GM Announces It Will Also Adopt Tesla's NACS Connector, Joining Ford 141
GM has confirmed that it will adopt Tesla's North American Charging Standard (NACS) for its future electric vehicles, following in the footsteps of Ford. Electrek reports: This is likely the next step in a domino effect that should solidify NACS as the new charging standard for electric cars in North America. When Tesla announced last year that it opened up its proprietary charging connector to try to make it the industry standard in North America, we thought it might be too little too late, despite agreeing that Tesla's plug was a much superior design than the current CCS standard. However, we were proven wrong last month when Ford announced that it will integrate the NACS in its future electric vehicles.
GM CEO Mary Barra confirmed that General Motors will also adopt NACS with the help of Tesla in future electric vehicles. Barra made the announcement with Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Twitter. She said that the first vehicles with the plug will come in 2025 and like Ford, GM EV owners will all have access to Tesla's Supercharger network starting in 2024 with a CCS to NACS adapter. Like Ford, GM's Bara referenced the more efficient design of Tesla's connector and the "robustness" of Tesla's Supercharger network as reasons to adopt the standard. Barra said in a statement: "Our vision of the all-electric future means producing millions of world-class EVs across categories and price points, while creating an ecosystem that will accelerate mass EV adoption. This collaboration is a key part of our strategy and an important next step in quickly expanding access to fast chargers for our customers. Not only will it help make the transition to electric vehicles more seamless for our customers, but it could help move the industry toward a single North American charging standard."
GM CEO Mary Barra confirmed that General Motors will also adopt NACS with the help of Tesla in future electric vehicles. Barra made the announcement with Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Twitter. She said that the first vehicles with the plug will come in 2025 and like Ford, GM EV owners will all have access to Tesla's Supercharger network starting in 2024 with a CCS to NACS adapter. Like Ford, GM's Bara referenced the more efficient design of Tesla's connector and the "robustness" of Tesla's Supercharger network as reasons to adopt the standard. Barra said in a statement: "Our vision of the all-electric future means producing millions of world-class EVs across categories and price points, while creating an ecosystem that will accelerate mass EV adoption. This collaboration is a key part of our strategy and an important next step in quickly expanding access to fast chargers for our customers. Not only will it help make the transition to electric vehicles more seamless for our customers, but it could help move the industry toward a single North American charging standard."
Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:2)
If VW, Renault/Nissan and Toyota join, this will 'set the standard' regardless of what regulators (EU or otherwise) say.
Given how much better/faster the Tesla charger works, that's A Good Thing for EV consumers.
Re:Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Japan will probably wait and see (as they are about 5 years behind"
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL yourself. This is widely accepted fact. Toyota and Honda, which together make up nearly 70% of Japanese auto sales in the US, are only just now, very reluctantly, getting started on BEVs, and their executives public statements sound veritably angry about having to do so (they've been betting on hydrogen). Nissan (less than 1/5th of Japense imports to the US) got an early start with the Leaf, but underinvested in technology (going with relatively primitive design approaches, such as passive cooling of large prismatic cells) for too long and has seen its BEV market share collapse, both in Europe and in the US. Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and Subaru are practically no-shows when it comes to BEVs; they've done some technology demonstrators (Mitsibishi early on, with the i-MiEV), but never pushed on meaningful volumes; at least they do decent volumes on small-pack PHEVs. Subaru has announced their first mass-market BEV, the rather middling Solterra EV, which rather looks like a compliance car, but it's something. Suzuki is still in the concept car phase with the eVX (they have to go electric, and will, but it's embarrassing to not even have specific release plans announced at this time)
The TL/DR is that Japan is a bit player in the BEV market relative to their share of the global auto market because they wavered and dug in their heels for far too long and made bad bets on hydrogen.
Re:Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right. Japanese automakers lead by Toyota have royally fucked themselves by not investing in battery manufacturing and EV production when it mattered most and they are watching markets collapse beneath them. Meanwhile China is taking up the slack and making a fortune. At some point they're going to have to close factories or maybe even go bust and won't that be a fun recession for Japan?
Anyway, regarding the Solterra, that and the Toyota's BZ4X, are the same car (a few cosmetic difference) and the general consensus is they suck, especially for the price point. I bet these companies actually lose money for each one they sell or have sitting around in inventory. That may explain why Toyota is basically outsourcing future EV production to a Chinese partner because they're incapable of doing it in house because they never invested the money that would let them do so profitably.
Re: (Score:2)
The Solterra certainly has too little range for the price, yet charging is also too slow, which is a bad combo. I hope they turn out to be relatively reliable so I can buy one used, except for the price it looks like pretty much what I'm looking for. (The range is OK for my use case.)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the BZ4X & Solterra have battery management software which deliberately gimps charge speeds to prolong battery life. I assume that's for their benefit and the warranty rather than for the consumer's. If I were splashing out $42,000 for an EV, there are better choices to be had around that price point.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan automakers still have their heads in the sand about EVs. Sales collapsing throughout China & Europe and no capacity to manufacture batteries or EVs. That is why Toyota, Honda et al have been spreading bullshit about hydrogen powered cars and paying $$$ to lobby politicians to water down emissions & EV adoption because they know they are fucked.
As for the Japanese EVs that there are, they use CHAdeMO which is a very clumsy DC only protocol but China has a similar situation with GB/T and it hasn
Re: (Score:2)
Japan will probably wait and see (as they are about 5 years behind).
Not just behind, Japan is doubling down on hydrogen-powered vehicle instead of EV.
Re:Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:4, Informative)
Japan will stick with CHAdeMO. Cars sold over there all come with CHAdeMO, except Teslas. The CHAdeMO dongle for Teslas is pretty much mandatory.
China has adopted a standard that is very similar to CHAdeMO, and will stick with that as they already have a lot of infrastructure installed with it.
Re: (Score:2)
China and Japan are both talking about transitioning to ChaoJi [wikipedia.org], replacing the Chinese GB/T and Japanese CHAdeMO standards. On top of that, there's already talk of a "Super ChaoJi" variant with additional pins to support very high charging rates for special vehicles. Standards aren't really settled yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an evolution of CHAdeMO. Anyway, they aren't going to CCS. Or Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Slowly?
80+% of the market will be on NACS next year.
Teslas (2/3 of EVs) obviously use NACS/Superchargers, and Ford + GM (12% of EVs combined) will all have access to Superchargers next year.
There's no way Kia and VW (each 6% of EV sales in 2023q1). All other brands are individually 3% or less of the market. There's no way they won't be switching over as well just from the POV of customer satisfaction.
Also, if you look at the cost of these plugs, NACS is a significant savings over CCS. They are smaller, ligh
Re: (Score:2)
More likely Europe is going to remain standardized on CCS2, and a connector war where the user will be the biggest loser will happen in North America and other unregulated markets.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, NACS is easier to use and more durable. If so and it wins in the USA, that makes the users in North America the winners and the Europeans stuck with the larger, weaker, harder to handle plug the losers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a big IF. I think it's more likely that North America be stuck with at least two competing connectors for years. Every EV will need to carry at least one adapter for the other type of charger, or will only be able to use half the chargers out there.
And even IF NACS wins, they could make NACS2 in 10 years which will be even more "durable and easy to use" and fragment the market again.
It's usually better to have an imperfect standard than no standard.
Re: (Score:2)
And even IF NACS wins, they could make NACS2 in 10 years which will be even more "durable and easy to use" and fragment the market again.
From what I've read, NACS has a LOT of potential still left in it, wattage wise. It can push enough juice to charge electric semis well enough.
And if NACS2 is so much better than NACS that the company is - remember, they own a lot of chargers, replace all those chargers with the future connector, it has to have enough benefits to justify that. In which case it'd be a win.
Re: (Score:2)
CCS type 2 was done and dusted in Europe years ago. Every automaker knew it was coming and planned accordingly. Tesla was even a willing participant in all this. So it's not going to change any time in the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
"Given how much better/faster the Tesla charger works..."
That is NONE better/faster. It is smaller, nothing else.
Re: (Score:3)
This came up when Ford announced. I've seen testimonies from people that work on both that the NACS ports are smaller, lighter, yet more durable and easier to use.
If true, the USA is winning this standardization war.
Re:Will Europe and Japan join this trend? (Score:5, Informative)
I use CCS-2 daily, and whenever I go to the US I rent a Tesla with NACS. NACS wins hands-down. It's smaller, lighter, easier to insert (aka, disability-friendly), higher power capability, universal autopayment, and of course has a MUCH better network in the US. The locking mechanism is inside the vehicle (aka, you can release it yourself with your car's emergency release) rather than in the connector (emergency releases have to be done by the station maintainer). The internals, as per Munro, are simpler and cheaper. And of course the majority of high-power connectors in the US on vehicles are already NACS.
Re: (Score:2)
The main differing issue is AC charging:
NACS would not work in europe due to the fact that most homes in europe have 3 phase home installations with which means up to 12kW with only 16A via the 3-phase CCS2 connector (and could go up to 22kW if the onboard charger supports it).
NACS on the other hand can only deliver a single phase which would make it all but unusable in europe but would work in the US where there is mostly just one (or maybe two) phases in a single home
So yeah, NACS is maybe a nice connecto
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla didn't use NACS in Europe. Before Europe basically mandated it out of existence, Tesla's European connector was a variant on the Menneckes connector, which Europe mandated that all EVs have (and which forms the upper part of the CCS-2 combo connector). They modified it so that they could run DC through the different AC phase pins and beefed up the connectors and wiring, and were getting similar charge performance to CCS-2 (combo) with its dedicated DC pins.
I'm not sure why you think that having three
Can anyone build a charger? (Score:2)
For example, could Electrify America change all their existing stations to Tesla style? Or at least build their own? Or do they have to license the design?
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla has made NACS available for free, so there’s nothing stopping EA or anyone else from using it, legally speaking. In fact, you should expect them to announce that they are switching to NACS in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they can. Freewire [electrek.co] has already announced plans to update their chargers to include NACS.
This is what you get America... (Score:3)
... for not mandating an electric vehicle charging standard. After all, who doesn't love a pointless drawn out format war involving the shape of some socket and handshake protocols baked into $30,000+ vehicles. Meanwhile over in Europe, every new car, including Tesla's use CCS type 2.
Re: (Score:2)
charging speed & vehicle range (Score:2)
We were in Amsterdam (Vermeer exhibit) and our pickup at the airport was driving a Volvo S-60. Since that's what my wife has, we got to talking about cars. I asked about EVs. He said, "I had a Ionic, but I was spending an hour or 2 each day charging it, and that really cost me a lot of business." My friend with an EV (a Tesla) said, "Well, maybe he's not being very efficient about when and how he charges." But even if that's true, the perception that it takes too long to charge an EV is significant. Th
Re:Protectionist garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an adapter plug available between the two - if its that minimal of a change and it becomes normal here Euro cars wouldn't care much about using that connector in their US models. They already configure cars with US specific features due to metric/imperial differences and UI language.
Re:Protectionist garbage (Score:5, Informative)
The best trick that CharIN ever pulled was convincing people that there exists a single global standard called CCS. Which simply is not the case.
1) In Europe, they use CCS-2, which is different (and incompatible) with CCS-1 in the US.
2) Other places use different standards. Japan uses CHAdeMO. China uses GB/T.
3) NACS (Tesla) already *is* the de facto standard in the US, despite not being de jure. People talk about "brands" to try to pretend that CCS is the standard, but the majority of high power chargers are NACS, and the majority of EVs are NACS. Because the majority of high power chargers are Superchargers, and the majority of EVs are Teslas. This isn't starting a plug war - it's ending one.
Lastly, ***It's Just Plain A Better Connector***. CCS-1 deserves to die. NACS is smaller, easier to insert (e.g. disability-friendly), lock mechanism is inside the vehicle rather than the cable (e.g. you can use your vehicle's emergency release if something goes wrong leaving it accidentally locked, rather than having to get the station's maintainer to unlock you), it's higher power, and it's cheaper. CCS (both 1 and 2) are Frankenconnectors, bad design-by-committee.
Re: (Score:2)
Have Tesla demonstrated an 800V charger with their connector yet? They claim it supports up to 1000V, but AFAIA all their public chargers are 400V.
The main reason that the CCS-2 connector is different is that the CCS-1 connector proved inadequate for very high charge rates. It's less of an issue on cars where even CCS-1 and Tesla can manage 250kW, but for commercial vehicles with very large batteries support for 350kW+ charging is important.
Given that the Tesla connectors are even smaller than the CCS-1 one
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean "demonstrated" (yes) or deployed (AFAIK no)? And if the latter, why does it matter? All NACS vehicles are 400V architectures. NACS supports massive currents, not just high voltages, so you get high charge powers at 400V. Which simplifies vehicles, because (ignoring that many things (such as motors) are more difficult to do at higher voltages in gen
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the DC pins, they are significantly bigger on CCS-2. Increased surface area, decreased contact resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
CCS-2, which is different (and incompatible) with CCS-1
Incompatible is a strong word. It's like saying USB-A and USB-B plugs are incompatible with each other. The only thing different is the plug shape. Using an appropriate cable you can plug any CCS-1 car into a CCS-2 charger and visa versa.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Vestager will just order all cars to accept the "European Standard" or be fined.
(Nope, I have no confidence in Eurocrats to do The Right Thing here.)
Re: Protectionist garbage (Score:2, Troll)
Pfft...If you even hint of standardizing on anything with "America" in the name of the standard, France will go apeshit. They already hate it bad enough that most of the world adopts American technologies all the time, but never adopts French ones. Recall the most recent episode:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17... [npr.org]
They were so pissed off that they even tweeted in English.
Re: (Score:2)
Take NACS and maintain an identical parallel standard called something cumbersome but European like EEVCS (European Electric Vehicle Charging Standard) or perhaps EECVE (étendard de l'Europe de charge des véhicules électriques).
P.S. I don't actually know French, but it's fun to pretend I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe already mandated CCS2 standard for new EVs.
So what if domestic and export had differences? (Score:3)
Europe already mandated CCS2 standard for new EVs.
That fine. Auto's built for domestic EU use come with CCS2. Autos build for export to the US come with NACS.
Re: (Score:2)
European cars, Japanese cars, American cars, Korean cars, Chinese cars built for the American market use CCS type 1. The only exception is Tesla and some old ChaDeMo based vehicles. It is insane that GM or any automaker would want to prolong a stupid format war that only hurts their sales and everyone elses. If the US government had any sense they'd put their foot down and mandate the standard and other rules about public charging (non discriminatory charging, common payment system etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla already represented 65% of the US EV market, so their charging standard was already the dominant one. If you add Ford and GM, that takes you to around 75% of the market. Mandating that the companies making 75% of the cars switch to the charging standard used by the companies representing 25% of the market doesn't make any sense. If anything, Kia/Hyundai/Audi/VW/Rivian/etc. should be required to adopt the charging standard used by the majority of EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
European cars manufactured for America don't use a "European standard". They use CCS type 1 connectors which is a SAE J1772 connector, some DC pins and a HomePlug GreenPHY protocol for comms.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think this post could be any more ignorant if feranick tried
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protectionist garbage (Score:4, Informative)
NACS was too slow for them. They wanted 350kW charging at 800V, which NACS wasn't proven to work with. Tesla have yet to deploy that capability publicly, where as Europe has had 350kW 800V chargers for years now.
Tesla has been forced to adopt CCS in Europe anyway. All Tesla chargers have CCS connectors on them, as well as the old NACS ones. They just need to adopt 800V capability to remain competitive.
Re:Protectionist garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Cars need to be regionalized anyways. Even between the US and Canada, cars are often slightly different (trim levels, MPH vs km/h, daylights). I don't think changing the charging port is a big deal.
Cars in North America already need to be able to charge at 120V AC (albeit slowly, at least you can plug anywhere).
By the way, Tesla is using CCS2 connector in Europe and probably other markets as well.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think changing the charging port is a big deal."
Not a big deal for manufacturers, but a big deal for consumers. One standard is much better than two. We have one standard, CCS1.
"Cars in North America already need to be able to charge at 120V AC (albeit slowly, at least you can plug anywhere)."
A feature meaningless to adoption of NACS.
"By the way, Tesla is using CCS2 connector in Europe and probably other markets as well."
Right, because CCS connectors are NOT inferior to NACS, not significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
A feature meaningless to adoption of NACS.
Of course, but it shows that the same car can have two versions, one of which has a NCAS port an accepting 120VAC charging, and another one with CCS2 port and charging on 200V+ AC only (in addition to DC charging, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
A feature meaningless to adoption of NACS.
Of course, but it shows that the same car can have two versions, one of which has a NCAS port an accepting 120VAC charging, and another one with CCS2 port and charging on 200V+ AC only (in addition to DC charging, of course).
NACS has noting to do with 120VAC.. What are you going on about?
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. But the car built-in charger has to accept 120 VAC when sold in North America, while it would be useless in Europe. It doesn't mean European EVs can't charge on 120V AC, maybe they can (I didn't check). The carmakers have to evaluate whether it's worth it to make a 100-250V AC charger for some markets and a 230 VAC only for some others, or put the same charger in all cars.
One possibility would be to make cars with left side driving, NACS connector, and 120VAC compatible charger, only for Nort
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it adds $2 to the cost of a $10 charger, but it may be significant on a much more powerful car charger.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not a big deal for manufacturers, but a big deal for consumers. One standard is much better than two. We have one standard, CCS1.
We have one open standard, CCS1, and one de facto proprietary standard, NACS. In terms of both vehicles and charging stalls, the latter outnumbers the former by a fairly large margin — like 60% more stalls than all the public CCS chargers from all the other charging networks combined (and half again more cars using it as well).
The suggestion that NACS helps the customer is absurd, it helps Tesla.
If you were talking about CCS2, I might agree, but CCS1 is awkward because of the way they grafted one plug onto a second plug. The larger a plug is, the more risk you have of
Re: (Score:2)
If you were talking about CCS2, I might agree, but CCS1 is awkward because of the way they grafted one plug onto a second plug.
....just like CCS2? They are basically the same thing, but CCS2 adds three-phase charging capability. They are BOTH DC plugs grafted onto an AC/Communication plug.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in the above post is wrong [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right. CCS2 works just fine and now Europe has a single unified standard. The standard means all domestic home chargers & public chargers use the same type. It means that equipment that works with V2G, V2H, V2L like solar, home batteries etc. also has something to work with. Europe also has rules to require public chargers to charge any vehicle in a non-discriminatory way through a common payment mechanism.
Those rules need to be tightened IMO because charging sometimes still requires bullshit like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For some time after the iPhone came out, the majority of connectors for charging smartphones in the USA was Apple's 30-pin dock connector. Should everyone have adopted that instead of USB?
Re: Protectionist garbage (Score:2)
What are you talking about? iPhones have never and will never outsell Android devices (with the exception of a few strange markets, like Japan). It has literally never been in the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
>MPH vs km/h
I see no reason why that can't be an option that can be changed by the user, just as a PC lets you change settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe at some point, but I never had a car which let me choose units. And not everything is on a display.
Re: (Score:2)
My car lets me choose miles or km as the basis for speed readings and that also alters the consumption readings from miles per kWh, or kWh per 100 km. I expect most vehicles designed for export to international markets are going to have settings somewhere to control what they show and also other localized stuff like language and temperature readings.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the odometer? Can you switch that too? It has to be clear when you switch to miles, otherwise, it could be used to fraud when selling a used car.
A lot of cars designed for export still have a big speedometer in km/h in big, and sometimes (such as in Canada) mph in smaller font. It's not a display, you can't change it by software.
Re: (Score:2)
In my car I have an LCD display so it shows me speed in the preferred way.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, but what about the odometer (distance traveled)? Can you switch that too, and are the units written next to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Cars need to be regionalized anyways.
Excuse you? What are you on about? You WANT to ensure that I can't drive a vehicle from one region into another? What is the purpose of this? What advantages does it offer?
I am literally speechless here. What would be the point of buying a car that can charge in only one region?
I have to have misunderstood you. There is no way you said what you just said.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still drive the car somewhere else. Just like you can drive a car with a steering wheel on the wrong side.
It just won't be that exact car configuration which is going to be sold in that other country.
Regulations are different in different markets, and that (and marketing) makes car builders make different cars configurations for different markets, if not different cars. Like it or not, it is the way it is.
Having two different charging connectors (likely one for America, one for the rest of the world
Re: (Score:2)
You can still drive the car somewhere else.
What? Ok, technically, I could drive a USA standard EV in Canada... until the battery ran out of charge. Do I carry an adapter when traveling internationally?
I am guessing you are too young to recall PAL/NTSC/SECAM. Your ideas and opinion suck pretty hard my friend. But then, the world wouldn't the way it is if everyone was rational and thought ahead. "yes, we should make the same vehicle everywhere but change charge ports based on region". Really bro? REALLY? Oh my.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer a single word-wide standard for EV connectors as well.
But I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And Tesla is partly to blame.
What I am also saying is that they ALREADY make different cars configuration for different markets. It's not something I suggest they start doing, they are already doing that. The first new car I bought was a trim which wasn't sold in the other country next door. That one was for marketing reasons I guess. But sometimes they have to follow different regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla wasn't "forced" to use CCS type 2 - they sat on the board that adopted it and steered it into existence. Perhaps there was something in their American based protocol that made it a pain in the ass to port to Europe, or it was cheaper to use off the shelf parts to implement, or they saw that going down a proprietary path would mean a world of pain in the future, or a combination of a bunch of things. Whatever the reason, they and every other manufacturer in Europe uses CCS type 2 now and everyone wins.
Re:Protectionist garbage (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, Eurocars are just going to use a USB-C port.
They already aren't compatible, CCS1 != CCS2 (Score:3)
The EU already uses CCS2, US is CCS1. You can't swap a car across the Atlantic and expect to charge it. Sure there are adapters, but with rated currents of 125A-150A, on a 350V-400V architecture car (eg, basically everything not i5/ev6, and maybe the porsche?) that's what, 50kW charge rate? Great if you're a Chevy Bolt, useless for anything else. Even the 800V architecture cars would only get 100kW charging, not 200+ they would from a native high spec dc fast charger.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not meant to be compatible at the physical level which is why the connectors are different, incorporating different AC socket designs designed for different AC voltages & frequencies. But they share a lot of the DC functionality and communications and software layers which in itself must be a huge benefit. Standards for the win.
Re: (Score:2)
Euorpean cars use CCS type-2, so already aren't compatiable with the CCS type-1 standard here in North America.
https://www.evexpert.eu/eshop1/knowledge-center/connector-types-for-ev-charging-around-the-world
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford already made a statement that they gave up fighting arplay and android auto because of customer demand. GM is going to feel the pain of lost sales with this decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? You do realize that OTA updates are "a thing", right?
CarPlay means you're stuck with relying on your phone for nav and infotainment and with poor vehicle integration. Basically glorified screencasting.
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a legacy nav / infotainment system, I'd strongly want CarPlay / AndroidAuto, because most legacy automakers (or more accurately, their Tier 1 suppliers) are astoundingly bad at nav / infotainment systems and put out garbage that would feel a bit dated two de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Tesla does it (to within the limits of the hardware capabilities), so basically your suggestion is that other OEMs wouldn't dream of caring about their users as much as Tesla does.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with alot of what you posted here, I think you hit why we're here today with tis pretty well, but this..
accepting those nice bribes that convinced them to make CCS part of the standard.
Is there any justification to that? CCS is an open, IEC sanctioned, published standard with 0 qualms about ownership, patents or fees. It already had EU approval, it's the obvious choice with the best alternative being a proprietary design with even today, waht I might call slightly hazy legal ground (unless Tesla has put it to an open license or IEC publishing).
Choosing this design is the actual
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link me to something where that is shown (the license fee to use CCS).
If that's the case then my opinion on this would have to adjust thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, everyone is greedy, but somehow we all win at the end.
Tesla, as you said, had to share their designs, including all detailed technical specifications: https://www.tesla.com/support/... [tesla.com]
Ford, and GM may not have paid licensing, but they had to "eat some crow".
Whomever paid those bribes... was for nothing.
We all get much better chargers than the rest of the world. Much simpler, much safer, and already installed in most US highways.
Government somehow gets a good return on investment.
Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)
How To Prove It: Proof by Ghost Reference [northwestern.edu] ("Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference given.")
Reality: Tesla has been trying to get other automakers to use the Supercharger network since 2014 [techcrunch.com]. Back then it had no billing mechanism, though, so automakers signing on would have had to cover their share of the electricity and capital costs; Tesla also required patent mutual-nonaggression ("we won't sue you for EV patents, you don't sue us for EV patents"). The offer has been repeated multiple times per year ever since then, simply adapting alongside the design of the Supercharger network over time. Literally no automakers were asking for it, and Tesla was practically begging for them to join publicly. The only automaker to announce a desire to use it was tiny startup Aptera (your link), just last spring, and Tesla was never hostile to their interest. Last fall, Tesla dropped the patent nonaggression requirement, dumped the design specs, and renamed the plug NACS. And it's only now that we've - finally - started seeing other manufacturers getting aboard, with Ford basically forcing everyone else's hand. Farley seems to be taking over where Diess left off in a "Copy Tesla's Playbook" strategy; hopefully he won't meet Diess's fate (I rather like him; he's a real class act).
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be an attempt to get at infrastructure money.
Remember Biden wants a rollout of EV charging stations, and to get the money, the government basically said the charging plug must accept se
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it has anything to do with those companies having to pay to licence CCS. I'm not sure what the exact terms are but they usually involve RAND terms for licencing patents needed to implement the technology.
They were relatively late to the game, compared to European manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, Tesla owners have a massive convenience advantage due to Tesla's charging network. This is a way to erase that advantage, so it makes good sense. Nothing stops the automakers from changing to another connector later if it makes more sense then.
Re: (Score:2)
We stuck with you during the battery fire issues and didn't ask for our money back. So you reward us by decreasing the value of our cars.
How does this devalue your car? There will likely be adapters for existing cars which will mean that they can use CCS and Supercharrgers, so a much larger and more reliable charging network.
Re:Fuck you GM and Elon (Score:4, Informative)
I have a vehicle (VW) with the CCS port.
Believe me, the Tesla charger would be much better. Half of the time, those EVgo's will not work. When they do, the cable and the port are "yuge".
Yes, I will have to use an adapter, until we replace that vehicle. But Tesla is already providing a Magic Dock, so we would be covered.
No, we won't have our vehicles any more obsolete than they already are.
Re: (Score:3)
"I bought a car who's terrible frankenconnector had far fewer high-power chargers, and of which there were significantly fewer vehicles of that connector on the road, but I'm mad because I thought the plan was to legislatively bully our way into forcing everyone else to use it!"
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you ever heard of anything more than a research project using any of those things?
Instead what we're starting to see is vehicles (esp. pickups) including actual AC power sockets, which is far more useful.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you ever heard of anything more than a research project using any of those things?
The Hyundai Ioniq 5 provides this type of thing. Maybe others?
From the "Technology Connections" guy:
"A 24-hour test run of the Hyundai Ioniq 5's Vehicle-to-Load function"
https://youtu.be/yO5fJ8z66Z8 [youtu.be]
Or maybe that doesn't qualify? I guess it is really just an "AC power socket".
Re: (Score:2)
Not "provides". "Using".
Ahem: "anything more than a research project"
The percentage of owners who have ever used V2V, V2G or V2H for anything more than a research project, while probably not zero, is vanishingly small.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I misunderstood you. I thought your reference to "research project" was a statement about the feature not being available outside of lab prototypes.
I think a better phrasing of your intent might have been: "Practically nobody actually uses those features."
A counter of this might be "well, if the feature is impossible, that will never change".
I certainly think that the availability of these types of features are a selling point, at least to me, and I imagine to the AC - so there are at least two of u
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the linked video is someone who is testing a feature for possible use in the future. Testing your file backups, brakes, smoke detectors or emergency lights before you actually need to use them wouldn't really qualify as "a research project" for most readers, but describing it that way I suppose is technically correct.