Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!




The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The world adopted a different standard. The US not so much. The difference in size is enough to make me hope that it gains at least a little traction. It is the most common connector for charging stations and vehicles on the road…
But, what I really hope from this is OpenEVSE can ship with a Tesla-compatible plug at some point.

CSS is the standard.

CSS is the standard.
THE Standard?
In what context has there ever been only one standard for something?
CSS is A standard. Perhaps the dominant standard globally. But it’s not universal – NACS being standard on Teslas is adequate proof of that. Musk is making a play to leverage his plug’s existing dominant position in the US to get it embraced as the dominant standard among US manufacturers, and perhaps even foreign manufacturers who want their US export EVs to have access to the majority of charging stations in the US. It’s n
CCS, not CSS.
Cool. It makes a lot of sense for Aptera, given the vehicle details, hope we get a lot more EVs that have similar opportunities (and cost).
They did drag their feet a bit too long for their own good, (not sure WHY) but hopefully this helps everyone.
If Apple had been smart they would have done this with their Lightning connector years ago. But they truly did miss the bus on that one, and are now being forced to use the open standard the world has picked in their stead. Shame too, I really did like that connector and it has some nice advantages over USB-C.
And although Tesla may have lost the lead in Europe, the USA is still very much up for grab
USB-C is the first connector that is arguably equal to Lightning. Before C came out Lightning had a chance still.

Shame too, I really did like that connector and it has some nice advantages over USB-C.

Shame too, I really did like that connector and it has some nice advantages over USB-C.
Like what? Lightning is literally designed so that the port wears out long before the cable does. That’s basically a form of planned obsolescence.
I am tired of the revisionist bullshit here. Apple is on the USB-IF committee, they were key in defining USB-C. Lightning only exists because of industry infighting that dragged out implementation. Look at what a mess USB-C charging cables have been. Apple wanted a small connector and multifunction capability, thus Lightning was born. Itâ(TM)s so much more than USB: the pin out is software defined based on negotiation between the cable and device, with the Lightning multiplexer routing the desired sign
The Tesla connector supports 1MW. It says so right in the standard.
1MW at 480V would be over 2000A. You wouldn’t be able to lift it because the cable would be so thick.
I found the spec for their connector here: https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/st… [thron.com]”North-American-DC-Charging-Connector-Datasheet.pdf”
It says 500V (nominal) and 400A (maximum). It also says it is only rated for 200 drops from 1m height onto concrete. Tesla must either be replacing a lot of connectors or have very careful owners.
In their proposal (https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_St
IIRC the Semi’s MegaCharger is 1kV max.
I’m sure they will get it into production one day. Musk has announced December 1st 2022 as the day for delivery of the first one to Pepsi, but we know what he is like with predictions.
If they open Tesla superchargers to non-Tesla cars, the car manufacturers would probably switch.
They don’t care which standard they use, and since Tesla superchargers outnumber other charger stations by 3:2, that gives their customers a larger base of chargers.
But… is Tesla going to open their chargers to other cars? The article only said that they’re opening their standard.
> If they open Tesla superchargers to non-Tesla cars
Although the summary didn’t say so, and I didn’t bother to RTFA, the implication is there that this is the case. Why else would they cite the extra # deployments around the USA?

> If they open Tesla superchargers to non-Tesla cars

Although the summary didn’t say so, and I didn’t bother to RTFA, the implication is there that this is the case.

> If they open Tesla superchargers to non-Tesla cars
Although the summary didn’t say so, and I didn’t bother to RTFA, the implication is there that this is the case.
I don’t much credit “implications”. This is far too often the way people create plausible deniability, “implying” that they will do something but not doing it.
>> A few years too late as the world settled on the other standard.
Which other standard did the world settle on? CCS Type 1? CCS Type 2? CHAdeMO? GB/T? ChaoJi? Because last time I checked, they were all in play somewhere. Japan and China have an agreement to transition from CHAdeMo and GB/T to ChaoJi (which is effectively CHAdeMO II but with a different plug). Assuming that happens, that leaves ChaoJi, CCS-2, CCS-1 and Tesla (NACS) as the remaining combatants. Out of those four, CCS-1 is arguably in the weakest position, since it’s used only America and only by a minority of EVs in America (the majority being Teslas).

Which other standard did the world settle on?

Which other standard did the world settle on?
Its CCS-2, Chademo is basically on the way out as the Japanese car makers are moving to CCS and Europe is already settled on it as well.
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.
What was wrong with USB-C?
CCS-1 is Europe, while CCS-2 is now North America. CHaDeMO is done with – the last holdout, the Nissan Leaf, is CCS-2 in North America. That leaves NACS and CCS-2.
Tesla is doing this now because the adoption of EVs is growing rather quickly, and they’re using CCS-2 for obvious reasons (it’s the standard). This has the potential to basically obsolete Tesla and the Supercharger network because they were the proprietary format when everyone else has gone with the standard.
Tesla, being first mover, can still re
Absolutely seconding everything youâ(TM)re saying. Been driving a BEV for more than a year now and everything is CCS-2 over here in Germany, too, with the random Chademo here and there. Near the Autobahn you always find some fast charger, and charging slowly at work or the hotel is perfectly fine.

A few years too late as the world settled on the other standard. Guess Tesla knew it was going to lose the charger war and it forced them to give up their proprietary connector…

A few years too late as the world settled on the other standard. Guess Tesla knew it was going to lose the charger war and it forced them to give up their proprietary connector…
I thought they would have opened up the SuperChargers years ago but better later than never I suppose.
About 8 years ago, as the SuperCharger station rollout was really picking up steam, I tweeted to Elon & Tesla to open up the standard, spin off the network & become an EV charger network for everyone
Yeah, about 3-5 years too late to dominate the car charging market. So they’re going to have to fight a very uphill battle on this. This is an especially bad time to make a go at it because the government money for building chargers (would be nice if it was for building working chargers, as reports are that non-tesla is very spotty that chargers work) is coming from officials not sympathetic to Tesla. They actually did try this years and years ago, but it was wrapped in a patent do-not-sue agreement that wa
These aren’t cell phones.
CCS has different combo 1 and 2 plugs by region. Apparently this has to do with single phase vs 3 phase support for AC charging.
The North American CCS supports single-phase 120V and split-phase 240V. Euro CCS does single-phase 230V and 3-phase 400V.
It would be nice if the NA connectors could do 3-phase, we could have had 480V public chargers, and common connectors when the Euro cars hit 25 years old and start coming in as ‘classic’ imports.
Your N. american house gets 240 V like most places
that 120 business at most your outlets is another matter.

Hush now. You’re invoking arithmetic beyond the 9th grade level.

Hush now. You’re invoking arithmetic beyond the 9th grade level.
Indeed, 110V outlets provide a lot more amperage than European 240V outlets on average so you get more! /s
15A (US) at 120V vs 13A (UK) at 240V does not constitute a ‘lot more’. It’s a bit more current and much less power.
The UK has the benefit of the ring main, while most of Europe is on a spur system and the US seems to be on whatever system the drunken homeowner or electrician decided to put in at the time.
LOL! It seems like you missed the /s tag!
W=V*A so, to get the same power, you need twice as much amperage at all half the voltage. So, the same device will use twice as much amperage if using 120V instead of 240V.
Ring mains are an idiotic practice.
Some older north american wiring is haphazard but anything built in the last 50 or so years is a star topology with either 120 or 240 and appropriate wire gauge and breaker as needed.
We even have fancy stuff like keyed plugs for different voltages and amperage ratings. Ooh. Aah.
The U.S uses a system that provides 220-240 between phases, and with each phase attached to ground in the middle, allowing 120 volts in a split-phase design. The rest of the world uses a system that provides 220/240 volts between each phase and ground, and therefore 415 volts between phases.
See the Delta-wye transformer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org] ), which is how our pole- and pad-mounted transformers are wired.
America ALSO has 3 phase it’s 208V between phases. This is why a lot of kit is specced for 208/240V.
The delta-star transformer you linked to doesn’t have a split phase output, it takes in 3 phase and emits 3 phase. Pole mounted transformers are often single phase in with split phase output.
240 V is what is delivered to domestic installations though. multiphase is only for commercial.
Point is you can have 240 outlets here in north america for anything that needs it
I have asked this question before: why isn’t there one standard connector to charge your car like there is one standard gas nozzle? Or is this another case of everyone wanting their own connector to lock in customers (hello, Apple)?
There is a standard – it’s CCS. Tesla wanted their own proprietary thing, so they did that roughly 10 years ago – and now that CCS is everywhere, Tesla wants people to stop using the standard and to adopt their proprietary connector.
If Tesla had done this 5 years ago, we’d be in a much different situation. Also… what good is a Tesla Supercharging station if only Tesla vehicles are allowed to charge at them?
Tesla made their design first – there was no other standard at the time. And they also licensed their design openly, so that others could use it, on a completely reasonable patent cross-licensing basis.
So Tesla ‘did this’ more than 5 years ago. It was the other manufacturers that went out and made their own design, forcing incompatibility with the already established Tesla design.
Key word being “licensed” not “made available for free”. If you look at the licensing terms it becomes very one sided on Tesla’s part and no major company would even think of doing it, hence a common open standard was made. If you want a read, this is straight from the fine print:
        A party is “acting in good faith” for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:
        -asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
        -asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
        -challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
        -marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.
You know that XKCD about how there are 14 competing standards, so someone creates a new universal one, and now there are 15 competing standards [xkcd.com]?
That’s basically EV charging. Like the summary says, Tesla’s charger was proprietary, so other EV manufacturers rolled their own. This led to a bunch of competing standards, most of them “open” but in fact made by individual manufacturers. These days, the US mostly uses CCS, but a different and incompatible version of CCS than Europe uses (because of course), while Japan and China use their own standards.
Tesla’s standard is better and simpler, and it would be nice if it could become the standard, but I expect that other companies will refuse to support it out of spite.

Tesla’s standard is better and simpler…

Tesla’s standard is better and simpler…
Looking at my CCS cable, and my neighbor’s Tesla cable I agree. I just don’t understand why, once Tesla had started building out it’s supercharger network years ago, it didn’t immediately open up it’s connector design.

The American Dream is to have a proprietary system. Musk was heavily invested in the American Dream. He may be having second thoughts now that he’s living the American Nightmare,

The American Dream is to have a proprietary system. Musk was heavily invested in the American Dream. He may be having second thoughts now that he’s living the American Nightmare,
Now, now. There are quite a few people who would be pleased if Twitter completely dies, and would consider it a humanitarian service.
The rest of the industry rejected it.
Same reason you need a zillion different apps and a cell connection to use chargers but all gas pumps either take your credit card at the pump or have a dude manning a cash register: people trying to monetize shit that open standards don’t monetize *and* some marketing fuck decreeing that EV therefore hi tech therefore reinvent the steering wheel and the payment wheel.

Or is this another case of everyone wanting their own connector to lock in customers (hello, Apple)?

Or is this another case of everyone wanting their own connector to lock in customers (hello, Apple)?
Not “everyone”. Only the dominant market participant resists standardization.
If you are biggest, you face a higher risk of people switching away than switching to. So you benefit from lock-in.
So Tesla resists standard chargers. Apple resists standard connectors and message protocols. Microsoft resists standard file formats and APIs.
There are effectively three standards, but TL;DR: There’s only “one” standard.
The first standard is SEA J1772. There is a “Type 1” used in North America, and a “Type 2” (aka IEC 62196/Mennekes) in Europe. The difference between the types is “Type 1” supports only single phase and “Type 2” supports 3-phase, because 3-phase is actually more commonly available in Europe. Except for the number of pins, they are compatible (adapters are available). An extension of J1772 is “CCS” (Or Combined Charging System) which is the fast charging socket. This uses the same J1772 port (so non-CCS plugs still work) but with two additional pins to the high voltage DC. There is still a Type 1 and 2.
The second standard is Tesla. Tesla made their own connector and protocol because they didn’t feel J1772 was ready to implement yet and decided to not wait for the rest of the industry to catch up. That was a great plan in the short term but now it’s kinda biting them in the ass… and the real kicker is the Tesla port can’t handle as much current (and therefore, not as much power) as CCS, so they are already obsolete when it comes to potential charging speeds. Womp womp.
The third standard is GB/T which is used only in China, because China’s gotta China I guess.
There is technically a fourth standard, Chademo, which is an older Japanese standard that is basically dead and only persists by force of law for the benefit of people who purchased vehicles with Chademo ports… eventually they’ll all be gone, so I’m not counting a dead standard.
J1772 is “The” standard that all publicly sold EVs outside China will be using going forward.
Side note: non-CSS Type 2 systems have the added quirk of users generally having to supply their own cables. The charge point (which is really just an AC outlet) has a socket, and you bring your own cord to connect that socket to the socket on your car. This eliminates the need for a cord at each location, reduces cost and decreases potential for theft/vandalism… but you gotta carry your own cord.
=Smidge=

That was a great plan in the short term but now it’s kinda biting them in the ass… and the real kicker is the Tesla port can’t handle as much current (and therefore, not as much power) as CCS,

That was a great plan in the short term but now it’s kinda biting them in the ass… and the real kicker is the Tesla port can’t handle as much current (and therefore, not as much power) as CCS,
This is completely untrue. Tesla’s charger can handle up to 300A at 400V (so 240kW), and it actually does that in practice right now. CCS allows up to 200A but actual connectors it rarely do.

The actual major difference is that CCS allows voltage of up to 1kV while the Tesla charger is limited to 400V. This new standard also upgrades the allowed voltage to 1kV.
> CCS allows up to 200A but actual connectors it rarely do
They’ve been installing 350KW CCS chargers for over a year now. CCS standard is 350A at 1000V.
There’s nothing intrinsic in the standard that sets that current limit, either. If they wanted to, they could make it “temperature limited” like the proposed NACS. Considering current Tesla connectors already have thermal problems that feels like it might not really be an advantage though.
=Smidge=
The Tesla connector is rated 500/1000V (backward compatible) and 900A in the non liquid-cooled form.
Ref: https://www.tesla.com/support/… [tesla.com]
It is not rated 900A. It has no amperage rating at all, instead specifying that current should be limited only based on connector temperature (max 105C).
They claimed they put 900A “continuously with a non-liquid cooled vehicle inlet” Any engineer worth their pocket protector will immediately ask at least two questions:
1) How long is “continuously?” 10 minutes? An hour?
2) The “vehicle inlet” wasn’t liquid cooled, but what about the charging cable itself?
=Smidge=
Electrically, continuous is defined as three hours or more; longer durations don’t change things. A better question would have been at what ambient temperature, but even that is only a ~20% delta.
> the Tesla charger is limited to 400V.
Read the NACS spec linked in TFS. It can handle 1KV.
Also it’s a really good spec. Very thick on important details and very thin on bullshit. I found the voltage spec in 30 seconds.
I spent a significant fraction of my career on international and national standards development and the fraction of bullshit in most standards is very, very high. This results in specs that no one reads and everyone implements it wrong. IEEE is halfway there. ISO/IEC is neck high in it.
> Read the NACS spec linked in TFS. It can handle 1KV.
Tesla chargers are not NACS.
The connector, with the proposed (backwards-compatible) modifications in the spec, will make the Tesla connector 1000V rated.
All existing Tesla superchargers are 400V class because every Tesla EV on the road is 400V class. Maybe when they start rolling out Gen 5 superchargers they’ll move to 800V/1000V class capable.
=Smidge=
So if NACS becomes a standard for North America, then more EVs will have more working chargers available.
Also Aptera [aptera.us] called this one months ago:
Aptera Wants Tesla Charging Connector [insideevs.com]
Whether the chargers are better maintained (Tesla) or not (everybody else, sadly) has little to do with the connector type used. If Tesla begins adding CCS to it’s chargers, they won’t suddenly stop maintaining them.
Also, I doubt the connector used by a company that doesn’t actually produce EVs will sway anybody.
The reason Tesla’s charging network has such good reliability is largely down to their total control of both charger and automobile. It’s a totally closed ecosystem with likely the same people working on both halves, so of course everything works well together.
CCS is a bit of a shitshow because you have a published standard and it’s basically up to each manufacturer of charger, and each manufacturer of automobile, to implement that standard. This means a lot of bugs pop up when one car doesn’t quite get alo

and up to 1 MW DC charging

and up to 1 MW DC charging
Uh, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Last I saw, the new version 3 superchargers would support only about 1/3 of this. And that was about the same time that Tesla said they would open up their superchargers to non-Tesla EVs, so why didn’t they make this change just a few months later?
I think Tesla offered this up way to late, and I’m a little baffled as to why they didn’t do this years ago. If they think the large, slow to change car manufacturers are going to pivot just as they are starting to ram
> I don’t know how it compares for the electrical and data aspects, particularly for bidirectional charging which Tesla is stubbornly refusing to support
CCS supports up to 350 amps and up to 1000 volts DC, for a maximum charge rate of 350KW. How much power your car actually gets is determined by the car (assuming the charger isn’t shared between multiple cars, which actually happens more with Tesla V1/V2 stations but some CCS stations also do it)
The latest Tesla Superchargers being installed support up t

they have a bit of an issue with charging speeds getting throttled because the handles get too hot.

they have a bit of an issue with charging speeds getting throttled because the handles get too hot.
The handle doesn’t get hot. It’s liquid-cooled, just as in CCS. The main limiting factor is the battery.

NACS also extends the standard to 1kV from the current 400V.
> The handle doesn’t get hot.
Here’s a Tesla forum thread about putting a wet rag on the handle to keep it cooler and reduce current throttling. [teslamotorsclub.com] It’s a problem all Gen2 superchargers have.
Adding liquid cooling to the Gen3 superchargers was a response to this, and even with that upgrade they only go up to 250KW.
=Smidge=
Again, not really. The standard poses no limit on current, but on connection temperature. If CCS updates to pose the same requirement then CCS also has “a clear way forward to 1MW.”
However, saying you can dump as much current as you like as long as the connector doesn’t overheat is kind of like saying it’s safe to drive as fast as you like as long as you don’t crash… it’s not a metric you can base any performance expectations off of.
=Smidge=
At least now I can reverse engineer my kids drive-able toy car to charge just like daddy’s Tesla.
Must’ve stuck the plan in the deep freezer for open sourcing the charging network infrastructure and components. Maybe afraid of monopolist charges back in those early times.
Now a true capitalist Oligarch, thecWestern world’s first, what does it matter? Someone else is calling these shots.
In Europa Tesla saw the writing on the wall long ago.
Here they use CSS2 only. Both cars and super chargers. Super chargers are too expensive – thus many Tesla owners never use them. Maybe except on holiday when other networks might have. a line.
If something that is in a lot of cars gets to be the standard, it will ensure that the cars won’t be obsolete because some other port is standardized.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Binance’s CZ Slams Reports Binance’s Reserves Are Full of Its Own Tokens
Reddit Now Lets You Mute Subreddits You Don’t Like
The Shuttle is now going five times the sound of speed. — Dan Rather, first landing of Columbia

source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *