PCNA sample letter -North American Supercharger access…
06-10-2023, 05:20 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
best i could muster - afaik i have zero VIP juice - but Im working on a upgrade from nobody to someone they barely acknowledge exists…
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 06-10-2023 at 06:21 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Dr. G7 (06-10-2023)
06-10-2023, 05:20 PM
#17
06-11-2023, 10:25 AM
#18
After initially being PO’d that Musk had found a way to ‘win’ the battle, I’ve realised that for those of us with CCS1 equipped vehicles being able to use the Tesla S/C network is a major plus given the dire status of the existing CCS1 ‘network’. Now we just need for the EU brands to approach Musk and do a Ford/GM.
One wonders about V2H/V2G since Tesla currently doesn’t support those, and electricity suppliers may well have been banking on future millions of BEVs being able to support the grid at times. I find V2H to be a huge plus in theory.
Caveat: there is 7.5 billion $s of IRA money involved in the BEV charging network buildout, and the Feds may well be able to harness that leverage to ensure that all legacy CCS1 equipment gets access to a S/C. One hopes so.
One wonders about V2H/V2G since Tesla currently doesn’t support those, and electricity suppliers may well have been banking on future millions of BEVs being able to support the grid at times. I find V2H to be a huge plus in theory.
Caveat: there is 7.5 billion $s of IRA money involved in the BEV charging network buildout, and the Feds may well be able to harness that leverage to ensure that all legacy CCS1 equipment gets access to a S/C. One hopes so.
Last edited by thebishman; 06-11-2023 at 10:29 AM.
06-11-2023, 12:43 PM
#19
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
After initially being PO’d that Musk had found a way to ‘win’ the battle, I’ve realised that for those of us with CCS1 equipped vehicles being able to use the Tesla S/C network is a major plus given the dire status of the existing CCS1 ‘network’. Now we just need for the EU brands to approach Musk and do a Ford/GM.
One wonders about V2H/V2G since Tesla currently doesn’t support those, and electricity suppliers may well have been banking on future millions of BEVs being able to support the grid at times. I find V2H to be a huge plus in theory.
Caveat: there is 7.5 billion $s of IRA money involved in the BEV charging network buildout, and the Feds may well be able to harness that leverage to ensure that all legacy CCS1 equipment gets access to a S/C. One hopes so.
One wonders about V2H/V2G since Tesla currently doesn’t support those, and electricity suppliers may well have been banking on future millions of BEVs being able to support the grid at times. I find V2H to be a huge plus in theory.
Caveat: there is 7.5 billion $s of IRA money involved in the BEV charging network buildout, and the Feds may well be able to harness that leverage to ensure that all legacy CCS1 equipment gets access to a S/C. One hopes so.
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f15...e-station-pro/
The following users liked this post:
thebishman (06-12-2023)
06-11-2023, 01:17 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I've sent the following - as a community I think feedback to PCNA will help our cause here…
------------
Dear PCNA,
I am writing to you as a loyal and happy Porsche customer. I love my 2020 Taycan Turbo and it excels at all things except in one area. The North American CCS charging network is simply unacceptable in terms of quality, reliability, and customer experience. Fortunately for both of us there is an alternative that will greatly enhance my Porsche ownership experience, and your competitors in North America are showing the way. Frankly all Porsche EV need access to Tesla's supercharger network and that will greatly enhance my ownership experience and continued loyalty to the brand for future purchases.
In the short term (2024 or 2025) I am request the 3 A's (AAA)
Further integration questions, NACS port support, in car plug&charger, etc… can be left to future plans and longer term considerations. However lack of access to the Tesla Supercharger network in 2024 and beyond is going to be a severe competitive disadvantage and affect the long term value of all Porsche EV on the North American used market.
The AAA approach outlined above requires _NO_ modification to any existing Taycan (Macan or 718 EV) and provides 100% compatible access to Tesla's supercharger network greatly enhancing the desirability of Porsche EV products in North America. Porsche being recognized leader in Performance should want to provide access to the recognized leader in North American fast charging which is the Tesla Supercharger network.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this reasonable request and look forward to continuing to be a Porsche EV customer.
------------
Dear PCNA,
I am writing to you as a loyal and happy Porsche customer. I love my 2020 Taycan Turbo and it excels at all things except in one area. The North American CCS charging network is simply unacceptable in terms of quality, reliability, and customer experience. Fortunately for both of us there is an alternative that will greatly enhance my Porsche ownership experience, and your competitors in North America are showing the way. Frankly all Porsche EV need access to Tesla's supercharger network and that will greatly enhance my ownership experience and continued loyalty to the brand for future purchases.
In the short term (2024 or 2025) I am request the 3 A's (AAA)
- A1 - Negotiated Access to the North American Supercharger Network (like Ford & GM have done)
- A2 - an Adapter to access the North American Supercharger Network (like Ford & GM will do)
- A3 - an App to start/stop/bill my Supercharger charging sessions (we all know software can be done here)
Further integration questions, NACS port support, in car plug&charger, etc… can be left to future plans and longer term considerations. However lack of access to the Tesla Supercharger network in 2024 and beyond is going to be a severe competitive disadvantage and affect the long term value of all Porsche EV on the North American used market.
The AAA approach outlined above requires _NO_ modification to any existing Taycan (Macan or 718 EV) and provides 100% compatible access to Tesla's supercharger network greatly enhancing the desirability of Porsche EV products in North America. Porsche being recognized leader in Performance should want to provide access to the recognized leader in North American fast charging which is the Tesla Supercharger network.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this reasonable request and look forward to continuing to be a Porsche EV customer.
I'm under no delusion that my letter will make any difference with PCNA, but I feel it's beneficial to give them the feedback - I expect VW/Audi/Porsche to be nearly last to the table on this development if ever
also I ruthlessly separate having access via any mechanism to North American Supercharger Network and the drama aaround ditching J-1772/CCS 1 ports on the vehicle - the latter while desire-able in my opinion is less "urgent" and with simple adapters ultimately viable for a very long time there by punting the whole ditch CCS1 physical plug until the last possible moment.
eyes on the prize here is access to the network via most any reasonable mechanism - which is a separate conversation from when/if VW/Audi/Porsche move to NACS ports on their vehicle's (and connectors on their PMC+/PMCC) from the factory.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 06-11-2023 at 02:10 PM.
06-11-2023, 01:21 PM
#21
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
of course Tesla/Elon could do this unilaterally with out Porsche (or any other vendor) having to engage - but I'm advocating for a more hands on approach rather than "waiting" for Tesla/Elon to do the right thing…
I'm under no delusion that my letter will make any difference with PCNA, but I feel it's beneficial to give them the feedback - I expect VW/Audi/Porsche to be nearly last to the table on this development if ever
also I ruthlessly separate having access via any mechanism to North American Supercharger Network and the drama aaround ditching J-1772/CCS 1 ports on the vehicle - the latter while desire-able in my opinion is less "urgent" and with simple adapters ultimately optional for a very long time.
eyes on the prize here is access to the network via most any reasonable mechanism - which is a separate conversation from when/if VW/Audi/Porsche move to NACS ports on their vehicle's (and connectors on their PMC+/PMCC) from the factory.
I'm under no delusion that my letter will make any difference with PCNA, but I feel it's beneficial to give them the feedback - I expect VW/Audi/Porsche to be nearly last to the table on this development if ever
also I ruthlessly separate having access via any mechanism to North American Supercharger Network and the drama aaround ditching J-1772/CCS 1 ports on the vehicle - the latter while desire-able in my opinion is less "urgent" and with simple adapters ultimately optional for a very long time.
eyes on the prize here is access to the network via most any reasonable mechanism - which is a separate conversation from when/if VW/Audi/Porsche move to NACS ports on their vehicle's (and connectors on their PMC+/PMCC) from the factory.
my money is available for any of the german's that "read the room" on this issue and push to gain me access to the supercharger network in North America…I'll humbly suggest I'm not alone on this front as a very experienced EV customer - and I truly pity any Porsche sale person attempting to explain to soccer mom's Porsche's position on the Macan EV in 2024 if Porsche does not have a response/road-map…
and since doing EV's since 2012 and talking to friends, familiy, aquaintances and co-workers fast charging network access is a highly visible aspect of their EV purchase migration and they are aware of it - it's not some tech-wonky thing -they are deeply concerned and value access to a functional network with good standards and access...silence in this space will lead to two results: 1. not moving to an EV at all 2. going with the vendors who are proactively engaged on this topic.
I was also "all in" on a future post face lifted .2 Taycan CT (GTS or Turbo I'm waffling) MY'25/26 - but now I'm thinking I'm on hold on that plan pending engagement from Porsche on this topic - Silence is not golden for me personally on this topic and it will influence my future purchasing decisions - but may simply be I choose to remain satisfied with the status quo of my 2020 Taycan Turbo longer than I was orginally planning - I'm not defecting back to Tesla - but future purchases will take this development into consideration…I can't believe I'm the only potential Porsche customer with that perspective.
keeping what I currently own easy and plausible - but I'm certainly not spending "new money" on any EV product with out an explicit response in this space - even a formal "we're doing nothing" explicit response may be acceptable for "new money" purchased because then I can make an informed decision about my purchase…but a non-response will give me pause about writing a check - it smells of lack of engagement and deer in headlights about things they don't want to understand or engage on.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 06-11-2023 at 02:08 PM.
The following 3 users liked this post by daveo4porsche:
06-11-2023, 03:43 PM
#22
Rennlist Member
I mean, nobody really gaf about all the technical details. 99% of people just want to charge fast when needed and reliably. I don’t care what the plug is. I don’t care what it does other than charging fast. I don’t even care about price. If I’m on a road trip i want to charge. Adapter is fine if needed.
and when it comes to which will win this is beta vs vhs. Pick a format. Usbc didn’t win over a. C was an evolution and backward compatible.
Ea and others have failed miserably. Ford and gm have now admitted that.
and when it comes to which will win this is beta vs vhs. Pick a format. Usbc didn’t win over a. C was an evolution and backward compatible.
Ea and others have failed miserably. Ford and gm have now admitted that.
The following 4 users liked this post by Spyerx:
06-11-2023, 04:40 PM
#23
I want more range in future EV cars and faster reliable charging, that's it.
The following 2 users liked this post by usctrojanGT3:
daveo4porsche (06-11-2023),
Pool Shark (06-15-2023)
06-12-2023, 12:39 AM
#24
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The following users liked this post:
daveo4porsche (06-12-2023)
06-12-2023, 12:43 AM
#25
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The problem isn't Porsche per se.
It's Europe the continent as a whole. It's heavily invested in CSS1.
But if Porsche wants to survive as an EV maker in North America, it will adopt NACS -- regardless of any letter writing campagn.
With Ford, GM and possibly smaller makers like Rivian and Lucid all adopting NACS as the standard, there will be no need for EV charging stations with CSS1 in North America.
And the Asians won't make the same mistake Nissan made with CHAdeMO, no good came out of that fight. They will adopt NACS sooner rather than later.
It's Europe the continent as a whole. It's heavily invested in CSS1.
But if Porsche wants to survive as an EV maker in North America, it will adopt NACS -- regardless of any letter writing campagn.
With Ford, GM and possibly smaller makers like Rivian and Lucid all adopting NACS as the standard, there will be no need for EV charging stations with CSS1 in North America.
And the Asians won't make the same mistake Nissan made with CHAdeMO, no good came out of that fight. They will adopt NACS sooner rather than later.
Last edited by ipse dixit; 06-12-2023 at 12:51 AM.
06-12-2023, 04:31 AM
#26
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The problem isn't Porsche per se.
It's Europe the continent as a whole. It's heavily invested in CSS1.
But if Porsche wants to survive as an EV maker in North America, it will adopt NACS -- regardless of any letter writing campagn.
With Ford, GM and possibly smaller makers like Rivian and Lucid all adopting NACS as the standard, there will be no need for EV charging stations with CSS1 in North America.
And the Asians won't make the same mistake Nissan made with CHAdeMO, no good came out of that fight. They will adopt NACS sooner rather than later.
It's Europe the continent as a whole. It's heavily invested in CSS1.
But if Porsche wants to survive as an EV maker in North America, it will adopt NACS -- regardless of any letter writing campagn.
With Ford, GM and possibly smaller makers like Rivian and Lucid all adopting NACS as the standard, there will be no need for EV charging stations with CSS1 in North America.
And the Asians won't make the same mistake Nissan made with CHAdeMO, no good came out of that fight. They will adopt NACS sooner rather than later.
we'll see how this plays out.
the European CCS2 plug lacks the inherent design problems of the CCS1 plug and therefore there is no motivation/need/interest in switching, and is mandated by EU policy.
it's also important to separate the physical standard CCS1/CCS2 from the charging protocol of CCS - I do not forsee CCS as a protocol going away (I'm unaware of any major techincal issues with CCS as charging protocol - it works fine in europe on their more robust better designed CCS2 connector) - I in fact expect CCS to become embedded/entrenched even more since automakers and charging vendors already have CCS charging "protocol stacks" implemented in their vehicles and they will continue to be required going forward for compatibilitiy with non-Tesla DC Fast chargers - I also infact expect that supercharger integration will be achieved by actually having the Superchargters provide a native CCS session - but hosted physically on the NACS connector/plug/cable - both CCS1 and NACS share a 5 wire/conductor desgin - there is no reason NACS can't "host" a CCS charging session - and Tesla is in fact doign this today in north america at any site with a magicdock adapter - NACS can "host" CCS charging sessions if you have the physical adapter - I do not expect any vendor (including Ford/GM and/or others) to actually add/adopt or provide a supercharger protocol stack for charging in their vehicle - they will continue to be CCS based vehicle's with an NACS connector.
details thoughts and a lengthy (too lengthy) write up can be seen on the link provided below post #17 - basically Tesla's superchargers are "bilingual" - they can talk native Supercharger to Tesla vehicle's and talk native CCS to CCS vehicles - this is why existing CCS vehicles in North America require no changes to work with the Magicdock enabled superchargers - Ford/GM only need to adapt the phyiscal cable for ease and greater reliability - and in the process they get rid of the troublesome (proven fact at this point in time) CCS1 physical design...
https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/th...-2#post-247525
CCS1 physical design will transition away with NACS taking over - but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay in north america and europe - but in North America it will increasingly be provided via a NACS physical connector/cable offering improved physical ergonomics and ruggedness - hopefully leading to less down time at CCS charging vendors that swap the cables/connectors…
it's my "sense" that in North America the "problems" with CCS are in 3 basic categories:
- CCS1 plug design lacks ergonomics and is fragile and unwieldy - and when it breaks (which it does often) the entire station is down until the connector/plug can be replaced/repaired - a costly "fault" in both time and direct costs - stations can be routinely offline for weeks/months waiting for cable repair/replacement - NACS greatly improves on the ergonomics and robustness vs CCS1 and I believe this is the _MAJOR_ factor driving Ford/GM after living with CCS1 up until now.
- Charging session "activation" - EA/EVGo/Charge point and others seem to have complex and fragile charge session activation procedures. These are operational problems and have nothing to do witih CCS1 physical design _OR_ the CCS protocol for charging a vehicle - they have designed/implemented Point of Sale systems that simply are infuriating. Switching to NACS will have no affect on these issues and operational problems with non-Tesla Charging vendors will remain even if we could wave a magicwand and make NACS happen overnight for all existing and future vehicle's and chargers - this is not a short coming of CCS or NACS - it's purely operational "front end" issues with how the charging vendors are managing their charging infrastructures - European CCS based charging vendors seem to be demonstrating much greater compentence in this space. This problem has nothing to do with CCS as a charging protocol
- Reliabilty of of the stations to remain operational for period of weeks/months with out requiring maintanance. Frankly none of the existing CCS charging stations installed by any of the vendors seem to be demonstrating any robustness in terms of remaining operational - this problem is not helped by item #1 - but even if the CCS1 conenctor and cord is perfect often times stations are offline for days/weeks/months waiting repair for various reasons (including wonky point of sale components that are part of item #2). Charging vendors in North America seem unable to be able to effectively maintain functional charging stations, and even when they are known to be defective, seem to lack motivation and/or ability to address repairs in a timely fashion. Again this does not seem to be a major problem in other markets.
- NACS should improve #1
- Tesla has demonstrated competence for item #2 - other's not so much in North America - the reasons are probably multiple and complex and institutional in nature.
- Tesla has demonstrated competence for item #3 - other's not so much in North America - the reasons are probably multiple and complex and institutional in nature.
Ford/GM are moving to NACS as a physical standard, but I expect they will remain CCS based vehicle's and would be deeply suprised if they ever adopt/implment the native Tesla supercharger protocols - they don't need to if Tesla is providing native CCS sessions at their supercharger sites. Which they are - because my unmodified 2020 Taycan Turbo charges just fine at the Supercharger in Scott's Valley, CA via the passive MagicDock adapter - this is also how Tesla operates their network in Europe - native Supercharger charging sessions for Tesla vehicle's via CCS2 connector/port/cable - and native CCS charging sessions for non-Tesla's via the CCS2 connector/port/cable…
CCS1 as a physical standard needs to go away - it has issues and they are affecting the robustness and usablity of the entire North American EV charging infrastructure - it's a failed design at this point in time - no question and no one can defend it or it's record in terms of usability/ergonomics or reliability in terms of being resilient for it's use case. NACS wins hands down on those metrics when compared to CCS1.
but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay and will never go away - nor should it. It's not the problem.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 06-12-2023 at 05:01 AM.
06-12-2023, 05:12 AM
#27
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
CCS 2 i believe is what is in europe not the fragile/flawed CCS1 plug design - Ford and GM seem to be swapping J-1772/CCS1 for NACS - this is technically feasible - J-1772 and CCS 1 adapters will be required for NACS based vehicles - both of which are already sold/for-sale on the Tesla site currently (I expect they will be included/available accessories directly from Ford/GM) for existing CCS1 vehicles a NACS adapter needs to be provided for supercharger access - this adapter also exists but is not generally for sale at the current time (it is however present at the 12 supercharger sites in North America embedded in the MagicDock holster at those sties) - a "loose/free" adapter is what is required for existing CCS1 North American vehicles - again Ford/GM claim this will be provided (free?) to existing customers in 2024…
we'll see how this plays out.
the European CCS2 plug lacks the inherent design problems of the CCS1 plug and therefore there is no motivation/need/interest in switching, and is mandated by EU policy.
it's also important to separate the physical standard CCS1/CCS2 from the charging protocol of CCS - I do not forsee CCS as a protocol going away (I'm unaware of any major techincal issues with CCS as charging protocol - it works fine in europe on their more robust better designed CCS2 connector) - I in fact expect CCS to become embedded/entrenched even more since automakers and charging vendors already have CCS charging "protocol stacks" implemented in their vehicles and they will continue to be required going forward for compatibilitiy with non-Tesla DC Fast chargers - I also infact expect that supercharger integration will be achieved by actually having the Superchargters provide a native CCS session - but hosted physically on the NACS connector/plug/cable - both CCS1 and NACS share a 5 wire/conductor desgin - there is no reason NACS can't "host" a CCS charging session - and Tesla is in fact doign this today in north america at any site with a magicdock adapter - NACS can "host" CCS charging sessions if you have the physical adapter - I do not expect any vendor (including Ford/GM and/or others) to actually add/adopt or provide a supercharger protocol stack for charging in their vehicle - they will continue to be CCS based vehicle's with an NACS connector.
details thoughts and a lengthy (too lengthy) write up can be seen on the link provided below post #17 - basically Tesla's superchargers are "bilingual" - they can talk native Supercharger to Tesla vehicle's and talk native CCS to CCS vehicles - this is why existing CCS vehicles in North America require no changes to work with the Magicdock enabled superchargers - Ford/GM only need to adapt the phyiscal cable for ease and greater reliability - and in the process they get rid of the troublesome (proven fact at this point in time) CCS1 physical design...
https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/th...-2#post-247525
CCS1 physical design will transition away with NACS taking over - but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay in north america and europe - but in North America it will increasingly be provided via a NACS physical connector/cable offering improved physical ergonomics and ruggedness - hopefully leading to less down time at CCS charging vendors that swap the cables/connectors…
it's my "sense" that in North America the "problems" with CCS are in 3 basic categories:
Ford/GM are moving to NACS as a physical standard, but I expect they will remain CCS based vehicle's and would be deeply suprised if they ever adopt/implment the native Tesla supercharger protocols - they don't need to if Tesla is providing native CCS sessions at their supercharger sites. Which they are - because my unmodified 2020 Taycan Turbo charges just fine at the Supercharger in Scott's Valley, CA via the passive MagicDock adapter - this is also how Tesla operates their network in Europe - native Supercharger charging sessions for Tesla vehicle's via CCS2 connector/port/cable - and native CCS charging sessions for non-Tesla's via the CCS2 connector/port/cable…
CCS1 as a physical standard needs to go away - it has issues and they are affecting the robustness and usablity of the entire North American EV charging infrastructure - it's a failed design at this point in time - no question and no one can defend it or it's record in terms of usability/ergonomics or reliability in terms of being resilient for it's use case. NACS wins hands down on those metrics when compared to CCS1.
but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay and will never go away - nor should it. It's not the problem.
we'll see how this plays out.
the European CCS2 plug lacks the inherent design problems of the CCS1 plug and therefore there is no motivation/need/interest in switching, and is mandated by EU policy.
it's also important to separate the physical standard CCS1/CCS2 from the charging protocol of CCS - I do not forsee CCS as a protocol going away (I'm unaware of any major techincal issues with CCS as charging protocol - it works fine in europe on their more robust better designed CCS2 connector) - I in fact expect CCS to become embedded/entrenched even more since automakers and charging vendors already have CCS charging "protocol stacks" implemented in their vehicles and they will continue to be required going forward for compatibilitiy with non-Tesla DC Fast chargers - I also infact expect that supercharger integration will be achieved by actually having the Superchargters provide a native CCS session - but hosted physically on the NACS connector/plug/cable - both CCS1 and NACS share a 5 wire/conductor desgin - there is no reason NACS can't "host" a CCS charging session - and Tesla is in fact doign this today in north america at any site with a magicdock adapter - NACS can "host" CCS charging sessions if you have the physical adapter - I do not expect any vendor (including Ford/GM and/or others) to actually add/adopt or provide a supercharger protocol stack for charging in their vehicle - they will continue to be CCS based vehicle's with an NACS connector.
details thoughts and a lengthy (too lengthy) write up can be seen on the link provided below post #17 - basically Tesla's superchargers are "bilingual" - they can talk native Supercharger to Tesla vehicle's and talk native CCS to CCS vehicles - this is why existing CCS vehicles in North America require no changes to work with the Magicdock enabled superchargers - Ford/GM only need to adapt the phyiscal cable for ease and greater reliability - and in the process they get rid of the troublesome (proven fact at this point in time) CCS1 physical design...
https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/th...-2#post-247525
CCS1 physical design will transition away with NACS taking over - but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay in north america and europe - but in North America it will increasingly be provided via a NACS physical connector/cable offering improved physical ergonomics and ruggedness - hopefully leading to less down time at CCS charging vendors that swap the cables/connectors…
it's my "sense" that in North America the "problems" with CCS are in 3 basic categories:
- CCS1 plug design lacks ergonomics and is fragile and unwieldy - and when it breaks (which it does often) the entire station is down until the connector/plug can be replaced/repaired - a costly "fault" in both time and direct costs - stations can be routinely offline for weeks/months waiting for cable repair/replacement - NACS greatly improves on the ergonomics and robustness vs CCS1 and I believe this is the _MAJOR_ factor driving Ford/GM after living with CCS1 up until now.
- Charging session "activation" - EA/EVGo/Charge point and others seem to have complex and fragile charge session activation procedures. These are operational problems and have nothing to do witih CCS1 physical design _OR_ the CCS protocol for charging a vehicle - they have designed/implemented Point of Sale systems that simply are infuriating. Switching to NACS will have no affect on these issues and operational problems with non-Tesla Charging vendors will remain even if we could wave a magicwand and make NACS happen overnight for all existing and future vehicle's and chargers - this is not a short coming of CCS or NACS - it's purely operational "front end" issues with how the charging vendors are managing their charging infrastructures - European CCS based charging vendors seem to be demonstrating much greater compentence in this space. This problem has nothing to do with CCS as a charging protocol
- Reliabilty of of the stations to remain operational for period of weeks/months with out requiring maintanance. Frankly none of the existing CCS charging stations installed by any of the vendors seem to be demonstrating any robustness in terms of remaining operational - this problem is not helped by item #1 - but even if the CCS1 conenctor and cord is perfect often times stations are offline for days/weeks/months waiting repair for various reasons (including wonky point of sale components that are part of item #2). Charging vendors in North America seem unable to be able to effectively maintain functional charging stations, and even when they are known to be defective, seem to lack motivation and/or ability to address repairs in a timely fashion. Again this does not seem to be a major problem in other markets.
- NACS should improve #1
- Tesla has demonstrated competence for item #2 - other's not so much in North America - the reasons are probably multiple and complex and institutional in nature.
- Tesla has demonstrated competence for item #3 - other's not so much in North America - the reasons are probably multiple and complex and institutional in nature.
Ford/GM are moving to NACS as a physical standard, but I expect they will remain CCS based vehicle's and would be deeply suprised if they ever adopt/implment the native Tesla supercharger protocols - they don't need to if Tesla is providing native CCS sessions at their supercharger sites. Which they are - because my unmodified 2020 Taycan Turbo charges just fine at the Supercharger in Scott's Valley, CA via the passive MagicDock adapter - this is also how Tesla operates their network in Europe - native Supercharger charging sessions for Tesla vehicle's via CCS2 connector/port/cable - and native CCS charging sessions for non-Tesla's via the CCS2 connector/port/cable…
CCS1 as a physical standard needs to go away - it has issues and they are affecting the robustness and usablity of the entire North American EV charging infrastructure - it's a failed design at this point in time - no question and no one can defend it or it's record in terms of usability/ergonomics or reliability in terms of being resilient for it's use case. NACS wins hands down on those metrics when compared to CCS1.
but CCS as a charging protocol is here to stay and will never go away - nor should it. It's not the problem.
Tesla never had problem #1, and they have demonstrated competence on items #2 and #3 vs. the other guys.
06-12-2023, 06:23 AM
#28
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
OMG - I think I just figured something out - seriously
CCS1 is so bad and so fragile - it makes perfect sense for charging operators to leave their stations broken - because the potential cost of constantlly "fixing" broken CCS1 cables/connector is more expensive than the lost revenue - there is ZERO correlation between "fixing" a broken CCS1 cable and any expectation of longevity - you can fix it on monday and it can be broken again on Tuesday when some one drops it again…you can't do this effectively and expect to make any money - it's better to leave it broken than fix it…because it will just break again - so you "budget" a fixed number of replacement cables to control costs - and once you "hit" that budget - well the potential lost revenue is less costly than the repair…
CCS1's design incentivizes leaving the station broken…vs. a policy of repair when broken for uptime.
WOW - OMG - WOW - I can totally see it.
why fix it, if it can just break again - we'll visit each station once every 4 months and repair any broken cables, but leave them broken until each "scheduled" visit - because the lost revenue (and saving on electricity not consumed) is a better cost control metric than unbounded repair cycles.
that boy's and girls has blown my mind for tonight!!
CCS1 is so bad and so fragile - it makes perfect sense for charging operators to leave their stations broken - because the potential cost of constantlly "fixing" broken CCS1 cables/connector is more expensive than the lost revenue - there is ZERO correlation between "fixing" a broken CCS1 cable and any expectation of longevity - you can fix it on monday and it can be broken again on Tuesday when some one drops it again…you can't do this effectively and expect to make any money - it's better to leave it broken than fix it…because it will just break again - so you "budget" a fixed number of replacement cables to control costs - and once you "hit" that budget - well the potential lost revenue is less costly than the repair…
CCS1's design incentivizes leaving the station broken…vs. a policy of repair when broken for uptime.
WOW - OMG - WOW - I can totally see it.
why fix it, if it can just break again - we'll visit each station once every 4 months and repair any broken cables, but leave them broken until each "scheduled" visit - because the lost revenue (and saving on electricity not consumed) is a better cost control metric than unbounded repair cycles.
that boy's and girls has blown my mind for tonight!!
06-12-2023, 12:31 PM
#29
06-12-2023, 02:40 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
the article assuems nothing about Superchargers can change which is a false premise - none of the issues listed in that article require changing NACS or the cars to "fix" - it requires software to be released and longer cables retrofitted to the stations.
short term thinking…
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 06-12-2023 at 03:48 PM.
The following users liked this post:
thebishman (06-12-2023)