-
Should Tesla connectors be US standard?
Should CCS connectors be the US standard, or should the US adopt the Tesla connector as the US standard?
I am sure Tesla would be happy to allow usage of their connector as the nation’s standard.
It is not too late. The building out of the US charging network is still in its infancy.
Perhaps someone with Tesla experience can speak up. Does the Tesla system require a charge card on file? Are there any Tesla charge systems that will allow you to enter your charge card information for that specific charge like at gas stations?
Considering the president’s snubbing of Tesla at his press meeting, would he even consider it?
The Tesla connector looks much more convenient and easier to use. The CCS connector looks gigantic. What ever the choice, the nation will be stuck with it for a very long time.
-
70 Replies
-
Should Tesla connectors be US standard?
updated 4 months, 1 week ago
30 Members
·
70
Replies
-
Point #1: CCS has already been adopted as the national standard
Point #2: Tesla offered to share its charging tech but there were too many strings attached
Point #3: See point #1
Point #4: Tesla requires drivers to have an online account – you cannot “pay to charge”.
Point #5: Tesla wasn’t snubbed – that press conference was for legacy manufacturers who had or were about to launch EVs. No EV-only manufacturers were included.
Point #6: The Tesla connector is elegant as it works for both AC and DC charging but every non-Tesla EV and PHEV in North America and Japan has a J-1772 connector, in Europe an IEC 62196 Type 2 “Mennekes” connector and in China a GB/T connector for AC charging and either a CCS Type 1 (US/Japan), CCS Type 2 (Europe) or GB/T DC in China. The Japanese ChaDeMo connector is now no longer being used in new vehicles. So it pretty much comes down to a patent issue: Why pay Tesla to use its proprietary connector when we already have a connector we can use without charge?
-
Kerbe 2705. You should set Chris and Steve down and have a good talk with them and set them straight. They just distributed a petition for this very thing.
-
@Pistonboy Delux It’s their company and they can do what they like but this strikes me as being a bit of a “Don Quixote” quest… What worries me about this petition is that it muddies the water: I knew that something wasn’t quite right with Elio when they started pushing a dashboard design based on the designer’s father’s 1950’s Elgin wristwatch. Shortly thereafter, instead of using a high-efficiency 3-cylinder crate engine from an established engine-builder (GM, Ford, and Suzuki all make them), they decided to sink MILLIONS of dollars into developing their own 3-cylinder engine. And then they ran out of money.
The Tesla connector is a proprietary design used only in North America – and it’s made in-house by Tesla. It’s not gonna come cheap, as they say, even if Tesla agrees to license its use to Aptera. For all we know, Superchargers may recognize ONLY Tesla vehicles when they connect via a Tesla connector – again, Aptera would need to license Tesla software for the proper “handshake” to occur. Superchargers in the UK and Europe that allow CCS charging have a second, dedicated cable installed as there are legacy Teslas that have the Tesla connector.
-
-
-
Two choice choices. The first, Tesla, locked into one vendors technology and the country subject to the whims of that vendors technology and processes. The second, CCS. An open standard not tied to a specific vendor but established by committee with broad representation.
The choice is clear, CCS
-
Great responses made here as I’m dead against Being locked into Tesla. My only add would be it wouldn’t make sense for a company whose philosophy is to support and promote right to repair to choose a proprietary charging network.
-
CCS is a gruesome kludge, it was designed by monkeys. Unfortunately we are stuck with it for perpetuity, it’s impossible to change a standard once it’s been widely adopted. Our houses use Edison’s plug and light socket. The only change in the last 130 years is the addition of a ground but the form factor is backward compatible.
Ideally they would come up with a CCS3 standard that has the elegance of the Tesla connector and deploy it before the current public charging system gets too built out. At the moment the vast majority of EVs on American roads are Tesla’s, there are so few CCS cars that it would be theoretically possible to fix their mistake if they were to do it in the next year. Unfortunately that timeline is impossible. By the time that they had a new CCS3 connector there will be a million CCS1 EVs on the road.
The only real hope for fixing the CCS mess is wireless charging but I don’t know if it’s capable of high speed charging or just level 2 rates.
As an aside, saw an interesting video about why the US uses 120 (originally 110) and Europe uses 240 (originally 220). Edison’s bulb used a carbon filament and it could only handle 110V. After the Chicago Worlds Fair Americans quickly adopted electric lighting and also we were building sky scrapers where gas lighting would have been difficult and dangerous. The tungsten filament bulb was developed a decade later in 1906. Tungsten could handle a higher voltage. At the time copper was very expensive so using a higher voltage had a significant cost advantage. There weren’t a lot of European electricity users yet so it was possible for the power companies to give away the new tungsten bulbs to everyone and switch the voltage to 220. In the US there were already 20 million houses that used electricity so it wasn’t possible here, the 110V standard was locked in.
-
Your personal opinion only
Of course it wasn’t designed by monkeys. The designers were technically qualified representatives in their field. Unless you claim master level qualification in charging technology I would suggest you be a little more gracious in your comments about other technical professionals.
Like any other new standard, it is evolving and will continue to do so. It it is an open standard and accepted as such for the U.S. and not tied to a vendors proprietary architecture.
-
-
@Joshua, et al: It is Ever Thus, with Respect to Standards!
Probably Apocryphal, but the Roman WarHorses vs The Space Shuttle….
In My Work on Container Cranes, One Time, I received some New Hoisting Cable on a Very Obviously Old and Grotty Cable Reel. It still connected to the Winch machinery just like all the other Cable Reels We had ever handled. However, on a Metal Plate affixed to the Cable Reel, many times painted over, the Legend embossed thereon read something like: “conforms to the Standard of U.S. Army, 1893….”
-
Nice video about the different charge connectors
-
Norman, excellent video! Thanks for sharing it.
-
The argument is moot unless Aptera owners have access to the Tesla charging network as that is the only network that a Tesla plug works with. So….first step is to secure guaranteed access to the Tesla network with out a penalty for being non-Tesla, then come back with an argument to use the Tesla plug until Tesla abandons their current plug and guarantee no charge conversion to a different charging standard for each Aptera sold.
-
Supercharger cables are very short. Both the pillar and license plate locations won’t reach. My friend tried to reach the centre of his license plate with a model 3 when parked squarely. They will need to put a port behind the lights like a Tesla or ee would need to park like jerks.
-
-
-
I think Chris’ point all along is the Tesla connnector is simple and elegant, let’s not use complicated connectors. Since it’s already designed, why not use it.?
Tesla has done a lot to boost EVs, and they’ve made a lot of $ doing it. I doubt he ever wanted to give Tesla any more than it already has, it’s just that it’s already there.
-
This and other threads on this forum are filled with the reasons using the Tesla plug for Aptera is a bad idea. Simple and elegant are not sound reasons to use a particular connector. I believe an objective review of the posts that argue against the Tesla connector will convince any open minded person that they don’t want to be boxed in with a connector that even Tesla must move away from eventually and has started to even now
-
This reply was modified 8 months ago by John Malcom.
-
objective, open-minded, boxed-in
Weighting your comment doesn’t change the thrust of my statement: simple is better.
-
Why can’t the other makers slim down the size & lighten the weight of their poorly designed clunky connectors to something the size and elegance of the Tesla design?
-
This reply was modified 8 months ago by
-
-
As this theme seems to have an evolving theory as to why APTERA is pushing for Tesla plug.
It is so much easier to conceal the plug housing on the body of the APTERA. Any other plug will require a much larger boxy cut out of the body. Being ably to hide the Tesla plug housing under a side light is not only clever but does not effect at all the body’s aerodynamics. Since a regular 110 outlet would be sufficient for most with the occasional level 2 charging, I do not see too many negatives and a mostly clear and positive advantage having saved both on aerodynamics in addition to clean uninterrupted lines for the aesthetics of the vehicle.
I have a j-plug at home, I can always purchase an adapter. But as all my future vehicles will most likely be electric. I know that I can purchase another e vehicle and be able to charge both at same time without another investment to install a second charging station.
-
@John Voules Actually, John, the CCS1 port isn’t that large. Yes, it’s larger than the Tesla port, but the real issue is that Aptera wants to locate the charge port behind the license plate and the CCS1 port is about 8mm taller than a US motorcycle license plate.
In the recent Gamma renderings, the license plate surround/baseplate appears to be larger than in previous Aptera renderings so, perhaps, they’ve already solved the issue of covering a CCS1 port…
-
-
Hard NO on the Tesla connector. The Tesla charging network is a distant #2 in terms of locations and ports. Their number of DCFC locations are less than the total of all non-Tesla locations. In another year, when Aptera hopefully releases a vehicle, the numbers will be even worse for Tesla charging due to the huge local, state and federal funds going towards installing non-Tesla chargers. To address the question directly, the government should never ever assign a standard that is proprietary.
-
My reference is only for Tesla like port without availability if Tesla charging network. Most can charge at home 110 or use level 2. Charging is more than adequate for this officiant vehicle. Let’s not be so hard!
-
If I were looking at what works 99% of the time I’d get an ev with a sub-100 mile range or an enclosed autocycle. Dcfc is important and in Canada ccs (or an adapter for tesla to ccs) is important with many areas having no superchargers.
-
-
Just read your opinion about Tesla designed charging connector, as opposed to the CCS1 and CCS2 charging connectors. First of all, we must not confuse the function and ease of use of any connector, as the simplicity or complexity of charging is dependent on the charging station and NOT the connector. Just happens that the reliability of CCS charging stations absolutely sucks in North America. At any given time, you are lucky if you find a working one. Not only that but the maintenance of most CCS charging stations is often thru’ 3-rd party businesses who seldom have skilled enough technicians to effect quick response time in solving problems and getting the charging station operational. So, since governments are investing money to bring in many charging stations to match speed of transition from fossil fuel (ICE) vehicles to EVs, we certainly must consider a charging system that is straight forward, uncomplicated and reliable. That is hands down, the Tesla Supercharger system.
Final note: most of Tesla’s designs are “open source” and so not responsible for other charging providers not utilizing a proven reliable and fast charging system.
-
-
The least amount of proprietary stuff that goes into the car, the better. This is supposed to be an open vehicle, with right to repair at the forefront. Tesla is like the opposite of that. I also don’t get the whole connector size thing. Is this really an issue? I mean it’s not like the standard connector is 10X bigger, or 10x less capable.
-
Let’s say Congress mandates a NEW simple, elegant connection standard for EV charging plugs. I’m not an engineer, so what would be involved besides cutting off the old connector at a charging station and wiring on a new one? Does software have to be updated in the vehicle and the charger?
-
-
Tesla Expected To Open US Supercharger Network To Other EVs, Applies For Funds
-
One should also state that the cost of a Tesla Supercharging station is roughly 1/3 that of the CCS charging station. You get 3-Superchargers to 1-CCS station…I know where I would put my money. European standard charging system is also having major reliability problems in Europe and we want to make that a standard here? You have got to be kidding me!
-
-
-
I wish Chris would stop using “clunky” as a reason. It doesn’t carry much depth in the argument to make the Tesla connector the US standard. He references that the CCS connector is as big as a gasoline pump nozzle. People have been handling those just fine for a long time. Size is not the issue for the connector becoming a US standard. And, was he holding a DC or AC charging version of the Tesla connector? The one he shows has a skinny cable making me think this is the cable from a Tesla AC charger. If so, comparing that to a CCS connector attached to a DCFC cable is further misleading. Finally, Aptera Owners Club already addressed that the cost reference used to compare the building of a Tesla Supercharger vs a CCS DCFC station is suspect.
I like Aptera and continue to be a fan. In my mind, this campaign continues to shed a poor light on Aptera as they need to concentrate on achieving vehicle production.
-
The SuperCharger cables are about the same diameter as the AC Tesla cables, they are just much shorter.
-
I’d be really curious how they would be planning to handle the port if they put a tesla plug on the Aptera. Supercharger cables are super short and the Aptera has no space to put the port behind the tail lights. The license plate and B pillar locations are too far away for v3 superchargers (unless parking at an angle).
PS: I had a friend check if the supercharger cable would reach to the center of his license plate on a model 3 – it does not.
-
The cable will reach but the Aptera might take up two parking spaces. You back into Tesla parking spaces. Tesla’s have their charge port on the drivers side rear so the spaces are laid out assuming that the car is parked with the charge port facing the charger. With the port in the rear center the Aptera will have to straddle the line. If Tesla agrees to allow Aptera to use the Tesla connector they’ll probably make it a condition that Aptera move the port to the driver side rear.
-
True for existing Superchargers, but then again, Tesla drivers are having problems parking at odd angles to be able to plug with DCFC system. That being said, nothing to stop new Supercharger stations being organized in such a way that they mimmic a gas pump station…you park along side of charger. All doable and the benefit of system that reads your VIN, knows your membership account and charges. None of the rigmarole of getting your card out, your phone…reader not working, confused as to whether you connect first or pay first or…do I need to go on?
-
-
-
Yes, people have been handling unleaded gasoline (21mm OD) and autodiesel (24mm OD) nozzles for decades. However both of those are smaller than the heavy clunky CCS2 connector so there will be many people who have problems handling it. With high flow diesel nozzles (30mm OD) being larger & heavier than autodiesel ones, long haul truckers should not have a problem with CCS2 connectors. Since we have 3 different liquid fuel nozzles now, it shouldn’t be a problem to have the Tesla connector for general public vehicles and limit the CCS2 connector to buses, long-haul trucks, and other large delivery vehicles.
-
I guess the problem is that there is no unified definition of “clunky”. This allows anyone to state whether something is clunky or not clunky. For me, I don’t see someone being able to lift and engage a fuel nozzle and not a CCS connector.
By continuing to use an arbitrary term such as “clunky” it falsely can allow turning one point of view into a mainstream issue for all. No one has yet presented an argument to show this is the case for me.
-
While I don’t support the petition I do believe the tesla plug is SUPERIOR for Aptera. It is smaller, has adequate performance, superchargers are common enough (alluring still less common than ccs especially in Canada) and it is tamper resistant to being arbitrarily pulled out by ___holes. They will need an irrevocable deal for supercharger access and a good placement solution (I think front right)
-
Anyone with common sense can see the clunkiness of the CCS2 design. The designers were just too lazy to actually try to come up with a better design. Instead they seemingly said: “Let’s just slap more pins on willy-nilly and go home. It’s Miller time!”
-
-
-
-
-
The US government intends to put 50,000 charging stations along interstate highways using the CCS connector. It appears $5billion is allocated. That level of standardization makes technical merits of the Tesla connector a moot point. Here is a small slice of the text:
———————-
Section 680.106(c) proposes a requirement that Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs) connect and communicate with EVs through an industry standard charging port type called the Combined Charging System (CCS). The CCS port is a non-proprietary, accepted standard port in North America developed and endorsed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The CCS connectors are proposed for all DCFCs to accommodate
a baseline of vehicles and to accommodate use of adapters that will provide EV charging for all vehicles. The CCS ports represent the most common port type used across all manufacturers of new EVs today. As stated in the 16th proviso of paragraph (2) under the “Highway Infrastructure Program” heading in title VIII of division J of Public Law 117-58, until the Secretary certifies that a State is fully built out on their Alternative Fuel Corridors, National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funding is limited to use on EV charging stations along Alternative Fuel Corridors.
———————–
Full text can be found at:
-
I believe the decision on the Aptera charge connector has already been made (I have no idea what that decision is/was) and work to implement that decision is underway. We will see the results in the delta ready for production specs when released. Efforts (For or against) the adoption of the Tesla connector are most likely past the point of impacting the adoption. Regardless of the charge plug chosen for implementation, we will adjust to it!
-
Tesla has posted an important news announcement and is opening the Tesla standard under the new branding North American Charging Standard (NACS). From the statements it seems very clear Aptera and others will be allowed to use superchargers.
Another noteworthy point is the assertion that the connector is capable of up to 1 MW of charging. This could show they can support higher voltage or the connector is otherwise far more capable of scaling as large EVs and Batteries evolve. They also assert it is “twice as powerful” as the CCS connector which is unclear to me.
With Tesla throwing its weight around to push this as a true standard it may have a real chance. At a minimum adapters (in both directions) and more open access seems likely. I can’t see many non-tesla networks installing more stalls until tesla opens its superchargers and vehicles actually start shipping with it (especially if they get no federal funding). This seems like an uphill battle for Tesla but is the first real indication they have an intention to fight it.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard
-
Fantastic news. No doubt this is the result of Aptera’s pleading with Tesla to use their network. It also explains why they haven’t been able to announce a deal, Tesla didn’t want to do separate deals one at a time, they wanted to roll out a formal standard and provide a general framework.
-
The notice that the default NACS by two-to-one in proliferation is a key metric that coupled with its superior performance ought to make this adoption a no-brainer.
I hope the effort succeeds, however you might define success?
-
True success would be the availability of adapters for CCS1 vehicles and the eventual death of that standard (in north america) over probably 8-12 years.
Step 1: Open the standard (no cost for EV makers to use the IP) and little if any premium for supercharging vs Tesla owners.
Step 2: Actually open the network and sell reasonably priced adapters for CCS cars (with a an integrated cable for the length issue).
Step 3: Lobby for changes to the federal funding rules for DCFC and get some use by charge networks to implement the plug. At this point some major EV makers will hopefully adopt the plug for its obvious technical benefits. By this point (2027) Aptera is hopefully making the 300,000 per year Sandy speculated about at Fully Charged so we count.
Step 4: Watch CCS1 die slowly like Chademo.
-
I see one huge issue with your idea. There are already other electric cars on the market (from Kia and Hyundai) that charge at a higher rate than Tesla’s connectors are capable of (800v@ over 250KWh).
It looks like Aptera is going to use the Tesla plug which is a major downer for me since there are more level 3 fast chargers within 100 mi of me then there are level 1-3 Tesla chargers.
According to plug share there are over 100(99+ technically) level 2 chargers with 100 miles of me and about 70 of them are free (thanks to it’s efficiency Aptera should gain impressive MPH on level 2). There are around 30 level three locations with well over 100 stalls for CCS
If I expand that circle another 50 mi and ignore all the additional CCS that gives me that gives me two Tesla fast charging locations, one with eight stalls and one with 10 (looks like there is going to be another 10 stall station early next year) There is also a hotel with a free level 2 Tesla charger (you can use when the hotel owner’s not using it) and a second hotel with four level two chargers. But the review is complained about the $20 a night fee to use them.
It’s probably different in a handful of massive cities (San Francisco, Houston, Manhattan, IDK) But I’ve only ever used public chargers on trips (for me Little Rock or Memphis dozens of times a year) and while malls supermarkets, (Big lots, Walmart, Kroger), car dealers, and even historic downtowns in cities with populations as low as 5k near me have level two CCS chargers (usually free I might add) Life gets harder for someone with a Tesla except while following a corridor between massive cities.
I haven’t heard a 100% confident answer about Aptera’s charging speeds but assuming it is at least as fast as a 2017 Chevy Bolt (lvl2 7.7KW) I might never need level 3 charging so I may be able to get away with just using an adapter nearly 100% of the time but I do make a 1k mi one-way trip a few times a year and according to plug share (using the “other” vehicle option with range set at 900 because idk what the range will be at 70-80 mph) It looks like It will add almost 250 mi and 4-6 hours depending on charging speed versus a CCS.
-
The Tesla announcements states that existing CCS charge stations will integrate NACS(Tesla) connectors and already have a plan to start the process. They state which ones but the implication is that there are already many systems on board with the plan. Also, the NACS plug will be capable for 1000V
-
-
-
-
Plugshare shows that Tesla has opened a second supercharger location in my province. Maybe by the time I get my Aptera they’ll have half as many locations as CCS. Or possibly the current CCS providers will be allowed to use Tesla sockets now?
-
@Bob Kirchner The issue isn’t so much the number but the function: Canadian EV writers are constantly complaining that CCS charging stations are offline or that individual dispensers are non-functional. Tesla Superchargers, OTOH, are usually functional.
-
Tesla has a CCS adapter now. I’d assume that Aptera will include the necessary hardware to make that work. Tesla also has Superchargers the entire length of the Trans Canada highway so you can easily go from BC to NS.
-
-
Oh, so now they want to open the connector/port/communication as a standard for anyone to use it with “no strings attached.” Maybe if Tesla did this 10 years ago with their mass-market car and plug introduction, they’d have a leg up on having a wider adoption among other manufactures and charge providers.
If this does become widely adopted and is as “no strings attached” as it is implied, that’d be great. If I could plug any car/battery (would be cool for e-motorcycles too which are mostly limited to IEC C13 extension cord or J1772 lvl 2 charging for size considerations) into any provider using this plug and pay said provider, that’d be ideal. But Tesla is behind the eight ball as it is.
Forbes has a good writeup on the issues and some forward-looking thoughts.
Tesla Opens Up Its Charging Connectors To All, But The World Probably Won’t Listen (forbes.com)
-
@jeffrey Parker The only point the Forbes article missed was about payment: Tesla’s current plan for non-Tesla access to Supercharging is via the Tesla app. Non-Tesla charging is activated and paid for via the app.
-
-
To be honest I don’t care what charging plug Aptera is going to use for their US models, as long as they are going to use CCS2 in the EU (the de facto standard here, even Tesla uses it) and not force us to use an adapter, because that would be reason for me to cancel my reservation.
-
They’ll have no choice but to use CCS2 in the EU. Tesla didn’t choose to use CCS2 they were forced to.
-
That’s a good point. But will a CCS2 port even fit behind the license plate? Maybe if they turn it sideways?
-
@Jeffrey May – Aren’t UK and EU motorcycle license plates larger than the US standard? Some significant redesign of Aptera’s nose and/or tail might be necessary for world markets…
-
In the UK it’s 22x18cm I think (9×7). Rear only.
-
This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Michael Marsden.
-
This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by
-
-
-
-
One more thought. This makes the 400 mile variant much more palatable for me. I have the 600 mile version on order because it has enough range that I’d never have to fast charge, if I never have to fast charge then the sparseness and more importantly the unreliability of the CCS network didn’t matter. As a Tesla owner of three years who uses Superchargers every weekend in the good weather months I have absolute confidence in the Supercharger network. In that time I’ve never had a situation where I couldn’t charge, in all of that time I’ve only run into one broken charger which is no big deal when every Supercharger stop has at least eight chargers. There is also sufficient coverage to go anywhere I want to go in New England. The 400 mile Aptera will have 75-100 miles more range than my Model 3 which currently has 250 miles of range @90% charge. That’s enough to eliminate 75% of my charging stops. Beyond that it’s diminishing returns, when you have a charging network you can count on range is much less important.
-
I completely agree Joshua. This changes everything. I am seriously considering changing from my 600 to the 400 . I hear so many complaints about the “other” charging systems that having a Tesla option takes the range anxiety away.
My wife and I plan on a cross continent road trip once we take delivery.
“This makes the 400 mile variant much more palatable for me. I have the
600 mile version on order because it has enough range that I’d never
have to fast charge.Tesla also has Superchargers the entire length of the Trans Canada highway so you can easily go from BC to NS. “
-
-
Oh, I see. Now that CCS is growing rapidly in the US, Tesla is worried all the sudden. Now, instead of adding CCS to their stations as promised, they will let other cars use their plug.
My issue is I want EV’s as a whole to support bi-directional power flow. Many people will never use it, but in lots of cases, its a true killer-app type of thing. Yes, I’m a bit jaded, I have an RV and would love to power my RV, air conditioning and all, for a week from my car. For most people, its more about having power when you need it.
I don’t supercharge my Tesla that often, but when I do, there is almost always CCS chargers in the same lot.
-
I drive a Tesla Model 3. I very seldom use a Tesla super charger except when taking a trip. They are convenient and and easy to use, just plug the handle in. This easy of use is because there is functionality in the Tesla that handles all of the steps to connect and initiate charging without using an app.
Unless manufacturers have that functionality built into their charge control systems, users other than Tesla owners will have to use an app just like with CCS charging systems.
There are many, many, EV Manufacturers coming to the US in the next two years. None will adapt the Tesla plug/protocols for competitive reasons. So the CCS standard will continue to grow in volume of use. It is possible that the Tesla standard will be adopted, but the probability of that happening is so low it is difficult to compute.
Tesla must implement CCS2 for nearly all sales in Europe and other places in the potential EV market place. To me it make more sense to accommodate CCS1 in North America than spend the time/money/resources to get their approach adopted as the standard.
Practically, I am glad the super chargers will be available to all and will buy an adapter to use CCS1 and Tesla chargers if Aptera is equipped with a Tesla plug. The only advantage to me is the availability of the super chargers as I will still have to use an app to access them since the Aptera charging system will most likely not support the Tesla protocols. (Convenience is the same as CCS only availability and perhaps reliability is better) but my infrequent use makes it a moot point for my use cases.
-
In order for this to succeed they have to open up the payment side to third-parties and allow total interoperability to the point that a non-Tesla EV can visit a non-Tesla DCFC station and at no point does any Tesla controlled software get involved to process the transaction nor does Tesla receive any financial benefit. Otherwise this is just a way of Tesla becoming the new Standard Oil of the EV age. And if we get to the point with Tesla completely and totally out of the loop minus the physical and electrical standard then the most touted Tesla closed-garden charging attribute of reliability is completely and totally lost. You’ll still have EA reliability with slip-shod standards implementation on the EV.
So what’s here to gain for the general driving public? A smaller plug, that’s it.
-
I look at it this way: the Tesla connector is equivalent to the unleaded gasoline & auto diesel nozzles while the CCS2 connector is the equivalent to the high-flow diesel nozzle. The former two nozzles are light, small, and easy to handle while the latter is heavy, large, and cumbersome to handle. I’ve has experience with all three and smaller, lighter wins out the vast majority of the time. The large nozzle is best used for semis, busses, construction equipment, etc.
Weight wise the Tesla plug is about 11 oz (0.3 kg), the J1772 is about 13.6 oz (0.4 kg), and the CCS2 is about 1.6 lbs (0.72 kg) from what I can find and this is without the cabling!
-
I get your concern over a new Standard Oil and its legacy, OPEC (a cartel).
But what is missing in the CCS realm is meaningful competition. All the level 3 vendors are more attuned to staking out new territory than competing on elements of service. That doesn’t happen until there is a competing service across the street.
Tesla is that service and for some it offers superior value in the remote charging business. This is largely because the damn things work, especially in comparison with the CCS option.
The really cool thing brought out in this video is the way the rules defining qualification for subsidies for installation of new equipment means that Tesla will only qualify if another ‘manufacturer’ uses the plug standard beyond that of the original brand.
In essence Aptera just signed the line that qualifies Tesla for billions in subsidies for its charging network. That will be instrumental in keeping them competitive with tons of other charging networks.
Yes, Tesla just gained billions in subsidies and now it looks like we’ll get a ticket to this expanded network.
This has been a PR bonanza and I hope Sarah and the gang can maybe get some real big play out of this and this angle because, if Aptera just validated Tesla’s charging network for subsidies by adopting the plug, every Tesla driver owes us a thank you ’cause they’ll use the proceeds a lot more than our solar powered vehicle.
-
Other than what they say in this video, do you have any direct reference to a charger with 2 manufacturers using it will qualify?
I’m not sure the rules are written yet. This seems like a bit of an interpretation of what has been said about ‘standards based’ connectors.
I assume standards based mean a true standard, which requires a lot more than just calling it a standard.
-
I’ve seen other references to the law which bans only proprietary charging networks. If the lawmakers intended to specify a regulator to do that or just mandate the Jplug, they’d have written it in law. But, by golly, sometimes the government is not as stupid as people have been led to believe.
The other plain fact is that the Tesla plug was the first to gain any traction at all as it predated CCS. Anyway, what legal standing does the government have to tell them to do what GM decided to do … it has never been like that.
The issue here is funding and there is absolutely no funding for a proprietary charging network. Aptera is an independent U.S. company with unique sources of supply that make it, like Tesla, insulated from the culture of the US automotive industry is independent enough to ‘think out of the box.’
Its choice and obvious access to the best national super charging network is prima fascia proof the network is not proprietary. There will be enough politics and favoritism in the awards to keep everyone happy, even if the Tesla charging network gets some … because of Aptera 🙂
-
-
-
-
- A smaller plug
- More mechanical reliability (no moving parts)
- More charger uptime at superchargers (company actually cares)
- Cheaper (not 4x as stated by some)
- Up to 1mw potential (higher than ccs). As batteries advance in the next 20+ years the plug can keep up
- Plug and charge
- V2G, V2L, V2H (Future spec version)
Essentially ccs1 has 0 technical advantages and is less deployed. This is the time to pivot.
-
-
Here is an interesting podcast that goes deep into the technical details of the spec tesla released. Some good observations.
