NACS Extension Cable Coming From Tesla

[mdolan92869]

EV’s are a fad. Mr. Fusion is where it’s at. All money and effort should go there.

Sponsored

 

[Fixbear]

or Quantum batteries instead of chemical.

 

[dbsb3233]

Maybe but it more what is the increase cost of the longer cable vs the current length of cable as all that it really would be is you put on the long cable during the next maintenance cycle. Basically when a site planned cable replacements happen you upgrade them to the longer length. Then really the cost is the delta from the previous length of code to the new length.
Now they might spend some money to advance some maintenance timelines but still can be slip in under a maintenance plan.
I know when I was cycling I would do upgrades on my bike when I was replacing parts at the end of their life. A few things I brought forward a little but still put them threw quit a bit of use.

It may not be as simple (or cheap) as just slapping a new longer cable on a V3. For one thing, V3 stations are designed with the stands in the corner, not the center. Even 9' V4 cables won't reach from the opposite corner from there. You'd still end up with the "wrong side" problem unless you went at least 12' with a whole new cable. V3 cable cooling systems might not be spec'd to handle that. It would also leave the cord laying on the ground where snow and ice might freeze it to the ground.

I think we're making too much out of the "wrong side" issue. Tesla says they're fine with CCS cars taking 2 spots if needed. The vast majority of the time it's not a problem. Only when stations are very full, which is probably less than 10% of the time most places. That means Tesla is offering a 90% solution to CCS drivers, to supplement the CCS networks we already have access to. The far bigger issue is V2 stations not working for us at all (and still some of the V3s). That dwarfs the wrong side issue.

Rather than trying to replace cables, keep building more stations and more capacity (hopefully V4s on the new ones). And replace the V2s. Short cords we can work with, V2s we can't.

 

[mkhuffman]

Let's not forget center front like the "E" series vans and most other commercial vehicles.

Fewer people want that option: 5.9%. You can see I voted "I don't care". Well, because really I don't.

 

[Jimrpa]

or Quantum batteries instead of chemical.

Then my car would have a quantum drive - just like the Orville ?

 

[Rory]

just tremendous content folks - 4 pages about an accessory product for a niche market that doesn't exist.

Bike shedding at its finest.

 

[P. T. Magoo]

I'll be surprised if Ford doesn't eventually move the charge port to the R front from the L front. During the switch to factory-installed CCS would be the logical time to re-tool that. That will make many of our garage setups a drag for L2 charging but oh well.

As a dedicated hot rodder, I'll just bide my time until I can go to a junkyard and get a used right front fender from a '26 and slap it on my '22. I'll be the only guy on the block with dual charging ports. Problem solved!

 

[timbop]

I'm not even sure what that means. How does a resistor interrupt the charging process

Because that's how the protocol works. They're following the spec.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I'll be surprised if Ford doesn't eventually move the charge port to the R front from the L front. During the switch to factory-installed CCS would be the logical time to re-tool that. That will make many of our garage setups a drag for L2 charging but oh well.

As a dedicated hot rodder, I'll just bide my time until I can go to a junkyard and get a used right front fender from a '26 and slap it on my '22. I'll be the only guy on the block with dual charging ports. Problem solved!

I would love to see the CCS1 on the Lightning stay where it is and for Ford to add the NACS to the façade port on the passenger side. No need for an adapter and easy access to charging at almost any charger.

 

[timbop]

I would love to see the CCS1 on the Lightning stay where it is and for Ford to add the NACS to the façade port on the passenger side. No need for an adapter and easy access to charging at almost any charger.

That would be amazing, but I don't think that's what they'll do unless they add it as a $3000 option.

 

[ChehRob]

In summary, while SAE International is not government-sponsored, it plays a crucial role in facilitating collaboration between industry and government to shape the future of mobility1

Quote via Bing AI

The SAE does meet regularly with invited government officials. I think the meeting are seen as friendly and useful.

 

[hartmms]

Because that's how the protocol works. They're following the spec.

I stand corrected.

Wikipedia to the rescue:



Proximity Pilot[edit]
The proximity pin, PP (also known as plug present), as shown in the SAE J1772 example pinout, describes the switch, S3, as being mechanically linked to the connector latch release actuator. During charging, the EVSE side connects the PP–PE loop via S3 and a 150 Ω R6; when opening the release actuator a 330 Ω R7 is added in the PP–PE loop on the EVSE side which gives a voltage shift on the line to allow the electric vehicle to initiate a controlled shut off prior to actual disconnection of the charge power pins. However, many low-power adapter cables do not offer that locking actuator state detection on the PP pin.

Under IEC 62196 the Proximity Pin is also used to indicate the cable capacity – this is relevant for non-tethered EVSEs.

The resistor is coded to the maximum current capability of the cable assembly. The EV interrupts the current supply if the current capability of the cable is exceeded as detected by the measurement of the Rc (shown as R6 in the J1772 signaling circuit above), as defined by the values for the recommended interpretation range.

Rc is placed between the PP and PE, within the detachable cable assembly.

Current capability of the cable assembly	Rc (±3%)	Recommended interpretation range by the EVSE
13 A	1.5 kΩ / 0.5 W	1–2.7 kΩ
20 A	680 Ω / 0.5 W	330 Ω – 1 kΩ
32 A	220 Ω / 1 W	150–330 Ω
70 A single-phase / 63 A three-phase	100 Ω / 1 W	50–150 Ω

 

[mdolan92869]

I stand corrected.

Wikipedia to the rescue:



Proximity Pilot[edit]
The proximity pin, PP (also known as plug present), as shown in the SAE J1772 example pinout, describes the switch, S3, as being mechanically linked to the connector latch release actuator. During charging, the EVSE side connects the PP–PE loop via S3 and a 150 Ω R6; when opening the release actuator a 330 Ω R7 is added in the PP–PE loop on the EVSE side which gives a voltage shift on the line to allow the electric vehicle to initiate a controlled shut off prior to actual disconnection of the charge power pins. However, many low-power adapter cables do not offer that locking actuator state detection on the PP pin.

Under IEC 62196 the Proximity Pin is also used to indicate the cable capacity – this is relevant for non-tethered EVSEs.

The resistor is coded to the maximum current capability of the cable assembly. The EV interrupts the current supply if the current capability of the cable is exceeded as detected by the measurement of the Rc (shown as R6 in the J1772 signaling circuit above), as defined by the values for the recommended interpretation range.

Rc is placed between the PP and PE, within the detachable cable assembly.

Current capability of the cable assembly	Rc (±3%)	Recommended interpretation range by the EVSE
13 A	1.5 kΩ / 0.5 W	1–2.7 kΩ
20 A	680 Ω / 0.5 W	330 Ω – 1 kΩ
32 A	220 Ω / 1 W	150–330 Ω
70 A single-phase / 63 A three-phase	100 Ω / 1 W	50–150 Ω

It's drawings like this that made me change majors to Computer Science oh so many years ago. ?

 

[Timelessblur]

I will fully admit I have zero intention of wasting my money on it to deal with a poor design by Tesla. Tesla should do the real solution and put longer cables at their super chargers anyhow. Plus seems like a something I don’t need for a short term problem as v4 of the super chargers have longer cables and Tesla already dealing their their cables being to short for the cyber truck.

 

[timbop]

I will fully admit I have zero intention of wasting my money on it to deal with a poor design by Tesla.

What "poor design" by Tesla? You mean that they designed cables for their proprietary chargers to have enough length to reach all models of their cars long after everyone else had embraced CCS1?

Sponsored