Wait.. is there still the same room at your house, but also a movie set version of it now too? Or is the old room filled with puppies now? So many questions
@@alakani I believe the old set was essentially a setup in his basement, that he later completely move to another place; there is only one instance of his set
i mean i'm not sure if he still does this but LGR at one point filmed a lot in the same storage building he keeps most of his stuff. Mr. TC probably does something similar
Agreed. Honesty is so refreshing. And all the things said make sense, especially the bit to have a standard credit card payments and they need to force the price per kWh posted just like the cost per gallon now.
This honesty is really important to quickly identifying problems in a system before they becomes a serious problem. I’ve worked at places that fostered trust and didn’t punish or berate people when they “fessed up.” I’ve also worked at companies that do the thing you probably assume will happen. Not only is the first company far more pleasant to work for, but we seldom ran into large issues that lurked under radar until we got close to the end. Everyone from the customers to shareholders love that. Turns out not making your employees live in fear has concrete benefits!
The US usually lets standards compete. Eventually the market decides on a winner and the rest wither and die. It's a messy approach, but it does ensure that we don't get stuck with a dud.
@@pepstein The EU allows this too, but only for a while. After a few years if the companies can't decide on one for themselves, they step in and decide for them. If it's something that is going to be replaced every few years, then enough product cycles can happen that 'letting the market decide' works, but if it's something that will place for decades, letting companies argue gets in the way of just using it.
I've never found a charger that didn't work on my Leaf but I've only used free public chargers. Until today I didn't know there was a difference. I don't mind since the Leaf is the city car in our household. Road trips require an internal combustion engine for me.
@@rogeraldrich2533 I have the 2022 Leaf with 230-ish miles of range. I have a long commute and regularly drive it 150+ miles per day. I love the car, but any time I've wanted to take a bit of a longer trip to go see friends, I have to plan more than I should just because the DC charging options are so limited.
I have a 2019 Leaf, and I love it. I just understand that it will always be getting charged in my garage, and that is fine with me. I do agree that building cars with Chademo in 2023 is absolute MADNESS, however.
I went for my first road trip with an EV recently, and I have to agree that the most annoying part about the charging process was that so many charging stations require you to have an app to pay. Especially Electrify America, because they require you to pre-pay on their app, and as soon as you go under $10 then it recharges you, so you can never get the money out of your account.
This and the parking issue. Did a short road trip in Italy and with it being a foreign language it made things super annoying. Im paying for charging, do i also need to pay for parking? Will i be charged if i dont pay, or will i pay and waste my money? In one particular parking lot it said you need to pay for parking but no info on how to pay. But also in the same parking lot all parking lines were painted over with “electric” only logos. But the sings remained…
ChargePoint tried charging me $10 for 10 CENTS worth of charging, because they won't let you pay for the amount you use, just $10 increments, like its a feckin gift card. I was floored when I saw that.
@@MisutaaAsriel they're trying to avoid transaction charges :/ when most customers are spending say £25 or £50 at a time on petrol the transaction fee is insignificant but now you have thousands of £5 charging sessions or cheaper but the transaction fees have a base figure which gets more significant. They could pass on the fee to you directly but then you'd be pissed you had to spend £0.6 for £0.1 of energy 🤣
It's weird listening to this stuff happening in the US. In Europe Tesla has been happily using CCS2 for their cars for years - the model 3 debuted with CCS2 in Europe - and now most supercharger sites allow other cars to charge too, and it works beautifully. I do believe Tesla is using their proprietary protocol for their cars and additionally support PLC for others, but it doesn't really matter in the end. The reason why this is specific to Europe because in Europe we have 3 phase AC everywhere, often up to 22kW, and the NACS doesn't support 3 phase AC.
Additionally, Tesla's CCS2 plugs on their chargers are better than those on other chargers. They are sleeker and the cables are lighter. And not by a little - they are VERY sleek and VERY light. CCS itself as a standard isn't as bad as the implementations are.
CCS2 is substantially better than CCS1. It's not just that it supports 3-phase AC. It also has a more robust locking system, and it's a bit more compact. I don't think CCS1 would even fit in the space available in Model 3 or Y.
@@NoNameAtAll2 China is currently using GB/T, but they're working with Japan on a joint standard called ChaoJi, but like CCS, they're using two different plugs, one for China and another for Japan.
For those that don't know when the change over to unleaded fuel happened we changed the diameter of the fuel nozzle to prevent leaded gas from going into unleaded cars as it would destroy catalytic converters. they made adapters so older gas jugs and for people who had on site fuel (Farmers for example) could use their leaded nozzles. Or if you had Hopped up your car and converted it to leaded for the higher octane. Note leaded fuel for road cars wasn't officially phased out till 1996.
“Leaded gasoline's century-long reign of destruction is over. The final holdout, Algeria, used up the last of its stockpile of leaded gasoline in July (2021). That's according to the U.N. Environment Programme, which has spent 19 years trying to eliminate leaded gasoline around the globe.” From NPR
The reason Tesla is deciding to open it up, is because the US Government is offering grants/subsidies for companies to set up charge stations, with the caveat that it needs to be open to all EVs. Tesla already has the network, so they basically get free money by opening up their chargers to everyone.
I think it should be a bigger (or at least _known)_ issue to people that Tesla, a CAR company, is officially making most of its profits off of selling carbon offsets [via dodgy 3rd party companies], not from, y'know, selling CARS. (And that started well before the giant recall.) They're meant to be a "green" company, but carbon offsets just allow other companies to make no efforts to curb their pollution (future? No?) by paying their way out. And by some B.S. metric like "[unit] of CO2 is absorbed per [unit] of trees" (not even exaggerating ...sadly.) Most people, I've found (mostly USians; sorry, but it's true) also don't seem to realise that much of the world's electricity (much of the US, too) comes from coal. Not very "climate friendly." And many have no problem with it, as if being turned into electricity makes it "clean"...? Though neither is launching knockoff Challengers into "space, technically" (though I know, same face, different company) and flying in private jets. Iirc the "top 2%" create as much CO2 pollution as the other 98%, but it may have "only" been as much as the 48% below them. (Memory lapse at the perfect time. Good to check those numbers anyway. Don't take my word for it.) And now a slight rant but also a factual list: Tesla gets billions in govt money, plus double-dipping by selling those "carbon credits" that already net grants & tax breaks, which themselves offset any "pollution savings" the company might have made. (And those carbon offset companies are extremely dodgy, too. Pollution & especially how much is absorbed by supposed CO2 sinks isn't a set number, especially not [actual claim used] "per square unit of trees") Plus, didn't they just recall like 100,000 of their cars last year or earlier this year? And all those lawsuits against the company for workplace safety violations (including forcing employees to work in close quarters during the height of "The Plague" under threat of firing [which many were anyway]) and the lawsuits over racist & sexist workplace attitudes and so many other things... I won't even mention anything about the worshiped and loathed jewel-fund "frontman" & his ...technical issues.
Plus the money the CAR company gets from selling 3rd party carbon "offset credits" (doubling up cos they already get fed grants & breaks for that), far more than their profits from _selling CARS._ An "eco-friendly" CAR company that makes its money off of selling "pollution rights". And locking in its proprietary stuff into the infrastructure so that everyone must follow - collusion or caving, I can't say.
With Tesla adding the magic dock, announcing CCS super chargers, and releasing a J1772 home charger, I was convinced that they were going to switch to CCS within the next five years or so. Now I don't know what's going on.
@Ferro and they should as they have the bulk of US EV sales. NACS also is earlier to use and handle and more future proof. It's also more inline with the size of gas pumps, which consumers are used to using.
There is a high likelihood Elon Musk will be in jail in the next couple of years. Add the risk of recession and higher interest rates and it is just as likely the whole EV market disappears. They are an expensive luxury good.
@@adoggz only if they can lock out every manufacturer who doesn’t pay them money. This is happening so that they can maximize profits. Tesla is tanking as a company due to rapidly dropping market share and needs to stay relevant with the only thing they still have a good market share of - fast charging stations.
@@andrewahern3730agreed. Honestly, even needing a credit card terminal shouldn't be the requirement. A simple meter + a per kWh charge should be the requirement. I should be able to hand the cashier a $20 bill and that should equate to xx amount of kWh on port 3 entering my car.
@@robertrichard1819 But that goes against a cashless, employee-less future, with charging stations that are available 24/7 without needing the things that employees require like seating, climate control, bathroom facilities, insurance, payroll management methods, etc. I have not interacted with a human cashier for ICE fuel purchases in 25+ years, why would I start now? I don't know how current charging tech works, but I see a future where you have a subscription and your car communicates with the terminal providing its ID/membership info, and you get automatically charged to a credit card or bank account. The ID could be done by RFID tag, license plate reader, bluetooth to the infotainment center, or something of that nature.
Agree, and a take I had elsewhere applies here too: connected chargers should fail functional. Billing and monitoring up lets a network charge for electrons, but an outage of connectivity taking down billing means the amps can't be billed, not that they can't be provided. If the provider wants to get paid, they can build more robust billing or seek SLA contracts with providers to recoup costs. It's safety and security - a payment system outage shouldn't mean you have to ride out a hurricane in your car in the parking lot of a boarded up Dennys in Beaumont.
Little known fact: Tesla Superchargers and cars actually do not need web connectivity to charge. When the web goes down, the car charges anyway, records the billing locally and reports it to Tesla when communication is restored. This is one reason why they are more reliable than the current standard CCS systems. I do hope Tesla retains their reliable communication and billing for Tesla cars, even as they adopt DIN 70121 for communication and ISO-15118 for "plug and charge."
It's quite possible to do that with credit cards (though less so with apps / account login required payments). Despite it being possible, companies sometimes don't process payments offline in case the card payment is rejected upon connectivity being restored (eg overdrawn/limit). Tesla I guess has the advantage of being able to disable your car remotely if you don't pay up, or drive it back to them :o
@@peter65zzfdfh Tesla HAS a open revolving account with them ands NOT a one time payment so likely they file a "failed payment" charge IF the CC does DECLINE
@@peter65zzfdfh The point being "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" . The Tesla system has minimal steps, less chance of data hacking, fewer points if potential failure and is demonstrably more reliable over a decade of use. And you're not waving a credit card or phone around in public waiting for a handshake.
When you mentioned Apple's Lightning Connector, something gelled: something they used to call Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome. Apple had it in spades in the 90s -- even so they were accused of it far more than they were deserving of it -- and Tesla after a time deserves the same. Apple invented a lot of things because it needed to. The Lightning Connector is something Apple needed to invent because there was no existing connector that fit the bill -- it took USBC *years* to get it right. On the other hand, they designed the protocol that *COULD* have been and was meant to be extended to support USB3 speeds, but look where that went. Tesla open sourced the connector, but NOT the protocol. Tesla in the early days open sourced the battery technology because Musk insisted making the planet better was their goal. No one believed that, and of course it never turned out that way. He built out the charging network as a competitive advantage and now he's betting that getting money from the federal government is more important than keeping a closed charging network. That's why he's doing it, but that's not enough for him to make it as easy or as convenient for non-Teslas to USE it, just to make it possible. In that light, open sourcing the connector -- but not the protocol -- seems like just a cost-cutting measure for Tesla, doesn't it?
Plug and charge is great but i do think that an option to even have tap to pay with a credit card fixes almost all issues bypassing the app. Especially when charging location is in a terrible cell service area
Tap to pay means a point of failure and a target of vandalism on the dispenser. Better to let you enter your credit card details on your car's touchscreen and have the car send those details to the charger over the cable. You're shielded from inclement weather that way.
@@PCLoadLetter I don't see people going around damaging credit card readers on gas pumps. I don't think someone is going to damage the reader without damaging the charger worse if they are going to do that. Hmm, well, I guess there are a bunch of weird EV haters out there but they would probably damage the charge connector as well if they are going to damage a charge station.
@@romelec Whether the card details go through the charging cable, are transmitted wirelessly, or go thru the other cables plugging into any other credit card reader makes little difference.
The biggest problem I see with having to use an app from the car maker is what happens when they no longer support the app? This could happen because the manufacturer goes out of business, is bought out by another company which wants everything to move to its app, or the original company changes the app to "upgrade it" breaking compatibility with older models or they just decide to stop supporting it. Look at how many people bought into smart home systems that were bricked when the company stopped supporting them.
Already running into this with my 2017 bolt. Whenever I plug in my phone it has a "helpful" prompt that I can get lots of nice features if I just install their app~ (side note: when the app was still supported, it never worked how I wanted it to, and would regularly unlock my car when I was a decent distance away, not doing anything in the app! but then it would almost never actually connect when I wanted it to, so checking charge status and everything was impossible without walking out to the car and unlocking it) there's no way to dismiss the popup. It's just there for a solid 15 seconds. nothing dismisses it. Fun part: I HAVE the app it wants installed. Just SOMETIMES it's not running on my phone/responding fast enough, so the car assumes I don't have it. But Chevy ended support on android last year. So if this app ever fails to run on a new device or something, I can't use android auto at the beginning of my drive (y'know: when you want to set up your navigation and music) The app is a whopping 400MB and literally all it does is not allow my password manager to auto-fill it (it reloads the login when it does, and it asks me to log in EVERY TIME), show me a picture of a white bolt, show me ads to buy accessories from them, and have a bunch of buttons that never seem to successfully transmit to the car, just always stuck on "sending"~ It used to have a searchable owner's manual, but apparently that's gone now. It says I need to download it. all 0MB of it. And the download button does nothing. Literally it would be better to have no app at all than this app.
Charging providers will continue to offer apps (or alternative pay methods as they do now), so an OEM app will not be necessary to charge. Plug-n-charge is still new (only few EV models support), so it's likely details and the reliability will improve, with options as to where an account can be set up. This not much different than making utility payments today. Most people have option to setup of payment via a bank, 3rd party provider, or directly with the utility. (ie: multiple options and types of user experience to choose)
"the BIGGEST problem"? "A" problem... . Maybe it would have been prudent when designing a "universal standard" to both ensure it was "universal" and define not just a connection standard, but also a universal, simple app based payment system. Then over the first 2-5 years ensure that it just "worked"? .
The other day, I drove up to a charger and tried to activate it. I couldn't get the screen to turn on. I looked up the charging company. Turns out they were bought by Shell. On a hunch, I fired up the Shell app, located the charger, and remotely started my charging session. This was exactly the kind of situation that keeps some people from buying an EV.
I bought my Model 3 only after Tesla released their CCS1->NACS adapter in mid 2022 because of the availability of CCS1 chargers in rural BC. When I road trip I use CCS1 when it's convenient, but the Tesla Supercharger network is vastly more reliable.
I live in Manitoba and Winnipeg has 2 "destination tesla" chargers ONE supercharger and countless FLO / CO-OP DC chargers and on hiway Petro Canada all are rolling out CCS combo so for ME IN Winnipeg CCS is FAR "better" but Northern Ontario the supercharger network BLOWS CCS out of the water when I went out that way last year (in a fuel car)
@@jasonriddell agreed, I also think most people don’t realize that most times a charge fails is not because of the physical connecter but because the actual hardware is garbage. Put a NACS plug on a crap charger and you still got a crap charger…. but look so easy to plug and unplug!
As an IONIQ driver in the UK where most rapid chargers now support contactless card payment, I’d still take plug to charge in a heartbeat if it were offered. Touch screens you have to make choices on before it’ll take your payment, while standing in the rain, which then get smashed so the dispenser goes out of order, make the whole experience non-slick. One way in which the petrol/gas nozzle is more ergonomic than CCS: you don’t have to get the orientation just so. (Even if, as you say, that isn’t really a problem.) Bigger problem: tolerances so tight/exceeded that you can’t use the Tesla v3 CCS supercharger on the IONIQ, because the LED housing protrudes 1mm too far.
I mean, there's no reason that has to be the case. Why are there any more buttons to press or any interface at all other than tapping your card. Like, when I get on transit using a contactless payment card, I just board transit...I don't need an account or anything, I just tap my credit or debit card on the fare gate and walk through. If they had bad implementations they should fix it. Not saying plug to charge is bad (although it has some disadvantages, or at least lacks flexibility, the car owner must always pay) but tap to pay should be trivially easy. There's no technical reason that it can't be.
Personally I'd want the contactless to always be there. It's not always a band new car that would roll up to the charger. I'm hoping to get my leaf fitted with the muxsan CCS2 upgrade and needing more electronics to deal with plug to charge would just make it cost more for little benefit to me. I've seen quite a few EV conversions on the road especially around Silverstone and again requiring the extra electronics for a fancy payment system would make those homebrew solutions even more prohibitively expensive for converting old cars when it's just not necessary.
@@DanielBrotherston at least on both instavolt and gridserve in the UK the most you have to do is plug in the car and tap the card, you can then just tap the card again to stop it so it's definitely doable and even already in place in the way you described.
Nacs used to not be open sourced but it is now available on the website and they have the implementation guides, functional specs, connector drawings, connector CAD and written standards freely available to download. They also have revised the connector to support 1000V not 1000A, the new revision and old connector are completely interchangable but only the 1000v connector will support the higher charging rates. Additionally, unlike CCS, NACS only specifies a maximum terminal/cable temperature so they can charge at any current as long as the cable and charge port temps stay within spec.
It's not open source. It's still not clear if there's patent concerns, but those will come out during SAE's review. It's also worth noting that Tesla vehicle and chargers use 2 standards implemented with the same plug. Tesla charging is still proprietary and uses CAN communication on the digital pins. Older Tesla cars (and maybe older Tesla chargers) only support this method. NACS on the other hand follows a slight modification of the IEC 61851 defined handshaking used by CCS and CCS2. Any Tesla vehicle that can use a passive CCS adapter as well as any charger that has a magic dock can "speak" IEC 61851.
@@aliancemd It is currently being standardized by the AES. Once that's done, it will be 100% open and Tesla won't be able to license it (this is happening with Tesla's cooperation). They will be able to collect service fees on their superchargers, of course.
This is 90's cell phone shenanigans. Remember having a squid power cable adapter for your old cell phone since every manufacturer had a different power port? Well we're heading in that direction again, but now in a much more inconvenient car form.
I still have three or four old phone chargers in my big box of power converters in my living room closet. That box of chargers has come in hand about three or four times in the three decades it has been slowly growing. Yay!
Those states might crap bricks if they saw how many completely unattended fuel stations we have here in the UK and presumably across the rest of continental Europe. 😱 No need for apps, just pop in a credit or debit card to pay, then pump your own fuel.
@@MrPGT It's the exact same way in the "other 48" states, too. The only time I've ever had to talk to a gas station attendant is if I wanted to buy a bottle of soda on the way out, or if the pump was out of receipt paper.
@@MrPGT I'll let you in on a secret: we do that in rural Oregon too if the guy takes more than 20 seconds to cone to the car. I do it myself every time because none of those idiots can figure out how to fill my car without spraying petrol all over the side.
@@That-Guy_ which I hate to say they won't continue too once they have all the other evs and variables running around, the main reason they are so reliable is that they have quashed the majority of the variables
@@nicholashaines4136 It's more the other chargers were often installed by some random business with a grant who proceeded to completely ignore any maintenance and repairs, while Tesla has a decent monetary incentive to repair theirs. Will likely change the other direction as incentives increase based on chargers actually working. Tesla's chargers are more complex and thus less reliable, but they fix them.
19:45 - I think _having_ Plug & Charge is very important - but not *at the expense of other payment methods.* P&C is by far the easiest way to do it. But we absolutely need to be able to pay at the charger, too. And well-functioning smartphone apps.
Having had both sets of cords/cars, the J1772 vs NACS difference isn't big but it still noticeable. NACS vs CCS1 though, is a HUGE difference. It is much easier to wield the NACS vs the CCS1. And just because only one company makes it, it's still a standard. It became open over 6 months ago. It's used by the majority of vehicles in North America.
@@1djbecker Well, that's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are something which actually *are* standard and we don't think about them at all. We only pay attention where there's a bunch of different would-be standards when a single one (almost regardless what it is). So you go and buy a natural gas fitting and they sell you the only one that exists and you don't think about how terrible that could have been.
Yes I own a Tesla. Plug & Charge is convenient although not necessarily the killer feature. That so far we have a 100% rate of supercharging successfully over ~40 tries is. It just works. No fumbling so far. No moving from one charger to another. Most locations have 8-12 Tesla superchargers - and in most areas in the Northeast multiple Supercharger locations even in small locations (each with 8-12+ chargers). Works+available and a “don’t have to think about it” changes the equation compared to other electric cars for long travel.
Like the original android/windows vs apple debate. If you want something that "just works" you'd go apple. It really does make sense why people get "scared" away from non-tesla offerings. From the outside it looks like a sh**show and from the inside it seems like it sort of is. That is unless you are like Alec and hardly use the DC fast chargers. Then you can pick the car for the car, not for it's infrastructure. And once non-tesla is figured out "enough" more people will be able to vote with their wallets for the car. Maybe then we will get physical buttons again hah.
@@0Rookie0 I don't own a Tesla but I would love to have plug & charge that just works. I hate having to fumble with getting an EA session to work. Having a credit card reader on every plug only means another failure point. How many times have you seen the dreaded BSOD at an EA terminal? The irony is **killing** me. And I don't even fast charge that often. Also most EA locations can only accommodate 4 vehicles charging at the same time.
I have used both, and the NACS connector is just plain better - at least from an ergonomics perspective. My wife's view is that it's much better. I agree that a tap to pay approach is a great idea. Thanks for this video, there were some insightful comments that I appreciated.
Thanks for bringing up pickups that may have the bed removed and replaced with a different bed. A fuel filler neck is a pain enough to relocate or adapt. A charging port can just be mounted somewhere other than the bed from the factory, which would make upfit a lot nicer.
I agree 100% that all chargers should have a standard payment method. I absolutely hate the idea of having to rely on apps and 3rd party services, when banks and credit cards are standard and already exist. I run a custom rom on my phone so I wouldn't even be able to use these apps if I wanted to. I wish companies would stop assuming everyone has an android or apple phone that they're willing to install anything on.
I think that's a US issue... the banks could agree on some standards of QR payment similar to the India's UPI or Singapore MAS's PayNow/ SGQR standard (MAS has been signing agreement for inter-connect with several ASEAN countries and UPI. tho International payment with QR is still pretty limited, other than the Alipay+. but china bad, right?)
@@PrograError that would probably still require some kind of phone app. Credit cards work fine and are standard. No need to reinvent the wheel. Could also make physical tokens an option, that would make it possible to use cash to buy the tokens in advance.
@@redsquirrelftw maybe, but now you get to pay like the Chinese do everywhere without using credit card but your own bank account credit/ cash. And therefore only one app to pay for everything. Your bank's. (Tho depending on whether they will want to do a lifestyle app... And PayPal, etc. being onboard)
My biggest frustration is just competing standards and potential for lock out or confusion. Adapters and these new developments largely get around this. The disimilarities between NA and EU in cars is still dumb, imo. And homogenizing between the two for all car standards would be nice.
The differences come down to the electrical systems in the two regions. EU is three-phase, US mostly isn't. And for normal people, it doesn't matter the slightest. Nobody is taking their cars with them across the Atlantic, for many more reasons than the charging standard.
@@Giuliana-w1f North America uses a split phase power network. Your Split Phase is 120v and Single Phase is 240v. You only need one of the three pins from a European plug.
@@benanderson89 my split phase? I use 220V between phase and neutral, or 380V between 2 or 3 phases. I'm talking about using a single 240V pin in the US
I'm a proud 2016 Leaf driver. Funny enough, I was considering looking at newer EVs in the next year! Now I have reason to take a wait-and-see approach. I was rather excited to upgrade to a CCS-capable vehicle; now I'm waiting to see not only how the new cars will be equipped, but how the infrastructure will expand in my immediate area over the coming years.
2014 Leaf owner here, I've been waiting on Dala to finish his CHaDEMO to CCS converter. Luckily (bad luck is still luck right?) I live in Alabama, the nearest DC fast charger is something around 35 40 miles from me.
depends where you are.. if you are NA, then waiting is worth it if your Leaf is still good. If you are in Europe, then CCS will be the standard for a while.
To be honest I think Europe does manage this hole charging think a lot better. Way more chargers that actually work and not only Superchargers (but still Superchargers have Typ 2 CCS). And especially Germany where it will be soon required that charges have card terminals. So we have 1 standard we all can agree upon and if we need to charge somewhere there is a card terminal available. (even if prices are a bit higher on those.)
@@jslay88 true, but law can provide an even playing field while forcing backwards compatibility. So current consumers are protected. Networks can be build up by competing companies, increasing incentive for consumers to invest. Which gives companies the chance to innovate.
One thing to consider is you don't want a charging station to have a lot of parts and cost a lot to make. If you're going to increase charger coverage, you're going to want to minimize charger cost.
@@multipotentialite as @AlexWeiner said, and screens are not cheap, when you have GUI it push up compute power you need to operate it and each part can stop working. And personally I prefer to have payment in my app, not each station wants my card (payment processing can end badly)
38:10 One thing that was overlooked in the GM Press Release on accessing the Superchargers is that GM is still continuing to partner with EVgo to build out ~5,000 chargers. A majority of those chargers should be the 350 kW "Ultium Ready" units. The original agreement was to cover specific metro areas (Chicago is one of them), but there was no emphasis placed on travel corridors. However, the partnership expanded with Pilot/Flying J, and that plan includes 400 to 500 Flying J sites nationwide, with placements along interstate corridors. The first 200 of those Flying J EVgo sites are supposed to be built by the end of this year, and those 200 sites alone would provide EVgo with a similar level of coverage to Electrify America.
I think it would have been fairer to have done a visual comparison of a NACS connector with a CCS DC fast charger connector. The DC connector adds so much more bulk.
His concerns clearly are not about the physical dimensions, it's about the protocols and payment systems. The current app based payment systems do not foster competition. You don't have to install a separate app for every chain of gas station you ever stop at (although the fuel companies would love you to)
I think the difference in connector size is much more of a difference when you take into account CCS2 with it's separate but huge DC pins, instead of just NACS vs CCS/J1772
I always thought the size of the connector was a nice affordance: don't f*ck with this connector, there's a dangerous amount of energy flowing through it.
@@microcolonel It's not a concern, just something I noted. It's not even about actual level of protection, but the likelihood that people will actually steer clear of it. That's why I pointed out the affordance aspect.
CCS is not J1772, it's J1772 AND the two huge DC pins below it. CCS1 (North America) has five pins in the "circular" part of J1772 CCS2 (EU) has seven pins in the circular part of J1772, to accommodate three-phase AC charging Summary: ALL CCSx connectors have the two large DC pins at the bottom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System -- though this stuff is pretty confusing :(
So basically: The Tesla Connector isn't bad as a standard because of its design or whatever, but because its usage implied a proprietary protocol. (E.g. VGA vs HDMI - adapters need to be smart to translate between the two and implement the protocol). Now Tesla allows the Connector to speak the CCS protocol, so the two connectors become like USB-A vs USB-B - physically interchangeable, so adapters can just be dump pieces of metal?
like i get your argument but.... VGA VS HDMI didnt need adapters to translate because one was proprietary.. it was because one is analoge the other is digital... VGA to DVI-A are compatbile as the -A part(or tbf, any non DVi-D connector) had VGA pinouts so it jsut needed rewiring. and DVI-D(aka the DIGITAL part of DVI) was mostly compatbile with HDMI via a passive adapter....(active adapters are needed for certain use cases)because the signals where identical..... like.... HDMI to Display Port is a good example, booth same idea(digital video and audio transfer) using different connectors and protocols
@@rogerstarkey5390 that something is popular, don't mean is better. And NACS is cheaper on car side, on charging side, easier to use and you don't share credit card info with each charging station. So... CCS is dumb, as I like enforcing USB-C in EU, I think CSS is bad standard, not work out by companies, but created by consortium, if USB-C wasn't existing standard, consortium would create something stupid, I bet on it.
The charging networks can keep CCS for a while, build out and improve their software and then start switching some of their stations over to NACS over time if that's the way things are going to go. The car manufacturers need to start making their decisions now - mostly so they don't drag this out longer than it needs to. That wouldn't be good for the EV industry as a whole. Over the next two years we should see everyone in NA come to an agreement on which way we should go. I firmly believe Telsa needs to make sure that the important parts of NACS is open source and that they start a standards board to govern it with other manufacturers who sign onto using NACS in their vehicles and engineers from around the globe.
Your analysis is spot on. No question the NACS is marginally better than J-1772/CCS in some ways but it's depressing how many articles are using the "format war" VHS/Beta metaphor. Same goes for the "Tesla is seamless" argument, as if the connector was the reason for that seamlessness, and not the fact that in Tesla's case the same company made the car, owns the charger, and handles the billing. You expect this kind of thing from the Tesla-stans, but to get it from supposedly objective and knowledgeable sources shows how poorly understand the issue is by many of the folks you'd think would know better.
I'm glad you are talking about this. I think the switch is more on the issue with EA rather then NACS, I own a model three and love my experience but CCS handle is good enough. I just want everyone to pick a standard and go, If EA was more reliable I bet you CCS would be the standard but they dropped the ball enough Ford and GM can't trust them.
EA lack of infrastructure, poor reliability, and moving in slow motion is why all this is happening. None of the other charging network operators appear to be any better. Tesla deploys more new chargers per quarter than all of the CCS operators combined! It is totally insane. Completely unacceptable. Everyone screamed there just needed to be funding... The funding was approved, massive funding was approved at the Fed level. They are still sitting around on their hands. Given the reliability issues sitting around on their hands may be better than putting in POS chargers... In the mean time people will have options if you own a Ford or GM to pull into a Tesla supercharger. It just sucks all around.
37:04 Death Knell of CCS - depends on what VW, EA and Hyundai decide to do. Hyundai and VW are not eligible for a lot of the honey gushing out of gushing out of the fed ( aka the taxpayers’ pockets) but they are significant manufacturers of EVs.
8:30 Europe here, it´s a subset of ISO_15118 and you are right is over-complicated, but it´s the price you pay for having the same standard for the whole continent (included cryptography). it runs as a powerline modulation on the ContolPilot line.
EV-GO has already been putting NACS on some of their chargers-- they announced that they would be doing this back in 2021 (before it was called NACS, of course).
Yup. What is power-line networking? Why (hypothetically) didn't they something akin to USB or CAT5? What were the reasons for the "J" plug and CCS1 designs?
These people actually use and test all brands of chargers and dont have a grudge against any one brand. They go to CharIN conferences (the ones in charge of CCS) and report real information about all aspects of charging. www.youtube.com/@KyleConner www.youtube.com/@outofspecdave1554 www.youtube.com/@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney www.youtube.com/@InsideEVsUS
Re standardising the charge port location. We never even standardised the fuel port location (usually, but not always, at the rear, but no guarantee which side). Also not sure that Tesla will "open source" their connector. I imagine it's more likely they'll license it to third parties?
You mentioned that the CCS plug is just as usable as NACS, without considering how easy it actually is. The cable thickness, especially when cold along with the difficulty to plug in perfectly means it is not accessible to many people. If it can't be done with one hand, it is worse
He does address the fact that it isn't as easy to use as NACS, it seems like his point is pretty clear that it isn't as easy as NACS, but it is still an improvement over a gas pump nozzle. If we can make gas pump nozzles accessible, we can make CCS accessible. And even then, it seems like he is conceding that NACS is probably the best option.
@@smileyeagle1021 He addresses it in a cursory way. Buried the lead you might say. It's not a mere detail. It's the difference between a 18 Y.O. girl or an elderly person being able to use the plug or not. That's not a difference of degree. It's difficult enough to exclude a fraction of the driving population. But that is also part of the point. It's bad by design. No vaguely competent engineer would look at NACS and then later say, nah, CCS2 is a better approach so lets do that. Your objective has to be have been to design a worse solution. There's nothing about CCS that would've prevented it from being at least 90% as good as NACS, given the motivation. To get to CCS2, you have to reject that idea and design a plug/cable system so horrendous that you have to fit a handle ONTO THE HANDLE, just to be able to wrangle it.
I think the funding is also available to tesla, if they open up their chargers, so that might be why they're doing it now. More funding might mean more tesla charges, aleviating the capacity issues.
In at least one case Tesla has turned down the money because the people holding the purse strings figured they knew more about charging networks than Tesla.
Lots of good info. Tesla turned down some fed money because the fed wanted Tesla to change how Tesla had there whole system works ( by adding pay at the stall and since other stuff)... they did accept some money but held there stance on Not doing a complete redesign of what they have and what they have IS working great. Pay in app is great, it never breaks, no one can put a "skimmer" on it, it has unlimited support.... the charging network is a major asset part of Tesla and they are RARELY out of service. The joining of forces is BETTER for all EV users, it's going to help any manufacturer that gets on board. The Tesla charging network is HUGE, the more access to charging the better..... all super charging is backed by renewable energy.
@@rogerstarkey5390 It may be nicer for the supplier, but a world in which you'd need a different app for every product or service is a manifestly worse experience for the consumer. It makes reasonable sense why Tesla turned down the grant this time, but don't try to pretend it's because they're doing you a favour.
Okay, so I think I have the same brand washing machine because when yours went off, I frantically got up and checked on it only to realize I don't even have a load of laundry in there. That was a trip. Anyhow, that was a great video and thanks for sharing your perspective on things.
Who controls the NACS (proprietary) "open" standard? That's my question. It sounds to me like Tesla is the sole controller of the standard (yes anyone can use it... But only Tesla controls its future). Why would they allow Tesla this competitive advantage and control over their business? I agree with you on your points as well as where you disagree with Kyle. He's a smart guy, and says he welcomes dissenting opinions, but he is quick to dismiss those who disagree with him and their concerns without properly considering and addressing them. He's become more and more of a Tesla fan boy lately and it bugs me. I watched some magic dock videos and there were plenty of issues with cars trying to charge at them... Why? Because it's a lot harder to support all the other cars when you don't control the whole pipeline. As soon as they opened those magic docks, suddenly their super chargers weren't so reliable and didn't always "just work"... I'm also worried about what this means for the federal charging rollout... It's not clear if it's required to have CCS plugs... If CCS dies, what happens to those chargers who are potentially federally required to include CCS?
Yes. An open proprietary standard controlled by Tesla. It can be open and proprietary at the same time. Anyone can use it, but not everyone can own it and control it which is my concern. CCS doesn't have that problem.
Tesla isn't interested in government money if there are strings attached. They pretend like they want it but they don't actually take it/send in the invoice for payment at the end of the process. The CCS networks can put NACS plugs on their chargers. Some already do. And they can milk taxpayers until the next election for everything they can get.
@@brettspencer-curran8269 It's owned by Tesla. They still have the patents. They 'allow' people to use it. There's ZERO stopping them from making it closed again until their patents expire. The patent process requires you to 'open' it (tell people how it works) to get the patent. It doesn't require you to allow people to use it. GM and Ford have likely reached some individual deal to help alleviate the risk that Tesla changes their mind, but that deal isn't necessarily open to other manufactures in perpetuity. Indeed it's a good move on Tesla's part to get them onboard with a sweetheart agreement specifically so they can charge others in the future. Tesla have said others can use their patents, but Tesla say a lot of things.
@Andrew Ahern There are more, but the number of countries denoted as "many" is hardly the point. British people do the same silly thing, calling it the near and off side even when they actually mean right and left. The point is: The charging port on a Tesla is on the left side. Always. "Left" is a perfectly good word for this.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 "'Left' is a perfectly good word for this" …unless you're facing the car from the front, in which case the port is on the *right* side. That's why we say "driver side." I agree, though, that "driver side" and "passenger side" are also ambiguous terms, as are "near side" and "far side." It would make more sense to use "port" and "starboard" since those terms are unambiguous with regard to orientation.
This largely isn't financially viable in the USA because credit card networks and banks have WAY higher fees than in countries that have functioning governments.
@@markmuir7338 Um, literally all of our gas pumps have credit card readers and literally every store you go into accepts credit cards. I don't see why a charging station would be different.
@@mattwolf7698 Because the fixed minimum transaction fee is a larger fraction of the cost when charging an EV, since a charging session typically costs less than filling up a car with gasoline. Also, most gas stations in the USA don't make any money from selling gas. They make it up with the convenience store - which many EV charging stations are missing out on.
Preach it brother! It's like you read my mind, uncanny. Two comments though. First, something like 25% of people still use CASH to buy gas. Widespread adoption of EVs is going to require this to be taken into account. Second, it remains to be seen if Tesla's charger reliability holds true once they start having to interface with vehicles they didn't manufacture. That could be a whole different ballgame.
It's great how fast things have moved since this video came out. Several other car companies have said they'll support it as well as charging networks Electrify America and Chargepoint!
I feel like a lot of the momentum towards NACS and Superchargers may be a little bit misguided. We have this reverence of Superchargers being incredibly reliable, but so far that has only been within the closed walled-garden with a Tesla vehicle. The Magic Dock pilot sites tell me there is actually a LONG way to go for superchargers to be as reliable with non-Tesla vehicles as they are with Telsas. Superchargers are more plentiful with larger sites, which is a huge boon, but I am not convinced that non-Tesla vehicles won't have the same sort of challenges with Superchargers as they do with current CCS EV networks (e.g., slow handshake times, failed sessions). Ford and GM signing on are a good sign, but I wouldn't count on any current gen CCS cars working seamlessly in the future either. I remain skeptical that current owners of CCS cars will one day be able to easily and reliably charge on a supercharger, but if it pushes the industry to raise the bar moving forward, I'm all for it.
I had Tesla send me a note one time after a charging session that said they had trouble with the communication, so that charge session was free. All should do this. That makes the customer experience amazing. you still can charge regardless if the stupid app works. Also, the charge providers are incentivize to make a bulletproof infrastructure. Otherwise they lose money. Win win.
28:50 for streets with parking on both sides; installing on-street parking could include a change to 45-degree-angle parking on one side of the street, and adding bike lanes on the far side.
Sounds like Ford and GM are also getting API access, so they can add Supercharger NACS billing into their own EV app when using adaptors. (Don't know if they'll get plug & charge support on their future cars with native NACS). But I'd assume that if other EV car companies, like Hyundai, don't sign similar agreements then their drivers would need a Tesla app to pay (just like I understand is required for CCS cars that use the handful of magic docks) Looks like, at least short term, non-Tesla folks will be stuck with apps to pay for NACS.
By what Jim and Mary said their users would not need to use the Tesla app. I expect Tesla has or will have an API that lets them do the plug & charge, Tesla will want everyone to have a good experience at a Tesla charger.
I've been thinking about the points on plug and charge for a few days. I think that luxury brands, like BMW, Mercedes, etc., can't AFFORD not to have plug and charge. You can't be a luxury manufacturer who's less *convenient* than another manufacturer. Because of that, I think they're going to push really hard for it. For the more reasonably priced options? I think you're probably correct. VW, Hyundai/Kia, etc. should just be pushing to have at least tap to pay on chargers. For the accessibility of NACS vs CCS1, I think you're a little bit off, at least based on the part we've argued on Twitter (before all the Musking) about before. While MOST CCS1 plugs aren't any harder to plug in or unplug than the NACS plug, they CAN be. If you check their spec, CCS1 allows a force that's something like twice as high as ADA allows for gas pumps. NACS is significantly under the max force allowed. So while CCS1 is GENERALLY no worse than NACS for plugging and unplugging, it's not within ADA spec for gas pumps at the high-end, which means that it's unacceptable in my opinion. USUALLY good enough isn't good enough, especially as they take more wear over time and wider usage.
23:00 I appreciate the distinction that there is both a sense of "how things should be done, because it's what I have" and "I really don't want what that other guy is having" in terms of charging experiences. I'm a little surprised at how readily the benefits of NACS + Plug and Charge are minimized, while simultaneously minimizing the annoyances the CCS plug + Pay at Charger. It's largely not a delta of just one or two things, it's an aggregate of so many things. The example of using a gasoline pump being the baseline, and what the rest of the population will compare their experiences to, still falls on its face compared to the
As an engineer I'm annoyed for design reasons. Like nearly everything Tesla does it lacks any form of redundancy or ruggedness. The design philosophy is more like a phone than a safety-critical vehicle system. The fact that the low-power AC conductors and the high-power DC conductors SHARE PINS is concerning AF. It's one circuit malfunction away from the AC pins becoming LIVE at pack voltage...or from exposing the battery directly to mains AC! The thinner conductors require more cooling and are far less efficient, the ground return is higher resistance, the communication pins are considerably more fragile. And having two more automakers join one's proprietary standard moves us FURTHER from a single common standard instead of closer.
This is a great explainer video! I used to think plug and charge was the best way to build an EV charging network but after this, I have a different opinion that it maybe isn’t the best way. Thank you for giving such a well thought out alternative perspective.
As a Tesla driver - I 100% agree with you that every charger SHOULD have a credit card/contactless payment option. While it's great to be able to just pull up and charge at an own-brand supercharger, it's a massive inconvenience to not be able to use an "unfamiliar" one, say at a parking garage. Basically, convenience, not requirement, for any EV driver needs to be prioritized across systems.
I just use a J1772 to Tesla adapter and works no problem:) I had to download an app typically, but never had to do more than anyone else. Sucks if all the EV parking spaces are taken though:)
... or both sides, front right and back left, covering pretty much any situation you can think of. Sure, it will make your car maybe few kilos heavier and add a minuscule amount of copper to the total price but I'd gladly pay those few dozen $$ for the overall convenience.
I had no idea what CCS or NACS are, but found this video a very interesting way to be learning stuff, mostly because I just installed a 50 amp/240v outlet in my garage to "future proof" it for an electric car some day.
For home charging, both CCSx and NACS will work fine at home; which EVSE you plug into your new receptacle will depend on what your next EV requires at its charge port, and/or what adapter you want to use (or not use). Due to NEC continuous load derating, the max you can pull from your new 50A 240V receptacle is 80% or 40A. Be aware that that will be fine for maxing out the onboard AC charger of a lot of EVs -- 40A/240V is about 10kw -- but there are several EVs that can pull ~11kw (Audi, VW ID.4, Tesla Model 3 and probably the Model Y comes to mind), which would need a 60A circuit to be able to charge at the maximum the call can pull. And there exist some niche cars that pull almost 20kw and need a 100A circuit. But, the beauty of EVSEs is that they can be configured. You set the EVSE to allow the EV to pull a max of 40A, and plug it in. When you plug the EVSE into the car, the car asks the EVSE what it's allowed to pull. The EVSE replies, "40A max", and then they do a safety dance and the EV starts charging, with the EVSE monitoring current draw. If at any time the car draws more than 40A, the EVSE disconnects. L2/AC charging stations -- EVSEs -- are nothing more than a safety box with some switches and maybe timers and/or BT/WiFi connectivity for your convenience. Without the J1772 protocol and standard, the car would be happy if you just plugged it into the wall outlet! J1772 standard keeps the wires and sockets electrically dead until plugged in and safety checks completed, and ensure that the wiring capacity of your branch circuit in your home is not overloaded. That's the EVSE's whole mission. It's a wonder they cost as much as they do, for as little as they do.
Everyone mentions Teslas not being left out because of the adapter but I never hear about the other direction, existing CCS cars adapting to use NACS. If they want us to switch standards, they should sell adapters at cost to CCS car owners or at minimum make schematics for one freely available so the market can handle it. Yes, they say "it's easy" and "don't worry" but where are they? Also, kitty! Also also, totally agree on payments. I don't want a relationship with the various charge providers, just let me pay and go like a gas pump or vending machine.
The type 2 connecter would allow for faster three phase charging. Virtually all commercial buildings where public chargers are located are equipped with three phase service
Which is historically why the world outside of North America and China is CCS2 territory. It is not a big benefit for most people, though. If you want high speeds, you have to go DC. If not, you usually have plenty of time.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 but to wire J1772 from a 3 phase system (commercial location) you have to use 2 legs of 120V that are 120° out of phase. So “32A” is only 6.6kW instead of 7.7kW from a 120/240V system. Whereas using all 3 legs would be 11.5kW. It would also help keep the 3 phase system balanced. Sure it’s not a big difference, but public level 2 charging for an hour or two doesn’t get you much range in the first place. So how small of a difference is too small?
@@stubeusz123 I don't have good numbers to back this up, but when I search my feelings, I either want ALL the speed, since I have faraway places to be, or I want just enough to plug in and charge up over night. On rarer occasions, maybe I am stopping for dinner and stereotypical-male-type quick shopping on a road trip. THEN I would like around 50 kW, so I don't have to rush back to unplug my car because it is charged and I don't want to block the charger. But this is rare. For me. Small dataset.
@@stubeusz123 2 to 4 hours at an appointment OR dinner and a movie with friends + 2 - 3 hours shopping and that adds up FOR someone without HOME charging and NOT having to PAY the price OR stand around waiting for a car to CHARGE on a DC charger that often have "standing fees" if NOT unplugged after full charge
Person who does cryptography here: The Tesla does nothing that the other chargers don't do. You need an account, you need to "log in" to other chargers so they can link you to your account for payment. What's different with Tesla is that the car can identify itself to the charger so the charger can link you to the payment account. Just like Starbucks in the US, even if you could pay with a card or cash, you may well choose to use the Starbucks card or app with money in an account. While payment terminals are indeed missing from Tesla chargers, a secure identity system is missing from non tesla EVs. Having both would bring the best of both worlds. Secure identities are a deep topic in cryptography, but we do know how to do it and it can be done well.
No matter which way this goes. I really really NEED long distance road tripping to get more reliable on CCS connectors. If it means swapping over to a Tesla style plug I am all for it. I own an ID.4 and a few times I have had either completely broken stations or I can only get 32KW on long corridors. My latest 3 hour trip turned into a 9 hour drive because I was left stranded around broken fast chargers (Which showed up in the app) and could only use a 6kw charger to get 80 miles of range for the next charger... The next fast charger that was limited to 32kw... I cannot believe the dismal state of so many fast chargers near the east coast beach in NC.
independent chargers only lose money if someone can't charge. if a tesla charger doesn't work it reflects on the whole company not just a charge provider. so they have a huge incentive to make their chargers be working all the time.
@@blockbertus apparently most DCFCs use Windows Embedded instead of an open OS like Linux or Android. I almost got a stranded at a DCFC at a thruway rest stop until a developer from BTC Power remoted into the charger and was able to get it to put out 25kW. I asked him wtf happened that he was able to get it going remotely and he said it was a corrupted library file.
I agree on a lot of what you said, especially the payment terminal instead of app. Even for Tesla stations available to other brands, you need to use a F... app. A payment terminal would simply be better. V4 superchargers will have a longer cable, so that will normally solve the "you need the plug on the rear left of your car" I don't agree with the difference of the size of the plug doesn't matter. It is more different that lightning vs usb-c. NACS plug is simply better on every front and without being the end of the world, CCS1 is just worse and heavier to use... A lot of 3rd parties have already committed to add NACS to their stations.
There probably needs to be a bigger discussion on the credit card oligopoly and their fees. That's why companies want you to have a prepaid / gift card style system. They don't make money on small amounts.
There are several errors in this piece which is something highly unusual for content from Tech Con. 1. Tesla opened up its standard because it was facing the very real and horrifying possibility of becoming Beta to VHS and losing many, many $ millions in charger investment. Ford's lawyers spent 9 months confirming that Tesla had given up patent rights before adopting NACS. 2. Ford didn't give in. Ford simply added Tesla's network to its own. This might seem like a minnow swallowing a whale, but Ford's network is much more sophisticated than Tesla's. Ford has a comprehensive network because it doesn't compete with charging companies. It will be difficult for Tesla to follow suit because it would have to make concessions to the other charging companies. Tesla's network is like the Sears card back when it only worked for buying things at Sears while Ford's network is like Visa, it works with everyone. 3. NACS won't belong to Tesla for much longer. SAE is fast tracking an official designation. That's what Ford & GM are waiting for. If you want your cars to be insurable and avoid lawsuits, it would behoove you to stick to standards. And, once that happens, they and everyone else will stick to those standards no matter what Tesla decides to do. There are a couple of other standards agencies that should have official designations about 6 months after SAE and these will further bolster NACS. 4. Tesla's EV dominance in the US is sliding fast. Back in 2018, Tesla had 78% share, making them 3 1/2 times the size of the other EV makers. Last year, Tesla was still twice as big. However, today, Tesla is sitting at 58% share vs 42% for everyone else. Worse still is that by 2026 Tesla is only expected to have 18% share at which point it would no longer have the clout to impose standards. The same thing happened to IBM with PCs.
The two standards are going to evolve into a gasoline vs diesel scenario. If the Tesla connector is going to become common the easiest way to handle this is not to have the consumer need to cary an adapter, but to have both cable options at each charge point. The power supplies are modular and can have the interface electronics for both in one station and lock out the other cable internally when one is in use. The actual added cost to manufacture is significantly lower than the liability of 'unlicensed' adapters that will likely create a grey market for them from less than scrupulous manufacturers (do we need to point out the obvious?).
to be honest, I don't think that outside of GM and Ford which are primarily us manufacturers That you'll see much adoption of it because for example Kia and Hyundai Will probably just stick with CSS2 because of the fact that NACS does not support any form of Three-Phase fast charging Just because it doesn't have the connectors, which means that it never could, which means that for most of the world it's pretty useless. so it wouldn't make sense for an international manufacturer to adapt the standard that they would then have to completely rework in every other country they sell the car. unless of course, they're a primarily us manufacturer such as Ford or GM
What about weatherproofing? A large part of the CCS connector's bulk comes from weatherproofing elements. Not an issue for garage-kept California cars, but what about for everybody else?
Your point about payment processing at a charging station. There are not only 3 ways to solve this problem (Tesla versus App versus pay at terminal). There are other options. For example - Include in the communication standard a way to pass payment information from the vehicle to the charging station (not ideal, since this requires charging communication standards change). Or, have a neutral clearing house (think DNS delegation or telephone number portability) where the charging network can send a payment request to the provider of your choosing based on your car's VIN to get payment information. This means as payment systems evolve, you won't have to update all these payment terminals in the field. This would allow the open system you're advocating for without requiring payment processing equipment at every charger, which makes the chargers MUCH more expensive to build, maintain and more prone to breaking down.
erm.. Tesla uses the first way yu described.. (Plug & Charge; basically the Vehicle sends its VIN to the charging station, and this is used to look up the correct billing info)
I do wonder how rental cars will work with such a system. I guess either disable VIN-based payments for them entirely, or the rental company will tack any charging bills onto your final rental bill.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the idea behind Plug & Charge is that the account lies with your vehicle manufacturer, rather than the network itself. I absolutely agree with you though that it's just unnecessarily complicated - there's absolutely nothing complicated from a user POV about plugging in, tapping your card (whether it be debit, credit or manufacturer issued) and walking away.
I think having both would be awesome. 1. A standard in vehicles to locally store payment information or even just a system to store a receipt of purchase that can be processed after connection is re-established. 2. Card readers at all pumps for redundancy/compatibility with cars that don't follow the standard listed above.
I don't think it HAS to go through the manufacturer. As long as the charger can get a unique identifier of the car through the connector, there's nothing stopping the charging network from using it to access some other account. I DO think we need to keep tap to pay options, both for legacy vehicles that can't supply a unique ID, and for casual use of a charging network without needing to sign up.
@@davidwilliams4845 Yeah but that kinda defeats the purpose for me as it would mean you’d still need an account with each network and to manage your payment details through several, what are ultimately going to be a shoddy, apps/websites; something I think a layperson is going to struggle to deal with. I think the process of tapping a card to pay is so universal and really rather simple that it’s the way to go - but that’s just me
I completely agree on your plug & charge opinion, card payment (including nfc) is way more important as that is the most open way of paying for goods and services. No sign up required, no need to give bank information to additional services, and no risk of being left in the cold if the company which made the car goes under and the back end service for plug & charge stops being supported.
ABB and at least two other providers has also now signed on to providing NACS as an option when you buy their stations for your location. In my opinion, the nice solution for all the cars out there using CCS is to have charging stations have 2 cables for each unit. One NACS and one CCS. Of course, driving a J1772 only vehicle, I want to see more units installed that have J1772. ;-)
Most to all fast charging stops in Norway (and there are a lot, EVs are 80 percent of new cars and 20 percent of the cars on the road) have all CCS2 chargers and one which is combined CCS2/chademo. I expect it would go the same way in the US.
That should read *ALL* currently active superchargers have CCS. Some don't have the Tesla connector, with older Model S/X owners having to use an adaptor
Thank 3 phase for that. Tesla used Type 2 with shared AC/DC pins on legacy Model S and X and 3 and Y have always been CCS2 as the larger DC pins can handle more current.
28:40 Location of the charging port?: Considering the NACS is a more compact opening than the CCS and it doesn't have plumbing like gas vehicles, I don't see why you couldn't have several ports, one on either side or back even. This would be extremely helpful for curbside or pull through charging.
I wholly agree with you reasons both in favor and against it and, the aspect that grinds my gears the most is the possibility that you might need to make an account for different charge networks is an immediate red flag for me and I could see it stifling EV adoptions in the eyes of other people (mostly older sadly) who are interested in a EV.
Watch the interviews where GM and Ford announced this. Both said their users would not have to use the Tesla app. Ford and GM are providing the ability to use their apps.
@@danharold3087 I believe they are standing up there OWN payment network on the CAR SIDE like Tesla does it the AP is for payment network FREE customers so Ioniq I will need to use an AP as my car does NOT have a payment system implemented and the phone AP will do the "work"
I believe that it should also be an option to use cash, like a convenience store. I have some older family members who refuse to use credit cards and smartphones because they have lived most of their lives without them.
@@himonstercartoons You point seems valid up front. But the chances of these technophobes buying an EV are vanishingly small and kind of pointless. If they will not use a smartphone they are not going to spend many thousands on a smartphone on wheels. If they do they will not be able to use it.
Tesla Europe has opened up there charger network to all CCS cars and at least there model 3 has a CCS socket insted of the tesla one think the EU may have made CCS the charging standad like USB C for phones
And oddly enough the other group that ends up screwed over is people with older Teslas that don't speak CCS. They will still be able to use Tesla's superchargers, but not any other superchargers that use the NACS.
I saw the title of the video and clicked on it, I didn't even realize it was you until you started speaking. It's nice to see you in a regular environment. We can call these laundry videos, or maybe just "The Wash", because everything comes out in the wash. You work while making the video, and we work while watching it, and everybody's laundry gets done.😂
Here in Europe the Leaf stuck with Chademo for an unreasonably long time but even they gave in and switched to CCS a couple of years back. So yeah. This announcement from a European perspective is strange. It's like 'you guys were so close to having a unified standard and now you're blowing your chance!"
What? The Leaf is still on sale today, and still using Chademo in Europe. Nissan switched for the Ariya, but presumably the thought of suddenly having to have separate lines for CCS combo 1 and combo 2, plus having to re-homologate which would only be worthwhile if they did some other improvements to what they consider a dead-end vehicle they keep trying to discontinue, means they think it’s not worthwhile
@@thenerd6192 The leaf in the EU has Chademo and Type2 connectors, although not the combo (CCS2) connector. Not a huge deal given the leaf's other specs to just have the Type2 part of the combo connector. Can still use ta Type 2 charger on a leaf or a CCS2 car the leaf just loses DC charging if there's no CHAdeMO charger.
I didn't know that you could get an adaptor like the one you showed us in the video. I've been to several hotels that had Tesla chargers that I couldn't use. Now I have a solution. Thanks!
Although I agree for the most part. I wish this happened 5 years ago but the fact is even today the NACS plug is still more common than CCS2. If this happened 5 years ago I think this conversation would be a little different. J1772 would be in the same vane as CHAdeMO.
The biggest threat that this creates is that while the current Tesla charger and CCS can be used interchangeably with eachother. Nothing is necessarily stopping Tesla from making a Tesla charge port V2 when they reach a degree of market saturation. That V2 may not necessarily be reverse compatible with the CCS standards, and only work with the Tesla V1. This could cause future performance improvements to be locked behind the car manufacturer charge port choice.
That might not be that big an issue actually, I think it would end up looking like what happened with IBM and the PC, at first everyone used IBMs ISA and when it came time for an upgrade, IBM decided to release their own liscened MSA, which everyone else more or less ignored and proceeded to launch their own industry wide open standard
@@kaboom36 MCA, but point taken. When the SAE ratifies all the bits and bobs of NACS, then everybody except Tesla will implement that, to ensure the largest market. Tesla can change how they talk to cars via their hardware (SCs, Destination Chargers) but won't be able to influence greatly the larger CCS1/NACS ecosystem -- unless their market share doesn't drop, and I don't see that happening, with so much competition coming down the pike.
I really hope that the electric car charging industry “wakes up” and we have debit/credit card terminals on the chargers like with gas pumps. That would be so much better than yet another cumbersome phone app that has access to my bank account.
Yeah because you know what the best thing in the world is? Dealing with broken terminals and skimmers, the former of which I already deal with roughly 50-80% of the time I drive up to an EA charger when there's no Supercharger nearby. Removing the terminal is removing a major point of failure and as previously mentioned a target for skimmers. No, tap and pay does not make it skimmer-proof there are already NFC skimmers out in the wild.
@@antikommunistischaktion so remove the ONLY option for people NOT willing to download another buggy AD with questionable security and link it to my BANK ACCOUNT for ONE charge stop yay NO on that one rather use APPLE PAY and use MY existing (relatively) secure payment system and NOT give access to a likely badly written AP
@@jasonriddell I would really hope you're not talking about buggy apps with questionable security while using an iPhone. Security firms literally stopped paying for iOS exploits because there are too many of them on the market. Personally, I much prefer the risk of giving a charging network a one-time token to charge me than risking my card info getting skimmed.
We had a conversation amongst our friend group about this. We all agreed that this is indeed the death knell of CCS in North America. NACS is the sleeker connector, and now that it’s open source and speaks CCS electrically, there’s no reason not to use it. But i agree it’s not set in stone. Re: charging stations. we should just be putting payment terminals on *all* charging stations, like self-serve gas pumps have for decades. and while there are unattended chargers in random parking lots, I see “the future” of charging being essentially gas stations but with electric chargers instead of gas pumps. with DC fast charging taking about 30 minutes to fully charge from empty, I imagine we’ll see gas stations start to become little “hangout spots” for those waiting for cars to charge. which works well for disabled folks since there will be attendants there who can help those with accessibility needs. really, that’s the way
Will be quite some time before EV´s are that numerous. The infrastructure and battery tech are the bottlenecks. Will be decades before even half of all cars run on electricity
I wonder how the CCS and NACS DC pin cross sections compare? One thing that did look promising with CCS was just how chunky the pins were, allowing for higher current charging in future.
It is more about the contact area between the plug and socket. We can get more power over the same connector by increasing voltage. Providing the insulation is there to support it. Easily accomplished
@@danharold3087 Unless you want impractically long pins, increasing cross section is the only practical way to do that. Increasing voltage is also not easily accomplished, it often requires redesigning the whole power train, your existing insulation may not be enough to safely avoid dielectric breakdown for example (otherwise we'd be running EV's in the multi kilovolt range already). Not to mention the increased safety risks when maintaining the vehicle, since the higher the voltage, the easier it is to have arcing. Increasing charging current is easier, you only really need to alter the battery, charging system and perhaps update the cooling.
By the spec, the "NACS" can deliver 900 amps at 1000VDC, or 900KW. In practice the largest superchargers currently only provide 250KW. The current CCS spec is for 500 Amps at up to 920 volts, or 460KW, but the largest CCS chargers currently only provide 350KW. The CCS standard is looking to update to 2,000KW but it hasn't been formalized yet. In either case, the main issue is that it takes really huge cables to push that much current. CCS provides for this with actively cooled cables. Tesla claims their cables don't need to be cooled, but the physics suggests otherwise. In either case, the physical plug can handle far more power than other parts of the system for both. As far as I can tell the 1MW limit is the limit of the physical connector for Tesla, where as the CCS DC can handle at least 2MW.
@@johngaltline9933 Yeah, this is what I was thinking regarding CCS being more "future proof". 1MW might seem like overkill now, but with demand for faster charging times, larger battery capacities, and EV's expanding into larger vehicles like vans and trucks, having an extra megawatt or more to play with could be a big advantage. And while increasing battery voltages will help, realistically I think it's going to be harder to do that than increase charging current.
@@Croz89 Several automakers are already using or going to use higher voltage systems. IONIQ 5, Porsche Taycan,etc. Tesla is supporting the higher voltage cars on V4 of the superCharger.
"from home" implies the set isn't just a room in your home and now I'm questioning everything
It hasn't been for years! I have a very odd setup
@@TechnologyConnextras I could imagine having the set in a totally different location helps with the mental switch from "work" and "relax" modes.
Wait.. is there still the same room at your house, but also a movie set version of it now too? Or is the old room filled with puppies now? So many questions
@@alakani I believe the old set was essentially a setup in his basement, that he later completely move to another place; there is only one instance of his set
i mean i'm not sure if he still does this but LGR at one point filmed a lot in the same storage building he keeps most of his stuff. Mr. TC probably does something similar
Cat time codes:
4:38 wakes up for a minute
20:32 wakes up again, looks out window, curls back up
You da real MVP.
The good life 😎
If a black cat walking in front of you is bad luck, does one sleeping behind you bring good luck?
@@justindavis1546Cat is his guardian angel.
@@justindavis1546 Black cats are mostly bad luck for themselves because people are superstitious. ._.
"I am personally annoyed for ego reasons"
I appreciate this extremely tactful honesty. ❤
Agreed. Honesty is so refreshing. And all the things said make sense, especially the bit to have a standard credit card payments and they need to force the price per kWh posted just like the cost per gallon now.
This honesty is really important to quickly identifying problems in a system before they becomes a serious problem. I’ve worked at places that fostered trust and didn’t punish or berate people when they “fessed up.” I’ve also worked at companies that do the thing you probably assume will happen. Not only is the first company far more pleasant to work for, but we seldom ran into large issues that lurked under radar until we got close to the end. Everyone from the customers to shareholders love that. Turns out not making your employees live in fear has concrete benefits!
the best part about standards is that there's so many to choose from!
Hah, indeed.
Ha I remember a comic from Xkcd making a joke about this. If you look for "XKCD standards" it's the first result.
The solution is authority, not one more standard
The US usually lets standards compete. Eventually the market decides on a winner and the rest wither and die. It's a messy approach, but it does ensure that we don't get stuck with a dud.
@@pepstein The EU allows this too, but only for a while. After a few years if the companies can't decide on one for themselves, they step in and decide for them.
If it's something that is going to be replaced every few years, then enough product cycles can happen that 'letting the market decide' works, but if it's something that will place for decades, letting companies argue gets in the way of just using it.
"No one will have backed the wrong horse"
Just sitting here in the corner with the other Leaf owners...
CHAdeMO solidarity, with hopes that Nissan eventually releases a conversion kit someday....
I've never found a charger that didn't work on my Leaf but I've only used free public chargers. Until today I didn't know there was a difference.
I don't mind since the Leaf is the city car in our household. Road trips require an internal combustion engine for me.
@@rogeraldrich2533 I have the 2022 Leaf with 230-ish miles of range. I have a long commute and regularly drive it 150+ miles per day. I love the car, but any time I've wanted to take a bit of a longer trip to go see friends, I have to plan more than I should just because the DC charging options are so limited.
It's gonna be a conversation possible. It's gonna be around 1500-2000$ to do so.
I have a 2019 Leaf, and I love it. I just understand that it will always be getting charged in my garage, and that is fine with me.
I do agree that building cars with Chademo in 2023 is absolute MADNESS, however.
I went for my first road trip with an EV recently, and I have to agree that the most annoying part about the charging process was that so many charging stations require you to have an app to pay. Especially Electrify America, because they require you to pre-pay on their app, and as soon as you go under $10 then it recharges you, so you can never get the money out of your account.
and you don’t want to not have their app either. It’s a $50 hold for every charge. That could be highly annoying on a road trip.
This and the parking issue. Did a short road trip in Italy and with it being a foreign language it made things super annoying.
Im paying for charging, do i also need to pay for parking? Will i be charged if i dont pay, or will i pay and waste my money? In one particular parking lot it said you need to pay for parking but no info on how to pay. But also in the same parking lot all parking lines were painted over with “electric” only logos. But the sings remained…
ChargePoint tried charging me $10 for 10 CENTS worth of charging, because they won't let you pay for the amount you use, just $10 increments, like its a feckin gift card. I was floored when I saw that.
@@MisutaaAsriel they're trying to avoid transaction charges :/ when most customers are spending say £25 or £50 at a time on petrol the transaction fee is insignificant but now you have thousands of £5 charging sessions or cheaper but the transaction fees have a base figure which gets more significant. They could pass on the fee to you directly but then you'd be pissed you had to spend £0.6 for £0.1 of energy 🤣
You bent over and decided to accept that, don't think you can complain now!
Heard about this on the radio earlier and was like "Technology Connections will have a video about this within 24 hours" and yep lol
It's weird listening to this stuff happening in the US. In Europe Tesla has been happily using CCS2 for their cars for years - the model 3 debuted with CCS2 in Europe - and now most supercharger sites allow other cars to charge too, and it works beautifully. I do believe Tesla is using their proprietary protocol for their cars and additionally support PLC for others, but it doesn't really matter in the end. The reason why this is specific to Europe because in Europe we have 3 phase AC everywhere, often up to 22kW, and the NACS doesn't support 3 phase AC.
Additionally, Tesla's CCS2 plugs on their chargers are better than those on other chargers. They are sleeker and the cables are lighter. And not by a little - they are VERY sleek and VERY light. CCS itself as a standard isn't as bad as the implementations are.
CCS2 is substantially better than CCS1. It's not just that it supports 3-phase AC. It also has a more robust locking system, and it's a bit more compact. I don't think CCS1 would even fit in the space available in Model 3 or Y.
Biggest issue is charge ports in random places (etron or taycan come to mind) that aren't well suited to Tesla's short cables.
I wonder what's the Chinese plug standard
@@NoNameAtAll2 China is currently using GB/T, but they're working with Japan on a joint standard called ChaoJi, but like CCS, they're using two different plugs, one for China and another for Japan.
For those that don't know when the change over to unleaded fuel happened we changed the diameter of the fuel nozzle to prevent leaded gas from going into unleaded cars as it would destroy catalytic converters. they made adapters so older gas jugs and for people who had on site fuel (Farmers for example) could use their leaded nozzles. Or if you had Hopped up your car and converted it to leaded for the higher octane. Note leaded fuel for road cars wasn't officially phased out till 1996.
thanks for the background info! very insightful!
“Leaded gasoline's century-long reign of destruction is over.
The final holdout, Algeria, used up the last of its stockpile of leaded gasoline in July (2021). That's according to the U.N. Environment Programme, which has spent 19 years trying to eliminate leaded gasoline around the globe.” From NPR
@@vfplayerIsn't aviation gasoline still leaded? There may still be risks for people who live near smaller airports.
yep. we've been breathing lead for a long time.
@@mikezobl9602 the time for people to take air filtration seriously has arrived.
The reason Tesla is deciding to open it up, is because the US Government is offering grants/subsidies for companies to set up charge stations, with the caveat that it needs to be open to all EVs. Tesla already has the network, so they basically get free money by opening up their chargers to everyone.
More government money for Elon!
I think it should be a bigger (or at least _known)_ issue to people that Tesla, a CAR company, is officially making most of its profits off of selling carbon offsets [via dodgy 3rd party companies], not from, y'know, selling CARS. (And that started well before the giant recall.) They're meant to be a "green" company, but carbon offsets just allow other companies to make no efforts to curb their pollution (future? No?) by paying their way out. And by some B.S. metric like "[unit] of CO2 is absorbed per [unit] of trees" (not even exaggerating ...sadly.)
Most people, I've found (mostly USians; sorry, but it's true) also don't seem to realise that much of the world's electricity (much of the US, too) comes from coal. Not very "climate friendly." And many have no problem with it, as if being turned into electricity makes it "clean"...? Though neither is launching knockoff Challengers into "space, technically" (though I know, same face, different company) and flying in private jets. Iirc the "top 2%" create as much CO2 pollution as the other 98%, but it may have "only" been as much as the 48% below them. (Memory lapse at the perfect time. Good to check those numbers anyway. Don't take my word for it.)
And now a slight rant but also a factual list: Tesla gets billions in govt money, plus double-dipping by selling those "carbon credits" that already net grants & tax breaks, which themselves offset any "pollution savings" the company might have made. (And those carbon offset companies are extremely dodgy, too. Pollution & especially how much is absorbed by supposed CO2 sinks isn't a set number, especially not [actual claim used] "per square unit of trees") Plus, didn't they just recall like 100,000 of their cars last year or earlier this year? And all those lawsuits against the company for workplace safety violations (including forcing employees to work in close quarters during the height of "The Plague" under threat of firing [which many were anyway]) and the lawsuits over racist & sexist workplace attitudes and so many other things... I won't even mention anything about the worshiped and loathed jewel-fund "frontman" & his ...technical issues.
You mean MORE free money.
Tesla has actually opened very little of their network.
Plus the money the CAR company gets from selling 3rd party carbon "offset credits" (doubling up cos they already get fed grants & breaks for that), far more than their profits from _selling CARS._ An "eco-friendly" CAR company that makes its money off of selling "pollution rights". And locking in its proprietary stuff into the infrastructure so that everyone must follow - collusion or caving, I can't say.
With Tesla adding the magic dock, announcing CCS super chargers, and releasing a J1772 home charger, I was convinced that they were going to switch to CCS within the next five years or so. Now I don't know what's going on.
Same.
Tesla is trying to get other cars onto their charging network to increase demand and allow expansion of the Tesla charging network.
@Ferro and they should as they have the bulk of US EV sales. NACS also is earlier to use and handle and more future proof. It's also more inline with the size of gas pumps, which consumers are used to using.
There is a high likelihood Elon Musk will be in jail in the next couple of years. Add the risk of recession and higher interest rates and it is just as likely the whole EV market disappears. They are an expensive luxury good.
@@adoggz only if they can lock out every manufacturer who doesn’t pay them money. This is happening so that they can maximize profits. Tesla is tanking as a company due to rapidly dropping market share and needs to stay relevant with the only thing they still have a good market share of - fast charging stations.
“I’m not bothered” - proceeds to make an in-depth 40 minute video explaining why. Love it!
Hot take- charging being dependent on internet connection to some central server is a national security threat
Great point. There’s already been cyber attacks on pipelines.
@@andrewahern3730agreed. Honestly, even needing a credit card terminal shouldn't be the requirement. A simple meter + a per kWh charge should be the requirement. I should be able to hand the cashier a $20 bill and that should equate to xx amount of kWh on port 3 entering my car.
@@robertrichard1819 But that goes against a cashless, employee-less future, with charging stations that are available 24/7 without needing the things that employees require like seating, climate control, bathroom facilities, insurance, payroll management methods, etc.
I have not interacted with a human cashier for ICE fuel purchases in 25+ years, why would I start now?
I don't know how current charging tech works, but I see a future where you have a subscription and your car communicates with the terminal providing its ID/membership info, and you get automatically charged to a credit card or bank account. The ID could be done by RFID tag, license plate reader, bluetooth to the infotainment center, or something of that nature.
Agree, and a take I had elsewhere applies here too: connected chargers should fail functional. Billing and monitoring up lets a network charge for electrons, but an outage of connectivity taking down billing means the amps can't be billed, not that they can't be provided. If the provider wants to get paid, they can build more robust billing or seek SLA contracts with providers to recoup costs. It's safety and security - a payment system outage shouldn't mean you have to ride out a hurricane in your car in the parking lot of a boarded up Dennys in Beaumont.
@@kg4gav That sounds genuinely awful.
Little known fact: Tesla Superchargers and cars actually do not need web connectivity to charge. When the web goes down, the car charges anyway, records the billing locally and reports it to Tesla when communication is restored.
This is one reason why they are more reliable than the current standard CCS systems. I do hope Tesla retains their reliable communication and billing for Tesla cars, even as they adopt DIN 70121 for communication and ISO-15118 for "plug and charge."
It's quite possible to do that with credit cards (though less so with apps / account login required payments). Despite it being possible, companies sometimes don't process payments offline in case the card payment is rejected upon connectivity being restored (eg overdrawn/limit). Tesla I guess has the advantage of being able to disable your car remotely if you don't pay up, or drive it back to them :o
@@peter65zzfdfh Tesla HAS a open revolving account with them ands NOT a one time payment so likely they file a "failed payment" charge IF the CC does DECLINE
@@peter65zzfdfh
The point being
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
.
The Tesla system has minimal steps, less chance of data hacking, fewer points if potential failure and is demonstrably more reliable over a decade of use.
And you're not waving a credit card or phone around in public waiting for a handshake.
@@rogerstarkey5390 yeah, all that works fine as long as you’re in a Tesla at a Tesla charger. Increasingly that pairing will be less and less likely.
When you mentioned Apple's Lightning Connector, something gelled: something they used to call Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome. Apple had it in spades in the 90s -- even so they were accused of it far more than they were deserving of it -- and Tesla after a time deserves the same. Apple invented a lot of things because it needed to. The Lightning Connector is something Apple needed to invent because there was no existing connector that fit the bill -- it took USBC *years* to get it right. On the other hand, they designed the protocol that *COULD* have been and was meant to be extended to support USB3 speeds, but look where that went.
Tesla open sourced the connector, but NOT the protocol. Tesla in the early days open sourced the battery technology because Musk insisted making the planet better was their goal. No one believed that, and of course it never turned out that way. He built out the charging network as a competitive advantage and now he's betting that getting money from the federal government is more important than keeping a closed charging network. That's why he's doing it, but that's not enough for him to make it as easy or as convenient for non-Teslas to USE it, just to make it possible. In that light, open sourcing the connector -- but not the protocol -- seems like just a cost-cutting measure for Tesla, doesn't it?
The second I saw that news I was just thinking how long until a rant about this from you lol
Plug and charge is great but i do think that an option to even have tap to pay with a credit card fixes almost all issues bypassing the app. Especially when charging location is in a terrible cell service area
It's already the case almost everywhere, but by law all fast chargers in Europe will be required to accept payments by credit card.
Tap to pay means a point of failure and a target of vandalism on the dispenser. Better to let you enter your credit card details on your car's touchscreen and have the car send those details to the charger over the cable. You're shielded from inclement weather that way.
@@PCLoadLetter I don't see people going around damaging credit card readers on gas pumps. I don't think someone is going to damage the reader without damaging the charger worse if they are going to do that.
Hmm, well, I guess there are a bunch of weird EV haters out there but they would probably damage the charge connector as well if they are going to damage a charge station.
@@PCLoadLetter This is even more complicated than the already existing plug and charge feature, and a big security risk of leaking the card details.
@@romelec Whether the card details go through the charging cable, are transmitted wirelessly, or go thru the other cables plugging into any other credit card reader makes little difference.
The biggest problem I see with having to use an app from the car maker is what happens when they no longer support the app? This could happen because the manufacturer goes out of business, is bought out by another company which wants everything to move to its app, or the original company changes the app to "upgrade it" breaking compatibility with older models or they just decide to stop supporting it. Look at how many people bought into smart home systems that were bricked when the company stopped supporting them.
I think we just need a international systems of apps and standards... for the various current standards to talk and be maintained.
Already running into this with my 2017 bolt. Whenever I plug in my phone it has a "helpful" prompt that I can get lots of nice features if I just install their app~
(side note: when the app was still supported, it never worked how I wanted it to, and would regularly unlock my car when I was a decent distance away, not doing anything in the app! but then it would almost never actually connect when I wanted it to, so checking charge status and everything was impossible without walking out to the car and unlocking it)
there's no way to dismiss the popup. It's just there for a solid 15 seconds. nothing dismisses it.
Fun part: I HAVE the app it wants installed. Just SOMETIMES it's not running on my phone/responding fast enough, so the car assumes I don't have it. But Chevy ended support on android last year. So if this app ever fails to run on a new device or something, I can't use android auto at the beginning of my drive (y'know: when you want to set up your navigation and music)
The app is a whopping 400MB and literally all it does is not allow my password manager to auto-fill it (it reloads the login when it does, and it asks me to log in EVERY TIME), show me a picture of a white bolt, show me ads to buy accessories from them, and have a bunch of buttons that never seem to successfully transmit to the car, just always stuck on "sending"~
It used to have a searchable owner's manual, but apparently that's gone now. It says I need to download it. all 0MB of it. And the download button does nothing.
Literally it would be better to have no app at all than this app.
Charging providers will continue to offer apps (or alternative pay methods as they do now), so an OEM app will not be necessary to charge. Plug-n-charge is still new (only few EV models support), so it's likely details and the reliability will improve, with options as to where an account can be set up. This not much different than making utility payments today. Most people have option to setup of payment via a bank, 3rd party provider, or directly with the utility. (ie: multiple options and types of user experience to choose)
"the BIGGEST problem"?
"A" problem...
.
Maybe it would have been prudent when designing a "universal standard" to both ensure it was "universal" and define not just a connection standard, but also a universal, simple app based payment system.
Then over the first 2-5 years ensure that it just "worked"?
.
The other day, I drove up to a charger and tried to activate it. I couldn't get the screen to turn on. I looked up the charging company. Turns out they were bought by Shell. On a hunch, I fired up the Shell app, located the charger, and remotely started my charging session. This was exactly the kind of situation that keeps some people from buying an EV.
I bought my Model 3 only after Tesla released their CCS1->NACS adapter in mid 2022 because of the availability of CCS1 chargers in rural BC. When I road trip I use CCS1 when it's convenient, but the Tesla Supercharger network is vastly more reliable.
I live in Manitoba and Winnipeg has 2 "destination tesla" chargers ONE supercharger and countless FLO / CO-OP DC chargers and on hiway Petro Canada all are rolling out CCS combo
so for ME IN Winnipeg CCS is FAR "better" but Northern Ontario the supercharger network BLOWS CCS out of the water when I went out that way last year (in a fuel car)
@@jasonriddell agreed, I also think most people don’t realize that most times a charge fails is not because of the physical connecter but because the actual hardware is garbage. Put a NACS plug on a crap charger and you still got a crap charger…. but look so easy to plug and unplug!
As an IONIQ driver in the UK where most rapid chargers now support contactless card payment, I’d still take plug to charge in a heartbeat if it were offered. Touch screens you have to make choices on before it’ll take your payment, while standing in the rain, which then get smashed so the dispenser goes out of order, make the whole experience non-slick.
One way in which the petrol/gas nozzle is more ergonomic than CCS: you don’t have to get the orientation just so. (Even if, as you say, that isn’t really a problem.)
Bigger problem: tolerances so tight/exceeded that you can’t use the Tesla v3 CCS supercharger on the IONIQ, because the LED housing protrudes 1mm too far.
I haven't used any of these connectors - however it strikes me that a guide valley on the car side would aid greatly!
I mean, there's no reason that has to be the case. Why are there any more buttons to press or any interface at all other than tapping your card.
Like, when I get on transit using a contactless payment card, I just board transit...I don't need an account or anything, I just tap my credit or debit card on the fare gate and walk through.
If they had bad implementations they should fix it.
Not saying plug to charge is bad (although it has some disadvantages, or at least lacks flexibility, the car owner must always pay) but tap to pay should be trivially easy. There's no technical reason that it can't be.
Personally I'd want the contactless to always be there.
It's not always a band new car that would roll up to the charger.
I'm hoping to get my leaf fitted with the muxsan CCS2 upgrade and needing more electronics to deal with plug to charge would just make it cost more for little benefit to me.
I've seen quite a few EV conversions on the road especially around Silverstone and again requiring the extra electronics for a fancy payment system would make those homebrew solutions even more prohibitively expensive for converting old cars when it's just not necessary.
@@DanielBrotherston at least on both instavolt and gridserve in the UK the most you have to do is plug in the car and tap the card, you can then just tap the card again to stop it so it's definitely doable and even already in place in the way you described.
Nacs used to not be open sourced but it is now available on the website and they have the implementation guides, functional specs, connector drawings, connector CAD and written standards freely available to download. They also have revised the connector to support 1000V not 1000A, the new revision and old connector are completely interchangable but only the 1000v connector will support the higher charging rates. Additionally, unlike CCS, NACS only specifies a maximum terminal/cable temperature so they can charge at any current as long as the cable and charge port temps stay within spec.
It's not open source. It's still not clear if there's patent concerns, but those will come out during SAE's review.
It's also worth noting that Tesla vehicle and chargers use 2 standards implemented with the same plug. Tesla charging is still proprietary and uses CAN communication on the digital pins. Older Tesla cars (and maybe older Tesla chargers) only support this method.
NACS on the other hand follows a slight modification of the IEC 61851 defined handshaking used by CCS and CCS2. Any Tesla vehicle that can use a passive CCS adapter as well as any charger that has a magic dock can "speak" IEC 61851.
Putting the spec out does not mean it’s “open-source”. They will milk license fees
@@aliancemd It is currently being standardized by the AES. Once that's done, it will be 100% open and Tesla won't be able to license it (this is happening with Tesla's cooperation).
They will be able to collect service fees on their superchargers, of course.
This is 90's cell phone shenanigans. Remember having a squid power cable adapter for your old cell phone since every manufacturer had a different power port? Well we're heading in that direction again, but now in a much more inconvenient car form.
I still have three or four old phone chargers in my big box of power converters in my living room closet.
That box of chargers has come in hand about three or four times in the three decades it has been slowly growing. Yay!
I await USB-C(ar)
And unlike cell phones, only the 1% will actually be able to afford these disposable EVs. Saving the planet, et al.
Well sucks to be in the USA I guess.
@@tednugent1100 Shit I didn't realize my enlisted-military ass was in the 1% on anything except the global scale!
I wonder if New Jersey and Oregon will ban self-service charging?
Probably 😉
Those states might crap bricks if they saw how many completely unattended fuel stations we have here in the UK and presumably across the rest of continental Europe. 😱 No need for apps, just pop in a credit or debit card to pay, then pump your own fuel.
@@MrPGT same with automated tollbooths. On most sites now there is even no need to enter your card code anymore as it's automatically debited.
@@MrPGT It's the exact same way in the "other 48" states, too. The only time I've ever had to talk to a gas station attendant is if I wanted to buy a bottle of soda on the way out, or if the pump was out of receipt paper.
@@MrPGT I'll let you in on a secret: we do that in rural Oregon too if the guy takes more than 20 seconds to cone to the car. I do it myself every time because none of those idiots can figure out how to fill my car without spraying petrol all over the side.
The whole needing an app to pay reminds me of when non-permit parking at my university switched to an app; it forced me to get a new phone!
I think its less about the superior plug, more about the available working chargers
Yep. Tesla has the most locations and most reliable network.
@@That-Guy_ which I hate to say they won't continue too once they have all the other evs and variables running around, the main reason they are so reliable is that they have quashed the majority of the variables
EA 350kW charging is killer but the lack of maintenance is a huge problem. Tesla seems better with maintaining existing stations.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
@@nicholashaines4136 It's more the other chargers were often installed by some random business with a grant who proceeded to completely ignore any maintenance and repairs, while Tesla has a decent monetary incentive to repair theirs. Will likely change the other direction as incentives increase based on chargers actually working. Tesla's chargers are more complex and thus less reliable, but they fix them.
19:45 - I think _having_ Plug & Charge is very important - but not *at the expense of other payment methods.* P&C is by far the easiest way to do it. But we absolutely need to be able to pay at the charger, too. And well-functioning smartphone apps.
Having had both sets of cords/cars, the J1772 vs NACS difference isn't big but it still noticeable.
NACS vs CCS1 though, is a HUGE difference. It is much easier to wield the NACS vs the CCS1.
And just because only one company makes it, it's still a standard. It became open over 6 months ago. It's used by the majority of vehicles in North America.
I think competing standards is sort of antithetical to what a standard means. It's like having competing monopolies.
@@davidolsen1222 There are a huge number of competing standards that are mutually incompatible. It's almost the rule rather than the exception.
@@1djbecker Well, that's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are something which actually *are* standard and we don't think about them at all. We only pay attention where there's a bunch of different would-be standards when a single one (almost regardless what it is). So you go and buy a natural gas fitting and they sell you the only one that exists and you don't think about how terrible that could have been.
Yes I own a Tesla. Plug & Charge is convenient although not necessarily the killer feature. That so far we have a 100% rate of supercharging successfully over ~40 tries is. It just works. No fumbling so far. No moving from one charger to another. Most locations have 8-12 Tesla superchargers - and in most areas in the Northeast multiple Supercharger locations even in small locations (each with 8-12+ chargers). Works+available and a “don’t have to think about it” changes the equation compared to other electric cars for long travel.
Like the original android/windows vs apple debate. If you want something that "just works" you'd go apple. It really does make sense why people get "scared" away from non-tesla offerings. From the outside it looks like a sh**show and from the inside it seems like it sort of is. That is unless you are like Alec and hardly use the DC fast chargers. Then you can pick the car for the car, not for it's infrastructure. And once non-tesla is figured out "enough" more people will be able to vote with their wallets for the car. Maybe then we will get physical buttons again hah.
@@0Rookie0 I don't own a Tesla but I would love to have plug & charge that just works. I hate having to fumble with getting an EA session to work. Having a credit card reader on every plug only means another failure point. How many times have you seen the dreaded BSOD at an EA terminal? The irony is **killing** me. And I don't even fast charge that often.
Also most EA locations can only accommodate 4 vehicles charging at the same time.
I have used both, and the NACS connector is just plain better - at least from an ergonomics perspective. My wife's view is that it's much better. I agree that a tap to pay approach is a great idea. Thanks for this video, there were some insightful comments that I appreciated.
Thanks for bringing up pickups that may have the bed removed and replaced with a different bed. A fuel filler neck is a pain enough to relocate or adapt. A charging port can just be mounted somewhere other than the bed from the factory, which would make upfit a lot nicer.
I agree 100% that all chargers should have a standard payment method. I absolutely hate the idea of having to rely on apps and 3rd party services, when banks and credit cards are standard and already exist. I run a custom rom on my phone so I wouldn't even be able to use these apps if I wanted to. I wish companies would stop assuming everyone has an android or apple phone that they're willing to install anything on.
"Banks and credit cards" are "apps and services"
It's just a case of whether it's "physical".
Welcome to the 21st century.
I think that's a US issue...
the banks could agree on some standards of QR payment similar to the India's UPI or Singapore MAS's PayNow/ SGQR standard (MAS has been signing agreement for inter-connect with several ASEAN countries and UPI. tho International payment with QR is still pretty limited, other than the Alipay+. but china bad, right?)
@@PrograError that would probably still require some kind of phone app. Credit cards work fine and are standard. No need to reinvent the wheel. Could also make physical tokens an option, that would make it possible to use cash to buy the tokens in advance.
@@redsquirrelftw maybe, but now you get to pay like the Chinese do everywhere without using credit card but your own bank account credit/ cash.
And therefore only one app to pay for everything. Your bank's. (Tho depending on whether they will want to do a lifestyle app... And PayPal, etc. being onboard)
@@PrograErrorYou're aware Google Pay, Apple Pay etc. are used in the USA, right?
My biggest frustration is just competing standards and potential for lock out or confusion. Adapters and these new developments largely get around this. The disimilarities between NA and EU in cars is still dumb, imo. And homogenizing between the two for all car standards would be nice.
The differences come down to the electrical systems in the two regions. EU is three-phase, US mostly isn't.
And for normal people, it doesn't matter the slightest. Nobody is taking their cars with them across the Atlantic, for many more reasons than the charging standard.
@@kalleguld 2 phase in the US is about 220-240v, it could be wired like a single phase CCS2 between the neutral and one of the phases
@@Giuliana-w1f North America uses a split phase power network. Your Split Phase is 120v and Single Phase is 240v. You only need one of the three pins from a European plug.
@@benanderson89 my split phase? I use 220V between phase and neutral, or 380V between 2 or 3 phases.
I'm talking about using a single 240V pin in the US
@@Giuliana-w1f You said 240v was 2 phase in the US. It's not. 240v is single phase and that's the only standard they have.
I'm a proud 2016 Leaf driver. Funny enough, I was considering looking at newer EVs in the next year! Now I have reason to take a wait-and-see approach. I was rather excited to upgrade to a CCS-capable vehicle; now I'm waiting to see not only how the new cars will be equipped, but how the infrastructure will expand in my immediate area over the coming years.
Cries in Chademo
2014 Leaf owner here, I've been waiting on Dala to finish his CHaDEMO to CCS converter. Luckily (bad luck is still luck right?) I live in Alabama, the nearest DC fast charger is something around 35 40 miles from me.
@@calvinbarnes1721doesn't the 2014 Leaf use the common J1772?
@@CaseyDuBose going from CHAdeMO to Emo Chad
depends where you are.. if you are NA, then waiting is worth it if your Leaf is still good. If you are in Europe, then CCS will be the standard for a while.
To be honest I think Europe does manage this hole charging think a lot better. Way more chargers that actually work and not only Superchargers (but still Superchargers have Typ 2 CCS). And especially Germany where it will be soon required that charges have card terminals.
So we have 1 standard we all can agree upon and if we need to charge somewhere there is a card terminal available. (even if prices are a bit higher on those.)
It's a shame we just couldn't stick with USB C. 😂
It's even better. I found out at work that trucks also use ccs2. But they won't let me put my car on the 380KW charger 😢
@@random27 NACS is soon to support 500kw+ and 1Mw on V4 Superchargers. That said, MCS is going to support 3.7Mw.
law should never dictate innovation.
@@jslay88 true, but law can provide an even playing field while forcing backwards compatibility. So current consumers are protected. Networks can be build up by competing companies, increasing incentive for consumers to invest. Which gives companies the chance to innovate.
One thing to consider is you don't want a charging station to have a lot of parts and cost a lot to make. If you're going to increase charger coverage, you're going to want to minimize charger cost.
How does this decrease cost? When you DC fast charge the AC wires are not in the cable, yes the plug is a bit larger but it's not costing more.
@@multipotentialite I think @r1337 is talking about payment terminals. I imagine those are not cheap to include and maintain for every single charger.
@@multipotentialite as @AlexWeiner said, and screens are not cheap, when you have GUI it push up compute power you need to operate it and each part can stop working.
And personally I prefer to have payment in my app, not each station wants my card (payment processing can end badly)
@@m_sedziwoj Wouldn't you still need a screen for the charging status/out of order indicators and everything?
@@techno1561 you have app for this. And don't tell me that people don't have smartphones ;)
38:10 One thing that was overlooked in the GM Press Release on accessing the Superchargers is that GM is still continuing to partner with EVgo to build out ~5,000 chargers. A majority of those chargers should be the 350 kW "Ultium Ready" units. The original agreement was to cover specific metro areas (Chicago is one of them), but there was no emphasis placed on travel corridors. However, the partnership expanded with Pilot/Flying J, and that plan includes 400 to 500 Flying J sites nationwide, with placements along interstate corridors. The first 200 of those Flying J EVgo sites are supposed to be built by the end of this year, and those 200 sites alone would provide EVgo with a similar level of coverage to Electrify America.
I think it would have been fairer to have done a visual comparison of a NACS connector with a CCS DC fast charger connector. The DC connector adds so much more bulk.
His concerns clearly are not about the physical dimensions, it's about the protocols and payment systems.
The current app based payment systems do not foster competition.
You don't have to install a separate app for every chain of gas station you ever stop at (although the fuel companies would love you to)
Agreed. Comparing a NACS and a j plug is really only half the functionality.
The cumbersome CSS and even worse CHADEMO should go the way of the do-do.
Its quite common for really good proprietary standards to get turned into open standards. Happens across loads of industries all the time
You mean like that one time where usb-c 'magically' became a charging standard without political intervention?
@@hammerth1421 thunderbolt was developed by intel in cooperation with apple.
@@hammerth1421 Thunderbolt was never proprietary to Apple. Intel had partners showcasing non-apple devices with Thunderbolt since the very beginning.
Like Metric? 🙂
@William Wallace was metric proprietary?
I think the difference in connector size is much more of a difference when you take into account CCS2 with it's separate but huge DC pins, instead of just NACS vs CCS/J1772
I always thought the size of the connector was a nice affordance: don't f*ck with this connector, there's a dangerous amount of energy flowing through it.
@@godofbiscuitssf if that's your concern, the pins are more protected on the NACS connector than on the CCS connectors.
@@microcolonel It's not a concern, just something I noted. It's not even about actual level of protection, but the likelihood that people will actually steer clear of it. That's why I pointed out the affordance aspect.
@@godofbiscuitssf It's also got a lid, which on electrical things tends to be "don't touch unless you know what you're doing".
CCS is not J1772, it's J1772 AND the two huge DC pins below it.
CCS1 (North America) has five pins in the "circular" part of J1772
CCS2 (EU) has seven pins in the circular part of J1772, to accommodate three-phase AC charging
Summary: ALL CCSx connectors have the two large DC pins at the bottom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System -- though this stuff is pretty confusing :(
So basically: The Tesla Connector isn't bad as a standard because of its design or whatever, but because its usage implied a proprietary protocol. (E.g. VGA vs HDMI - adapters need to be smart to translate between the two and implement the protocol). Now Tesla allows the Connector to speak the CCS protocol, so the two connectors become like USB-A vs USB-B - physically interchangeable, so adapters can just be dump pieces of metal?
Yes.
like i get your argument but....
VGA VS HDMI didnt need adapters to translate because one was proprietary.. it was because one is analoge the other is digital... VGA to DVI-A are compatbile as the -A part(or tbf, any non DVi-D connector) had VGA pinouts so it jsut needed rewiring.
and DVI-D(aka the DIGITAL part of DVI) was mostly compatbile with HDMI via a passive adapter....(active adapters are needed for certain use cases)because the signals where identical..... like.... HDMI to Display Port is a good example, booth same idea(digital video and audio transfer) using different connectors and protocols
The "CCS protocol" is ISO15118, which Tesla is already compliant with.
"International Standard"?
@@rogerstarkey5390 that something is popular, don't mean is better. And NACS is cheaper on car side, on charging side, easier to use and you don't share credit card info with each charging station. So... CCS is dumb, as I like enforcing USB-C in EU, I think CSS is bad standard, not work out by companies, but created by consortium, if USB-C wasn't existing standard, consortium would create something stupid, I bet on it.
The charging networks can keep CCS for a while, build out and improve their software and then start switching some of their stations over to NACS over time if that's the way things are going to go. The car manufacturers need to start making their decisions now - mostly so they don't drag this out longer than it needs to. That wouldn't be good for the EV industry as a whole. Over the next two years we should see everyone in NA come to an agreement on which way we should go.
I firmly believe Telsa needs to make sure that the important parts of NACS is open source and that they start a standards board to govern it with other manufacturers who sign onto using NACS in their vehicles and engineers from around the globe.
Your analysis is spot on. No question the NACS is marginally better than J-1772/CCS in some ways but it's depressing how many articles are using the "format war" VHS/Beta metaphor. Same goes for the "Tesla is seamless" argument, as if the connector was the reason for that seamlessness, and not the fact that in Tesla's case the same company made the car, owns the charger, and handles the billing. You expect this kind of thing from the Tesla-stans, but to get it from supposedly objective and knowledgeable sources shows how poorly understand the issue is by many of the folks you'd think would know better.
I'm looking forward to the day where we can all just use some new USB standard to charge our cars
Yeah, then after a year or two they come out with USB-C.
@@Kriss_L I mean, if it's still a USB-C connector then I'd be really happy
USB-EV coming soon....
USB-Car. Now with 250kw charge capacity.
It’s already here. It’s call the NACS.
I'm glad you are talking about this. I think the switch is more on the issue with EA rather then NACS, I own a model three and love my experience but CCS handle is good enough. I just want everyone to pick a standard and go, If EA was more reliable I bet you CCS would be the standard but they dropped the ball enough Ford and GM can't trust them.
I genuinely believe that we'll find out in a few years time that EA execs had a secret mission to disrupt and delay EV adoption.
EA lack of infrastructure, poor reliability, and moving in slow motion is why all this is happening. None of the other charging network operators appear to be any better. Tesla deploys more new chargers per quarter than all of the CCS operators combined! It is totally insane. Completely unacceptable. Everyone screamed there just needed to be funding... The funding was approved, massive funding was approved at the Fed level. They are still sitting around on their hands. Given the reliability issues sitting around on their hands may be better than putting in POS chargers... In the mean time people will have options if you own a Ford or GM to pull into a Tesla supercharger. It just sucks all around.
37:04 Death Knell of CCS - depends on what VW, EA and Hyundai decide to do. Hyundai and VW are not eligible for a lot of the honey gushing out of gushing out of the fed ( aka the taxpayers’ pockets) but they are significant manufacturers of EVs.
8:30 Europe here, it´s a subset of ISO_15118 and you are right is over-complicated, but it´s the price you pay for having the same standard for the whole continent (included cryptography). it runs as a powerline modulation on the ContolPilot line.
EV-GO has already been putting NACS on some of their chargers-- they announced that they would be doing this back in 2021 (before it was called NACS, of course).
They did this by buying CHAdeMO to Tesla adapters.
They have on the new delta chargers but they are going to be supporting everyone not just ccs and Tesla.
I would love to see a video on the charging connectors and all the communication protocols.
Yup. What is power-line networking? Why (hypothetically) didn't they something akin to USB or CAT5? What were the reasons for the "J" plug and CCS1 designs?
www.youtube.com/@OutofSpecReviews
Kyle from Out of spec has a LOT more experience vs a guy who admitted in this video he barely ever DC fast charges.
These people actually use and test all brands of chargers and dont have a grudge against any one brand. They go to CharIN conferences (the ones in charge of CCS) and report real information about all aspects of charging.
www.youtube.com/@KyleConner
www.youtube.com/@outofspecdave1554
www.youtube.com/@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney
www.youtube.com/@InsideEVsUS
Re standardising the charge port location. We never even standardised the fuel port location (usually, but not always, at the rear, but no guarantee which side).
Also not sure that Tesla will "open source" their connector. I imagine it's more likely they'll license it to third parties?
i have no idea what this means but im gonna watch it anyways
29:00 the problem of the short dinkie cables has been addressed in the v4 dispenser, it has a much longer cable (from the pictures I estimate 4m)
Now we need an adapter to plug 2 chargers into each other and see what happens!
You mentioned that the CCS plug is just as usable as NACS, without considering how easy it actually is. The cable thickness, especially when cold along with the difficulty to plug in perfectly means it is not accessible to many people. If it can't be done with one hand, it is worse
He does address the fact that it isn't as easy to use as NACS, it seems like his point is pretty clear that it isn't as easy as NACS, but it is still an improvement over a gas pump nozzle. If we can make gas pump nozzles accessible, we can make CCS accessible. And even then, it seems like he is conceding that NACS is probably the best option.
@@smileyeagle1021but it can’t be because: Tesla baaad.
@@reggievonramsteinwell it'll be an SAE spec soon enough.
@@smileyeagle1021 He addresses it in a cursory way. Buried the lead you might say. It's not a mere detail. It's the difference between a 18 Y.O. girl or an elderly person being able to use the plug or not. That's not a difference of degree. It's difficult enough to exclude a fraction of the driving population. But that is also part of the point. It's bad by design. No vaguely competent engineer would look at NACS and then later say, nah, CCS2 is a better approach so lets do that. Your objective has to be have been to design a worse solution. There's nothing about CCS that would've prevented it from being at least 90% as good as NACS, given the motivation. To get to CCS2, you have to reject that idea and design a plug/cable system so horrendous that you have to fit a handle ONTO THE HANDLE, just to be able to wrangle it.
@@smileyeagle1021 Gas hoses are hollow, not so with a CCS cable.
I think the funding is also available to tesla, if they open up their chargers, so that might be why they're doing it now. More funding might mean more tesla charges, aleviating the capacity issues.
In at least one case Tesla has turned down the money because the people holding the purse strings figured they knew more about charging networks than Tesla.
@@danharold3087 That would be California, where Tesla turned down the grant because they aren't willing to install direct payment terminals.
Lots of good info.
Tesla turned down some fed money because the fed wanted Tesla to change how Tesla had there whole system works ( by adding pay at the stall and since other stuff)... they did accept some money but held there stance on Not doing a complete redesign of what they have and what they have IS working great.
Pay in app is great, it never breaks, no one can put a "skimmer" on it, it has unlimited support.... the charging network is a major asset part of Tesla and they are RARELY out of service.
The joining of forces is BETTER for all EV users, it's going to help any manufacturer that gets on board.
The Tesla charging network is HUGE, the more access to charging the better..... all super charging is backed by renewable energy.
@@rabidpb
Ask WHY.
Because....
Complication
Point of failure
Insecure
Unnecessary.
(Apart from that it might be ok..... Oh ... Wait)
@@rogerstarkey5390 It may be nicer for the supplier, but a world in which you'd need a different app for every product or service is a manifestly worse experience for the consumer. It makes reasonable sense why Tesla turned down the grant this time, but don't try to pretend it's because they're doing you a favour.
Okay, so I think I have the same brand washing machine because when yours went off, I frantically got up and checked on it only to realize I don't even have a load of laundry in there. That was a trip. Anyhow, that was a great video and thanks for sharing your perspective on things.
I had to remember MINE is NOT running
It's a good thing Europe exists, or we would never have any standardization.
It's like all the bloody proprietary charge cables on cell phones in the 00's.. Pick one already 👍.
Europe has already mandated CCS Type 2, so, we have, the US just isn't enforcing it because the government are mentally incapable.
800 parallel USB-C connectors to charge your car - are you happy now??
@@gorak9000 Sounds good to me 👍
We did in the EU, both for ev's and for phones. Get a competent government.
@@gorak9000 USB-C, but the size of a dyson air multiplier
Who controls the NACS (proprietary) "open" standard? That's my question. It sounds to me like Tesla is the sole controller of the standard (yes anyone can use it... But only Tesla controls its future). Why would they allow Tesla this competitive advantage and control over their business?
I agree with you on your points as well as where you disagree with Kyle. He's a smart guy, and says he welcomes dissenting opinions, but he is quick to dismiss those who disagree with him and their concerns without properly considering and addressing them. He's become more and more of a Tesla fan boy lately and it bugs me.
I watched some magic dock videos and there were plenty of issues with cars trying to charge at them... Why? Because it's a lot harder to support all the other cars when you don't control the whole pipeline. As soon as they opened those magic docks, suddenly their super chargers weren't so reliable and didn't always "just work"...
I'm also worried about what this means for the federal charging rollout... It's not clear if it's required to have CCS plugs... If CCS dies, what happens to those chargers who are potentially federally required to include CCS?
NACS is an open standard.
Yes. An open proprietary standard controlled by Tesla. It can be open and proprietary at the same time. Anyone can use it, but not everyone can own it and control it which is my concern. CCS doesn't have that problem.
Tesla isn't interested in government money if there are strings attached. They pretend like they want it but they don't actually take it/send in the invoice for payment at the end of the process. The CCS networks can put NACS plugs on their chargers. Some already do. And they can milk taxpayers until the next election for everything they can get.
@@brettspencer-curran8269 It's owned by Tesla. They still have the patents. They 'allow' people to use it. There's ZERO stopping them from making it closed again until their patents expire. The patent process requires you to 'open' it (tell people how it works) to get the patent. It doesn't require you to allow people to use it. GM and Ford have likely reached some individual deal to help alleviate the risk that Tesla changes their mind, but that deal isn't necessarily open to other manufactures in perpetuity. Indeed it's a good move on Tesla's part to get them onboard with a sweetheart agreement specifically so they can charge others in the future. Tesla have said others can use their patents, but Tesla say a lot of things.
Lol stop spreading FUD. It's an open standard, and Tesla is comfortable enough in the market to make it as such.
Gotta love that LG washing machine chime… Speaking of which, when will we get to see you dismantle the laundry detergent world?
As Kyle from Out-of-Spec noted, front passenger side is also an option to the port location.
Is saying "right side" too political? The driver sits on this side of the car in many countries.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 England, Australia, and Japan. Wow, so many countries!
@Andrew Ahern There are more, but the number of countries denoted as "many" is hardly the point. British people do the same silly thing, calling it the near and off side even when they actually mean right and left. The point is: The charging port on a Tesla is on the left side. Always. "Left" is a perfectly good word for this.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 "'Left' is a perfectly good word for this" …unless you're facing the car from the front, in which case the port is on the *right* side. That's why we say "driver side." I agree, though, that "driver side" and "passenger side" are also ambiguous terms, as are "near side" and "far side." It would make more sense to use "port" and "starboard" since those terms are unambiguous with regard to orientation.
Just use nautical terminology... port, starboard, bow, and stern. Problem solved/made worse.
Interesting here in the UK most ccs chargers do have an option to pay on the charger itself
This largely isn't financially viable in the USA because credit card networks and banks have WAY higher fees than in countries that have functioning governments.
That's because they have to, by law, since 2020 - www.gov.uk/government/news/all-new-rapid-chargepoints-should-offer-card-payment-by-2020
@@robinbennett5994 More junk to break. Also CCS1 CCS2. Apart from 3 phase CCS2 is far less fragile because it puts the clip on the inside.
@@markmuir7338 Um, literally all of our gas pumps have credit card readers and literally every store you go into accepts credit cards. I don't see why a charging station would be different.
@@mattwolf7698 Because the fixed minimum transaction fee is a larger fraction of the cost when charging an EV, since a charging session typically costs less than filling up a car with gasoline. Also, most gas stations in the USA don't make any money from selling gas. They make it up with the convenience store - which many EV charging stations are missing out on.
Preach it brother! It's like you read my mind, uncanny. Two comments though. First, something like 25% of people still use CASH to buy gas. Widespread adoption of EVs is going to require this to be taken into account. Second, it remains to be seen if Tesla's charger reliability holds true once they start having to interface with vehicles they didn't manufacture. That could be a whole different ballgame.
It's great how fast things have moved since this video came out. Several other car companies have said they'll support it as well as charging networks Electrify America and Chargepoint!
I feel like a lot of the momentum towards NACS and Superchargers may be a little bit misguided. We have this reverence of Superchargers being incredibly reliable, but so far that has only been within the closed walled-garden with a Tesla vehicle. The Magic Dock pilot sites tell me there is actually a LONG way to go for superchargers to be as reliable with non-Tesla vehicles as they are with Telsas.
Superchargers are more plentiful with larger sites, which is a huge boon, but I am not convinced that non-Tesla vehicles won't have the same sort of challenges with Superchargers as they do with current CCS EV networks (e.g., slow handshake times, failed sessions).
Ford and GM signing on are a good sign, but I wouldn't count on any current gen CCS cars working seamlessly in the future either. I remain skeptical that current owners of CCS cars will one day be able to easily and reliably charge on a supercharger, but if it pushes the industry to raise the bar moving forward, I'm all for it.
Tesla superChargers will continue to work well so long as people don't force tesla to degrade them. The answer is to upgrade the cars to work.
My opinion. Magic Dock is a test and won't be going anywhere beyond. Too many added failure points and expense.
@@spazzman90 wrong they made a deal to install 3500 dc fast chargers by the end of 2024 . That is separate from other deals .
I had Tesla send me a note one time after a charging session that said they had trouble with the communication, so that charge session was free.
All should do this. That makes the customer experience amazing. you still can charge regardless if the stupid app works. Also, the charge providers are incentivize to make a bulletproof infrastructure. Otherwise they lose money. Win win.
28:50 for streets with parking on both sides; installing on-street parking could include a change to 45-degree-angle parking on one side of the street, and adding bike lanes on the far side.
that would still leave out folks with front-end port locations...
Sounds like Ford and GM are also getting API access, so they can add Supercharger NACS billing into their own EV app when using adaptors. (Don't know if they'll get plug & charge support on their future cars with native NACS).
But I'd assume that if other EV car companies, like Hyundai, don't sign similar agreements then their drivers would need a Tesla app to pay (just like I understand is required for CCS cars that use the handful of magic docks)
Looks like, at least short term, non-Tesla folks will be stuck with apps to pay for NACS.
By what Jim and Mary said their users would not need to use the Tesla app. I expect Tesla has or will have an API that lets them do the plug & charge, Tesla will want everyone to have a good experience at a Tesla charger.
I've been thinking about the points on plug and charge for a few days. I think that luxury brands, like BMW, Mercedes, etc., can't AFFORD not to have plug and charge. You can't be a luxury manufacturer who's less *convenient* than another manufacturer.
Because of that, I think they're going to push really hard for it.
For the more reasonably priced options? I think you're probably correct. VW, Hyundai/Kia, etc. should just be pushing to have at least tap to pay on chargers.
For the accessibility of NACS vs CCS1, I think you're a little bit off, at least based on the part we've argued on Twitter (before all the Musking) about before. While MOST CCS1 plugs aren't any harder to plug in or unplug than the NACS plug, they CAN be. If you check their spec, CCS1 allows a force that's something like twice as high as ADA allows for gas pumps. NACS is significantly under the max force allowed.
So while CCS1 is GENERALLY no worse than NACS for plugging and unplugging, it's not within ADA spec for gas pumps at the high-end, which means that it's unacceptable in my opinion. USUALLY good enough isn't good enough, especially as they take more wear over time and wider usage.
23:00 I appreciate the distinction that there is both a sense of "how things should be done, because it's what I have" and "I really don't want what that other guy is having" in terms of charging experiences.
I'm a little surprised at how readily the benefits of NACS + Plug and Charge are minimized, while simultaneously minimizing the annoyances the CCS plug + Pay at Charger. It's largely not a delta of just one or two things, it's an aggregate of so many things. The example of using a gasoline pump being the baseline, and what the rest of the population will compare their experiences to, still falls on its face compared to the
ABB announced they were going to start making NACS chargers
(ABB being an equipment manufacturer, not a network, which explains why I'd never heard of them.)
@@crash.override
Really? It's like the largest industrial robot manufacturer on earth
As an engineer I'm annoyed for design reasons. Like nearly everything Tesla does it lacks any form of redundancy or ruggedness. The design philosophy is more like a phone than a safety-critical vehicle system.
The fact that the low-power AC conductors and the high-power DC conductors SHARE PINS is concerning AF. It's one circuit malfunction away from the AC pins becoming LIVE at pack voltage...or from exposing the battery directly to mains AC!
The thinner conductors require more cooling and are far less efficient, the ground return is higher resistance, the communication pins are considerably more fragile.
And having two more automakers join one's proprietary standard moves us FURTHER from a single common standard instead of closer.
This is a great explainer video! I used to think plug and charge was the best way to build an EV charging network but after this, I have a different opinion that it maybe isn’t the best way. Thank you for giving such a well thought out alternative perspective.
That Pioneer shirt FTW
As a Tesla driver - I 100% agree with you that every charger SHOULD have a credit card/contactless payment option. While it's great to be able to just pull up and charge at an own-brand supercharger, it's a massive inconvenience to not be able to use an "unfamiliar" one, say at a parking garage. Basically, convenience, not requirement, for any EV driver needs to be prioritized across systems.
I just use a J1772 to Tesla adapter and works no problem:) I had to download an app typically, but never had to do more than anyone else. Sucks if all the EV parking spaces are taken though:)
The charging port on cars don’t need to be in the back left of the car. It can also be in the front right.
Yup. Or front middle, like my car.
... or both sides, front right and back left, covering pretty much any situation you can think of. Sure, it will make your car maybe few kilos heavier and add a minuscule amount of copper to the total price but I'd gladly pay those few dozen $$ for the overall convenience.
I had no idea what CCS or NACS are, but found this video a very interesting way to be learning stuff, mostly because I just installed a 50 amp/240v outlet in my garage to "future proof" it for an electric car some day.
This is his second channel where he rambles more but his main channel is GREAT
For home charging, both CCSx and NACS will work fine at home; which EVSE you plug into your new receptacle will depend on what your next EV requires at its charge port, and/or what adapter you want to use (or not use).
Due to NEC continuous load derating, the max you can pull from your new 50A 240V receptacle is 80% or 40A. Be aware that that will be fine for maxing out the onboard AC charger of a lot of EVs -- 40A/240V is about 10kw -- but there are several EVs that can pull ~11kw (Audi, VW ID.4, Tesla Model 3 and probably the Model Y comes to mind), which would need a 60A circuit to be able to charge at the maximum the call can pull. And there exist some niche cars that pull almost 20kw and need a 100A circuit.
But, the beauty of EVSEs is that they can be configured. You set the EVSE to allow the EV to pull a max of 40A, and plug it in. When you plug the EVSE into the car, the car asks the EVSE what it's allowed to pull. The EVSE replies, "40A max", and then they do a safety dance and the EV starts charging, with the EVSE monitoring current draw. If at any time the car draws more than 40A, the EVSE disconnects.
L2/AC charging stations -- EVSEs -- are nothing more than a safety box with some switches and maybe timers and/or BT/WiFi connectivity for your convenience. Without the J1772 protocol and standard, the car would be happy if you just plugged it into the wall outlet! J1772 standard keeps the wires and sockets electrically dead until plugged in and safety checks completed, and ensure that the wiring capacity of your branch circuit in your home is not overloaded. That's the EVSE's whole mission. It's a wonder they cost as much as they do, for as little as they do.
Everyone mentions Teslas not being left out because of the adapter but I never hear about the other direction, existing CCS cars adapting to use NACS. If they want us to switch standards, they should sell adapters at cost to CCS car owners or at minimum make schematics for one freely available so the market can handle it. Yes, they say "it's easy" and "don't worry" but where are they? Also, kitty! Also also, totally agree on payments. I don't want a relationship with the various charge providers, just let me pay and go like a gas pump or vending machine.
The type 2 connecter would allow for faster three phase charging. Virtually all commercial buildings where public chargers are located are equipped with three phase service
Which is historically why the world outside of North America and China is CCS2 territory. It is not a big benefit for most people, though. If you want high speeds, you have to go DC. If not, you usually have plenty of time.
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 but to wire J1772 from a 3 phase system (commercial location) you have to use 2 legs of 120V that are 120° out of phase. So “32A” is only 6.6kW instead of 7.7kW from a 120/240V system. Whereas using all 3 legs would be 11.5kW. It would also help keep the 3 phase system balanced.
Sure it’s not a big difference, but public level 2 charging for an hour or two doesn’t get you much range in the first place. So how small of a difference is too small?
@@stubeusz123 I don't have good numbers to back this up, but when I search my feelings, I either want ALL the speed, since I have faraway places to be, or I want just enough to plug in and charge up over night. On rarer occasions, maybe I am stopping for dinner and stereotypical-male-type quick shopping on a road trip. THEN I would like around 50 kW, so I don't have to rush back to unplug my car because it is charged and I don't want to block the charger. But this is rare. For me. Small dataset.
@@stubeusz123 2 to 4 hours at an appointment OR dinner and a movie with friends + 2 - 3 hours shopping and that adds up FOR someone without HOME charging and NOT having to PAY the price OR stand around waiting for a car to CHARGE on a DC charger that often have "standing fees" if NOT unplugged after full charge
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 I picture people in Apartments without changing and a 1/2 day shopping on AC will go a LONG ways
Person who does cryptography here: The Tesla does nothing that the other chargers don't do. You need an account, you need to "log in" to other chargers so they can link you to your account for payment. What's different with Tesla is that the car can identify itself to the charger so the charger can link you to the payment account. Just like Starbucks in the US, even if you could pay with a card or cash, you may well choose to use the Starbucks card or app with money in an account. While payment terminals are indeed missing from Tesla chargers, a secure identity system is missing from non tesla EVs. Having both would bring the best of both worlds. Secure identities are a deep topic in cryptography, but we do know how to do it and it can be done well.
Polestar and Volvo apparently are going NACS also. Rivian too.
No matter which way this goes. I really really NEED long distance road tripping to get more reliable on CCS connectors. If it means swapping over to a Tesla style plug I am all for it.
I own an ID.4 and a few times I have had either completely broken stations or I can only get 32KW on long corridors.
My latest 3 hour trip turned into a 9 hour drive because I was left stranded around broken fast chargers (Which showed up in the app) and could only use a 6kw charger to get 80 miles of range for the next charger... The next fast charger that was limited to 32kw... I cannot believe the dismal state of so many fast chargers near the east coast beach in NC.
independent chargers only lose money if someone can't charge. if a tesla charger doesn't work it reflects on the whole company not just a charge provider. so they have a huge incentive to make their chargers be working all the time.
Why do the stations break in the first place?!
@@blockbertus apparently most DCFCs use Windows Embedded instead of an open OS like Linux or Android. I almost got a stranded at a DCFC at a thruway rest stop until a developer from BTC Power remoted into the charger and was able to get it to put out 25kW. I asked him wtf happened that he was able to get it going remotely and he said it was a corrupted library file.
@@stubeusz123 sounds like the authentication / payment side NOT the "charge" side
I agree on a lot of what you said, especially the payment terminal instead of app. Even for Tesla stations available to other brands, you need to use a F... app. A payment terminal would simply be better.
V4 superchargers will have a longer cable, so that will normally solve the "you need the plug on the rear left of your car"
I don't agree with the difference of the size of the plug doesn't matter. It is more different that lightning vs usb-c. NACS plug is simply better on every front and without being the end of the world, CCS1 is just worse and heavier to use...
A lot of 3rd parties have already committed to add NACS to their stations.
There probably needs to be a bigger discussion on the credit card oligopoly and their fees. That's why companies want you to have a prepaid / gift card style system. They don't make money on small amounts.
There are several errors in this piece which is something highly unusual for content from Tech Con.
1. Tesla opened up its standard because it was facing the very real and horrifying possibility of becoming Beta to VHS and losing many, many $ millions in charger investment. Ford's lawyers spent 9 months confirming that Tesla had given up patent rights before adopting NACS.
2. Ford didn't give in. Ford simply added Tesla's network to its own. This might seem like a minnow swallowing a whale, but Ford's network is much more sophisticated than Tesla's. Ford has a comprehensive network because it doesn't compete with charging companies. It will be difficult for Tesla to follow suit because it would have to make concessions to the other charging companies. Tesla's network is like the Sears card back when it only worked for buying things at Sears while Ford's network is like Visa, it works with everyone.
3. NACS won't belong to Tesla for much longer. SAE is fast tracking an official designation. That's what Ford & GM are waiting for. If you want your cars to be insurable and avoid lawsuits, it would behoove you to stick to standards. And, once that happens, they and everyone else will stick to those standards no matter what Tesla decides to do. There are a couple of other standards agencies that should have official designations about 6 months after SAE and these will further bolster NACS.
4. Tesla's EV dominance in the US is sliding fast. Back in 2018, Tesla had 78% share, making them 3 1/2 times the size of the other EV makers. Last year, Tesla was still twice as big. However, today, Tesla is sitting at 58% share vs 42% for everyone else. Worse still is that by 2026 Tesla is only expected to have 18% share at which point it would no longer have the clout to impose standards. The same thing happened to IBM with PCs.
"Technology Connections 2053" Chademo: "The charging standard you've never heard of!"
what is Chademo? :P
The two standards are going to evolve into a gasoline vs diesel scenario. If the Tesla connector is going to become common the easiest way to handle this is not to have the consumer need to cary an adapter, but to have both cable options at each charge point. The power supplies are modular and can have the interface electronics for both in one station and lock out the other cable internally when one is in use. The actual added cost to manufacture is significantly lower than the liability of 'unlicensed' adapters that will likely create a grey market for them from less than scrupulous manufacturers (do we need to point out the obvious?).
to be honest, I don't think that outside of GM and Ford which are primarily us manufacturers That you'll see much adoption of it because for example Kia and Hyundai Will probably just stick with CSS2 because of the fact that NACS does not support any form of Three-Phase fast charging Just because it doesn't have the connectors, which means that it never could, which means that for most of the world it's pretty useless. so it wouldn't make sense for an international manufacturer to adapt the standard that they would then have to completely rework in every other country they sell the car. unless of course, they're a primarily us manufacturer such as Ford or GM
What about weatherproofing? A large part of the CCS connector's bulk comes from weatherproofing elements. Not an issue for garage-kept California cars, but what about for everybody else?
Your point about payment processing at a charging station. There are not only 3 ways to solve this problem (Tesla versus App versus pay at terminal). There are other options. For example - Include in the communication standard a way to pass payment information from the vehicle to the charging station (not ideal, since this requires charging communication standards change). Or, have a neutral clearing house (think DNS delegation or telephone number portability) where the charging network can send a payment request to the provider of your choosing based on your car's VIN to get payment information. This means as payment systems evolve, you won't have to update all these payment terminals in the field. This would allow the open system you're advocating for without requiring payment processing equipment at every charger, which makes the chargers MUCH more expensive to build, maintain and more prone to breaking down.
Even if a backup option to pay, being app/contactless being the other
Using your car's touchscreen is a great option during inclement weather. And power line comms are easy.
erm.. Tesla uses the first way yu described.. (Plug & Charge; basically the Vehicle sends its VIN to the charging station, and this is used to look up the correct billing info)
I do wonder how rental cars will work with such a system. I guess either disable VIN-based payments for them entirely, or the rental company will tack any charging bills onto your final rental bill.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the idea behind Plug & Charge is that the account lies with your vehicle manufacturer, rather than the network itself. I absolutely agree with you though that it's just unnecessarily complicated - there's absolutely nothing complicated from a user POV about plugging in, tapping your card (whether it be debit, credit or manufacturer issued) and walking away.
I think having both would be awesome.
1. A standard in vehicles to locally store payment information or even just a system to store a receipt of purchase that can be processed after connection is re-established.
2. Card readers at all pumps for redundancy/compatibility with cars that don't follow the standard listed above.
I don't think it HAS to go through the manufacturer. As long as the charger can get a unique identifier of the car through the connector, there's nothing stopping the charging network from using it to access some other account. I DO think we need to keep tap to pay options, both for legacy vehicles that can't supply a unique ID, and for casual use of a charging network without needing to sign up.
@@davidwilliams4845 Yeah but that kinda defeats the purpose for me as it would mean you’d still need an account with each network and to manage your payment details through several, what are ultimately going to be a shoddy, apps/websites; something I think a layperson is going to struggle to deal with. I think the process of tapping a card to pay is so universal and really rather simple that it’s the way to go - but that’s just me
I completely agree on your plug & charge opinion, card payment (including nfc) is way more important as that is the most open way of paying for goods and services. No sign up required, no need to give bank information to additional services, and no risk of being left in the cold if the company which made the car goes under and the back end service for plug & charge stops being supported.
ABB and at least two other providers has also now signed on to providing NACS as an option when you buy their stations for your location.
In my opinion, the nice solution for all the cars out there using CCS is to have charging stations have 2 cables for each unit. One NACS and one CCS.
Of course, driving a J1772 only vehicle, I want to see more units installed that have J1772. ;-)
Most to all fast charging stops in Norway (and there are a lot, EVs are 80 percent of new cars and 20 percent of the cars on the road) have all CCS2 chargers and one which is combined CCS2/chademo. I expect it would go the same way in the US.
@@Karreth in Canada FLO and Petro Canada have 2 cable chargers and one of each CCS1 and Chademo
In the uk many of the Tesla chargers have ccs connectivity. I think they were obliged to do this. Seems sensible.
Thank EU regulation for that. Otherwise you’d have probably gotten a totally incompatible GB08/15 standard or something. 😅
@@jwag82 A bunch of idiots took us out of Europe. Thank goodness there is some co-operation.
That should read *ALL* currently active superchargers have CCS. Some don't have the Tesla connector, with older Model S/X owners having to use an adaptor
@Steve Scott True. More specifically ... and are available to non Tesla owners.
Thank 3 phase for that. Tesla used Type 2 with shared AC/DC pins on legacy Model S and X and 3 and Y have always been CCS2 as the larger DC pins can handle more current.
28:40 Location of the charging port?: Considering the NACS is a more compact opening than the CCS and it doesn't have plumbing like gas vehicles, I don't see why you couldn't have several ports, one on either side or back even. This would be extremely helpful for curbside or pull through charging.
I wholly agree with you reasons both in favor and against it and, the aspect that grinds my gears the most is the possibility that you might need to make an account for different charge networks is an immediate red flag for me and I could see it stifling EV adoptions in the eyes of other people (mostly older sadly) who are interested in a EV.
Watch the interviews where GM and Ford announced this. Both said their users would not have to use the Tesla app. Ford and GM are providing the ability to use their apps.
@@danharold3087 I believe they are standing up there OWN payment network on the CAR SIDE like Tesla does it
the AP is for payment network FREE customers so Ioniq I will need to use an AP as my car does NOT have a payment system implemented and the phone AP will do the "work"
@@jasonriddell Not sure what you are saying. What does "the AP is for payment network FREE customers" mean? Was I wrong ?
I believe that it should also be an option to use cash, like a convenience store. I have some older family members who refuse to use credit cards and smartphones because they have lived most of their lives without them.
@@himonstercartoons
You point seems valid up front. But the chances of these technophobes buying an EV are vanishingly small and kind of pointless. If they will not use a smartphone they are not going to spend many thousands on a smartphone on wheels. If they do they will not be able to use it.
What is going to end up happening is that CCS will be the standard but it will be in the NACS shape.
Yeah, basically. And I can't be mad about that.
Tesla Europe has opened up there charger network to all CCS cars and at least there model 3 has a CCS socket insted of the tesla one think the EU may have made CCS the charging standad like USB C for phones
And oddly enough the other group that ends up screwed over is people with older Teslas that don't speak CCS. They will still be able to use Tesla's superchargers, but not any other superchargers that use the NACS.
@@stephenj4937 Someone mentioned that Tesla is offering a conversion to update those cars to support CCS.
Like USB-C vs Thunderbolt 4
I saw the title of the video and clicked on it, I didn't even realize it was you until you started speaking. It's nice to see you in a regular environment. We can call these laundry videos, or maybe just "The Wash", because everything comes out in the wash. You work while making the video, and we work while watching it, and everybody's laundry gets done.😂
Here in Europe the Leaf stuck with Chademo for an unreasonably long time but even they gave in and switched to CCS a couple of years back.
So yeah. This announcement from a European perspective is strange. It's like 'you guys were so close to having a unified standard and now you're blowing your chance!"
What? The Leaf is still on sale today, and still using Chademo in Europe. Nissan switched for the Ariya, but presumably the thought of suddenly having to have separate lines for CCS combo 1 and combo 2, plus having to re-homologate which would only be worthwhile if they did some other improvements to what they consider a dead-end vehicle they keep trying to discontinue, means they think it’s not worthwhile
@@thenerd6192 sorry, I should have clarified that I meant Nissan in general are now supporting CCS, not the Leaf specifically
@@thenerd6192 The leaf in the EU has Chademo and Type2 connectors, although not the combo (CCS2) connector. Not a huge deal given the leaf's other specs to just have the Type2 part of the combo connector. Can still use ta Type 2 charger on a leaf or a CCS2 car the leaf just loses DC charging if there's no CHAdeMO charger.
I didn't know that you could get an adaptor like the one you showed us in the video. I've been to several hotels that had Tesla chargers that I couldn't use. Now I have a solution. Thanks!
Although I agree for the most part. I wish this happened 5 years ago but the fact is even today the NACS plug is still more common than CCS2.
If this happened 5 years ago I think this conversation would be a little different. J1772 would be in the same vane as CHAdeMO.
The biggest threat that this creates is that while the current Tesla charger and CCS can be used interchangeably with eachother. Nothing is necessarily stopping Tesla from making a Tesla charge port V2 when they reach a degree of market saturation. That V2 may not necessarily be reverse compatible with the CCS standards, and only work with the Tesla V1. This could cause future performance improvements to be locked behind the car manufacturer charge port choice.
That might not be that big an issue actually, I think it would end up looking like what happened with IBM and the PC, at first everyone used IBMs ISA and when it came time for an upgrade, IBM decided to release their own liscened MSA, which everyone else more or less ignored and proceeded to launch their own industry wide open standard
@@kaboom36 MCA, but point taken. When the SAE ratifies all the bits and bobs of NACS, then everybody except Tesla will implement that, to ensure the largest market. Tesla can change how they talk to cars via their hardware (SCs, Destination Chargers) but won't be able to influence greatly the larger CCS1/NACS ecosystem -- unless their market share doesn't drop, and I don't see that happening, with so much competition coming down the pike.
I really hope that the electric car charging industry “wakes up” and we have debit/credit card terminals on the chargers like with gas pumps. That would be so much better than yet another cumbersome phone app that has access to my bank account.
Yeah because you know what the best thing in the world is? Dealing with broken terminals and skimmers, the former of which I already deal with roughly 50-80% of the time I drive up to an EA charger when there's no Supercharger nearby. Removing the terminal is removing a major point of failure and as previously mentioned a target for skimmers. No, tap and pay does not make it skimmer-proof there are already NFC skimmers out in the wild.
@@antikommunistischaktion It does remova a point of failure, yes. But that also means removing redundancy.
@@antikommunistischaktion so remove the ONLY option for people NOT willing to download another buggy AD with questionable security and link it to my BANK ACCOUNT for ONE charge stop
yay NO on that one
rather use APPLE PAY and use MY existing (relatively) secure payment system and NOT give access to a likely badly written AP
@@toshineon It's not redundancy if the whole thing breaks down if that one thing doesn't work.
@@jasonriddell I would really hope you're not talking about buggy apps with questionable security while using an iPhone. Security firms literally stopped paying for iOS exploits because there are too many of them on the market.
Personally, I much prefer the risk of giving a charging network a one-time token to charge me than risking my card info getting skimmed.
We had a conversation amongst our friend group about this. We all agreed that this is indeed the death knell of CCS in North America. NACS is the sleeker connector, and now that it’s open source and speaks CCS electrically, there’s no reason not to use it. But i agree it’s not set in stone.
Re: charging stations. we should just be putting payment terminals on *all* charging stations, like self-serve gas pumps have for decades. and while there are unattended chargers in random parking lots, I see “the future” of charging being essentially gas stations but with electric chargers instead of gas pumps. with DC fast charging taking about 30 minutes to fully charge from empty, I imagine we’ll see gas stations start to become little “hangout spots” for those waiting for cars to charge. which works well for disabled folks since there will be attendants there who can help those with accessibility needs. really, that’s the way
Will be quite some time before EV´s are that numerous. The infrastructure and battery tech are the bottlenecks. Will be decades before even half of all cars run on electricity
I wonder how the CCS and NACS DC pin cross sections compare? One thing that did look promising with CCS was just how chunky the pins were, allowing for higher current charging in future.
It is more about the contact area between the plug and socket. We can get more power over the same connector by increasing voltage. Providing the insulation is there to support it. Easily accomplished
@@danharold3087 Unless you want impractically long pins, increasing cross section is the only practical way to do that. Increasing voltage is also not easily accomplished, it often requires redesigning the whole power train, your existing insulation may not be enough to safely avoid dielectric breakdown for example (otherwise we'd be running EV's in the multi kilovolt range already). Not to mention the increased safety risks when maintaining the vehicle, since the higher the voltage, the easier it is to have arcing. Increasing charging current is easier, you only really need to alter the battery, charging system and perhaps update the cooling.
By the spec, the "NACS" can deliver 900 amps at 1000VDC, or 900KW. In practice the largest superchargers currently only provide 250KW. The current CCS spec is for 500 Amps at up to 920 volts, or 460KW, but the largest CCS chargers currently only provide 350KW. The CCS standard is looking to update to 2,000KW but it hasn't been formalized yet. In either case, the main issue is that it takes really huge cables to push that much current. CCS provides for this with actively cooled cables. Tesla claims their cables don't need to be cooled, but the physics suggests otherwise. In either case, the physical plug can handle far more power than other parts of the system for both. As far as I can tell the 1MW limit is the limit of the physical connector for Tesla, where as the CCS DC can handle at least 2MW.
@@johngaltline9933 Yeah, this is what I was thinking regarding CCS being more "future proof". 1MW might seem like overkill now, but with demand for faster charging times, larger battery capacities, and EV's expanding into larger vehicles like vans and trucks, having an extra megawatt or more to play with could be a big advantage. And while increasing battery voltages will help, realistically I think it's going to be harder to do that than increase charging current.
@@Croz89 Several automakers are already using or going to use higher voltage systems. IONIQ 5, Porsche Taycan,etc.
Tesla is supporting the higher voltage cars on V4 of the superCharger.