North American Charging Standard - goodbye CCS?
Discussion
Most of the US manufacturers, for the US, are dumping CCS (and ChaDeMo) to go with what amounts to the Tesla connector:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/now-volvo-is-...
Now, I always felt that CCS was deliberately designed to stall adoption of electric cars (*) but if the US dumps it and finally aligns to a single standard, they will end up in a good place where people will know they can get a charge at any chargepoint and won't need a boot full of adapters or cables.
While the EU is probably wedded to CCS for the foreseeable, China has its own standard and Japan is covered in ChaDeMo/Type 1 points one would guess the rest of the world will probably take the path of least resistance now and also go with the "Tesla standard".
Hopefully this will eventually lead to "one standard to rule them all" in the same way that you can put petrol in your car regardless of where you are or it came from.
As I understand it, all existing Teslas can already charge off Supercharger sites, even the CCS-equipped Model 3 etc. However, I think the US Tesla Supercharger is a different socket to the EU Supercharger (US stayed on Type1 for AC charging while the EU mandated Type 2). So even within the one company there is variation!
Hence I wonder if we're likely to see alignment to NACs in the UK?
(*)
1) It was introduced after ChaDeMo/Type1 equipped cars and chargepoints were already widespread, requiring the chargepoint providers to spend time and money reworking their points rather than rolling out new ones. And meaning that instead of having tethered cables at the points, everyone had to lug around a charging cable as points were made to be socketed so they could handle Type1/Type2 cars easily.
2) From what I heard, it was so ambiguously specified that when the developers were trying to update the software in the chargepoints to accommodate CCS they found the code would work with either a VW or a BMW but not both at the same time, as the implementation at the car end was different. Leading to lots of unreliability on the chargepoints (aside from having had to wedge in a totally different standard e.g. PLC vs CanBus etc.)
3) The connector is gigantic and as a result often pulls out the socket. So the only advantage it had over early ChaDeMo connectors (ease of use) was negated as people had to adopt approaches such as holding up the cable by hand while the session was established. Meanwhile the second-generation ChaDeMo connectors were simple triggers and just as easy to use, while making solid connections.
4) The EU mandated that all public chargepoints had to support CCS. This was either a sensible move to ensure commonality, or a way of delaying or stalling the rollout of any other standard.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/now-volvo-is-...
Now, I always felt that CCS was deliberately designed to stall adoption of electric cars (*) but if the US dumps it and finally aligns to a single standard, they will end up in a good place where people will know they can get a charge at any chargepoint and won't need a boot full of adapters or cables.
While the EU is probably wedded to CCS for the foreseeable, China has its own standard and Japan is covered in ChaDeMo/Type 1 points one would guess the rest of the world will probably take the path of least resistance now and also go with the "Tesla standard".
Hopefully this will eventually lead to "one standard to rule them all" in the same way that you can put petrol in your car regardless of where you are or it came from.
As I understand it, all existing Teslas can already charge off Supercharger sites, even the CCS-equipped Model 3 etc. However, I think the US Tesla Supercharger is a different socket to the EU Supercharger (US stayed on Type1 for AC charging while the EU mandated Type 2). So even within the one company there is variation!
Hence I wonder if we're likely to see alignment to NACs in the UK?
(*)
1) It was introduced after ChaDeMo/Type1 equipped cars and chargepoints were already widespread, requiring the chargepoint providers to spend time and money reworking their points rather than rolling out new ones. And meaning that instead of having tethered cables at the points, everyone had to lug around a charging cable as points were made to be socketed so they could handle Type1/Type2 cars easily.
2) From what I heard, it was so ambiguously specified that when the developers were trying to update the software in the chargepoints to accommodate CCS they found the code would work with either a VW or a BMW but not both at the same time, as the implementation at the car end was different. Leading to lots of unreliability on the chargepoints (aside from having had to wedge in a totally different standard e.g. PLC vs CanBus etc.)
3) The connector is gigantic and as a result often pulls out the socket. So the only advantage it had over early ChaDeMo connectors (ease of use) was negated as people had to adopt approaches such as holding up the cable by hand while the session was established. Meanwhile the second-generation ChaDeMo connectors were simple triggers and just as easy to use, while making solid connections.
4) The EU mandated that all public chargepoints had to support CCS. This was either a sensible move to ensure commonality, or a way of delaying or stalling the rollout of any other standard.
Is it Vehicle to Grid and Vehicle to load compatible?
Makes total sense to have a smaller, lighter and easier to use connector over the stupid CCS ones if it’s just as capable (3-phase being a bit of a stumbling block in some European countries)
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
Makes total sense to have a smaller, lighter and easier to use connector over the stupid CCS ones if it’s just as capable (3-phase being a bit of a stumbling block in some European countries)
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
LivLL said:
Is it Vehicle to Grid and Vehicle to load compatible?
Makes total sense to have a smaller, lighter and easier to use connector over the stupid CCS ones if it’s just as capable (3-phase being a bit of a stumbling block in some European countries)
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
V2G was only ever available on ChaDeMo cars I think. I don't think Tesla have ever provided V2X on any car.Makes total sense to have a smaller, lighter and easier to use connector over the stupid CCS ones if it’s just as capable (3-phase being a bit of a stumbling block in some European countries)
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
Flooble said:
V2G was only ever available on ChaDeMo cars I think. I don't think Tesla have ever provided V2X on any car.
There is going to be a v2g/v2h trial with type 2 chargers run by Indra I think. Precious few cars able to work that way round so far but it’s coming. I did see a Musk comment that he doesn’t believe in v2x for some reason LivLL said:
Never say never, just takes an adaptor for legacy vehicles / charges and then roll out the new standard.
Not saying it’ll happen though.
Adapters on high power DC charging are a really bad idea. The cables are fixed to the chargers as they have things like pin temperature monitoring, and even liquid cooling.Not saying it’ll happen though.
Europe has CCS2 and that won't be changing any time remotely soon. And if it eventually does, it won't be to NACS due to lack of 3 phase.
LivLL said:
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
How does that make sense when Teslas for non NA markets already hide CCS behind the same light panels as the NA ones with NACs.The oversized filler caps on other manufacturers is nothing more than lazyness on the part of the designer/manufacturer.
paradigital said:
LivLL said:
Should help designers get away from massive “fuel” flaps too and go more inventive like Tesla hiding the charge port in the light design.
How does that make sense when Teslas for non NA markets already hide CCS behind the same light panels as the NA ones with NACs.The oversized filler caps on other manufacturers is nothing more than lazyness on the part of the designer/manufacturer.
iPace's only cost £70-80k so maybe it was budget issue
Regards the question of whether or not we need a global standard... Probably not. We've never had a global standard for which side of the road to drive on, let alone what plug each continent favours. Luckily cars rarely go on intercontinental drives and if one does, for AC charging conversion cables are fine.
If it becomes a big issue and affects cross selling of cars around the world, the manufacturers will design the car to have either socket, which in turn opens up a market for retrofit changes from one to the other too.
A CCS charger port is considerably bigger than a petrol/diesel filling hole so hardly surprising the majority are behind large flaps, especially when they require good weather protection.
The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
SWoll said:
A CCS charger port is considerably bigger than a petrol/diesel filling hole so hardly surprising the majority are behind large flaps, especially when they require good weather protection.
The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
I don't see why the ports need good weather protection beyond the rubberised bung tbh. When the port is in use there's not even a rubber element, just a rigid plastic plug body slides into the port which is also rigid plastic. There's also no real seal around the port cover flap anyway. I really think they could be smaller/neater without adding risk or complexity.The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
I expect once we're a couple of generations deep in EV smarter ways of making the caps fit into the design will become common and a mark of earlier (today, current) gen EV's will be very crude charging port placement and design that no one really gave all that much thought to. A bit like walking through a motor museum, passing cars through the decades, and all of a sudden around the late 80's wing mirrors suddenly stopped being mounted on stalks and started to become a more cohesive part of the design. Same with windscreen wipers suddenly switching to being concealed when not is use and bumpers that became internal structures as opposed to external to the bodywork. No one criticises these things until suddenly, someone does it better - then everyone else suddenly cares and ups their own game.
As for the iPace, yea the stubby bonnet is great but the car is very wide so fitting into some charging spaces was a bit of a faff and then also tough on occasion to pull the cable over/around the car bonnet if you're parked on the wrong side of the charger..
TheDeuce said:
I don't see why the ports need good weather protection beyond the rubberised bung tbh. When the port is in use there's not even a rubber element, just a rigid plastic plug body slides into the port which is also rigid plastic. There's also no real seal around the port cover flap anyway. I really think they could be smaller/neater without adding risk or complexity.
I expect once we're a couple of generations deep in EV smarter ways of making the caps fit into the design will become common and a mark of earlier (today, current) gen EV's will be very crude charging port placement and design that no one really gave all that much thought to. A bit like walking through a motor museum, passing cars through the decades, and all of a sudden around the late 80's wing mirrors suddenly stopped being mounted on stalks and started to become a more cohesive part of the design. Same with windscreen wipers suddenly switching to being concealed when not is use and bumpers that became internal structures as opposed to external to the bodywork. No one criticises these things until suddenly, someone does it better - then everyone else suddenly cares and ups their own game.
As for the iPace, yea the stubby bonnet is great but the car is very wide so fitting into some charging spaces was a bit of a faff and then also tough on occasion to pull the cable over/around the car bonnet if you're parked on the wrong side of the charger..
I thought the iPace had a fairly chunky additional seal on the flap itself? And CCS chargers are bloody cumbersome thinkgs.. I expect once we're a couple of generations deep in EV smarter ways of making the caps fit into the design will become common and a mark of earlier (today, current) gen EV's will be very crude charging port placement and design that no one really gave all that much thought to. A bit like walking through a motor museum, passing cars through the decades, and all of a sudden around the late 80's wing mirrors suddenly stopped being mounted on stalks and started to become a more cohesive part of the design. Same with windscreen wipers suddenly switching to being concealed when not is use and bumpers that became internal structures as opposed to external to the bodywork. No one criticises these things until suddenly, someone does it better - then everyone else suddenly cares and ups their own game.
As for the iPace, yea the stubby bonnet is great but the car is very wide so fitting into some charging spaces was a bit of a faff and then also tough on occasion to pull the cable over/around the car bonnet if you're parked on the wrong side of the charger..
As mentioned, the issue with integrating the charge point as with the Tesla is that it is more easily damaged in a corner bump as right out on an extremity of the car.
TheDeuce said:
SWoll said:
A CCS charger port is considerably bigger than a petrol/diesel filling hole so hardly surprising the majority are behind large flaps, especially when they require good weather protection.
The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
I don't see why the ports need good weather protection beyond the rubberised bung tbh. When the port is in use there's not even a rubber element, just a rigid plastic plug body slides into the port which is also rigid plastic. There's also no real seal around the port cover flap anyway. I really think they could be smaller/neater without adding risk or complexity.The motorised flap on the Tesla is just something else to go wrong, is more at risk from a rear end bump (which happen regularly) and IME can be a pain in the arse to get a non Tesla CCS charger to connect consistently.
I do like the motorised flap on our etron but find the placement of it quite awkward at times with a lot of cable manipulation and close parking required at numerous charge locations. I imagine the iPace to be less awkward as the car has a considerably shorter bonnet.
I expect once we're a couple of generations deep in EV smarter ways of making the caps fit into the design will become common and a mark of earlier (today, current) gen EV's will be very crude charging port placement and design that no one really gave all that much thought to. A bit like walking through a motor museum, passing cars through the decades, and all of a sudden around the late 80's wing mirrors suddenly stopped being mounted on stalks and started to become a more cohesive part of the design. Same with windscreen wipers suddenly switching to being concealed when not is use and bumpers that became internal structures as opposed to external to the bodywork. No one criticises these things until suddenly, someone does it better - then everyone else suddenly cares and ups their own game.
As for the iPace, yea the stubby bonnet is great but the car is very wide so fitting into some charging spaces was a bit of a faff and then also tough on occasion to pull the cable over/around the car bonnet if you're parked on the wrong side of the charger..
Meanwhile the passengers can hit McD's or wherever until the car returns, ready to go.
paradigital said:
How does that make sense when Teslas for non NA markets already hide CCS behind the same light panels as the NA ones with NACs.
The oversized filler caps on other manufacturers is nothing more than lazyness on the part of the designer/manufacturer.
Cos it’s the same body side just the lamp fitted is market specific. Makes PERFECT sense to sequence in parts that are fitted on the line rather than the body in white assembly facility.The oversized filler caps on other manufacturers is nothing more than lazyness on the part of the designer/manufacturer.
A lot of manufacturers particularly ones with 3 rows of seats prefer not to have the HV cables inside the cabin….
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff