GM follows Ford with NACS Tesla charge port adoption -- time to ditch CCS1 (at least the physcial design)

[daveo4EV]

Good article with this great quote -- "The Tesla NACS charging plug is a thing of beauty. In comparison, the CCS fast charging plug is big, heavy, and clunky. The NACS plug invites people to use it. The CCS plug dares people to use it. It’s a subtle point but an important one when you are trying to make people comfortable before trying something new."

Makes you wonder what was going on when CCS1 was developed. I doubt that anyone in the room had EV experience.

I know what was going on - it only had to be "functional" - no one cared about any design goals in that room of several companies collaborating on something that was not Germain to their core business…

CCS1 has all the hallmarks of something that "worked" but was not "designed" with any consideration other than minimally viable functionality…

zero sh*ts were given - no one expected to ever have to follow through.

Sponsored

 

[whitex]

CCS1 has all the hallmarks of something that "worked" but was not "designed" with any consideration other than minimally viable functionality…

To me CCS1 has all the hallmarks of the "great compromise" which I constantly see resulting from designs by committees - everyone got some idea in, nobody's complete vision is realized, nobody really feels proud of the resulting design, as most of it was a compromise to someone else's ideas.

 

[mrogerc]

I suspect the worst thing about CCS1 is inherent in its name: COMBINED Charging Standard.

J1772 was first standardized in 2001, then refined in 2009. CCS1 was developed in 2011. So it appears a key design constraints for CCS1 was backwards compatibility. The already clunky J1772 needed DC connectors attached to it, while also allowing the J1772 plug to be used as before.

Backwards compatibility is great, until it is awful. I fully suspect many of the engineers who worked on the project understood the limitations and compromise, but with a backward compatibility design constraint, this is the best they could do. In other words, the engineers who developed CCS1 were not stupid, they had their hands tied behind their back by a stupid requirement.

Tesla abandoned backwards compatibility for Roadster customers. Good idea. They also appear to have used the Roadster experience to create a much better design, but from a clean sheet.

This Wikipedia article covers the history of J1772/CCS1 for anyone interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772

 

[whitex]

I suspect the worst thing about CCS1 is inherent in its name: COMBINED Charging Standard.

J1772 was first standardized in 2001, then refined in 2009. CCS1 was developed in 2011. So it appears a key design constraints for CCS1 was backwards compatibility. The already clunky J1772 needed DC connectors attached to it, while also allowing the J1772 plug to be used as before.

Backwards compatibility is great, until it is awful. I fully suspect many of the engineers who worked on the project understood the limitations and compromise, but with a backward compatibility design constraint, this is the best they could do. In other words, the engineers who developed CCS1 were not stupid, they had their hands tied behind their back by a stupid requirement.

Tesla abandoned backwards compatibility for Roadster customers. Good idea. They also appear to have used the Roadster experience to create a much better design, but from a clean sheet.

This Wikipedia article covers the history of J1772/CCS1 for anyone interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772

Backwards compatibility could have been kept and still reuse the 2 AC pins (appropriately beefed up for high current DC, but backwards compatible in terms of size) and multiplex them like the NACS connector does via signaling. Adding separate pins was just a crude, brute force method, lacking ingenuity.

In case you're thinking "look at how much bigger the DC pins are, no way you can do it" check out the size of AC/DC pins on the NACS connector. So not only can it be done, it was done and everyone is moving to it.

 

[Tooney]

The Tesla Cybertruck Can't Take A CCS Charging Adapter (insideevs.com)

This is a big deal because the Cybertruck is Tesla’s most advanced passenger vehicle to date, with an 800-volt architecture that might trickle down to more affordable models in the near future. And if the Cybertruck can’t charge from a CCS source, neither will the subsequent models that will borrow tech from the electric pickup.

 

[DRR]

The Tesla Cybertruck Can't Take A CCS Charging Adapter (insideevs.com)

This is a big deal because the Cybertruck is Tesla’s most advanced passenger vehicle to date, with an 800-volt architecture that might trickle down to more affordable models in the near future. And if the Cybertruck can’t charge from a CCS source, neither will the subsequent models that will borrow tech from the electric pickup.

Cybertruck can't charge at CHAdeMO either. CCS is being replaced by NACS.

 

[Jonathan S.]

This pretty much sums it up:

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/cars/youve-formed-your-opinion-on-evs-now-let-me-change-it-6c6fd1c1

"[...] and the inadequacy of public charging. God knows, I’ve been there. Electrify America, on behalf of early adopters: Bite me."​

​

"After a decade of self-sabotage, most automakers decided last year to adopt Tesla’s NACS charging standard in the U.S., which will allow their customers to use Tesla’s robust Supercharging network, like civilized people."​

 

[Jonathan S.]

What a total joke:
https://www.latimes.com/environment...-approves-ev-charging-plan-despite-complaints

Except too bad that the joke is on us.

CARB knows that EA is disgraceful. Yet plans to do nothing:

“What we see here today is a lack of specificity in the maintenance plan,” said member Eric Guerra. “I would hate that today becomes a rubber stamp for a maintenance plan that says ‘trust us.’ ”

Yes, that’s right Eric. But since you and your colleagues have been doing exactly that for the prior three investment cycles, why bother doing anything different for the final investment cycle?

Expect more of the same when EA provides its investment plan to US EPA for the other 49 states.

 

[daveo4EV]

What a total joke:
https://www.latimes.com/environment...-approves-ev-charging-plan-despite-complaints

Except too bad that the joke is on us.

CARB knows that EA is disgraceful. Yet plans to do nothing:

“What we see here today is a lack of specificity in the maintenance plan,” said member Eric Guerra. “I would hate that today becomes a rubber stamp for a maintenance plan that says ‘trust us.’ ”

Yes, that’s right Eric. But since you and your colleagues have been doing exactly that for the prior three investment cycles, why bother doing anything different for the final investment cycle?

Expect more of the same when EA provides its investment plan to US EPA for the other 49 states.

Air board staffer Jennifer Gress said the first lesson is “… we didn’t anticipate the need for maintenance and upgrades.”

emphasis mine…

in other words 100% clueless and incompentent!!

this just frustrates me - why don't you just come out and say - "We have NO IDEA what we are doing and really don't want this to work".

 

[Tooney]

California Air Resources Board

 

[Jonathan S.]

emphasis mine…

in other words 100% clueless and incompentent!!

this just frustrates me - why don't you just come out and say - "We have NO IDEA what we are doing and really don't want this to work".

How’s that saying go…
Fool CARB in Investment Cycle 1, shame on EA.
Fool CARB in Investment Cycle 2, shame on CARB.
Fool CARB in Investment Cycles 3 and 4…

 

[whitex]

emphasis mine…

in other words 100% clueless and incompentent!!

this just frustrates me - why don't you just come out and say - "We have NO IDEA what we are doing and really don't want this to work".

That is the problem here. This essentially is government spending, and EA is a typical government money spender, i.e. they don’t actually do any engineering or design, they subcontract everything out, hence the myriad of different hardware, payment processors, vendors. EA is a just a bunch of pencil pushers who debate and compromise on which vendor should be awarded what contract. Sadly, there is no prior blueprint how to run a charging network, which would tell them they need a budget line item for upgrades and maintenance (more contracts they needed to award to vendors).

 

[Tooney]

Ford CEO confirms complimentary charging adapters coming soon
F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E owners can reserve them soon, CEO says.

 

[whitex]

Ford CEO confirms complimentary charging adapters coming soon
F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E owners can reserve them soon, CEO says.

Is this "Elon soon"? Because people are still waiting for features Elon promised to be available "soon" back in 2013 (e.g. SDK to create apps for Tesla infotainment), or full self driving (summon from New York to L.A.) which has been coming "sooner than anyone things" or "3 months maybe, 6 months for sure", or "by the end of the year" since 2017.

 

[DRR]

Is this "Elon soon"? Because people are still waiting for features Elon promised to be available "soon" back in 2013 (e.g. SDK to create apps for Tesla infotainment), or full self driving (summon from New York to L.A.) which has been coming "sooner than anyone things" or "3 months maybe, 6 months for sure", or "by the end of the year" since 2017.

True, but are you sure Tesla is the holdup since with the Tesla app you can charge a CCS vehicle on a magic dock site. The release says the adapter will work seamlessly with Ford pass which to me means Ford needed time to integrate the software. If that’s the case with Porsche we may be waiting a long time for the adapter. I’d be happy to use the Tesla app.

Sponsored