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

[daveo4EV]

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.

I showed my work I stand by my numbers - nothing was hidding

< 70 kW is 50 kW or slower - Urban Superchargers are 72 kW and therefore can provide more power than the standard 400V/50 kW onboard DC booster

the illuminating factor IMHO is that if you crank up reliability you start losing stations right/left - i.e. the CCS network only "appears" to have a lot of sites/stalls - however if you want reliable stalls there are 21 stalls _TOTAL_ in the greater seattle area (including olympus) that "are reliable"

everyone is welcome to dice the number however they like - again I showed my work - there was no slight of hand.

Sponsored

 

[whitex]

I showed my work I stand by my numbers - nothing was hidding

< 70 kW is 50 kW or slower - Urban Superchargers are 72 kW and therefore can provide more power than the standard 400V/50 kW onboard DC booster

the illuminating factory IMHO is that if you crank up reliability you start losing stations right/left - i.e. the CCS network only "appears" to have a lot of sites/stalls - however if you want reliable stalls there are 21 stalls _TOTAL_ in the greater seattle area (including olympus) that "are reliable"

everyone is welcome to dice the number however they like - again I showed my work - there was no slight of hand.

I am not questioning the numbers, just curious why you chose the >70KW instead of say >80 or some other number as the filter? If the default Taycan DC booster was the criteria (as you mentioned), shouldn’t you be filtering on your >=50KW rather than >70KW?

 

[daveo4EV]

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".

I get your rant - my OPINION - is that from observable evidence I think it's fair to say EA is behaving more like a "compliance" organziation rather than a "driven" organization - and them seem to lack any observable urgency to actually do better…at least that is my experience.

they also seem to miss the key point of what they are selling - fast charging is selling "time" not kWh's they may "bill" kWh's ,but honestly what I'm paying $30 for is to pull into a station, plug in and be gone in 30 min or less - having gotten some kWh's in the process - they do not seem to behave like an organization the understands that they must be a reliable service above all else…as to if they are "in it to win it" or "just going through the motions" - most often than not it's the latter rather than the former - and that's my core frustration…

of course I welcome friendly counter points and appreciate perspectives.

 

[daveo4EV]

I am not questioning the numbers, just curious why you chose the >70KW instead of say >80 or some other number as the filter? If the default Taycan DC booster was the criteria (as you mentioned), shouldn’t you be filtering on your >=50KW rather than >70KW?

plug share didn't offer "51 kW" as a filter (I wanted all the legay 50 kW or slower stations) - from teh plug share filters 70 kW is the next "size" after 50 in the slider bar on their website.

the reliability numbers are still pathetic even with 50 kW being a thresh hold - basically there are less than 35 stalls total of 50 kW or more if you want it to actually work.

 

[daveo4EV]

I am not questioning the numbers, just curious why you chose the >70KW instead of say >80 or some other number as the filter? If the default Taycan DC booster was the criteria (as you mentioned), shouldn’t you be filtering on your >=50KW rather than >70KW?

basically >= 70 kW is equivalent to "the supercharger network" and slower than 70 kW isn't "really" fast charging in my opinion - ChargePoint has some 25 kW "fast chargers" in the wild - which IMHO isn't much faster than a 19.2 kW charge that I can get with AC charging

50 kW isn't bad, but that's the cut off for the 400V/50 kW standard onboard DC booster

70 kW or greater is "like for like" - i.e. same speed and variablility you'll get from the supercharger spots vs. CCS network…

for that "class" of charging there are 100's of 95% or better supercharger stalls - and there are 21 CCS stalls offering "similar" service…

25 kW or slower doesnt' count as "similar service"

that was my thinking.

 

[nickmdp]

@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.

Both CARB and the EPA have oversight into EA's rollout plans and ensuring that they meet the terms of the settlement, which also requires that they solicit and consider feedback from all interested government bodies (I've read the terms of that settlement more than I'd like to admit, since I was a former TDI owner). I'm not saying it's a big part of why they're not doing as well as they could be, but having seen how government orgs run, it's certainly not going to help them.

I get your rant - my OPINION - is that from observable evidence I think it's fair to say EA is behaving more like a "compliance" organziation rather than a "driven" organization - and them seem to lack any observable urgency to actually do better…at least that is my experience.

they also seem to miss the key point of what they are selling - fast charging is selling "time" not kWh's they may "bill" kWh's ,but honestly what I'm paying $30 for is to pull into a station, plug in and be gone in 30 min or less - having gotten some kWh's in the process - they do not seem to behave like an organization the understands that they must be a reliable service above all else…as to if they are "in it to win it" or "just going through the motions" - most often than not it's the latter rather than the former - and that's my core frustration…

of course I welcome friendly counter points and appreciate perspectives.

I'm all for shitting on EA, and even calling it a compliance organization. I just hate this argument that VW was forced into creating EA when there's nothing concrete to back that up, and the government presumably could have easily just had VW fund a $2B grant program similar to NEVI rather than letting VW own and operate the company if they really wanted to punish VW,. It seems far more likely IMO that VW either proposed EA or significantly supported it being a part of the agreement or else they would have held out to have the agreement changed.

From there, I'm generally fine with how people want to characterize EA/VW and how their organizations are run. I would not be shocked if VW sells EA immediately after the 10 year investment period ends, but I could also see EA turning the corner if they ca get the right gameplan in place before the public completely writes them off.

How EA's cycles were created by the settlement are part of the systemic issue in my mind. EA agreed to do their rollout in four 30 month cycles (2.5 years), which is probably a reasonable fit into how VW and most auto makers handled projects (just think about car models and the cycles they go through). The problem is that 2.5 years is practically a lifetime in the EV world these days, and they're not nimble enough to adjust to how fast things have been changing. They might make some changes with each cycle, but they need to iterate more like Tesla in that regard and are suffering greatly because of it.

 

[mrogerc]

I have read this forum off and on for quite a while, mostly to read daveo4Ev’s perspective on EV-related issues. I appreciate his deep research as well as the perspectives of others on the forum.

The question I have been thinking about is ”What is Tesla’s end game in opening the Supercharger network?”

I am fairly convinced that they are transitioning from the Supercharger network being focused on facilitating the sale of Tesla vehicles to it being a profit center on its own. The first worldwide “gas station” brand for EVs If you will. If that is the case, they will have every incentive to serve the entire EV fleet.

There is a precedent in the evolution of Tesla chargers. When I recently traded my Model 3 for a Rivian, I spoke to an electricIan I know whose entire business has evolved into installing chargers for new EV owners. I was interested in replacing my 4 year old Tesla Gen 2 charger with a J1772-native charger. He strongly suggested that I consider the Gen 3 Tesla charger in its J1772 variant. I had no idea Tesla made a J1772 charger. His argument was that the reliability is well proven, and the price at $550 is very competitive for its specs. It would also be able to share a circuit with another Tesla Gen 3 charger, either J1772 or NACS, seamlessly. I am glad I delayed until the Ford announcement before deciding to just keep my NACS charger and use an adapter.

My point is that Tesla leveraged their position and volume to create a version of its charger that is focused directly on non-Tesla vehicles. That seems to be a strong indication that Tesla is thinking outside its own ecosystem for ongoing growth. Most analysts seem to assume the Supercharger network is a “competitive moat” for Tesla. In reality, it may be another revenue source with incredible upside. I have no idea if this was the plan from the beginning or just luck.

 

[daveo4EV]

I have no idea if this was the plan from the beginning or just luck.

my guess is both.

 

[whitex]

I have read this forum off and on for quite a while, mostly to read daveo4Ev’s perspective on EV-related issues. I appreciate his deep research as well as the perspectives of others on the forum.

The question I have been thinking about is ”What is Tesla’s end game in opening the Supercharger network?”

I am fairly convinced that they are transitioning from the Supercharger network being focused on facilitating the sale of Tesla vehicles to it being a profit center on its own. The first worldwide “gas station” brand for EVs If you will. If that is the case, they will have every incentive to serve the entire EV fleet.

There is a precedent in the evolution of Tesla chargers. When I recently traded my Model 3 for a Rivian, I spoke to an electricIan I know whose entire business has evolved into installing chargers for new EV owners. I was interested in replacing my 4 year old Tesla Gen 2 charger with a J1772-native charger. He strongly suggested that I consider the Gen 3 Tesla charger in its J1772 variant. I had no idea Tesla made a J1772 charger. His argument was that the reliability is well proven, and the price at $550 is very competitive for its specs. It would also be able to share a circuit with another Tesla Gen 3 charger, either J1772 or NACS, seamlessly. I am glad I delayed until the Ford announcement before deciding to just keep my NACS charger and use an adapter.

My point is that Tesla leveraged their position and volume to create a version of its charger that is focused directly on non-Tesla vehicles. That seems to be a strong indication that Tesla is thinking outside its own ecosystem for ongoing growth. Most analysts seem to assume the Supercharger network is a “competitive moat” for Tesla. In reality, it may be another revenue source with incredible upside. I have no idea if this was the plan from the beginning or just luck.

IMO Tesla wants to be in the energy market. Between chargers, batteries and in some degree solar, it's probably Elon's next conquest, become the biggest (re)seller of energy. Considering cars use more energy than households who own them, this could be achievable.

PS> You can convert your Gen2 HPWC to J1772 by replacing the handle (or a complete cable, I picked up a used one like this). If you want to be OCD like me, you will need a thermistor (I used this one) in the handle for temperature sensing, but I have seen others just wire in a 10KOhm resistor and call it day (usually J1772's don't have thermal sensing in the handle). Here is a link on Gen3 conversion video, Gen2 is very similar conversion, AND you don't need the pull-down circuit to disable Tesla communications (which delay start of charging by a few seconds on Taycan), in Gen2 there is a dip switch to switch to "legacy" communications - easier than the pull down circuit fooling the charger into thinking a car is already plugged in. The advantage of Gen2 over Gen3 is that it can do 80A, vs, 48A for Gen3, if wired to appropriately capable circuit of course. Below is my setup, I have dual Gen2 HPWC sharing 80A between 2 cars (used to be two Model S, today it's 1 Model S and 1 Taycan). My Taycan has the 19.2KW charger option, so it can utilize the full 80A when the Model S is not charging (the Model S it replaced also had the 80A option).

 

[mrogerc]

PS> You can convert your Gen2 HPWC to J1772 by replacing the handle (or a complete cable, I picked up a used one like this). If you want to be OCD like me, you will need a thermistor (I used this one) in the handle for temperature sensing, but I have seen others just wire in a 10KOhm resistor and call it day (usually J1772's don't have thermal sensing in the handle). Here is a link on Gen3 conversion video, Gen2 is very similar conversion, AND you don't need the pull-down circuit to disable Tesla communications (which delay start of charging by a few seconds on Taycan), in Gen2 there is a dip switch to switch to "legacy" communications - easier than the pull down circuit fooling the charger into thinking a car is already plugged in. The advantage of Gen2 over Gen3 is that it can do 80A, vs, 48A for Gen3, if wired to appropriately capable circuit of course. Below is my setup, I have dual Gen2 HPWC sharing 80A between 2 cars (used to be two Model S, today it's 1 Model S and 1 Taycan). My Taycan has the 19.2KW charger option, so it can utilize the full 80A when the Model S is not charging (the Model S it replaced also had the 80A option).

I looked up the dip switch (say that a few times fast), and it appears the procedure is to change switch 2 to the off position for ”legacy.” Even if I don’t get a new cable, I am wondering if changing that switch will cause the charger to work immediately, instead of the 8-10 seconds that it currently takes to change mode for a J1772 connector. Also, I am wondering if I do that, and then try to charge a Tesla directly, will the charger try the J1772 protocol first then switch and try the Tesla protocol? Of course, using a J1772 to NACS adapter might also work unless having two adpaters in a row is an issue.

Please me know if you have info about the above. Otherwise, if I get around to trying it, will report back.

Thanks!

 

[whitex]

I looked up the dip switch (say that a few times fast), and it appears the procedure is to change switch 2 to the off position for ”legacy.” Even if I don’t get a new cable, I am wondering if changing that switch will cause the charger to work immediately, instead of the 8-10 seconds that it currently takes to change mode for a J1772 connector.

Yes it will. The charger doesn't know I switched out the cable on mine, and when connected to a Taycan in a standalone configuration it starts charging right away (vs. the delay if I turn off legacy mode). I qualified that with "standalone configuration" because in a load sharing one, then you plug in a car, there is a delay while the chargers are talking to each other to reset all cars (it stops all cars from charging, then ramps then all together for some reason, rather than just lower the other car's charging current - probably quicker this way in case existing cars take their time to lower their current).

Also, I am wondering if I do that, and then try to charge a Tesla directly, will the charger try the J1772 protocol first then switch and try the Tesla protocol? Of course, using a J1772 to NACS adapter might also work unless having two adpaters in a row is an issue.

A Tesla car should just charge using J1772 protocol via the NACS if you set that dip switch to Legacy. You don’t lose any functionality that I know of other than car updating the firmware of the HPWC (which hasn’t happened in a very long time, probably never will as it’s discontinued and not internet/wifi connected so no security patches needed).

 

[mlambert890]

On the topic of EA, I think it's a complex issue with no single root cause. Yes CCS1 is a PitA, but EVGo is markedly better than EA (as is almost everyone else in the CCS1 game), so it's more than just that. Also while I don't think it's a pure "compliance play", it's definitely true that they do seem to behave more like one than the other CCS1 players do so given that is their history, there's probably at least some of that going on there.

The biggest challenge in the US though, I think, is that running a CCS1 business is just hard. The US is a big, distributed, country with very low, very uneven, EV adoption, the bulk of which is Tesla. Non-Tesla EVs, which is the addressable market for non-Tesla charging providers, are just a far healthier market in the EU, or really almost anywhere, than the US.

 

[whitex]

Non-Tesla EVs, which is the addressable market for non-Tesla charging providers, are just a far healthier market in the EU, or really almost anywhere, than the US.

Actually, Tesla drivers are part of the addressable market for CCS chargers today already. I traveled recently and saw a few Teslas charging at EA using the Tesla OEM $175 adapter. On one occasion there was a massive, empty Tesla supercharger at the other end of the very same parking lot. I was a little baffled by it, so I went up to the Tesla owner and asked - turns out plenty of Teslas charger at EA because it's much cheaper for them (the guy explained to me he pays $4 a month for EA subscription which gives him cheaper rates).

 

[daveo4EV]

https://insideevs.com/news/671709/charin-support-tesla-nacs-standardization/

According to the press release, the Tesla NACS already has some standardized elements related to communication, which indicates that the process of making it an open standard will be simplified in those areas:

"CharIN is pleased that NACS is using DIN 70121 and ISO 15118 protocols based on power line communication (PLC) enabling CCS functionality. These protocols were created for CCS but are versatile communication standards that could help build bridges across all charging standards in North America. These standards are also deeply rooted in CharIN membership and activities."

what'da'know you can run CCS protocols across a NACS connector - who'd of thought.

and this strongly indicates the MagicDock connector is a simple pass through device, because superchargers w/magicdock actually provide a CCS charging session to unmodified CCS vehicle's - it's also why the announced CCS adapter for Ford/GM customers is speculated to be in the $100 range - for that price there is nothing "active" about that adapter, and legacy Ford/GM products aren't going to "learn" supercharging - they are going to talk CCS to Tesla's Superchargers via a passive NACS adapter…any more than my unmodifed 2020 Taycan Turbo can already use supercharger…as has done so in Scotts Valley, CA…

we'll see NACS added as an alternative (preferred??) physical specification with some additional details on how to mutli-plex the high voltage connectors between AC and DC power - my bet is it's not htat hard - since the type of charging session (AC vs. DC) will all be determined by the initial communication/handshake when the connector is plugged in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15118
https://www.switch-ev.com/blog/the-battle-between-iso-15118-and-din-spec-70121

 

[whitex]

https://insideevs.com/news/671709/charin-support-tesla-nacs-standardization/


what'da'know you can run CCS protocols across a NACS connector - who'd of thought.

That was already known, since MagicDoc runs though the NACS connector, meaning Tesla superchargers with MagicDock run CCS communications through NACS.

That said, nothing in CCS protocols facilitates multiplexing power pins for AC/DC usage, so at least this part of session initiation has to be Tesla protocol, possibly could be added to ISO15118.

Sponsored