This is confusing to me. 1) Is this "reliability" conversation about communication protocols and connections at the plug or maintaining a network connection with a payment processor of some sort or a confusing merging of the two independent ideas? 2) And if people are adopting J3400.....why wouldn't they use the can bus just like Tesla does? Why adopt the connector, without adopting the protocols?
On Saturday, May 18, 2024 at 11:44:57 AM PDT, Peter Thompson via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: Yes, older Tesla cars use the single-wire CAN. And yes, older Tesla chargers only have the single-wire CAN. More modern Tesla EVs and EVSEs have the PLC chip and talk both - so they can use the older supercharger protocol as well as DIN 70121 and now ISO 15118-2. This means that both Tesla EV and EVSE use the DIN 70121 signaling as well as the older single-wire signaling. Note that the single-wire CAN does plug and charge authorization by having a white list on the charger, which has to be updated on a regular basis, so there is still back-end communication. Part of what made Tesla seem to reliable is that they owned the entire chain, and could debug almost instantaneously. They also put a ton of money into maintaining their stations (a mistake other CPOs are now correcting). Now they are running into the exact same thing everyone else is - not all EVs are programmed the same. The blame for lack of charging can be spread all over the place - EVs, EVSEs, PKI, back-end communications, credit card readers - the list is quite long, and quite daunting. Only reason I know this stuff is that I'm responsible for testing Chargepoint equipment with the OEMs. If you want to see everyone's equipment not working right - go to a ChariN Testival - great co-opitive environment. Cheers, Peter On 5/18/24 8:56 AM, (-Phil-) wrote: > Well, not exactly; NACS is not CCS because CCS also comprises the > connector spec, but the communications CCS uses is DIN 70121, and NACS > for NON TESLA vehicles also uses the exact same signalling; DIN > 70121. Tesla cars NO NOT use this! They use the much simpler and > more reliable SWC (Single-Wire CAN) "Supercharger protocol". This > protocol needs NO back-end auth, so even if a charging station is > offline, a Tesla can still charge there, but a 3rd party CANNOT. > This will mean the much vaunted reliability of NACS for Teslas will > not directly transfer to 3rd party EVs. Also; not all supercharger > stations have the PLC Modem needed to talk DIN 70121, so they will > remain Tesla-only until they are upgraded. > > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 7:52 AM Peter Thompson via EV > <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > > I agree about the RF - however, that exact technology hasn't been > disclosed by Tesla - only reverse engineered by some cable > manufacturers. :) > > However, your second sentence is completely wrong. NACS *IS* CCS > - it > was designed that way. The only real difference is that it allows > AC and > DC on the same cables. > > Cheers, Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20240518/f176604b/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20240518/1229a991/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
