mine has an Audi
| e-tron and he won't drive it farther than Tahoe.
| Electrify America is too unreliable to trust for road
| trips.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772
|
| 2. https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter
| margalabargala wrote:
| No, I'm not thinking of J1772 chargers. I'm thinking of
| CCS chargers.
|
| We're talking about two different things.
|
| You are talking about the _count_ of chargers. Tesla has
| a higher quantity of chargers, yes. However, their
| chargers are concentrated; a single charging location has
| 30+ chargers. This drives their high charger count
| numbers.
|
| CCS chargers are more geographically widespread. There
| are more locations with CCS chargers than with Tesla
| chargers. There are fewer CCS plugs in total, but you're
| more likely to be close to one.
|
| It's more useful to have one fast-charging location with
| 3 plugs every 50 miles, than to have 500 fast-chargers
| next to one another in a single location and then nothing
| in a 200-mile radius.
|
| If you go to plugshare.com and zoom in to Oregon, you can
| toggle back and forth between Tesla and CCS. There are
| very visibly way more discrete places in Oregon that have
| a CCS charger.
| gibolt wrote:
| While there is value to distribution, having only 3 plugs
| where any number could be full or non-functional upon
| arrival easily ruins a whole trip.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I fully agree. That would be awful.
|
| That said, we've so far not had any issues with that in
| the last two years; while sometimes only a subset of
| chargers at a location have been working, it's never been
| zero, and we've rarely had to wait in line.
|
| Maybe we've been lucky. Or maybe Oregon is special. But
| in the face of reliable chargers, I prefer a smaller,
| widespread count over larger numbers in a concentrated
| location.
| chroma wrote:
| The supercharger network is now dense enough that you can
| drive anywhere in the US without worry. The largest gap
| in the nation is between Coeur d'Alene, ID and Superior,
| MT, and that's 100 miles. I've gone to rural Montana and
| Idaho in the winter and I've never had to worry about
| charging.
|
| Also while Plugshare may show more dots on a map, that
| doesn't correspond to useful charging. Non-Tesla charging
| stations are notoriously inconvenient, unreliable, and
| slow to charge. That's why my friend with the e-tron
| rents a gas car if he wants to go more than a few hundred
| miles. This is borne out again and again in tests. When
| MKBHD tested a Tesla and a Mustang Mach-E, the Mach-E
| itself was fine but the charging infrastructure was
| unreliable.[1] The Mustang was delayed over 6 hours due
| to bad charging.
|
| I've put almost 30,000 miles on my car and I've never had
| an issue with a supercharger. You just plug in and it
| charges. You don't need to install any apps or enter your
| credit card info. And if for some crazy reason I can't
| use a supercharger, I have adapters for the other
| connectors.
|
| If you want the electric vehicle that can charge in the
| most places, get a Tesla.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXzuFprlyrw
| maxsilver wrote:
| > But the (Tesla) connector is definitely better,
|
| I'm not convinced of that. Tesla's connector is thinner and
| lighter yes absolutely. But Tesla is also weaker and less
| reliable \ less fault tolerant than standard EV charger
| cables (See the dreaded EP307 / lock error, something that
| can't even happen with a normal EV CCS charger)
|
| I definitely think it's preferable for CCS win, as it's the
| safest, most durable, most compatible, while also being the
| lowest cost option.
| rnk wrote:
| The tesla plug has a decade of successful heavy use behind
| it, and it doesn't have a history of failing despite being
| the most used ev charging system and plug in the world
| (comparing to the ccs standards around the us and the
| world). You'll need to provide some references to point to
| tesla problems. On the other hand I have a brand new us ccs
| car and every time I go to a public charger it's an open
| question whether it will work (and yes there are a variety
| of problems). CCS charging is less reliable, it's a common
| thing for people to complain about ccs charging problems.
| With due respect, I think you are wrong.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that
| the vast majority of 'faulty' chargers are in fact issues
| with software. Ie. Network connection down. Car not
| registered. Card terminal broken. Etc.
| rnk wrote:
| I think you are probably right that most problems are
| hardware, but there are a lot of broken chargers (display
| out, not fixed). People just report them all the time.
| look at reddit.com/r/electricvehicles.
|
| But yeah, it's probably a lot of software issues.
| Strangely I do not hear from Europe that there are
| problems like here. I don't hear about 'charger is broken
| or won't charge' in Europe when people use tesla chargers
| (which are on the euro-ccs standard just like tesla cars
| there). Can anyone chime in? I'm in the US.
| gpt5 wrote:
| >it's preferable for CCS win, as it's the safest, most
| durable, most compatible, while also being the lowest cost
| option.
|
| Can you share a link to back these claims?
| gibolt wrote:
| Not sure where any of these suggestions come from.
| Superchargers have the highest utilization and uptime in
| the industry.
|
| Thinner means more accessible/easier to use. CCS is wholly
| unreliable if it is even slightly at the wrong angle, which
| is common due to the bulk of the plug and cable.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Wow. Awesome!
|
| I hope Ford and other EV Manufacturers make retrofit kits though
| - and similar for the charging stations already deployed. Lugging
| an adapter for all non-Tesla EVs before the, what, 2024 model
| year would be irritating. Assuming, of course, they are on board
| and this doesn't turn into Betamax/VHS, Blu-ray/HD-DVD, or
| HDR10+/Dolby Vision again.
| kgermino wrote:
| I don't see anything here indicating that other manufacturers
| will start using the Tesla connector. Unfortunately we're
| already well into the format war with two standards: Tesla and
| Everyone Else (CCS).
|
| Honestly this feels more like a desperate attempt by Tesla to
| push back on the trend towards CCS instead of a substantive
| announcement
| Lendal wrote:
| They might be trying to get ahead of a possible push to
| mandate CCS, and they don't want to get pushed around like
| Apple did.
|
| I for one am fine with it. The "NACS" is objectively better
| by almost every available measure, and if the despised Elon
| Musk wants to give his stuff away, hey I'll take it. Any good
| reasons why we should reject this proposal?
| kgermino wrote:
| > Any good reasons why we should reject this proposal?
|
| No idea here. The 1 MW charging claim feels weird since
| faster charging was definitely a touted benefit of CCS in
| the recent past. I'm not sure if something changed.
|
| To me, it doesn't really matter one way or another. The CCS
| connector is bulky, but so is a gas station nozzle and I've
| never had a problem using one of those. Plus you'll use the
| CCS connector less often since most charging is done at
| home with a connector comparable to the NACS one. I'd
| probably lean towards CCS because it's effectively the same
| as international standards, it's already the standard, and
| separating the AC and DC pins probably simplifies
| engineering on the car side but I don't actually care as
| long as we all use one connector with an open spec.
| chroma wrote:
| North America's CCS[1] isn't compatible with Europe's
| CCS[2]. They're physically different connectors.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J1772_(CCS1).svg
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IEC_62196_Type_2_(M
| ,_DC,_...
| kortilla wrote:
| >it's already the standard,
|
| Not sure how you're defining "standard" but given that
| Tesla has the major majority here, its connector is the
| standard most people are familiar with.
|
| If you just mean, it's something not proprietary that
| other manufacturers agreed on, then sure.
| kgermino wrote:
| I mean it's something not proprietary that _every_ other
| manufacturer and _the federal government_ agreed on.
|
| You can't reasonably say that e.g. USB is a standard and
| CCS is not
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _They might be trying to get ahead of a possible push to
| mandate CCS, and they don 't want to get pushed around like
| Apple did._
|
| Waaaaaay too late for that. It'd be like Apple telling that
| they'll open the Lightning connector and that other phone
| manufacturers should switch to it, if Apple had done that
| in like 2019.
|
| Sure, nice try, but maybe you should've taken this position
| about a decade earlier.
| JonathonW wrote:
| This won't turn into Betamax/VHS or Blu-ray/HD-DVD because CCS
| has already won-- every EV sold in the US _except_ Tesla (and
| maybe still the Nissan Leaf; they may still be on CHAdeMO) has
| CCS Type 1.
|
| This is probably too little, too late for Tesla.
| InTheArena wrote:
| People seem deep in denial about Tesla market share. Tesla is
| 80% of all EVs sold and still 65% of current vehicles sold
| last quarter - even with some dramatically cheaper EVs
| available. As Gigafactories in Austin, Berlin and Shanghai
| continue to ramp, that's unlikely to change.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Musk pulled Tesla's director of software development,
| Tesla's director of Autopilot and TeslaBot engineering,
| Tesla's senior director of software engineering, a Tesla
| senior staff technical program manager, and a senior
| manager of security intelligence and tasked them with
| babysitting Twitter.
|
| As much as I've grown to dislike Musk I'd rather like to
| see Tesla succeed. By gutting Tesla senior management as
| well as rank and file Musk is ensuring Tesla's market share
| is only headed in one direction: down.
| hedora wrote:
| They dropped to 70% of vehicles on the road last year, and
| are only claiming >66% in this press release. BofA projects
| an 11% market share for Tesla by 2025.
|
| Also, their order backlog is dropping, even though we are
| in the middle of a gasoline crisis, and all (?) other EV
| manufacturers are seeing unprecedented demand. This
| suggests current factories can meet Tesla's future steady
| state demand, so ramping will only help a bit:
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/615583/estimated-tesla-order-
| back...
|
| I think the root cause is that they only have a few models,
| especially compared to the combined model lines of their
| competition.
|
| Also, many people on the coasts are uncomfortable
| supporting Musk, thanks to the Twitter thing and Tesla
| labor violations. For that crowd, Tesla may as well be
| welding truck balls to their back bumpers.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Tesla is still selling exclusively luxury sedans and SUVs.
| Cheaper cars like the Bolt or utility vehicles like the
| F150 Lightning serve market segments where Tesla is not
| even a competitor. I think it's expected that Tesla's
| market share will drop a lot in the coming years.
| kortilla wrote:
| So in other words, "the vast majority of electric cars in the
| US are using Tesla's connector". How exactly does that mean
| CCS won?
|
| A bunch of far behind EV manufacturers settling on an
| inferior connector doesn't mean much. Tesla and its connector
| is exactly akin to Sony and Blu-ray, except Tesla is further
| ahead and won't be charging licensing.
| bombcar wrote:
| Does Tesla still sell more EVs in the US than the rest
| combined?
|
| Though if most of the bulk/plug is on the charger side, than
| this is all a non-issue.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| Hilarious to call their thing the "North American Charging
| Standard" when every other manufacturer in North America has
| already standardized on something else.
| reindeerer wrote:
| Are you trying to imply that just calling something is a
| standard doesn't make it a standard ? Hmmmm
| wilg wrote:
| Try plugging a Nissan Leaf into a CCS charger.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| Let's just not talk about the Nissan Leaf. The Nissan Leaf is
| completely out-of-place in today's EV landscape and by
| current EV standards, it barely counts as a "real EV" you can
| live with. Speaking as a former Leaf owner.
|
| The Leaf is the only model in the U.S. that uses, or has ever
| used, the CHAdeMO connection that the Leaf has. Good luck
| finding a CHAdeMO charger now, it was already hard 4 years
| ago and it is just getting worse. Most places that had one
| were Nissan dealerships, but those are almost always broken
| now. Nissan dealers just don't care about it. Even when they
| exist and are working, that has to be the most difficult
| connector I've ever seen for a consumer-grade product.
|
| Their 40kW battery base model costs as much as a 60kW Chevy
| Bolt. Where I live, 40kW will get you only ~120 miles of
| range. That small of a battery also can't charge that fast.
|
| The most damning thing of all though is that the Nissan Leaf
| is the _only_ EV sold today that doesn 't use active cooling
| on their battery pack. It was a horrible oversight on the
| Gen1 Leaf, but it is absurd for the Gen2 after most of those
| Gen1 batteries cooked themselves to death (and were
| eventually replaced after a class-action lawsuit).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The Leaf is the only model in the U.S. that uses, or has
| ever used, the CHAdeMO connection
|
| That's mostly true, but there is the Mitsubishi Outlander
| PHEV which still uses it.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Nissan Ariya has a CCS port, so even Nissan has standardised
| on the CCS. The Nissan Leaf is the iPad with the Lightning
| port of the EV world.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| Lightning? Maybe the OG 30-pin iPod/iPhone connector.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Nissan for a long time has stuck to the Japanese standard
| (CHAdeMO) for their NA cars; some early EVs in America used
| CHAdeMO as well I think, but afaik only Nissan has stuck with
| it here.
|
| I think even they've dropped it for future stuff tho.
| InTheArena wrote:
| They are all tiny in comparison...
|
| The vast majority of EVs in the United States use this now, and
| it's not just historical - Just to emphasis the most popular EV
| cars in the US today are:
|
| Tesla Model Y 60,271 20% 191,451 50.7% 33.2% Tesla Model 3
| 55,030 67% 156,357 94.5% 27.1% Ford Mustang Mach-E 10,414 -
| 28,089 49% 4.9% Tesla Model S 9,171 150% 23,464 79.9% 4.1%
| Chevy Bolt EV/EUV 14,709 226% 22,012 -11.3% 3.8% Hyundai IONIQ
| 5 4,800 - 18,492 - 3.2% Tesla Model X 6,552 43% 19,542 16.4%
| 3.4%
| DannyBee wrote:
| But there are already 3x more level 2 + CCS ports than tesla
| ports.
|
| In the US:
|
| There are 36000 individual tesla connections
|
| There are 92000 l2 j1772 ports.
|
| There are 22000 CCS DC fast ports
|
| They are comparing the DC fast number to the tesla number,
| and ignoring the j1772 number.
| wilg wrote:
| They are comparing fast charging only, yes. (Also all
| Teslas come with a J1772 adapter.)
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Cars can last 10 or more years. If you buy a car today you're
| making a bet that Tesla and its standard will still be
| dominant over _all other car and charger manufacturers_ in
| the year 2032+. That is an extraordinarily foolish bet.
|
| My bet is that within two years Tesla standardizes on CCS for
| its US cars (thus getting rid of an annoying
| upgrade/adapter/retrofit problem) and then what'll be left is
| the sad minority (AKA me) who are stuck with the dying
| standard and an annoying dongle.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I'd bet a garage will be able to do a connector swap within
| an hour's labour if Tesla will make the necessary firmware
| changes.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| For legacy cars the likely answer is that people buy the
| $250 dongle. For new cars this will cost a few hundred
| bucks in parts and labor (or let's say 1-1.5% of the
| sales price) and it will be required surgery on your
| brand-new car.
|
| Who is going to pay for this? If it's Tesla, then the
| smart move is to put CCS into cars right now (and as a
| side benefit, standardize their US and European models
| [edit: nevermind this bit, not the same standards].) If
| it's the customer, then it's an annoying non-trivial cost
| you'll have to bear. Yuck.
| wilg wrote:
| They don't standardize US and Europe because US is CCS1
| and Europe is CCS2.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Ugh god why. Didn't realize that. Rest of the point
| stands.
| Symbiote wrote:
| 3 phase vs 120V.
|
| But it doesn't matter. The number of vehicles taken
| either way is negligible. In the old days, you had to
| change the miles/km speedometer to the other one when you
| took you car with you as you emigrated. Buying a charge
| adapter is easier.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why is CCS so absolutely enormous and so technically limited?
| What's the story behind how it got so bad? There must be some
| kind of trade-off Tesla took that CCS didn't?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > technically limited
|
| Is it? I can go to a 350kW charger with CCS1. What's the max
| for a supercharger? 250kW?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Says 1 MW?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27907051
|
| TLDR CCS wanted to be backwards compatible, while Tesla planned
| fast charging to be first class with their standard. At the
| time, no one was doing fast charging at Supercharger currents
| (150kw). CCS was bolted on to J1772.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| Considering how early that decision was made in the timeline
| of electric vehicles (how early we still even are) -- getting
| saddled with a backwards compatibility kludge kind of sucks.
| criddell wrote:
| It's still early days and certainly not too late to change
| it.
| [deleted]
| chroma wrote:
| That's true for the US, but the EU mandates that all
| vehicle charging stations support CCS Combo 2.[1] They'd
| have to undo their mandate to allow better chargers, and
| I don't think that'll happen any time soon.
|
| 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
| ip26 wrote:
| That really doesn't explain all of it, J1772 is not really
| that big. CCS adds a _ton_ of bulk on top of J1772.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| J1772 can't carry enough amps through those pins. So it
| needs two more huge pins in a separate compartment.
|
| CCS isn't the absolute smallest way to add two more huge
| pins, but it's pretty close.
| hedora wrote:
| Is bigger actually worse in this case?
|
| At least in theory, it should be possible to make it
| mechanically stronger than a smaller connector.
|
| I've heard of charge station cable connectors failing do
| repeated bending stress, and my car has multiple warning
| stickers saying not to plug into a charging cable that is under
| tension.
| dottedmag wrote:
| I'm not privy to CCS design process, however several
| possibilities spring to mind:
|
| - Backward compatibility: CCS is backward-compatible extension
| of J plug, and can't share AC and DC lines due to that.
|
| - Higher safety margins in CCS
|
| - CCS design by committee
|
| - Better engineers at Tesla
| advisedwang wrote:
| It sounds like folks are assuming this will be free for
| implementors and license universally with little restriction.
| Nothing in this press release says it's free. "open" could just
| mean "open to apply", for example. " We invite charging network
| operators and vehicle manufacturers to put the Tesla charging
| connector..." could be read as an invitation to negotiate.
|
| I expect licensing terms to be announced, and I bet you large
| users will have to pay.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| The specification is posted publicly, with no listed
| restrictions, so the only method Tesla has of licensing this is
| via enforcing their patents.
|
| While I expect car manufacturers would want to negotiate a
| custom patent license, others interesting in using the patents
| (like say EVSE manufacturers) could _technically_ just utilize
| the Tesla patent pledge.
|
| Of course if they do so they cannot later sue Tesla for any
| form of IP infringement, without getting countersued over the
| patents. Thus if you use tesla's patents under the license, you
| can sue them for copyright, patent, trademark, trade-secret or
| any other right, without getting countersued. This would mean
| Tesla could openly make full blown counterfeits of your
| companies products, and you cannot sue them without getting
| countersued for patent violation. So I'm doubting terribly many
| will want to take up this offer, but they technically could.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This is starting to feel like... the XKCD meme about too many
| standards.
|
| Everyone in North America that isn't Tesla: CCS1
|
| Telsa in North America: NACS
|
| Everyone including Tesla in Europe: CCS2
|
| Everyone in Japan: CHAdeMO
|
| Everyone in China: GB/T
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| GB/T should probably be ignored as China being different on
| purpose.
|
| And CHAdeMO just seems bad compared to the competition.
|
| If you exclude those it becomes a lot simpler.
| kortilla wrote:
| Not really. Tesla is already the vast majority in the US. They
| are just opening up to try to kill of an already existing worse
| standard.
| robin_reala wrote:
| What is the percentage split of Tesla vs everyone else in NA?
| alden5 wrote:
| although the XKCD meme talks about making a new standard, NACS
| is already everywhere, tesla is just trying to ensure its
| ubiquity.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > It has no moving parts, is half the size, and twice as powerful
| as Combined Charging System (CCS) connectors.
|
| It's just a connector. Why did CCS have to be twice as big then?
| What's the tradeoff CCS took?
|
| Edit: I just looked up a size comparison of CCS vs Tesla/NACS and
| _what the heck happened_...
| bombcar wrote:
| CCS was backwards compatible with existing standards, and added
| stuff to it.
|
| It would have been like USB-C being glued to the top of an old
| SCSI connector.
|
| Tesla controlled both ends (literally) on theirs and so they
| could optimize for size/etc.
| sigmar wrote:
| What legal guarantee is there that Tesla won't reverse course in
| the future? Say a charging station or car manufacturer adopts
| this connector and then in 5 years Tesla says "well actually,
| we've got these patents and we're going to start charging you to
| sell cars/charging stations"? Publishing the specs and saying "we
| won't enforce patents" isn't a legally binding guarantee
| advisedwang wrote:
| The press release says:
|
| > we are opening our EV connector design to the world. We
| invite charging network operators and vehicle manufacturers to
| put the Tesla charging connector ... equipment and vehicles
|
| This does not even promise that it is free. "open" and "invite
| you to X" sound good but are very vague.
| mike_d wrote:
| Yeah, Apple has used similar language in marketing for their
| Lightning Connector licensing program.
| reindeerer wrote:
| > What legal guarantee is there that Tesla won't reverse course
| in the future?
|
| None. There would have to be a governing body set up for this
| to have any legs
| otterley wrote:
| Google "promissory estoppel"
| karaterobot wrote:
| I Googled it, and learned a new concept. Thanks!
| Symmetry wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer but that sure sounds like it would be a case
| of promissory estoppel to me. That is, if someone relies on
| Tesla's word and makes investments based on it they'd have a
| legal case to prevent Tesla from trying to exercise those
| patents against them. But I do hope there's an actual legal
| grant of rights as well.
| sigmar wrote:
| Haven't heard the term and I'm googling it to understand
| better. Is there case law where this was tested in the
| context of patents on ports? I'm thinking Tesla could say,
| "we changed our minds but you can keep selling any of the
| Toyota 2023 models, you just can't make a new car model with
| the port. therefore we aren't causing you financial harm or
| injury by relying on our promise"
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| You're asking for a very specific citation there.
|
| But it doesn't matter, they could give everyone who asks a
| 20 year license for $1.
|
| Also courts aren't stupid.
| akozak wrote:
| Tesla is at least 5 years late here, maybe more like 10. All of
| the US federal funds will likely go to CCS now because they stuck
| to the proprietary network strategy, despite the OBVIOUS and
| natural social utility from an open industry-wide standard and
| charging networks open to all.
|
| For reference here is the DOT's NPRM from June laying out the
| proposed requirements for states to receive federal funds from
| the infrastructure package:
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/22/2022-12...
| sneak wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > _NACS vehicles outnumber CCS two-to-one, and Tesla 's
| Supercharging network has 60% more NACS posts than all the CCS-
| equipped networks combined._
|
| This suggests to me it's not Tesla that's late. If anything is
| a society-wide EV standard in North America, it's the Tesla
| plug.
| rnk wrote:
| Tesla has been the defacto standard, yes. But their lead has
| been declining. All the other ev car drivers would have been
| better off if they could use tesla charging stations, since
| the entire industry is basically terrible except for tesla
| superchargers. With tesla saying they'll finally support ccs
| cars in the us I think ccs will win. You have to point to the
| clever infrastructure bills in congress, I think that money
| is what pulled tesla through to supporting ccs (eventually).
| hedora wrote:
| The way I read the "two to one" number is that Tesla's market
| share in NA is collapsing.
|
| Even if competitors decide to use the Tesla standard, it'll
| be a few years before they ship it. By then, Tesla's current
| 66% share of deployed vehicles will almost certainly have
| dropped to less than 50%.
|
| Also, Musk said they're opening up superchargers to CCS soon,
| so car buyers like me don't think the Tesla connector is a
| differentiator any more.
|
| Having said that, I have a CCS car, and charge station
| availability is totally fine, at least in the parts of
| California where superchargers exist.
| DannyBee wrote:
| At one point that number was probably 100% or very close to
| it. Now it's 60%.
|
| It has nowhere to go but now, and is almost certainly
| dropping fast.
|
| The number is also a feint.
|
| It's true that NACS outnumbers CCS, but that's because they
| are only comparing fast-charging spots, which they outnumber.
|
| If you included the J1772 part, tesla is outnumbered at this
| point in the US.
|
| Going by ports (because that's what tesla is counting in
| their numbers).
|
| There are ~92000 public level 2 ports (not chargers) in the
| US. That does not include the DC fast charging ports. There
| are about 20k of these.
|
| There are 35,000 tesla ports (which tracks, since this is 60%
| more than 20k) For tesla, there is no difference between dc
| fast charging and non ports.
|
| So the number cited is, as per usual for tesla, misleading,
| since it ignores the level 2 ports that are commonly used.
| There are 2.5x more of those, and combined with CCS, there
| are 3x more ports total than tesla's standard.
|
| I like the connector for sure, but it's way too late.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| How much cheaper is it to build a vehicle with the NACS port vs
| J1772 port? If the build savings are enough, I foresee
| manufactures making the switch.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Why would they switch? Then their customers couldn't access CCS
| chargers OR the supercharger network. That's not exactly a
| selling point, no matter how much money they save on the
| connector.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Awesome. This should be a world-wide standard. NACS (Tesla) VS
| CCS is like USB-A 1.0 vs USB-C with Power Delivery: CCS is
| unbelievably slow and clunky to the point where it might turn
| people off wanting an EV once they experience the slow and
| clunkiness.
| gibolt wrote:
| Closer to Parallel port vs. USB-C
| rootusrootus wrote:
| A typical EV owner will use CCS a few times a year. Every other
| day of the year they will use a much smaller J1772 connector
| with a much smaller cord. Having owned both a Tesla as well as
| an EV that uses J1772, it's the same experience.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > CCS is unbelievably slow and clunky to the point where it
| might turn people off wanting an EV once they experience the
| slow and clunkiness.
|
| Only Tesla owners say this. Owners of all other EVs literally
| don't care - except as much as they care that every other non-
| Tesla charger uses CCS.
|
| They care about not having to worry about which charging
| station to use, not the shape of the plug.
| kgermino wrote:
| Is CCS really that slow and clunky? I don't have direct
| experience with it but everyone I know who has says it's at
| least as easy to manage as a gas nozzle.
|
| On speed, CCS supports faster charging than an Supercharger
| built to date so if you had a bad experience with charging
| speed it was the car or charger, not CCS
| stetrain wrote:
| Tesla's connector has zero marketshare in Europe and doesn't
| support 3-phase AC charging.
|
| I don't think there is that much benefit in a global standard
| given that adapters exist.
| gibolt wrote:
| Teslas (and their Superchargers) shipped there before ~2019
| had the same plug, before they switched to CCS.
|
| I'm not sure how 3-phase fits in, but it didn't prevent being
| at least as useful as in the U.S.
| stetrain wrote:
| No, in Europe Tesla originally used the Type 2 connector,
| which Europe uses for AC charging and includes pins for
| 3-phase.
|
| The proprietary part was they did pin switching to enable
| the same connector to do DC Supercharging as well.
|
| Now they have switched to CCS Type 2 in Europe which is the
| Type 2 connector plus additional pins for DC charging and
| the CCS communication protocols.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Three phase power is very common in Europe. I have three
| phase sockets (for the oven etc) in my 80m2 apartment.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I think you'd have to make yet another new connector if you
| wanted a really good global standard, which makes it even
| less worth attempting.
| zzzeek wrote:
| Wow, so, instead of Tesla opening up their superchargers to be
| usable by CCS vehicle owners (which I believe has occurred in
| some countries) nah, we'll just try to push our own design
| through , send all the CCS owners into the trash heap and wait
| for the world come to us.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Tesla never had any intention of actually opening up their
| superchargers to non-Tesla vehicles. It runs strictly against
| their goal of selling more cars. That's why they're making an
| adapter to let their customers use the CCS networks, because
| otherwise the Supercharger network requirement starts to become
| a liability instead of an advantage.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| This seems like a bad faith argument. It is more like here is a
| better design that's more compact and has more adoption, we're
| making it open standard for anyone to adopt.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| You can't say "more adoption" with a serious face and accuse
| someone else of making a bad faith argument. You are
| carefully limiting your definition of adoption. It would be
| just as valid to point out that CCS1 has vastly more
| adoption, by using manufacturer as the metric.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Jeez. Why are you guys so cynical? I am trying to assume
| the best of what the PR release says. No wonder this place
| is becoming toxic. It only raises my own cynisism that
| folks here are acting in bad faith because it is Tesla or
| some kind of an ideological trope people have gotten sucked
| into.
|
| The parent comment is frothing with hate and bad faith.
| ip26 wrote:
| Yeah, with the standard open, if we also assume Tesla opens
| the supercharger network it's kind of hard to see a great
| argument for CCS. Better plug, more users, more chargers.
|
| I'm biased, but I've also used all three plugs (CCS, J1772,
| NACS). NACS is the USB-C to the other two's DVI.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I've also used all three plugs (CCS, J1772, NACS)
|
| Me too. The Tesla plug was the only one that ever got stuck
| in the car. So I don't know if I'd say that J1772 is
| strictly inferior.
| zzzeek wrote:
| the argument is I dont want to take my brand new car to the
| junkyard in two years.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Worst case scenario you use an adapter.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Even if adapters were somehow impossible, you wouldn't
| have to do that.
| kortilla wrote:
| You're confusing the CCS chargers outside of North America. The
| ones in NA are absolute trash and Tesla is right to try to kill
| them off as fast as possible before electric car volume that
| uses them becomes significant.
|
| Tesla is well over half of the electric cars. There's no reason
| for them to accommodate the absolute worst standard at their
| stations.
| zzzeek wrote:
| > You're confusing the CCS chargers outside of North America.
| The ones in NA are absolute trash and Tesla is right to try
| to kill them off as fast as possible before electric car
| volume that uses them becomes significant.
|
| noting that you appear to agree with my assessment that they
| want to kill off CCS and force all carmakers to use their
| ports as a means of avoiding having to change their own
| supercahrgers, otherwise, no thanks, I own a new car with the
| NA CCS charger and it was a significant investment. I'd
| prefer my car not be "killed off".
|
| > Tesla is well over half of the electric cars. There's no
| reason for them to accommodate the absolute worst standard at
| their stations.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
|
| > Automobile manufacturers that support CCS include BMW,
| Daimler, FCA, Ford, Jaguar, General Motors, Groupe PSA,
| Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, MG, Polestar, Renault, Rivian,
| Tesla, Mahindra, Tata Motors and Volkswagen Group.[1][2]
|
| unless they are compelled to do so in the interest of the
| public good so that "nearly half of electric cars" (currently
| already on the road) aren't trashed. or please make an
| adapter for existing CCS cars.
|
| here's a vendor that appears to be planning to manufacture
| such an adapter. pretty hard to find, though.
| https://evadept.com/tesla-supercharger-to-ccs-adapter-guide/
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > I'd prefer my car not be "killed off".
|
| > trashed
|
| This level of hyperbole makes it hard to take you
| seriously.
|
| Even if it was true, I think that would mean you're
| advocating for all the Teslas to be killed off, which I
| think would mean you're more wrong than they are!
| lolc wrote:
| They were reacting to the terms being used, not
| introducing them. Read the parent.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 1. The parent was talking about a plug not vehicles.
|
| 2. The _parent_ of that parent was also by zzzeek,
| talking about trashing vehicles. And that was a top level
| comment.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Tesla is well over half of the electric cars.
|
| Their year-over-year market share is declining sharply,
| however. They should have tried this move five years ago.
|
| Even if Tesla updates the Model 3 & Y to be competitive on
| features, the sheer quantity of competition means they were
| never going to dominate the space. If they choose to keep
| removing features from their cars instead of adding them, I
| start to wonder what exactly Elon's vision for the future of
| the company is.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Do Tesla Superchargers even have this connector outside the US?
| Here all Teslas have CCS ports.
| wilg wrote:
| I don't think so.
| wilg wrote:
| I believe superchargers are also being upgraded to add CCS1 in
| North America. Not widely rolled out yet, but I think there are
| at least some operational. I think some have two cables, but
| they have some kind of design called "magic dock" that allows a
| single cable to use either plug.
|
| (Superchargers elsewhere use the relevant local standard.)
| zzzeek wrote:
| haven't seen this. see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33565868 above.
| stetrain wrote:
| I don't know that this is "instead of." That isn't stated
| anywhere.
|
| Tesla has also committed to building Superchargers with CCS
| connectors.
| zzzeek wrote:
| > I don't know that this is "instead of." That isn't stated
| anywhere.
|
| this is correct, I am just assuming.
|
| > Tesla has also committed to building Superchargers with CCS
| connectors.
|
| This has happened in some European countries, but as far as
| the US, it remains all talk; the large amount of Tesla
| superchargers everywhere remain unavailable for those of us
| with CCS vehicles. This move seems very much like intended to
| take the pressure off having to do this change within the US,
| which is my point (entirely conjecture on my part).
| stetrain wrote:
| > Later this year, Tesla will begin production of new
| Supercharger equipment that will enable non-Tesla EV
| drivers in North America to use Tesla Superchargers.
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
|
| That phrasing does leave a lot of wiggle room but it
| doesn't sound like just continuing to make Superchargers
| with the Tesla connector.
| bobviolier wrote:
| Every Supercharger in EU is CCS, afaik.
| modeless wrote:
| I wish they had gotten more serious about this sooner. They had
| talked about offering the plug and network to other manufacturers
| before but there wasn't any movement on it. I expect that now
| it's too late and we'll be stuck with terrible CCS forever, but
| I'd be happy to be wrong.
| gibolt wrote:
| Tesla is still >70% of EVs in the U.S. and Aptera has already
| adopted their plug (hopefully shipping soon).
|
| We are still within bounds of choosing the superior connector.
| It isn't too late like in Europe, especially since US bound
| vehicles are already using a different plug than their European
| counterparts
| mike_d wrote:
| "Our forecasts suggest that Tesla's market share will decline
| from 70% in 2021 to (an estimated) 11% by 2025" -Bank of
| America
|
| The major auto manufactures are on track to have 60% of all
| new cars EVs by 2026. Tesla just can't compete with that
| volume. They need to start getting ready for the new standard
| now, not pulling this nonsense.
| hedora wrote:
| Tesla is claiming 66% now that it is 2022 (down 4%), so
| BofA's projections are in the correct direction, at least.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Tesla is still >70% of EVs
|
| Only by strict volume of cars on the road. Looking at
| manufacturers and models, they are just a tiny fraction of
| the market. And judging from how fast their market share is
| slipping, we're probably only a year or so from them being in
| the strict minority by any metric.
| wilg wrote:
| For context, North America's current "standard" is CCS1, which is
| not the same as Europe, which uses CCS2. So North America already
| has its own weird plug. The Tesla plug is definitely better from
| a usability perspective. Very curious to see if there is a major
| technical advantage for one or the other.
| xxpor wrote:
| Ccs1 vs 2 comes down to the fact that the base plug (the ac
| part) has to be different between the two. Europe supports 3
| phase because it's common there, while the NA plug doesn't,
| because 3 phase is unheard of in residential installations, and
| it has to support 120 level 1 charging.
| wilg wrote:
| Doesn't seem like it _has_ to be different, right? The Tesla
| /"NACS" plug supports three-phase.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| How? Are you sure?
|
| It has two big power pins, one smaller pin dedicated to
| ground, and two tiny pins that look completely unsuited for
| power.
|
| There's a "mobile connector" that can convert 3 phase, but
| that has an entirely different plug on the wall side.
| wilg wrote:
| I think it doesn't actually, nevermind.
| mike_d wrote:
| In the US Tesla uses its own proprietary connector, in
| Europe they use the Mennekes plug.
|
| Hence why they are calling this the "North American
| charging standard."
| morio wrote:
| Huh? CCS1, CCS2 and NACS are DC. You are probably thinking
| Type 2 (Europe) which is indeed 3 phase and j1772 (US) which
| is single phase.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Your distinction doesn't matter. They're talking about the
| plug/socket shape, which is shared between DC and AC
| standards.
| kgermino wrote:
| I don't see anything new here (other than the name).
|
| For those who don't know there are two charging connecters used
| for new electric cars in the US: Tesla (now called NACS and only
| used on Teslas) and CCS (used by everyone else). There's nothing
| here to indicate that that's changing and it feels like a move by
| Tesla to try turning around the momentum in a format war they're
| losing, even if they have a wider installed base today
| stetrain wrote:
| There's an actual set of specification documents available to
| download. That's an improvement.
|
| Previously the only public info was their patent filings.
|
| It also sounds like they are offering specific parts (inlets
| and connector cables) for sale since they are providing
| datasheets on them.
| hedora wrote:
| I wonder if that means we'll soon have cheap dongles to
| charge CCS cars at supercharger stations. I'd pay (maybe)
| $200 for such a thing, mostly because sometimes the CCS
| chargers are busy.
| kgermino wrote:
| Interesting thanks! I thought the specs were already
| published. Didn't they say they were going to do that a few
| years ago or am I misremembering something?
| stetrain wrote:
| Nope. They posted a list of patents with a pledge that
| basically said "We won't sue you about our patents if you
| don't sue us about yours"
|
| The connector patents were on that list but that wasn't a
| real spec.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-11 23:02 UTC)