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

[daveo4EV]

I mean no offense to anyone in here, but some of you guys are sounding like you might have a heart attack getting yourselves worked up over trying to read between the lines about the news in the past few weeks. Ford and GM have announced changes that are going to take a long time to come to fruition. If VWAG/EA are going to announce a change as a result of the recent news, it could be weeks or months down the line, and still result in the same rough timelines for consumers as Ford/GM.

Yes, let your dealer know that you want Porsche/VWAG to make a similar decision, but it's important to know that in the short term nothing is changing for anyone, including Ford/GM owners, and that any long term implications of resale value can change in an instant if VWAG makes a similar announcement.

I'll start worrying if we get to EOY and there's no signs of VWAG making an adjustment here.

in my mind the "deadline" if there is such thing is around the time of Macan EV availability - until there nothing has changed with regards to my understanding of my Taycan when purchased it in July 2020…it VW/Audi/Porsche remain silent through out that period I will be personally disappointed.

Sponsored

 

[DRR]

the future replacement for my 2021 Cayenne TurboS eHybrid is going to be a suitable/appropriate full BEV SUV - until all this news broke I was assuming I would be patiently wait and ultimately purchase the Cayenne BEV porsche has discussed/hinted about (not the 7 seater and the not the Macan EV) - but if Porsche drags their feet on this too long I'm pretty sure BMW will be more aggressive on this front and more tech-forward - and X5'ish full BEV SUV with decent feature set and a NACS port native w/Supercharger (adapter or NACS native) access and I'm voting with my $$$ and moving brands…

my money is available for any of the german's that "read the room" on this issue and push to gain me access to the supercharger network in North America…I'll humbly suggest I'm not alone on this front - and I truly pity any Porsche sale person attempting to explain to soccer mom's Porsche's position on the Macan EV in 2024 if Porsche does not have a response/road-map…

and since doing EV's since 2012 and talking to friends, familiy, aquaintances and co-workers fast charging network access is a highly visible aspect of their EV purchase migration and they are aware of it - it's not some tech-wonky thing -they are deeply concerned and value access to a functional network with good standards and access...silence in this space will lead to two results: 1. not moving to an EV at all 2. going with the vendors who are proactively engaged on this topic.

I was also "all in" on a future post face lifted .2 Taycan CT (GTS or Turbo I'm waffling) MY'25/26 - but now I'm thinking I'm on hold on that plan pending engagement from Porsche on this topic - Silence is not golden for me personally on this topic and it will influence my future purchasing decisions - but may simply be I choose to satisfied with the status quo of my 2020 Taycan Turbo longer than I was orginally planning - I'm not defecting back to Tesla - but future purchases will take this development into consideration…I can't believe I'm the only one with that perspective.

keeping what I currently own easy and plausible - but I'm certainly not spending "new money" on any EV product with out an explicit response in this space - even a "we're doing nothing" explicit response may be acceptable for "new money" purchased because then I can make an informed decision about my purchase…but a non-response will give me pause about writing a check - it smells of lack of engagement and deer in headlights about things they don't want to understand or engage on.

this annoucment does not change anything about my current vehicle ownership - but future new money from me will require an answer in this space so I can make an informed decision.

I agree. Was thinking of the Macan EV for my wifes next car to replace her Model Y Performance that she loves. Gonna be a hard sell if she has to use the clunky CCS cable.

 

[Scandinavian]

Here inEurope, the Tesla V3 Supercharger cables are much easier to handle than the Ionity cables. The Tesla charging cables can get a bit warmer when charging, and that would only be at 150 kW max with a Taycan. It keeps that level up much longer than a Tesla M3 though. And the M3 can easily work up the full 250 kW but tapers down quite quickly.

I have no idea how Tesla V3 chargers are cooling the cable, but perhaps the fact that they are considerably shorter than the Ionity cable accounts for a difference in heat generated as well?

With the CCS2 connector and Tesla V3 charging cable it is very easy to manage and plug in the cable, if it reaches the car?

 

[DerekS]

I have no idea how Tesla V3 chargers are cooling the cable, but perhaps the fact that they are considerably shorter than the Ionity cable accounts for a difference in heat generated as well?

Kyle from Out of Spec said something about this. Apparently Tesla Supercharger cables are rated for 1000 cycles, and they just replace them frequently as they apparently aren't too expensive.

The EA charger cables are rated for 10000 cycles, which is why they are heavier, harder to handle, liquid cooled etc.

10000 cycles is overkill because the cables tend to die well before that anyway due to damage, weathering, etc.

 

[charliemathilde]

it must have KILLED both Ford and GM to negotiate with Tesla on this front…absolutely killed them…

this tells me more about EA and CCS than we will ever know

the fact that they are making this change - says that ChargePoint/EA/Other's SUCK, and will continue to suck and will impact EV's negatively

this change is not being done lightly - and speaks VOLUMES about how bad CCS probably really is behind the scenes…cause these vendors do not up end their supply chain and negotiate with competitors if they think their current approach can work…

CCS is doomed, and now industry insiders are subtly admitting that - otherwise these announcements would not be happening…

think about it - they know more than we know, suffer the same thing, have access to inside information, and work directly with EA and others…and they've given up and negotiated with the mad-man in Texas/California who's outselling their cars across the board…

what do they know that we don't? and why did that knowledge drive them this direction?

read the room - it wasn't ever going to work - have to do something different - pivot to the stuff that works.

agreed. I did NOT have this Ford / GM switch on my bingo card

 

[daveo4EV]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/blink-launch-fast-charger-evs-124905430.html

Blink, ChargePoint will provide NACS connectors - funny no one is mentioning "supercharger" - I believe the entire industry is failing in line to run CCS charging protocol over a 5-wire NACS connector (vs 5-wire CCS1 connector) - I'd love confirmation about this from any one who can speak authoritatively - v.s. my extensive BS'ing and speculation…(well informed speculation mind you, but at the end of the day still a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess))

call for conformation from any "lurkers" that could confirm this is all going forward as CCS run over NACS?

that to me seems the most logical way forward - jsut a new cable/connector - no real major changes to any existing software or core charging hardware, hand-shakes or protocols?

PM me and I'll confirm anoymous sources verify @daveo4EV is or is not completely nuts, but not name you. or tell me I'm full of sh*t" and the industry _IS_ going to implement supercharging protocols and I"ll publicly rescind my wild ass off base speculation - either way I won't name names - but would love some inside scoop as to if we're on track for how this all going to work - frankly I think explaining it to people will bring more people on board once they understand this is a big deal and not a big deal at the same time…

big deal to move to NACS no question
not a big deal once you understand it's still just CCS with a better/different connector.

this also makes any adapter "trivial" - much like a TeslaTap - just wire's passing through two different shaped plugs…again building confidence that this isn't that big a deal once you understand it.

thanks all…exciting times.

 

[nickmdp]

Are you suggesting that we wait until the end of the year before we comment? I can do Labor Day, but it’s a long way from there to Thanksgiving. ?

Ha, not implying that people stop talking about it, just making sure people realize that there's plenty of time for changes to happen, and not to get too worked up over things at this point.

 

[RMB]

EA is wholly owned by Volkswagen. A minority portion was sold to Siemens for technology.
They won't give it up cuz it will ultimately be a very good money making operation. A utility/energy company that will always be there. Plus other subscription/vending can probably be purchased in the future through the charging/communication apparatus as well as over the air. Think of the monitors that have been at gas stations for over a decade. Yes eventually all the chargers will have a common plug and adapters available to fit all.
Plus you'll be able to go to any of the chargers of myriad entities providing them. There will probably be "card lock" stations for private companies with different classes of trucks as you see now with fuel.
Time will tell.

 

[charliemathilde]

EA is wholly owned by Volkswagen. A minority portion was sold to Siemens for technology.
They won't give it up cuz it will ultimately be a very good money making operation. A utility/energy company that will always be there. Plus other subscription/vending can probably be purchased in the future through the charging/communication apparatus as well as over the air. Think of the monitors that have been at gas stations for over a decade. Yes eventually all the chargers will have a common plug and adapters available to fit all.
Plus you'll be able to go to any of the chargers of myriad entities providing them. There will probably be "card lock" stations for private companies with different classes of trucks as you see now with fuel.
Time will tell.

VW was forced into EA from Dieselgate. If they gave a shit about it, it wouldn’t suck this much. As best as I can EA exist only to siphon government funding and court settlements.

 

[nickmdp]

VW was forced into EA from Dieselgate. If they gave a shit about it, it wouldn’t suck this much. As best as I can EA exist only to siphon government funding and court settlements.

Man, I'm so tired of this narrative that VW was forced to do it, so they're half-assing it. I don't disagree that EA has it's issues, but it's an argument that's lazier than people are accusing VW/EA of being.

To start with, this wasn't a court order, it was a settlement, so VW had a significant hand in shaping it, and maybe even proposing the EA investment entirely so that they could reduce their overall civil penalty. If VW didn't want to do it, they would have changed the terms of the agreement. Yes, they were still in a position where they needed to pay some sort of penalty as a result, but the fact that they reduced their civil liability by spending money on their own business on a future focused initiative was almost certainly a huge win in VW's books.

Even if you assume that VM was forced into this, there's no business reason for them to try and make an unsuccessful company out of EA. Like, if they really wanted out, they'd still be stupid to not build a company that they could sell for as much as possible after their settlement money ran out. I don't understand this narrative that VW doesn't care and wants it to fail for some reason and lose the $2B they invested into it when they could have spent less by adding more to their civil penalty in the settlement.

My take is that EA is hobbled by having to ramp up so fast while also having government oversight into their expansion plans. They basically created a company out of nothing and were forced into quickly making decisions about how to build a DCFC infrastructure company, potentially leading to the myriad failures that we've seen with their chargers so far. On top of that, government pressure likely forces them to continue rolling out rather than taking a break and managing their existing infrastructure to resolve the issues present there.

I'm not here to make excuses for EA, but if we're trying to come up with reasons why EA isn't doing well, we should get more creative than "VW doesn't care about EA".

 

[or1]

@daveo4EV has developed the assertion (thread https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/t...v-chargers-keep-breaking-article.16096/page-3) that EA is not badly managed as such, but that the CCS1 plug is so prone to damage that the chargers cannot be kept working within a maintenance budget commensurate with the revenues from the chargers.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Man, I'm so tired of this narrative that VW was forced to do it, so they're half-assing it. I don't disagree that EA has it's issues, but it's an argument that's lazier than people are accusing VW/EA of being.
[...]
I'm not here to make excuses for EA, but if we're trying to come up with reasons why EA isn't doing well, we should get more creative than "VW doesn't care about EA".

"VWEA doesn't care about EA".

There, fixed it.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

"VWEA doesn't care about EA".

There, fixed it.

Even if you assume that VM was forced into this, there's no business reason for them to try and make an unsuccessful company out of EA. Like, if they really wanted out, they'd still be stupid to not build a company that they could sell for as much as possible after their settlement money ran out. I don't understand this narrative that VW doesn't care and wants it to fail for some reason and lose the $2B they invested into it when they could have spent less by adding more to their civil penalty in the settlement.

My take is that EA is hobbled by having to ramp up so fast while also having government oversight into their expansion plans. They basically created a company out of nothing and were forced into quickly making decisions about how to build a DCFC infrastructure company, potentially leading to the myriad failures that we've seen with their chargers so far. On top of that, government pressure likely forces them to continue rolling out rather than taking a break and managing their existing infrastructure to resolve the issues present there.

@nickmdp setting my snarky response aside, I don't think we're making vastly different statements - you chose to interpret the general opinion as a 'lazy' one, but throughout this thread and others, it's plainly evident that somehow EA provides a lower quality of service than their competitors. Some have vastly smaller networks (EVGo), other vastly larger (CP, Tesla). Money wasn't a problem - this is where we keep referencing the funding, and it was generous - so it stands to reason that they either can't or are not incentivized to improve their QoS.

(Taking a break here to say that IME EA has been fairly reliable. It hasn't been fun or easy, but I never got stranded.)

I'm not sure which government pressure you are referring to - the IRA is relatively new, and is more of a carrot than a stick. I've no doubt that perhaps they did stretch themselves too thinly to provide coverage, while not being able to sustain the service they provide.

Ultimately it's not clear that they are profitable at the moment, or that they do have a path to profitability: they have a lot of stations in deserted areas of the country, and free access to their network was included as an incentive for quite a few EV models. In other words, low sales and each one costs. It can be turned around, and the fact they appointed a new CEO indicates some discontent. But they'll need to spend to get better, and it's not clear that they are willing to - the reliability stats prove it.

 

[snstevens]

@nickmdp setting my snarky response aside, I don't think we're making vastly different statements - you chose to interpret the general opinion as a 'lazy' one, but throughout this thread and others, it's plainly evident that somehow EA provides a lower quality of service than their competitors. Some have vastly smaller networks (EVGo), other vastly larger (CP, Tesla). Money wasn't a problem - this is where we keep referencing the funding, and it was generous - so it stands to reason that they either can't or are not incentivized to improve their QoS.

(Taking a break here to say that IME EA has been fairly reliable. It hasn't been fun or easy, but I never got stranded.)

I'm not sure which government pressure you are referring to - the IRA is relatively new, and is more of a carrot than a stick. I've no doubt that perhaps they did stretch themselves too thinly to provide coverage, while not being able to sustain the service they provide.

Ultimately it's not clear that they are profitable at the moment, or that they do have a path to profitability: they have a lot of stations in deserted areas of the country, and free access to their network was included as an incentive for quite a few EV models. In other words, low sales and each one costs. It can be turned around, and the fact they appointed a new CEO indicates some discontent. But they'll need to spend to get better, and it's not clear that they are willing to - the reliability stats prove it.

I'm with @WasserGKuehlt on this one. The level of support for the existing EA network is far below the minimum I need to feel that I can count on EA when traveling. Every location I visit has at least one problem (e.g., connector broken, black screen, slow charging at <100kW), and if that weren't bad enough the repair time is normally measured in months, not days or hours.

I'm uninformed about the issue of "government pressure" to expand the network, but at any point in time the number of "Coming Soon" stations at EA is minuscule. I can't see that this is the issue, but correct me if I'm simply not reading the EA map right. It honestly seems to me that maintenance is simply not a priority. I've called in a dead station many times only to hear the EA Support person tell me that station has been logged for some time.

So for now I plan longer trips with an eye to risk management - where can I charge nearby when the target EA station is completely down? Frankly this isn't the level of customer experience I expect from Porsche, and I believe it will seriously affect their EV reputation and sales as a result.

 

[whitex]

plug share for the Seattle area…

filter for >70 kW, relabiltiiy rating of >=8 = 19 sites
filter for >70 kW, reliability rating of >=9 = 10 sites (50% fewer) - 27 stalls (I counted, 6 were offline according to plugshare during counting).
filter for >70 kW, reliability rating for 10 = 9 sites…

there are 21 active CCS stalls in the Seattle area where you can charge reliably based on actual usage data.

Ok, filtering for >70 KW is somewhat cherry-picking your data since a large number of Tesla superchargers are the urban 75KW ones - CCS equivalent is 50KW. Note that the 75KW superchargers also loadshare, so I’ve experienced lower charge rates from them when full. Filter >80KW and the supercharger picture will change.

Sponsored