When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
EA assures us `The vehicle controls the charging speeds, not the charger'.
They left out the part where they fraudulently set them to a lower limit in the first place.
the vehicle controls the charging speed with in the range "offered" by the EVSE - the vehicle can not request/pull more power than is offered - the statement is that the EVSE does not control how fast the battery charges the vehicle is always in control of that aspect of the charging session to avoid damaging the battery - but there is an upper limit of power "offered" - so if a station/stall only offers 68 kW - the vehicle's maximum charge rate will be 68 kW…
now the fraud is that EA claims to have 150/350 kW stations - but the stations rarely actually offer that speed to vehicles for a variety of reasons.
Porsche's statement and EA's statements are factual but useless - because charging speed can NEVER be guaranteed there are too many environmental variables outside the control of the stall and the vehicle.
the vehicle controls the charging speed with in the range "offered" by the EVSE - the vehicle can not request/pull more power than is offered - the statement is that the EVSE does not control how fast the battery charges the vehicle is always in control of that aspect of the charging session to avoid damaging the battery - but there is an upper limit of power "offered" - so if a station/stall only offers 68 kW - the vehicle's maximum charge rate will be 68 kW…
now the fraud is that EA claims to have 150/350 kW stations - but the stations rarely actually offer that speed to vehicles for a variety of reasons.
Porsche's statement and EA's statements are factual but useless - because charging speed can NEVER be guaranteed there are too many environmental variables outside the control of the stall and the vehicle.
daveo
now that porsche has announced that it too will adopt the NACS standard plug, do you think Porsche will gain access to the Tesla chargers in the next few years ?
now that porsche has announced that it too will adopt the NACS standard plug, do you think Porsche will gain access to the Tesla chargers in the next few years ?
according to the Press Release 2025 if I recall…although depending on how things go it could be soon - your existing Taycan already works with Superchargers in europe, and in North American you can use any of the "magicdock" equipped Supercharger's _TODAY_ - the NACS/CCS1 adapter is most likley going to be "generic" so the _ONLY_ issue is the process by which you start charging session - and I'm not sure how Tesla will/can limit that to just the vendors disclosed on the schedules…
and I've arleady charged my Taycan at the Scott's Valley, CA supercharger with MagicDock & the Tesla app…
if Tesla just allows you start a charging session via the Tesla app at ANY V3/V4 supercharger nationwide - nothing is required from Porsche, and people can purchase their own adapters.
official word is 2025 - but it could go sooner or later depending on the whims of Tesla and how much they try and lock it down…or not.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 12-29-2023 at 11:53 AM.
”physical access to a Supercharger in North America has never really been the issue - it's always been one of lack of a business agreement between the CCS1 crowd and Tesla - the physical access to the network is the most trivial problem to solve - it's always been billing/control/activation and permission from Tesla and support from the other CCS1 Vehicles' (i.e customer that have problems with their CCS1 vehicle will be take seriously by their dealerships)”
In my post # 552 “Used Taycan prices dropping”. I attest the aforementioned.
Buc-ee's for example has installed twenty + EV chargers. All Tesla.
And about five occupied.
“the unmitigated failure of EA as an effective CCS1 charging network in North America has done more to make this happen than _ANY_ physical adapter could ever accomplish. The business school case study here will be legendary going forward. If EA had been effective and reliable this entire thread would not exist.”
EA is “our” money. As in VW dieselgate consent decree.
Surely there are members in these forums with connections to federal district attorneys, US congressmen, senators? EPA, etc
EA is “our” money. As in VW dieselgate consent decree.
"It took the combined ingredients of idiocy, ineptitude, and total disengagement for this farce to have reached the full apex of incredulous disaster."
”physical access to a Supercharger in North America has never really been the issue - it's always been one of lack of a business agreement between the CCS1 crowd and Tesla - the physical access to the network is the most trivial problem to solve - it's always been billing/control/activation and permission from Tesla and support from the other CCS1 Vehicles' (i.e customer that have problems with their CCS1 vehicle will be take seriously by their dealerships)”
There were/are significant technical issues as well. The NACS physical connectors are agnostic to (traditional) Tesla Supercharging vs CCS communications protocols. Tesla Supercharging, like CHAdeMO (and Chinese GB/T) use CANbus signalling, whereas CCS uses PLC. Different chips required for each. Different programming required for each. The higher level activation and billing sits on top of all of this.
The NACS and new J-3400 specs use the traditional Tesla physical connectors, but also use CCS communications protocols across them. This means older Teslas (pre-2021 or so) can not use a non-Tesla NACS charger until their charge port ECUs are upgraded. Tesla currently offers this service for older Model S/X owners, but not 3/Y yet. (For older 3/Y without the capability, it is pretty easy to DIY it though. I've done my car.)
The newer V3 Tesla Superchargers can speak both CAN-based and PLC-based protocols. The older V2 Superchargers apparently are not going to be upgraded and will continue to speak just the CAN-based protocols. This means non-Tesla cars will only be able to use V3 and the newest V4 Superchargers.
It will be confusing to folks who are not well versed in this stuff for the next few years...
…There were/are significant technical issues as well. The NACS physical connectors are agnostic to (traditional) Tesla Supercharging vs CCS communications protocols. …
It will be confusing to folks who are not well versed in this stuff for the next few years...
Maybe, maybe not. According to daveo4porsche … I've arleady charged my Taycan at the Scott's Valley, CA supercharger with MagicDock & the Tesla app…
MagicDock equipped Superchargers are V3 and speak both protocols.
I should add that Tesla V3 Superchargers have already been speaking CCS in Europe for several years now. And they've been allowing some of them to be activated by non-Tesla cars via the app for a couple years. From a communications protocol point of view, CCS 1 here in North America and CCS 2 in Europe are the same. It is the physical connectors that are different. So simple "pass through" adapters can be used. J-3400 is great because it harmonizes a lot of stuff between North America, Europe, and much of the non-Chinese ROW. It will be interesting to watch Japan - as they are quite wedded to CHAdeMO. But outside of Nissan, they also don't produce a lot of EVs yet.
What still needs to be done is integration with the vehicles infotainment system for things like routing, battery preconditioning, plug&charge, and so on. This will take the legacy automakers some time to develop, test, and deploy.
Your Taycan can charge at _ANY_ MagicDock enabled Tesla Supercharger in North America _TODAY_ - MagicDocks are an integrated "CCS1 Adapter" at select (few) North American Tesla Superchargers - no changes are required to most/all CCS 1 vehicles including Taycan. they provide a "preview" of how this all could work … and 100% functional todday.
Requirements are: Tesla.app, Tesla Account w/billing information - the Tesla.app has an embedding "map" showing which sites support the magicdock - there are a couple in California, some in Washington, Colorado, and more in the North East (New York state as 8+ sites)
Process to charge is fairly simple:
pull into a MagicDock site
position your vehicle so the cord can reach (this may be sub-optmial but it is what it is for now)
launch the TEsla app - tap "Charge my non-Tesla"
select the site you're at
tap "charge here"
select the stall number you're parked at
that will "release" the magicDock and you then just plug in and charging will/should begin
as you can imagine this process could unilaterally be extended by Tesla to support any V3/V4 site in North America if you could bring your own NACS/CCS1 adapter
if you did NOT option the $460 400V/150 kW FastDC booster your Taycan will be limited to 50 kW max charge rate
if you optioned the $460 400V/150 kW FastDC booster your Taycan will charge at up to 150 kW - I routinely get 136-142 kW charging my Taycan in Scotts Valley, CA Tesla supercharger site.
V4 supercharger's are 400-1000V affairs - in theory they could support 270 kW charging for Taycan - we'll see how that comes to pass as this evolves
this site is quite helpful for visualizing the existing supercharger network - and has filters, if you filter for V3/V4 superchargers you'll get an idea of all the possible sites you could use in the future with an adatper - https://supercharge.info/map
here are the current North American "magicdock" sites - you can charge your Taycan there _TODAY_
here are all the V3/V4 sites that represent a pretty good estimate of future possible with NACS/CCS1 adapters
I don't think it matters. The problems are the same either way.
NACS is perfectly able to handle vehicle to home…
the major issue with _ANY_ generator (battery based or otherwise) is that you need a auto-cutoff switch install to isolate your home from "the grid" while you are running on battery power when the power is out…
this requirement is for safety/capacity management - the electrical utilities do not want your home back feeding power back on to the grid while the grid is down electrocuting their workers - your electrical meter is bi-directional and will not stop power from flowing back into the grid if there is a power source electrifying your home's main panel…this has NOTHING to do with what you power source is (solar, gas generator, EV battery, hamsters, children on tread mill).
cutoff switch is also required for capacity management - "the grid" is shared - and if you do not isolate your home from "the grid" you will also be powering your neighbor's homes since they will "see" power on the grid and attempt to consume it - causing brown outs and/or draining your battery…
the whole design does not work without a cut-off switch to isolate your home from "the grid" before power is provided to your home's main panel.
the complexity of adding an auto-cutoff switch varies greatly depending on your homes electrical panel, composition and age and capacity - therefore it's not a "fixed" cost to add a cut off switch - and can be anywhere to no more expensive than adding an EVSE - or require a completely new electrical panel
Spoiler
Example: I live in a townhome complex - in my "block" of homes - adding the cutoff switch to my home was easy - since the main panel and meter was separate from the home's "main panel" with all the individual circuits - the home adjacent to mine (we share a wall) build at the exact SAME time by the SAME contractor - it's "meter" panel also contains the meter, the main service breaker & all the separate individual breakers for each of the rooms/applicance - because of this adding an auto-cut off switch to the home ADJECENT to mine and built at exactly the same time - will be much much much more expensive because you'll have to swap the main panel and move all the breakers to a sub panel to "insert" the cut-off swtrich between the meter-panel and the new sub-panel - the lowest estimate for _JUSTS_ the panel work is $7500 - but there is additional complexity in that the panel is in an outside cabinet with a gas meter - and it no longer meets code to have a main panel that close to gas meter - as long you don't touch it it's no problem - but once you change the panel the local county has said you have to address the gas meter vs. electrical panel new building code "distance" problem - and cost to address that is unclear - because of this my neighbor who shares a WALL with my unit can NOT get ANY home backup system because it requires reworking both the main home electrical panel and moving the gas main…it's just so bizarre…
it' get's complicated really really fast in the real world…
the EV connectors shape is not the problem.
once the "auto-cut" off switch hurdle is overcome - you then need vehicle software and bi-directional EVSE and support from the EVSE manufacturer to allow the battery to be discharged when requested by the auto-cutoff switch…I see this as fairly easy and straight forward once you have the auto-cut off switch issue handled.
the real problem is most people want automated - and therefore any system in this space has to be integrated with the cut-off switch - and there is no standard for modular cutoff switches - so to make this all work as a "single" system - anyone offering V2H system must provide the following component integrated with one another:
auto-mated cut off switch
bi-directional EVSE
vehicle software updates to talk to the switch & EVSE
home communications topology for al the components to have known good communication
compliance with local regional standards required by various regional utilities
customer support for this entire system (your local dealer mechanic is NOT a source for this type of customer support)
installation support and local permit approvals to get the home's modifications approved
all the non-vehicle software to integrate all this stuff…normal provided by a dedicated single purpose computer
OTA software updates
home management portal to control setting and review system status and diagnostics
it's feasible and straight forward, but is still mostly a "bespoke" system in integrating all the moving pieces to make these separate parts all work together to cut over power automatically and have sufficient software systems in place that all the moving. pieces talk to each other, provide status, and work reasonably well.
frankly given the state of some vehicle software and their inability to keep software reliable and robust for a close system such a vehicle - expanding their software development to a system this complex is beyond the scope of most vehicle manufactures - and given the lack of any real standards in this space - Home, Toyota and porsche would all have their "own" systems…which would suck because if I own a Toyota EV and a Porsche EV - I'd probably expect both of them to be a source of power - but that's even more complex of an integration if both Toyota and Prosche have separate V2H systems and can't share a cut-off switch…
I've had a non-vehicle based home backup for years (Powerwalls) it works slick - but the auto-cutoff/switch and gateway to control the whole system is the _KEY_ element. - adding this sort of cutoff switch to existing homes is a bespoke thing for each home and therefore varies wildly in cost…once the auto-cutoff switch is installed adding battery, solar, generators is fairly straight forward and EV's could be layered in fairly easily if there was motivation to do so - what is lacking a standard protocol for cut-off switches to communicate with various power sources to tell them to discharge…
but adding the require auto-cutoff switch is equal to more complexity than adding an EVSE to an existing home…so IMHO that's the main issue.
it's worth noting any backup system like Powerwalls, EVSE's, generator are backup power - but that is NOT the same thing as "uninterruptible power" - depending on the power source, it's ability to ramp up and the cut over times - there may be anywhere from a fraction of second, a few seconds, or several minutes, or fully manual cut over once the main grid power has cut out. This surprised those that have installed such systems, but ultimately it's easy to tolerate once expectations are set. But a home backup system is rarely a full UPS - even my power wall's which have cut-in latencies measured in milli-seconds sometimes let's things "reboot" before power comes back on - but ultimately it's way way way better than doing with out power.
home power backup (regardless of power source) requires a cut-off switch be installed - manual or otherwise - and before powering your home you have to isolate it from "the grid" - and then you can bring your own power source online to power your local home's main electrical panel - it's nifty once you have it setup - but as mentioned the cost to get the home into this 'generator ready' state varies widely due to lack of standardization in home electrical panel design/implementation.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 12-29-2023 at 05:18 PM.
12-26-2023, 10:40 AM
