Tesla Joins CCS-Based CharIN Association

2 years ago by Eric Loveday 203

Tesla Model S At Supercharger

Tesla Model S At Supercharger

Up until recently, Tesla Motors had shown no interest in the CCS-focused CharIN Association, but that notion has changed at the end of March, when CharIN announced that Tesla had recently come onboard.

The announcement, reads:

“CharIN e. V. is happy to announce that Tesla Motors Inc. has been granted core membership in the association on 24th of February 2016.”

Making It Official!

Making It Official!

Word of this news came to us via InsideEVs contributor Tom Moloughney, who explains:

“I was just told something interesting from a contact I have. I’m guessing you guys have heard of the CharIN Association by now. They are basically a group of European Automakers that got together to work on what will eventually be considered (officially) Level 3 charging based on CCS. They have been working on 150kW CCS DC Fast charge for a few years now and experimenting on speeds up to 300kW.”

“…about a month ago Tesla quietly asked if they can become a “Core Member”. Now, I’m certainly not suggesting Tesla is going to switch to CCS, but this is very interesting.”

Indeed it is. This development comes as CharIN finished work on 150 kW CCS and moved towards developing 300 kW units. The first experimental 150 kW units will be installed soon in California for testing purposes.

The Combined Charging System - CharIN working structure

The Combined Charging System – CharIN working structure

CharIN initially invited all the automakers to join, but only BMW, Audi, VW, Porsche, Daimler, Ford, & General Motors agreed to participate in the program and to support it financially.

The entire focus for CharIN is CCS. There’s no mention of any other charging standard on the CharIN site.

We believe that Tesla’s involvement indicates that the automaker is at least interested in CCS and may quite possibly be thinking of making a CCS connector, similar to the CHAdeMO one featured below.

Kman's Tesla Model S CHAdeMO charging adapter.

Kman’s Tesla Model S CHAdeMO charging adapter.

Why do you think Tesla signed on with CharIN?

Hat tip to Tom Moloughney!

Tags: , , , ,

203 responses to "Tesla Joins CCS-Based CharIN Association"

  1. Alaa says:

    300kw is going to make the charge time half what it is now!

    1. Big Solar says:

      seems like overkill to me.

      1. R.S says:

        Why? The faster the better. You need less charging bays for the same daily demand, it makes the whole station cheaper.

        1. Bonaire says:

          Faster is better has a limit in realistic needs of the population.

          “Why do you think Tesla signed on with CharIN?”

          To support a future adapter such that Tesla cars can use non-Tesla stations but have fast charging times. It allows them to perform a few less supercharger installs.

          1. R.S says:

            I bet those needs would not be over fulfilled with 10 minute charging for 50kWh, or 20 minutes for 100kWh. And those figures would be the maximum, since most charge rates start to taper.

            Most people are so conservative, once they get used to something, they can’t believe it could be different, that applies to most ICE owners AND a good portion of EV owners, which can’t believe you could charge faster than slow.

        2. Nick says:

          fewer*

      2. evcarnut says:

        Captain ! I’m giving ‘er all she’s got! She’s gonna blow ! I tell ya!

          1. scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!) says:

            Scotty could not change the laws of physics, but Kirk could, and did on several occasions.

            1. Bonaire says:

              Yes, yes he did. As an actor in a screenplay-written sci-fi show, the laws of physics that we all share are easily rewritten. Also, don’t wear a red shirt when landing on a new planet.

              1. TomArt says:

                Don’t forget to pack your Heisenberg Compensators!

      3. scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!) says:

        “seems like overkill to me.”

        It takes 5 minutes to gas up a car. We are trying to replace cars.

        Its underkill.

        1. Peter says:

          Exactly. THE biggest argument people use to stay with ICE instead BEV is probably that BEV’s takes too long to recharge, if you are going to drive a long distance and have to charge 1, 2 or multiple times on the way.
          If BEV’s can be recharged as fast as ICE cars can be refueled and go the same distance between recharging/refuelling then one of the major barriers to large scale adoption of BEV’s has gone.

        2. Loboc says:

          Do a lot of people really ‘see the USA in their Chevrolet’ any more? Maybe in their AA Jet.

          A bigger entry hit is the cost of the car vs the size of car one can get in an EV form-factor. There just are not enough different models out there yet at a median price point.

          The massive deposit volume for Model ☰ shows that the market is there if the car is available.

        3. Someone out there says:

          If the battery is big enough charging speed doesn’t matter that much. If you are doing a whole day of driving and you have to stop twice a day for 30-40 minutes to charge your car, that is OK. Having to stop 10 times per day to recharge is not OK. With about 300-350 miles of range we should be fine, i.e. 100-130 kWh batteries. We’re not that far off.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Charging speed most definitely matters, if you want to charge your future 130 kWh EV in the same amount of time it now takes a Leaf owner to charge his car.

            It’s certainly appropriate to say that 150 kW is “overkill” when charging today’s non-Tesla EVs. But 200+ mile EVs are already approaching production, and it won’t be long until we start seeing non-Tesla EVs designed to be charged that fast — and eventually faster.

            Competition will inevitably drive EV charge times down to the region of 5-10 minutes. Nothing is going to stop that from happening, sooner or later. It won’t be many years before 150 kW looks hopelessly inadequate.

        4. Paul says:

          It doesn’t take 5 minutes to fill up a gas car. That’s what we think, but that’s just the fuelling. But there’s a car before you, someone in front you in the line at the pay desk and you go to the toilet. That’s nearly 10 minutes together.

          Fast charging from empty is 25 minutes, more often 20 minutes because you’re not empty. So that’s twice as long, pee included, and not 4 times. And that’s when you are traveling.

          In your daily life you charge at home or in the street, at night, and lose no time at all. But your neighbour still wastes his time at the gas station now and then.

          1. Klaus says:

            “It doesn’t take 5 minutes to fill up a gas car. That’s what we think, but that’s just the fuelling.” – It was less than that for me earlier today and usually is.

            “Fast charging from empty is 25 minutes, more often 20 minutes because you’re not empty. So that’s twice as long, pee included, and not 4 times. And that’s
            when you are traveling.”

            A best case scenario to be sure. My gas fill up today was 4 minutes. My level 3 charge to get less range than the gas added was 30 minutes. 10x difference.

            “In your daily life you charge at home or in the street, at night, and lose no time at all. ” – And I also do have to charge away from home on a semi-regular basis -approx once a week. Again, much more time spent charging than with gas vehicle buying gas.

            Just pointing out user experiences and needs vary widely. I know quite a few prius owners who have not gone electric yet due to charge times and their commute/travel needs. Even faster charging is needed for mass adoption.

            1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

              But, you should also not ignore the behavioural change when using an EV compared to an ICE.

              Of course when driving an ICE, when you have already taken the detour to the gas station (or at least decided to do the actual tanking stop), you want to take advantage of this and will of course always do a full gas refill.
              There is no case to save 1-2 minutes by not filling up to 100% – that just shortens the time to your next gas station visit!

              When driving an EV on the other hand, you typically fill up the battery at your *destination*, and not along the route – unless you *have to* of course. So what we see in a more mature EV market like Norway, is that people on fast chargers along the road only charge the batteries as much as they need to reach their destinations – or as long as their restaurant and rest room visits require.

              Therefore it is simply a faulty assumption to apply the behaviour pattern of ICE driving onto BEV driving.

              1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

                ….forgot to mention:
                – this info comes from a Fortum interview (the largest charging operator)
                – Fortum also states that their market research also suggest that people are not really concerned about the range of their EV’s, but more of having to wait in line at cahrging stations. Therefore Fortum has quit building charging stations without multiple parallell chargers.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Knut Erik Ballestad said:

                  “Fortum also states that their market research also suggest that people are not really concerned about the range of their EV’s…”

                  Pretending BEV range anxiety doesn’t exist is a head-in-the-sand attitude, and isn’t helpful in any way. Range anxiety needs to be addressed, not ignored.

                  1. Tony Williams says:

                    I agree completely. We have had the “old school” EV pioneers tell people that we don’t even need public charging… just a 40 mile range car, because that’s all people drive on average.

                    Of course, the “old school” folks also thought (think) that everybody lives in a single family detached home with a garage that has ample electricity (just like them).

                    Thankfully, folks like Elon Musk ignore the “experts”, and demanded long(er) range vehicles with very capable and intelligent installed fast charging.

                    So, the old school folks can still charge up overnight in their garages, and just drive 40 miles per day (and no more), and the rest of civilization can drive wherever they want, without oil or fossil fuels, and without handicap or reliance on fossil fuel cars for “real” travel.

                2. GSP says:

                  Thanks Knut Erik for the informative posts.

                  I am glad to see charge station operators are following Tesla’s lead by installing multiple fast chargers at each location. This is exactly what is needed: a dependable charging network, with no wait to start charging.

                  GSP

          2. Spider-Dan says:

            A standard gas pump can refuel a gallon every ten seconds, so the math is pretty straightforward. And the days of walking to the cashier to stand in line, pay cash, and use the bathroom are long gone… you can pay at the pump with a card in about 15 seconds.

            With the exception of waiting in line at Costco, any gas station visit that takes longer than 5 minutes start-to-finish is an extreme outlier for me.

            1. GSP says:

              So you can drive for several hours, not take a potty break when you stop for gas, then jump in and drive the rest of the day without stopping? Not bloody likely.

              You are most likely thinking about stopping at the gas station on the way to work. That is no longer necessary with home and/or work charging.

              GSP

              1. Spider-Dan says:

                I am specifically thinking of people who are unable to charge at home, which comprises ~50% of American drivers. BEVs are not practical for people who park in apartment parking lots or curbside on the street*, and the easiest way to make them practical is to increase charging speed to a point where you don’t need to charge at home.

                *One can make the argument that apartment complex owners or city governments should enter the business of building charging networks and billing their tenants/residents. Given that the majority of apartment complex owners and city governments have previously chosen NOT to get into the electrical utility business, I have a hard time seeing why this would change just because it’s convenient to an argument for BEV adoption rates.

                1. Tony Williams says:

                  Exactly. The time honored tradition of changing the circumstances to aid the arguement.

                  There’s virtually zero incentive for an apartment building to install EV charging, and it could be ridiculously expensive in many instances.

            2. Dan says:

              I have one word for you: Starbucks.

              If you want two words: Dunkin Donuts.

              Unless you’re the kind who carries empty coke bottles or wears adult diapers on long trips (eww), there are natural consequences that arise from having cup holders in cars. Doubling charge rates only shaves a few minutes off your stops. At some point, there is a law of diminishing returns. Anything less than 20min for a road trip (as opposed to everyday) use-case is trivial.

              1. Nate says:

                It takes several times less than 20 minutes to take a leak. If it doesn’t for you, then you may be different, but that doesn’t mean others are not interested in shorter wait times.

                It is good to see Tesla agree to participate in CharIN.

            3. Priusmaniac says:

              On this, I usually compare slow charging with using a dropper to refill a gasoline tank. That’s a quiet illustrative image. If a gas car can use a fast hose, I see no reason an ev would be denied the same right. So MW level is the final target.

        5. Spider-Dan says:

          I could not agree more. The key to replacing petroleum is a solution that allows gas-like refueling, whether it’s H2 or charging.

      4. jelloslug says:

        It seem like the nail in the coffin for FC and ICE. Ultra high speed charging is the feather in the cap of FC and ICE and to take that away would be huge.

      5. Priusmaniac says:

        A modem faster than 9600 bps is definitely overkill!

    2. mr. M says:

      No the Tesla S will basically charge at the same rate, you will only reach the tapper some minutes sooner.

      However they could change the chemistry (or software) to allow higher charge rate like other BEV already do.

      C rates (only roundabout from my brain):
      model S – 1.6
      Leaf – 1.7
      iMiev – 2
      i3 – 2.2

      1. SparkEV says:

        You’re forgetting the quickest of them all: SparkEV = 48kW (out of 50kW CCS) using 18.4kWh battery = 2.5

        I hope all EV will achieve something better than that in near future. At 3.2C, it would be 15 min for 80%, something that I hope Tesla Model 3 will achieve. Then 120kW/3.2/0.8=47 kWh battery.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Kia Soul EV can also charge at around 70 kW with 27 kWh baterry – something around 2.5 C. And not just at the beginning but up to about 70% charge.

        2. Daniel says:

          The SPark and Kia might as well be “Vapor Cars” as they are not widely available. (both are not sold anywhere near me) and the majority of the “rest of the U.S.” There is life outside California you know.

          1. vdiv says:

            May be vapor in the US, but the hamster mobile is doing quite well in Europe.

          2. David D. Nelson says:

            I know, I bought a Kia Soul EV and I live in Washington State. If you really want one you can ship one in from several different states. They are not a compliance vehicle.

      2. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

        “C rates (only roundabout from my brain):
        model S – 1.6
        Leaf – 1.7
        iMiev – 2
        i3 – 2.2”

        Which implies a maximum Tesla charging rate of 144kW for the 90kWh batteries and 112kW for the 70kWh batteries.
        – so charging the new 100kWh battery to 80% would take 50 minutes.

        So, yes it seems like Tesla would have to either increase battery size substantially, or increase their C rate substantially to be able to take advantage of CCS 300kW.

        Does anyone know the dynamics between C rate and charge capacity i Lithium ion batteries?
        – is this even achievable without sacrificing capacity?

        Of course – if not achievable, Tesla just have to double the battery capacity 😀
        – not a bad outcome that either….

        1. Priusmaniac says:

          C correlates to electrode surface versus thickness as well as specific chemistry characteristics.

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Gonna need an awfully big battery or great chemistry to handle that power.

  2. Bill Howland says:

    Seeing as they claim the CCS is currently good for 150 kw, assuming this is in the 300-400 volt range, then the 120kw fast charging speed should be able to be painlessly implemented with the S, X, and future vehciles such as the ‘3’ – so equivalent to good supercharger performance.

    Adding Tesla (and many model 3 vehicles) will certainly add to the popularity of CCS, and may convince business owners, and municipalities to install these units since they will almost universally be used by someone, assuming the cost isn’t deemed too excessive.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Yes, but I’m not holding my breath. It is so much against exclusive “walled garden” Tesla business model. More likely they will just make a $$$ CCS adapter to use public network in Europe and keep their own locked to other EVs as long as possible.

      1. Anon says:

        As you know: only the corporate ego of automotive execs, and tiny battery packs in their compliance EVs, keep others from playing in Teslas’ garden.

      2. Someone out there says:

        “Walled garden” as in “We’re happy to let other car manufacturers in on the Supercharging network if they pay their fair share of costs”?

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          You need to be really brainwashed to believe this advertising nonsense. There are standards and there are some proprietary “inventions” of a bicycle. You don’t pay $$$$$ access fees to go with some proprietary bicycle with square wheels that can be disconnected in 3 seconds from some corporate headquarters in CA. You just use the round wheel bicycle that everybody uses. There are no obstacles for Musk to charge drivers “at pump” just like every gas station around the world does, whatever he wants to recoup his costs plus profit. What it has to do with other automakers? It only makes sense if you want to fragment charging network, suppress faster common charging network deployment and suppress competitor battery cars.

          1. Paul says:

            What a nonsense. Others just cannot use the SC-network even if they would like to – and so they don’t ask – because it would fry their batteries.

            When their technologie is up to it, they can start using the SC-network, if they pay.

          2. Nix says:

            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

            Name the EV you can buy in the US today that is capable of charging at 135 kWh, or stop boring us with your rantings.

            Don’t even bother responding unless you can provide actual specifications for actual cars for sale in the US.

            1. Nix says:

              Typo: kWh should have been kW.

            2. Spider-Dan says:

              My Volt, with its 3.6kW onboard charger, is somehow still able to use 7.2kW L2 EVSEs (including the one in my garage) without any issue.

              The idea that Tesla’s vendor lockout is needed to keep other automakers’ batteries from frying (as if Superchargers are incapable of delivering any power-level other than MAXIMUM) is just absurd.

              1. TomArt says:

                The purpose of the supercharger technology is to enable PRACTICAL intercity travel.

                Puny battery packs need not apply – you would need twice or three times as many SC locations, and they would clog up use from people with real EVs that are actually capable of going somewhere.

                1. Spider-Dan says:

                  So then: the reason why non-Tesla vehicles can’t use Superchargers is not because “it would fry their batteries,” because because their inferior products would be blocking access for Tesla customers, which reduces the value of the Supercharger network as a selling point for Tesla.

                  Which is exactly as I said from the start: it’s an issue of a competitive market advantage. Tesla doesn’t allow individual drivers to buy SC access because that helps those drivers, but doesn’t help Tesla sell cars. But by “offering” other automakers the chance to become SC partners, they maintain the appearance of cooperation without having to deal with the problems that actually cooperating would introduce.

                  It’s theater.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Your blizzard of B.S. in that post doesn’t alter the fact — fact, not opinion — that Tesla has made an open offer to every other auto maker to join its Supercharger network. Tesla even offered the carrot of using its patents for free.

            Now, if you want to claim that other companies have sound business reasons for not taking Tesla up on its offer, then I agree. For example, no other EV maker currently makes cars capable of charging at the Supercharger rate, so it makes no sense for them to join Tesla at this time.

            But you know very well your “walled garden” insinuation simply isn’t true.

          4. floydboy says:

            Now just hold on there Babblelooney!

            Musk can only make the offer. It’s up to the other manufacturers to accept or reject his offer. If they accept and he then says no, then you can stand on your claim that he was essentially lying. Otherwise take up your complaint with your vehicle manufacturer, as the ball’s in their court.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzz said:

        “It is so much against exclusive ‘walled garden’ Tesla business model.”

        Hmmm, that “walled garden” has a big “Everyone welcome” signs on the several entrances.

        zzzzzzzzzz, it’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that Tesla made an open offer to share its Supercharger patents with any other EV maker which wants to help support the Supercharger network.

        Yet you continue to post FUD on this point, because the truth is irrelevant to your agenda here.

        1. Spider-Dan says:

          “Walled garden” is correct. Every other charging network allows drivers to buy access, but if Tesla did that, the SC network would be overrun with plebeians charging their cars at a fraction of the SC maximum rate, while blocking access for the Tesla customers who paid six figures for a car that was supposed to let them charge for free “as much as they want.”

          So instead, Tesla requires the automakers (i.e. their competitors) to buy in, which no automaker will do. It is theater; no more, no less.

          Why does Tesla offers a CHAdeMO adapter for Model S owners, instead of partnering with CHAdeMO charging networks to add Tesla connectors to their existing chargers? Even Tesla doesn’t actually believe in becoming a partner in other companies’ charging networks, but they are certainly willing to make adapters for their drivers to use them. That tells you all you need to know.

          If Tesla didn’t use software (and their patents…?) to prevent non-Tesla owners from accessing Superchargers, third-party companies would have made J1772->Tesla Connector adapters YEARS ago.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Dude, if you could actually hook your non-Tesla car up to a Supercharger, it would fry your battery! That’s not a “walled garden”; that’s a charging superhighway, and if you try to drive your golf cart there, you’ll get run over.

            I don’t know why y’all keep trying to use the “walled garden” analogy. It fits about as well as a square peg in a round hole.

            1. Stan says:

              The worst part of the wall garden accusation is that Tesla is likely getting blamed for taking the only it could to support its vehicles. Tesla was initially participating in CCS. It seems pretty clear it left because other CCS members were trying to prevent the standard from initially having high enough charging levels to support the vehicles Tesla was planning to produce. Since most members weren’t planning to produce anything capable of using those high charge rates for a while the low charge rate offered initially essentially forced Tesla to come up with something else. If Tesla was having to build it own, of course they weren’t compatible with CCS. The irony is that the foot dragging in CCS gave Tesla a competitive advantage.

            2. Spider-Dan says:

              On what basis do you claim that a Supercharger is unable to deliver power at a rate other than maximum?

              1. TomArt says:

                Irrelevant – that’s not the point of the SC network.

                1. Spider-Dan says:

                  It is precisely the point of the “it would fry your battery!” objection, which is nonsense.

              2. Stan says:

                I made no such claim. I pointed out that the company was apparently forced to develop its own charging standard because at least some of its competitors were bent on putting out a lame standard to hamstring them. Tesla’s competitors could not take advantage of the higher charge levels Tesla was advocating, and it appears that they thought restricting the standard would handicap Tesla.

                It turns out that forcing Tesla to create its own standard impelled it to create its own charging network. That has since turned into a significant competitive advantage for Tesla.

                The only upside for Tesla’s competitors is that it enables Tesla to be accused of trying to create a “walled garden”. It is hard to see it that way. Tesla was initially part of CCS. Tesla says they left because the standard was going to be subpar. CCS was objectively subpar to what Tesla created.

                If CCS is now going to become an objectively functional standard for intercity travel, I see no reason why Tesla wouldn’t adopt it going forward.

                1. Spider-Dan says:

                  My statement about fried batteries was in response to P-P, not you.

                  But as for the walled garden: your argument about technical superiority of the Tesla Connector is all well and good, but does nothing to explain why Tesla is alone in insisting that, unlike literally every other charging network, automakers must partner with Tesla in order for their drivers to get access. ChargePoint and Bl!nk and EVGo don’t demand this; they simply require that the drivers who want to access their network pay the associated fee(s). So why is Tesla different?

                  Given that non-Tesla cars charge much more slowly, it is a simple fact that if Tesla were to open up the SC network to non-Tesla cars, the net result would be a worse experience for Tesla owners (that paid ~six figures for an ultraluxury car with unlimited SC access). The fees that Tesla would recoup from this could not possibly offset the drop in user experience (for the actual Tesla buyers) that would result.

                  Any other company would just say, “We aren’t allowing other cars to access our network because Superchargers are our market advantage over our competitors, and it doesn’t make sense to give up our advantage.” But because part of Tesla’s brand is that Tesla is in it to save the earth, not to make money, they have to maintain the appearance of cooperation even when they don’t really want to cooperate at all.

                  Again: it’s theater.

                  1. Stan says:

                    CCS is/was crippled. It is just a fact. It is too slow for very large batteries. Tesla is alone in having a problem with the low charge levels of CCS because they were the only ones trying to market EVs capable of intercity travel and thus having very large batteries. Having a crippled standard couldn’t hurt any of the other manufacturers until they were planning to sell comparable products. They are now planning to sell comparable products and look at that the standard is now being revised.

                    1. Stan says:

                      Actually, while the CCS standard was crippled compared the Tesla’s solution, the biggest problem with it from Tesla’s position was the delay.

                    2. Spider-Dan says:

                      That still doesn’t explain why Tesla doesn’t allow drivers to buy access to the SC network. They’re all about encouraging EV adoption, right? And increasing access to their national network of chargers would certainly help increase EV adoption.

                      …that is, unless Tesla is really just interested in increasing the adoption of EVs that Tesla is selling, in which case such a move would not only be pointless, but counterproductive. And here we are.

      4. bill howland says:

        Tesla came up with a proprietary system that in all fairness is pretty good so far – and they haven’t been shy about providing sufficient parking spaces per location – 4, 6, 8, 12, etc are commonplace, albeit charging rate slows if more than 50% full of cars..

        Tesla is under no obligation, legally or morally to provide facilities for other manufacturers.

        The import of this article is that Tesla at least is providing an extra-cost ‘bridge’ to the defacto ‘industry-standard’.

        I used to like Chademo, but I have to admit CCS is superior in that it is VERY CHEAP to implement.

        1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

          …and the European Tesla’s already use the same Type2 connector as used in CCS.

          It would be very easy for Tesla to add the two DC pins underneath the Type2 connector, and hence support charging on all CCS charging stations – and the CCS charging stations are currently spreading like wildfire in Europe.

          ref:

          http://insideevs.com/updated-ccscombo-charge-map-europe/

        2. What the hell does the DC charging protocol (Tesla Supercharger, CHAdeMO, CCS Combo1, CCS Combo2, GB/T) have to do with the cost of implementation?

          Those costs have everything to do with acquisition cost, infrastructure requirements, maintenance, taxes, insurance, land use, depreciation, etc.

          The protocol has virtually nothing to do with implementation cost. Any CHAdeMO charger will cost about the same as an equivalent CCS charger at the same power level.

      5. Tony Williams says:

        Why would ANYBODY think that any market leader would voluntarily give up that lead to follow others, or just join the herd?

        Tesla isn’t giving up on Supercharger to become CCS cars, any more than they became CHAdeMO cars with a CHAdeMO adaptor.

        Yes, Tesla will have to install at least one CCS charger per site in those one or two countries that require it. Germany, not surprisingly, is doing whatever they can to support the “home team”.

        Tesla will protect its home team.

  3. manbitesgas says:

    I hope true collaboration between Tesla and their current industry-leading and open-patent tech and the resources of the major auto-makers is finally going to blow the roof of this ICE dump. (Nissan may unfortunately eat their shorts with CHAdeMO…)

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      Sadly, Tesla worked closely with industry to develop CCS before abandoning it for their own Tesla plug.

      Before Elon Musk, Martin Eberhard had the vision right, looking beyond his company’s own success, and truly wanting EV’s to proliferate beyond that.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason Tesla abandoned the efforts of developing a common standard with other auto makers was because they couldn’t come to an agreement about “future” upgrade standards… which for Tesla wouldn’t have been future at all. Tesla needed to put the Model S into production.

        As I understand it, and again correct me if I’m wrong, Tesla abandoned the negotiations only when they had to go ahead with putting the Model S into production.

        1. ClarksonCote says:

          Admittedly, I don’t know the true reasons. From a timeline standpoint, I know Tesla was on-board when Martin Eberhard ran things, then they were not on-board when Musk came in.

          Seemed like “hubris” at the time (like their own admission of hubris with sales this quarter?), but admittedly I don’t have any data to back up that story.

        2. Tony Williams says:

          Tesla rightfully thought that CCS was idiotic. They were actually instrumental in making J1772 go from 30 amps maximum to 80 amps max (US / Canada only).

          Thankfully, Tesla doesn’t use PLC for amperage control (Supercharger uses CAN, just like CHAdeMO and GB/T), nor do they have a huge, clunky plug.

          1. Spider-Dan says:

            It’s pretty difficult to argue that “CCS was idiotic”… in the comments of an article about how Tesla is joining a CCS association as they plan to release a 300kW standard based on CCS.

            The Tesla Connector was designed for vendor lockout; to prevent the unwashed masses from being able to access a Supercharger network for high-end luxury cars. Once the Model III comes out, such a device will no longer serve a purpose, as there will be hundreds of thousands of MIII drivers “interfering” with their betters. So Tesla might as well use a standardized connector at that point.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Spider-Dan said:

              “The Tesla Connector was designed for vendor lockout; to prevent the unwashed masses from being able to access a Supercharger network for high-end luxury cars.”

              So you keep saying, repeatedly, but I haven’t seen you offer any actual evidence in support of your assertion that Tesla wanted a proprietary standard to keep others out, and not because it needed something that would handle higher current than what other EV makers were (and mostly still are) using.

              If Tesla didn’t want a common charging standard, then why did they try to work with the CCS consortium?

              Facts don’t seem to support your assertion.

              1. Spider-Dan says:

                I have yet to see you support your assertion that the Supercharger is apparently the only charging equipment in service that is completely unable to step down its power delivery to avoid destroying lower capacity onboard chargers.

                1. I seriously doubt that Tesla has any current intentions to do anything more than comply with protectionist laws in some countries concerning CCS.

                  I suspect Tesla will follow the letter of the law, and no more. The law doesn’t require “300kW CCS”.

          2. ClarksonCote says:

            “Tesla rightfully thought that CCS was idiotic.”

            The facts don’t seem to back up this casual assertion. I get that you’re very pro-Chademo, but CCS is still a much better standard in my mind. I know we disagree, and that’s okay. I’m not offended.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              “I get that you’re very pro-Chademo”

              It is hard to take Tony’s opinion on charging standard seriously as he has a vested interest in his business relationship that depends on CHADemO success…

              1. Well… neither myself, nor my company, has any vested interest in CHAdeMO. We support, develop and manufacture EV a charging equipment, including CHAdeMO standards, Tesla and SAE-J1772.

                We will obviously have CCS equipment in the future, because that is what is in the market place.

                It doesn’t change my opinion about the merits of CCS. From a supplier standpoint, as we are, the CCS standard currently has at least two distinct non interchangeable configurations, is offered regionally (no CCS Combo 1 in Europe, no CCS Combo 2 in US, neither CCS in Japan or China.

                In the very near term, at least two additional configurations seem likely, at 150 and 300kW. So, there are a LOT of variables in the near term, many of which are not clearly defined (I actually wrote the CCS Association to get those specs… they won’t release them).

                CHAdeMO is by far the world leader in both deployment, and commonality. The same compatible plug around the world, and a reasonably mature protocol standards that CCS clearly does not yet have.

                Both CHAdeMO and CCS plugs (in every known configuration) is ridiculously sized, so Tesla wins in overall performance by a mile (or kilometer).

                So, while a simple statement as yours may make sense to the unwashed masses, myself and our company is firmly in this industry and will produce CCS compatible hardware at some point, because the market is building.

                CCS is still a dumb combination of the worst of committee design.

              2. Tony Williams says:

                Our business would be aided by constantly changing protocols, since we can sell the same customers Protocol A, Protocol B, etc, or the same performance product.

                They all charge the car, and likely will all ultimately do it at about the same rate,

                So, on the surface, your statement isn’t accurate.

  4. David Murray says:

    I would be perfectly happy if the Tesla Model-3 used a CCS combo plug for level 1/2/3 charging. Then offered an adapter for super charging. I would find it annoying if I owned a Tesla and had to use an adapter every time I wanted to use a public charger.

    1. Nelson says:

      If you owned a Tesla Model 3, I’m not sure you’ll find more “free” CCS than Superchargers.

      NPNS! SBF!
      Volt#671

      1. evcarnut says:

        Free? 0r Freed Up?

      2. HVACman says:

        What makes you think that Superchargers will be “free” for Model 3 owners? All Tesla said was the Model 3 would have “Supercharger capability” Not “free use of the SC network”. The SC networks costs a bundle to install and operate. In the early days, Tesla charged $2000 for the 60 kWh Model s owners to join Tesla can not afford to bury the cost of lifetime SC network use in the purchase price of the Model 3.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Musk had promised it long time ago. Sure it may be just a promise. As at mass scale it is not sustainable and Tesla response to SEC inquiry about supercharger financial numbers sheds some limited light on it.

          1. tftf says:

            “Musk had promised it long time ago.”

            Then it must be true. Don’t question religious leaders

            1. Anon says:

              Unlike Stock Shorters, his track record is far better than yours.

              1. Aaron says:

                I just want to know where the giant obelisk went for the Supercharging stations!

                http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-unveils-its-supercharger-network-drive-free-forever-sunlight.html

                1. GSP says:

                  The oblisk is still there at Tesla’s Hawthorne Design Studio, where the Model 3 reveal event was held.

                  GSP

        2. robert says:

          If the entire fleet of model 3 has supercharger capability, you spread the cost over the whole fleet. Instead of the “I will buy it because I will use it” and resale values also.

    2. Josh says:

      I am the exact opposite.

      I would almost never use public charging in Houston day-to-day, considering 200 – 250 mile range. The only time I would use public charging would be road trips and for that the SuperChargers would be my planned stops.

      I would rather a smaller, easier to use plug for my everyday use.

      1. Brandon says:

        Well said Josh! I was thinking somebody surely needs to say something about that. I believe the small amount of public charging (the around 5% not done at home) for 200 mile BEV’s will mostly be fast charging, and up until mid 2020’s and possibly beyond the Tesla Supercharger network will remain the most comprehensive network of 100 kW+ fast chargers, at least in the US. So for the Tesla Model 3 to have Tesla’s own plug makes the most sense by far.

        1. With 50% of the US living in something other than a single family detached house with ubiquitous electricity available, let me suggest that the amount of Supercharger miles for Model 3 will be far higher than 5%.

          I would guess 20-35%.

      2. TomArt says:

        Exactly.

  5. Benz says:

    There will be higher charging rates in the coming years, that’s for sure.

    Interesting times

    1. Kdawg says:

      Yes, even the recent article about 20kW wireless charging. It wasn’t that long ago people were saying 3.3kW was the max we’d ever see.

      1. MTN Ranger says:

        I don’t remember anyone saying that. When I visited the Evatran’s (Plugless Power) office, they were working on 6.6kW back in 2012.

        1. Kdawg says:

          You have to go futher back than Plugless power. Witricity was toying with it first. And I’m not talking about what the companies were saying, but what all the naysayers were saying.

  6. Filip says:

    Elon talked about including CCS on Superchargers in Europe when he was in france a month ago or so.

    It would be very easy to add the two round holes under the charge port they have today, on the model 3. Then it will be able to charge both CCS and SuC. maybe in the future the SuCs will support higher power through the CCS-plug than the excisteing modified type 2?

    Would be awesome!

    1. Båt says:

      “It would be very easy to add the two round holes under the charge port they have today, on the model 3. Then it will be able to charge both CCS and SuC.”

      Excactly!

      1. Steven says:

        I don’t think it’s as simple as adding “two round holes”. The BMS needs the old J plug communications channels to tell the DCFC how much voltage to give it, and how fast. Just adding two whole at the bottom of a super charger inlet wouldn’t allow a standard CCS plug to go into it. And you can’t just jam a modified CCS plug into it, just two big DC cables. That’s not safe, it would have to turn on and off at the user’s request. Great way to arc wield some cars in the parking lot.

        1. Mutwin Kraus says:

          It would work in Europe because every Tesla has a Type-2 plug. Harder to solve in America, but maybe by adding a second J/CCS port or abandoning the Tesla-plug?

          1. Spider-Dan says:

            I’m hopeful that the Tesla connector will go away and be replaced entirely by J1772+CCS. The quicker we can standardize on one plug, the better.

            1. A big clunky CCS plug… why didn’t Tesla think of that, instead of offering a small plug that handles the slowest charge up to the fastest charge available at any EV charge station, with AC or DC.

              Ya, CCS… that’s the ticket.

              It’s always odd that these ingenious revelations seldom suggest that perhaps the BEST plug should be the standard.

              1. Spider-Dan says:

                You can make equally valid technical arguments for Betamax vs. VHS, or FireWire vs. USB, or Lightning vs. micro USB. But sometimes, technical superiority loses out to ease of implementation.

                Keep in mind that Tesla was involved with the creation of the J1772-2009 standard (and, to their credit, was instrumental in getting that connector to support 80A capacity). The time to insist on an all-in-one compact AC+DC connector was back then, not years later when they were the only manufacturer ready to roll it out.

                CCS is the direct result of maintaining compatibility with existing J1772 infrastructure. You can’t expect to grow the EV market if you are abandoning your entire userbase every 5 years with brand new connectors.

                1. Hence, CCS is a poor substitute for the existing charging infrastructure.

                  I couldn’t agree more that swapping around standards is a bad plan.

                  Having CCS, GB/T, Supercharger, CHAdeMO and whatever else comes around all coexist is the better plan, just like diesel and gasoline, natural gas, hydrogen, methanol, etc.

  7. Eco says:

    The more charging options for my Tesla S/X/≡ the better 🙂

    1. John says:

      Don’t you mean S≡X ?

    2. telveer says:

      >>> Tesla S≡X

      There. I fixed it for you 🙂

      1. telveer says:

        Actually, make that Tesla S≡XY 😉

  8. R.S. says:

    With charging power reaching acceptable speeds, it might be tempting for Tesla to have access to a second charging network.

    Especially 300kW looks very tempting and even if they stick to 150 for some the next few years, it would still too fast to not give customers access to.

    1. Tesla has access to a second charging protocol… it’s called CHAdeMO.

      An adaptor for CCS would be a third standard.

      Tesla can’t magically hit 300kW at the current almost 400 amps at current battery voltages. Also,mother sure as heck don’t need CCS to make 300kW.

      They are quite capable of changing from 400 volt to 800 volt batteries all by themselves. The Superchargers already go to 370 amps.

      Electric power is always volts * amps.

      1. Tony Williams says:

        370 amps * 800 volts = 300kW

  9. Texas FFE says:

    I think Tesla has started talking about adapting to CCS because I have been complaining so much about Tesla’s proprietary charging system. If Tesla starts supporting CCS, both on the Superchargers and the cars, that would eliminate the biggest objection I have with supporting Tesla.

    1. ffbj says:

      ..and that is a good thing.

    2. SparkEV says:

      I doubt they’d have CCS on superchargers. But they could have CCS adapter for their cars, like they have Chademo to Tesla adapter.

      Long term, Tesla might (just might) get into CCS 3 or 4 or 5 standards game. Tesla uses similar protocol as CCS (home plug), so it might be easier than CAN based Chademo.

      1. Tony Williams says:

        The Tesla Supercharger is CAN controlled, just like CHAdeMO and GB/T (China).

        1. SparkEV says:

          My mistake. I thought I saw discussion on supercharger, turns out that was discussion on adapter to type2. Almost makes me want to go volunteer at your company so I can learn. 😉

    3. Anon says:

      No, you had nothing to do with it. CSS wasn’t significantly available around the world, or powerful enough to have an adapter designed for it. Tesla is a small company, and every project must be tightly prioritized.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        I’m shattered! I thought Tesla was starting to care about me (and the thousands of other people that don’t like Tesla’s proprietary charging system).

        1. Anon says:

          The only people who don’t like it, are not Tesla owners…

          No free lunch, sorry. 🙂

          Although I did see a photo of someone in Europe who stuck the similar L2 plug into their non-Tesla’s vehicle socket into a SuperCharger– and it locked the plug and wouldn’t disengage. HILLARIOUS!!!

        2. Bill Howland says:

          Tesla does care about you, or at least, I’m assuming they do. They have provided 110 volt compatibility from the start, j1772 a few years later, and now with current products offer j1772 compatibility at no extra cost, and low cost wall boxes and relatively low cost chademo, and assumedly soon, equally low cost ccs adapters.

          Is it really necessary to expect that Tesla should do more than this?

  10. scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!) says:

    I’d be more interested in seeing if GM with the Bolt might be getting ready to pull a rabbit out of the hat and introduce a 150kW option for the bolt.

    That would be a fast way to put Tesla momentum back in the box.

    1. SparkEV says:

      Except GM stated they’re not interested in infrastructure. Having it on the car with nowhere to plug in wouldn’t do anything other than raise cost.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        They will have some stations in California soon as article claims. And some 120 kW CCS/Chademo stations are already deployed in Europe if GM cares about Europe.

        At least longer term (not just first model year) it would be important if GM has long term vision.

        1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

          Yes, we have som dual-head Chademo/CCS chargers in Norway rated 120kW *combined*. You have to be alone on the charger to get maximum effect though.

          – but the chargers are upgradeable in 10kW increments, so that may change as cars are actually being able to draw more current.

      2. scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!) says:

        Wrong on pretty much all counts.

        #1 A competitive car from Tesla that can supercharge at rates over 100kW at the same price affects GM before it even ships. Thats the miracle of the capitalist system that I know few here believe in. It works because people who don’t outsell the competition get FIRED.

        #2 Having a Bolt or whatever with > 100kW charging, even with only one or two stations that can do that, means the car is buy worthy. GM and others got the CCS fast chargers for Spark deployed from nothing to the point where there are several in my neighborhood in the space of about 2 years.

        1. SparkEV says:

          These are from GM when they announced Bolt.

          From CEO Mary Barra: “We are not actively working on providing infrastructure [for the Bolt EV].”

          From electrification exec Pam Fletcher: “We believe all our customers should benefit from any infrastructure spending.”

          All their customers as in all their gas car customers who have no need for EV charger.

          I suspect GM didn’t do much for CCS expansion (couple of thousand SparkEV) vs BMW (tens of thousands). That’s why I hold BMW in such high regard. Of course, GM can still change their mind, but no such thing as of yet.

  11. Cavaron says:

    That could result in a CCS compatible Tesla charge port or adapter…

    BUT

    …with the largest FC-Network in US and EU, maybe Tesla will do the opposite and hand out adapters for CCS- and CHAdeMO cars to charge at their superchargers. The adapters will get build in RFID-Chips and the users will be billed for each supercharging.

    Just thinking 😉

    1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

      For Europe, I really hope they go all the way and delivers the cars with CCS plugs.
      Tesla already uses the standard Type2 plug also used by CCS, so expanding it with the two lower DC pins should be easy. That way the car would be able to charge using both Tesla superchargers and on CCS fast chargers without an adapter at all.

      But of course, the Chademo adapter is still a nice thing.
      – Being able to charge from all 3 types of charging stations will just add to the sales arguments for buying a Tesla!

      1. Tony Williams says:

        Tesla will provide some token amount of CCS charging in Germany (at least) because their laws require it.

        They will likely make a CCS adaptor, as they have already done for CHAdeMO.

        The question of whether they will hack a big hole around the tail light to fit two big DC pins (when they already have DC pins installed in the car) is a laughable possibility.

        My suggestion: Tesla cars will have Tesla inlets.

        If you wish to use other other plugs, they will have an adaptor.

        Obviously, all this can change with protectionist laws in individual countries.

  12. Realdb2 says:

    My guess is Tesla is taking a hard look at the charging infrastructure situation after 500,000 Model 3’s are on the road.

    Sure they will continue to build Superchargers but adding another connector (besides Chademo) gives their owners access to more options.

    I’m stating the obvious here but it would be nice for somebody else to invest in a long range EV charging infrastructure besides Tesla. Current non-Supercharger DCFC is designed for city access for low range EVs.

    I don’t care if it’s other auto manufacturers or a third party but I’d like to see someone partner with McDonald’s or another company with a national footprint to really knock the cover off a nation-wide plan.

  13. Terawatt says:

    > The first experimental 150 kW units will be installed soon in California for testing purposes.

    Not quite accurate, as 150 kW stations have been installed in Norway a little while ago and are operational. I don’t think there are any cars right now that can actually charge at 150 kW, but there definitely will be, and perhaps 300 kW too before long.

    There’s much work going on and good progress being made with respect to the internal resistance of the battery pack. The heat developed – and wasted – when charging depends on that resistance, and it also limits how fast you can charge and/or how much damage the charging does to the battery. So with lower resistance you can charge faster with the same capacity loss, or charge just as fast and have the battery last for more cycles.

    Combine this with the other article on wireless charging – 20 kW at 90% efficiency! – and it is beginning to look quite plausible that EVs by 2030 may not have ANY of the little inconveniences they do now, while retaining all of their huge advantages.

    I’m feeling hyperlooped!

    1. sveno says:

      Arent they 150kW only because of 850V which no cars use?

      1. Mutwin Kraus says:

        No, that was Porsche’s Mission E with 300kW. 150kW CCS will work with 400V.

        1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

          Not 150kW with 400 Volts i think – I think that would require 500 Volts.

          So I guess that 120kW would be the max charging rate if the car only accepts 400 Volts.

    2. MTN Ranger says:

      A lot depends on how the 150kW is setup. Using the current CCS standard, most of the 100+kW testing units are still using the original standard’s 200amp limit and just are raising the voltage. The problem is that the battery packs may not be able to handle the higher voltage. If I’m not mistaken, the version 2.0 of CCS will provide a higher amperage in order to reach 150+kW.

      EV manufacturers will be waiting until this gets settled with the definitive version 2.0. My guess is with some specific upgrades to wiring, the Bolt may handle 100+kW charging in the 2018/19 model.

      1. Brandon says:

        Well said. Agreed. It makes sense for the Bolt EV to wait until a standard (next level 150 kW CCS) SAE guideline is published before they go higher than the current 50 kW.

  14. Peter says:

    Good news and hopefully this will lead to a single common supercharge plug standard in the future. Or at least one standard for each continent, but idelly one common global plug standard for superchargers.

    But Tesla joining CharIN is kind of old news as CharIN made this announcement on their website already 12 days ago: http://www.charinev.org/news-detail/news/charin-e-v-welcomes-member-tesla-motors/

  15. Fred Borloo says:

    Yep,

    Smells like the model III will have a CCS Combo 2 plug (In Europe)
    It makes sense, since it could (theoretically) use AC single phase, (AC 3-phase?), 50Kw-150Kw DC from CCS chargers, and Tesla SC 135Kw or more DC charging.

    It’s the do-it-all standard. Elon thinks it’s a clumsy plug, but I guess he will want the III to use as many chargers as possible. Makes sense, I guess.

    I use CCS for my i3. I think it’s generaly ok. Bit heavy maybe, but better than CHADEMO.

    Just my 2?…

    1. sveno says:

      I hope it still retains ChaDeMo capabilities of S & X though!

      1. scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!) says:

        You can convert sugared donuts to Tesla charging if you have the right adapter.

      2. Pajda says:

        No, at least European 150kW CCS will still use voltages up to 500V (400V for the most cars) but the current will rise up to 400A. The existing CCS2 connector from PhoenixContact most probably should handle this current but there will be added a water cooled cable for better handling = the cable diameter should remain almost the same as existing one (announced by ABB).

        The 300kW CCS in Europe will then most probably switch to the 800V (400A current will remain) and also the CCS2 connector should be still the same (the European CCS2 connector from PhoenixContact is from the beggining certified up to 850V, but the CCS1 connector used in USA up to 600V only).

  16. mustang_sallad says:

    Called it.

    Liquid cooled cables shows that Tesla is bumping up against the limits of their standard. 150kW with CCS isn’t much higher than what they’re already doing, but they are going to unlock 300kW by doubling the voltage. That obviously requires cars with the type of 800V battery system that Porsche is talking about, but that’s where it’ll have to go. My guess is that the CCS connector is in a better position to be able to support that high a voltage due to greater pin separation. But the more important point is that there is clearly momentum behind CCS at this point, and getting on board is only going to make scaling up easier for everyone.

    1. buu says:

      actually “150kW” CCS is less then SC, because its simply max theoretical 500V x 300A, because currently all cars are 404V or less its 120kW ie slightly less then SC, the current limitation on Tesla is batteries ability to accept charge at higher SOC

      1. Absolutely correct. The equivalent Tesla to CCS rating at 500 volts would be:

        370 amps * 500 volts = 185kW

        CCS and CHAdeMO will be 300 amps in the upcoming proposal at 500 volts:

        300 amps * 500 volts = 150kW

        Tesla is already ahead.

        The Porsche proposal, with 400 amps at 800 volts (300kW), is just that… pie in the sky future. No current car uses anything above 415 volts (Tesla Roadster at 99 cells in series).

    2. Priusmaniac says:

      In a sense this 300 KW step is a loss of time for the real step to 1000 KW. We need another factor ten not a mere doubling. So voltage has to increase there is simply no other way. At least to 1600 v if not 6000 v. It is getting hard to understand that apparent irrational higher voltage anxiety since everything is clearly indicating that’s the way to go.

  17. Marcos says:

    You are all wrong!!!

    The true reason is because in Spain there is legislation that mandates a CSS plug whenever you install a level 3 fast charger!!! 😀 😀

    Just joking… but the law exists indeed. If only we had more than the handful we have right now.

  18. Loboc says:

    Eventually, public charging will need to be public. Same as gas stations. All the same.

    The U.S. gov’t (D.O.T.) will step in with a standard if the SAE can’t git-r-done. We can’t have all these different ways of doing the same thing.

    Wait, that didn’t work out so well with gasohol. Never mind. Thank you Jimmy Carter.

  19. JakeY says:

    In Europe the socket is a Type 2 socket and relatively easy to just add two pins to make it CCS.

    In USA, it is a bit tougher.

  20. KM says:

    EU provides substantial subsidies for CCS charging stations although I think they do allow dual with Chademo. Tesla could never keep up with the pace of CCS installations here and was risking losing this market. I think long term it makes sense. Tesla had to create its own standard because there was nothing else as fast available at the time. Now, when the opportunity arises to share the development and possibly installation costs then why not?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      They didn’t needed to create their own proprietary plug at all. Especially different in North America and Europe. Protocol extension over standard plug would be more than enough. Using proprietary plug they achieved their goal to slow down competitors, but obviously didn’t conquered the world.

      And now what? Their actions backfire. In Europe they are getting marginalized by CCS network expansion supported by governments and local automakers, in Japan Chademo is everywhere as national standard that requires clumsy adapter to use with Tesla cars. They have 100,000+ Model S cars on the road now that would cost a fortune to retrofit to standard plug.

      1. Paul says:

        In Europe SC gets marginalized? Have you been to Europe? Here in France EDF-Sodetrel in 2014 promised to built 200 fast chargers in 2015. Actually they’ve built 9 in that timespan. Tesla built 149 chargers in France. And they are 2,5 times as fast. I wonder who is left behind…

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzz continued his FUD campaign:

        “Using proprietary plug they [Tesla] achieved their goal to slow down competitors, but obviously didn’t conquered the world.”

        Hmmm, no; no matter how many times you repeat that B.S., it’s still B.S.

        Aside from Tesla, so far as I know, no EV maker is yet selling a mass produced EV capable of charging at 50 kW, let alone 150. They’re holding back their own EV development just fine; they don’t need any help from Tesla for that.

        1. ffbj says:

          In addition they have offered patents to competitors. I suppose in the hopes of slowing them down. If anything Tesla has made Herculean efforts to promote ev’s. Quite the opposite of what z…claims.
          “A house divided against itself shall not stand.”

        2. David D. Nelson says:

          The shop manual for my 2016 Kia Soul EV+ says it can handle 100kW charging. I regularly charge at 50kW AV CHAdeMO chargers. One time I videoed the charge session and estimated that the initial phase charged at about 46kW and didn’t start to taper until about 72% SOC.

          1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

            The real-world max charge rate for the Kia Soul is 70kW (which is fantastic for such a small battery).

            The 30kWh Leaf charges on 50kW effect easily – all the way up to 80+% SOC

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Yes, thank you for the correction, David. I should have researched that a bit more before making my post.

            Yes, the Kia Soul EV is built to accept up to 100 kW charging. See this InsideEVs article:

            http://insideevs.com/kia-rises-heights-marketing-incorrectness-25-minute-charging-100-kw/

            Go Kia!

            1. The Kia Soul is a generic 96 cells in series battery… 400 volts.

              CHAdeMO is limited to 200 amps today.

              The max charge rate is 200 * 400 = 80kW max

      3. Priusmaniac says:

        “Using proprietary plug they achieved their goal to slow down competitors”

        That’s an outrageous lie, they have been doing the exact opposite all along.

        The objective of Tesla is to accelerate the world transition to electric mobility.

        I thank them for the fantastic job they have done.

  21. Hans Noordsij says:

    Do not forget that the Tesla system is nothing less then a CCS system. It is the only one that is functioning at this moment at 135 kW charging cars that are capable. At least they should have a big battery. With the existing network that will be doubled coming year and a gigantic network of (also) free Destination chargers future customers will probably not be interested in a second network when there is one already completed. Manufacturers still missing the most important point: Serving their customers and that is exactly what Tesla is doing.

    1. Brandon says:

      A+++

    2. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

      Such a network will never be ‘completed’ – at least not until you can charge your car at every conceivable location where you would want to park it….

      – So the case for CCS is still good in the long term. One single company can never compete with the rest of the market in the long run – especially since standards like CCS gets lots of regulatory support.

      1. Brandon says:

        I take Hans’s “competed” to mean “already in place”, meaning the SC network is already in place.
        Also, IMO, with the thousands of EVs in the future, there is not much harm done in Tesla having their SC standard for their network, and the other standards (CCS and CHAdeMO) on the rest of the networks. I’m inclined to the opinion that with plenty of Tesla cars and other 200 mile+ (CCS and CHAdeMO) plug cars in the future, that each group will serve their own charging needs quite fine.

  22. Nix says:

    Things to keep in mind:

    1) Tesla Superchargers are modular. They wire together a stack of roughly 10 kW chargers. To get to higher charge rates, they can stack more modules into existing charging stations.

    2) There is no reason why Superchargers couldn’t have CCS connectors added right on each Supercharger next to the current connectors.

    3) It took until 2016 for high enough powered CCS 150 kW chargers to be installed in California, that are powerful enough for the needs of the Model S that has been for sale for years.

  23. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    I’m puzzled over this article getting 87+ comments. Tesla has already started selling a CHAmeDO adapter, haven’t they? So it looks like they plan to start selling a CCS adapter, too. That shouldn’t be a surprise.

    I certainly don’t think it’s an indication that Tesla plans to switch their Supercharging format to CCS. Let’s remember that Tesla has been quietly installing a lot of destination chargers; possibly as many destination charge points as Supercharger charge points. There might be some sound business reason for Tesla to start using CCS equipment for installing destination chargers. For example, they might be cheaper to buy than whatever system Tesla is currently buying or making in-house.

    1. Paul Stoller says:

      I buy this reasoning for the current Superchargers, but I do think there might be something to them switching to CCS for the future 300 kW level charging. I’m sure there is going to be a lot of development required for that level of charging and the situation in regards the Model S being the only vehicle in existence to be able to take advantaged of those charging levels, won’t be the same when 300 kW charging gets rolled out.

      1. No, the actual development for Tesla to go from 370 amps / 425 volt Supercharger system to a 370 or 400 amp / 800 volt system is relatively benign (300+ kW).

        The same cables can carry the same current, and only the insulation needs to be improved to handle the higher voltage.

        The more difficult problem is to make 400 volt cars compatible with an 800 volt charger!!!

        1. Priusmaniac says:

          Getting to 800 v is not so hard. Instead of putting 74 rows of 6 cells in parallel in 16 serial modules, they can put 37 rows of 6 cells in 32 serial modules. They can choose other arrangements to increase voltage further. In theory one singe serial line of cells will give more than 30000 v but going to 6000 v or 1600 v will likely do the job needed for megacharger. A switch system in the arrangement would still allow lower voltage charging.

          1. Rearranging the cells for different voltages isn’t the problem. Power electronics operating at 800 volts is.

            Did you ever wonder why every EV manufacturer has the same 400 volt battery pack?

        2. Priusmaniac says:

          On the same time, voltage increase will only solve one part of the megacharger problem, that is the high power transfer with a reasonable section cable from the charger to the car. There remain to solve the other part which is to increase the C rate of the cells by increasing the electrode surface and reducing the thickness or by speeding the electrochemical reactions. Likely both.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Paul Stoller said:

        “…I do think there might be something to them switching to CCS for the future 300 kW level charging.”

        Well now, you might be on to something there. A universal EV charging standard — that is, a real standard instead of competing formats — would benefit all auto makers, including Tesla… despite what Spider-Dan keeps trying to tell us.

        I can certainly believe that Tesla wants to nudge other EV makers to agreeing to an actual charging standard. Perhaps Tesla joining the CharIN Association is the first step in that direction?

        We can always hope!

        1. Spider-Dan says:

          “I can certainly believe that Tesla wants to nudge other EV makers to agreeing to an actual charging standard.”

          That’s a pretty rich statement, given that Tesla is the only automaker that’s using their own proprietary connector. What’s next… Tesla nudging other automakers to making affordable entry-level EVs?

          As for your earlier question: the reason why this article is a big deal is that it’s one thing for Tesla to make an adapter; it’s quite another for them to join a charging standard association after previously declaring that said standard was unacceptably feeble, walking out of the SAE conference defining that standard, and making their own proprietary connector instead.

          1. TomArt says:

            And Tesla Motors was quite right to do so – if the world can’t keep up, then you have to come up with your own, superior product.

            Now that the world is catching up 6 years later, it only makes sense to gain an influential position. An international standard benefits everyone, including Tesla.

            The part that baffles me is why automakers didn’t start designing their 200+ mile EVs with Tesla’s technology. It was already developed, it was already superior to anything anyone else had in the pipeline, and they were already building out their global network of chargers!

            Myopia and pride never cease to amaze me, even in the precious “markets.” That’s another reason why “free markets” are colossal failures – as a group, people are idiots far too often for anything to work without regulations.

            1. Spider-Dan says:

              Do you think Tesla is the only company capable of creating their own charging standard? GM and Nissan could have made their own proprietary connectors that precisely targeted their own wishlists, but they chose not to; they chose to collaborate with others and agree upon a standard for the benefit of the EV market as a whole.

              If GM and Nissan had taken the same “my way or the highway” position that Tesla did, even L2 public charging would be widely fragmented and impractical.

              1. Priusmaniac says:

                That’s a theory, another one is that they didn’t want to invest in what it take to build a hole network of superchargers from the ground up because they had a week ev motivation.

                1. Spider-Dan says:

                  GM and Nissan could have created their own charging standards independent of any plans to build (or not build) a charging network.

                  Nissan didn’t have to be a founding CHAdeMO member, but they are. GM didn’t need to care about charging networks at all in 2011, with the Volt being an EREV.

                  And yet, both Nissan and GM decided to use standardized connectors.

                  1. TomArt says:

                    But they did not, for the precise reason that Priusmaniac said.

                    1. Spider-Dan says:

                      “They did not”… what, exactly?

                      They did not create their own proprietary standards? Agreed; that was my point.

                      They did not create their own charging networks? Also agreed. They also don’t own any gas stations, nor have they hired a national stable of electrical contractors to install L2 EVSEs in users’ homes.

                      The Supercharger network was only a feasible project for two reasons:

                      1) Tesla was selling cars that cost six-figures
                      2) As a startup, Tesla has yet to be forced to operate under the constraint of profitability

                      Any other company that was selling cars (in the price ranges they currently are) would not have been able to build the SC network.

          2. JakeY says:

            Tesla didn’t use CCS 1.0 simply because it wasn’t ready yet. It was released in 2012, first commercial units didn’t come until 2013. Same reason why Roadster went with proprietary socket instead of J1772 (although Tesla was the one credited for pushing SAE to raise J1772 AC to 80A). It is also not capable enough to support Tesla’s goals.

            It maxed out at 200A, like CHAdeMO, while even back with the older 90kW superchargers, Tesla was pulling 275A and now pulling 370A with the 120kW superchargers.

            1. The Supercharger is 135kW…. the car will handle 120kW.

              This is important when both CHAdeMO and CCS (all the various incarnations) report fantastic charge rates, always based on a higher battery voltage than is actually in use.

              Tesla could play the same game. Their 135kW charger could still pump 370 amps… at 500 volts… BOOM !!!

              It’s now a 185kW charger!!!

  24. After reading through all the replies, I can’t believe that nobody mentioned the relatively recent news of Germany all but requiring CCS.

    So it’s no big surprise that all German manufactures join this club (plus GM, Ford, and now Tesla). What’s more shocking to me is that the club is only been organized now, more than eight years after the CHAdeMO Association (with a huge number of members).

    There is a video with Elon musk admitting to having to meet the requirements in Germany, and one of his comments was that, “it sure is a big plug” or something to that effect.

    I think all the “CCS takeover” rumors are a bit premature, as they always are.

    For the record, I might be the first to report that the CHAdeMO Association is going to 300 amps (150kW).

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Tony Williams said:

      “After reading through all the replies, I can’t believe that nobody mentioned the relatively recent news of Germany all but requiring CCS.”

      Thank you very much Tony!

      I thought I had read something recently about Superchargers in Europe being required to add a CCS charger, but I couldn’t find any news item about it, so didn’t post about it. I see now that, as you say, that’s just in Germany.

      Some discussion on the subject on the Tesla Motors Club forum; a discussion which started over a year ago:

      https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/german-bill-requires-ccs-and-l2-plugs-at-every-new-fast-charge-point.41141/

      I see CharIN’s mailing address is in Berlin. So yes, this association appears to be based in Germany, which the article above doesn’t mention.

      So, it appears Tesla joined CharIN out of necessity, not out of desire to make Tesla cars CCS compatible. Too bad!

    2. Brandon says:

      Thanks Tony, very interesting bit of info. I’ve been wondering for awhile about what CHAdeMO is doing to upgrade. I thought they would have to. The next gen LEAF will need that. Any idea if it may be within a year?

    3. TomArt says:

      Now that makes sense. Thank you.

      Still strange that people would insist on inferior, less practical technology when a proven, globally-expanding network already exists (Tesla Superchargers). Makes no sense to do such a poor job of reinventing Tesla Motors’ “wheel”…

      1. CCS will “never” be global. So far, only CHAdeMO and Tesla Supercharger come close.

        As hard as the German government and German auto makers have tried to kill other standards (which arrived due to the void in their own lack of leadership in this field), I’m not impressed with the outcome with respect to their competition.

        So, sorry if I chuckle every time somebody has proclaimed the death of the market leaders with CCS. Maybe it does happen, but if so, it won’t be because CCS is so awesome.

  25. cmina says:

    /off topic

    Official response: Tesla has *NOT* decided if Model 3 Supercharging is free

    https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/4dc6rs/official_response_tesla_has_not_decided_if_model/

  26. Tony Williams says:

    If I were Tesla, the way I would handle the German government (and Spain, too?) mandate of at least one CCS by taking one of the 4 Superchargers at a typical site and adding the correct logic circuit / plug parallel to a Supercharger cable.

    Then, I’d make it as short as the Supercharger cable, almost guaranteeing that it would be difficult to use. Obviously, Tesla will need to add RFID / credit card reader to bill at the maximum allowable rate.

    I would not charge the Teala car, since an adaptor can very simply be included with every car (should the car ever be mandated to have CCS, which is not currently the case).

  27. Spider-Dan says:

    I’m very happy to hear this. Hopefully it is one more step on the way to the end of the charging standards war.

  28. Bone says:

    “The more difficult problem is to make 400 volt cars compatible with an 800 volt charger!!!”

    That’s a non-issue. All DCFC chargers adjust the output voltage anyway according to car being charged. Just make output voltage range wider, and that’s it.

    The more difficult problem is to make new 800 volt cars compatible with old 400 volt chargers. And even that is solvable by charging the pack in two halves. You just need some contactors in the car to separate and switch between the halves.

  29. tftf says:

    It’s funny how Tesla lovers argued for years that CCS was either “vaporware” or a “Frankenstein” plug with no future – and that all car makers should finally adopt Tesla’s standard.

    As I have said since then: CCS (and its evolutions, see article) will be the dominant standard in Western countries, maybe everywhere one day.

    Tesla will be the one to adapt CCS sooner or later.

    1. TomArt says:

      It is not unreasonable to be baffled by a bunch of fools reinventing Tesla’s superior “wheel” – Tesla Motors already had a practical, efficient, compact plug standard that could handle charge rates 6 years ahead of their time, and already had a growing global network!

      Aren’t markets were supposed to be efficient…?

    2. JakeY says:

      The people arguing CCS is vaporware or that it is a “Frankenplug” are CHAdeMO supporters, not Tesla supporters.

      I have yet to see anyone in the Tesla claim CCS will just die off and be replaced by the supercharger standard. From most discussions over at TMC there is an expectation they will be harmonized (in Europe the supercharger connector just needs two more pins to match the CCS one).

  30. Bloggin says:

    Tesla was just the first to offer a fast charging standard that was widely available. But it was only available for Tesla cars.

    The Supercharger network is a huge carrot for the rest of the auto industry, especially in the US.

    They all know that there is a way to charge a CCS vehicle at a Supercharger. But there has really been no need, since the 200+ range EVs were all from Tesla.

    I think Tesla joining now signifies that more automakers, like GM are close to launching more 200+ mile EVs, and ‘may’ have taken Tesla up on the offer to invest in the Superchargers network and their cars can have access to them.

    With other auto manufacturers investing, a new company will be formed and a new name for the charging infrastructure.

    What I see happening is that the key Supercharger stations in place off the interstate will be expanded with a new name.

    Think of large QuickTrip size Supercharger stations, but with out the Tesla name.

    I see this as the only viable option, besides having each automaker try and install their own chargers, duplicating the efforts and dollars. What a waste that would be.

    It will be interesting to see how this all works out in the near future.

  31. jamcl3 says:

    It is just European regulations, Tom. Don’t make a big deal out of it.

  32. Bill howland says:

    I don’t see the connundrum here. Tesla’s Chademo adapter is an external cable. Why couldn’t their CCS cable be an external cable?

    If tesla wants to or is forced by Germany to come out with a cable, why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?

    If it is truly only Germany that requires this, that means ‘combo1’ (north america) versions will never happen. But if Tesla releases both combo1 and 2 versions, then that line of thinking will have proven to be incorrect.

    Our european friends frequently state that the J1772 combo1 (the single phase jack) should be abandoned and the world use only the Mennekes jack. 2 comments on that.

    Euro and North American distribution isn’t likely to change anytime soon. As far as standards go, Europe has some looking in the mirror to do as the power is mostly the same (Britain cheats a bit at times with a much cheaper to implement look-alike system which I’m not getting into here, but it gives the illusion that it is exactly like the rest of Europe) – so with only 1 ‘standard’ they sure do have many, many totally incompatible attachment recepticles and plugs. Almost every country is different.

    Since Europe can’t get their act together on simple attachment plugs, there isn’t going to be any impetus for harmonization of power utililization, with North America.

    And when it does change, I won’t live to see it, and it doesn’t look like EV’s will be the cause of the change.

    The second thing is that the savings of the single phase jack over the Mennekes is enough over hundreds of thousands of vehicles to sell the car with a cheaper jack and plug, even though it is a second standard.

    Maybe a start would be If Europe could get rid of their 10 different plug styles and combine with countries they’re not currently at war with.

    Yes, yes, that’s ancient history, and its currently the US that has destroyed 7 countries, but I’m no part of that.