InsideEVs Podcast episodes

Perhaps we'll see an e-mail:

June 13, 2023

SAE Standards Board

Dear Elon Musk,

Please accept our apologies for ignoring you 10 years ago. Is it OK if we start with your most recent public posted North American Charging Standard to make it an SAE standard, V01.00?

Signed TDB

ps. Would you like a camel?
​
Bob Wilson
 
Harking back to this post from long ago, can you guys start a serious conversation with the industry about
the "app problem"? Specifically, the numerous reasons they're not available to or necessarily usable by
everyone, for which reason every network *has* to offer alternatives. This now comes into sharp focus
where Tesla is concerned, because they've taken the elitist "app-only" attitude for years and now if
they're going to truly play in the public market, that *will* need to change. I might be able to have my
NACS-to-CCS1 adapter, but without a way to start a charge and bill my account, I'm still hosed.

And no, buying burner phones is not a solution.

_H*
 
bwilson4web said:
Perhaps we'll see an e-mail:

June 13, 2023

SAE Standards Board

Dear Elon Musk,

Please accept our apologies for ignoring you 10 years ago. Is it OK if we start with your most recent public posted North American Charging Standard to make it an SAE standard, V01.00?

Signed TDB

ps. Would you like a camel?
​
Bob Wilson
Click to expand...

Well done Sir.

For the record however the entire automotive industry tried to license the Tesla charging standard, and Musk refused, which led to CCS being jointly designed by multiple car manufacturers, billed as an open standard, forward compatible with future fast chargers.

Musk only changed his position on opening up the Tesla standard, and renaming it NACS, when the IRA was passed, as it only provided grant money for 'Universal' charging standards.

If EA and others had managed their charging stations correctly, Tesla would be switching to CCS in time. However, they have shown such poor reliability that all these manufacturers are now left doing the opposite of the exact plan from just 12 months ago.

Musk has a long history of getting into poorly regulated spaces, with huge amounts of government funding available for the taking.

Total cluster...
 
I heard a different story that the SAE refused hear Musk. Regardless, the ball is in their court.

Tesla has a workaround, the magic dock. Eventually the standards bodies will have to decide which way they want to go. As for Tesla, why should Elon care?

My understanding is Tesla Superchargers cost a fraction of the CCS units. Put in one or two magic docks for the property and grid hookup. Then add 2-3x classic Supercharger lanes.

Bob Wilson
 
A better solution for 'free charging' might be to limit the charging sessions to an hour for L2 and 15 min for Fast DC.

I maintain a L2 EVSE at small shopping area and implemented an 8 kWh charging limit, ~ 1 hour. We no longer have power parasites who parked over night and all day. Charging is long enough for groceries, pharmacy, or dinner.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
Suns_PSD said:
Well done Sir.

For the record however the entire automotive industry tried to license the Tesla charging standard, and Musk refused, which led to CCS being jointly designed by multiple car manufacturers, billed as an open standard, forward compatible with future fast chargers.

Musk only changed his position on opening up the Tesla standard, and renaming it NACS, when the IRA was passed, as it only provided grant money for 'Universal' charging standards.

If EA and others had managed their charging stations correctly, Tesla would be switching to CCS in time. However, they have shown such poor reliability that all these manufacturers are now left doing the opposite of the exact plan from just 12 months ago.

Musk has a long history of getting into poorly regulated spaces, with huge amounts of government funding available for the taking.

Total cluster...
Click to expand...
I believe Musk was willing to share the Supercharger network with other automakers, but the terms were not nearly favorable enough for them to get on board. Hopefully, we can find out what the numbers are behind the Ford, GM, and future deals are.
 
Domenick said:
I believe Musk was willing to share the Supercharger network with other automakers, but the terms were not nearly favorable enough for them to get on board. Hopefully, we can find out what the numbers are behind the Ford, GM, and future deals are.
Click to expand...
And is Elon demanding Aptera must pay as much as Ford and GM paid?
 
Domenick said:
At this point, the thing being negociated is access to Supercharger network (and API, I guess), since Tesla opened up its plug as a "standard" last November.
I'm not sure how much it would charge Aptera, since the whole financial aspect of the other deals has been opaque.
Click to expand...
Tesla already solved this back in 2013 using car side authentication with the simple code of:
fastcharge 1

As long as all vehicle information is synced with Tesla mothership, authorized VIN via tesladex, and fastcharge enabled, then the vehicle can supercharge.

If ISO 15118 is looking anything like OCPP 2.0.1 then the whole handshake would could like:
occp201.webp


Here's hoping that ISO 15118-20 will be adopted and we will finally get V2G!
 
teslarati97 said:
we will finally get V2G!
Click to expand...
It takes more than a paper standard to accomplish V2G. For example, both Munro and 'Ingineerix' have analyzed the Tesla charger and found diodes and not bi-directional semiconductor switches. Charge goes one way, into the Tesla.

I am reminded that the J1772 standard has a DC component that to the best of my knowledge has never been implemented.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
bwilson4web said:
It takes more than a paper standard to accomplish V2G. For example, both Munro and 'Ingineerix' have analyzed the Tesla charger and found diodes and not bi-directional semiconductor switches. Charge goes one way, into the Tesla.

I am reminded that the J1772 standard has a DC component that to the best of my knowledge has never been implemented.

Bob Wilson
Click to expand...
Yes the designs were originally for MOSFETs but it would exacerbate the semiconductor shortage. Plus diodes are straightforward and can be scaled for supercharger sites (same power conversion system used) providing further economies of scale.
 
I listened to the last two podcasts while out hiking yesterday, and I went in reverse order for some reason. I got a good laugh hearing Tom joke about a "fake" announcement of Mercedes joining NAC, because I had already heard the latest podcast where (as we had all heard in the news anyway), Mercedes joined NAC. Who's next Tom?

A few comments on those to podcasts - while I'm excited about all the companies moving to the NACS, we do need to remember that the plug (while certainly better) is not a cure-all. Placing a NACS handle on an EA station will not fix most of their problems. And we don't really know for each of these companies how much of the actual Tesla network they will get to use, or do we?

I was at an EA station last Friday and couldn't get more than 30 kW. Kyle has mentioned EA has a huge de-rating problem - and they absolutely do, many stations say 50 kW on their app around me. And that's if the stations are online at all. But in this case, my station was supposed to be 150 kW. If it was being de-rated, the APP wasn't accurate. But I have a screenshot from Car Scanner, and my iD4 dynamic charging limit (which I understand to be the amperage being requested) should have given my car well over 100 kW. I don't think these problems at EA are going to be solved via a new NACS handle. So, while some of the manufacturers may indeed be buying "IN" to the actual Tesla network, or Tesla may indeed "open" some of their network, I think it's too early to celebrate. I have a hard time believing VW is going to buy into the Tesla network - I suspect they WILL adopt NACS, and rely on whatever portion of the Tesla network that Tesla opens, but I don't see them actually buying into a network when they basically own their own. And only those who truly buy-in and get full access will enjoy the true freedom and enjoyment of NACS. Just my thoughts.

And yes, Kyle is right, EA is crap. The station I went to - the APP showed 1&4 offline, 2&3 nominal. In reality, 1 was offline and had the card reader smashed, 2 (mine) was derated to 30 kW, 3 was derated some (the gentleman in his Ioniq 5 said he was only getting about 90 kW). Another gentleman tried to use number 4 - not sure if he had any luck. Looking around my area, many have at least one unit per station offline, and one or more de-rated to 50 kW. One station along I-40 looked to have every unit derated to 50 kW. I suspect its heat related, I'm in the desert, and its summer.... but that's no excuse.
 
Thanks. Did Kyle say something in this week's episode about a website or his APP for "Rate your charge"? I did submit my lousy EA experience via his google forms doc (I don't use twitter), but an actual APP would be so much nicer. What was the web page he mentioned?
 
danrjones said:
I listened to the last two podcasts while out hiking yesterday, and I went in reverse order for some reason. I got a good laugh hearing Tom joke about a "fake" announcement of Mercedes joining NAC, because I had already heard the latest podcast where (as we had all heard in the news anyway), Mercedes joined NAC. Who's next Tom?

A few comments on those to podcasts - while I'm excited about all the companies moving to the NACS, we do need to remember that the plug (while certainly better) is not a cure-all. Placing a NACS handle on an EA station will not fix most of their problems. And we don't really know for each of these companies how much of the actual Tesla network they will get to use, or do we?

I was at an EA station last Friday and couldn't get more than 30 kW. Kyle has mentioned EA has a huge de-rating problem - and they absolutely do, many stations say 50 kW on their app around me. And that's if the stations are online at all. But in this case, my station was supposed to be 150 kW. If it was being de-rated, the APP wasn't accurate. But I have a screenshot from Car Scanner, and my iD4 dynamic charging limit (which I understand to be the amperage being requested) should have given my car well over 100 kW. I don't think these problems at EA are going to be solved via a new NACS handle. So, while some of the manufacturers may indeed be buying "IN" to the actual Tesla network, or Tesla may indeed "open" some of their network, I think it's too early to celebrate. I have a hard time believing VW is going to buy into the Tesla network - I suspect they WILL adopt NACS, and rely on whatever portion of the Tesla network that Tesla opens, but I don't see them actually buying into a network when they basically own their own. And only those who truly buy-in and get full access will enjoy the true freedom and enjoyment of NACS. Just my thoughts.

And yes, Kyle is right, EA is crap. The station I went to - the APP showed 1&4 offline, 2&3 nominal. In reality, 1 was offline and had the card reader smashed, 2 (mine) was derated to 30 kW, 3 was derated some (the gentleman in his Ioniq 5 said he was only getting about 90 kW). Another gentleman tried to use number 4 - not sure if he had any luck. Looking around my area, many have at least one unit per station offline, and one or more de-rated to 50 kW. One station along I-40 looked to have every unit derated to 50 kW. I suspect its heat related, I'm in the desert, and its summer.... but that's no excuse.
Click to expand...
I hope we don't make it seem like NACS solves everything. It could be that everything melts down when all the other brands start using Superchargers. I mean, probably not, but there will likely be some issues. And of course, NACS doesn't change anything at CCS networks aside from making them physically easier to use.

I think lack of reliability in hot locations underscores the real need for canopies at fast charge stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top