Electrify America to Add NACS Connector by 2025, While Continuing CCS Support

[WasserGKuehlt]

Announcing a full abandonment of CCS right now would also scare the heck out of anyone buying their first EV with CCS, especially someone looking at a car from VWAG, which has yet to announce adoption of NACS.

This ^. VAG had no choice but to “enter talks” lest their sales cratered. But I’d go one further, and say this is more than smoke because those sales -will- crater until the talks conclude with an agreement. It’s probably imminent, and the EA announcement is its early signal.

Sponsored

 

[Capt Mike]

That sounds good, but what will this mean for us? Porsche isn’t going to magically give it’s current Taycan owners a NACS adapter or retrofit NACS into the CCS port…sounds like CCS might turn into CHADEMO - being restricted to one charger at the EA station. I don’t like that.

I agree. This is total confusion for those of us with Porsches. They’ll definitely need to create an adapter ASAP! But will we be able to super charge as we do on EA’s 350kw chargers???

 

[daveo4EV]

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/tesla-chargers-more-reliable-competitors-163000632.html

 

[daveo4EV]

meanwhile in germany and texas…

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42295419/porsche-efuel-water-car-fuel-chile-production/
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a43756208/efuel-production-coming-to-texas/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/tr...-much-pollutants-as-fossil-fuels-study-finds/



it may or may not be entirely CO2 neutral - but still produces all (apparently more of some) the pollutants when burned beyond CO2 emissions that are harmful to people and such…and has got to consume a metric sh*t-ton of Electricity renewable or otherwise…

one would almost thing they are not "all in" on this whole EV thing…and seeing their EA efforts - one might be right.

they lack commitment…

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/porsche-having-second-thoughts-replacing-135000204.html

The dealer said the apprehension about going all-electric with the volume model concerns the lack of well-maintained public charging infrastructure.

there is a network that works…and is available - just not the one they are funding.

 

[bsclywilly]

From the same article as Dave quoted above.
Really feel sorry for these Porsche execs. The solution for their problems is sitting right in front of them and yet they are still reluctant to gain access to the largest and most reliable charging network in North America.

…the apprehension about going all-electric with the volume model concerns the lack of well-maintained public charging infrastructure.

“They got customer pushback,” he said. “They realized there are not enough chargers out there” to support the Macan customer base.

At the meeting, attended by Porsche Cars North America CEO Kjell Gruner, executives demurred on plans to follow the auto industry in plugging into Tesla’s Supercharger network.

 

[snstevens]

they lack commitment…

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/porsche-having-second-thoughts-replacing-135000204.html


there is a network that works…and is available - just not the one they are funding.

I did like the part that read --

Retailers saw the electric Macan and the freshened Taycan fastback arriving next year at the event.

 

[Jonathan S.]

they lack commitment…

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/porsche-having-second-thoughts-replacing-135000204.html



there is a network that works…and is available - just not the one they are funding.

Speaking of that certain other network ... although this is obviously putting the horse before the card, but optimistically projecting that VAG will capitulate and that the 4CT will gain Supercharger access next year, is there any means of telling which of the current Superchargers are among the ~12k that support CCS communications protocols (as opposed to the ~5k balance that apparently do not -- unless it's just a strategic decision to maintain Tesla exclusivity to the Superchargers that already often have a wait?).

I'm especially interested in the outlook for the Superchargers in West Lebanon NH and St Johnsbury VT. Access to those would be enough to go all-EV for our household.
I've had CCS success at both of those locations with my [wife's] i4 M50, but my five collective charging sessions there have always had the potential for getting skunked:

• The West Lebanon NH EA station has four units, but of course one or two of those are usually broken, and bailing to the two nearby CCS stations (one with one charger, the other with two) would also risk getting skunked, whereas the Tesla station in the same parking lot has SIXTEEN!
• The St J VT Ford dealer has two units (which means I've now visited a Ford dealer this year more than I've visited any Ford dealers cumulatively in my entire life), both of them reliable, but takes the bad luck of only two drivers ahead of me to entail a long wait, yet the nearby Tesla station has eight.

 

[daveo4EV]

Speaking of that certain other network ... although this is obviously putting the horse before the card, but optimistically projecting that VAG will capitulate and that the 4CT will gain Supercharger access next year, is there any means of telling which of the current Superchargers are among the ~12k that support CCS communications protocols (as opposed to the ~5k balance that apparently do not -- unless it's just a strategic decision to maintain Tesla exclusivity to the Superchargers that already often have a wait?).

I'm especially interested in the outlook for the Superchargers in West Lebanon NH and St Johnsbury VT. Access to those would be enough to go all-EV for our household.
I've had CCS success at both of those locations with my [wife's] i4 M50, but my five collective charging sessions there have always had the potential for getting skunked:

• The West Lebanon NH EA station has four units, but of course one or two of those are usually broken, and bailing to the two nearby CCS stations (one with one charger, the other with two) would also risk getting skunked, whereas the Tesla station in the same parking lot has SIXTEEN!
• The St J VT Ford dealer has two units (which means I've now visited a Ford dealer this year more than I've visited any Ford dealers cumulatively in my entire life), both of them reliable, but takes the bad luck of only two drivers ahead of me to entail a long wait, yet the nearby Tesla station has eight.

I don't know how to tell - that doesn't mean there is not a way - just that I don't know.

we'll know more when Ford/GM start using the network and Tesla will probably update the sties meta data to indicated…

honestly there is not reason all of them could not support CCS but it may require hardware swaps to add the necessary CCS support - but all this will evolve over time.

 

[Jonathan S.]

^ Okay, thanks -- and many thanks also for all your posts on the broader CCS<>NACS subject!

 

[daveo4EV]

^ Okay, thanks -- and many thanks also for all your posts on the broader CCS<>NACS subject!

I appreciate that - I'll stand by my post as "informed and well reasoned speculation" - but I really really want to get an "engineering talk" from someone in a position to know about how this is really being done.

My assertions/analysis are based on a few "facts" - and by fact I believe every can "agree" on the list below as being observably true and with out dispute

• my unmodified 2020 Taycan can charge at Scotts Valley, CA supercharger w/MagicDock + Tesla app based activation and has done so numerous times
  • my personal inspection of the "magicdock" based on weight/density (it's mostly hollow) - I'd be deeply surprised if there is anything "active" electronic's wise inside it to "convert" anything
  • Tesla's chademo adapter is much much more complex…heavy, costly, dense.
• CCS is fully supported in Europe by Tesla
• Ford/GM/Rivian are giving away or only charging like $100 for any future adapter - other vendors have been less explicit but will probably do same
  • they charge more for floor mats - anything $100 means it's trivial and not complex. If it were remotely "active" translating electronics it would be $500 or more - not that the market couldn't bear that sort of cost, I'd pay it, but the price indicates it's complexity - which based on price it has "zero" complexity.
• we know Tesla cars can do "CCS" - so Tesla has experience with the protocol
• this is my mind is the simplest path forward
• from an "electrical" signaling point of view NACS and CCS1 have an identical number of electrical connections and each of the 5 electrical connectors has an identical purpose
• Vendors that have announced support say 2024 for rollout to existing vehicles w/adatper - nothing in the automotive industry fits that sort of time line unless it "already works" and/or is truly minimal effort
  • these are conservative companies with a long history of careful engineering - their engineers will have had to have signed off on the "time line" for roll out - if I was in those briefing the only thing that fits the time line - is the following tech presentation
    • You don't have to make any changes to your onboard vehicle electronics/software because it's all still CCS "under the covers" just with a different shaped connector.
    • no plug&charge intially - you'll need to use our app (Tesla) or get some software people to write your own app - we'll provide you a trusted start/stop/billing API into our systems…details here can be worked out.
    • plug&charge will come later when CCS evolves to overcome it's current known/admitted limitations and existing standards already have proposals in this space (SAE/ISO/DIN) and we'll all in the same boat going forward in that space.
      • robust mutli-vendor plug&charge support has nothing to do with the physical shape of the connector - so again we're all in the same boat - CCS isn't there yet for a multi-vendor standard.
• we know NACS already supports J-1772 and vice versa because of the Adapter that ships with every tesla, and TeslaTap(s) adapters for AC charging - so there is engineer precedent and design precedent for Tesla "co-opting" an existing charging electrical standard and just transforming the plug's physical design
• I believe anyone paying attention would easily recognize the superiority of the NACS design vs. CCS1's physical design - CCS1 is truly awful and should be considered an advanced prototype and functional, but not anything you'd ever want a "customer to experience"
  • CCS1 is like a fully functional "prototype" design that accidentally was allowed to go into production before anyone thought to "finalize" it for human consumptiion. I still think it shows lack of seriousness on the industries part that they thought that design was suitable for human usage - honestly no one was paying attention because they thought it wouldn't matter…so it only had to be functional, it didn't have to be "usable".

putting all the above together and probably a few things that slipped my mind lead me to my assertions.

Again I'll stand by my analysis and may be proven wrong as this all rolls out - but my analysis makes a lot of sense if I do say so myself.

But I may be wrong, and that's ok, this is an internet forum…

I'm hearing about "resistance" from Porsche on this whole topic - and they may have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this party - I think eventually they will be overwhelmed into doing it (if they are resistant) - but that means delay (completely unnecessary in my opinion). At this point in time any vendor that's paying attention should move into the "as fast as possible but no faster" trajectory for this stuff - delay will benefit no one. Any delay at this point in time is Ego/Hubris and serves very little purpose - since in the end it's pretty clear how this is going to play out.

we'll see - I'll request respectful facts/references designed to illuminate the topic rather than embarrass/shame me if I'm proven wrong.

but fun fun fun - welcome to new tech.

 

[Jonathan S.]

I have found all your posts on this topic to be convincing, thanks. Although granted, my electrical engineering knowledge is limited to having coached the then NCAA varsity alpine ski racing team at MIT back in the 1990s! (“So what are you majoring in?” “Four.” “Does that have letters affiliated with it?” “EE.” “Any chance you could spell that out for me…?”)

But as an economist, I find this so fascinating – in addition to personal interest as an EV owner.

The one somewhat puzzling aspect of this is how Tesla in 2020 started setting up its EVs for CCS DCFC. For anyone who somehow fears a future Tesla monopoly over all U.S. DCFC (even though I’d rather pay Tesla monopoly pricing at their Superchargers than my current reliance upon a mix of paid 50kW units and free 30-minute EA sessions at ostensible 150kW and 350kW units that are often de factor 0kW units), incurring add’l costs to allow Tesla owners additional competition for DCFC sure seems at odds with the goal of a DCFC monopoly.

Instead, I’ll give Elon credit (as painful as such a concession is for me) for having the foresight to invest in both the Tesla charging infrastructure and the Tesla charging flexibility to sell, well, Tesla EVs, and now that other companies are finally catching up with him on the EVs, he’s trying to make money off Supercharging (for which I am happy to give him my money, but not for one of his EVs).

I suspect that many car manufacturers – not just Porsche -- will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to negotiate with Tesla for Supercharger access for their CCS EVs. Perhaps close to literally so.

I love looking at the Wikipedia entries for the BMW and Porsche CEOs. Can you imagine either of those two having to perhaps sit down one-on-one with Elon?

But with Ford, GM, Rivian, and Volvo/Polestar already capitulating, BMW and Porsche will have no choice if they don’t want to take a big hit in sales.

The complicated part for any VAG marque is that their EA subsidiary will be even more hopeless for operating profit, but then again, it will still fulfill its primary goal as the U.S. DOJ ENRD EES CAA civil consent decree version of a prison work release program.

 

[daveo4EV]

I have found all your posts on this topic to be convincing, thanks. Although granted, my electrical engineering knowledge is limited to having coached the then NCAA varsity alpine ski racing team at MIT back in the 1990s! (“So what are you majoring in?” “Four.” “Does that have letters affiliated with it?” “EE.” “Any chance you could spell that out for me…?”)

But as an economist, I find this so fascinating – in addition to personal interest as an EV owner.

The one somewhat puzzling aspect of this is how Tesla in 2020 started setting up its EVs for CCS DCFC. For anyone who somehow fears a future Tesla monopoly over all U.S. DCFC (even though I’d rather pay Tesla monopoly pricing at their Superchargers than my current reliance upon a mix of paid 50kW units and free 30-minute EA sessions at ostensible 150kW and 350kW units that are often de factor 0kW units), incurring add’l costs to allow Tesla owners additional competition for DCFC sure seems at odds with the goal of a DCFC monopoly.

Instead, I’ll give Elon credit (as painful as such a concession is for me) for having the foresight to invest in both the Tesla charging infrastructure and the Tesla charging flexibility to sell, well, Tesla EVs, and now that other companies are finally catching up with him on the EVs, he’s trying to make money off Supercharging (for which I am happy to give him my money, but not for one of his EVs).

I suspect that many car manufacturers – not just Porsche -- will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to negotiate with Tesla for Supercharger access for their CCS EVs. Perhaps close to literally so.

I love looking at the Wikipedia entries for the BMW and Porsche CEOs. Can you imagine either of those two having to perhaps sit down one-on-one with Elon?

But with Ford, GM, Rivian, and Volvo/Polestar already capitulating, BMW and Porsche will have no choice if they don’t want to take a big hit in sales.

The complicated part for any VAG marque is that their EA subsidiary will be even more hopeless for operating profit, but then again, it will still fulfill its primary goal as the U.S. DOJ ENRD EES CAA civil consent decree version of a prison work release program.

I just want to be clear - I have NO inside information - and I'm making it all up!! But doing so from 30+ years working for a major consumer electronics company as a Software Engineer in silly-con valley

my perspective is - if I had to do this what do I have to work with - what are the physical limitations and how much software needs to be tweaked?

I think the path forward is minimal change for everyone (easier when more parties are invovled) and therefore we can't have new software (and associated re-qualification efforts) being deployed into the fleet of existing CCS1 vehicles.

but it is all a "theory" and not a "tech talk" based on any briefings.

 

[daveo4EV]

Totally game over now surely now that EA and Volkswagen (will shortly) roll to NACS.

…just a matter for Taycan folk there of getting Porsche NA to mail out your NACS adapters or indeed offer a retrofit charge port.

only question is how much will Porsche $$$ for the ‘privilege’ ??

retrofit is very unlikely - NACS multi-plexes the high voltage pins - AC power when using an AC EVSE, DC power when talking high voltage FastDC - this requires changing the design on the onboard charging hardware, wire hardnesses, software - while straight forward - it will be a round of redesign that is beyond reasonable to consider as a retrofit - it takes $5000 dealer service costs to retrofit the 22/19.2 kW onboard charger…and the parts there are a "plug & play" swap…with no other changes.

I do not see a retrofit as practical, possible, or even in the cards - especially when a $100 (retail cost) adapter can more than do the job.

Porsche is going to drag it's feet on a native NACS port on their vehicles for as long as possible - they are simply not motivated by this change and I honestly believe are in denial about CCS1's problems - just like they are in denial about the PMC+/PMCC in north america.

 

[daveo4EV]

retrofit is very unlikely - NACS multi-plexes the high voltage pins - AC power when using an AC EVSE, DC power when talking high voltage FastDC - this requires changing the design on the onboard charging hardware, wire hardnesses, software - while straight forward - it will be a round of redesign that is beyond reasonable to consider as a retrofit - it takes $5000 deal service costs to retrofit the 22/19.2 kW onboard charger…and the parts there are a "plug & play" swap…with no other changes.

I do not see a retrofit as practical, possible, or even in the cards - especially when a $100 (retail cost) adapter can more than do the job.

Porsche is going to drag it's feet on a native NACS port on their vehicles for as long as possible - they are simply not motivated by this change and I honestly believe are in denial about CCS1's problems - just like they are in denial about the PMC+/PMCC in north america.

also I don't think they will "add" NACS midway through any product cycle - let's assume the facelift/.2 Taycan is already locked/loaded for MY'2024/2025 - if 2025 is the "refresh" - that means it's 5 years between model refreshes (2020 Taycan -> 2025 Taycan) - another 5 years will be MY'2030 - the Macan EV is also "locked/loaded" and supply chain provisioned - so no changes there either - an adapter has no impact on manufacturing logistics of vehicle's - and moving to NACS still requires an adapter for NACS native vehicles to access CCS1 EVSE's…

the 718 EV would be the first opportunity for Porsche to tip it's hand in this space, and I'm going to guess they are not going mess with it given their reticence to do this at all…2028/2029 would be the first time we see any cracks in Porsche's approach here…or the .2/facelift Macan EV (which they have recently lost interest in).

they are much more interested in their polluting but CO2 neutral eFuel so they can keep selling 911's than pushing EV issues to the front burner -they will wait on this as long as possible and not respond until it's just a bit too late…but ultimately come around - but they will not lead in this space - they will be dragged kicking and screaming with an ever so perfect exhaust note from their eFuel powered ICE motors.

NACS is "on the table" for:

• post refresh Taycan - MY'2030?
• .2 Macan EV - 2032?
• 1st gen 718 EV - 50/50 chance <--- first opportunity to "integrate" NACS - could still make changes from an engineering/manufacturing point of view _IF_ they are motivated to do so - but I believe they lack motivation - severely lack motivation
• full EV Cayenne

none of those timelines require them to "commit" right now…so they can "wait & see".

BMW and Mercedes will "happen" on this front before Porsche - even maybe VW/Audi

 

[daveo4EV]

we will be lucky to get a NACS adapter from Porsche in 2024…again I don't think they are motivated in this space…I'm guessing we don't even get an adapter or supercharger network access until 2025 or 2026.

for me personally if I don't hear what I want to hear from Porsche in the 2024 time frame - my next EV will NOT be a Porsche - it will be from the set of forward thinking EV vendors that have gotten on board with the clear trend and show me they are paying attention to what is happening.

who ever I purchase an EV from will have a clear story regarding NACS and not deafening silence.

I've bought my last CCS1 based EV (2020 Taycan) - _IF_ my next one has a CCS1 port it will only be with an adapter and supercharger access - I could care less about the native port - but it would be nice.

I'm in the market for another full EV in the 2025 and beyond time frame…we'll see what my options are - I'd prefer another Porsche - but not if they are sticks in the mud on this issue.

Sponsored