More On Tesla’s Addition Of CCS Combo In Europe, Plus In-Depth Video

NOV 21 2018 BY EVANNEX 55

TESLA’S EUROPEAN VERSION OF MODEL 3 WILL HAVE A CCS COMBO 2 CHARGING PLUG

As long-time Tesla fans know, the company developed its own DC fast charging standard, and its own proprietary plug, because it couldn’t wait for the legacy automakers to agree on a standard. This is only one of many ways in which the Seers of Silicon Valley have broken away from the pack of car companies and chosen to do things their own way.

*This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Charles Morris. The opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs.

Above: Tesla Model 3 will now be able to gain access to fast-charging CCS Combo 3 charge ports like those from Ionity (Image: Ionity)

So, some were shocked to hear that the European version of Model 3 is going to have the same charging plug used by ordinary EVs. But it’s true, and it makes perfect sense. The company has confirmed that Model 3 vehicles sold in the European market will come with a CCS Combo 2 charge port. An adapter for Models S and Model X is in the works.

Fast charging stations are cropping up all over Europe. Ionity, a joint venture of several automakers, aims to install some 400 highway charging stations all over Europe by 2020. Of course, Tesla drivers can use such third-party networks in addition to Tesla’s own Supercharger network, but at the moment this requires an expensive CHAdeMO adapter, which has some drawbacks and isn’t yet compatible with Model 3.

Above: Bjørn Nyland discusses the latest charging news from Tesla (Youtube: Bjørn Nyland)

Now Tesla will eliminate the issue by giving Model 3 a standard CCS port and retrofitting European Supercharger stations with dual cables, so that they can charge Teslas equipped with either CCS or the Type 2 Mennekes connector now used by European Tesla vehicles.

“In advance of Model 3 rollout in Europe, we will be retrofitting our existing Superchargers with dual charge cables to enable Model 3 which will come with a CCS Combo 2 charge port, to use the Tesla Supercharger network,” a Tesla spokesperson told Electrek. “Model S and Model X customers will continue to have full access to the network and a CCS Combo 2 adapter will soon be available to purchase, if desired.”

===

Written by: Charles Morris; This article originally appeared in Charged; Source: Electrek

*Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers, free of charge. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX. Check out the site here.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

55 Comments on "More On Tesla’s Addition Of CCS Combo In Europe, Plus In-Depth Video"

newest oldest most voted

This is very interesting. I really hope Tesla will develop and sell a CCS adapter for US Model 3s. I had heard previously it was not possible to have a CCS to Tesla adapter but this news makes it seem likely. With EA building out its network quickly an adapter will make long distance travel in my Model 3 even more convenient.

I agree more convenience is needed as oil prices will continue to stay low and possibly go lower in 2019. Many Americans will continue to drive gas guzzlers because gas is cheap. Tesla has to keep fighting big oil.

You can already buy a CCS Type 1 to CCS Type 2 adapters. With enough adapters you should be able to get there.

The Supercharger plug is much more similar to the CCS plug in Europe than in the US. That doesn’t mean an adapter is impossible, just that it is a different challenge.

The physical layout of the plug seems pretty irrelevant to the complexity of the adapter…

This article brought us nothing we didn’t know already, apart from a nice bit of EV rascism. “Ordinary EV’s”. For gods sake. This website is quickly moving towards the electrek.co model.

It remains a masterful move by Tesla, their unique selling point, a continentwide charging network, was always going to be a temporary one. But with this move they have the advantage again and every Ionity station built with money from Daimler, VAG and BMW is an extra station Teslas can use.

The story was not written by this website. It was shared by EVANNEX. We share one story from them every day. We do not follow an Electrek.co model since we don’t/can’t own or push Tesla stock, and we don’t own Tesla vehicles or promote referral codes to customers. This share included Bjorn Nyland’s video, which we didn’t publish before. Nyland’s videos do very well on this site. Please note that we also title each EVANNEX story accordingly, so that people are aware of where the content is coming from, and we also include a few disclaimers on the articles. *This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Charles Morris. The opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs. *Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers, free of charge. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX. Check out the site here. In addition, nearly all EVANNEX content actually comes from another primary source, such as CleanTechnica, Charged, etc. If you aren’t interested in reading the EVANNEX content, you don’t have to. Fortunately, we publish… Read more »

Sorry Steven, I overreacted, but I’m getting allergic to Evannex articles, especially because the tone is on purpose polarising and, in my humble opinion, does not help the cause. Just imagine being someone who’s trying to read themselves into the EV world for orientation. I’m not a big poster on comments, but I’ve been following plenty of websites including InsideEVs for a long time. And over time the atmosphere has gotten quite a bit more acidic in an us vs them attitude. You must see that as well. Anyway I’ll try to contain myself and not add to the acid if I can help it.

I very much see that and have spoken to it on many occasions, sometimes in the comments and other times in articles or on social media. It saddens me that we’re not all on the same team. No worries on the reaction. You’re entitled to your opinion, and we don’t attempt to stifle. While we make no money directly from EVANNEX for sharing an article every day, I’ll be honest to say (and have admitted before) that the articles do extremely well in terms of Google traffic and content partner sharing, etc. For this reason, running one every day is something that helps to keep us afloat financially, and allows us a lot more wiggle room to be able to run much less popular content like charging information, non-Tesla vehicle and overseas coverage, etc etc. We are lucky to be able to cover obscure vehicles and topics that don’t often make their way onto other competing websites. We can cover something that is really only popular among a very niche group, and we can get away with is because we cover other news that we know will draw traffic in. It’s a very difficult and delicate balancing act. Thanks for… Read more »

That’s interesting… I wonder what makes them do so well in terms of Google traffic?…

Tesla-positive, lengthier articles with several nice pictures and a related video. Linkbacks to multiple related sources in the segment. A single article will often cite InsideEVs, Electrek, and CleanTechnica. People stay on them for a while since they’re longer and it seems they visit all the various source links to get the full story from different sides, etc. They are especially popular with the Flipboard crowd and the weekend visitors. It’s impossible to know for sure, but they seem to appeal to people that are just beginning to take interest in Tesla and EVs in general, rather than the hardcore, educated EV crowd that exists in our comment base (i.e. our direct audience versus an organic search-engine and social media based audience).

Regular (daily) insideevs reader here. And i really appreciate the amount and quality of EV news on insideevs.
However, while Evannex articles are made up pretty nicely (which matches the Google rating), there is an increasing annoyance factor. I’m Tesla-positive, i’m currently waiting for my M3 LR Dual. However, the Evannex narrative of Tesla being the only holy kick-ass automaker reduces the quality perception of insideevs – then being “just another Tesla fanboy blog”. Which makes it harder to spread and share news, because then i’m just the Tesla fanboy news guy. It’s basically the same as with Tesla short seller news, but the other direction
I’d prefer quality (or at least balanced news) over content and visitor volume. However, if you need support doing so, let us know. The (not only but also Tesla) EV community is big.

And while we could definitely devote more time to writing long-winded Tesla pieces with a bunch of pictures and a video that may appeal more to the masses, it doesn’t lend itself to getting breaking news out quickly. We have a few more occasional writers who don’t have a large workload and instead cover longer, more intensive feature pieces. However, our regular daily skeleton crew is laser-focused on getting out current stories and keeping it more concise and less “feature” based.

EVANNEX really comes with a certain cringe factor. They just try to hard.

Very well put eject! I also look at the potential for knowledge to be had before opening evannex articles due to this “cringe factor”. An identical headline from insideeves staff are far more likely to be opened and read.

And thank you Steven Loveday for your candor on this subject.

Actually, most of the time the headlines themselves are already very different from InsideEVs’ own ones… I usually recognise them even before seeing the EVANNEX tag.

(Not his time, though.)

Well, depends on who has written the article, and what source it’s based on… I agree though that *most* of them are kinda cringy.

any possibility to tag Evannex articles so it would be possible to not accidentally open them from RSS feeds?

Hmm … I can look into it.

Just for counter-point, I like Evennex articles. I understand the bias, but find them well written and informative. Keep them coming. There is also a lot of bias pro and con in most media these days, so if you are going to complain, there is a lot more to complain about.

I agree that they tend to be quite well-written. As to informative… Most of them just rehash news that have already been covered by other InsideEVs articles, or have little actual information at all, rather just celebrating Tesla… Occasionally there are notable exceptions, though 🙂

GO TESLA GO DESTROY DIRTY GAS GUZZLERS AND DIESELS CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP EARTHLINGS CO2.EARTH

How long until Tesla completely abandons their proprietary charging standard? It sounds like they are headed that way. How long before the Tesla Supercharger network is abandoned or absorbed by another company?

I don’t think the SuperCharger network should be abandoned but I think getting everyone on CCS sooner would be a boon for EVs. The CCS standard will continue to go to higher power and I think Tesla would enjoy not having to maintain a proprietary standard.

Not sure passenger EVs will actually go to higher power levels than the currently specified 350 kW… Especially since increasing the power level while keeping the current plug would require even higher voltages, which doesn’t seem likely for passenger EVs.

They already have done that. They call it supercharger v3.

That’s just speculation at this point…

(I’m assuming you are only talking about the standard here, not about abandoning their own network altogether.)

Although I prefer standardization. Tesla’s plug is smaller, it looks and feels much better than any other plugs

Whether or not you like Tesla you have to admit that their willingness to drop their proprietary port in favor of an industry standard is pretty nice. Too many examples of big companies being unwilling to drop their proprietary standards until long after it became obvious that the benefits weren’t helping consumers.

Now lets see how long Nissan’s standard will last. It reminds me of IBM’s insistence on proprietary PC expansion slots, which is probably one reason IBM doesn’t have a PC business anymore.

And as I have said more than once before, Nissan’s Leaf and eNV200 could reasonably easily expand the existing AC Plug into CCS, alongside the CHAdeMO Plug (sorry: “Socket”) on their vehicles, to give buyers charging Choice!

For example, the former Volts needed Premium Fuel, and now Regular works just fine, but owners “Could” still choose to use Premium, if they wanted to!

Tesla was forced to use the Type 2 Mennekes port by EU regulators. It was less a question of their willingness to drop their proprietary charger, and more a question of their willingness to sell EVs in the EU.

And IBM is basically the worst computer company to criticize for proprietary standards. The reason why nearly everyone uses “IBM-compatible” PCs today is because unlike the other computer manufacturers, IBM’s architecture was open, leading to the “IBM-clone” PC market of the 80s and 90s. Virtually every desktop personal computer on the market today – even the Macs! – are technically “IBM-clones.”

Oh come off it. They weren’t forced. They could have made their own socket and plug or they could have used their US plug and just stuck with single phase AC charging.
There neither was nor is a legal obligation to use the Type2 socket on a car nor to offer a Type2 plug on a non public charging station.
They did it because it made sense for the customers.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0094

DIRECTIVE 2014/94/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 22 October 2014
on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure
[…]

ANNEX II
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

1. Technical specifications for recharging points
1.1.
Normal power recharging points for motor vehicles

Alternating current (AC) normal power recharging points for electric vehicles shall be equipped, for interoperability purposes, at least with socket outlets or vehicle connectors of Type 2 as described in standard EN 62196-2. While maintaining the Type 2 compatibility, those socket outlets may be equipped with features such as mechanical shutters.

As I said, EU regulation. (And before you claim that the SC network “isn’t public,” it is exactly as public as any other privately-owned charging network. To claim that Tesla’s network is not subject to this regulation is to claim that the regulation does not apply to any privately-owned charging network, and only applies to municipal chargers. That is absurd.)

I’m not sure why you would think that Tesla did it because “it made sense for the customers.” Wouldn’t Tesla believe that their own proprietary connector is best for their customers? I mean, that’s what they choose when not subject to regulations.

The bit you cited at least is irrelevant: Tesla *always* used the Type 2 plug for AC charging in Europe. The CCS Frankenplug vs. Tesla’s Type 2 DC variant is an entirely different story…

Where does this say that you have to use a Type2 connector on the car?

Also this doesn’t have anything todo with DC fast charging. However, most supercharging stations that Tesla build in Europe are indeed complicated in the owner structure since Tesla didn’t buy the ground they are build on. All the ones I have seen so far are simply parking spaces belonging to someone else. This actually causes some frustration for Tesla drivers since those chargers are used as parking spots by everyone else. But if you do own the property it clearly isn’t public. The charging station I have at my home isn’t public.

“Wouldn’t Tesla believe that their own proprietary connector is best for their customers?”
No, because that one doesn’t support 3 phase AC.

He is probably talking about the “microchannel” bus that IBM was trying to establish in their incompatible PS/2 architecture later, after their original open PC architecture was cloned into oblivion…

IBM doesn’t have a PC business any more, because they weren’t interested in competing in low-margin commodity products. Their notebooks were doing excellent in terms of reputation and pretty well in terms of sales before they decided to sell them off to the Chinese…

Of course the market share was tiny compared to the 100% they had initially — but that plummeted already a couple of years after introducing the original PC, *before* they tried to establish a proprietary architecture as a *reaction* to that competition. The openness sealed the original architecture’s success, but also IBM’s limited ability to cash out on it.

Not sure any of that is particularly relevant to Tesla’s charging port standard…

Regarding CHAdeMO, it’s rather disingenuous to call it “Nissan’s standard”: it wasn’t invented by Nissan alone, nor was it ever exclusive to them. It existed and was in use years before the SAE decided they don’t like it, and created the competing CCS instead, with rather flimsy justification. (Some believe it was a purely political decision, to get one over on Nissan…)

Either way, CHAdeMO is going to last — just not in the markets dominated by the CCS conspirators err I mean supporters 😉

About Model 3 chargers. Went to Rotterdam last Saturday to see the Model 3 in person. My most important question: will it have a 3-phase charger? Answer: yes.

Good.

I think this is a smart move for Tesla. This standard was not available when Tesla started rolling out their Superchargers and they could not wait for it. I really like the European version of the CCS because of the 3-Phase AC capability and I think it has been a mistake not to have that in North America too. 3-Phase is almost non-existent in residential housing in NA, but is very common in businesses and even in larger apartment buildings and condos. Level 2 3-Phase is the cheapest method to get a decently high charge rate, perfect for charging while shopping at a mall or for destination chargers. It’s compatible with single phase as well.

The industry here, seems to disagree with you. Tesla, if you haven’t noticed, is going in the opposite direction as far as home / destination charging is concerned, as the LATEST most expensive model “X” will only charge at 48 amperes in North America.

I mentioned this on the supercharger v3 article and immediately the great brain said i was all wet. I told him to look at the Tesla.com accessory page and see the charging limitations for their wall connector.

As I say, the initial single-phase only Roadster 10 years ago was 70 amperes, but the current tesla 10 years later is only 48 – so its tending to need polyphase much less than it ever did.

Small Polyphase installations in the states are becoming less common than historically, since they’re not worth the bother unless the volume of electricity sales is there as more and more equipment runs just fine on 1-ph and phase converters are cheaper than ever.

Rather off-topic: but what is your stance on the idea that in the future, electricity distribution might switch to DC?…

When I first heard someone suggesting that, I though they were nuts — but thinking more about it, it seems to make sense: most consumers either don’t care either way (heaters etc.), or actually prefer DC (electronics, battery chargers, inverter motors); while the original reason why AC won for distribution (transformers), seems to be going away with the spread of cheap efficient DC converters…

It should be noted that Tesla have also confirmed the CCS port will be on AU/NZ Model 3’s as well.

Correct!

https://insideevs.com/tesla-australia-ccs-chargers-support-model-3/

And, the Australia story is linked in the related news right at the top of this article as well.

I think this is a very smart move by Tesla. Suddenly they have a lot of extra charging options, which they may need due to very high model 3 sales, when it arrives in Europe in 2019.

Now we need a universal payment option, and also the option to pay with a debit/credit card.

With the high power ionity chargers. . I would not be surpriced if Tesla release a software upgrade that may increase the charging speed a bit.

In terms of getting extra charging options, just offering the adapter should have done the trick… So clearly there is more to it.

Regarding payment options, the trend is clearly towards the Tesla solution: the charger just automatically bills the account associated with the vehicle, without any explicit user interaction whatsoever. Newer CCS standards offer that option, and VW for example has stated that they want to support it in a year or so IIRC.

Should add that Tesla will surely use that approach from the get-go for any CCS chargers that support it already, including their own upgraded Superchargers…

Why can’t Tesla have a Chamo port on the car too next to the CSS port so that you can charge at a Supercharger and a Chamo and a CSS port and not have to worry about which station your at?

Too much space needed, and extra costs for something most people won’t really need. Just use the adapter.

Any chance Tesla will open up its Superchargers with CCS cables to non-Tesla vehicles (for a price)? Seems like this is one step closer to that possibility.

They said that they have talked to many car makers, but nothing has came of it thus far…

Tesla has made it rather clear that they want other car makers to contribute to the capital investments, rather than trying to recover the costs from individual users. (Presumably because optimising build-out for maximal revenue doesn’t tend to provide the best user experience…)

Yes, I know they’ve tried to get others involved in the past, but now other automakers down’t have to change their charge ports. So this seems like an easier deal for them now.

There was a rumor about Jaguar in talks, maybe something can be worked out given the I-Pace uses CCS.

I hope this means a CCS adapter or port is on the way for the US too. Regardless, this is great news and makes a lot of sense given they were using the Type 2 port anyways for Europe, so adding the CCS pins is relatively easy.