7 ms·

I think most will agree that the CCS connector is godawful compared to Tesla's NACS. But why? Does anyone know why CCS was designed so poorly?

api 3y ago
CHAdeMO is pretty bad too. They’re both needlessly complex and chunky. My guess is that it’s the usual dynamic of industry consortia designing by a committee that heaps a massive number of requirements on the design that must all be met. That being said the FTC should require that Tesla open the connector spec if they are going to do this.
- throwaway69123 3y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/tesla-opens-its-ev-connector-design-to-other-automakers/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/tesla-opens-its-ev-connect... No need
  - fnimick 3y ago
    That's not open. That much is clear when GM and Ford have to sign licensing agreements to add the connector to the car and get access to a NACS to CCS adapter, which won't work on vehicles from automakers that haven't signed that agreement. Not to mention that "open for others to use" is not the same as "developed by an independent trade association to remove undue influence from one company over the process", which is how it should be. Imagine Tesla can't figure out V2H, so they deliberately exclude it from the connector to hold back the rest of the industry that wants to move forward with it. Is that okay for you?
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      "developed by an independent trade association to remove undue influence from one company over the process", which is how it should be." Why should it be that way? Tesla created the best charger and people want to use it. What's the problem? They've already opened all their patents. Objectively they are the most free and open car company in history.
    - kjksf 3y ago
      The design is open which means that GM or Ford can build their own adapters and their own chargers. The deal is for access to Tesla's supercharger network. The superchargers cost money to produce, install and maintain. The land on which they are installed costs money to lease. Tesla installed, in US, over 12 thousand chargers and the rumored cost of a supercharger is about $50k. That's $600 million, not counting the land and other costs. Those chargers are Tesla's property. It would be preposterous for government to meddle in a business deal where Tesla sells access to their property to others. Ford and GM are free to build their own supercharger network but I'm guessing that they would rather pay Tesla than spend $600 million and 10 years to build something that is only as good as what Tesla has today.
    - nickv 3y ago
      I think GM and Ford are paying a licensing fee to use the supercharger network, not to use the connector type.
- numpad0 3y ago
  CHAdeMO was just an extreme early optimization. It supports 400A/1kVDC(400kW) on basically the same connector as the original L1 plug for a Leaf, supporting faster charging than V3 Supercharger, which… just later turned out to be a moot point.
  - cptskippy 3y ago
    CHAdeMO supported faster charging than a Supercharger, but the Leaf never has because the pack is too small. I believe it peaks at 60kW.
guardiangod 3y ago
Backward compatibility with J1772 (AC only charging standard).
- api 3y ago
  Can’t the Tesla plug also do that? You can plug a Tesla into a normal outlet.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    You cannot plug a Tesla into a normal outlet without a brick of an adaptor.
    - api 3y ago
      I have a Nissan Leaf and have a brick of an adaptor for J1772. I think it's required for some kind of ground fault or other check circuitry because I know the car has its own built in charging system that deals with AC.
    - ajross 3y ago
      Oh, come on. A Tesla (excuse me, "NACS") plug with AC adapter attached is still less than half the size of a CCS connector. This is what it looks like: https://shop.tesla.com/product/sae-j1772-charging-adapter https://shop.tesla.com/product/sae-j1772-charging-adapter It's just a passive connector. All the signaling is handled internal to the car (which actually supports CCS too, there's a equally passive similar-looking CCS adapter you can buy).
    - Robotbeat 3y ago
      The adapter isn’t big. I put it in my pocket sometimes. But it’s worth noting the Tesla plug that does both AC and Fast Dc charging is smaller than the J1772 plug that does AC alone. And the J1772 to Tesla adapter is purely mechanical and conductive, no active components. So it’s cheap and you can buy 3Rd party ones.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
ajross 3y ago
It was originally supposed to lock out Nissan and CHAdeMO (Tesla wasn't yet considered a threat) from the US and European[2] markets. Traditional automakers didn't actually want their EVs to succeed[1], they just wanted to make sure no one else's EVs did either. As it happened, it worked well enough. Nissan never sold enough Leafs to make much of a dent, largely because of the lack of a good DC charging network. The real threat was the company actually trying to win. [1] Much better to sell high margin pickups and SUVs than risky technology bets. [2] It always needs to be repeated: CCS is actually two incompatible charging connectors. The DC/fast charger connector is mostly compatible between the two, but the AC half is either a J-1772 or a Mennekes, and the signaling for those is done via two different overlays on top of the CCS layer.
throw0101b 3y ago
> I think most will agree that the CCS connector is godawful compared to Tesla's NACS. But why? I'm asking a different "why": Why is CCS (allegedly?) "godawful compared"? Because of size? Or is there something else? What makes Telsa's (supposedly?) 'good' or at least 'better'?
- ajross 3y ago
  It's less than half the size, takes maybe 1/4 the force to insert, doesn't have a fiddly mechanical push-pin in the connector, and is locked by the car vs. the connector. It shares the same connectors for both DC and AC and will autodetect. It even delivers more current, though at 400V instead of the 800V that recent CCS devices can deliver. But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device. You pull in, plug in, and walk away. Literally. Your phone will buzz automatically when the charge reaches the level required for your next leg. This part remains Tesla-only. CCS devices at these chargers need to start the current manually with the app.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    > But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device. This is good, and this is bad. It's yet another charging app I need to manage my payment info. I can't just arbitrarily choose a different payment method when I'm there. I'd greatly prefer just a basic card reader so I can choose a payment method. Sure, plug and charge if I didn't supply payment method ahead of time, but otherwise it's just another charging app I need to manage.
    - amluto 3y ago
      I would argue it’s 100% bad. Tesla should not have a monopoly on determining whether a car gets to charge when it plugs in. But apps with accounts and ToS and such should be banned outright IMO for any charger or at least any charger that receives any sort of public funding. Anyone with a compatible car should be able to charge, without an account, just like at a gas station.
remir 3y ago
Design by committee is my guess.
nxm 3y ago
Design by committee

api 3y ago

CHAdeMO is pretty bad too. They’re both needlessly complex and chunky. My guess is that it’s the usual dynamic of industry consortia designing by a committee that heaps a massive number of requirements on the design that must all be met. That being said the FTC should require that Tesla open the connector spec if they are going to do this.

throwaway69123 3y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/tesla-opens-its-ev-connector-design-to-other-automakers/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/11/tesla-opens-its-ev-connect... No need
- fnimick 3y ago
  That's not open. That much is clear when GM and Ford have to sign licensing agreements to add the connector to the car and get access to a NACS to CCS adapter, which won't work on vehicles from automakers that haven't signed that agreement. Not to mention that "open for others to use" is not the same as "developed by an independent trade association to remove undue influence from one company over the process", which is how it should be. Imagine Tesla can't figure out V2H, so they deliberately exclude it from the connector to hold back the rest of the industry that wants to move forward with it. Is that okay for you?
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    "developed by an independent trade association to remove undue influence from one company over the process", which is how it should be." Why should it be that way? Tesla created the best charger and people want to use it. What's the problem? They've already opened all their patents. Objectively they are the most free and open car company in history.
  - kjksf 3y ago
    The design is open which means that GM or Ford can build their own adapters and their own chargers. The deal is for access to Tesla's supercharger network. The superchargers cost money to produce, install and maintain. The land on which they are installed costs money to lease. Tesla installed, in US, over 12 thousand chargers and the rumored cost of a supercharger is about $50k. That's $600 million, not counting the land and other costs. Those chargers are Tesla's property. It would be preposterous for government to meddle in a business deal where Tesla sells access to their property to others. Ford and GM are free to build their own supercharger network but I'm guessing that they would rather pay Tesla than spend $600 million and 10 years to build something that is only as good as what Tesla has today.
  - nickv 3y ago
    I think GM and Ford are paying a licensing fee to use the supercharger network, not to use the connector type.
numpad0 3y ago
CHAdeMO was just an extreme early optimization. It supports 400A/1kVDC(400kW) on basically the same connector as the original L1 plug for a Leaf, supporting faster charging than V3 Supercharger, which… just later turned out to be a moot point.
- cptskippy 3y ago
  CHAdeMO supported faster charging than a Supercharger, but the Leaf never has because the pack is too small. I believe it peaks at 60kW.

guardiangod 3y ago

Backward compatibility with J1772 (AC only charging standard).

api 3y ago
Can’t the Tesla plug also do that? You can plug a Tesla into a normal outlet.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  You cannot plug a Tesla into a normal outlet without a brick of an adaptor.
  - api 3y ago
    I have a Nissan Leaf and have a brick of an adaptor for J1772. I think it's required for some kind of ground fault or other check circuitry because I know the car has its own built in charging system that deals with AC.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Oh, come on. A Tesla (excuse me, "NACS") plug with AC adapter attached is still less than half the size of a CCS connector. This is what it looks like: https://shop.tesla.com/product/sae-j1772-charging-adapter https://shop.tesla.com/product/sae-j1772-charging-adapter It's just a passive connector. All the signaling is handled internal to the car (which actually supports CCS too, there's a equally passive similar-looking CCS adapter you can buy).
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    The adapter isn’t big. I put it in my pocket sometimes. But it’s worth noting the Tesla plug that does both AC and Fast Dc charging is smaller than the J1772 plug that does AC alone. And the J1772 to Tesla adapter is purely mechanical and conductive, no active components. So it’s cheap and you can buy 3Rd party ones.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

It was originally supposed to lock out Nissan and CHAdeMO (Tesla wasn't yet considered a threat) from the US and European[2] markets. Traditional automakers didn't actually want their EVs to succeed[1], they just wanted to make sure no one else's EVs did either. As it happened, it worked well enough. Nissan never sold enough Leafs to make much of a dent, largely because of the lack of a good DC charging network. The real threat was the company actually trying to win. [1] Much better to sell high margin pickups and SUVs than risky technology bets. [2] It always needs to be repeated: CCS is actually two incompatible charging connectors. The DC/fast charger connector is mostly compatible between the two, but the AC half is either a J-1772 or a Mennekes, and the signaling for those is done via two different overlays on top of the CCS layer.

throw0101b 3y ago

> I think most will agree that the CCS connector is godawful compared to Tesla's NACS. But why? I'm asking a different "why": Why is CCS (allegedly?) "godawful compared"? Because of size? Or is there something else? What makes Telsa's (supposedly?) 'good' or at least 'better'?

ajross 3y ago
It's less than half the size, takes maybe 1/4 the force to insert, doesn't have a fiddly mechanical push-pin in the connector, and is locked by the car vs. the connector. It shares the same connectors for both DC and AC and will autodetect. It even delivers more current, though at 400V instead of the 800V that recent CCS devices can deliver. But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device. You pull in, plug in, and walk away. Literally. Your phone will buzz automatically when the charge reaches the level required for your next leg. This part remains Tesla-only. CCS devices at these chargers need to start the current manually with the app.
- vel0city 3y ago
  > But most of the magic is that there's no UI to the charger device. This is good, and this is bad. It's yet another charging app I need to manage my payment info. I can't just arbitrarily choose a different payment method when I'm there. I'd greatly prefer just a basic card reader so I can choose a payment method. Sure, plug and charge if I didn't supply payment method ahead of time, but otherwise it's just another charging app I need to manage.
  - amluto 3y ago
    I would argue it’s 100% bad. Tesla should not have a monopoly on determining whether a car gets to charge when it plugs in. But apps with accounts and ToS and such should be banned outright IMO for any charger or at least any charger that receives any sort of public funding. Anyone with a compatible car should be able to charge, without an account, just like at a gas station.

remir 3y ago

Design by committee is my guess.

nxm 3y ago

Design by committee