A poster on the BMW i3 facebook page stated (without links or backup) that the Supercharger communications protocol between the car the Supercharger was essentially the same as CCS (SAE Combo), with a few Tesla specific additions. CCS is the new DC fast charge standard that the European car manufacturers (principally BMW) are trying to get adopted. Anyone here have any info about this?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharger protocol a superset of CCS?
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
Tesla Motors CTO talks future batteries and charging protocols - SAE International
Automotive Engineering Magazine said:
JB Straubel said:
I think it's compatible.
It's an old article (March 2013), but that interview is a must read, and his storage keynote's a must watch.
whether its protocol compatible or not, the construction likelihood is that a Supercharger to Chaedemo adapter will be cheaper than a Supercharger to CCS adapter, and that a Supercharger to CCS adapter may actually be a Supercharger to Chademo to CCS design.
from Ingineer (Mynissanleafforum.......the guy who made/sold the majority of the world's plug in prius conversions, and also sell a jailbreak/upgrade for OEM EVSE allowing faster charging)
mitch672 wrote:
[There are some who have se listed on the TMC forum, that many of te Chademo chargers will be getting the new SAE J-1772 DC Frankenplug added to them. If that becomes a reality, Tesla will just produce a J-1772 adapter with the Frankenplug, which is electrically compatible to the Tesla protocol/standard. Those adapters will be a lot less expensive, since the will just be physical connector adapters, and not likely to have much, if any electronics in them.]
This is not correct. The "Frankenplug" is not upward compatible with J1772, only backward compatible. This means that while the Tesla can accept standard L1/L2 J1772, it will not be able to use the Combo without adding a lot more stuff, including the power-line communications system used in the Combo system.
Actually, I posit that a CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger!
-Phil
me
All the Tesla hacking Supercharger protocol for diy CHAdeMO adapter seem to validate Ingineer's posit, that CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger
from Ingineer (Mynissanleafforum.......the guy who made/sold the majority of the world's plug in prius conversions, and also sell a jailbreak/upgrade for OEM EVSE allowing faster charging)
mitch672 wrote:
[There are some who have se listed on the TMC forum, that many of te Chademo chargers will be getting the new SAE J-1772 DC Frankenplug added to them. If that becomes a reality, Tesla will just produce a J-1772 adapter with the Frankenplug, which is electrically compatible to the Tesla protocol/standard. Those adapters will be a lot less expensive, since the will just be physical connector adapters, and not likely to have much, if any electronics in them.]
This is not correct. The "Frankenplug" is not upward compatible with J1772, only backward compatible. This means that while the Tesla can accept standard L1/L2 J1772, it will not be able to use the Combo without adding a lot more stuff, including the power-line communications system used in the Combo system.
Actually, I posit that a CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger!
-Phil
me
All the Tesla hacking Supercharger protocol for diy CHAdeMO adapter seem to validate Ingineer's posit, that CHAdeMO to supercharger adapter is easier and simpler than a SAE Combo to supercharger
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Do we know for certain there is no power-line communications support in the Model S? That seems to go against what Straubel is saying (Tesla is not 100% compliant if it has no power-line communications support).
As far as I can tell from that thread, we know the superchargers use a hybrid between a CAN bus and J1772, but the tinkering is not deep enough to eliminate the possibility of power-line communications support behind the scenes (with possible firmware lock). Someone will have to dig into the car side and see what kind of electronics are there. We don't even know how close the CAN signaling is to CHAdeMO (and also how the CHAdeMO adapter works).
And I'm not seeing how it can be possible that a "Supercharger to Chademo to CCS" route would be cheaper than Supercharger to CCS. With CCS, the adapter will have the challenge of the power-line communications (assuming the car has no support), but it will not have to deal with any of the analog components of CHAdeMO.
As far as I can tell from that thread, we know the superchargers use a hybrid between a CAN bus and J1772, but the tinkering is not deep enough to eliminate the possibility of power-line communications support behind the scenes (with possible firmware lock). Someone will have to dig into the car side and see what kind of electronics are there. We don't even know how close the CAN signaling is to CHAdeMO (and also how the CHAdeMO adapter works).
And I'm not seeing how it can be possible that a "Supercharger to Chademo to CCS" route would be cheaper than Supercharger to CCS. With CCS, the adapter will have the challenge of the power-line communications (assuming the car has no support), but it will not have to deal with any of the analog components of CHAdeMO.
Last edited:
We basically have no idea if there is PLC in there. As far as I know, no-one has tried to signal CCS mode to the car (PP resistor value of 1500 and 5% duty-cycle PWM) and measured what happens.
What about the work discussed on this thread?
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/19591-Supercharger-protocol-for-diy-CHAdeMO-adapter?p=629916&viewfull=1#post629916
We were all hoping that it would turn out to be CCS compatible, based on those earlier Tesla statements, but there are extremely strong indications that it isn't. People have applied the pilot signalling that would engage PLC on a CCS car and got this proprietary CAN-like signalling, and also monitored supercharger sessions and observed that same signalling.
So there's an outside possibility that the cars have PLC support for future use and just have it disabled it in software for now - but it seems extremely unlikely given that it's not used at superchargers.
?
I haven't seen anyone claiming to signal CCS? 5% duty cycle on the PWM, yes. But not combined with 1500 ohm resistor which the standard specifies.
But with that being said, I don't find it very likely that the car can switch between PLC and CAN on the same wire (although theoretically possible). CAN on that wire is used for supercharging, that has been quite clearly established.
The document you found specifying 1500R says that the 1500R value signals a combo2 connector (which the Tesla obviously doesn't support), and uses the same values as for AC when doing DC over the pins of a standard type 2 connector (which is closer to the Tesla configuration). Also, someone measured a Supercharger at 450R. So while it would be good to do that experiment, the chances of it doing anything interesting are extremely low.
PaulS
Member
How do Superchargers know how to bill owners for electricity or not?... ie. how does a Supercharger detect if your car/account has Supercharging-for-life or not, since currently we don't have to "check in" at Superchargers to indicate who we are? Does the Supercharger use the charge cable, WiFi, BT or something else to talk to the car behind the scenes to figure out "who" it is?
The VIN is sent by the car to the SpC. The car is actually reporting the billing though.
PaulS
Member
PaulS
Member
Think I've figured it out... since the car is internet connected, it detects being plugged in and takes appropriate actions based on it's settings. So the Superchargers themselves don't have to know at all about the cars plugging in to them. The car plugs in, comms with servers in Freemont and billing is triggered as required.
How are you so sure?
As far as I know the car sends the VIN over the cable to the SuC and talks that way. It's the SuC connected back to Feemont.
PaulS
Member
I'm not aware that there is a data channel over the charging cable to transmit the VIN from car to charger.
CCS uses PLC for the communication. There was speculation for some time that Tesla were doing the same (based on some public statements), but when people actually monitored it, the Tesla protocol turned out to be based on CAN (and about the first thing it sent was the VIN).
Supercharging does not use PLC. It uses Single-wire CAN at 33.3k. This is done by using the Pilot connection in the connector.
Similar threads
