SAE is standardizing NACS this year – making it less dependent on Tesla

[MaskedRacerX]

Well that's not what Ford, GM, and Rivian are claiming. They say that the CCS to NACS adapter can be used on any of their CCS cars to any supercharger station.

The language is pretty loose, and there's some specific wording like, "In 2024 CCS cars will have access via an adapter, then in '25, there will be an NACS physical plug ..."

So it could be new CCS builds will have the correct tech in place, but older cars? Maybe not. It could also be some manufacturer's charging controller implementation, like maybe Rivian can just push an update and - tada! NACS compliance with existing CCS vehicles.

Sponsored

 

[SoCal Rob]

Can someone with more knowledge than I have let me know if I am picturing the adapter scenarios correctly? I think I cab picture the ramifications of Tesla using a set of power pins for both AC & DC versus CCS1 using pins dedicated to AC and pins dedicated to DC. This is my understanding…

Right now we can buy an adapter (TeslaTap, Lectron, etc.) which allows a Tesla connector from a destination charger supplying L1 or L2 AC power to the AC pins of a J1772 connector which is the circular upper portion of a CCS1 connector. My understanding is that this is a dumb adapter because, outside of low voltage communications, it connects the 2 Tesla connector power pins directly to the J1772 AC power pins on the vehicle. This type of dumb adapter is safe because as of today it is not possible to energize a Tesla Supercharger unless you have a Tesla or are using a magic dock which only routes the Tesla power pins to the DC power pins of CCS1 vehicles. So you can try to use a TeslaTap, Lectron, or knock-off adapter with a Supercharger but at present the Supercharger will not provide power unless connected to a Tesla or a Magic Dock adapter so we don’t have to worry about sending high voltage DC to the AC charger onboard a CCS1 vehicle. Beyond the fact that Tesla forbids the charging session, there is some kind of handshake or negotiation over the signal connections before a dispenser sends power to the connector, right?

Any future non-tethered (not Magic Dock) adapters which are going to be used by consumers will need to have something which prevents a user from using the Supercharger adapter with a destination charger. As it stands now, I think a free range (not tethered to a Supercharger) Magic Dock adapter would allow a user to connect to a Tesla destination charger and the only thing to stop it from sending L1 or L2 AC power directly to the DC battery pack is the low voltage communication used to start the session. Likewise, a dumb TeslaTap style destination charger adapter could send high voltage DC to the CCS1 vehicle’s AC adapter if you could initiate a Supercharger charging session with any adapter you have on hand, unless the low voltage communications prevent the flow of power.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it safe to assume that a future CCS1 vehicle owner could have a Supercharger to CCS1 adapter and a separate destination charger to J1772 adapter to safely cover both types of Tesla charging scenarios?

I’m just trying to picture how this would work and what safeguards will be in place. Thanks!

edit:A number of posts got added between the time I started this and the time I posted it so this may be redundant. I have to catch up…

 

[SANZC02]

Can someone with more knowledge than I have let me know if I am picturing the adapter scenarios correctly? I think I cab picture the ramifications of Tesla using a set of power pins for both AC & DC versus CCS1 using pins dedicated to AC and pins dedicated to DC. This is my understanding…

Right now we can buy an adapter (TeslaTap, Lectron, etc.) which allows a Tesla connector from a destination charger supplying L1 or L2 AC power to the AC pins of a J1772 connector which is the circular upper portion of a CCS1 connector. My understanding is that this is a dumb adapter because, outside of low voltage communications, it connects the 2 Tesla connector power pins directly to the J1772 AC power pins on the vehicle. This type of dumb adapter is safe because as of today it is not possible to energize a Tesla Supercharger unless you have a Tesla or are using a magic dock which only routes the Tesla power pins to the DC power pins of CCS1 vehicles. So you can try to use a TeslaTap, Lectron, or knock-off adapter with a Supercharger but at present the Supercharger will not provide power unless connected to a Tesla or a Magic Dock adapter so we don’t have to worry about sending high voltage DC to the AC charger onboard a CCS1 vehicle. Beyond the fact that Tesla forbids the charging session, there is some kind of handshake or negotiation over the signal connections before a dispenser sends power to the connector, right?

Any future non-tethered (not Magic Dock) adapters which are going to be used by consumers will need to have something which prevents a user from using the Supercharger adapter with a destination charger. As it stands now, I think a free range (not tethered to a Supercharger) Magic Dock adapter would allow a user to connect to a Tesla destination charger and the only thing to stop it from sending L1 or L2 AC power directly to the DC battery pack is the low voltage communication used to start the session. Likewise, a dumb TeslaTap style destination charger adapter could send high voltage DC to the CCS1 vehicle’s AC adapter if you could initiate a Supercharger charging session with any adapter you have on hand, unless the low voltage communications prevent the flow of power.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it safe to assume that a future CCS1 vehicle owner could have a Supercharger to CCS1 adapter and a separate destination charger to J1772 adapter to safely cover both types of Tesla charging scenarios?

I’m just trying to picture how this would work and what safeguards will be in place. Thanks!

edit:A number of posts got added between the time I started this and the time I posted it so this may be redundant. I have to catch up…

My uneducated guess is this is exactly why the dates are out a year. They need time to come up with these safeguards and put them in place.

 

[Longreach]

Can someone with more knowledge than I have let me know if I am picturing the adapter scenarios correctly? I think I cab picture the ramifications of Tesla using a set of power pins for both AC & DC versus CCS1 using pins dedicated to AC and pins dedicated to DC. This is my understanding…

Right now we can buy an adapter (TeslaTap, Lectron, etc.) which allows a Tesla connector from a destination charger supplying L1 or L2 AC power to the AC pins of a J1772 connector which is the circular upper portion of a CCS1 connector. My understanding is that this is a dumb adapter because, outside of low voltage communications, it connects the 2 Tesla connector power pins directly to the J1772 AC power pins on the vehicle. This type of dumb adapter is safe because as of today it is not possible to energize a Tesla Supercharger unless you have a Tesla or are using a magic dock which only routes the Tesla power pins to the DC power pins of CCS1 vehicles. So you can try to use a TeslaTap, Lectron, or knock-off adapter with a Supercharger but at present the Supercharger will not provide power unless connected to a Tesla or a Magic Dock adapter so we don’t have to worry about sending high voltage DC to the AC charger onboard a CCS1 vehicle. Beyond the fact that Tesla forbids the charging session, there is some kind of handshake or negotiation over the signal connections before a dispenser sends power to the connector, right?

Any future non-tethered (not Magic Dock) adapters which are going to be used by consumers will need to have something which prevents a user from using the Supercharger adapter with a destination charger. As it stands now, I think a free range (not tethered to a Supercharger) Magic Dock adapter would allow a user to connect to a Tesla destination charger and the only thing to stop it from sending L1 or L2 AC power directly to the DC battery pack is the low voltage communication used to start the session. Likewise, a dumb TeslaTap style destination charger adapter could send high voltage DC to the CCS1 vehicle’s AC adapter if you could initiate a Supercharger charging session with any adapter you have on hand, unless the low voltage communications prevent the flow of power.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it safe to assume that a future CCS1 vehicle owner could have a Supercharger to CCS1 adapter and a separate destination charger to J1772 adapter to safely cover both types of Tesla charging scenarios?

I’m just trying to picture how this would work and what safeguards will be in place. Thanks!

edit:A number of posts got added between the time I started this and the time I posted it so this may be redundant. I have to catch up…

For the sake of implementation simplicity it will end up being two simple low cost passive adapters:

An AC adapter for L1/l2 where J1772 AC pins are connected to the Tesla pins (These are already available and already provided in some cases).

A DCFC adapter for L3 where CCS DC pins are connected to the Tesla pins. This is essentially what the magic dock is (sans the physical locks).

Isolation relays, if needed, will be implemented in the chargers (already there) and vehicle (most likely already there for many vehicles) with interlock communication over the control pins.

 

[COdogman]

Can someone with more knowledge than I have let me know if I am picturing the adapter scenarios correctly? I think I cab picture the ramifications of Tesla using a set of power pins for both AC & DC versus CCS1 using pins dedicated to AC and pins dedicated to DC. This is my understanding…

Right now we can buy an adapter (TeslaTap, Lectron, etc.) which allows a Tesla connector from a destination charger supplying L1 or L2 AC power to the AC pins of a J1772 connector which is the circular upper portion of a CCS1 connector. My understanding is that this is a dumb adapter because, outside of low voltage communications, it connects the 2 Tesla connector power pins directly to the J1772 AC power pins on the vehicle. This type of dumb adapter is safe because as of today it is not possible to energize a Tesla Supercharger unless you have a Tesla or are using a magic dock which only routes the Tesla power pins to the DC power pins of CCS1 vehicles. So you can try to use a TeslaTap, Lectron, or knock-off adapter with a Supercharger but at present the Supercharger will not provide power unless connected to a Tesla or a Magic Dock adapter so we don’t have to worry about sending high voltage DC to the AC charger onboard a CCS1 vehicle. Beyond the fact that Tesla forbids the charging session, there is some kind of handshake or negotiation over the signal connections before a dispenser sends power to the connector, right?

Any future non-tethered (not Magic Dock) adapters which are going to be used by consumers will need to have something which prevents a user from using the Supercharger adapter with a destination charger. As it stands now, I think a free range (not tethered to a Supercharger) Magic Dock adapter would allow a user to connect to a Tesla destination charger and the only thing to stop it from sending L1 or L2 AC power directly to the DC battery pack is the low voltage communication used to start the session. Likewise, a dumb TeslaTap style destination charger adapter could send high voltage DC to the CCS1 vehicle’s AC adapter if you could initiate a Supercharger charging session with any adapter you have on hand, unless the low voltage communications prevent the flow of power.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it safe to assume that a future CCS1 vehicle owner could have a Supercharger to CCS1 adapter and a separate destination charger to J1772 adapter to safely cover both types of Tesla charging scenarios?

I’m just trying to picture how this would work and what safeguards will be in place. Thanks!

edit:A number of posts got added between the time I started this and the time I posted it so this may be redundant. I have to catch up…

 

[RWerksman]

 

[MP3Mike]

Well that's not what Ford, GM, and Rivian are claiming. They say that the CCS to NACS adapter can be used on any of their CCS cars to any supercharger station.

And I'm pretty sure that they have said that it will be Plug&Charge, or at least activated via their own app. They may require having updates applied to the vehicles. (Rivian has already said that they will have updates to integrate compatible Superchargers into the navigation system.)

How would a VW owner start, and pay for, the charge? The Tesla app only allows starting the charge at open MagicDock locations.

 

[Dark-Fx]

And I'm pretty sure that they have said that it will be Plug&Charge, or at least activated via their own app. They may require having updates applied to the vehicles. (Rivian has already said that they will have updates to integrate compatible Superchargers into the navigation system.)

How would a VW owner start, and pay for, the charge? The Tesla app only allows starting the charge at open MagicDock locations.

I'm optimistic about Tesla making it possible to start a charge from the app regardless of what vehicle you are plugging the adapter into. Plug and charge would be nice, but it's going to require a software update on the vehicle side to get working. Legacy vehicles would gain support if Tesla just does the re-write in their app to make it work like any of the other EV charging apps.

 

[emoore]

That's definitely not being claimed because there are more than 12,000 supercharger stalls in the US.

So which 30% of superchargers won't be comparable with CCS cars? V1 if there are any of those left? V2 which would include a lot of rural superchargers?

 

[Dark-Fx]

So which 30% of superchargers won't be comparable with CCS cars? V1 if there are any of those left? V2 which would include a lot of rural superchargers?

Only V3 support CCS signaling. I'm guessing there is a technical reason they won't be able to implement CCS on V2 that likely has to do with how they power share being incompatible with Power Line Communications (PLC) that CCS uses vs the CANBUS that Tesla's older tech uses. (This is just my speculation)

It's probably solvable, but at that point they are better off just upgrading the entire system. Integrating only the stations that speak CCS into the navigation systems is going to be very important to not totally piss off non-Tesla customers. I don't think Tesla has any intention on giving away their proprietary CANBUS protocol either

 

[emoore]

Only V3 support CCS signaling. I'm guessing there is a technical reason they won't be able to implement CCS on V2 that likely has to do with how they power share being incompatible with Power Line Communications (PLC) that CCS uses vs the CANBUS that Tesla's older tech uses.

It's probably solvable, but at that point they are better off just upgrading the entire system. Integrating only the stations that speak CCS into the navigation systems is going to be very important to not totally piss off non-Tesla customers. I don't think Tesla has any intention on giving away their proprietary CANBUS protocol either

Yeah I agree with making sure that only the CCS compatible supercharger stations are integrated into the nav systems. I would think Tesla would eventually upgrade the V1 and V2 stations to V4 but they are still in expansion mode so the lower use superchargers might not be upgraded for many years.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Yeah I agree with making sure that only the CCS compatible supercharger stations are integrated into the nav systems. I would think Tesla would eventually upgrade the V1 and V2 stations to V4 but they are still in expansion mode so the lower use superchargers might not be upgraded for many years.

"Tesla has the biggest network" but that also means they have the most work to do in order to modernize all their older stations. Seems like that gets overlooked a lot.

 

[Dukecj]

Adapters will be available for all the old style (CCS in this case) vehicles... they can use them to connect to the new stations.

Since NACS connector is now officially going to be the North American standard, why build new stations that use by definition non-standard connectors for EV's produced for North America?

The GM and Rivian agreement with Tesla both have escape clauses under the Free Harbor provisions of the Securities Act of 1933. Watch them delay the NACS charge port adaption and stick with CCS after enough public chargers are built with NEVI funding.

 

[Yossarian]

Because NACS isn't that standard *YET*. CCS **IS** the standard. It is still possible that CharIN/SAE will find severe technical issues with NACS that will take a year or more to sort out, delaying adoption of it. (Remember: "The connector currently on Tesla vehicles and Supercharger stations" is *NOT* the same as NACS! It is supposed to be compatible, but it is a completely-custom Tesla thing at present, with specs that differ from those proposed for NACS! No 800V, for example. 600A maximum, while NACS is supposed to follow CCS standard and top out at 500A.)

Sure, a few charger companies have shown prototypes of NACS connectors; but that doesn't mean that charger companies are ready to roll out NACS right now. Heck, even Tesla isn't ready to declare the Supercharger network ready for the Ford/GM/Rivian vehicles with adapters until next year.

Am I interpreting this properly - the proposed new standard (NACS) is not what Tesla is presently using on their vehicles and charging stations? Rather, it's a new plug who's design is not complete, or at least is not fully tested, and is supposed to be backwards compatible with the present Tesla receptacle?

If this is really where we are, there could be a very long lag for the NACS in-service date.

 

[Craigins]

Am I interpreting this properly - the proposed new standard (NACS) is not what Tesla is presently using on their vehicles and charging stations? Rather, it's a new plug who's design is not complete, or at least is not fully tested, and is supposed to be backwards compatible with the present Tesla receptacle?

If this is really where we are, there could be a very long lag for the NACS in-service date.

Tesla does not have a standard. It has its current design and a set of patents around the design.

In theory the standards body would take all of that and design a standard around the design and thus the existing tesla system would meet the standard requirements. If they run into any issues, in theory the current Tesla design could not meet the standard requirements and could no longer be called NACS compatible.

Sponsored