gra
Well-known member
Tony is most definitely not a troll, he's done a great deal to provide information to the LEAF and RAV4 EV communities on performance, charger/spare tire/tow modifications etc., shining a light on the LEAF's battery degradation in hot weather through multi-car testing, doing range tests of assorted BEVs, as well as raising the profile of BEVs in general through his organization of and participation in the BC2BC EV rally and similar efforts. AFAIK the only personal stake he has in CHAdeMO vs. CCS is that he is (or was; not sure of his current status) CTO of a private company that installed a CHAdeMO in San Juan Capistrano, making BEV trips between LA and San Diego possible for LEAF and iMiEV owners. That hardly represents a major financial interest in CHAdeMO, or any reason to denigrate CCS because of it.nozferatu said:
No, Tony's antipathy to CCS is heartfelt, because he thinks multiple standards will retard the installation of quick chargers generally, just as having multiple L2 standards in the '90s (various conductive, small paddle vs. large paddle inductive) was a problem then. But the major handicap to BEVs then, even more so than now, was that the cars just weren't ready for the mass market, and while lack of charging was important it was hardly the major issue.
I disagree with him at this stage, because at least J1772 L1/L2 is a standard in the U.S., and while it would undoubtedly be easier to have just a single QC standard, that's not going to happen for some time. It's no big deal to produce QCs with multiple standard connectors and associated firmware, and while they're undoubtedly somewhat more expensive than those using a single standard, the cost of _any_ QC is so high that the additional increment is unlikely to be the determining factor in financial viability. Right now no one other than Tesla is really making them pay. And even if we do have three standards out there, only Tesla's supports a car that has enough built-in range to make the car viable for longer regional or even out-of-region excursions; the others are all restricted in practice to shorter regional trips.
Ultimately I don't think CHAdeMO is the answer, because there's no overriding technical advantage to using a separate connector for DC QC. I suspect it was designed by Tepco et al because, given different connectors in use for L1/L2 in various countries, using a separate, dedicated connector made producing for different countries easier. That was a useful advantage before different countries started implementing QC standards of their own, but I think that idea is rapidly becoming obsolete. I think it's obvious that different countries or at least different continents will have their own standards for a long time, and the auto makers will just have to supply the appropriate one. Just as they do now for any number of things, even as seemingly trivial as outside mirrors (convex both sides in Germany, only on the passenger side in the U.S.). While providing for different QC standards will obviously boost the parts cost for the automaker, having both AC and DC supplied through the same connector will save money and real estate, so the costs are probably a wash.
