I already clarified that I believe *Tesla* has fixed it (seemingly lower frequency of this issue in the last few years), and that it seems that seems the issue is rare enough in general that it hasn't effected the high satisfaction with Tesla charging.
I think that’s a very subjective statement. I’m a “people” and I’m not far, far happier with Tesla charging using NACS. The only reason I want to use the Superchargers at all is because there are some located where there are no CCS chargers but there are NACS chargers.
My somewhat educated guess is that any type of extension like that is going to limit charging speeds to reduce heating. If you make the cable thick enough to handle full current without cooling, it would be far to unweildy and costly.
It's not subjective, "people" is definitively more than one. You are a person, singular, not people, plural.
The exact line in the specification is "The North American Charging Standard is compatible with Vehicle to X (i.e. Vehicle to load, Vehicle to home, vehicle to grid) power transfer. Future versions of this technical specification will specify the functional requirements and specifications required to achieve vehicle to X power transfer."
Yeah, it's not even really debatable that, overall, that EV drivers are happier with Tesla's network. Poll after poll agrees. Virtually everyone who has used both extensively agrees. And anecdotally, the amount of complaints about CCS dwarfs Tesla despite being far, far fewer CCS cars road-tripping.It's not subjective, "people" is definitively more than one. You are a person, singular, not people, plural.
https://electrek.co/2022/08/22/tesl...experience-satisfaction-problem-going-public/
Yep, i3 is the case where I had to lift up on the charger to keep it seated or it would fail to connect and not say why. With the Lightning there have been lots of other failures (none catastrophic), though none directly attributable to the CCS port/plug. Then again, I never had a Tesla port/plug related failure, either.
Not really.
That's irrelevant to the plug design and network satisfaction, but your position on Tesla was obvious from the beginning, because objectively, it's obvious the Tesla charging network is superior, and that NACS must not be as fragile as implied or that wouldn't be the case.
Way to spin! A 26% dissatisfaction rate for NACS charging does not qualify as making people far, far happier than the 33% dissatisfaction rate for all DCFC charging. Supercharging currently only has to work with one brand of EVs, that satisfaction rate is probably going to plummet when EVs from a half dozen EV models from different manufacturers start trying to Supercharge.
Yes, this makes sense, I just meant that it wouldn't work with the existing system as is, or with just the CCS to NACS adapter.
Speaking of spin, nice try using the "average" when the only network that's above average is Tesla. You should compare Tesla to the average of CCS, not the overall average which Tesla brings way up because it's so much better.
Silly strawman. I never said I was "proud of" any of this. There's room for improvement with all networks. I just disagree with your implication that NACS is unreliable because it's weaker than CCS, when tons of polling and data shows otherwise.
Yeah, I'm hoping there's a small extension that derates the 250kW somewhat. Even 150kW max, 100kW continuous wouldn't be far off what my truck does anyway. Maybe it's possible. We'll see!
That's essentially what's happening for current Ford EVs through the 2024 model year. The messaging from Ford clearly suggests that the NACS adapter will have some cost associated with it, essentially making it an option (that I, for one, will be happy to buy).
It should be do-able, with a new EVSE and support from the vehicle.
