[pokerhobo]

The CCS-1 connector is designed by committee and objectively worse than NACS. NACS is smaller (cheaper to make and less heavy to use), require smaller wires, can support higher wattage. Also, the significant majority of EVs in North America already have NACS and the significant majority of chargers also has NACS. Superchargers are slowly rolling out Magic Dock so that CCS-1 EVs can use Superchargers. I get the hate on Tesla (or more specifically Elon), but NACS is simply better for everyone.

[vegardx]

The MCS (Megawatt Charging System) is also designed by a committee and has been adopted by Tesla for the Tesla Semi, so I don't see how this is even a relevant argument. NACS does only support single phase charging, while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging.

The only truthful argument in this discussion is that Tesla already have a huge charging network using their (previously) proprietary connector and automotive makers want to have access to this. NACS use the same signaling protocol as CCS, which is also why you can get away with a pretty dumb adapter.

It has the same physical limitations as any other cable. If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact.

CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW.

[lgbr]

> while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging

Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car? And is it even relevant to the CCS part of the standard, when really what CCS adds on top of IEC 62196 is the ability to use DC charging, at which point phases are irrelevant.

The whole point of connectors is, firstly, how much power they can deliver (both NACS and CCS1 appear equally capable), then, how affordable they are to make and how easy they are to use.

Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win. Furthermore, it doesn't require a massive charging port (see how Tesla had to work around CCS2 for the Model S/Y in Europe because their charging port cover is too small), so there's further benefits here.

Ease of use is less objective, but for anyone who has used both, clearly NACS is much, much better. It's lighter, less chonky, simpler (you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs). I think the consensus here is just clear.

So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one. The only argument I can see is that we lose some mild amount of harmony with CCS2 connectors that the rest of the world is going to use, but with the differences between CCS1 and CCS2 that exist anyway, that might be a moot point.

[vegardx]

> Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car?

While 240V 3-phase isn't common in the US homes I'd imagine that it would be super handy for places like shopping malls or parking garages where you want to have lots of Level 2 chargers.

> Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win.

I agree with you there, it looks much better and is slightly easier to handle. I doubt the material difference is much, it's just a little plastic. The amount of adapters likely makes up the difference.

> you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs

This isn't really a thing. These hard plastic covers is something people buy thinking it will protect them from being electrocuted. If they had known how the chargers work they'd likely be less worried. Except in France, where they've made CCS Type 3, which is about as French of an idea as you get.

> So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one.

The main issue here is that US decided to go with CCS Type 1, when it was clear back in 2014 that CCS Type 2 would be a much better and more future proof choice. It's something that should have been solved with regulation a long time ago. And now you're stuck with CCS Type 1 and NACS for the unforeseeable future. It's kinda funny, because in Europe Tesla went from only NACS (V1 superchargers) to NACS and CCS2 (V2 and V3 superchargers) to only CCS2 (V4 superchargers).

[_ea1k]

240V 3-phase isn't common at shopping malls or garages either. We typically have 208V in such situations. NACS works just fine for that.

> I agree with you there, it looks much better and is slightly easier to handle. I doubt the material difference is much, it's just a little plastic. The amount of adapters likely makes up the difference.

The biggest difference in the US is the latching mechanism. Its a moving part with the US CCS1 connector, and a surprising number also make it an electrically activated latch. Despite the talk about it being rare to be the failure point, it is actually fairly fragile and failure prone. Worse, we've seen a case or two on the forums where the failure mode resulted in a connector stuck to the car!

On top of that, CCS1 still requires an additional active latch on the car.

Both CCS2 and NACS solve this in a much simpler way that puts all of the active latching into the vehicle. It is simpler and more reliable. TBH, I agree with you about the US really messing up with CCS1. CCS2 is marginally more bulky than NACS, but also has some real advantages and the downsides are small.

Regarding the plastic covers, a lot of cars come with them. The concern seems to be that debris could get into the port while AC charging.

[lightedman]

"Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car?"

Most anyone in an industrial work setting in North America will have 3-phase 240V service installed, minimum. My work has 480V 3-phase for our SMT line. We have permanently-installed charge stations on that 3-phase service. Damn shame they've got nothing for my e-bike, so I just use the benchtop inside and a cable rig.

[lgbr]

> My work has 480V 3-phase for our SMT line. We have permanently-installed charge stations on that 3-phase service.

Are all three phases even being sent to the electric cars? The J1772 only supports a single phase.

[vegardx]

The benefit with 3-phase is that you now can use a single cable/charger to charge up to three separate cars, which greatly reduces the cost of setting up a lot of chargers in, say, a parking garage. And you can opportunistically deliver up to 11-22kW (240V/400V) to a single car. Greatly reduces the amount of hardware needed.

[cduzz]

Plenty of chargers around where I live deliver 208v at 30a, which tells me they're connected to a pair of legs of a 3 phase circuit.

I suppose this means one leg of the circuit is not used, meaning the load between the different legs is always going to be out of balance, but this practice (use 2 legs of a 3 phase feed for "240 er... 208v" for "big" loads such as a drier or EVSE or water heater, so likely any industrial / commercial setting just accepts that you're not going to load up all legs your feeds evenly.

NA built EVs typically don't have the internal circuitry to manage 3 phase charging -- the EV takes care of the AC -> DC conversion on a level 2 circuit, and the extra stuff to do that in NA wouldn't ever be used. The same is true of charging off of 400v AC -- it's super rare and likely not something that's worth engineering to implement.

[albrewer]

> where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car

3-phase power is insanely common in commercial buildings for things like HVAC, refrigeration, and massive lighting systems. Sure, it's not at all common in residential areas, but I'd sure love to charge my car when I stop at a grocery store.

[_ea1k]

MCS is a much better standard than the CCS1 design. The latching mechanism is more similar to NACS or CCS2.

CCS2 is less terrible than CCS1, but the US went with the worst possible choice.

I agree with you with regard to cables. That is a charge provider choice and its basically just coincidence that CCS providers are choosing badly. There's nothing intrinsic to the connector that is allowing Tesla to choose better cables.

[clouddrover]

> CCS Type 2 is rated at 1000V and 400A, or 400kW.

500 amps for CCS so in principle up to 500 kW. For example, Alpitronic's HY400 charger does 500 amps (with 600A boost):

https://www.hypercharger.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HYC40...

[dreamcompiler]

> If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact.

You can indeed get around this fact (a little bit) if you cool the cables. Tesla's newer superchargers have liquid cooled cables and are thinner than the old cables for exactly this reason.

[The_Double]

You are probably European? The US uses CCS1 which doesn't support 3 phase anyway.

[kj4ips]

It's still patent encumbered[1], NACS just gave the physical specification, and says "use CCS HLS". The Tesla-SC protocol is still a black box. I wonder if this is going to involve a rollout of logical CCS on existing SCs.

[1] Tesla's patent pledge is not even close to a grant and its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers.

[93po]

> its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers.

Why is that?

[kj4ips]

It defines good faith as never having done three things, or having an associated or related company do those things.

Those things are (roughly):

1. Having sued anyone over IP used in EVs, helped anyone due so, or had a financial stake in someone who does.

2. Challenged any patent held by Tesla, now or in the future; or had a stake in such a challenge.

3. Marketed or sold a "knock-off" of any tesla product, or providing material assistance to. Knock-off is defined a product that imitates or copies the design of a tesla product.

If I held stock in a big-three automaker when they sued a non-Tesla EV manufacturer over a patent, does that mean I am excluded? Sure looks like it.

Selling a J1772->Tesla-T adapter could also count, and because it's a "never has done" kind of thing, there is no concept of redemption.

[tacticus]

Tesla seems fine using the CCS connector everywhere else in the world.

And CCS is capable of of doing 360Kw of charge (with the current 400V units and a chunk more on any 800V unit) which is a tiny bit more than 250 max on the NACS

[simondotau]

There is no such thing as "the CCS connector". The CCS2 connector used outside of North America is equally incompatible with both of the two major connectors used in North America, CCS1 and NACS.

Tesla uses NACS in North America because there wasn't any unified industry standard when they started their roll-out. The closest thing there was to a standard for DC fast charging was arguably CHAdeMO; while CCS1 was little more than a press release from the Detroit auto companies.

Yes Tesla could have adopted CCS1 but because of the way history played out, there was never a point where it could have made sense to do so. I think many people forget that Tesla wasn't a profitable company until recently. Many had them on a perennial "death watch". By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.

[7e]

CCS1 was published in 2011. Tesla didn’t design NACS until 2012. It’s a myth that Tesla had to invent their own proprietary system because no standard was available.

[simondotau]

I think it’s insane that you would think that Tesla would replace a connector that already spent months — likely years — developing, with an objectively terrible alternative, merely because a few companies that weren’t making EVs issued a press release.

I don’t think anyone could’ve said with confidence that CCS1 would’ve become the major standard in North America. It could’ve been a future revision of CHAdeMO. Or it could have been CCS3.

[clouddrover]

> By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.

Sure, just like adding CCS2 plugs to their European chargers sent Tesla broke and that's why the company folded and we never heard of it again.

[hef19898]

Well, Apple got away with lightining for long enough. And for the same reasons Tesla does it to. Can't blame them so, we will see if there are any antitrust issues down the road, or if e.g. the EU steps in. But then US spec cars have always been different from other markets.

[simondotau]

The analogy breaks down when you consider that USB-C is an objectively superior and objectively more widely deployed standard than Lightning. The same cannot be said for CCS1 over NACS.

[hef19898]

Globally? It is gonna be CCS, unless Tesla manages to convince enough OEMs to use NACS. In which case there will be two competing standards, aka lightning vs. usb. I am in no position to judge which one is better, I do know so that CCS is more open, being a global standard. And if we want more EVs, global standards are better than closed, proprietary solutions.

[simondotau]

There is no such thing as a "CCS" connector.

North America is majority NACS by units sold; CCS1 is in second place.

Europe has standardised on CCS2, which is equally incompatible with CCS1 and NACS.

China is the world's largest EV market and uses neither CCS1 nor CCS2.

[hef19898]

Ha, you are right, I missed the number after the CCS. It is oess of a problem so, as long as the cars architecture works with either connector. Chinese spec cars are different from US spec and from EU spec anyway. Even if it is the same model, built in the same fab on the same day.

[gwbas1c]

I get the impression that NACS is CCS over the wire. It's the same protocol, just a cleaner design for the physical connector. Remember, Tesla has been part of the CCS committee since it started.

CCS also isn't a "global standard". China has their own standard.

There's a reason why CCS is called "Frankenplug." It's looking like only the EU will be stuck with it. (And they don't have to be, older Superchargers ran over the Menekis (sp?) connector fine.)

[ulfw]

Only the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand, plus South America, plus the Middle East, plus Thailand, South Africa, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong,... but yea.