It says a lot about ccs that all the automakers are switching off of it. Even if the ccs networks weren’t noticeably worse, nacs is smaller, and should make for much easier vehicle packaging designs (see: Tesla nacs in taillights vs ccs behind a big door)
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
62 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
60090 readers
5363 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
CCS has the benefit of working well with three-phase power – which isn't used in North America. NACS doesn't support three-phase power but has a more convenient form factor.
Europe will probably stick to CCS Type 2 since three-phase power is commonly available at home.
CCS2 could certainly be redesigned to support 3 phase power in a smaller form factor if they upsized 2 of the power connectors on the mennekes plug to allow them to carry the dc current (similar to how nacs works). But it works well enough for Europe
Not really gonna simplify vehicle designs much, the door still needs to be bigger to support CCS2 in Europe, Chademo in Japan, and whatever China is using. It is easier to have a big door that fits any socket type than it is to have to restructure that entire area between countries.
NA is a big enough market that lots of models already use specific variations. I could see that happening in the future with charge ports