GM to use Tesla charging network, joining Ford
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
I genuinely don't know why people are excited to replace an open standard with a proprietary one. Imagine if all USB development were hamstrung and required to go through an Apple approval process, and every device you bought had to pay the Apple tax for a lightning port?
In addition, it seems that in the way the way the language is worded, Tesla's connector now qualifies for infrastructure subsidies because it can charge multiple makes of vehicles, even though it's limited to only those makes that have paid them the tax*. That's appalling.
* this is made clear by their discussion of the Tesla to CCS adapters, which are vendor locked to only charge GM and Ford vehicles. Everyone with a different brand of car is left out. "Open standard"? I don't think so.
1. Tesla already opened up the NACS connector for others to use. We don't know the detail yet but the license fee is probably minimal if Ford and GM agree to join.
2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable.
3. Your USB example would be more like manufacturers sticking with Serial port (with manual configuration and payment done by the user) vs plug-and-play USB 1.0 (still a pain but it's a huge improvement.)
4. Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
Any licensing fee paid to a single company is unacceptable for what is described as an "open standard."
> the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS
Sure, it's bigger, but how is that a problem? It's not like you carry it with you. Nobody I know has ever had an issue physically working with it, including people 70+ years old.
> Tesla has a larger and better charging infrastructure than EA etc. What's wrong with giving infrastructure subsidies to companies who proved they have a superior product? Or do you think that everyone deserves a piece of the pie, regardless of their technical competency?
I have a big problem with companies getting infrastructure subsidies that they then use to rent-seek in the market and force other companies to pay them fees for access to publicly-funded infrastructure, yes.
I'm not saying subsidies have to be given equally, but subsidies should absolutely not be given to companies that limit the product of that subsidy (charging) based on licensing for profit.
The plug is huge, the cables are heavy.. there is a poorly implemented locking mechanism that frequently breaks.. some people end up propping up the cable to support it so it doesn't trip that failure mode.
The CCS network companies in US are a joke, they are more than 5 year behind Tesla and building out slower than Tesla's current expansion.
On the east coast they are in less convenient locations, with fewer overall stations, with fewer stalls per station, with way higher failure rates, with much longer repair times.. and if you do happen to use it, the interface to activate charging is slower, error prone, and sometimes requires calling them.
I can go on and on.
CCS in US, lead by EA, has truly and utterly failed. I am less happy with them continuing to be propped up by government subsidies and carmaker bulk purchases, than I am to see Tesla get a little more money to support their incredible charging network.
I am an EV proponent and would never pressure any family member to buy a non-Tesla because I do not want to be responsible for their CCS experience. I say this, again, as a non-Tesla EV owner who is happier with my car than with my old Tesla.
There is no successful EV transition in the US in which we rely on the likes of the Electrify America, EVGo and Chargepoint.
i have a non tesla ev and it’s totally fine.
For EA, there’s also a 10% chance it’ll flip my car’s “oh my god you are trying to make me explode with bad voltage, abort! abort!” alarm/circuit breaker.
At home, there is no problem. For a given evgo charger, there is no problem (so I know it isn’t my car).
Also, the flaky data connection stuff from above is documented in the ea UI (and only seems to apply to them… they really suck).
I’ll begrudgingly admit that chargepoint generally works, but screw them for having an app (and they’re mostly only level 2 anyway).
Also, there are a half dozen smaller networks, each of which is also a fractal snowflake of bullshit like this.
It really isn’t. Driving my Leaf or i3 beyond 70 miles round trip is absolute Russian roulette. Will the charger be in service? Will it accept payment? Will it accept payment and then, for unknowable reasons, just not initiate charging?
Contrast that with driving 2000 miles round trip in a Tesla. There’s not going to be any trouble charging, ever.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
I do agree that the connector needs to be a public standard and the licensing fee needs to be kept to a minimal.
(I am against free solely to cover the cost of standard validation similar to WiFi. As we see from USB-C, having 1000 companies of various quality developing charging cable is a disaster, but now it's 400V 500Amp connector.)
I assume they changed facetime to not infringe the patent (which was later found invalid anyway) in response so couldn't they just have opened up the changed version?
If that lawsuit affected their ability to go forward with facetime, facetime surely wouldn't exist at all so I don't understand why it explains facetime continuing to exist but not being open.
The latest event: https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-wins-reversal-502-mln-vi...
It's since exploded into things beyond just FaceTime. The FaceTime one though, Apple ultimately lost their appeal in 2019 and paid out $440M for FaceTime infringement (so, yes, legally speaking, VirnetX won). It's now over VPN patents which had some patents cancelled.
With FaceTime being legally infringing... hard to make an open standard. Plus, why would they now? Not only would it primarily benefit the competition; but it would also undermine FaceTime's security. The beauty of FaceTime is that it is very much tied to physical devices, making it very expensive and difficult to spam call without detection. An open standard would likely lose that ability, causing spam video calls everywhere.
Noone has to pay Tesla to build vehicles that support this.
They might have to pay to get the level of app integration that they want, but that is a different thing.
> Network operators already have plans in motion to incorporate NACS at their chargers, so Tesla owners can look forward to charging at other networks without adapters.
It’s all bad software, poor maintenance, and bullshit silicon valley social networking stuff.
For instance, EA’s and evgo’s tap to pay terminals will fail to work regardless of whether you’re trying to charge with a tesla cord or a ccs cord.
And Tesla has already opened up charging to all EVs on some superchargers via the Magic Dock, but the situation isn't amazing, especially with many new cars using an 800 volt architecture and thus not charging super fast on Tesla's 400 volt superchargers. https://youtu.be/pUYqDNCIFD8
Combine this with how many charge port doors aren't on the back left or front right, and you have a really messy charging situation with blocked spots and slow charging cars.
The partnership most likely means:
- The cars will be 400 volt architecture (or otherwise 800v and upcoming V4 superchargers will support up to 1000 volts)
- The charging port door will be either on the front right quarter of the car, or back left quarter.
Also, in the original announcement, I wonder if ford meant they'll give CCS to Tesla adapters[0] so that you can plug in on existing infra.
And who is/are the "relevant standards bodies"? SAE? IEC? Other?
... do you understand how out of touch this is? Every single recent "public standard" will absolutely require paying license fees to some company, or often a whole pool of companies. This is simply how things are done, designing things cost money and that money is recouped through licensing. The key part is that the licenses are FRAND, or Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminating.
If the fee is to one company, it is usually an industry non-profit (HDMI, Bluetooth) that doesn't itself have a stake in the outcome. If it's a pool of companies they also have to hash things out amongst themselves and no one company will have control over another.
Neither of these situations apply to Tesla and 'NACS'.
If Tesla wants to give up control of 'NACS' to SAE or IEC, then we can talk.
I don't get audio when I use my DVR on Plex because of that.
There is no such thing as ATSC 3 audio. ATSC is the transmission standard, either ATSC 1 (basically everywhere, 1080p) or ATSC 3 in some cities ("Next-Gen TV", 4K). ATSC 1 uses Dolby Digital AC-3, ATSC 3 uses Dolby AC-4 which is otherwise quite rare.
Also, that's a very light example. Look into the patent situation for H.264 / AVC, H.265 / HEVC. They are Open Standards (you can download the documentation right now), but they are patent minefields to implement, with dozens of companies and hundreds, if not thousands of patents.
Also, to reply to the comment above you:
> If the fee is to one company, it is usually an industry non-profit (HDMI, Bluetooth) that doesn't itself have a stake in the outcome. If it's a pool of companies they also have to hash things out amongst themselves and no one company will have control over another.
What? HDMI is not an open standard - you need to pay to get the documentation, pass certification, and pay a royalty fee per device (about 5-15 cents per connector). You also need to license the logo because HDMI is actually a brand. Sure, anyone can get HDMI, but it sure ain't open. And if it's a TV or a monitor, better license HDCP separately. Also, as for Bluetooth... that was a patent minefield for decades.
Part of what makes Tesla so successful is that they can make EVs cheaply. Using NACS instead of CCS seems to be one factor in keeping costs down:
because the charge door is smaller, they can make it part of the trim instead of having to match it to the body
The plumbing from the charge door to the battery also seems more cost effective
Watt for watt, dropping weight makes a small but real improvement in EV range
The latch setup also seems better, on Plugshare I see a decent # of chargers that are out of commissions because of how CCS puts the latch on the EVSE
Shaving a few ounces isn't going to make a difference in range. With EVs, even adding a hundred pounds or two isn't changing the range that much. You get a ton of it back in regen so the vast majority of energy usage is rolling resistance (which a few pounds isn't changing) and aero drag (no weight difference at all).
That's maybe 12lbs of extra stuff. On a 4,500lb car. 12/4500. 0.2% difference in mass in a car with regen braking. You think that's enough for a difference in range?
I routinely get groceries weighing more than that. There's no effective difference in my range. I don't even have a noticeable hit in range with just a solo driver or four total people with bags, a difference of probably 600lbs or so.
The Lightning range estimates don't really change much with several hundred pounds of stuff in the bed. You really only start seeing range hits towing, and that's mostly because you're adding a lot of drag and extra rolling resistance with more tires.
I don't think the charge port is making that much of an impact on the range. Motor design and placement, aero drag, suspension, tires, battery size, inverter efficiency. These things will affect range, but not 12 extra pounds.
So the three wires would weigh 1-3 pounds total for six feet of cable.
All doors and bumpers on a car is attached to the body during the paint process, then the whole thing is painted, disassembled, and re-mated later to the same chassis, for better color matching.
The NACS latch is entirely driven by the car, which is fine for the owner of the car — assuming the car is working as it ought to, the owner can disconnect a charger. But there is no intelligent logic for when someone (owner or otherwise) ought to be able to disconnect the charger without the owner’s help. In many cases, it would make sense to be able to disconnect someone else’s car once it’s fully charged, and disconnecting or connecting a charger in the owner’s garage should not require unlocking the car.
The J1772 latch is substantially more complex, and I’ve seen it get stuck. This is quite nasty when it happens.
This seems like a bad idea for something designed by for use in public with no direct supervision. I would absolutely prefer that no one disconnect my car over having the ability to disconnect someone else's car. I can understand having some override that requires a little mechanical effort in the case of malfunction, repossession, or something like that. However, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to disconnect my car at their discretion. That is a recipe for chaos at charging stations. Plus the caveat of "once its fully charged", already means you need to let the car have at least partial control over the unlocking mechanism anyway.
It actually does cause reliability issues. A common troubleshooting tip for a CCS (Type 1) charge failing to start is to lift up and push in on the handle while the charge is starting to make sure the data pins make good contact for the initial handshake.
I'm sure Ford and GM have some real world reliability metrics around this at this point.
My understanding is this is unique to CCS Type 1 used in North America, which uses an external lever at the top of the connector to latch it to the vehicle. CCS Type 2 used in Europe and elsewhere uses internal latch points where the vehicle locks the connector to the port during charging and doesn't seem to have the same issue.
I've got bad news for you regarding USB, DisplayPort and HDMI. All those connectors require paying license fees to their respective companies.
See also: HD Radio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio#United_States
HD Radio on the other hand is just something of little interest to me personally. By the time I had a tuner with that feature, it also came with bluetooth which meant my device was doing the work and the radio was just a legacy thing that came with the device.
So if I want to purchase a NACS charger for my house, besides Tesla, what are my options?
> 2. the CSS1 connector is monstrous compare to NACS, with design deficiencies that are more or less not fixable.
Besides size apparently, what are these "design deficiencies" that you speak of?
It’s kind of the chicken and egg problem, but should work itself out since they seem adamant about making it a free, open standard.
What does this mean? Who is doing the ratification? SAE? IEC? Other?
You'll forgive me if I don't believe them, considering their last PR release pre-2021 about it being an "open standard" included the fine print of Tesla gaining permanent access to all of your IP if you used it.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
This plastic locking mechanism on a CCS handle can break if it's abused, leaving it in an unsafe state to use
The locking mechanism can also break on the car. Its way more challenging to fix. Also, I'd prefer to always be able to quickly and easily manually unlatch it, which isn't true on a Tesla. On most models the manual release is tucked pretty deep in the car.
It has to capture the CCS latch and is often a little flipper near the top of the car's inlet.
Tesla's larger network is just classic first mover advantage and output setting. Not an indication their (charging) product is "technically superior".
Which one? Thunderbolt/USB4 (which pretty much still requires intel only solutions/chips)
How about HDMI? ;)
It's why non Tesla chargers are such a compatibility mess. There are a few emerging standards like plug & charge and a mess of ISO and other specifications. So, things are slowly improving but there are still lots of issues with cars and chargers not being compatible with each other, weird payment processes and complexity, enormous testing overhead to deal with all the silly hacks, workarounds, bugs, etc. CCS is a bit of a train wreck as a standard and it's a bit user hostile. And very much a work in progress.
The Tesla ecosystem predates all of that and is un-apologetically a Tesla ecosystem that has been running smoothly for many years that has none of those issues. While other vendors insisted EVs were a fad, Tesla actually invested in lots of chargers which is why they dominate the market.
The Tesla charging experience is best in class in this industry. It is a standard in its own right as well. Tesla positions NACS as an alternative to CCS. And like CCS, you can license it in order to use it and it is well specified. Ford and GM just chose to license NACS in addition to CCS to enable a better charging experience for their users. Nothing wrong with that. I'd say, more vendors will probably do this and that would effectively make it an industry standard just like CCS is. All an industry standard is is different companies agreeing on some specifications and signing licensing agreements with each other.
I think instead of governments dictating half broken specifications as standards or endorsing this or that consortium, it's better to just let the industry sort things out by itself.
> As a purely electrical and mechanical interface agnostic to use case and communication protocol, NACS is straightforward to adopt. The design and specification files are available for download, and we are actively working with relevant standards bodies to codify Tesla’s charging connector as a public standard. Enjoy.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
Is there any evidence of the license fee you mention?
CSIRO (Australia's science and technology research agency) developed WiFi and made the design "public". However, they also held a patent for that technology.
After other companies adopted WiFi as the standard, CSIRO went to the biggest users (BroadCom, AT&T, Lenovo, etc) and sued them for patent infringement. [1]
There are a few things that Tesla could do here. If they are building all of the charging infrastructure, and other manufacturers use the Tesla proprietary plug, does that mean other chargers can automatically use it as well? If not, that removes those players from the market - but as I understand it, Tesla chargers are way better anyway.
I'm sure Ford and GM lawyers are all over the potential implications of this in the future, but I think it's best not to consider public and proprietary as completely orthogonal.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-g...
Earlier today, I was hearing about the marketing benefit Tesla will get from everyone going to their chargers. It has 2 benefits.
How would Apple have benefitted if everyone who owned a PC had to go to an Apple store to buy a USB cable?
Also, Tesla will now build more of their charging network, putting their brand in more places.
So, just in the marketing alone, it's a huge win for Tesla.
Open standards with nominal fees are pretty standard.
You mean the organizations/standards that are run by non-profits where multiple competitors get together and hash things out so that no one company has a leg up on another?
Legacy and network effects: home A/V has HDMI because HDMI is on all home A/V equipment. At this point you can probably have either/both and things would work fine.
One technical distinction for HDMI is perhaps having CEC.
Home theater receivers use HDMI because the vast majority of things a home user is going to use with it also uses HDMI.
Then it was "it's not really free if they charge a fee", but that's common enough to be standard practice.
Now it's "But their org structure".
Not only is this a moving goalpost, I wonder if we're asymptomatically approaching "I just think Elon is a tool". Even if not, the news on TFA is good, because Tesla chargers are now more open.
CCS is not fit for purpose, even more so the CCS chargers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ
They are absolute garbage hardware with a clunky, fragile connector.
And the only company deploying them at scale is doing so because they (VW) were forced to when settling Dieselgate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war
I also think about other standards that went the proprietary way, like DirectX over OpenGL.
that said, tesla has done a really GOOD job. Their superchargers are everywhere, they have a many stalls at each location and they charge quickly.
They aren’t entitled to gouge but please explain why they shouldn’t be allowed to profit from being a huge first mover?
The NACS standard is public, and any auto or charger manufacturer is free to equip them, or make as many as they'd like.
Then there's the separate issue of whether or not a given car will communicate with a charger -- that is using the CCS standard, which is managed by a standards group.
So you have a free connector design, the ability to anybody and their dog to make adapters (although you probably shouldn't use a dog-designed adaptor), and the important part (the charging protocol) being controlled by the consortium you seem enamored by.
Tesla has already said their charging network will become EV-agnostic, making that an open standard.
You have to be strangely self-centered to proclaim that you can't understand why people are excited, and somewhat unwilling to read.
What adapters are you talking about here? I can't figure out if this is real.
Edit: Oh, you're talking about the proposed adapter as part of this deal.
67% of EVs shipped in North American in Q3 2022 supported NACS. While that % may have gone down in subsequent quarters, it goes up historically. That means the majority of EVs in North America already support NACS.
It's far easier for other manufacturers to adopt NACS than it is for Tesla to adopt CCS Combo 1.
Sure seems like there are seeing as how finding a dispenser with both CCS and Tesla is like finding a unicorn. You'd think someone would have been rolling them out years ago alongside Tesla.
Also, they did it in the most EVGo way possible. There was a high traffic route near me with no superchargers. EVGo had a location, but no adapter. But EVGo would put units like that in the same parking lot as supercharger. :facepalm
More recently, a lot of manufacturers want to do it, but there's a different constraint. High quality cable and connector manufacturers are not yet making Tesla connectors in volume. Tesla doesn't sell their own cables and connectors to third parties. I'm hearing that this will all change by next year, though.
At least one charger company (Freewire, IIRC) has committed to using them.
If there were third party natively Tesla compatible chargers (including payment negotiation), are you really saying you'd never use them? Like, if your hotel had a third party one, or there was the Tesla one off the highway a few miles away, you'd go.out of your way to go to the Tesla one? What if the third party ones were cheaper?
I totally get most Tesla owners ignoring CCS chargers currently. Most owners don't have adapters, many chargers would require some app for a subpar billing experience, people don't like the connector, etc. But I wouldn't understand people choosing Tesla ones over similarly equipped ones. It'd be like driving well out of your way to always use Shell stations while you pass up an Exxon, a Phillips, a Wawa, etc.
I also have the CCS adapter, but I've rarely used it. It does help when the CCS station is more convenient. I've had that happen a couple of times, but it is remarkably rare.
The opposite situation, CCS but no Tesla Supercharger access would be a lot less pleasant.
Having a few DCFC plugs would encourage people to rotate through more. Plug in when you first get there, get checked in and settled, then move the car. Bonus points for valet service doing it.
That or have a lot of L2 plugs.
doesnt it require licensing patents from Qualcomm to implement?
It’s unwise because there is no way for a passive cable or adapter to tell the car to limit current to anything below 80A.
Yes there is, the adapter just passively adapts all 5 pins. The J1772, CCS Combo 1, and NACS are all pin compatible. The EV has an ECU that can detect what is plugged by sensing the configuration on those 3 pins and negotiate accordingly. For older Teslas to support the CCS Combo 1 adapter they require an ECU upgrade. The adapter only needs to passively connect all 5 pins.
If your dumb adapter is actually rated for 80A and the J1772 protocol is never extended to allow more than 80A, you’re fine.
If your dumb adapter is rated for less than 80A, but your car and charger negotiate more than the rating of your adapter, you may have a problem. See, for example:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0045/1110/5114/files/JDapt...
If everyone adopts NACS then this won't be an issue because even the lower end adapters support 11.5kW. The longer it takes for North America to standardize, the greater the possibility of your hypothetical scenario becoming a reality.
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).
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.
That being said the FTC should require that Tesla open the connector spec if they are going to do this.
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?
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.
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.
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'?
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118
While what you say is true about a gas station, I think a lot of the standard privacy arguments dont really hold for a car.
Its literally illegal to drive a car without it being built to the standard the government likes, with an identifiable ID printed on the outside of it, with a valid license with your name and date of birth on, and current registration.
Let alone the fact that the vast majority of cars are sold with gps trackers bolted on if they are financed. Requiring a credit card tied to that vehicle is the least of your privacy worries.
The whole paying on a terminal/using an app thing is the wrong approach I think. Ultimately to charge there is a handshake protocol between two computers, just sort out payment then (and thats the standard NAC supports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118)
Adding a payment terminal is just adding another handshake and computer into the mix, a computer that needs to be (mostly) connected to the internet, exposed to the elements, and vulnerable to skimming devices.
It is incredibly rare to see a broken Tesla charger, and if you do, for it not to be repaired by the time you come back. Even at big 12-16 stall stations, it's incredibly rare to see a single one broken.
CCS chargers being broken is the norm, with typical 2 or 4 stall stations often having 1 broken. It's not unusual for the broken stall to go unprepared for weeks to months.
It can be too easy in rough removals to accidentally break the latch on the CCS1 charging cable (and busy car owners may not be careful enough to avoid the rougher removals) and it may be dangerous to operate with a broken latch so some of the software is (usefully) over-cautious about that. Even with the gentlest of usage by people, it's still a mechanical part prone to slow wear and tear from repeated use.
Bigger plug also goes with bigger heavier cables, the liquid cables require cooling to charge at high speed, one of the many failure rates is the cooling system which then reverts the chargers to operate at 20% power.
Another of the failures is the locking mechanism, which is obviously strained by the heavy cable.
The plug has to be put in just-so at sort of an awkward alignment/angle, doesn't go in easily like a NACS plug. Presumably the alignment leads to a lot of thrashing wear & tear.
I simply never saw Tesla stalls break at this rate. It isn't getting better either. EA changed brands and some of their NEW stalls begun failing. This after they abandoned maintenance at some sites as they were planning to replace with the new stalls. The other excuse is EA is fully beholden to OEMs for parts whereas Tesla makes their own. So another EA excuse has been they can't get parts.
You don't read about Tesla chargers getting stuck to cars / frying cars / etc as the same rate. Remember in the US there's probably 10x more Tesla cars in the wild, so you should hear charging horror stories at 10x the rate if their chargers were equally bad.
Instead, you hear 10x the CCS horror stories in US than you do Tesla, from 1/10th the population of cars.
Honestly I just don't care about all these "principle of the thing" arguments, I just want to charge my car.
And we aren't going to make a mass EV transition without working, ubiquitous, easy charging. Tesla is the only company to even remotely have this going on right now. And again I say this as a Tesla seller, BMW owner, Elon disliker.
At least that happened to me with some L2 chargers.
The plug is smaller and self-locates, but is also significantly more robust.
Hopefully they can work it out so that all cars can just plug in and everything is negotiated for you without any apps.
> most CCS chargers just fail to start charging
There's one charger in my neighborhood that is sometimes fiddly, but the vast majority of my charging experiences have been problem free.
> Usually the car is expecting current when it is plugged in, and by the time you open up the app and figure out how to pay, the car has given up on the charger and won't charge when the charger is ready.
I've never had anything like this experience. What charging network are you using? Electrify America chargers have credit card readers and don't require an app. EVGo chargers allow you to either use an app or tap an EVGo card. A bit annoying, I concede, but I have never had the timeout issue you describe. I'm also not sure what this complaint has to do with CCS. [Edit: Reading other comments, maybe EVGo chargers have CC readers too? Maybe I've just never noticed it because I have the EVGo payment card.]
> The CCS connector is hideous
No denying this one!
>The CCS connector...sags under its own weight
Not mine!
I'd bet that we'll start hearing all sorts of similar complaints about the NACS connector once people start using them on cars from a wider array of manufacturers with NACS-equipped EA/EVGo/ChargePoint (or similar) charging stations.
To be clear, I'm open to the possibility that NACS might be better. But I don't think it will be a panacea for peoples' EV charging issues. The CCS connector has become a scapegoat for a lot of the quality issues with non-Tesla charging networks.
The hardware is better, see - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsNiupN1X7s
The software didn't have to be so bad for CCS, and maybe it still will be for third parties in the future even with the NACS adapter. What can be guaranteed is that with this change there will more more and more reliable Tesla brand superchargers out there.
This is more a statement from GM/Ford that third party chargers have failed and we can't rely on them. GM/Ford aren't going to build their own network so their only option is to join Tesla.
Mostly EVGo.
At my nearest EVGo station all 3 chargers don't work. 1 has its software eternally crashed, the other never starts charging and only accepts MasterCard (no Visa), and the app fails to start charging. The 3rd has a physically broken connector.
There is no "call for help" button like elevators have, so I just go to a Tesla Supercharger instead.
I'm also not sure where people have needed an app to charge. In my experience at both EVGo and Electrify America stations, the credit card readers work just fine. I've never made an account for either of them. ChargePoint is the exception, but their system is extra stupid (you need to use the app, then NFC your phone)
(caveat being if you register your car in Montana using an anonymous LLC with an agent)
I've mostly used chargepoint (and Volta, heh). I used evgo quite some time ago and thought they pushed you to use the app. My sister recently used an evgo for a rental car and she said she had to install an app.
Sounds terrible. I shouldn't need an app to drive my car.
I've never had an official Tesla charger fail to charge when plugged in. Their maintenance is top notch.
The apps hardly work, and it doesn't help that I have to fiddle with a map and a list to find the charger I'm standing in front of by some name like "Agustin" or "Bashir", instead of just scanning a QR code or NFC tapping the physical plug which would have been a much better experience.
ChargePoint works well; EVGo almost never works. EA usually works after unplugging and plugging and trying about 3-4 times.
> The user-convenient and secure Plug & Charge feature that envisioned with ISO 15118 enables an electric vehicle to automatically identify and authorize itself to a compatible charging station on behalf of the driver, to receive energy for recharging its battery. The only action required by the driver is to plug the charging cable into the EV and/or charging station, because the car and the charger identify themselves to each other by exchanging certificates which were provided beforehand via a certificate pool to facilitate payment.
https://www.europapress.es/comunicados/internacional-00907/n...
When I had my gas car, I often used an app at gas stations, primarily to avoid card skimmers. (Tap to pay isn't ubiquitous at the pump)
The bigger benefit is that some charging stations will stop charging once your battery is "full", wait a bit, then start charging an idle rate. The app can notify you about this or you can be texted or both since the station knows who you are.
All EVs have a charging curve and typically the last 80% or 90% to full goes much more slowly than starting from 0% or 20%. In one case, ChargePoint decided that my Bolt EUV was charging too slowly and started charging me the idle rate without notifying me. Since the idle rate was $.25/minute, I ended up getting charged $1.50 or something like that. I didn't think the idle rate was unfair but I was literally waiting in a coffee shop for the car to get as charged as much as possible.
I have one in my garage; it does not sag under its own weight.
I agree with you that the CCS connector is perfectly inoffensive, but you're probably thinking of J1772, unless you have a DC fast charging station at home!
Except this is about 50%+ of connectors in my area. Doesn't seem to happen to the Tesla connectors.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in comments is that CCS standard is owned by BMW and they charge $50 patent fee on each connection.
100% Wrong
I can plug my Teslas into any J1772 charger with a dongle. I don't even use a Tesla charger at home. It's the same protocol, just a different plug shape.
I didn't buy the CCS adapter for my newer Tesla because there's a supercharger everywhere I want to go, and they're much more reliable. (That's also why I haven't paid to upgrade my older Tesla to be CCS compatible.)
Selfishly, I am looking forward to no longer needing to carry this around when chargers all go NACS.
They all work with Tesla models that support CCS. In North America it means buying a dumb adapter. In Europe everything is on CCS type 2 Combo so no adapter is needed and all brands of charger charge all brands of EV.
None of the reports around these NACS deals talk about which protocol will be used. They may end up using the CCS protocol with Tesla's plug.
Ultimately this is all the continued failure of North America to pick an EV charging standard. Incompatible infrastructure is a stupid outcome that's bad for everyone. It sounds like there's still years to go for North America to catch up to Europe.
Doubtful. I suspect that the US will standardize on NACS soon.
Then Europe will be playing catch up because it has a bulky charger connector compared to the US and China.
"Soon" being years away. So slow. The US is years behind as is.
> Then Europe will be playing catch up
What on earth are you talking about? All brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe. It's one of the reasons the European EV market is bigger than the North American market. There's been more common sense applied to infrastructure.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/9/23755184/tesla-ev-charging...
Europe will be stuck with a clunky CCS plug when the US has a lighter and easier to use plug.
Once these things get established, they are hard to change: In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances. "Instant" teakettles are common in the UK, and don't require special outlets. In the US, an "instant" teakettle would require a special outlet.
That's what happens when a country standardizes too early: The US had domestic electricity first... And picked a worse standard as a result.
It isn't clunky. That's a bizarre claim to make and plainly not based on any practical experience with the CCS type 2 combo plug.
Europe has simply done EV infrastructure better than the US. The European EV market is bigger. The European charging networks are better, faster, and growing every month.
Feebly attempting to argue otherwise is childish. The proof is in the field and internet theorizing doesn't change that.
> In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances.
Wot, you mean like how Tesla chargers are 400 volt which limits 800+ volt EVs from charging at their maximum kilowatts? Plenty of CCS chargers already support 800 volt cars. It will take a number of years for Tesla to roll out upgrades to get all their chargers up to spec.
Accusing me of being childish just shows that you're reverting to ad-hominin attacks instead of looking at the merits of the situation.
You plainly don't.
> Accusing me of being childish just shows that you're reverting to ad-hominin attacks
It's no insult to assess you correctly.
EA is genuinely one of the worst charging experiences I have ever had. The EA near my house is totally fine but while traveling it’s hit or miss. I tried using one last time because the Tesla supercharger had a 10min wait, I have an EA account, try to tap my account with my phone like always…does not work. Ok let me pay by credit card, it does not accept my main credit card so I use my backup, works. Charging starts then when my car gets to 60% it just stops, EA just stopped me. I try to restart the process and EA terminal says that I cannot charge anymore by credit card…What the heck. Just a terrible experience for something that should be so simple.
Just imagine how that will go during an evacuation. It'll be advertised to go GREAT because fuel stations won't run out of gas!
Edit: What they can't do is upcharge the price of gas during the evacuation. That's gouging. As a regular price though, it's fine.
We also welcome the publication of EU-US joint technical recommendations for government-funded implementation of e-vehicle charging infrastructure which were developed in consultation with governments, industry, and grid-service stakeholders.
1.) Adopt an agreed set of standards and regulations in technical requirements for
public funding, while expanding transatlantic collaboration to identify and
address priority gaps in standards for e-mobility infrastructure.
The following could be implemented now, or is currently implemented by authorities:
a) Require, as a minimum, use of pertinent IEC 61851 and IEC 62196-2/-3
standards for light- to medium-duty EV inlets and their EV-EVSE connectors,
respecting the "Type 1"- and "Type 2"- form, as commonly used in the U.S. and
the EU, respectively.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statem...
[1] https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023...
That's likely reference to Combo 1 and Combo 2 in CCS.
CCS Combo 1 and J1772 support single phase (i.e., North American) AC power. CCS Combo 1 is J1772 plus two large DC pins.
In Europe they use multi-phase power and so they don't have J1772, instead they use a connector colloquially called Mennekes. Thus they use CCS Combo 2 which is a Mennekes connector plus two large DC pins.
In order for Europe and US to adopt the same connector, the US would likely have to switch to Mennekes because I believe it can support single, two, or three phase AC.
Or more likely this would require the US to adopt CCS Combo 1. But I fail to see how that would benefit manufacturers because they'd still be supporting two CCS connectors.
Most larger buildings in the US (condominium complexes, commercial buildings, and things like supercharger stations) have three-phase supply. But most non-huge loads get only one or two of the phases, presumably because the benefit of wiring up all three is pretty small compared to the added expense of installing an extra wire and keeping track of which phase is which.
The J3068 standard is the North American version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J3068
It's largely compatible with the European standard.
Those are:
a) recommendations, not rules
b) for government-funded chargers
Even if those were rules, not mere recommendations, they would not apply to this deal.
Beta beat VHS, in this case.
It won because the Betamax cassette was too small, severely limiting payback length.
Feature films on Betamax used slower tape speeds compared to VHS; which meant that VHS typically had better picture quality.
The mythical "better" Betamax was limited to about an hour of playback per tape. Technically Betamax could have a better picture, but in practice it didn't. (Again, because the smaller cassette meant that it used slower tape speeds compared to VHS.)
The rule is: if government is subsidizing the chargers, it must be available to all cars.
Which is more than fair.
The current Tesla superchargers were fully funded by Tesla, so that requirement doesn't apply.
If government gives Tesla money to build a supercharger then this (and ONLY this) supercharger needs to be available to every car. Which Tesla would do by adding CCS connector to those superchargers and provide an app where you, an owner of Ford or GM car, can create an account and charge using that CCS connector.
That doesn't require Tesla to open the design of the connector.
What GM and Ford is (probably) paying here is access to 12 thousand of superchargers that Tesla build and paid for and things like API access etc. so that they can implement seamless billing for charging in their apps (as Tesla does in Tesla app) or get real-time information about availability of chargers so that they can do route planning that takes into account location of superchargers.
If you want to use a Tesla charging station, and you own a vehicle from a company that hasn't paid up, you're SOL.
That has to be some heavy margin for them.
And they certainly haven't been resting on their laurels. The entire supercharger network has doubled in recent years enabling more trips than ever.
Back in 2018 you were counting on these individual stations which to their credit never let me down. Now as I plan yet another cross-country trip, there are dozens of superchargers that I skip past as in some areas they are only 20 miles apart. Great for the consumer imo.