Gutsy. Better your Luci than mine…I knew it wouldn’t work, but I tried a NACS to CCS adapter at the Massapequa. New York, Tesla Supercharger.
View attachment 19232View attachment 19233View attachment 19234
Gutsy. Better your Luci than mine…I knew it wouldn’t work, but I tried a NACS to CCS adapter at the Massapequa. New York, Tesla Supercharger.
View attachment 19232View attachment 19233View attachment 19234
That’s what I understood. Tesla charger to the Lucid’s J1772. Which set me on a rampage on Amazon, requesting UL file numbers from every vendor saying they are UL listed. I’ve actually gotten 2 testing reports from the 6 requested. Giving the other 4 the rest of the week, then I’ll have a new campaign to get them kicked off the site. Wait 2 weeks, do it again for any new stores/brands.
What can I say? I’m bored.
That's better than I expected, 3 of 8 had been examined for safety by an accredited third party....Adapters from 8 Amazon stores listing products that allege UL listing, I received 6 replies. Of the 6, 4 sent supporting documentation. Of the 4, 1 is an FCC cert, 1 is an SGS cert and 2 are actual test reports citing UL tolerances and results....
NOTE: Sharing what I found should not be construed as an official sanction of these products or compliance with Lucid. Use at your own risk.
I was surprised as well. I shared with @Worldwide Beagle and it’s by no means definitive but better than expected. Also: I searched specifically for UL listed/certified. There are many, many more that don’t bother with the distinction.That's better than I expected, 3 of 8 had been examined for safety by an accredited third party.
Correction: I mistook EVDANCE as replying with a cert. Seller does not certify says not necessary. It’s FOCSPROD only with testing report and Lectron with SGS cert.So my bit of due diligence (or fool’s errand, depending on your perspective) has yielded results. Adapters from 8 Amazon stores listing products that allege UL listing, I received 6 replies. Of the 6, 4 sent supporting documentation. Of the 4, 1 is an FCC cert, 1 is an SGS cert and 2 are actual test reports citing UL tolerances and results. Happy to say the 2 Tesla to J1772 adapters I bought (and still within return policy) have full test reports: EVDANCE (80a) and FOCSPROD (60a). The Lectron (48a) has an SGS cert from seller Hero World Limited.
NOTE: Sharing what I found should not be construed as an official sanction of these products or compliance with Lucid. Use at your own risk.
SC rates are lower than EA near me.
Free for Lucid, but not for Rivian! Lol. No, I’ll wait for my free adapter. I don’t road trip much, but hopefully EA will get less crowded soon.Not possible since EA is free!
BTW, I have a Rivian too, do you plan to buy either the A2Z or Lectron adapter? Apparently they both have been tested and work. And the official adapter may be backordered like crazy
How did they get the funding?This station does not meet the NEVI requirements.
Good question, did Maine waive the rule if that is even allowed or did Tesla ignore the requirements? Time to write our Senators.How did they get the funding?
Can't say we didn't predict this.I figured there was no way they'd actually do a 1000v charger. Tesla has yet to prove such a beast exists anywhere. And my guess is they have no plans to make it happen anytime soon.
Meanwhile, every car manufacturer has signed onto NACS, most likely having been promised 1000v was coming "any day now".
Good old Elon pulls the wool over everyone again.
What a waste of taxpayer money. A number of companies are transitioning to an 800v platform so it will be more common in the near future making billions of dollars wasted on inferior technology.It looks like some lobbyists have convinced the government that lower voltages meet the requirements.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/resources/nevi_program_faqs.cfm
Technical Requirements
3.1 Question: What is the output voltage range requirement for Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFCs) subject to 23 CFR part 680? How does this relate to the 23 CFR part 680 power requirement for these chargers?
Answer:
23 CFR 680.106(d)(1) specifies the voltage range requirement for DCFCs. It states that "DCFC charging ports must support output voltages between 250 volts DC and 920 volts DC." A DCFC charger that supports any voltage outputs within the specified range is eligible to receive funding for projects subject to 23 CFR part 680, as long as it also meets the power requirement additionally specified in 23 CFR 680.106(d)(1) (that DCFCs must "supply power according to an EV's power delivery request up to 150 kW, simultaneously from each charging port at a charging station").
Clearly not the intent of the original rule which was to make sure that all EVs could reliably charge at full speed or at least 150kW at NEVI funded sites.
States can still require 920V but don’t have to. Let your state know your opinion.
I just hope this isn't another example of "be careful what you wish for. "What a waste of taxpayer money. A number of companies are transitioning to an 800v platform so it will be more common in the near future making billions of dollars wasted on inferior technology.
I still believe Tesla will eventually deliver true 1000v chargers. The CyberTruck is currently limited on Tesla's own V3's with it getting a faster charge on EA's higher voltage chargers. Therefore, Tesla does have incentive to deliver. Hyundai \ Lucid are the last to the party with NACS starting in 2025 and I suspect for a good reason. I wouldn't be surprised if this is to coincide with the V4's being upgraded to true 1000v.
Plenty of us here have rallied against adoption of NACS for this very reason. Time will tellI just hope this isn't another example of "be careful what you wish for. "