> This is such a stereotypical tale: Europe mandated a universal plug for electric vehicles 10 years ago
I would disagree and revert it entirely.
Like usual we have a standard CCS2 that is used successfully over multiple country representing over 500 millions people.
And like usual, USA goes its own way because a private actor pushes its way through lobbying and force it on everybody.
The Tesla connector has nothing Superior. It is thinner, that is its only advantage.
- CCS2 supports three phase power AC 22kw which is very useful in Europe. NACS does not.
- CCS2 cable are bulky because they respect international norms in term of cable safety. NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
- CCS2 is already supporting payment in car. Tesla could simply have adopted that.
- We were already having 3 standard. Chademo for Japan, GBT for China and CCS for the rest of the world.
Congratulations: now we have 4.
Should I quote the appropriate XKCD or should I wait that Liberia and Myanmar uses NACS before doing it ?
> And like usual, USA goes its own way because a private actor pushes its way through lobbying and force it on everybody.
The US went its own way from the beginning with CCS Type 1, because the CCS participants decided that going with the existing local Level 2 AC connector as the basis for CCS was the better option in each market, despite J-1772's worse latching mechanism and pin geometry.
Nothing about the NACS transition was done via political lobbying. If anything the political pressure on Tesla to adopt CCS is what made them cave in and open their connector rather than keeping it proprietary, which led to the other automakers moving away from the politically-favored connector to Tesla's to gain access to their better charging network.
NACS is as similar to CCS2 as CCS1 was. Same protocols and signaling, just a different physical connector. Tesla adopted the CCS standard with their connector instead of continuing to use their proprietary protocols.
Cable size has nothing to do with the NACS spec. Implementers are free to use whatever cables they used previously. You are mixing up Tesla's Supercharger implementation with NACS. Tesla uses similarly thin liquid-cooled cables on their CCS2 chargers in Europe.
> CCS2 supports three phase power AC 22kw which is very useful in Europe. NACS does not.
CCS1 does not either.
> CCS2 cable are bulky because they respect international norms in term of cable safety. NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
The cable size is a separate issue from the plug, and the main difference is cooling not safety margins.
> CCS2 is already supporting payment in car. Tesla could simply have adopted that.
NACS is using CCS1 signalling.
> We were already having 3 standard. Chademo for Japan, GBT for China and CCS for the rest of the world. Congratulations: now we have 4.
CCS1 is different enough from CCS2 that we already had 4 standards if not 5. Now we have 4.
CCS1 is entirely common with CCS2 for DC charging. The rest could have been unified later.
> main difference is cooling not safety margins.
It is safety margin. The pin are currently undersized for the rated power[1]
> NACS is using CCS1 signalling.
Which is irrelevant. Because both are still fundamental incompatible.
> CCS1 is different enough from CCS2
It is not. The only major difference between both is the presence of the three phase AC. A thing that could have been adapted in future and standardized everywhere world wide.
Now we are in the ridiculous situation that an EV will not even be able to charge itself in a neighboring country just because of lobbying bullshit.
Tesla already ship car with CCS2 by default in Europe. They could have standardize on that even in USA.
They did not for short profits, not for user convenience.
> CCS1 is entirely common with CCS2 for DC charging. The rest could have been unified later.
True unification would mean changing the plugs on all the cars and be just as disruptive as this is.
> It is safety margin. The pin are currently undersized for the rated power[1]
I don't see anything relevant at that timestamp? But the pins are not the cable and you were talking about the cable.
> Which is irrelevant. Because both are still fundamental incompatible.
It is absolutely relevant to payment methods, because those are software.
> The only major difference between both is the presence of the three phase AC. A thing that could have been adapted in future and standardized everywhere world wide.
It would require reusing some but not all of the DC pins for AC, and I strongly doubt that was ever going to happen given that it hasn't happened so far.
> Tesla already ship car with CCS2 by default in Europe. They could have standardize on that even in USA.
Why would they use CCS2 when everyone else in the country is using CCS1?
Especially because the plug kinda sucks. Compatibility is more important, but since everyone using CCS2 was clearly not going to happen, might as well make a better plug.
> They did not for short profits, not for user convenience.
I would disagree and revert it entirely.
Like usual we have a standard CCS2 that is used successfully over multiple country representing over 500 millions people.
And like usual, USA goes its own way because a private actor pushes its way through lobbying and force it on everybody.
The Tesla connector has nothing Superior. It is thinner, that is its only advantage.
- CCS2 supports three phase power AC 22kw which is very useful in Europe. NACS does not.
- CCS2 cable are bulky because they respect international norms in term of cable safety. NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
- CCS2 is already supporting payment in car. Tesla could simply have adopted that.
- We were already having 3 standard. Chademo for Japan, GBT for China and CCS for the rest of the world.
Congratulations: now we have 4.
Should I quote the appropriate XKCD or should I wait that Liberia and Myanmar uses NACS before doing it ?