israndy
Supercharger Hunter
I didn't even think about that, a 2013 TMS can charge at EVgo now, but wouldn't be able to on a NACS charger, that's an interesting difficulty for Tesla as it's their plug standard and their cars
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
GM just adopted NACS 🤯🤯🤯
- Thread starter cdub
- Start date
henderrj
Active Member
It would be a trivial programming task to make another category for chargers. Just like you can filter charges now on the MCU, they certainly would be able to add third-party chargers who are in the system.
They already have the code to support that. It has been in use for years in Europe, where older vehicles without the retrofit can't use V3 Superchargers or the third-party CCS chargers Tesla lists in the car. Neither of which show up in those vehicles.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Agreed... I thought chademo was deader than dead, at least in the US.
RayK
Active Member
srs5694
Active Member
The current EVgo solution employs a CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapter with an extra-long cable between the adapter's handle (which is buried in a square box that's bolted to the charger) and the plug. Tesla's current CCS1-to-NACS adapter doesn't use a cable, so there's no option to simply increase the cable length. Even if an electrically similar adapter was created that did use a cable, there's the problem of size/heat/cooling. The CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapter is limited to 50kW (125A), whereas most new installations are 100-200 kW (250-500A; I'm referring to the charging speeds achievable on the Model 3 or Model Y; the stations may be marked "350 KW," but that typically assumes 800v architectures). To handle such higher amperages, the cables would have to be much thicker and/or incorporate liquid cooling. Thus, an adapter (at least, with a cable) would not be a viable solution.
That said, a solution akin to a Magic Dock might work. EVgo (or another provider) could do it exactly like Tesla, with a NACS plug and cable-less NACS-to-CCS1 adapter; or they could design something akin to that but going in reverse, with a CCS1 plug and CCS1-to-NACS adapter (like Tesla's current adapter). These solutions use very little metal in the adapters themselves, compared to a long cable, so they can be built to support the high amperages without being too big and heavy. That said, I believe the current NEVI regulations rule out the possibility of using a Magic Dock-style NACS-to-CCS1 adapter if NEVI funding is desired, since they specify that the stalls must support CCS1 natively, not via an adapter. Going the other way might work and still qualify for NEVI funding, though.
I saw a recent quote from a ChargePoint representative (sorry; I didn't save the URL) in which the representative implied that they were working on a "creative" way to add NACS support. There were basically no details, but it sounded as if ChargePoint was loathe to simply add another cable to their dispensers, and wanted a way to have one cable support two connectors. That implies either an adapter or some sort of dual-headed plug. Of course, what ChargePoint does and what EVgo do could be entirely different; I just thought I'd toss this out there because it's related.
As others have pointed out, replacing the current CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapters with any other solution would be likely to exclude older non-CCS-enabled Teslas, unless EVgo (or whoever) negotiated with Tesla to get access to Tesla's proprietary Supercharger protocols. I wouldn't want to entirely rule out the possibility of this happening, although I've heard no hints from Tesla or any charging provider that it's likely to happen. Even if we assume that third-party providers will be restricted to using the CCS protocols over NACS, IMHO that's acceptable, and even for EVgo to replace their current CHAdeMO-to-Tesla plugs with native CCS-speaking NACS plugs. The increase in charging speed and convenience (since, for EVgo, the hypothetical future CCS-speaking NACS plugs will work with Autocharge for Tesla-like simplicity of use) are big enough improvements that they justify cutting off a shrinking number of non-CCS Teslas. (My own 2019 Model 3 is one of those that doesn't yet support CCS, so I'm throwing myself under the bus with this statement.) There are (or will soon be) solutions for such Teslas, including Tesla's ECU upgrade to get CCS support, use of a (used or grey-market) CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapter, and use of Setec's CCS1-to-Tesla adapter (which, unlike Tesla's adapter, pretends to be the CHAdeMO adapter on the Tesla side, and so works with older Teslas). Granted, these solutions all cost money, but if you really need access to non-Superchargers, they're all worthwhile, and they'll all work at more than just EVgo stations. If third-party operators begin adding CCS-communicating NACS plugs in large numbers, then Tesla's ECU upgrade will be well worth the cost, especially if Tesla begins offering the upgrade without the adapter for a lower cost.
In any event, Ford and GM adopting NACS is setting off a chain reaction of changes that will inconvenience some current and near-future EV owners, including drivers of older non-CCS-enabled Teslas and all CCS1-only vehicles. IMHO, this is acceptable because of the longer-term simplification that will occur if the industry dumps CCS1 and standardizes on NACS, as I now believe is likely. It'll be much better, in five or ten years, to buy any EV in North America and be guaranteed that it can charge anywhere with a NACS plug (which will be any but the oldest CCS-only installations), than to be faced with the choice of which connector to get and be forced to use adapters or be unable to use a significant number of charging stations.
srs5694
Active Member
Like the old man in the "bring out your dead" skit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," CHAdeMO is not dead -- yet. The Nissan Leaf still ships with a CHAdeMO inlet, and of course cars last for many years, so there will be a sizable number of CHAdeMO-based vehicles on the road for years to come. Fortunately, none of these cars is really suitable for road trips, so their need for DC fast charging is limited....
Except for people who to live in apartments, which have been slow to install Level 2 EVSEs. I don't have statistics to hand, but I imagine that cars become more and more likely to be owned by apartment-dwellers as they age and are sold and re-sold as used vehicles, so I imagine that a lot of CHAdeMO vehicles will end up parked outside of apartments in the coming years. Thus, it's desirable to keep CHAdeMO DC fast chargers available for routine charging of these vehicles. I'm not sure there will be enough economic incentive to keep these chargers running for as long as the CHAdeMO vehicles can run, so that could decrease their value and perhaps result in many of them being retired earlier than they might otherwise be retired. One possible solution is to create a CCS-to-CHAdeMO adapter (similar to the Setec CCS1-to-Tesla adapter) that translates the protocols; however, that's likely to be expensive.
All of this could be a preview of what's to come for CCS1 vehicles, if manufacturers completely abandon CCS1 in favor of NACS in North America. Fortunately, though, NACS-to-CCS1 adapters are likely to be cheaper than a hypothetical CCS1-to-CHAdeMO adapter, at least if (as seems likely) NACS stations use the CCS protocols for communications.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not true, they don't explicitly disallow adapters. It only says it must be "permanently attached", allowing for permanently attached adapters (which is what Magic Dock is):
(c) Connector type.
All charging connectors must meet applicable industry standards. Each DCFC charging port must be capable of charging any CCS-compliant vehicle and each DCFC charging port must have at least one permanently attached CCS Type 1 connector. In addition, permanently attached CHAdeMO (www.chademo.com) connectors can be provided using only FY2022 NEVI Funds. Each AC Level 2 charging port must have a permanently attached J1772 connector and must charge any J1772-compliant vehicle.
Federal Register :: Request Access
Plus Magic Dock is functionally the same as a native cable, as the user doesn't have to attach the adapter themselves (there are some chained adapters I have linked previously that other countries use, but they require the user to take it out of the box and attach it themselves).
The federal government also addressed NACS (as well as CHAdeMO) in recent comments:
"This rulemaking allows permanently attached non-proprietary connectors (such as NACS) to be provided on each charging port so long as each DCFC charging port has at least one permanently attached CCS Type 1 connector and is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle.
...
Recognizing the need for flexibility to accommodate the evolving technological needs of charging in the future, FHWA modified the language of this final rule to allow DCFC charging ports to have other non-proprietary connectors (specifically identifying NACS and CHAdeMO) in addition to the required four CCS connectors so long as each DCFC charging port is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle. The language was also modified to clarify that each charging port must still be accessible through a CCS connector. This avoids the possibility of having an entire charging port that a consumer cannot use if there are only non-CCS connectors attached to it."
Federal Register :: Request Access
In none of it do they mentioned adapters are not allowed. The main requirement is each stall must still be able to charge a CCS vehicle (what they want to avoid in the rule is for example stations being installed where some stalls have CCS and some stalls have no CCS; CCS is the baseline).
Is it really "permanently attached" if someone can forcibly pull it off the end of the cable?
Of course, it doesn't really matter. Even with the MagicDock Superchargers don't meet the NEVI requirements. (Minimum output of 150kW and having an on site contactless credit card reader, for just two that they don't meet.)
srs5694
Active Member
Personally, I interpret "permanently attached" to disallow adapters, including Magic Dock. Although I would not bring a lawsuit over this issue, anybody who wanted to slow or stop deployment of such a system, and who had sufficient funds, surely would. Even if the courts ruled in favor of permitting a Magic Dock-type adapter, they'd likely take a couple of years to reach a decision, which might be enough of a victory for the plaintiff.
Like this, in case anybody scoffs at the idea:
True, but this particular thread of the discussion is about the possibility of some other (non-Tesla) fast charging provider implementing something similar. It's all very speculative, of course.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Probably not, but whatever hack someone found, I think can probably can be addressed. My assumption is that the adapter can't be removed from the stall, so obviously does not apply to that case.
It won't be a lawsuit, it'll just be up to the states to interpret in their NEVI application process. Of course, my assumption here is the adapter is actually permanently attached, not removable like someone figured out how to do (which hopefully Tesla can fix, they pretty much have to given people will eventually figure it out and want to take it with them). The guy in the video tried to do a AC charge which obviously doesn't work (CCS uses the DC pins so adapter is wired that way), but given Ford/GM will be offering an adapter to charge their CCS cars at superchargers, the magic dock adapter can totally work for that (and thus have value, not just a paperweight as the person put it).
Yes, I see other charge operators wanting to implement similar things, similar to how EVGo used a CHAdeMO adapter with an extended cable. It would cost a ton less than separate cables and is simply a more efficient use of money for something that would be functionally the same. Given the Feds have shown they are willing to change the rules to suit changing trends, I don't really see the Feds disallowing adapters especially if their current wording doesn't not explicitly disallow it.
Last edited:
Unless it can be forcibly removed from the stall as well, they would have the credit card on file for who released it. Just bill them for the adapter and the truck roll to replace it.
Tritium also announces they will be supporting NACS, including as a Retrofit option.
tritiumcharging.com
Good news for Revel Superhubs instead of their current solution.
Tritium Announces Support for NACS Connector | Tritium
BRISBANE, Australia, June 12, 2023 –Tritium DCFC Limited (Tritium) (Nasdaq: DCFC), a global developer and manufacturer of direct current (DC) fast […]
tritiumcharging.com
Good news for Revel Superhubs instead of their current solution.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Do we know fersher that there are older Teslas that will never work with CCS based NACS chargers like Tritium announced? I get that 2012 Teslas didn't envision using a CCS adapter, but I assume that if you look under Additional Info it will say if it's CCS compatible and you could in theory use the same CCS ECU that they have been retrofitting cars with in the EU since their CCS decision. Meaning no one could accuse Tesla of abandoning old Teslas, other than taking forever to do that retrofit. I did my own on my 2018 TM3 and I have friends who have been waiting two years so far for Tesla to do theirs. I also purchased my adapter from Korea when it first came out and someone reverse engineered the wiring harness.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
That just shows how little they understand.
If they were spending on hydrogen filling infrastructure, that would be different, but chargers supply electricity and a charging standard is software, a plug and maybe a controller board. That's why so there are so many dual-protocol chargers, and in Europe there were many 3-protocol. Even Tesla was quickly able to add CCS cables to their Tesla Type 2 stalls in Europe.
So, you can expect chargers to be deployed with NACS cables as well as CCS, and over time some existing chargers to switch out their cables. The NACS is just a small part of the cost.
zoomer0056
Active Member
Similar threads
