11 ms·

The CCS-1 connector is designed by committee and objectively worse than NACS. NACS is smaller (cheaper to make and less heavy to use), require smaller wires, c

The CCS-1 connector is designed by committee and objectively worse than NACS. NACS is smaller (cheaper to make and less heavy to use), require smaller wires, can support higher wattage. Also, the significant majority of EVs in North America already have NACS and the significant majority of chargers also has NACS. Superchargers are slowly rolling out Magic Dock so that CCS-1 EVs can use Superchargers. I get the hate on Tesla (or more specifically Elon), but NACS is simply better for everyone.

tacticus 3y ago
Tesla seems fine using the CCS connector everywhere else in the world. And CCS is capable of of doing 360Kw of charge (with the current 400V units and a chunk more on any 800V unit) which is a tiny bit more than 250 max on the NACS
- hef19898 3y ago
  Well, Apple got away with lightining for long enough. And for the same reasons Tesla does it to. Can't blame them so, we will see if there are any antitrust issues down the road, or if e.g. the EU steps in. But then US spec cars have always been different from other markets.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    The analogy breaks down when you consider that USB-C is an objectively superior and objectively more widely deployed standard than Lightning. The same cannot be said for CCS1 over NACS.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Globally? It is gonna be CCS, unless Tesla manages to convince enough OEMs to use NACS. In which case there will be two competing standards, aka lightning vs. usb. I am in no position to judge which one is better, I do know so that CCS is more open, being a global standard. And if we want more EVs, global standards are better than closed, proprietary solutions.
      - simondotau 3y ago
        There is no such thing as a "CCS" connector. North America is majority NACS by units sold; CCS1 is in second place. Europe has standardised on CCS2, which is equally incompatible with CCS1 and NACS. China is the world's largest EV market and uses neither CCS1 nor CCS2.
        hef19898 3y ago
        Ha, you are right, I missed the number after the CCS. It is oess of a problem so, as long as the cars architecture works with either connector. Chinese spec cars are different from US spec and from EU spec anyway. Even if it is the same model, built in the same fab on the same day.
      - gwbas1c 3y ago
        I get the impression that NACS is CCS over the wire. It's the same protocol, just a cleaner design for the physical connector. Remember, Tesla has been part of the CCS committee since it started. CCS also isn't a "global standard". China has their own standard. There's a reason why CCS is called "Frankenplug." It's looking like only the EU will be stuck with it. (And they don't have to be, older Superchargers ran over the Menekis (sp?) connector fine.)
        ulfw 3y ago
        Only the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand, plus South America, plus the Middle East, plus Thailand, South Africa, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong,... but yea.
        simondotau 3y ago
        The countries you have listed all use CCS2, which is not compatible with anything in use in North America. So why would that be relevant to the question of North America deciding between CCS1 and NACS?
- simondotau 3y ago
  There is no such thing as "the CCS connector". The CCS2 connector used outside of North America is equally incompatible with both of the two major connectors used in North America, CCS1 and NACS. Tesla uses NACS in North America because there wasn't any unified industry standard when they started their roll-out. The closest thing there was to a standard for DC fast charging was arguably CHAdeMO; while CCS1 was little more than a press release from the Detroit auto companies. Yes Tesla could have adopted CCS1 but because of the way history played out, there was never a point where it could have made sense to do so. I think many people forget that Tesla wasn't a profitable company until recently. Many had them on a perennial "death watch". By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.
  - clouddrover 3y ago
    > By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means. Sure, just like adding CCS2 plugs to their European chargers sent Tesla broke and that's why the company folded and we never heard of it again.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - 7e 3y ago
    CCS1 was published in 2011. Tesla didn’t design NACS until 2012. It’s a myth that Tesla had to invent their own proprietary system because no standard was available.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      I think it’s insane that you would think that Tesla would replace a connector that already spent months — likely years — developing, with an objectively terrible alternative, merely because a few companies that weren’t making EVs issued a press release. I don’t think anyone could’ve said with confidence that CCS1 would’ve become the major standard in North America. It could’ve been a future revision of CHAdeMO. Or it could have been CCS3.
vegardx 3y ago
The MCS (Megawatt Charging System) is also designed by a committee and has been adopted by Tesla for the Tesla Semi, so I don't see how this is even a relevant argument. NACS does only support single phase charging, while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging. The only truthful argument in this discussion is that Tesla already have a huge charging network using their (previously) proprietary connector and automotive makers want to have access to this. NACS use the same signaling protocol as CCS, which is also why you can get away with a pretty dumb adapter. It has the same physical limitations as any other cable. If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact. CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  > CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW. 500 amps for CCS so in principle up to 500 kW. For example, Alpitronic's HY400 charger does 500 amps (with 600A boost): https://www.hypercharger.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HYC400_Product%20data%20sheet_V1-4.pdf https://www.hypercharger.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HYC40...
- lgbr 3y ago
  > while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car? And is it even relevant to the CCS part of the standard, when really what CCS adds on top of IEC 62196 is the ability to use DC charging, at which point phases are irrelevant. The whole point of connectors is, firstly, how much power they can deliver (both NACS and CCS1 appear equally capable), then, how affordable they are to make and how easy they are to use. Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win. Furthermore, it doesn't require a massive charging port (see how Tesla had to work around CCS2 for the Model S/Y in Europe because their charging port cover is too small), so there's further benefits here. Ease of use is less objective, but for anyone who has used both, clearly NACS is much, much better. It's lighter, less chonky, simpler (you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs). I think the consensus here is just clear. So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one. The only argument I can see is that we lose some mild amount of harmony with CCS2 connectors that the rest of the world is going to use, but with the differences between CCS1 and CCS2 that exist anyway, that might be a moot point.
kj4ips 3y ago
It's still patent encumbered[1], NACS just gave the physical specification, and says "use CCS HLS". The Tesla-SC protocol is still a black box. I wonder if this is going to involve a rollout of logical CCS on existing SCs. [1] Tesla's patent pledge is not even close to a grant and its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers.
- 93po 3y ago
  > its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers. Why is that?
  - kj4ips 3y ago
    It defines good faith as never having done three things, or having an associated or related company do those things. Those things are (roughly): 1. Having sued anyone over IP used in EVs, helped anyone due so, or had a financial stake in someone who does. 2. Challenged any patent held by Tesla, now or in the future; or had a stake in such a challenge. 3. Marketed or sold a "knock-off" of any tesla product, or providing material assistance to. Knock-off is defined a product that imitates or copies the design of a tesla product. If I held stock in a big-three automaker when they sued a non-Tesla EV manufacturer over a patent, does that mean I am excluded? Sure looks like it. Selling a J1772->Tesla-T adapter could also count, and because it's a "never has done" kind of thing, there is no concept of redemption.

tacticus 3y ago

Tesla seems fine using the CCS connector everywhere else in the world. And CCS is capable of of doing 360Kw of charge (with the current 400V units and a chunk more on any 800V unit) which is a tiny bit more than 250 max on the NACS

hef19898 3y ago
Well, Apple got away with lightining for long enough. And for the same reasons Tesla does it to. Can't blame them so, we will see if there are any antitrust issues down the road, or if e.g. the EU steps in. But then US spec cars have always been different from other markets.
- simondotau 3y ago
  The analogy breaks down when you consider that USB-C is an objectively superior and objectively more widely deployed standard than Lightning. The same cannot be said for CCS1 over NACS.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Globally? It is gonna be CCS, unless Tesla manages to convince enough OEMs to use NACS. In which case there will be two competing standards, aka lightning vs. usb. I am in no position to judge which one is better, I do know so that CCS is more open, being a global standard. And if we want more EVs, global standards are better than closed, proprietary solutions.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      There is no such thing as a "CCS" connector. North America is majority NACS by units sold; CCS1 is in second place. Europe has standardised on CCS2, which is equally incompatible with CCS1 and NACS. China is the world's largest EV market and uses neither CCS1 nor CCS2.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Ha, you are right, I missed the number after the CCS. It is oess of a problem so, as long as the cars architecture works with either connector. Chinese spec cars are different from US spec and from EU spec anyway. Even if it is the same model, built in the same fab on the same day.
    - gwbas1c 3y ago
      I get the impression that NACS is CCS over the wire. It's the same protocol, just a cleaner design for the physical connector. Remember, Tesla has been part of the CCS committee since it started. CCS also isn't a "global standard". China has their own standard. There's a reason why CCS is called "Frankenplug." It's looking like only the EU will be stuck with it. (And they don't have to be, older Superchargers ran over the Menekis (sp?) connector fine.)
      - ulfw 3y ago
        Only the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand, plus South America, plus the Middle East, plus Thailand, South Africa, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong,... but yea.
        simondotau 3y ago
        The countries you have listed all use CCS2, which is not compatible with anything in use in North America. So why would that be relevant to the question of North America deciding between CCS1 and NACS?
simondotau 3y ago
There is no such thing as "the CCS connector". The CCS2 connector used outside of North America is equally incompatible with both of the two major connectors used in North America, CCS1 and NACS. Tesla uses NACS in North America because there wasn't any unified industry standard when they started their roll-out. The closest thing there was to a standard for DC fast charging was arguably CHAdeMO; while CCS1 was little more than a press release from the Detroit auto companies. Yes Tesla could have adopted CCS1 but because of the way history played out, there was never a point where it could have made sense to do so. I think many people forget that Tesla wasn't a profitable company until recently. Many had them on a perennial "death watch". By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  > By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means. Sure, just like adding CCS2 plugs to their European chargers sent Tesla broke and that's why the company folded and we never heard of it again.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- 7e 3y ago
  CCS1 was published in 2011. Tesla didn’t design NACS until 2012. It’s a myth that Tesla had to invent their own proprietary system because no standard was available.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    I think it’s insane that you would think that Tesla would replace a connector that already spent months — likely years — developing, with an objectively terrible alternative, merely because a few companies that weren’t making EVs issued a press release. I don’t think anyone could’ve said with confidence that CCS1 would’ve become the major standard in North America. It could’ve been a future revision of CHAdeMO. Or it could have been CCS3.

vegardx 3y ago

The MCS (Megawatt Charging System) is also designed by a committee and has been adopted by Tesla for the Tesla Semi, so I don't see how this is even a relevant argument. NACS does only support single phase charging, while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging. The only truthful argument in this discussion is that Tesla already have a huge charging network using their (previously) proprietary connector and automotive makers want to have access to this. NACS use the same signaling protocol as CCS, which is also why you can get away with a pretty dumb adapter. It has the same physical limitations as any other cable. If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact. CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW.

clouddrover 3y ago
> CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW. 500 amps for CCS so in principle up to 500 kW. For example, Alpitronic's HY400 charger does 500 amps (with 600A boost): https://www.hypercharger.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HYC400_Product%20data%20sheet_V1-4.pdf https://www.hypercharger.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HYC40...
lgbr 3y ago
> while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car? And is it even relevant to the CCS part of the standard, when really what CCS adds on top of IEC 62196 is the ability to use DC charging, at which point phases are irrelevant. The whole point of connectors is, firstly, how much power they can deliver (both NACS and CCS1 appear equally capable), then, how affordable they are to make and how easy they are to use. Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win. Furthermore, it doesn't require a massive charging port (see how Tesla had to work around CCS2 for the Model S/Y in Europe because their charging port cover is too small), so there's further benefits here. Ease of use is less objective, but for anyone who has used both, clearly NACS is much, much better. It's lighter, less chonky, simpler (you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs). I think the consensus here is just clear. So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one. The only argument I can see is that we lose some mild amount of harmony with CCS2 connectors that the rest of the world is going to use, but with the differences between CCS1 and CCS2 that exist anyway, that might be a moot point.

kj4ips 3y ago

It's still patent encumbered[1], NACS just gave the physical specification, and says "use CCS HLS". The Tesla-SC protocol is still a black box. I wonder if this is going to involve a rollout of logical CCS on existing SCs. [1] Tesla's patent pledge is not even close to a grant and its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers.

93po 3y ago
> its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers. Why is that?
- kj4ips 3y ago
  It defines good faith as never having done three things, or having an associated or related company do those things. Those things are (roughly): 1. Having sued anyone over IP used in EVs, helped anyone due so, or had a financial stake in someone who does. 2. Challenged any patent held by Tesla, now or in the future; or had a stake in such a challenge. 3. Marketed or sold a "knock-off" of any tesla product, or providing material assistance to. Knock-off is defined a product that imitates or copies the design of a tesla product. If I held stock in a big-three automaker when they sued a non-Tesla EV manufacturer over a patent, does that mean I am excluded? Sure looks like it. Selling a J1772->Tesla-T adapter could also count, and because it's a "never has done" kind of thing, there is no concept of redemption.