Wait.. is there still the same room at your house, but also a movie set version of it now too? Or is the old room filled with puppies now? So many questions
@@alakani I believe the old set was essentially a setup in his basement, that he later completely move to another place; there is only one instance of his set
i mean i'm not sure if he still does this but LGR at one point filmed a lot in the same storage building he keeps most of his stuff. Mr. TC probably does something similar
The US usually lets standards compete. Eventually the market decides on a winner and the rest wither and die. It's a messy approach, but it does ensure that we don't get stuck with a dud.
@@pepstein The EU allows this too, but only for a while. After a few years if the companies can't decide on one for themselves, they step in and decide for them. If it's something that is going to be replaced every few years, then enough product cycles can happen that 'letting the market decide' works, but if it's something that will place for decades, letting companies argue gets in the way of just using it.
Agreed. Honesty is so refreshing. And all the things said make sense, especially the bit to have a standard credit card payments and they need to force the price per kWh posted just like the cost per gallon now.
This honesty is really important to quickly identifying problems in a system before they becomes a serious problem. I’ve worked at places that fostered trust and didn’t punish or berate people when they “fessed up.” I’ve also worked at companies that do the thing you probably assume will happen. Not only is the first company far more pleasant to work for, but we seldom ran into large issues that lurked under radar until we got close to the end. Everyone from the customers to shareholders love that. Turns out not making your employees live in fear has concrete benefits!
I've never found a charger that didn't work on my Leaf but I've only used free public chargers. Until today I didn't know there was a difference. I don't mind since the Leaf is the city car in our household. Road trips require an internal combustion engine for me.
@@rogeraldrich2533 I have the 2022 Leaf with 230-ish miles of range. I have a long commute and regularly drive it 150+ miles per day. I love the car, but any time I've wanted to take a bit of a longer trip to go see friends, I have to plan more than I should just because the DC charging options are so limited.
I have a 2019 Leaf, and I love it. I just understand that it will always be getting charged in my garage, and that is fine with me. I do agree that building cars with Chademo in 2023 is absolute MADNESS, however.
I went for my first road trip with an EV recently, and I have to agree that the most annoying part about the charging process was that so many charging stations require you to have an app to pay. Especially Electrify America, because they require you to pre-pay on their app, and as soon as you go under $10 then it recharges you, so you can never get the money out of your account.
This and the parking issue. Did a short road trip in Italy and with it being a foreign language it made things super annoying. Im paying for charging, do i also need to pay for parking? Will i be charged if i dont pay, or will i pay and waste my money? In one particular parking lot it said you need to pay for parking but no info on how to pay. But also in the same parking lot all parking lines were painted over with “electric” only logos. But the sings remained…
ChargePoint tried charging me $10 for 10 CENTS worth of charging, because they won't let you pay for the amount you use, just $10 increments, like its a feckin gift card. I was floored when I saw that.
@@MisutaaAsriel they're trying to avoid transaction charges :/ when most customers are spending say £25 or £50 at a time on petrol the transaction fee is insignificant but now you have thousands of £5 charging sessions or cheaper but the transaction fees have a base figure which gets more significant. They could pass on the fee to you directly but then you'd be pissed you had to spend £0.6 for £0.1 of energy 🤣
@@andrewahern3730agreed. Honestly, even needing a credit card terminal shouldn't be the requirement. A simple meter + a per kWh charge should be the requirement. I should be able to hand the cashier a $20 bill and that should equate to xx amount of kWh on port 3 entering my car.
@@robertrichard1819 But that goes against a cashless, employee-less future, with charging stations that are available 24/7 without needing the things that employees require like seating, climate control, bathroom facilities, insurance, payroll management methods, etc. I have not interacted with a human cashier for ICE fuel purchases in 25+ years, why would I start now? I don't know how current charging tech works, but I see a future where you have a subscription and your car communicates with the terminal providing its ID/membership info, and you get automatically charged to a credit card or bank account. The ID could be done by RFID tag, license plate reader, bluetooth to the infotainment center, or something of that nature.
Agree, and a take I had elsewhere applies here too: connected chargers should fail functional. Billing and monitoring up lets a network charge for electrons, but an outage of connectivity taking down billing means the amps can't be billed, not that they can't be provided. If the provider wants to get paid, they can build more robust billing or seek SLA contracts with providers to recoup costs. It's safety and security - a payment system outage shouldn't mean you have to ride out a hurricane in your car in the parking lot of a boarded up Dennys in Beaumont.
It's weird listening to this stuff happening in the US. In Europe Tesla has been happily using CCS2 for their cars for years - the model 3 debuted with CCS2 in Europe - and now most supercharger sites allow other cars to charge too, and it works beautifully. I do believe Tesla is using their proprietary protocol for their cars and additionally support PLC for others, but it doesn't really matter in the end. The reason why this is specific to Europe because in Europe we have 3 phase AC everywhere, often up to 22kW, and the NACS doesn't support 3 phase AC.
Additionally, Tesla's CCS2 plugs on their chargers are better than those on other chargers. They are sleeker and the cables are lighter. And not by a little - they are VERY sleek and VERY light. CCS itself as a standard isn't as bad as the implementations are.
CCS2 is substantially better than CCS1. It's not just that it supports 3-phase AC. It also has a more robust locking system, and it's a bit more compact. I don't think CCS1 would even fit in the space available in Model 3 or Y.
@@NoNameAtAll2 China is currently using GB/T, but they're working with Japan on a joint standard called ChaoJi, but like CCS, they're using two different plugs, one for China and another for Japan.
For those that don't know when the change over to unleaded fuel happened we changed the diameter of the fuel nozzle to prevent leaded gas from going into unleaded cars as it would destroy catalytic converters. they made adapters so older gas jugs and for people who had on site fuel (Farmers for example) could use their leaded nozzles. Or if you had Hopped up your car and converted it to leaded for the higher octane. Note leaded fuel for road cars wasn't officially phased out till 1996.
“Leaded gasoline's century-long reign of destruction is over. The final holdout, Algeria, used up the last of its stockpile of leaded gasoline in July (2021). That's according to the U.N. Environment Programme, which has spent 19 years trying to eliminate leaded gasoline around the globe.” From NPR
Little known fact: Tesla Superchargers and cars actually do not need web connectivity to charge. When the web goes down, the car charges anyway, records the billing locally and reports it to Tesla when communication is restored. This is one reason why they are more reliable than the current standard CCS systems. I do hope Tesla retains their reliable communication and billing for Tesla cars, even as they adopt DIN 70121 for communication and ISO-15118 for "plug and charge."
It's quite possible to do that with credit cards (though less so with apps / account login required payments). Despite it being possible, companies sometimes don't process payments offline in case the card payment is rejected upon connectivity being restored (eg overdrawn/limit). Tesla I guess has the advantage of being able to disable your car remotely if you don't pay up, or drive it back to them :o
@@peter65zzfdfh Tesla HAS a open revolving account with them ands NOT a one time payment so likely they file a "failed payment" charge IF the CC does DECLINE
@@peter65zzfdfh The point being "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" . The Tesla system has minimal steps, less chance of data hacking, fewer points if potential failure and is demonstrably more reliable over a decade of use. And you're not waving a credit card or phone around in public waiting for a handshake.
Plug and charge is great but i do think that an option to even have tap to pay with a credit card fixes almost all issues bypassing the app. Especially when charging location is in a terrible cell service area
Tap to pay means a point of failure and a target of vandalism on the dispenser. Better to let you enter your credit card details on your car's touchscreen and have the car send those details to the charger over the cable. You're shielded from inclement weather that way.
@@PCLoadLetter I don't see people going around damaging credit card readers on gas pumps. I don't think someone is going to damage the reader without damaging the charger worse if they are going to do that. Hmm, well, I guess there are a bunch of weird EV haters out there but they would probably damage the charge connector as well if they are going to damage a charge station.
@@romelec Whether the card details go through the charging cable, are transmitted wirelessly, or go thru the other cables plugging into any other credit card reader makes little difference.
Nacs used to not be open sourced but it is now available on the website and they have the implementation guides, functional specs, connector drawings, connector CAD and written standards freely available to download. They also have revised the connector to support 1000V not 1000A, the new revision and old connector are completely interchangable but only the 1000v connector will support the higher charging rates. Additionally, unlike CCS, NACS only specifies a maximum terminal/cable temperature so they can charge at any current as long as the cable and charge port temps stay within spec.
It's not open source. It's still not clear if there's patent concerns, but those will come out during SAE's review. It's also worth noting that Tesla vehicle and chargers use 2 standards implemented with the same plug. Tesla charging is still proprietary and uses CAN communication on the digital pins. Older Tesla cars (and maybe older Tesla chargers) only support this method. NACS on the other hand follows a slight modification of the IEC 61851 defined handshaking used by CCS and CCS2. Any Tesla vehicle that can use a passive CCS adapter as well as any charger that has a magic dock can "speak" IEC 61851.
@@aliancemd It is currently being standardized by the AES. Once that's done, it will be 100% open and Tesla won't be able to license it (this is happening with Tesla's cooperation). They will be able to collect service fees on their superchargers, of course.
I have used both, and the NACS connector is just plain better - at least from an ergonomics perspective. My wife's view is that it's much better. I agree that a tap to pay approach is a great idea. Thanks for this video, there were some insightful comments that I appreciated.
I bought my Model 3 only after Tesla released their CCS1->NACS adapter in mid 2022 because of the availability of CCS1 chargers in rural BC. When I road trip I use CCS1 when it's convenient, but the Tesla Supercharger network is vastly more reliable.
I live in Manitoba and Winnipeg has 2 "destination tesla" chargers ONE supercharger and countless FLO / CO-OP DC chargers and on hiway Petro Canada all are rolling out CCS combo so for ME IN Winnipeg CCS is FAR "better" but Northern Ontario the supercharger network BLOWS CCS out of the water when I went out that way last year (in a fuel car)
@@jasonriddell agreed, I also think most people don’t realize that most times a charge fails is not because of the physical connecter but because the actual hardware is garbage. Put a NACS plug on a crap charger and you still got a crap charger…. but look so easy to plug and unplug!
When you mentioned Apple's Lightning Connector, something gelled: something they used to call Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome. Apple had it in spades in the 90s -- even so they were accused of it far more than they were deserving of it -- and Tesla after a time deserves the same. Apple invented a lot of things because it needed to. The Lightning Connector is something Apple needed to invent because there was no existing connector that fit the bill -- it took USBC *years* to get it right. On the other hand, they designed the protocol that *COULD* have been and was meant to be extended to support USB3 speeds, but look where that went. Tesla open sourced the connector, but NOT the protocol. Tesla in the early days open sourced the battery technology because Musk insisted making the planet better was their goal. No one believed that, and of course it never turned out that way. He built out the charging network as a competitive advantage and now he's betting that getting money from the federal government is more important than keeping a closed charging network. That's why he's doing it, but that's not enough for him to make it as easy or as convenient for non-Teslas to USE it, just to make it possible. In that light, open sourcing the connector -- but not the protocol -- seems like just a cost-cutting measure for Tesla, doesn't it?
This is 90's cell phone shenanigans. Remember having a squid power cable adapter for your old cell phone since every manufacturer had a different power port? Well we're heading in that direction again, but now in a much more inconvenient car form.
I still have three or four old phone chargers in my big box of power converters in my living room closet. That box of chargers has come in hand about three or four times in the three decades it has been slowly growing. Yay!
I think it would have been fairer to have done a visual comparison of a NACS connector with a CCS DC fast charger connector. The DC connector adds so much more bulk.
His concerns clearly are not about the physical dimensions, it's about the protocols and payment systems. The current app based payment systems do not foster competition. You don't have to install a separate app for every chain of gas station you ever stop at (although the fuel companies would love you to)
I'm a proud 2016 Leaf driver. Funny enough, I was considering looking at newer EVs in the next year! Now I have reason to take a wait-and-see approach. I was rather excited to upgrade to a CCS-capable vehicle; now I'm waiting to see not only how the new cars will be equipped, but how the infrastructure will expand in my immediate area over the coming years.
2014 Leaf owner here, I've been waiting on Dala to finish his CHaDEMO to CCS converter. Luckily (bad luck is still luck right?) I live in Alabama, the nearest DC fast charger is something around 35 40 miles from me.
depends where you are.. if you are NA, then waiting is worth it if your Leaf is still good. If you are in Europe, then CCS will be the standard for a while.
I'm glad you are talking about this. I think the switch is more on the issue with EA rather then NACS, I own a model three and love my experience but CCS handle is good enough. I just want everyone to pick a standard and go, If EA was more reliable I bet you CCS would be the standard but they dropped the ball enough Ford and GM can't trust them.
EA lack of infrastructure, poor reliability, and moving in slow motion is why all this is happening. None of the other charging network operators appear to be any better. Tesla deploys more new chargers per quarter than all of the CCS operators combined! It is totally insane. Completely unacceptable. Everyone screamed there just needed to be funding... The funding was approved, massive funding was approved at the Fed level. They are still sitting around on their hands. Given the reliability issues sitting around on their hands may be better than putting in POS chargers... In the mean time people will have options if you own a Ford or GM to pull into a Tesla supercharger. It just sucks all around.
37:04 Death Knell of CCS - depends on what VW, EA and Hyundai decide to do. Hyundai and VW are not eligible for a lot of the honey gushing out of gushing out of the fed ( aka the taxpayers’ pockets) but they are significant manufacturers of EVs.
I agree 100% that all chargers should have a standard payment method. I absolutely hate the idea of having to rely on apps and 3rd party services, when banks and credit cards are standard and already exist. I run a custom rom on my phone so I wouldn't even be able to use these apps if I wanted to. I wish companies would stop assuming everyone has an android or apple phone that they're willing to install anything on.
I think that's a US issue... the banks could agree on some standards of QR payment similar to the India's UPI or Singapore MAS's PayNow/ SGQR standard (MAS has been signing agreement for inter-connect with several ASEAN countries and UPI. tho International payment with QR is still pretty limited, other than the Alipay+. but china bad, right?)
@@PrograError that would probably still require some kind of phone app. Credit cards work fine and are standard. No need to reinvent the wheel. Could also make physical tokens an option, that would make it possible to use cash to buy the tokens in advance.
@@redsquirrelftw maybe, but now you get to pay like the Chinese do everywhere without using credit card but your own bank account credit/ cash. And therefore only one app to pay for everything. Your bank's. (Tho depending on whether they will want to do a lifestyle app... And PayPal, etc. being onboard)
As an IONIQ driver in the UK where most rapid chargers now support contactless card payment, I’d still take plug to charge in a heartbeat if it were offered. Touch screens you have to make choices on before it’ll take your payment, while standing in the rain, which then get smashed so the dispenser goes out of order, make the whole experience non-slick. One way in which the petrol/gas nozzle is more ergonomic than CCS: you don’t have to get the orientation just so. (Even if, as you say, that isn’t really a problem.) Bigger problem: tolerances so tight/exceeded that you can’t use the Tesla v3 CCS supercharger on the IONIQ, because the LED housing protrudes 1mm too far.
I mean, there's no reason that has to be the case. Why are there any more buttons to press or any interface at all other than tapping your card. Like, when I get on transit using a contactless payment card, I just board transit...I don't need an account or anything, I just tap my credit or debit card on the fare gate and walk through. If they had bad implementations they should fix it. Not saying plug to charge is bad (although it has some disadvantages, or at least lacks flexibility, the car owner must always pay) but tap to pay should be trivially easy. There's no technical reason that it can't be.
Personally I'd want the contactless to always be there. It's not always a band new car that would roll up to the charger. I'm hoping to get my leaf fitted with the muxsan CCS2 upgrade and needing more electronics to deal with plug to charge would just make it cost more for little benefit to me. I've seen quite a few EV conversions on the road especially around Silverstone and again requiring the extra electronics for a fancy payment system would make those homebrew solutions even more prohibitively expensive for converting old cars when it's just not necessary.
@@DanielBrotherston at least on both instavolt and gridserve in the UK the most you have to do is plug in the car and tap the card, you can then just tap the card again to stop it so it's definitely doable and even already in place in the way you described.
Having had both sets of cords/cars, the J1772 vs NACS difference isn't big but it still noticeable. NACS vs CCS1 though, is a HUGE difference. It is much easier to wield the NACS vs the CCS1. And just because only one company makes it, it's still a standard. It became open over 6 months ago. It's used by the majority of vehicles in North America.
@@1djbecker Well, that's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are something which actually *are* standard and we don't think about them at all. We only pay attention where there's a bunch of different would-be standards when a single one (almost regardless what it is). So you go and buy a natural gas fitting and they sell you the only one that exists and you don't think about how terrible that could have been.
The reason Tesla is deciding to open it up, is because the US Government is offering grants/subsidies for companies to set up charge stations, with the caveat that it needs to be open to all EVs. Tesla already has the network, so they basically get free money by opening up their chargers to everyone.
I think it should be a bigger (or at least _known)_ issue to people that Tesla, a CAR company, is officially making most of its profits off of selling carbon offsets [via dodgy 3rd party companies], not from, y'know, selling CARS. (And that started well before the giant recall.) They're meant to be a "green" company, but carbon offsets just allow other companies to make no efforts to curb their pollution (future? No?) by paying their way out. And by some B.S. metric like "[unit] of CO2 is absorbed per [unit] of trees" (not even exaggerating ...sadly.) Most people, I've found (mostly USians; sorry, but it's true) also don't seem to realise that much of the world's electricity (much of the US, too) comes from coal. Not very "climate friendly." And many have no problem with it, as if being turned into electricity makes it "clean"...? Though neither is launching knockoff Challengers into "space, technically" (though I know, same face, different company) and flying in private jets. Iirc the "top 2%" create as much CO2 pollution as the other 98%, but it may have "only" been as much as the 48% below them. (Memory lapse at the perfect time. Good to check those numbers anyway. Don't take my word for it.) And now a slight rant but also a factual list: Tesla gets billions in govt money, plus double-dipping by selling those "carbon credits" that already net grants & tax breaks, which themselves offset any "pollution savings" the company might have made. (And those carbon offset companies are extremely dodgy, too. Pollution & especially how much is absorbed by supposed CO2 sinks isn't a set number, especially not [actual claim used] "per square unit of trees") Plus, didn't they just recall like 100,000 of their cars last year or earlier this year? And all those lawsuits against the company for workplace safety violations (including forcing employees to work in close quarters during the height of "The Plague" under threat of firing [which many were anyway]) and the lawsuits over racist & sexist workplace attitudes and so many other things... I won't even mention anything about the worshiped and loathed jewel-fund "frontman" & his ...technical issues.
Plus the money the CAR company gets from selling 3rd party carbon "offset credits" (doubling up cos they already get fed grants & breaks for that), far more than their profits from _selling CARS._ An "eco-friendly" CAR company that makes its money off of selling "pollution rights". And locking in its proprietary stuff into the infrastructure so that everyone must follow - collusion or caving, I can't say.
This is a great explainer video! I used to think plug and charge was the best way to build an EV charging network but after this, I have a different opinion that it maybe isn’t the best way. Thank you for giving such a well thought out alternative perspective.
The charging networks can keep CCS for a while, build out and improve their software and then start switching some of their stations over to NACS over time if that's the way things are going to go. The car manufacturers need to start making their decisions now - mostly so they don't drag this out longer than it needs to. That wouldn't be good for the EV industry as a whole. Over the next two years we should see everyone in NA come to an agreement on which way we should go. I firmly believe Telsa needs to make sure that the important parts of NACS is open source and that they start a standards board to govern it with other manufacturers who sign onto using NACS in their vehicles and engineers from around the globe.
I think the difference in connector size is much more of a difference when you take into account CCS2 with it's separate but huge DC pins, instead of just NACS vs CCS/J1772
I always thought the size of the connector was a nice affordance: don't f*ck with this connector, there's a dangerous amount of energy flowing through it.
@@microcolonel It's not a concern, just something I noted. It's not even about actual level of protection, but the likelihood that people will actually steer clear of it. That's why I pointed out the affordance aspect.
CCS is not J1772, it's J1772 AND the two huge DC pins below it. CCS1 (North America) has five pins in the "circular" part of J1772 CCS2 (EU) has seven pins in the circular part of J1772, to accommodate three-phase AC charging Summary: ALL CCSx connectors have the two large DC pins at the bottom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System -- though this stuff is pretty confusing :(
My biggest frustration is just competing standards and potential for lock out or confusion. Adapters and these new developments largely get around this. The disimilarities between NA and EU in cars is still dumb, imo. And homogenizing between the two for all car standards would be nice.
The differences come down to the electrical systems in the two regions. EU is three-phase, US mostly isn't. And for normal people, it doesn't matter the slightest. Nobody is taking their cars with them across the Atlantic, for many more reasons than the charging standard.
@@Giuliana-w1f North America uses a split phase power network. Your Split Phase is 120v and Single Phase is 240v. You only need one of the three pins from a European plug.
@@benanderson89 my split phase? I use 220V between phase and neutral, or 380V between 2 or 3 phases. I'm talking about using a single 240V pin in the US
To be honest I think Europe does manage this hole charging think a lot better. Way more chargers that actually work and not only Superchargers (but still Superchargers have Typ 2 CCS). And especially Germany where it will be soon required that charges have card terminals. So we have 1 standard we all can agree upon and if we need to charge somewhere there is a card terminal available. (even if prices are a bit higher on those.)
@@jslay88 true, but law can provide an even playing field while forcing backwards compatibility. So current consumers are protected. Networks can be build up by competing companies, increasing incentive for consumers to invest. Which gives companies the chance to innovate.
It's great how fast things have moved since this video came out. Several other car companies have said they'll support it as well as charging networks Electrify America and Chargepoint!
EV-GO has already been putting NACS on some of their chargers-- they announced that they would be doing this back in 2021 (before it was called NACS, of course).
You mentioned that the CCS plug is just as usable as NACS, without considering how easy it actually is. The cable thickness, especially when cold along with the difficulty to plug in perfectly means it is not accessible to many people. If it can't be done with one hand, it is worse
He does address the fact that it isn't as easy to use as NACS, it seems like his point is pretty clear that it isn't as easy as NACS, but it is still an improvement over a gas pump nozzle. If we can make gas pump nozzles accessible, we can make CCS accessible. And even then, it seems like he is conceding that NACS is probably the best option.
@@smileyeagle1021 He addresses it in a cursory way. Buried the lead you might say. It's not a mere detail. It's the difference between a 18 Y.O. girl or an elderly person being able to use the plug or not. That's not a difference of degree. It's difficult enough to exclude a fraction of the driving population. But that is also part of the point. It's bad by design. No vaguely competent engineer would look at NACS and then later say, nah, CCS2 is a better approach so lets do that. Your objective has to be have been to design a worse solution. There's nothing about CCS that would've prevented it from being at least 90% as good as NACS, given the motivation. To get to CCS2, you have to reject that idea and design a plug/cable system so horrendous that you have to fit a handle ONTO THE HANDLE, just to be able to wrangle it.
Yup. What is power-line networking? Why (hypothetically) didn't they something akin to USB or CAT5? What were the reasons for the "J" plug and CCS1 designs?
These people actually use and test all brands of chargers and dont have a grudge against any one brand. They go to CharIN conferences (the ones in charge of CCS) and report real information about all aspects of charging. www.youtube.com/@KyleConner www.youtube.com/@outofspecdave1554 www.youtube.com/@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney www.youtube.com/@InsideEVsUS
Okay, so I think I have the same brand washing machine because when yours went off, I frantically got up and checked on it only to realize I don't even have a load of laundry in there. That was a trip. Anyhow, that was a great video and thanks for sharing your perspective on things.
38:10 One thing that was overlooked in the GM Press Release on accessing the Superchargers is that GM is still continuing to partner with EVgo to build out ~5,000 chargers. A majority of those chargers should be the 350 kW "Ultium Ready" units. The original agreement was to cover specific metro areas (Chicago is one of them), but there was no emphasis placed on travel corridors. However, the partnership expanded with Pilot/Flying J, and that plan includes 400 to 500 Flying J sites nationwide, with placements along interstate corridors. The first 200 of those Flying J EVgo sites are supposed to be built by the end of this year, and those 200 sites alone would provide EVgo with a similar level of coverage to Electrify America.
19:45 - I think _having_ Plug & Charge is very important - but not *at the expense of other payment methods.* P&C is by far the easiest way to do it. But we absolutely need to be able to pay at the charger, too. And well-functioning smartphone apps.
I think the funding is also available to tesla, if they open up their chargers, so that might be why they're doing it now. More funding might mean more tesla charges, aleviating the capacity issues.
In at least one case Tesla has turned down the money because the people holding the purse strings figured they knew more about charging networks than Tesla.
Lots of good info. Tesla turned down some fed money because the fed wanted Tesla to change how Tesla had there whole system works ( by adding pay at the stall and since other stuff)... they did accept some money but held there stance on Not doing a complete redesign of what they have and what they have IS working great. Pay in app is great, it never breaks, no one can put a "skimmer" on it, it has unlimited support.... the charging network is a major asset part of Tesla and they are RARELY out of service. The joining of forces is BETTER for all EV users, it's going to help any manufacturer that gets on board. The Tesla charging network is HUGE, the more access to charging the better..... all super charging is backed by renewable energy.
@@rogerstarkey5390 It may be nicer for the supplier, but a world in which you'd need a different app for every product or service is a manifestly worse experience for the consumer. It makes reasonable sense why Tesla turned down the grant this time, but don't try to pretend it's because they're doing you a favour.
I've been thinking about the points on plug and charge for a few days. I think that luxury brands, like BMW, Mercedes, etc., can't AFFORD not to have plug and charge. You can't be a luxury manufacturer who's less *convenient* than another manufacturer. Because of that, I think they're going to push really hard for it. For the more reasonably priced options? I think you're probably correct. VW, Hyundai/Kia, etc. should just be pushing to have at least tap to pay on chargers. For the accessibility of NACS vs CCS1, I think you're a little bit off, at least based on the part we've argued on Twitter (before all the Musking) about before. While MOST CCS1 plugs aren't any harder to plug in or unplug than the NACS plug, they CAN be. If you check their spec, CCS1 allows a force that's something like twice as high as ADA allows for gas pumps. NACS is significantly under the max force allowed. So while CCS1 is GENERALLY no worse than NACS for plugging and unplugging, it's not within ADA spec for gas pumps at the high-end, which means that it's unacceptable in my opinion. USUALLY good enough isn't good enough, especially as they take more wear over time and wider usage.
I agree on a lot of what you said, especially the payment terminal instead of app. Even for Tesla stations available to other brands, you need to use a F... app. A payment terminal would simply be better. V4 superchargers will have a longer cable, so that will normally solve the "you need the plug on the rear left of your car" I don't agree with the difference of the size of the plug doesn't matter. It is more different that lightning vs usb-c. NACS plug is simply better on every front and without being the end of the world, CCS1 is just worse and heavier to use... A lot of 3rd parties have already committed to add NACS to their stations.
There probably needs to be a bigger discussion on the credit card oligopoly and their fees. That's why companies want you to have a prepaid / gift card style system. They don't make money on small amounts.
@Andrew Ahern There are more, but the number of countries denoted as "many" is hardly the point. British people do the same silly thing, calling it the near and off side even when they actually mean right and left. The point is: The charging port on a Tesla is on the left side. Always. "Left" is a perfectly good word for this.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 "'Left' is a perfectly good word for this" …unless you're facing the car from the front, in which case the port is on the *right* side. That's why we say "driver side." I agree, though, that "driver side" and "passenger side" are also ambiguous terms, as are "near side" and "far side." It would make more sense to use "port" and "starboard" since those terms are unambiguous with regard to orientation.
The two standards are going to evolve into a gasoline vs diesel scenario. If the Tesla connector is going to become common the easiest way to handle this is not to have the consumer need to cary an adapter, but to have both cable options at each charge point. The power supplies are modular and can have the interface electronics for both in one station and lock out the other cable internally when one is in use. The actual added cost to manufacture is significantly lower than the liability of 'unlicensed' adapters that will likely create a grey market for them from less than scrupulous manufacturers (do we need to point out the obvious?).
to be honest, I don't think that outside of GM and Ford which are primarily us manufacturers That you'll see much adoption of it because for example Kia and Hyundai Will probably just stick with CSS2 because of the fact that NACS does not support any form of Three-Phase fast charging Just because it doesn't have the connectors, which means that it never could, which means that for most of the world it's pretty useless. so it wouldn't make sense for an international manufacturer to adapt the standard that they would then have to completely rework in every other country they sell the car. unless of course, they're a primarily us manufacturer such as Ford or GM
No matter which way this goes. I really really NEED long distance road tripping to get more reliable on CCS connectors. If it means swapping over to a Tesla style plug I am all for it. I own an ID.4 and a few times I have had either completely broken stations or I can only get 32KW on long corridors. My latest 3 hour trip turned into a 9 hour drive because I was left stranded around broken fast chargers (Which showed up in the app) and could only use a 6kw charger to get 80 miles of range for the next charger... The next fast charger that was limited to 32kw... I cannot believe the dismal state of so many fast chargers near the east coast beach in NC.
independent chargers only lose money if someone can't charge. if a tesla charger doesn't work it reflects on the whole company not just a charge provider. so they have a huge incentive to make their chargers be working all the time.
@@blockbertus apparently most DCFCs use Windows Embedded instead of an open OS like Linux or Android. I almost got a stranded at a DCFC at a thruway rest stop until a developer from BTC Power remoted into the charger and was able to get it to put out 25kW. I asked him wtf happened that he was able to get it going remotely and he said it was a corrupted library file.
Speaking of "ports," one nice thing about my '71 Ford Maverick was the fuel connection was in the center rear of the car so I could receive gas from either side of the pump. It was especially handy during the Arab Oil embargo, fuel rationing and long lines at the gas station.
majority of the older vehicles were that way and also hidden behind fold down license plate. I loved pulling up to any open pump and being able to fill up, while everyone else drove in circles, waited or nearly backed into everything trying to reverse to a pump... those times are long gone now and I always have to recall which side the filler is on per vehicle. more stupendous automotive changes.🙄
The Chevrolet Corvette Stingray had a high-volume gas port just in front of its trunk, much like race cars and farm equipment. This disappeared when cars required pumps to have two different throat sizes to isolate leaded from unleaded gasoline.
My father used to have a Dodge Phoenix. It was a lovely luxurious machine. The rear number plate folded down, with the fuel cap behind. This was so convenient - especially since the big V8 used a lot of fuel 🥺
I wholly agree with you reasons both in favor and against it and, the aspect that grinds my gears the most is the possibility that you might need to make an account for different charge networks is an immediate red flag for me and I could see it stifling EV adoptions in the eyes of other people (mostly older sadly) who are interested in a EV.
Watch the interviews where GM and Ford announced this. Both said their users would not have to use the Tesla app. Ford and GM are providing the ability to use their apps.
@@danharold3087 I believe they are standing up there OWN payment network on the CAR SIDE like Tesla does it the AP is for payment network FREE customers so Ioniq I will need to use an AP as my car does NOT have a payment system implemented and the phone AP will do the "work"
I believe that it should also be an option to use cash, like a convenience store. I have some older family members who refuse to use credit cards and smartphones because they have lived most of their lives without them.
@@himonstercartoons You point seems valid up front. But the chances of these technophobes buying an EV are vanishingly small and kind of pointless. If they will not use a smartphone they are not going to spend many thousands on a smartphone on wheels. If they do they will not be able to use it.
ABB and at least two other providers has also now signed on to providing NACS as an option when you buy their stations for your location. In my opinion, the nice solution for all the cars out there using CCS is to have charging stations have 2 cables for each unit. One NACS and one CCS. Of course, driving a J1772 only vehicle, I want to see more units installed that have J1772. ;-)
Most to all fast charging stops in Norway (and there are a lot, EVs are 80 percent of new cars and 20 percent of the cars on the road) have all CCS2 chargers and one which is combined CCS2/chademo. I expect it would go the same way in the US.
I feel like a lot of the momentum towards NACS and Superchargers may be a little bit misguided. We have this reverence of Superchargers being incredibly reliable, but so far that has only been within the closed walled-garden with a Tesla vehicle. The Magic Dock pilot sites tell me there is actually a LONG way to go for superchargers to be as reliable with non-Tesla vehicles as they are with Telsas. Superchargers are more plentiful with larger sites, which is a huge boon, but I am not convinced that non-Tesla vehicles won't have the same sort of challenges with Superchargers as they do with current CCS EV networks (e.g., slow handshake times, failed sessions). Ford and GM signing on are a good sign, but I wouldn't count on any current gen CCS cars working seamlessly in the future either. I remain skeptical that current owners of CCS cars will one day be able to easily and reliably charge on a supercharger, but if it pushes the industry to raise the bar moving forward, I'm all for it.
Sitting in Denmark / Europe I tend to think "Metric vs Imperial" all over again.... Here Type 2 and CCS are standardized. Also for Teslas. And Thank You for that...
23:00 I appreciate the distinction that there is both a sense of "how things should be done, because it's what I have" and "I really don't want what that other guy is having" in terms of charging experiences. I'm a little surprised at how readily the benefits of NACS + Plug and Charge are minimized, while simultaneously minimizing the annoyances the CCS plug + Pay at Charger. It's largely not a delta of just one or two things, it's an aggregate of so many things. The example of using a gasoline pump being the baseline, and what the rest of the population will compare their experiences to, still falls on its face compared to the
Your point about payment processing at a charging station. There are not only 3 ways to solve this problem (Tesla versus App versus pay at terminal). There are other options. For example - Include in the communication standard a way to pass payment information from the vehicle to the charging station (not ideal, since this requires charging communication standards change). Or, have a neutral clearing house (think DNS delegation or telephone number portability) where the charging network can send a payment request to the provider of your choosing based on your car's VIN to get payment information. This means as payment systems evolve, you won't have to update all these payment terminals in the field. This would allow the open system you're advocating for without requiring payment processing equipment at every charger, which makes the chargers MUCH more expensive to build, maintain and more prone to breaking down.
erm.. Tesla uses the first way yu described.. (Plug & Charge; basically the Vehicle sends its VIN to the charging station, and this is used to look up the correct billing info)
I do wonder how rental cars will work with such a system. I guess either disable VIN-based payments for them entirely, or the rental company will tack any charging bills onto your final rental bill.
I saw the title of the video and clicked on it, I didn't even realize it was you until you started speaking. It's nice to see you in a regular environment. We can call these laundry videos, or maybe just "The Wash", because everything comes out in the wash. You work while making the video, and we work while watching it, and everybody's laundry gets done.😂
This largely isn't financially viable in the USA because credit card networks and banks have WAY higher fees than in countries that have functioning governments.
@@markmuir7338 Um, literally all of our gas pumps have credit card readers and literally every store you go into accepts credit cards. I don't see why a charging station would be different.
@@mattwolf7698 Because the fixed minimum transaction fee is a larger fraction of the cost when charging an EV, since a charging session typically costs less than filling up a car with gasoline. Also, most gas stations in the USA don't make any money from selling gas. They make it up with the convenience store - which many EV charging stations are missing out on.
I really hope that the electric car charging industry “wakes up” and we have debit/credit card terminals on the chargers like with gas pumps. That would be so much better than yet another cumbersome phone app that has access to my bank account.
Yeah because you know what the best thing in the world is? Dealing with broken terminals and skimmers, the former of which I already deal with roughly 50-80% of the time I drive up to an EA charger when there's no Supercharger nearby. Removing the terminal is removing a major point of failure and as previously mentioned a target for skimmers. No, tap and pay does not make it skimmer-proof there are already NFC skimmers out in the wild.
@@antikommunistischaktion so remove the ONLY option for people NOT willing to download another buggy AD with questionable security and link it to my BANK ACCOUNT for ONE charge stop yay NO on that one rather use APPLE PAY and use MY existing (relatively) secure payment system and NOT give access to a likely badly written AP
@@jasonriddell I would really hope you're not talking about buggy apps with questionable security while using an iPhone. Security firms literally stopped paying for iOS exploits because there are too many of them on the market. Personally, I much prefer the risk of giving a charging network a one-time token to charge me than risking my card info getting skimmed.
CCS1's death, inferiority of the connector aside, should be looked at more as a failure of the OEMs and charging networks to get their shit together in a reasonable timeframe. It was a failure of execution. If CCS ports greatly outnumbered NACS ports in north america, there would have been no need to make this video. The bottom line, though, is that while the rest of the industry was talking about doing things, Tesla was actually out doing it (and maintaining it, even!)
Yep. A lot of Tesla fans are celebrating this as a victory of the port rather than what it is, which is better infrastructure. A comparison could be drawn to military history fans who undervalue the logistics side of things. The port/tank is what you see and hear about the most, but without the army of technicians it means nothing.
Electrify America was the only app that didn't give me issues for the week that I had my rented Bolt. There was one that limited charging to 50 kw because it was malfunctioning. Lucky for me, the bolt sucked so hard that it didn't matter and EA didn't charge money for the "slow" charge.
About 2/5 of the way through the video; I can't help but wonder if it would be that hard to make adapters with "translation" chips in them that would allow you to get around the whole different communication standards thing. Given the amount of data that I would assume is passing between the car and the charger it wouldn't need to be that big, power hungry, or expensive of a device and could probably just fit in a handle style adapter just like the one you're holding here
It's hard to make comm/protocol adapters. We're trying and sometimes succeeding, but CCS' PLC/SLAC comms are complex, it's not just signal levels but also timing and data availability restrictions, and the biggest problem I've read about is that Tesla has been actively changing their end of the commms specifically to foil attempts make reliable adapters -- they only want Tesla-approved adapters connected to their equipment. Same scheme that Microsoft 30 years ago with their fight with DR-DOS (later NW-DOS), etc., if you recall that fight. A more insidious problem is that a station speaking CCS "correctly" (within the standard's specs) can still refuse to charge your EV for billing reasons: it can claim you don't have a valid payment method on file with that station's owner. They can require you to jump through their hoops, load their app, even if your EV and their station both speak CCS well enough to talk. Just because Ford & GM have reached agreements for their vehicles to use Tesla's charging stations does not imply that anybody else will be able to.
The biggest threat that this creates is that while the current Tesla charger and CCS can be used interchangeably with eachother. Nothing is necessarily stopping Tesla from making a Tesla charge port V2 when they reach a degree of market saturation. That V2 may not necessarily be reverse compatible with the CCS standards, and only work with the Tesla V1. This could cause future performance improvements to be locked behind the car manufacturer charge port choice.
That might not be that big an issue actually, I think it would end up looking like what happened with IBM and the PC, at first everyone used IBMs ISA and when it came time for an upgrade, IBM decided to release their own liscened MSA, which everyone else more or less ignored and proceeded to launch their own industry wide open standard
@@kaboom36 MCA, but point taken. When the SAE ratifies all the bits and bobs of NACS, then everybody except Tesla will implement that, to ensure the largest market. Tesla can change how they talk to cars via their hardware (SCs, Destination Chargers) but won't be able to influence greatly the larger CCS1/NACS ecosystem -- unless their market share doesn't drop, and I don't see that happening, with so much competition coming down the pike.
Someone probably already commented this but I'm not seeing it, but the V4 superchargers have longer cables to support other charge port locations. I'm hoping they will also retrofit some of the older stations too.
That should read *ALL* currently active superchargers have CCS. Some don't have the Tesla connector, with older Model S/X owners having to use an adaptor
Thank 3 phase for that. Tesla used Type 2 with shared AC/DC pins on legacy Model S and X and 3 and Y have always been CCS2 as the larger DC pins can handle more current.
28:50 for streets with parking on both sides; installing on-street parking could include a change to 45-degree-angle parking on one side of the street, and adding bike lanes on the far side.
I don’t have an EV yet, so I am following how things are going. Diversity and competition is important. Tesla has to open the design to meet the requirements of the infrastructure, which is excellent.
Fuel fill placement used to be on the rear in the middle of most cars, why not put it there (front or rear). Seems like that would solve a bulk of the issue.
I quite agree with you. Filling with fuel take 5 minutes, so location is not important. Charging take hours, so you need to position the cable so it doesn't stick out into the road or obstructing the pavement.
Recently I saw a review of a car that has 2 charging/refueling holes on either side for symmetry, but one of them is a fake dud. And it wasn't a plugin hybrid, those also have 2 ports
Trucks could have it on the front passenger side anyway. That way it works with v3 superchargers, curbside parking, and let’s you pull in without unhitching a trailer
Here in Europe the Leaf stuck with Chademo for an unreasonably long time but even they gave in and switched to CCS a couple of years back. So yeah. This announcement from a European perspective is strange. It's like 'you guys were so close to having a unified standard and now you're blowing your chance!"
What? The Leaf is still on sale today, and still using Chademo in Europe. Nissan switched for the Ariya, but presumably the thought of suddenly having to have separate lines for CCS combo 1 and combo 2, plus having to re-homologate which would only be worthwhile if they did some other improvements to what they consider a dead-end vehicle they keep trying to discontinue, means they think it’s not worthwhile
@@thenerd6192 The leaf in the EU has Chademo and Type2 connectors, although not the combo (CCS2) connector. Not a huge deal given the leaf's other specs to just have the Type2 part of the combo connector. Can still use ta Type 2 charger on a leaf or a CCS2 car the leaf just loses DC charging if there's no CHAdeMO charger.
Preach! It should be global law that EV public chargers must automatically detect your car and be able to charge your account without using an app. Worst case you must be able to just tap your contactless payment card and it works.
Re standardising the charge port location. We never even standardised the fuel port location (usually, but not always, at the rear, but no guarantee which side). Also not sure that Tesla will "open source" their connector. I imagine it's more likely they'll license it to third parties?
Interesting perspective. When I heard Ford and GM's announcement, my first thought was that it was the death of CCS. You (as you always do) provide deep analysis and bring up things I had not considered. I like the plug-and-charge simplicity of Tesla, but you are right, if CCS charging stations had payment mechanisms, it would be more familiar with the current fueling system we have where we pay the pump. I agree with Tesla's concept of putting all the charging ports in the same place. I have long wanted all automakers to put the fuel filler on the driver's side to ease contention at fuel pumps. But what you say about street charging makes a lot of sense. Whatever they choose, it would be very nice to have all charging ports in the same place to make the charging station situation consistent. Given the idea of street parking for charging, having the charge port on the passenger fender just in front of the door makes sense.
Regarding charge port placement; Because we're talking about wiring and switching, how hard would it be to have two different charge ports per vehicle? Some utility trucks have fuel fillers on both sides of the vehicle; I've often thought having charge ports on both the nose and tail would make sense. Better if placed dead center somehow so it wouldn't matter where/how one is parked. Another method could be having one port somewhere on the vehicle be for future automated charging systems, much like every car made after the mid 1990s has an OBD2 diagnostic port usually under the dash near the steering column. ...But what do I know; I also think having an undercar aux swappable battery for extra range too.
@@starrwulfe not hard, just costs more and adds weight... what that means its more expensive for end user. 1 port and if you need, dump an adaptor in the trunk. easier and cheaper... if you need ccs. looks like networks outside of tesla will use nacs going forward. volvo also going nacs... css on life support in na
I wonder how the CCS and NACS DC pin cross sections compare? One thing that did look promising with CCS was just how chunky the pins were, allowing for higher current charging in future.
It is more about the contact area between the plug and socket. We can get more power over the same connector by increasing voltage. Providing the insulation is there to support it. Easily accomplished
@@danharold3087 Unless you want impractically long pins, increasing cross section is the only practical way to do that. Increasing voltage is also not easily accomplished, it often requires redesigning the whole power train, your existing insulation may not be enough to safely avoid dielectric breakdown for example (otherwise we'd be running EV's in the multi kilovolt range already). Not to mention the increased safety risks when maintaining the vehicle, since the higher the voltage, the easier it is to have arcing. Increasing charging current is easier, you only really need to alter the battery, charging system and perhaps update the cooling.
By the spec, the "NACS" can deliver 900 amps at 1000VDC, or 900KW. In practice the largest superchargers currently only provide 250KW. The current CCS spec is for 500 Amps at up to 920 volts, or 460KW, but the largest CCS chargers currently only provide 350KW. The CCS standard is looking to update to 2,000KW but it hasn't been formalized yet. In either case, the main issue is that it takes really huge cables to push that much current. CCS provides for this with actively cooled cables. Tesla claims their cables don't need to be cooled, but the physics suggests otherwise. In either case, the physical plug can handle far more power than other parts of the system for both. As far as I can tell the 1MW limit is the limit of the physical connector for Tesla, where as the CCS DC can handle at least 2MW.
@@johngaltline9933 Yeah, this is what I was thinking regarding CCS being more "future proof". 1MW might seem like overkill now, but with demand for faster charging times, larger battery capacities, and EV's expanding into larger vehicles like vans and trucks, having an extra megawatt or more to play with could be a big advantage. And while increasing battery voltages will help, realistically I think it's going to be harder to do that than increase charging current.
@@Croz89 Several automakers are already using or going to use higher voltage systems. IONIQ 5, Porsche Taycan,etc. Tesla is supporting the higher voltage cars on V4 of the superCharger.
Tesla used the Super Charger Network was a mout, but now that electric cars are getting so big they probably realized they have to become the standard before they're further regulated. My understanding is they're starting to make good profits on their chargers so they could also be the gas station replacement of the future which is probably really appealing to them.
Tesla used the Supercharger network *out of necessity* because there wasn't a working, reliable alternative. . This point has been proven over the last decade. . As for making "good profits". t They made sufficient to cover costs, with any extra going back into expansion (just as they're doing with factories now). "g Gas stations".... Charging will be a "rounding error" for Tesla. BUT Expect them to install Megapacks to counter the "grids going to fail!!!" opinion (rubbish) and leverage the energy stored when the packs are full, but the chargers are quiet, to make an absolute FORTUNE from grid arbitrage. . (He's thinking 8 moves ahead of everyone)
The only thing I want is to be able to be able to drive anywhere in the lower 48 without having to plan out my trip in ABRP. If I have to use a NACS adapter every other stop, so be it. If I have to install 5 different apps on my phone, so be it. I'm currently living out west and some day trips (emphasis on the "day") I want to do don't have enough fast chargers on the route, so I would have to wait at a slow charger, get a hotel room and charge from the wall, or not do it since it's "impossible".
I personally like the RFID cards. They are usually way faster than credit cards, don't have an insane authorization hold (EA holds $50 per charge even though I have never been above $16...on a road trip with 5 or 6 charge stops, that's a lot of money you don't have access to for up to a week), and work when your phone is dead or has no signal. I would like if they were still available but I think plug&charge and credit cards should be too...I would also like to see more charge stations with stores where you could pay cash like you can for gas.
The big problem with RFID cards is that each network has it's own card. If you don't have the right card, you can't charge. The EU has the right idea with laws requiring a contactless payment option. It's how we pay for everything else, there's no need to invent a new system just for car charging. You're right that a $50 hold is bad though, and multiple holds on the same day is even worse.
No reason Credit Cards can't do exactly the same, the hold amount though is something Tesla doesn't have to worry about, they can just brick your Tesla if you don't pay :p Credit cards can be instant (they have RFID) and they can process charges without an internet connection, although for risk reasons (eg, you are overdrawn/over limit/card was just stolen) that is often turned off.
I'm not saying they should be required, I just like the option. Most networks offer them free and it's kinda nice to just have them preloaded. In my experience, they take seconds while CC can take thirty to a full minute (maybe everyone is just using shitty card readers, idk). Having one for everything would be nice but I don't mind having one for each network when they just sit in a little holder in my car anyway. Hopefully more chargers will have plug&charge soon and they won't be as necessary. I used it on an EVgo charger a few times, it is nice and convenient but definitely should be one of several options.
@@freeculture It still functions the same as swiping your credit card, taking the same amount of time as opposed to tapping a dedicated rfid that just quickly confirms your identity to the network.
This is an excellent summary and obviously correct with the perspective from Europe. We have CCS2 everywhere including Tesla chargers and the connector just works - non Tesla chargers are nothing like as reliable or simple to use, but I can use both as some Tesla superchargers (and many destination chargers) in the UK are open to non-Teslas. So I just drive up in my MG4 (Chinese made EV that is far cheaper and better built than a Tesla), plug in, open the Tesla app and start a charge. What makes this works is one standard everywhere, not the specific connector design. NACS would be useless in Europe as 3 phase power and chargers are everywhere and it doesn't have enough pins. Yes it is a neat and clever design but only suitable for specific markets because it wasn't designed to be a global solution. Teslas are a technological masterpiece but one that locks you into their idiosyncratic world of no local dealers, almost no buttons, screen outside your eyeline, no Android Auto / Apple CarPlay, updates that take away as well as add features, very few options and almost no choice of different vehicle types, and whose basic exterior and interior design hasn't been updated in years. Makes sense if you are trying to scale to 20 million cars a year but much less sense for the average consumer. We're seeing what the Chinese are bringing in Europe and it is going to cause problems for everyone, including Tesla.
Plug to charge would be a fine method for universal payment if they just implemented it right. Just stick a standard tap-to-pay system in the connector. Let it work like the chip in your phone, and if your car doesn't have that chip, tap your phone on the connector.
AKA "Point of potential failure". A "tao to pay" system is designed of immediate (instant) payment, not an open channel during a 30 minute change session. . Do you want that open to hacking while you charge? Unless you're suggesting that it's simply a "handshake"? But the VEHICLE can do that through the charge port. . Think it through. Everyone's worried about "security" while suggesting methods that reduce security, no doubt because they thing "bad Tesla (?)" will steal all their money? Or personal details? . Meanwhile, they DO "implement it right" It's the other system which don't (and fail because of That)
As an engineer I'm annoyed for design reasons. Like nearly everything Tesla does it lacks any form of redundancy or ruggedness. The design philosophy is more like a phone than a safety-critical vehicle system. The fact that the low-power AC conductors and the high-power DC conductors SHARE PINS is concerning AF. It's one circuit malfunction away from the AC pins becoming LIVE at pack voltage...or from exposing the battery directly to mains AC! The thinner conductors require more cooling and are far less efficient, the ground return is higher resistance, the communication pins are considerably more fragile. And having two more automakers join one's proprietary standard moves us FURTHER from a single common standard instead of closer.
Pull through Tesla stalls have been a thing for years in Norway, probably du to the amount of people pulling a trailer here. They are a pain to use for non Tesla cars though as you say due to the short cable and different port placements.
I've had to use CCS1 a few times and it was awful in all cases. The cable/connector was heavy enough that the connector was leaning away from the car's socket at the top, which makes it hard to securely seat. The angle of the cord was awkward, it was too bulky and heavy, you had to line it up perfectly both in angle and rotation, and the pedestal was not exactly user-friendly. It was neither plug to charge nor did it have a credit card reader. Definitely felt like Design By Committee. And about half the pedestals were broken. No way in heck would my mom be able to use one.
This was a real bummer to see especially after watching aging Wheels put a J1774 connector onto his lawn tractor so he could charge it from his car charger or a 110 outlet. I was really looking forward to being able to do that myself with my tractor
@@sebastienlemay6120 Honestly I got excited by the idea of using a j1772 on a lawn tractor because it would reduce the number of chargers I would need, and create a charging center.
With the EU pushing for improvements to CCS, I think we all just have to hope that into the 2030s we just maintain a nice, healthy 2.5 standards (and us Leaf owners will queue for the single working unit that serves Chademo, because Zapmap says there isn't another one for 100 miles so this is literally our only option). Interoperability between CCS and NACS is surely plenty. Nobody needs a new, Super-Super-Supercharging standard that can deliver 1MW charging speeds or whatever.
I wonder what the anticompetitive or antitrust implications are of the major US EVs landing on the same charger standard. As you pointed out, the timing is ... odd. 🤨
Your analysis is spot on. No question the NACS is marginally better than J-1772/CCS in some ways but it's depressing how many articles are using the "format war" VHS/Beta metaphor. Same goes for the "Tesla is seamless" argument, as if the connector was the reason for that seamlessness, and not the fact that in Tesla's case the same company made the car, owns the charger, and handles the billing. You expect this kind of thing from the Tesla-stans, but to get it from supposedly objective and knowledgeable sources shows how poorly understand the issue is by many of the folks you'd think would know better.
8:30 Europe here, it´s a subset of ISO_15118 and you are right is over-complicated, but it´s the price you pay for having the same standard for the whole continent (included cryptography). it runs as a powerline modulation on the ContolPilot line.
A couple of points... 1) That Tesla/J1772 adapter you are using as your example is only for slow charging technologies. A J1772 connector is not the same as a CCS connector. CCS is basically an expansion of the J1772 slow charging standard to add fast charging capability to it. If slow charging was good enough for all use cases Tesla would have just stuck to the existing J1772 standard (they used it on the original Roadster) and never bothered with their own connector. However, neither the J1772 hardware nor the protocol support DC fast charging. The hardware pins are too small to move enough current and the protocol doesn't include the messages needed for the much more complex fast charging process. You really need to be comparing the Tesla connector to the CCS connector which is about 3 times the size and far less elegant. 2) The only reason Tesla's connector was ever considered "proprietary" is because the rest of the industry wanted to pretend Tesla didn't exist and so they designed CCS by committee (a good way to ensure a poor design in my experience) AFTER Tesla had created a fast charging connector/protocol. There was no existing DC fast charging standard when Tesla created what is now NACS. Tesla invited anyone to use the standard and/or help build out the infrastructure, but again, the legacy players just ignored it all (until now). The history basically goes like this... 1) J1772 standard existed first, but was only appropriate for slow home/destination charging. It was never intended to support fast charging and would never be physically capable of supporting fast charging. 2) Tesla needed a fast charging standard, so they designed/built a connector/protocol that could support both slow and fast charging. They publicly invited anyone else to use it on many occasions. 3) Industry ignores Tesla's connector, creates multiple other incompatible "standards" (CCS1, CCS2, and ChAdEMOeWTf). 4) Since the CCS connector design(s) add more pins on to the original J1772 slow charging design, people act like CCS has been around as long as J1772 and is therefore "first" and "the standard." However, CCS came AFTER the Tesla/NACS connector. Also, the CCS design approach of layering more pins/protocols on top of the already mediocre J1772 slow charging standard results in a inelegant design with a lot of baggage. The industry should have just swallowed their pride (like they are being forced to do now) and embraced the Tesla connector from day one. None of them were even thinking about building any long range EVs when this was first playing out and yet they felt the need to come up with a "standard" for their EVs that didn't even exist yet. Meanwhile, Tesla was already building out Superchargers and selling the Model S. Europe and Asia will forever be stuck with their overly complex connectors, but I'm glad North America (and possibly South America) seem on track to end up with the NACS standard. I believe CCS is dead in the NA market and that is fine. Cars don't drive across large oceans very often anyway.
I don't drive an EV (yet) but yes, the idea of having a separate app to get gasoline sounds like hell. If my card doesn't work, I have another card. If none of my cards work, I can (hopefully) use cash. If an app doesn't work or doesn't work well, it will really make accessibility a problem. If several apps are needed, the problem multiplies.
I wanted NACS to win, but it seemed like something that would require a nat 20 (or nat 1, depending on how you feel about it) to happen. It was not on my 2023 EV bingo card.
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"from home" implies the set isn't just a room in your home and now I'm questioning everything
It hasn't been for years! I have a very odd setup
@@TechnologyConnextras I could imagine having the set in a totally different location helps with the mental switch from "work" and "relax" modes.
Wait.. is there still the same room at your house, but also a movie set version of it now too? Or is the old room filled with puppies now? So many questions
@@alakani I believe the old set was essentially a setup in his basement, that he later completely move to another place; there is only one instance of his set
i mean i'm not sure if he still does this but LGR at one point filmed a lot in the same storage building he keeps most of his stuff. Mr. TC probably does something similar
the best part about standards is that there's so many to choose from!
Hah, indeed.
Ha I remember a comic from Xkcd making a joke about this. If you look for "XKCD standards" it's the first result.
The solution is authority, not one more standard
The US usually lets standards compete. Eventually the market decides on a winner and the rest wither and die. It's a messy approach, but it does ensure that we don't get stuck with a dud.
@@pepstein The EU allows this too, but only for a while. After a few years if the companies can't decide on one for themselves, they step in and decide for them.
If it's something that is going to be replaced every few years, then enough product cycles can happen that 'letting the market decide' works, but if it's something that will place for decades, letting companies argue gets in the way of just using it.
"I am personally annoyed for ego reasons"
I appreciate this extremely tactful honesty. ❤
Agreed. Honesty is so refreshing. And all the things said make sense, especially the bit to have a standard credit card payments and they need to force the price per kWh posted just like the cost per gallon now.
This honesty is really important to quickly identifying problems in a system before they becomes a serious problem. I’ve worked at places that fostered trust and didn’t punish or berate people when they “fessed up.” I’ve also worked at companies that do the thing you probably assume will happen. Not only is the first company far more pleasant to work for, but we seldom ran into large issues that lurked under radar until we got close to the end. Everyone from the customers to shareholders love that. Turns out not making your employees live in fear has concrete benefits!
Cat time codes:
4:38 wakes up for a minute
20:32 wakes up again, looks out window, curls back up
You da real MVP.
The good life 😎
If a black cat walking in front of you is bad luck, does one sleeping behind you bring good luck?
@@justindavis1546Cat is his guardian angel.
@@justindavis1546 Black cats are mostly bad luck for themselves because people are superstitious. ._.
"No one will have backed the wrong horse"
Just sitting here in the corner with the other Leaf owners...
CHAdeMO solidarity, with hopes that Nissan eventually releases a conversion kit someday....
I've never found a charger that didn't work on my Leaf but I've only used free public chargers. Until today I didn't know there was a difference.
I don't mind since the Leaf is the city car in our household. Road trips require an internal combustion engine for me.
@@rogeraldrich2533 I have the 2022 Leaf with 230-ish miles of range. I have a long commute and regularly drive it 150+ miles per day. I love the car, but any time I've wanted to take a bit of a longer trip to go see friends, I have to plan more than I should just because the DC charging options are so limited.
It's gonna be a conversation possible. It's gonna be around 1500-2000$ to do so.
I have a 2019 Leaf, and I love it. I just understand that it will always be getting charged in my garage, and that is fine with me.
I do agree that building cars with Chademo in 2023 is absolute MADNESS, however.
I went for my first road trip with an EV recently, and I have to agree that the most annoying part about the charging process was that so many charging stations require you to have an app to pay. Especially Electrify America, because they require you to pre-pay on their app, and as soon as you go under $10 then it recharges you, so you can never get the money out of your account.
and you don’t want to not have their app either. It’s a $50 hold for every charge. That could be highly annoying on a road trip.
This and the parking issue. Did a short road trip in Italy and with it being a foreign language it made things super annoying.
Im paying for charging, do i also need to pay for parking? Will i be charged if i dont pay, or will i pay and waste my money? In one particular parking lot it said you need to pay for parking but no info on how to pay. But also in the same parking lot all parking lines were painted over with “electric” only logos. But the sings remained…
ChargePoint tried charging me $10 for 10 CENTS worth of charging, because they won't let you pay for the amount you use, just $10 increments, like its a feckin gift card. I was floored when I saw that.
@@MisutaaAsriel they're trying to avoid transaction charges :/ when most customers are spending say £25 or £50 at a time on petrol the transaction fee is insignificant but now you have thousands of £5 charging sessions or cheaper but the transaction fees have a base figure which gets more significant. They could pass on the fee to you directly but then you'd be pissed you had to spend £0.6 for £0.1 of energy 🤣
You bent over and decided to accept that, don't think you can complain now!
Heard about this on the radio earlier and was like "Technology Connections will have a video about this within 24 hours" and yep lol
Hot take- charging being dependent on internet connection to some central server is a national security threat
Great point. There’s already been cyber attacks on pipelines.
@@andrewahern3730agreed. Honestly, even needing a credit card terminal shouldn't be the requirement. A simple meter + a per kWh charge should be the requirement. I should be able to hand the cashier a $20 bill and that should equate to xx amount of kWh on port 3 entering my car.
@@robertrichard1819 But that goes against a cashless, employee-less future, with charging stations that are available 24/7 without needing the things that employees require like seating, climate control, bathroom facilities, insurance, payroll management methods, etc.
I have not interacted with a human cashier for ICE fuel purchases in 25+ years, why would I start now?
I don't know how current charging tech works, but I see a future where you have a subscription and your car communicates with the terminal providing its ID/membership info, and you get automatically charged to a credit card or bank account. The ID could be done by RFID tag, license plate reader, bluetooth to the infotainment center, or something of that nature.
Agree, and a take I had elsewhere applies here too: connected chargers should fail functional. Billing and monitoring up lets a network charge for electrons, but an outage of connectivity taking down billing means the amps can't be billed, not that they can't be provided. If the provider wants to get paid, they can build more robust billing or seek SLA contracts with providers to recoup costs. It's safety and security - a payment system outage shouldn't mean you have to ride out a hurricane in your car in the parking lot of a boarded up Dennys in Beaumont.
@@kg4gav That sounds genuinely awful.
“I’m not bothered” - proceeds to make an in-depth 40 minute video explaining why. Love it!
It's weird listening to this stuff happening in the US. In Europe Tesla has been happily using CCS2 for their cars for years - the model 3 debuted with CCS2 in Europe - and now most supercharger sites allow other cars to charge too, and it works beautifully. I do believe Tesla is using their proprietary protocol for their cars and additionally support PLC for others, but it doesn't really matter in the end. The reason why this is specific to Europe because in Europe we have 3 phase AC everywhere, often up to 22kW, and the NACS doesn't support 3 phase AC.
Additionally, Tesla's CCS2 plugs on their chargers are better than those on other chargers. They are sleeker and the cables are lighter. And not by a little - they are VERY sleek and VERY light. CCS itself as a standard isn't as bad as the implementations are.
CCS2 is substantially better than CCS1. It's not just that it supports 3-phase AC. It also has a more robust locking system, and it's a bit more compact. I don't think CCS1 would even fit in the space available in Model 3 or Y.
Biggest issue is charge ports in random places (etron or taycan come to mind) that aren't well suited to Tesla's short cables.
I wonder what's the Chinese plug standard
@@NoNameAtAll2 China is currently using GB/T, but they're working with Japan on a joint standard called ChaoJi, but like CCS, they're using two different plugs, one for China and another for Japan.
The second I saw that news I was just thinking how long until a rant about this from you lol
For those that don't know when the change over to unleaded fuel happened we changed the diameter of the fuel nozzle to prevent leaded gas from going into unleaded cars as it would destroy catalytic converters. they made adapters so older gas jugs and for people who had on site fuel (Farmers for example) could use their leaded nozzles. Or if you had Hopped up your car and converted it to leaded for the higher octane. Note leaded fuel for road cars wasn't officially phased out till 1996.
thanks for the background info! very insightful!
“Leaded gasoline's century-long reign of destruction is over.
The final holdout, Algeria, used up the last of its stockpile of leaded gasoline in July (2021). That's according to the U.N. Environment Programme, which has spent 19 years trying to eliminate leaded gasoline around the globe.” From NPR
@@vfplayerIsn't aviation gasoline still leaded? There may still be risks for people who live near smaller airports.
yep. we've been breathing lead for a long time.
@@mikezobl9602 the time for people to take air filtration seriously has arrived.
Little known fact: Tesla Superchargers and cars actually do not need web connectivity to charge. When the web goes down, the car charges anyway, records the billing locally and reports it to Tesla when communication is restored.
This is one reason why they are more reliable than the current standard CCS systems. I do hope Tesla retains their reliable communication and billing for Tesla cars, even as they adopt DIN 70121 for communication and ISO-15118 for "plug and charge."
It's quite possible to do that with credit cards (though less so with apps / account login required payments). Despite it being possible, companies sometimes don't process payments offline in case the card payment is rejected upon connectivity being restored (eg overdrawn/limit). Tesla I guess has the advantage of being able to disable your car remotely if you don't pay up, or drive it back to them :o
@@peter65zzfdfh Tesla HAS a open revolving account with them ands NOT a one time payment so likely they file a "failed payment" charge IF the CC does DECLINE
@@peter65zzfdfh
The point being
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
.
The Tesla system has minimal steps, less chance of data hacking, fewer points if potential failure and is demonstrably more reliable over a decade of use.
And you're not waving a credit card or phone around in public waiting for a handshake.
@@rogerstarkey5390 yeah, all that works fine as long as you’re in a Tesla at a Tesla charger. Increasingly that pairing will be less and less likely.
Plug and charge is great but i do think that an option to even have tap to pay with a credit card fixes almost all issues bypassing the app. Especially when charging location is in a terrible cell service area
It's already the case almost everywhere, but by law all fast chargers in Europe will be required to accept payments by credit card.
Tap to pay means a point of failure and a target of vandalism on the dispenser. Better to let you enter your credit card details on your car's touchscreen and have the car send those details to the charger over the cable. You're shielded from inclement weather that way.
@@PCLoadLetter I don't see people going around damaging credit card readers on gas pumps. I don't think someone is going to damage the reader without damaging the charger worse if they are going to do that.
Hmm, well, I guess there are a bunch of weird EV haters out there but they would probably damage the charge connector as well if they are going to damage a charge station.
@@PCLoadLetter This is even more complicated than the already existing plug and charge feature, and a big security risk of leaking the card details.
@@romelec Whether the card details go through the charging cable, are transmitted wirelessly, or go thru the other cables plugging into any other credit card reader makes little difference.
Nacs used to not be open sourced but it is now available on the website and they have the implementation guides, functional specs, connector drawings, connector CAD and written standards freely available to download. They also have revised the connector to support 1000V not 1000A, the new revision and old connector are completely interchangable but only the 1000v connector will support the higher charging rates. Additionally, unlike CCS, NACS only specifies a maximum terminal/cable temperature so they can charge at any current as long as the cable and charge port temps stay within spec.
It's not open source. It's still not clear if there's patent concerns, but those will come out during SAE's review.
It's also worth noting that Tesla vehicle and chargers use 2 standards implemented with the same plug. Tesla charging is still proprietary and uses CAN communication on the digital pins. Older Tesla cars (and maybe older Tesla chargers) only support this method.
NACS on the other hand follows a slight modification of the IEC 61851 defined handshaking used by CCS and CCS2. Any Tesla vehicle that can use a passive CCS adapter as well as any charger that has a magic dock can "speak" IEC 61851.
Putting the spec out does not mean it’s “open-source”. They will milk license fees
@@aliancemd It is currently being standardized by the AES. Once that's done, it will be 100% open and Tesla won't be able to license it (this is happening with Tesla's cooperation).
They will be able to collect service fees on their superchargers, of course.
I have used both, and the NACS connector is just plain better - at least from an ergonomics perspective. My wife's view is that it's much better. I agree that a tap to pay approach is a great idea. Thanks for this video, there were some insightful comments that I appreciated.
I bought my Model 3 only after Tesla released their CCS1->NACS adapter in mid 2022 because of the availability of CCS1 chargers in rural BC. When I road trip I use CCS1 when it's convenient, but the Tesla Supercharger network is vastly more reliable.
I live in Manitoba and Winnipeg has 2 "destination tesla" chargers ONE supercharger and countless FLO / CO-OP DC chargers and on hiway Petro Canada all are rolling out CCS combo
so for ME IN Winnipeg CCS is FAR "better" but Northern Ontario the supercharger network BLOWS CCS out of the water when I went out that way last year (in a fuel car)
@@jasonriddell agreed, I also think most people don’t realize that most times a charge fails is not because of the physical connecter but because the actual hardware is garbage. Put a NACS plug on a crap charger and you still got a crap charger…. but look so easy to plug and unplug!
When you mentioned Apple's Lightning Connector, something gelled: something they used to call Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome. Apple had it in spades in the 90s -- even so they were accused of it far more than they were deserving of it -- and Tesla after a time deserves the same. Apple invented a lot of things because it needed to. The Lightning Connector is something Apple needed to invent because there was no existing connector that fit the bill -- it took USBC *years* to get it right. On the other hand, they designed the protocol that *COULD* have been and was meant to be extended to support USB3 speeds, but look where that went.
Tesla open sourced the connector, but NOT the protocol. Tesla in the early days open sourced the battery technology because Musk insisted making the planet better was their goal. No one believed that, and of course it never turned out that way. He built out the charging network as a competitive advantage and now he's betting that getting money from the federal government is more important than keeping a closed charging network. That's why he's doing it, but that's not enough for him to make it as easy or as convenient for non-Teslas to USE it, just to make it possible. In that light, open sourcing the connector -- but not the protocol -- seems like just a cost-cutting measure for Tesla, doesn't it?
This is 90's cell phone shenanigans. Remember having a squid power cable adapter for your old cell phone since every manufacturer had a different power port? Well we're heading in that direction again, but now in a much more inconvenient car form.
I still have three or four old phone chargers in my big box of power converters in my living room closet.
That box of chargers has come in hand about three or four times in the three decades it has been slowly growing. Yay!
I await USB-C(ar)
And unlike cell phones, only the 1% will actually be able to afford these disposable EVs. Saving the planet, et al.
Well sucks to be in the USA I guess.
@@tednugent1100 Shit I didn't realize my enlisted-military ass was in the 1% on anything except the global scale!
I think it would have been fairer to have done a visual comparison of a NACS connector with a CCS DC fast charger connector. The DC connector adds so much more bulk.
His concerns clearly are not about the physical dimensions, it's about the protocols and payment systems.
The current app based payment systems do not foster competition.
You don't have to install a separate app for every chain of gas station you ever stop at (although the fuel companies would love you to)
Agreed. Comparing a NACS and a j plug is really only half the functionality.
The cumbersome CSS and even worse CHADEMO should go the way of the do-do.
I'm a proud 2016 Leaf driver. Funny enough, I was considering looking at newer EVs in the next year! Now I have reason to take a wait-and-see approach. I was rather excited to upgrade to a CCS-capable vehicle; now I'm waiting to see not only how the new cars will be equipped, but how the infrastructure will expand in my immediate area over the coming years.
Cries in Chademo
2014 Leaf owner here, I've been waiting on Dala to finish his CHaDEMO to CCS converter. Luckily (bad luck is still luck right?) I live in Alabama, the nearest DC fast charger is something around 35 40 miles from me.
@@calvinbarnes1721doesn't the 2014 Leaf use the common J1772?
@@CaseyDuBose going from CHAdeMO to Emo Chad
depends where you are.. if you are NA, then waiting is worth it if your Leaf is still good. If you are in Europe, then CCS will be the standard for a while.
I'm glad you are talking about this. I think the switch is more on the issue with EA rather then NACS, I own a model three and love my experience but CCS handle is good enough. I just want everyone to pick a standard and go, If EA was more reliable I bet you CCS would be the standard but they dropped the ball enough Ford and GM can't trust them.
I genuinely believe that we'll find out in a few years time that EA execs had a secret mission to disrupt and delay EV adoption.
EA lack of infrastructure, poor reliability, and moving in slow motion is why all this is happening. None of the other charging network operators appear to be any better. Tesla deploys more new chargers per quarter than all of the CCS operators combined! It is totally insane. Completely unacceptable. Everyone screamed there just needed to be funding... The funding was approved, massive funding was approved at the Fed level. They are still sitting around on their hands. Given the reliability issues sitting around on their hands may be better than putting in POS chargers... In the mean time people will have options if you own a Ford or GM to pull into a Tesla supercharger. It just sucks all around.
37:04 Death Knell of CCS - depends on what VW, EA and Hyundai decide to do. Hyundai and VW are not eligible for a lot of the honey gushing out of gushing out of the fed ( aka the taxpayers’ pockets) but they are significant manufacturers of EVs.
I agree 100% that all chargers should have a standard payment method. I absolutely hate the idea of having to rely on apps and 3rd party services, when banks and credit cards are standard and already exist. I run a custom rom on my phone so I wouldn't even be able to use these apps if I wanted to. I wish companies would stop assuming everyone has an android or apple phone that they're willing to install anything on.
"Banks and credit cards" are "apps and services"
It's just a case of whether it's "physical".
Welcome to the 21st century.
I think that's a US issue...
the banks could agree on some standards of QR payment similar to the India's UPI or Singapore MAS's PayNow/ SGQR standard (MAS has been signing agreement for inter-connect with several ASEAN countries and UPI. tho International payment with QR is still pretty limited, other than the Alipay+. but china bad, right?)
@@PrograError that would probably still require some kind of phone app. Credit cards work fine and are standard. No need to reinvent the wheel. Could also make physical tokens an option, that would make it possible to use cash to buy the tokens in advance.
@@redsquirrelftw maybe, but now you get to pay like the Chinese do everywhere without using credit card but your own bank account credit/ cash.
And therefore only one app to pay for everything. Your bank's. (Tho depending on whether they will want to do a lifestyle app... And PayPal, etc. being onboard)
@@PrograErrorYou're aware Google Pay, Apple Pay etc. are used in the USA, right?
The whole needing an app to pay reminds me of when non-permit parking at my university switched to an app; it forced me to get a new phone!
As an IONIQ driver in the UK where most rapid chargers now support contactless card payment, I’d still take plug to charge in a heartbeat if it were offered. Touch screens you have to make choices on before it’ll take your payment, while standing in the rain, which then get smashed so the dispenser goes out of order, make the whole experience non-slick.
One way in which the petrol/gas nozzle is more ergonomic than CCS: you don’t have to get the orientation just so. (Even if, as you say, that isn’t really a problem.)
Bigger problem: tolerances so tight/exceeded that you can’t use the Tesla v3 CCS supercharger on the IONIQ, because the LED housing protrudes 1mm too far.
I haven't used any of these connectors - however it strikes me that a guide valley on the car side would aid greatly!
I mean, there's no reason that has to be the case. Why are there any more buttons to press or any interface at all other than tapping your card.
Like, when I get on transit using a contactless payment card, I just board transit...I don't need an account or anything, I just tap my credit or debit card on the fare gate and walk through.
If they had bad implementations they should fix it.
Not saying plug to charge is bad (although it has some disadvantages, or at least lacks flexibility, the car owner must always pay) but tap to pay should be trivially easy. There's no technical reason that it can't be.
Personally I'd want the contactless to always be there.
It's not always a band new car that would roll up to the charger.
I'm hoping to get my leaf fitted with the muxsan CCS2 upgrade and needing more electronics to deal with plug to charge would just make it cost more for little benefit to me.
I've seen quite a few EV conversions on the road especially around Silverstone and again requiring the extra electronics for a fancy payment system would make those homebrew solutions even more prohibitively expensive for converting old cars when it's just not necessary.
@@DanielBrotherston at least on both instavolt and gridserve in the UK the most you have to do is plug in the car and tap the card, you can then just tap the card again to stop it so it's definitely doable and even already in place in the way you described.
Its quite common for really good proprietary standards to get turned into open standards. Happens across loads of industries all the time
You mean like that one time where usb-c 'magically' became a charging standard without political intervention?
@@hammerth1421 thunderbolt was developed by intel in cooperation with apple.
@@hammerth1421 Thunderbolt was never proprietary to Apple. Intel had partners showcasing non-apple devices with Thunderbolt since the very beginning.
Like Metric? 🙂
@William Wallace was metric proprietary?
Having had both sets of cords/cars, the J1772 vs NACS difference isn't big but it still noticeable.
NACS vs CCS1 though, is a HUGE difference. It is much easier to wield the NACS vs the CCS1.
And just because only one company makes it, it's still a standard. It became open over 6 months ago. It's used by the majority of vehicles in North America.
I think competing standards is sort of antithetical to what a standard means. It's like having competing monopolies.
@@davidolsen1222 There are a huge number of competing standards that are mutually incompatible. It's almost the rule rather than the exception.
@@1djbecker Well, that's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are something which actually *are* standard and we don't think about them at all. We only pay attention where there's a bunch of different would-be standards when a single one (almost regardless what it is). So you go and buy a natural gas fitting and they sell you the only one that exists and you don't think about how terrible that could have been.
The reason Tesla is deciding to open it up, is because the US Government is offering grants/subsidies for companies to set up charge stations, with the caveat that it needs to be open to all EVs. Tesla already has the network, so they basically get free money by opening up their chargers to everyone.
More government money for Elon!
I think it should be a bigger (or at least _known)_ issue to people that Tesla, a CAR company, is officially making most of its profits off of selling carbon offsets [via dodgy 3rd party companies], not from, y'know, selling CARS. (And that started well before the giant recall.) They're meant to be a "green" company, but carbon offsets just allow other companies to make no efforts to curb their pollution (future? No?) by paying their way out. And by some B.S. metric like "[unit] of CO2 is absorbed per [unit] of trees" (not even exaggerating ...sadly.)
Most people, I've found (mostly USians; sorry, but it's true) also don't seem to realise that much of the world's electricity (much of the US, too) comes from coal. Not very "climate friendly." And many have no problem with it, as if being turned into electricity makes it "clean"...? Though neither is launching knockoff Challengers into "space, technically" (though I know, same face, different company) and flying in private jets. Iirc the "top 2%" create as much CO2 pollution as the other 98%, but it may have "only" been as much as the 48% below them. (Memory lapse at the perfect time. Good to check those numbers anyway. Don't take my word for it.)
And now a slight rant but also a factual list: Tesla gets billions in govt money, plus double-dipping by selling those "carbon credits" that already net grants & tax breaks, which themselves offset any "pollution savings" the company might have made. (And those carbon offset companies are extremely dodgy, too. Pollution & especially how much is absorbed by supposed CO2 sinks isn't a set number, especially not [actual claim used] "per square unit of trees") Plus, didn't they just recall like 100,000 of their cars last year or earlier this year? And all those lawsuits against the company for workplace safety violations (including forcing employees to work in close quarters during the height of "The Plague" under threat of firing [which many were anyway]) and the lawsuits over racist & sexist workplace attitudes and so many other things... I won't even mention anything about the worshiped and loathed jewel-fund "frontman" & his ...technical issues.
You mean MORE free money.
Tesla has actually opened very little of their network.
Plus the money the CAR company gets from selling 3rd party carbon "offset credits" (doubling up cos they already get fed grants & breaks for that), far more than their profits from _selling CARS._ An "eco-friendly" CAR company that makes its money off of selling "pollution rights". And locking in its proprietary stuff into the infrastructure so that everyone must follow - collusion or caving, I can't say.
This is a great explainer video! I used to think plug and charge was the best way to build an EV charging network but after this, I have a different opinion that it maybe isn’t the best way. Thank you for giving such a well thought out alternative perspective.
The charging networks can keep CCS for a while, build out and improve their software and then start switching some of their stations over to NACS over time if that's the way things are going to go. The car manufacturers need to start making their decisions now - mostly so they don't drag this out longer than it needs to. That wouldn't be good for the EV industry as a whole. Over the next two years we should see everyone in NA come to an agreement on which way we should go.
I firmly believe Telsa needs to make sure that the important parts of NACS is open source and that they start a standards board to govern it with other manufacturers who sign onto using NACS in their vehicles and engineers from around the globe.
I'm looking forward to the day where we can all just use some new USB standard to charge our cars
Yeah, then after a year or two they come out with USB-C.
@@Kriss_L I mean, if it's still a USB-C connector then I'd be really happy
USB-EV coming soon....
USB-Car. Now with 250kw charge capacity.
It’s already here. It’s call the NACS.
I think the difference in connector size is much more of a difference when you take into account CCS2 with it's separate but huge DC pins, instead of just NACS vs CCS/J1772
I always thought the size of the connector was a nice affordance: don't f*ck with this connector, there's a dangerous amount of energy flowing through it.
@@godofbiscuitssf if that's your concern, the pins are more protected on the NACS connector than on the CCS connectors.
@@microcolonel It's not a concern, just something I noted. It's not even about actual level of protection, but the likelihood that people will actually steer clear of it. That's why I pointed out the affordance aspect.
@@godofbiscuitssf It's also got a lid, which on electrical things tends to be "don't touch unless you know what you're doing".
CCS is not J1772, it's J1772 AND the two huge DC pins below it.
CCS1 (North America) has five pins in the "circular" part of J1772
CCS2 (EU) has seven pins in the circular part of J1772, to accommodate three-phase AC charging
Summary: ALL CCSx connectors have the two large DC pins at the bottom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System -- though this stuff is pretty confusing :(
My biggest frustration is just competing standards and potential for lock out or confusion. Adapters and these new developments largely get around this. The disimilarities between NA and EU in cars is still dumb, imo. And homogenizing between the two for all car standards would be nice.
The differences come down to the electrical systems in the two regions. EU is three-phase, US mostly isn't.
And for normal people, it doesn't matter the slightest. Nobody is taking their cars with them across the Atlantic, for many more reasons than the charging standard.
@@kalleguld 2 phase in the US is about 220-240v, it could be wired like a single phase CCS2 between the neutral and one of the phases
@@Giuliana-w1f North America uses a split phase power network. Your Split Phase is 120v and Single Phase is 240v. You only need one of the three pins from a European plug.
@@benanderson89 my split phase? I use 220V between phase and neutral, or 380V between 2 or 3 phases.
I'm talking about using a single 240V pin in the US
@@Giuliana-w1f You said 240v was 2 phase in the US. It's not. 240v is single phase and that's the only standard they have.
To be honest I think Europe does manage this hole charging think a lot better. Way more chargers that actually work and not only Superchargers (but still Superchargers have Typ 2 CCS). And especially Germany where it will be soon required that charges have card terminals.
So we have 1 standard we all can agree upon and if we need to charge somewhere there is a card terminal available. (even if prices are a bit higher on those.)
It's a shame we just couldn't stick with USB C. 😂
It's even better. I found out at work that trucks also use ccs2. But they won't let me put my car on the 380KW charger 😢
@@random27 NACS is soon to support 500kw+ and 1Mw on V4 Superchargers. That said, MCS is going to support 3.7Mw.
law should never dictate innovation.
@@jslay88 true, but law can provide an even playing field while forcing backwards compatibility. So current consumers are protected. Networks can be build up by competing companies, increasing incentive for consumers to invest. Which gives companies the chance to innovate.
It's great how fast things have moved since this video came out. Several other car companies have said they'll support it as well as charging networks Electrify America and Chargepoint!
i have no idea what this means but im gonna watch it anyways
EV-GO has already been putting NACS on some of their chargers-- they announced that they would be doing this back in 2021 (before it was called NACS, of course).
They did this by buying CHAdeMO to Tesla adapters.
They have on the new delta chargers but they are going to be supporting everyone not just ccs and Tesla.
You mentioned that the CCS plug is just as usable as NACS, without considering how easy it actually is. The cable thickness, especially when cold along with the difficulty to plug in perfectly means it is not accessible to many people. If it can't be done with one hand, it is worse
He does address the fact that it isn't as easy to use as NACS, it seems like his point is pretty clear that it isn't as easy as NACS, but it is still an improvement over a gas pump nozzle. If we can make gas pump nozzles accessible, we can make CCS accessible. And even then, it seems like he is conceding that NACS is probably the best option.
@@smileyeagle1021but it can’t be because: Tesla baaad.
@@reggievonramsteinwell it'll be an SAE spec soon enough.
@@smileyeagle1021 He addresses it in a cursory way. Buried the lead you might say. It's not a mere detail. It's the difference between a 18 Y.O. girl or an elderly person being able to use the plug or not. That's not a difference of degree. It's difficult enough to exclude a fraction of the driving population. But that is also part of the point. It's bad by design. No vaguely competent engineer would look at NACS and then later say, nah, CCS2 is a better approach so lets do that. Your objective has to be have been to design a worse solution. There's nothing about CCS that would've prevented it from being at least 90% as good as NACS, given the motivation. To get to CCS2, you have to reject that idea and design a plug/cable system so horrendous that you have to fit a handle ONTO THE HANDLE, just to be able to wrangle it.
@@smileyeagle1021 Gas hoses are hollow, not so with a CCS cable.
I would love to see a video on the charging connectors and all the communication protocols.
Yup. What is power-line networking? Why (hypothetically) didn't they something akin to USB or CAT5? What were the reasons for the "J" plug and CCS1 designs?
www.youtube.com/@OutofSpecReviews
Kyle from Out of spec has a LOT more experience vs a guy who admitted in this video he barely ever DC fast charges.
These people actually use and test all brands of chargers and dont have a grudge against any one brand. They go to CharIN conferences (the ones in charge of CCS) and report real information about all aspects of charging.
www.youtube.com/@KyleConner
www.youtube.com/@outofspecdave1554
www.youtube.com/@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney
www.youtube.com/@InsideEVsUS
Okay, so I think I have the same brand washing machine because when yours went off, I frantically got up and checked on it only to realize I don't even have a load of laundry in there. That was a trip. Anyhow, that was a great video and thanks for sharing your perspective on things.
I had to remember MINE is NOT running
38:10 One thing that was overlooked in the GM Press Release on accessing the Superchargers is that GM is still continuing to partner with EVgo to build out ~5,000 chargers. A majority of those chargers should be the 350 kW "Ultium Ready" units. The original agreement was to cover specific metro areas (Chicago is one of them), but there was no emphasis placed on travel corridors. However, the partnership expanded with Pilot/Flying J, and that plan includes 400 to 500 Flying J sites nationwide, with placements along interstate corridors. The first 200 of those Flying J EVgo sites are supposed to be built by the end of this year, and those 200 sites alone would provide EVgo with a similar level of coverage to Electrify America.
19:45 - I think _having_ Plug & Charge is very important - but not *at the expense of other payment methods.* P&C is by far the easiest way to do it. But we absolutely need to be able to pay at the charger, too. And well-functioning smartphone apps.
I think the funding is also available to tesla, if they open up their chargers, so that might be why they're doing it now. More funding might mean more tesla charges, aleviating the capacity issues.
In at least one case Tesla has turned down the money because the people holding the purse strings figured they knew more about charging networks than Tesla.
@@danharold3087 That would be California, where Tesla turned down the grant because they aren't willing to install direct payment terminals.
Lots of good info.
Tesla turned down some fed money because the fed wanted Tesla to change how Tesla had there whole system works ( by adding pay at the stall and since other stuff)... they did accept some money but held there stance on Not doing a complete redesign of what they have and what they have IS working great.
Pay in app is great, it never breaks, no one can put a "skimmer" on it, it has unlimited support.... the charging network is a major asset part of Tesla and they are RARELY out of service.
The joining of forces is BETTER for all EV users, it's going to help any manufacturer that gets on board.
The Tesla charging network is HUGE, the more access to charging the better..... all super charging is backed by renewable energy.
@@rabidpb
Ask WHY.
Because....
Complication
Point of failure
Insecure
Unnecessary.
(Apart from that it might be ok..... Oh ... Wait)
@@rogerstarkey5390 It may be nicer for the supplier, but a world in which you'd need a different app for every product or service is a manifestly worse experience for the consumer. It makes reasonable sense why Tesla turned down the grant this time, but don't try to pretend it's because they're doing you a favour.
I've been thinking about the points on plug and charge for a few days. I think that luxury brands, like BMW, Mercedes, etc., can't AFFORD not to have plug and charge. You can't be a luxury manufacturer who's less *convenient* than another manufacturer.
Because of that, I think they're going to push really hard for it.
For the more reasonably priced options? I think you're probably correct. VW, Hyundai/Kia, etc. should just be pushing to have at least tap to pay on chargers.
For the accessibility of NACS vs CCS1, I think you're a little bit off, at least based on the part we've argued on Twitter (before all the Musking) about before. While MOST CCS1 plugs aren't any harder to plug in or unplug than the NACS plug, they CAN be. If you check their spec, CCS1 allows a force that's something like twice as high as ADA allows for gas pumps. NACS is significantly under the max force allowed.
So while CCS1 is GENERALLY no worse than NACS for plugging and unplugging, it's not within ADA spec for gas pumps at the high-end, which means that it's unacceptable in my opinion. USUALLY good enough isn't good enough, especially as they take more wear over time and wider usage.
"Technology Connections 2053" Chademo: "The charging standard you've never heard of!"
what is Chademo? :P
I agree on a lot of what you said, especially the payment terminal instead of app. Even for Tesla stations available to other brands, you need to use a F... app. A payment terminal would simply be better.
V4 superchargers will have a longer cable, so that will normally solve the "you need the plug on the rear left of your car"
I don't agree with the difference of the size of the plug doesn't matter. It is more different that lightning vs usb-c. NACS plug is simply better on every front and without being the end of the world, CCS1 is just worse and heavier to use...
A lot of 3rd parties have already committed to add NACS to their stations.
There probably needs to be a bigger discussion on the credit card oligopoly and their fees. That's why companies want you to have a prepaid / gift card style system. They don't make money on small amounts.
As Kyle from Out-of-Spec noted, front passenger side is also an option to the port location.
Is saying "right side" too political? The driver sits on this side of the car in many countries.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 England, Australia, and Japan. Wow, so many countries!
@Andrew Ahern There are more, but the number of countries denoted as "many" is hardly the point. British people do the same silly thing, calling it the near and off side even when they actually mean right and left. The point is: The charging port on a Tesla is on the left side. Always. "Left" is a perfectly good word for this.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 "'Left' is a perfectly good word for this" …unless you're facing the car from the front, in which case the port is on the *right* side. That's why we say "driver side." I agree, though, that "driver side" and "passenger side" are also ambiguous terms, as are "near side" and "far side." It would make more sense to use "port" and "starboard" since those terms are unambiguous with regard to orientation.
Just use nautical terminology... port, starboard, bow, and stern. Problem solved/made worse.
The two standards are going to evolve into a gasoline vs diesel scenario. If the Tesla connector is going to become common the easiest way to handle this is not to have the consumer need to cary an adapter, but to have both cable options at each charge point. The power supplies are modular and can have the interface electronics for both in one station and lock out the other cable internally when one is in use. The actual added cost to manufacture is significantly lower than the liability of 'unlicensed' adapters that will likely create a grey market for them from less than scrupulous manufacturers (do we need to point out the obvious?).
to be honest, I don't think that outside of GM and Ford which are primarily us manufacturers That you'll see much adoption of it because for example Kia and Hyundai Will probably just stick with CSS2 because of the fact that NACS does not support any form of Three-Phase fast charging Just because it doesn't have the connectors, which means that it never could, which means that for most of the world it's pretty useless. so it wouldn't make sense for an international manufacturer to adapt the standard that they would then have to completely rework in every other country they sell the car. unless of course, they're a primarily us manufacturer such as Ford or GM
ABB announced they were going to start making NACS chargers
(ABB being an equipment manufacturer, not a network, which explains why I'd never heard of them.)
@@crash.override
Really? It's like the largest industrial robot manufacturer on earth
No matter which way this goes. I really really NEED long distance road tripping to get more reliable on CCS connectors. If it means swapping over to a Tesla style plug I am all for it.
I own an ID.4 and a few times I have had either completely broken stations or I can only get 32KW on long corridors.
My latest 3 hour trip turned into a 9 hour drive because I was left stranded around broken fast chargers (Which showed up in the app) and could only use a 6kw charger to get 80 miles of range for the next charger... The next fast charger that was limited to 32kw... I cannot believe the dismal state of so many fast chargers near the east coast beach in NC.
independent chargers only lose money if someone can't charge. if a tesla charger doesn't work it reflects on the whole company not just a charge provider. so they have a huge incentive to make their chargers be working all the time.
Why do the stations break in the first place?!
@@blockbertus apparently most DCFCs use Windows Embedded instead of an open OS like Linux or Android. I almost got a stranded at a DCFC at a thruway rest stop until a developer from BTC Power remoted into the charger and was able to get it to put out 25kW. I asked him wtf happened that he was able to get it going remotely and he said it was a corrupted library file.
@@stubeusz123 sounds like the authentication / payment side NOT the "charge" side
Speaking of "ports," one nice thing about my '71 Ford Maverick was the fuel connection was in the center rear of the car so I could receive gas from either side of the pump. It was especially handy during the Arab Oil embargo, fuel rationing and long lines at the gas station.
The Pinto also had that "feature." I agree though, a central plug does make sense.
majority of the older vehicles were that way and also hidden behind fold down license plate. I loved pulling up to any open pump and being able to fill up, while everyone else drove in circles, waited or nearly backed into everything trying to reverse to a pump... those times are long gone now and I always have to recall which side the filler is on per vehicle. more stupendous automotive changes.🙄
The Chevrolet Corvette Stingray had a high-volume gas port just in front of its trunk, much like race cars and farm equipment. This disappeared when cars required pumps to have two different throat sizes to isolate leaded from unleaded gasoline.
@@Egilhelmson those were a pain in the rear though, because fuel most always dribbled everywhere getting the hose to and from them. 🤬
My father used to have a Dodge Phoenix. It was a lovely luxurious machine. The rear number plate folded down, with the fuel cap behind.
This was so convenient - especially since the big V8 used a lot of fuel 🥺
I wholly agree with you reasons both in favor and against it and, the aspect that grinds my gears the most is the possibility that you might need to make an account for different charge networks is an immediate red flag for me and I could see it stifling EV adoptions in the eyes of other people (mostly older sadly) who are interested in a EV.
Watch the interviews where GM and Ford announced this. Both said their users would not have to use the Tesla app. Ford and GM are providing the ability to use their apps.
@@danharold3087 I believe they are standing up there OWN payment network on the CAR SIDE like Tesla does it
the AP is for payment network FREE customers so Ioniq I will need to use an AP as my car does NOT have a payment system implemented and the phone AP will do the "work"
@@jasonriddell Not sure what you are saying. What does "the AP is for payment network FREE customers" mean? Was I wrong ?
I believe that it should also be an option to use cash, like a convenience store. I have some older family members who refuse to use credit cards and smartphones because they have lived most of their lives without them.
@@himonstercartoons
You point seems valid up front. But the chances of these technophobes buying an EV are vanishingly small and kind of pointless. If they will not use a smartphone they are not going to spend many thousands on a smartphone on wheels. If they do they will not be able to use it.
ABB and at least two other providers has also now signed on to providing NACS as an option when you buy their stations for your location.
In my opinion, the nice solution for all the cars out there using CCS is to have charging stations have 2 cables for each unit. One NACS and one CCS.
Of course, driving a J1772 only vehicle, I want to see more units installed that have J1772. ;-)
Most to all fast charging stops in Norway (and there are a lot, EVs are 80 percent of new cars and 20 percent of the cars on the road) have all CCS2 chargers and one which is combined CCS2/chademo. I expect it would go the same way in the US.
@@Karreth in Canada FLO and Petro Canada have 2 cable chargers and one of each CCS1 and Chademo
I feel like a lot of the momentum towards NACS and Superchargers may be a little bit misguided. We have this reverence of Superchargers being incredibly reliable, but so far that has only been within the closed walled-garden with a Tesla vehicle. The Magic Dock pilot sites tell me there is actually a LONG way to go for superchargers to be as reliable with non-Tesla vehicles as they are with Telsas.
Superchargers are more plentiful with larger sites, which is a huge boon, but I am not convinced that non-Tesla vehicles won't have the same sort of challenges with Superchargers as they do with current CCS EV networks (e.g., slow handshake times, failed sessions).
Ford and GM signing on are a good sign, but I wouldn't count on any current gen CCS cars working seamlessly in the future either. I remain skeptical that current owners of CCS cars will one day be able to easily and reliably charge on a supercharger, but if it pushes the industry to raise the bar moving forward, I'm all for it.
Tesla superChargers will continue to work well so long as people don't force tesla to degrade them. The answer is to upgrade the cars to work.
My opinion. Magic Dock is a test and won't be going anywhere beyond. Too many added failure points and expense.
@@spazzman90 wrong they made a deal to install 3500 dc fast chargers by the end of 2024 . That is separate from other deals .
Sitting in Denmark / Europe I tend to think "Metric vs Imperial" all over again....
Here Type 2 and CCS are standardized. Also for Teslas. And Thank You for that...
23:00 I appreciate the distinction that there is both a sense of "how things should be done, because it's what I have" and "I really don't want what that other guy is having" in terms of charging experiences.
I'm a little surprised at how readily the benefits of NACS + Plug and Charge are minimized, while simultaneously minimizing the annoyances the CCS plug + Pay at Charger. It's largely not a delta of just one or two things, it's an aggregate of so many things. The example of using a gasoline pump being the baseline, and what the rest of the population will compare their experiences to, still falls on its face compared to the
29:00 the problem of the short dinkie cables has been addressed in the v4 dispenser, it has a much longer cable (from the pictures I estimate 4m)
Now we need an adapter to plug 2 chargers into each other and see what happens!
Your point about payment processing at a charging station. There are not only 3 ways to solve this problem (Tesla versus App versus pay at terminal). There are other options. For example - Include in the communication standard a way to pass payment information from the vehicle to the charging station (not ideal, since this requires charging communication standards change). Or, have a neutral clearing house (think DNS delegation or telephone number portability) where the charging network can send a payment request to the provider of your choosing based on your car's VIN to get payment information. This means as payment systems evolve, you won't have to update all these payment terminals in the field. This would allow the open system you're advocating for without requiring payment processing equipment at every charger, which makes the chargers MUCH more expensive to build, maintain and more prone to breaking down.
Even if a backup option to pay, being app/contactless being the other
Using your car's touchscreen is a great option during inclement weather. And power line comms are easy.
erm.. Tesla uses the first way yu described.. (Plug & Charge; basically the Vehicle sends its VIN to the charging station, and this is used to look up the correct billing info)
I do wonder how rental cars will work with such a system. I guess either disable VIN-based payments for them entirely, or the rental company will tack any charging bills onto your final rental bill.
I saw the title of the video and clicked on it, I didn't even realize it was you until you started speaking. It's nice to see you in a regular environment. We can call these laundry videos, or maybe just "The Wash", because everything comes out in the wash. You work while making the video, and we work while watching it, and everybody's laundry gets done.😂
Interesting here in the UK most ccs chargers do have an option to pay on the charger itself
This largely isn't financially viable in the USA because credit card networks and banks have WAY higher fees than in countries that have functioning governments.
That's because they have to, by law, since 2020 - www.gov.uk/government/news/all-new-rapid-chargepoints-should-offer-card-payment-by-2020
@@robinbennett5994 More junk to break. Also CCS1 CCS2. Apart from 3 phase CCS2 is far less fragile because it puts the clip on the inside.
@@markmuir7338 Um, literally all of our gas pumps have credit card readers and literally every store you go into accepts credit cards. I don't see why a charging station would be different.
@@mattwolf7698 Because the fixed minimum transaction fee is a larger fraction of the cost when charging an EV, since a charging session typically costs less than filling up a car with gasoline. Also, most gas stations in the USA don't make any money from selling gas. They make it up with the convenience store - which many EV charging stations are missing out on.
I really hope that the electric car charging industry “wakes up” and we have debit/credit card terminals on the chargers like with gas pumps. That would be so much better than yet another cumbersome phone app that has access to my bank account.
Yeah because you know what the best thing in the world is? Dealing with broken terminals and skimmers, the former of which I already deal with roughly 50-80% of the time I drive up to an EA charger when there's no Supercharger nearby. Removing the terminal is removing a major point of failure and as previously mentioned a target for skimmers. No, tap and pay does not make it skimmer-proof there are already NFC skimmers out in the wild.
@@antikommunistischaktion It does remova a point of failure, yes. But that also means removing redundancy.
@@antikommunistischaktion so remove the ONLY option for people NOT willing to download another buggy AD with questionable security and link it to my BANK ACCOUNT for ONE charge stop
yay NO on that one
rather use APPLE PAY and use MY existing (relatively) secure payment system and NOT give access to a likely badly written AP
@@toshineon It's not redundancy if the whole thing breaks down if that one thing doesn't work.
@@jasonriddell I would really hope you're not talking about buggy apps with questionable security while using an iPhone. Security firms literally stopped paying for iOS exploits because there are too many of them on the market.
Personally, I much prefer the risk of giving a charging network a one-time token to charge me than risking my card info getting skimmed.
I’ve watched this like 7 times because it’s funny but also interesting, and I JUST noticed the washer/dryer finish tune
That Pioneer shirt FTW
CCS1's death, inferiority of the connector aside, should be looked at more as a failure of the OEMs and charging networks to get their shit together in a reasonable timeframe. It was a failure of execution.
If CCS ports greatly outnumbered NACS ports in north america, there would have been no need to make this video. The bottom line, though, is that while the rest of the industry was talking about doing things, Tesla was actually out doing it (and maintaining it, even!)
You've got that right. I think you can put a lot of the blame squarely on Electrify America, although other network operators aren't innocent.
Yep. A lot of Tesla fans are celebrating this as a victory of the port rather than what it is, which is better infrastructure. A comparison could be drawn to military history fans who undervalue the logistics side of things. The port/tank is what you see and hear about the most, but without the army of technicians it means nothing.
36:20 The music of the washing machine ending its cycle was lovely!
Electrify America was the only app that didn't give me issues for the week that I had my rented Bolt.
There was one that limited charging to 50 kw because it was malfunctioning. Lucky for me, the bolt sucked so hard that it didn't matter and EA didn't charge money for the "slow" charge.
About 2/5 of the way through the video; I can't help but wonder if it would be that hard to make adapters with "translation" chips in them that would allow you to get around the whole different communication standards thing. Given the amount of data that I would assume is passing between the car and the charger it wouldn't need to be that big, power hungry, or expensive of a device and could probably just fit in a handle style adapter just like the one you're holding here
It's hard to make comm/protocol adapters. We're trying and sometimes succeeding, but CCS' PLC/SLAC comms are complex, it's not just signal levels but also timing and data availability restrictions, and the biggest problem I've read about is that Tesla has been actively changing their end of the commms specifically to foil attempts make reliable adapters -- they only want Tesla-approved adapters connected to their equipment. Same scheme that Microsoft 30 years ago with their fight with DR-DOS (later NW-DOS), etc., if you recall that fight.
A more insidious problem is that a station speaking CCS "correctly" (within the standard's specs) can still refuse to charge your EV for billing reasons: it can claim you don't have a valid payment method on file with that station's owner. They can require you to jump through their hoops, load their app, even if your EV and their station both speak CCS well enough to talk.
Just because Ford & GM have reached agreements for their vehicles to use Tesla's charging stations does not imply that anybody else will be able to.
The biggest threat that this creates is that while the current Tesla charger and CCS can be used interchangeably with eachother. Nothing is necessarily stopping Tesla from making a Tesla charge port V2 when they reach a degree of market saturation. That V2 may not necessarily be reverse compatible with the CCS standards, and only work with the Tesla V1. This could cause future performance improvements to be locked behind the car manufacturer charge port choice.
That might not be that big an issue actually, I think it would end up looking like what happened with IBM and the PC, at first everyone used IBMs ISA and when it came time for an upgrade, IBM decided to release their own liscened MSA, which everyone else more or less ignored and proceeded to launch their own industry wide open standard
@@kaboom36 MCA, but point taken. When the SAE ratifies all the bits and bobs of NACS, then everybody except Tesla will implement that, to ensure the largest market. Tesla can change how they talk to cars via their hardware (SCs, Destination Chargers) but won't be able to influence greatly the larger CCS1/NACS ecosystem -- unless their market share doesn't drop, and I don't see that happening, with so much competition coming down the pike.
Someone probably already commented this but I'm not seeing it, but the V4 superchargers have longer cables to support other charge port locations. I'm hoping they will also retrofit some of the older stations too.
In the uk many of the Tesla chargers have ccs connectivity. I think they were obliged to do this. Seems sensible.
Thank EU regulation for that. Otherwise you’d have probably gotten a totally incompatible GB08/15 standard or something. 😅
@@jwag82 A bunch of idiots took us out of Europe. Thank goodness there is some co-operation.
That should read *ALL* currently active superchargers have CCS. Some don't have the Tesla connector, with older Model S/X owners having to use an adaptor
@Steve Scott True. More specifically ... and are available to non Tesla owners.
Thank 3 phase for that. Tesla used Type 2 with shared AC/DC pins on legacy Model S and X and 3 and Y have always been CCS2 as the larger DC pins can handle more current.
28:50 for streets with parking on both sides; installing on-street parking could include a change to 45-degree-angle parking on one side of the street, and adding bike lanes on the far side.
that would still leave out folks with front-end port locations...
I don’t have an EV yet, so I am following how things are going. Diversity and competition is important. Tesla has to open the design to meet the requirements of the infrastructure, which is excellent.
Would it be that expensive or difficult to have a charge port on both sides of the car? I can see why that would be so much nicer.
Fuel fill placement used to be on the rear in the middle of most cars, why not put it there (front or rear). Seems like that would solve a bulk of the issue.
I quite agree with you. Filling with fuel take 5 minutes, so location is not important. Charging take hours, so you need to position the cable so it doesn't stick out into the road or obstructing the pavement.
Especially for big luxury cars, they can afford it.
But no, they won't do it because it makes the car design "less minimalist" , ugly or whatever
Recently I saw a review of a car that has 2 charging/refueling holes on either side for symmetry, but one of them is a fake dud.
And it wasn't a plugin hybrid, those also have 2 ports
Trucks could have it on the front passenger side anyway. That way it works with v3 superchargers, curbside parking, and let’s you pull in without unhitching a trailer
Here in Europe the Leaf stuck with Chademo for an unreasonably long time but even they gave in and switched to CCS a couple of years back.
So yeah. This announcement from a European perspective is strange. It's like 'you guys were so close to having a unified standard and now you're blowing your chance!"
What? The Leaf is still on sale today, and still using Chademo in Europe. Nissan switched for the Ariya, but presumably the thought of suddenly having to have separate lines for CCS combo 1 and combo 2, plus having to re-homologate which would only be worthwhile if they did some other improvements to what they consider a dead-end vehicle they keep trying to discontinue, means they think it’s not worthwhile
@@thenerd6192 sorry, I should have clarified that I meant Nissan in general are now supporting CCS, not the Leaf specifically
@@thenerd6192 The leaf in the EU has Chademo and Type2 connectors, although not the combo (CCS2) connector. Not a huge deal given the leaf's other specs to just have the Type2 part of the combo connector. Can still use ta Type 2 charger on a leaf or a CCS2 car the leaf just loses DC charging if there's no CHAdeMO charger.
17:20 "you know you're doing something wrong when you gotta put a handle on the handle"
Now we just have to convince car manufacturers to go back to using physical buttons instead of touchscreens for everything.
Preach! It should be global law that EV public chargers must automatically detect your car and be able to charge your account without using an app. Worst case you must be able to just tap your contactless payment card and it works.
Re standardising the charge port location. We never even standardised the fuel port location (usually, but not always, at the rear, but no guarantee which side).
Also not sure that Tesla will "open source" their connector. I imagine it's more likely they'll license it to third parties?
Interesting perspective. When I heard Ford and GM's announcement, my first thought was that it was the death of CCS. You (as you always do) provide deep analysis and bring up things I had not considered. I like the plug-and-charge simplicity of Tesla, but you are right, if CCS charging stations had payment mechanisms, it would be more familiar with the current fueling system we have where we pay the pump. I agree with Tesla's concept of putting all the charging ports in the same place. I have long wanted all automakers to put the fuel filler on the driver's side to ease contention at fuel pumps. But what you say about street charging makes a lot of sense. Whatever they choose, it would be very nice to have all charging ports in the same place to make the charging station situation consistent. Given the idea of street parking for charging, having the charge port on the passenger fender just in front of the door makes sense.
Regarding charge port placement; Because we're talking about wiring and switching, how hard would it be to have two different charge ports per vehicle? Some utility trucks have fuel fillers on both sides of the vehicle; I've often thought having charge ports on both the nose and tail would make sense. Better if placed dead center somehow so it wouldn't matter where/how one is parked. Another method could be having one port somewhere on the vehicle be for future automated charging systems, much like every car made after the mid 1990s has an OBD2 diagnostic port usually under the dash near the steering column.
...But what do I know; I also think having an undercar aux swappable battery for extra range too.
@@starrwulfe not hard, just costs more and adds weight... what that means its more expensive for end user. 1 port and if you need, dump an adaptor in the trunk. easier and cheaper... if you need ccs. looks like networks outside of tesla will use nacs going forward. volvo also going nacs... css on life support in na
I wonder how the CCS and NACS DC pin cross sections compare? One thing that did look promising with CCS was just how chunky the pins were, allowing for higher current charging in future.
It is more about the contact area between the plug and socket. We can get more power over the same connector by increasing voltage. Providing the insulation is there to support it. Easily accomplished
@@danharold3087 Unless you want impractically long pins, increasing cross section is the only practical way to do that. Increasing voltage is also not easily accomplished, it often requires redesigning the whole power train, your existing insulation may not be enough to safely avoid dielectric breakdown for example (otherwise we'd be running EV's in the multi kilovolt range already). Not to mention the increased safety risks when maintaining the vehicle, since the higher the voltage, the easier it is to have arcing. Increasing charging current is easier, you only really need to alter the battery, charging system and perhaps update the cooling.
By the spec, the "NACS" can deliver 900 amps at 1000VDC, or 900KW. In practice the largest superchargers currently only provide 250KW. The current CCS spec is for 500 Amps at up to 920 volts, or 460KW, but the largest CCS chargers currently only provide 350KW. The CCS standard is looking to update to 2,000KW but it hasn't been formalized yet. In either case, the main issue is that it takes really huge cables to push that much current. CCS provides for this with actively cooled cables. Tesla claims their cables don't need to be cooled, but the physics suggests otherwise. In either case, the physical plug can handle far more power than other parts of the system for both. As far as I can tell the 1MW limit is the limit of the physical connector for Tesla, where as the CCS DC can handle at least 2MW.
@@johngaltline9933 Yeah, this is what I was thinking regarding CCS being more "future proof". 1MW might seem like overkill now, but with demand for faster charging times, larger battery capacities, and EV's expanding into larger vehicles like vans and trucks, having an extra megawatt or more to play with could be a big advantage. And while increasing battery voltages will help, realistically I think it's going to be harder to do that than increase charging current.
@@Croz89 Several automakers are already using or going to use higher voltage systems. IONIQ 5, Porsche Taycan,etc.
Tesla is supporting the higher voltage cars on V4 of the superCharger.
CCS & CHADEMO is one of the most Jurassic tech in EV industry, period.
Tesla used the Super Charger Network was a mout, but now that electric cars are getting so big they probably realized they have to become the standard before they're further regulated. My understanding is they're starting to make good profits on their chargers so they could also be the gas station replacement of the future which is probably really appealing to them.
Tesla used the Supercharger network *out of necessity* because there wasn't a working, reliable alternative.
.
This point has been proven over the last decade.
.
As for making "good profits". t
They made sufficient to cover costs, with any extra going back into expansion (just as they're doing with factories now).
"g
Gas stations"....
Charging will be a "rounding error" for Tesla.
BUT
Expect them to install Megapacks to counter the "grids going to fail!!!" opinion (rubbish) and leverage the energy stored when the packs are full, but the chargers are quiet, to make an absolute FORTUNE from grid arbitrage.
.
(He's thinking 8 moves ahead of everyone)
Having owned CCS and NACS equipped cars, the NACS plug is far superior to the CCS plug and network. Same even goes with the NACS and the J1772.
The only thing I want is to be able to be able to drive anywhere in the lower 48 without having to plan out my trip in ABRP. If I have to use a NACS adapter every other stop, so be it. If I have to install 5 different apps on my phone, so be it.
I'm currently living out west and some day trips (emphasis on the "day") I want to do don't have enough fast chargers on the route, so I would have to wait at a slow charger, get a hotel room and charge from the wall, or not do it since it's "impossible".
I personally like the RFID cards. They are usually way faster than credit cards, don't have an insane authorization hold (EA holds $50 per charge even though I have never been above $16...on a road trip with 5 or 6 charge stops, that's a lot of money you don't have access to for up to a week), and work when your phone is dead or has no signal. I would like if they were still available but I think plug&charge and credit cards should be too...I would also like to see more charge stations with stores where you could pay cash like you can for gas.
The big problem with RFID cards is that each network has it's own card. If you don't have the right card, you can't charge. The EU has the right idea with laws requiring a contactless payment option. It's how we pay for everything else, there's no need to invent a new system just for car charging.
You're right that a $50 hold is bad though, and multiple holds on the same day is even worse.
The VISAs and Mastercards nowdays have an RFID chip...
No reason Credit Cards can't do exactly the same, the hold amount though is something Tesla doesn't have to worry about, they can just brick your Tesla if you don't pay :p Credit cards can be instant (they have RFID) and they can process charges without an internet connection, although for risk reasons (eg, you are overdrawn/over limit/card was just stolen) that is often turned off.
I'm not saying they should be required, I just like the option. Most networks offer them free and it's kinda nice to just have them preloaded. In my experience, they take seconds while CC can take thirty to a full minute (maybe everyone is just using shitty card readers, idk). Having one for everything would be nice but I don't mind having one for each network when they just sit in a little holder in my car anyway. Hopefully more chargers will have plug&charge soon and they won't be as necessary. I used it on an EVgo charger a few times, it is nice and convenient but definitely should be one of several options.
@@freeculture It still functions the same as swiping your credit card, taking the same amount of time as opposed to tapping a dedicated rfid that just quickly confirms your identity to the network.
This is an excellent summary and obviously correct with the perspective from Europe. We have CCS2 everywhere including Tesla chargers and the connector just works - non Tesla chargers are nothing like as reliable or simple to use, but I can use both as some Tesla superchargers (and many destination chargers) in the UK are open to non-Teslas. So I just drive up in my MG4 (Chinese made EV that is far cheaper and better built than a Tesla), plug in, open the Tesla app and start a charge.
What makes this works is one standard everywhere, not the specific connector design. NACS would be useless in Europe as 3 phase power and chargers are everywhere and it doesn't have enough pins. Yes it is a neat and clever design but only suitable for specific markets because it wasn't designed to be a global solution.
Teslas are a technological masterpiece but one that locks you into their idiosyncratic world of no local dealers, almost no buttons, screen outside your eyeline, no Android Auto / Apple CarPlay, updates that take away as well as add features, very few options and almost no choice of different vehicle types, and whose basic exterior and interior design hasn't been updated in years.
Makes sense if you are trying to scale to 20 million cars a year but much less sense for the average consumer. We're seeing what the Chinese are bringing in Europe and it is going to cause problems for everyone, including Tesla.
Plug to charge would be a fine method for universal payment if they just implemented it right. Just stick a standard tap-to-pay system in the connector. Let it work like the chip in your phone, and if your car doesn't have that chip, tap your phone on the connector.
AKA "Point of potential failure".
A "tao to pay" system is designed of immediate (instant) payment, not an open channel during a 30 minute change session.
.
Do you want that open to hacking while you charge?
Unless you're suggesting that it's simply a "handshake"?
But the VEHICLE can do that through the charge port.
.
Think it through.
Everyone's worried about "security" while suggesting methods that reduce security, no doubt because they thing "bad Tesla (?)" will steal all their money? Or personal details?
.
Meanwhile, they DO "implement it right"
It's the other system which don't (and fail because of That)
As an engineer I'm annoyed for design reasons. Like nearly everything Tesla does it lacks any form of redundancy or ruggedness. The design philosophy is more like a phone than a safety-critical vehicle system.
The fact that the low-power AC conductors and the high-power DC conductors SHARE PINS is concerning AF. It's one circuit malfunction away from the AC pins becoming LIVE at pack voltage...or from exposing the battery directly to mains AC!
The thinner conductors require more cooling and are far less efficient, the ground return is higher resistance, the communication pins are considerably more fragile.
And having two more automakers join one's proprietary standard moves us FURTHER from a single common standard instead of closer.
Pull through Tesla stalls have been a thing for years in Norway, probably du to the amount of people pulling a trailer here.
They are a pain to use for non Tesla cars though as you say due to the short cable and different port placements.
There has also been at least one pull through stall at new super chargers for about 18 months.
I've had to use CCS1 a few times and it was awful in all cases. The cable/connector was heavy enough that the connector was leaning away from the car's socket at the top, which makes it hard to securely seat. The angle of the cord was awkward, it was too bulky and heavy, you had to line it up perfectly both in angle and rotation, and the pedestal was not exactly user-friendly. It was neither plug to charge nor did it have a credit card reader. Definitely felt like Design By Committee. And about half the pedestals were broken. No way in heck would my mom be able to use one.
Dude! It's a huge difference! So many improvements.
This was a real bummer to see especially after watching aging Wheels put a J1774 connector onto his lawn tractor so he could charge it from his car charger or a 110 outlet. I was really looking forward to being able to do that myself with my tractor
J1772 will still be around for many years. There are J1772 chargers everywhere.
@@sebastienlemay6120 Honestly I got excited by the idea of using a j1772 on a lawn tractor because it would reduce the number of chargers I would need, and create a charging center.
@@sebastienlemay6120 the NACS will be able to do the same thing as it is J1772 COMMUNICATIONS comparable and the tesla to J1772 adaptor would work
That t-shirt brings back so many memories.
With the EU pushing for improvements to CCS, I think we all just have to hope that into the 2030s we just maintain a nice, healthy 2.5 standards (and us Leaf owners will queue for the single working unit that serves Chademo, because Zapmap says there isn't another one for 100 miles so this is literally our only option). Interoperability between CCS and NACS is surely plenty. Nobody needs a new, Super-Super-Supercharging standard that can deliver 1MW charging speeds or whatever.
Many homes in Europe have 3 phase AC installed and can thus charge much faster than NA single phase charging. CCS2 is here to stay ... in Europe.
I wonder what the anticompetitive or antitrust implications are of the major US EVs landing on the same charger standard. As you pointed out, the timing is ... odd. 🤨
The federal government was the one pushing for one standard
Your analysis is spot on. No question the NACS is marginally better than J-1772/CCS in some ways but it's depressing how many articles are using the "format war" VHS/Beta metaphor. Same goes for the "Tesla is seamless" argument, as if the connector was the reason for that seamlessness, and not the fact that in Tesla's case the same company made the car, owns the charger, and handles the billing. You expect this kind of thing from the Tesla-stans, but to get it from supposedly objective and knowledgeable sources shows how poorly understand the issue is by many of the folks you'd think would know better.
8:30 Europe here, it´s a subset of ISO_15118 and you are right is over-complicated, but it´s the price you pay for having the same standard for the whole continent (included cryptography). it runs as a powerline modulation on the ContolPilot line.
A couple of points...
1) That Tesla/J1772 adapter you are using as your example is only for slow charging technologies. A J1772 connector is not the same as a CCS connector. CCS is basically an expansion of the J1772 slow charging standard to add fast charging capability to it. If slow charging was good enough for all use cases Tesla would have just stuck to the existing J1772 standard (they used it on the original Roadster) and never bothered with their own connector. However, neither the J1772 hardware nor the protocol support DC fast charging. The hardware pins are too small to move enough current and the protocol doesn't include the messages needed for the much more complex fast charging process. You really need to be comparing the Tesla connector to the CCS connector which is about 3 times the size and far less elegant.
2) The only reason Tesla's connector was ever considered "proprietary" is because the rest of the industry wanted to pretend Tesla didn't exist and so they designed CCS by committee (a good way to ensure a poor design in my experience) AFTER Tesla had created a fast charging connector/protocol. There was no existing DC fast charging standard when Tesla created what is now NACS. Tesla invited anyone to use the standard and/or help build out the infrastructure, but again, the legacy players just ignored it all (until now).
The history basically goes like this...
1) J1772 standard existed first, but was only appropriate for slow home/destination charging. It was never intended to support fast charging and would never be physically capable of supporting fast charging.
2) Tesla needed a fast charging standard, so they designed/built a connector/protocol that could support both slow and fast charging. They publicly invited anyone else to use it on many occasions.
3) Industry ignores Tesla's connector, creates multiple other incompatible "standards" (CCS1, CCS2, and ChAdEMOeWTf).
4) Since the CCS connector design(s) add more pins on to the original J1772 slow charging design, people act like CCS has been around as long as J1772 and is therefore "first" and "the standard." However, CCS came AFTER the Tesla/NACS connector. Also, the CCS design approach of layering more pins/protocols on top of the already mediocre J1772 slow charging standard results in a inelegant design with a lot of baggage.
The industry should have just swallowed their pride (like they are being forced to do now) and embraced the Tesla connector from day one. None of them were even thinking about building any long range EVs when this was first playing out and yet they felt the need to come up with a "standard" for their EVs that didn't even exist yet. Meanwhile, Tesla was already building out Superchargers and selling the Model S. Europe and Asia will forever be stuck with their overly complex connectors, but I'm glad North America (and possibly South America) seem on track to end up with the NACS standard. I believe CCS is dead in the NA market and that is fine. Cars don't drive across large oceans very often anyway.
I don't drive an EV (yet) but yes, the idea of having a separate app to get gasoline sounds like hell. If my card doesn't work, I have another card. If none of my cards work, I can (hopefully) use cash. If an app doesn't work or doesn't work well, it will really make accessibility a problem. If several apps are needed, the problem multiplies.
I wanted NACS to win, but it seemed like something that would require a nat 20 (or nat 1, depending on how you feel about it) to happen. It was not on my 2023 EV bingo card.