Yes, I do not know for sure what Tesla will do, but I have a lot of experience with it, so it's an educated guess. Time will Tell!
No, the magic dock adapter is not 100% passive, but it does not do protocol conversion. I haven't taken one apart yet, but it's easily possible for Tesla to authenticate the adapter, much like Apple does on its official iPhone accessories. I have taken one of the opposite adapters (CCS type 1 to NACS) apart, and it is indeed passive. Going the other direction, I suspect Tesla will want thermal monitoring. They have a very high motivation to engineer a system to block anything that might endanger or cause negative press on them. I do not see them allowing adapters they didn't engineer or at least Test, and they definitely have the technical means to implement an auth system easily and cheaply. For instance on the mobile connector, they use a Maxim (Dallas) 1-wire chip with authentication and temp monitoring in their socket adapters, thus stopping 3rd parties from making adapters. On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jeff Nisewanger < jeffrey.nisewan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 21, 2023, at 12:35 PM, Phil <p...@ingineerix.com> wrote: > > > All they are discussing is Magic Dock and some clunky adapter they are > accepting pre-orders on. They do not have a working prototype, because it > won't work! > > Other than the few Magic Dock sites which use retrofitted V3 chargers, > none of the other sites can work for 3rd party vehicles. > > > True. Tesla has to update (presumably via circuit board changes) the > existing V3 chargers to enable them to speak the CCS low-level networking > signaling (PLC, as you reference below). > > > One of the main reasons Tesla will not support this, is because of the > cable length issue. > > > I don’t think we actually know yet what Tesla will do. You cite good > reasons why they wouldn’t want to widely support CCS charging on > non-MagicDock sites. On the hand, the Ford and GM (and Rivian?) press > releases mention access to 12,000 Superchargers and do not state that the > access for existing models via an adapter would be limited to MagicDock > sites. In fact, obviously, that would no make sense. So, Tesla would seem > to be planning wide-spread V3 Charger updates to support CCS. The real > issue seems to be whether the ability to charge using CCS will be limited > to only Ford, GM, Rivian etc. customers or anyone with a suitable adapter. > If it is limited, how will they implement that? Maybe some awkward > cross-authentication scheme with the various remote access systems used by > car owners such as OnStar for GM cars etc? Or, some kind of ID check > equivalent to that used by the AutoCharge protocol used by EVgo and > Fastned? Maybe checking the vehicle public key certificates on newer car > models that support Plug&Charge? > > Ford, GM, and the other companies that may soon follow will end up > representing most CCS cars on the road and they will all likely get the > same adapter access starting a year from now. So, what’s the point in > implementing complicated access control mechanisms that would be a support > hassle. > > My guess is that Tesla will: > > 1. Update the large majority or even all of its V3 Supercharger sites to > support CCS protocol > > 2. make it a hassle for randos to buy the new adapter at first in order to > limit the immediate number of CCS users > > 3. anyone who has an adapter will be able to use Tesla’s app to start a > charge the same way MagicDock charges are initiated today > > 4. Some automakers that adopt NACS may also update their own branded apps > to put their own UI skin on Supercharger session initiation in order to > keep customers within their own walled gardens. For various reasons, some > may not choose to do this. > > I look forward to seeing what actually happens. > > > The Tesla whip is only about 5 feet in total and the pedestal is > positioned so that it will reach the right rear quarter of all Tesla > vehicles where the charge port is located. I'm not aware of any other > vehicles with this port location, thus they won't reach without parking > gymnastics (blocking multiple stalls), so Tesla doesn't want a Chevy Bolt > charging at 45kW for an hour to block multiple stalls on a busy site thus > preventing their customers from using them. > > > Volvo/Polestar locates their CCS ports in the left rear of the car but not > quite as far back. I don’t know for a fact but suspect that the cables > would be able to reach while normally parked. Volvo hasn’t adopted NACS yet > but they would be perfectly positioned (so to speak) to take good advantage > of Supercharger access. > > > V4 will also have CCS PLC (Power Line Communication) which is covered by > DIN 70121 natively, so it can speak to other EVs. The only adapter needed > will be passive (no protocol conversion electronics), as the supercharger > will speak both Supercharger protocol and PLC native. Tesla will probably > not want 3rd party adapters of dubious quality to be used on their sites, > so I doubt they will authorize this. > > > If the adapter is passive, how will Tesla prevent 3rd-party adapters? > > > Jeff > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 12:10 PM Lawrence Rhodes < > primobass...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> https://evadept.com/tesla-supercharger-to-ccs-adapter-guide/ Sorry for >> the confusion. Here is what is designed to work at Superchargers for CCS >> vehicles. Lawrence Rhodes >> >> _._,_._,_ > ------------------------------ > Groups.io Links: > > You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#2231) <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/message/2231> | Reply > To Group > <gg...@groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BGGEVA%5D%20Magic%20Dock> | Reply > To Sender > <jeffrey.nisewan...@gmail.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BGGEVA%5D%20Magic%20Dock> > | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/99683310/2384446> | New Topic > <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/post> > Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/editsub/2384446> | Contact > Group Owner <ggeva+ow...@groups.io> | Unsubscribe > <https://groups.io/g/GGEVA/leave/4855485/2384446/1451429038/xyzzy> [ > p...@ingineerix.com] > _._,_._,_ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230621/d7f926cb/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
