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/
