They probably just don't want dabblers fixing or modding the connectors in random ways. (Like bypassing the safety circuit because the switch failed.) I quite look forward to the inevitable high current charger CCTV incident footage.
I don't particularly like the bulky connectors either. From a safety standpoint though, having completely separate paths for AC and DC does eliminate the risk of AC and DC crossing paths where they aren't supposed to due to a stuck contactor either on board or at the charging station unit. I'd imagine any fault going undetected here is going to mean quite costly repairs.
If they does, car will gonna deactivate this part of the car(let's say, charging). But I agree, having a separate circuits for me looks like a better idea, but it's done for simplicity of end user.
@@TheSadButMadLad I wouldn't say that. Typically, these standards are developed by very good engineers, but they need to satisfy so many political interests of different parties...
@@shazam6274 In this case I am referring to "company politics", not "government politics". It's hard to ignore the interest of the corporate entity paying your salary.
Thanks, I have one of these for my Model S and it has become intermittent after 140k miles. I gave the connections a blast of switch cleaner, but I suspect having seen your teardown, that it'll be the microswitch. Thanks!
I share your opinion on CCS. I'm currently developping a 24kW DC CCS fast charger, and the CCS protocol is overly complex, uses Greenphy chips only sourced from Qualcomm, which can lead to supply issues. Chademo use CANbus, which is robust, well-known and bog-standard in automotive, CAN transceivers are cheap and available from dozens of manufacturers. Unfortunately, Chademo is now a dead standard
Agree on all points but the chip availability. Qualcomm are hell to work with but luckily there are a few other options. HP GP modem chips are also available from ST, Lumissil and Vertexcom. The Lumissil part, IS32CG5317, is even stocked by Mouser.
I'm also annoyed that Type 2 cars don't use the 'DC-Mid' mode too.. 50kW through the normal plug without the CCS would be super useful for shopping centers and smaller places with lots of cars plugged in. I suspect they don't because the US plug dosen't have the same mode, so they use the same internals and just change the AC/main plug.
The US version has that. It is called SAE DC Level 1. 48kW max. I don’t think any cars support it though. Likely the same for Mennekes. Specified but no car support.
What Tesla did was standard in 2013. Type 2 could do single phase, 3 phase or DC fast. But in 2015 VW came up with CCS after dieselgate to 'make fast charging possible' and put CCS on own vehicles, while nerfing them to 3.5kW when not using CCS. So if you used type 2 on VW, you were limited to 3.5kW, while it could do up to 43kW AC and 150kW DC. I hate CCS so much. Looking at circuit diagram, old Renault Zoe could do DC over Type 2, like Tesla S/X, just it lacks the software for communication.
For all it's flaws, Tesla does have some amazing engineers! I wonder how frustrated they are about Tesla's whole vendor lock-in and anti-repair stance.
Tesla is pretty repairable, unlike apple products. Max what they can do is disable your DC charging capabilities, but they can be returned and all what you will gonna loose and access to supercharger network, but still gonna be capable to charge on other 3rd party DC charges as EA, charge point and EVgo.
The Tesla connector designed by engineers to encourage EV adoption. The CCS connector designed by the ICE manufactures marketing department to discourage the adoption of EV's.
the biggest joke for me is type1(j1772) and ccs1 - even with single phase they can use ccs2 without problem - today I browsed plugshare app and some charging points in US are limited to 6,5-7,2kW - one guy even modify his ZERO bike with 12kW charger for dual type1 sockets so he can charge from two different stalls with full power
@@unlokia Guess you have never owned an EV? Last month my electricity cost to run my Model Y was $29 Charge form my solar system in summer,. No oil changes No exhaust system to fix No spark plugs to replace First major service was wiper and cabin filter After 60,000km breaks look like brand new Drove across Canada cost $140 Gas stations are places to your the wash room and get snacks Always have a full battery in the morning.
Is it true that the US uses a different CCS connector? One that's J1772 compatible? That would make it impossible to fast charge a European car in the US and vice versa.
Yes, it's different here in the US. Two main standards (other than the Tesla proprietary)- CHAdeMO (very much falling out of favor) and SAE CCS which is just a J1772 plug with the two extra DC pins frankensteined on.
There is one small electrical difference. In CCS2 Type 2 the Prox.-Pin is just pulled down with the 13A-coding resistor to PE inside the plug. In CCS1 the Prox.-Signal guided through the charge cable and terminated in the EVSE. This allows the EVSE to monitor the Latch-Switch, which is only present in Type 1.
Finally someone calls out CSS for what it is. The communication standard of CHAdeMo makes much more sense. The bulky cables have at least the benefit that they can carry absurd amounts of current, but still why so clunky. And that they allowed the US to continue their absurd prperitary Type1 plug. There is no benefit to Type1, Type2 is downwards compatible to single phase and even 110V.
@@pxidr mostly that, plus vague spec that is interpreted differently by different manufacturers, high minimum voltage that makes it unsuitable for motorbikes...
@@mikeselectricstuff The newer version of the standard specifies 50-500VDC (K) or 200-920VDC (L). So I guess a K charger can charge motorbikes, but on the older version of the standard the minimum voltage was higher (150VDC if I remember well)
@@jayjaytronics8358 CCS supports bidirectional charging. It's usually not implemented, owing largely to a lack of real-world use cases. AFAIK the only vehicle that fully supports high power output through the CCS port is the F150 Lightning, which to make use of that requires an additional ~$4000 in hardware installed in your home. There's as lot of talk about V2H/V2G but the reality is that stuff is expensive and users don't seem keen to pay for it.
CCS adapter is basically passive because newer Teslas have a charge port ECU that talks CCS natively, it's just basically a pass through dumb adapter with some temp sensors. Chademo adapter is way more complicated, it's translating all the comms as well. I work with the guys who wrote the firmware for it actually.
@@HillierProductions I figured by a price what CCS adapter is probably nothing fancy, since it's just 250$. Unlike chademo what probably have something like stm32 with aux can controller and something what talks to a car as well. Chademo is pretty simple protocol and well described and documented already. I'm really curious to see tesla supercharger/ac charger protocol reverse engineering.
Tesla AC charging is just J1772 basically. And Supercharging uses the same J1772 lines but switched to CANbus instead. It's actually quite simple on that layer, it's the higher level authentication to lock out anything but specific VIN Teslas that's more complicated.
I don't get the hate on CCS, sure it's big and bulky but it's a standard meant to cover everything all the way up to trucks and buses in many weather conditions and last tens of thousands of cycles. This Tesla adapter however just shouldn't exist, going with those proprietary dual use AC/DC pins and modified and oversized connectors and internal wiring just to get mid power DC fast charging without the full CCS connector is pointless when you can just put the whole damn connector in the car and not need this adapter to use any standard DC charge point plus you get the full power capabilities of CCS. In my view it's almost as if Tesla knew they had to comply with the EU requirement to use the Type 2 connector but hadn't given up on the idea of a propriety Supercharger network outside of the US when they made this, but of course CCS has since left Tesla behind and now they're switching everything to CCS which will be a very interesting sight in 5 or so years.
The protocol is unnecessary complex and uses an inappropriate physical-layer interface, causing compatibility problems and difficulty in debugging to diagnose these problems. Uses a single-source part.
EU requirement to use proprietary technology is what shouldn't exist. It's as if they'd standardized on lightning instead of usb and forced everyone to buy apple lightning chips.
@@mikeselectricstuff Sure it would be nice to be able to do DC charging with something similar to the super easy low level communication of standard AC charging or simpler CAN bus CHAdeMO but the high level communication and PLC is very much essential for future V2G/V2X features and future PHYs. For example, a 250 kW EV that is not capable of PLC and thus not able to do load shedding will only cause problems for the grid in future. However I will say some of the things envisioned in the standard are rather pipe-dreamy (eg. wasteful kW level wireless charging), but I guess it's better than not planning for them and finding out there's actually an important use case for it.
@@WizardTim Nonsense. all the charging and V2G/V2X etc could easily be done over CAN or RS232. All it needs to do is pass a few parameters for current and status etc. Even secure authetication etc. doesn't need much bandwidth. It's always going to be a point-to-point link between the car and one other device - no need for any networky stuff. Anything upstream of that should be handled by the box the car gets plugged into, not the car.
Note that there *is* already single-wire CAN over the “control pilot”, and there *is* DC over the CCS (as implemented by Tesla). It’s just that Europe didn’t want to reuse/standardize that. That being said, with the necessary water cooling for the many hundred amps charging for even the cables, bulkiness of the ridiculous connector isn’t that much of an issue. Just have a look at the arms-thick cables dangling from the newest DC chargers. Standardizing on communication over PLC is a bad joke, though…
I prefer a doggy standard that's used over no standard. And it looks (in this video) that converting it to a proprietary downstream solution isn't over complex.
The only real difference is Tesla uses the same pins for both AC and DC input rather than CCS's dedicated DC pins. This makes an adapter fairly straightforward providing the hardware in the car supports the communications protocol. My understanding is older Teslas will need an upgrade to the onboard controller to use CCS.
@@JanCumps I don't think Tesla has any desire to promote their design as a standard. There are SOME people who want Tesla to be the standard, but that ship has already sailed. The 250KW V3 superchargers they're rolling out lag behind the CCS in terms of max power and V4 will at best match what CCS is already doing (350KW). Tesla kinda engineered themselves into a corner on this one.
EVs are gonna fail. In fact they’re already a failure; were they anything else, exponential growth would’ve been seen, and it is a niche obsessive audience which have them.
@@jb5631 *anything* should be made as serviceable as possible. I didn't think I'd need to explain this - as it's quite obvious, really - but every little appliance that you manage to get serviced instead of just throwing out (and buying a new one), equals less unrecyclable waste ending up in a landfill. And in the case of the adapter shown in the video, it's quite a substantial amount of waste.
Hi mike, I have been following you. You do a great work. I work for NextPCB. We would like to sponsor your projects. You can send a DM for more details. /Dolphin
They probably just don't want dabblers fixing or modding the connectors in random ways. (Like bypassing the safety circuit because the switch failed.) I quite look forward to the inevitable high current charger CCTV incident footage.
You mean tesla branded welder in use :>
could you do a seperate video elaborating on your opinions on CCS?
I had the same question! 😊
CCS is better then no CCS. By my opinion, chademo is still better if it gets advanced voltages up to 800-900v.
CCS does up to 1000V. Same as you indicate. Although you’ll never see over about 880 I think.
@@stevebollinger3463 In Germany the first CCS Chargers with 1000A/1000V pop up. (e.g. Sortimo Zusmarshausen)
Ow man I was so curious about the teardown, I searched the internet quite a bit, noone seems to have dared to break one down. Thanks!
I like the locking earth pin. Most ingenious solution.
Nice teardown mike interesting to see what's inside these.
I don't particularly like the bulky connectors either. From a safety standpoint though, having completely separate paths for AC and DC does eliminate the risk of AC and DC crossing paths where they aren't supposed to due to a stuck contactor either on board or at the charging station unit. I'd imagine any fault going undetected here is going to mean quite costly repairs.
If they does, car will gonna deactivate this part of the car(let's say, charging). But I agree, having a separate circuits for me looks like a better idea, but it's done for simplicity of end user.
The clear difference between "Designed by an Engineer" vs. "Designed by a Committee"
And also the difference between an engineers working in real life and pretend engineers who's never worked in real life but just in academia.
@@TheSadButMadLad I wouldn't say that. Typically, these standards are developed by very good engineers, but they need to satisfy so many political interests of different parties...
@@kain0m "A Camel is a Horse that was designed by a Committee". Another good reason to ignore politics in engineering.
@@shazam6274 In this case I am referring to "company politics", not "government politics". It's hard to ignore the interest of the corporate entity paying your salary.
@@kain0m Yup, I have been guilty of that myself.
Thanks, I have one of these for my Model S and it has become intermittent after 140k miles. I gave the connections a blast of switch cleaner, but I suspect having seen your teardown, that it'll be the microswitch. Thanks!
I share your opinion on CCS. I'm currently developping a 24kW DC CCS fast charger, and the CCS protocol is overly complex, uses Greenphy chips only sourced from Qualcomm, which can lead to supply issues.
Chademo use CANbus, which is robust, well-known and bog-standard in automotive, CAN transceivers are cheap and available from dozens of manufacturers.
Unfortunately, Chademo is now a dead standard
I'm pretty sad about chademo. I like it. I think using 2ports is better for longevity of this ports. Did seen j1772 with a burned down pins.
Agree on all points but the chip availability. Qualcomm are hell to work with but luckily there are a few other options. HP GP modem chips are also available from ST, Lumissil and Vertexcom. The Lumissil part, IS32CG5317, is even stocked by Mouser.
@@Mikkel324 Oh, interesting, I was not been aware what someone else is having this GreenPHY chips. I was thinking what QCA7000/7005 is only option!
@@Mikkel324 Ok thanks, great to know !
CAN is also dying. Car companies are switching to 2 wire Ethernet. Sure CAN will remain as long as OBD 2 exists. But do EVs even have OBD?
I'm also annoyed that Type 2 cars don't use the 'DC-Mid' mode too.. 50kW through the normal plug without the CCS would be super useful for shopping centers and smaller places with lots of cars plugged in.
I suspect they don't because the US plug dosen't have the same mode, so they use the same internals and just change the AC/main plug.
The US version has that. It is called SAE DC Level 1. 48kW max. I don’t think any cars support it though. Likely the same for Mennekes. Specified but no car support.
When I first heard of CCS I thought it uses the two DC and all three AC pins at the same time. Cause that's what the name implies "Combined Charging"
What Tesla did was standard in 2013. Type 2 could do single phase, 3 phase or DC fast. But in 2015 VW came up with CCS after dieselgate to 'make fast charging possible' and put CCS on own vehicles, while nerfing them to 3.5kW when not using CCS. So if you used type 2 on VW, you were limited to 3.5kW, while it could do up to 43kW AC and 150kW DC.
I hate CCS so much.
Looking at circuit diagram, old Renault Zoe could do DC over Type 2, like Tesla S/X, just it lacks the software for communication.
I suspect the CCS1 version is similar on the inside to this, might have to find someone with an x-ray to send mine through.
For all it's flaws, Tesla does have some amazing engineers! I wonder how frustrated they are about Tesla's whole vendor lock-in and anti-repair stance.
Well, the issue with CCS is design by committee. Tesla, doing their own thing can omit all the politics of making twenty different parties happy...
Tesla is pretty repairable, unlike apple products. Max what they can do is disable your DC charging capabilities, but they can be returned and all what you will gonna loose and access to supercharger network, but still gonna be capable to charge on other 3rd party DC charges as EA, charge point and EVgo.
The Tesla connector designed by engineers to encourage EV adoption.
The CCS connector designed by the ICE manufactures marketing department to discourage the adoption of EV's.
the biggest joke for me is type1(j1772) and ccs1 - even with single phase they can use ccs2 without problem - today I browsed plugshare app and some charging points in US are limited to 6,5-7,2kW - one guy even modify his ZERO bike with 12kW charger for dual type1 sockets so he can charge from two different stalls with full power
EV adoption doesn’t need “discouraging”, the entire premise is laughable AT BEST. It’s a very deep and wide delusion.
@@unlokia
Guess you have never owned an EV?
Last month my electricity cost to run my Model Y was $29
Charge form my solar system in summer,.
No oil changes
No exhaust system to fix
No spark plugs to replace
First major service was wiper and cabin filter
After 60,000km breaks look like brand new
Drove across Canada cost $140
Gas stations are places to your the wash room and get snacks
Always have a full battery in the morning.
Then there is chademo. made by idiots
I bet, that bar attaches to pins by just rivetting them in place without extra components. By pure high force and while cold
Wow, Great design
Is it true that the US uses a different CCS connector? One that's J1772 compatible? That would make it impossible to fast charge a European car in the US and vice versa.
Yes, it's different here in the US. Two main standards (other than the Tesla proprietary)- CHAdeMO (very much falling out of favor) and SAE CCS which is just a J1772 plug with the two extra DC pins frankensteined on.
Yes, in the US, CCS is based on the type 1 rather that type 2, otherwise identical
There is one small electrical difference. In CCS2 Type 2 the Prox.-Pin is just pulled down with the 13A-coding resistor to PE inside the plug. In CCS1 the Prox.-Signal guided through the charge cable and terminated in the EVSE. This allows the EVSE to monitor the Latch-Switch, which is only present in Type 1.
Finally someone calls out CSS for what it is. The communication standard of CHAdeMo makes much more sense. The bulky cables have at least the benefit that they can carry absurd amounts of current, but still why so clunky. And that they allowed the US to continue their absurd prperitary Type1 plug. There is no benefit to Type1, Type2 is downwards compatible to single phase and even 110V.
what is wrong with the type-2/CCS-combo?
Overly complicated comm protocol
@@pxidr mostly that, plus vague spec that is interpreted differently by different manufacturers, high minimum voltage that makes it unsuitable for motorbikes...
@@mikeselectricstuff The newer version of the standard specifies 50-500VDC (K) or 200-920VDC (L).
So I guess a K charger can charge motorbikes, but on the older version of the standard the minimum voltage was higher (150VDC if I remember well)
Also no bidirectional requirements implemented yet.
@@jayjaytronics8358 CCS supports bidirectional charging. It's usually not implemented, owing largely to a lack of real-world use cases. AFAIK the only vehicle that fully supports high power output through the CCS port is the F150 Lightning, which to make use of that requires an additional ~$4000 in hardware installed in your home. There's as lot of talk about V2H/V2G but the reality is that stuff is expensive and users don't seem keen to pay for it.
Donated by a Clive or Big Clive?
Different Clive
my first thought! lol
A viewer Clive? Is he big? (I do see a certain Clive commented already, but hasn't claimed responsibility..)
Hoarders never send stuff to someone else.
Very impressive 👍🏻
I always was been curious what's inside us chademo and CCS adapter.
CCS adapter is basically passive because newer Teslas have a charge port ECU that talks CCS natively, it's just basically a pass through dumb adapter with some temp sensors.
Chademo adapter is way more complicated, it's translating all the comms as well. I work with the guys who wrote the firmware for it actually.
@@HillierProductions I figured by a price what CCS adapter is probably nothing fancy, since it's just 250$. Unlike chademo what probably have something like stm32 with aux can controller and something what talks to a car as well. Chademo is pretty simple protocol and well described and documented already. I'm really curious to see tesla supercharger/ac charger protocol reverse engineering.
Tesla AC charging is just J1772 basically. And Supercharging uses the same J1772 lines but switched to CANbus instead. It's actually quite simple on that layer, it's the higher level authentication to lock out anything but specific VIN Teslas that's more complicated.
@@HillierProductions Oh, very interesting and elegant solution! Thanks for sharing this info!
I think Tesla's approach is actually a standard: Type 2 Mode 4?
I think they also extended the pins, so that they can carry more current.
Make, do you have a pn of CCS capable port ecu?
Interesting little thing 2x👍
I don't get the hate on CCS, sure it's big and bulky but it's a standard meant to cover everything all the way up to trucks and buses in many weather conditions and last tens of thousands of cycles.
This Tesla adapter however just shouldn't exist, going with those proprietary dual use AC/DC pins and modified and oversized connectors and internal wiring just to get mid power DC fast charging without the full CCS connector is pointless when you can just put the whole damn connector in the car and not need this adapter to use any standard DC charge point plus you get the full power capabilities of CCS. In my view it's almost as if Tesla knew they had to comply with the EU requirement to use the Type 2 connector but hadn't given up on the idea of a propriety Supercharger network outside of the US when they made this, but of course CCS has since left Tesla behind and now they're switching everything to CCS which will be a very interesting sight in 5 or so years.
The protocol is unnecessary complex and uses an inappropriate physical-layer interface, causing compatibility problems and difficulty in debugging to diagnose these problems. Uses a single-source part.
EU requirement to use proprietary technology is what shouldn't exist. It's as if they'd standardized on lightning instead of usb and forced everyone to buy apple lightning chips.
@@mikeselectricstuff Sure it would be nice to be able to do DC charging with something similar to the super easy low level communication of standard AC charging or simpler CAN bus CHAdeMO but the high level communication and PLC is very much essential for future V2G/V2X features and future PHYs. For example, a 250 kW EV that is not capable of PLC and thus not able to do load shedding will only cause problems for the grid in future.
However I will say some of the things envisioned in the standard are rather pipe-dreamy (eg. wasteful kW level wireless charging), but I guess it's better than not planning for them and finding out there's actually an important use case for it.
@@WizardTim Nonsense. all the charging and V2G/V2X etc could easily be done over CAN or RS232. All it needs to do is pass a few parameters for current and status etc. Even secure authetication etc. doesn't need much bandwidth. It's always going to be a point-to-point link between the car and one other device - no need for any networky stuff. Anything upstream of that should be handled by the box the car gets plugged into, not the car.
Note that there *is* already single-wire CAN over the “control pilot”, and there *is* DC over the CCS (as implemented by Tesla). It’s just that Europe didn’t want to reuse/standardize that.
That being said, with the necessary water cooling for the many hundred amps charging for even the cables, bulkiness of the ridiculous connector isn’t that much of an issue. Just have a look at the arms-thick cables dangling from the newest DC chargers.
Standardizing on communication over PLC is a bad joke, though…
tesla does not care about wire or connector size. they just monitor the temperature and adjust the max amps accordingly. full send yolo
I prefer a doggy standard that's used over no standard. And it looks (in this video) that converting it to a proprietary downstream solution isn't over complex.
The only real difference is Tesla uses the same pins for both AC and DC input rather than CCS's dedicated DC pins. This makes an adapter fairly straightforward providing the hardware in the car supports the communications protocol. My understanding is older Teslas will need an upgrade to the onboard controller to use CCS.
@@Smidge204 It 'll be similar to any company that wants to promote their design to a standard. A fair field.
@@JanCumps I don't think Tesla has any desire to promote their design as a standard. There are SOME people who want Tesla to be the standard, but that ship has already sailed. The 250KW V3 superchargers they're rolling out lag behind the CCS in terms of max power and V4 will at best match what CCS is already doing (350KW). Tesla kinda engineered themselves into a corner on this one.
@@Smidge204 Exactly! The CCS might be complex but that's like saying "USB C is complex". It is complex but it can do much more.
@@littlebuch The problem is CCS is way more complex than it needed to be, which has caused lots of compatibility and reliability problems.
ρɾσɱσʂɱ ☺️
0:11 and that's how much Tesla is committed to sustainability. Even a simple adapter is unserviceable.
I don't think an plastic connector with high voltage like this should be serviceable...
EVs are gonna fail. In fact they’re already a failure; were they anything else, exponential growth would’ve been seen, and it is a niche obsessive audience which have them.
@@jb5631 *anything* should be made as serviceable as possible. I didn't think I'd need to explain this - as it's quite obvious, really - but every little appliance that you manage to get serviced instead of just throwing out (and buying a new one), equals less unrecyclable waste ending up in a landfill. And in the case of the adapter shown in the video, it's quite a substantial amount of waste.
Hi mike, I have been following you. You do a great work. I work for NextPCB. We would like to sponsor your projects. You can send a DM for more details.
/Dolphin
Come on... Thank goodness Mike doesn't have those annoying PCB ads in the way...
@@jb5631Also, DMs don’t even exist on RUclips