The First CCS EV Fast Charging Station...

So if I have this right (and I'm not sure I do) the CCS charger is a fast charger, but a car with CCS can also use a J1772 charger. So you pay extra for the car, but you can use either a J1772 or a CCS charger without having two separate connectors on the car.

They'll need a lot more charging stations before people are going to pay the extra money for the CCS connector. With only the one CCS charger in San Diego, the option would only be useful for people whose drive is greater than the range of their car, but less than double that, and the charger is in the middle of the drive, either driving to San Diego and back, or through it and beyond.

It sounds like a good idea, but they need to install a lot more infrastructure.

 

I had to look up CSS. Had an idea what it was, but had to confirm.
It's the frankenplug.

Chademo, which you also have to pay extra for on the car, has more chargers out, but it requires 2 plugs. The CSS also can charge at a faster rate. I'm sure the CSS charger network will grow, just as the Chademo one did.

 

Maybe in 20 years there will be a single standard plug, with the minimum number of connectors necessary, capable of taking a Level 1, Level 2, fast charge, or super charge, depending on the charging type available. My Roadster can accept anything from L1 to 16.8 kW (The Tesla wall-mounted HPC.) All with just the one inlet on the car. Each different kind of wall plug requires a different connector, but they all plug into the same plug on the car. And though I am not sure, I believe the Model S has one plug that can accept anything from 110 v. up to the superchargers.

The Frankenplug looks like a Rube Goldberg contraption, thrown together without much effort to simplify.

 

It's a step better than 2 seperate plugs.
I believe the issue was the J1772. It was standardized before fast DC charging considerations. So its wiring would not be up to the task, but every EV coming out is using it. Instead duplicating the communication connections in seperate plugs and outlets, the CSS makes use of the J1772's and adds the cable for the higher current.

 

Agreed. But at some point you have to abandon an obsolete system. Unfortunately, J1772 has become obsolete just a few short years after its introduction. But now is the perfect time to abandon it, before there is a significant number of cars using it. The alternative is to accommodate those few cars now on the road and saddle the entire automotive future with a system that is entirely inadequate.

The Windows registry was a kludge put together quickly, that more or less served a purpose, but Microsoft's insistence on backward compatibility saddled later versions of the OS with an albatross that slowed and weakened the whole system.

When Apple abandoned backward compatibility by dumping OS 9 and adopting Unix for OS X they opened the way for a strong future of their OS at the cost of some inconvenience in the form of the orphan OS 9.

J1772 makes no sense. It's underpowered and the J1772 EVSEs are riddled with problems. It's the Windows registry of the EV world. Rather than trying to make cars backward compatible, we need a standard that can function into the future, even if it means that a few very early EVs become charge-system orphans.

Rather than CCS trying to be compatible with J1772, they should aim for the development of a standard that can carry into the future with no unnecessary complexity. Tesla is doing this for their own cars, and IMHO it would make sense, given Tesla's commitment to installing superchargers across the country, to adopt the Tesla standard for all cars, and negotiate agreements for other cars to use the Tesla network, and for other companies, including independents, to install Tesla-standardized chargers.

 

Power shouldn't be a problem with J1772. The current standard is for up to 80amps. This is more than enough to charge a 200 mile EV at home. It could even handle a 300 mile EV. The limits will actually be the car's onboard charger. It appears that some plugs are only rated for 30amps, but that's an issue with the manufacturer, not the standard.

I guess you could mandate that AC and fast DC charging use the same wires. That will eliminate the 2 bottom connecters on the CSS, but make the rest of the head larger over all. DC charging is for long trips, though, and will be rarely used, if at all, by most people. It will just force BEV and PHV owners that don't use DC charging to pay for copper they won't use.

I see areas of Europe have a plug standard that is faster than J1772, but their home electric runs at a higher voltage than here. I'm sure car and EVSE manufacturers would love to have just one plug type, but it won't give the user a benefit in North America.

 

With the exception of Norway and Sweden, which have some 400 v power for fixed appliances, I don't see any place with more than 240 v, which is what I have for my Tesla (formerly for the now-defunct EV Porsche).

Other than that, you make some good points. Especially about not forcing heavier conductors on cars where the owners don't need it.

 

There's one model of J1772 (for a Tesla) that can pull nearly 70 amps ... so what's the point of this plug. I'm just saying if you already have 4 wheels why reinvent the wheel.
.

 

The plug is for DC fast charging, which can be up to 400amps, though I think demostrations were in the 100-125amp range.