3 ms·
> 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 t
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
> 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 4y agoCCS 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.