Opinion: Tesla should partner with another OEM for NACS or be forced into CCS someday.

CCS has been adopted, however shortsightedly, as the charging standard for North America. As all other manufacturers move forward with CCS ports in random, non-optimal locations over the years, Tesla may some day be forced to have CCS charging ports in their vehicles just as has happened in Europe.

We can hope and insist and be as certain as we'd like that this won't happen, but as legacy automakers and government all team up...there won't be much Tesla can do if a line is drawn in the sand and laws are passed.

I think it would be wise for Tesla to reach out to Ford for example(could be GM, or Dodge, whatever), and suggest a partnership where they standardize the charging port location on their new models to match Tesla's, and to implement Tesla's NACS plug. There would be a benefit to Tesla in terms of revenue generated from SC's, and a *massive* benefit to any OEM that can then claim full access to the largest, best, most reliable charging network in existence.

I don't see there being any HUGE downside to Tesla....no one manufacturer really has enough EV's on the road to move the needle all that much in terms of significantly clogging up SC locations. The upside for a Legacy OEM would be massive, and would most likely eliminate the possibility of the big three teaming up with government and forcing Tesla' hand with regards to CCS.

It's also easy enough to just toss a CCS adapter in with each car sold or make one available at low cost if desired. Tesla always has the option of excluding their busiest locations where extra traffic might cause congestion.

This would also support Tesla's objective of electrifying the world. I don't think this would significantly affect Tesla's sales, especially considering the limited production from Legacies for the foreseeable future. They could even team up with a smaller competitor like Mercedes or BMW.

Thoughts?

"Charging Tesla Model S" by jeffcooper86 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

 

[Genie]

How about a car being equipped with both NACS and CCS? I would gladly add a CCS connector on the right side of the car. Having connectors on both sides of the car would solve many parking problems. Could probably be done for less than a premium car color...

Twice the high current charging wires along with another charging door and connector, that’s not a small or cheap design change

 

[timothyd]

I couldn’t agree more; Full SC Network Access would be a killer feature for any other manufacturer. Maybe Toyota since they’re so late to the game? Front grill charge ports would fine for SC stalls too; Side thought Tesla should do a little r&d and make an extension cord magic dock and offer that to rivian drivers who so clearly don’t fit in the spots.

 

[Big Dog]

no question that the US Big 3 don't want to do anything that suggests Tesla's technology is better. Regardless, the Eurozone has essentially chosen CCS, and the Big 3 can streamline their operations by focusing on just that one plug for most of their markets. Elon missed this opportunity big time.

 

[TheHippo]

It's too late now because all the other automakers have decided to use CCS.

We are stuck with CCS because Tesla didn't allow other automakers to use the Tesla connector without miles of string attached.

What Tesla needs to do is invent the time machine.

 

[Earl]

We are stuck with CCS because Tesla didn't allow other automakers to use the Tesla connector without miles of string attached.

Total BS.
Why do you keep repeating the same untruths?

 

[TheHippo]

Total BS.
Why do you keep repeating the same untruths?

Which part is "untrue"?

 

[Earl]

Which part is "untrue"?

All of it. Starting with this:

It's too late now because all the other automakers have decided to use CCS.

- all other automakers decided to use as lousy a charging standard as they thought they could and delay it as long as they could in order to:
1) prevent there from being a charging standard for Tesla to adopt.
2) ensure it was as lousy as possible (50 KW max) and clumsy and ugly as possible.
3) all other automakers (who were 100% ICE manufacturers at the time) didn't want EVs so, they also did not want any charging standard.
Note: After Tesla started hurting their bottom line and proving all of their negative proclamations of EVs not being viable or desirable, some (Porsche, primarily) decided to push for faster CCS capability since they saw that as a way to claim to be better than Tesla.

We are stuck with CCS because Tesla didn't allow other automakers to use the Tesla connector without miles of string attached.

Tesla pushed initially for what is essentially their/NACS as THE common standard. Then, when the clear intentions of the 'other automakers' was shown, they may have thrown in some language to protect their interests. However, other than from a rag that makes it money selling adds to automakers about whom they write articles and to which Tesla does not contribute: there has been no hard evidence as to exactly what string might have been attached.
I've also heard directly how they "were begging for help from someone to save them with their Superchargers as well"
Its impossible to know the real story.

What Tesla needs to do is invent the time machine.

I don't think I need to dignify this with why it might be untrue or at least nonsense.

Pretty much all of the other nonsense you've posted in other threads is also untrue.

Please dignify me with an answer as to why you keep posting all of the untrue statements.

 

[Boeingpilot]

Is Tesla getting fed money for those retrofits? That would be quite the cash cow if they could get paid for each pedestal instal buy throwing a CCS magic dock on them!
How crappy are the other charging networks that Tesla can charge people $13/month AND + 10¢/kWH for charging vs what we pay?

From what I understand they are getting infrastructure funds as part of the opening their network

As one who has used the other networks, yes they are that crappy

 

[TheHippo]

All of it. Starting with this:


- all other automakers decided to use as lousy a charging standard as they thought they could and delay it as long as they could in order to:
1) prevent there from being a charging standard for Tesla to adopt.
2) ensure it was as lousy as possible (50 KW max) and clumsy and ugly as possible.
3) all other automakers (who were 100% ICE manufacturers at the time) didn't want EVs so, they also did not want any charging standard.
Note: After Tesla started hurting their bottom line and proving all of their negative proclamations of EVs not being viable or desirable, some (Porsche, primarily) decided to push for faster CCS capability since they saw that as a way to claim to be better than Tesla.


Tesla pushed initially for what is essentially their/NACS as THE common standard. Then, when the clear intentions of the 'other automakers' was shown, they may have thrown in some language to protect their interests. However, other than from a rag that makes it money selling adds to automakers about whom they write articles and to which Tesla does not contribute: there has been no hard evidence as to exactly what string might have been attached.
I've also heard directly how they "were begging for help from someone to save them with their Superchargers as well"
Its impossible to know the real story.


I don't think I need to dignify this with why it might be untrue or at least nonsense.

Pretty much all of the other nonsense you've posted in other threads is also untrue.

Please dignify me with an answer as to why you keep posting all of the untrue statements.

No.

The other automakers didn't have access to the Supercharger so they have to use what they have access to.

If public chargers were 50 kW, then that is what they have to use.

If public chargers use CCS, then that is what they have to use.

 

[ucmndd]

Its impossible to know the real story.

The only part of the story that matters is that a “standard” unilaterally controlled by one company is not a standard.

History would seem to prove that automakers were wise to not put the fate of their vehicles in the mercurial hands of Elon Musk.

 

[PCTAZRichard]

The only part of the story that matters is that a “standard” unilaterally controlled by one company is not a standard.

History would seem to prove that automakers were wise to not put the fate of their vehicles in the mercurial hands of Elon Musk.

Well, once it's a standard it won't change anymore, right? That's kinda the point in making a standard as I understand it.

 

[ucmndd]

Well, once it's a standard it won't change anymore, right?

Standards change all the time. Real standards have independent governing bodies or consortiums that control subsequent development and collectively decide the direction and evolution based on shared interests.

Tesla could decide tomorrow to unilaterally change their “standard” in a way that would render existing implementations useless, close off their charging network to competitors on a whim, whatever they want. No current automaker is willing to take that risk, for good reason.

 

[Earl]

The only part of the story that matters is that a “standard” unilaterally controlled by one company is not a standard.

There have been many exceptions to this throughout history. The PC is probably the best example of a Standard that is entirely controlled by 2 companies (Intel and Microsoft).
Linux is an example of a standard by one company that was adopted by 3rd party standards organizations.
The old Hayes AT command set still seems to come up sometimes. It was always controlled by one company - and survived long after it died.
Most CCITT standards grew out of AT&T standards.
etc.

History would seem to prove that automakers were wise to not put the fate of their vehicles in the mercurial hands of Elon Musk.

Huh? please describe this history to which you refer.
From my vantage point over the past 16 years (which has been quite close) they've done nothing but support other manufacturers wherever reasonable, starting with encouraging the original J-1772 committee to make a good standard by sharing their charging connector details. They have also shared their secret master on multiple occasions. Although never on the promised timeline, the mercurial Musk's companies (I'll include SpaceX here) has actually delivered more things deemed impossible by the experts than anyone else I can think of.

 

[Earl]

Standards change all the time. Real standards have independent governing bodies or consortiums that control subsequent development and collectively decide the direction and evolution based on shared interests.

Tesla could decide tomorrow to unilaterally change their “standard” in a way that would render existing implementations useless, close off their charging network to competitors on a whim, whatever they want. No current automaker is willing to take that risk, for good reason.

This is actually a good point but it favors Tesla continuing on their own.
Had anyone frozen the Supercharger standard at 85 KW as the 1st generation were, we probably wouldn't be charging at 250 KW as we are today. Going through all of the committee work and having to keep so many people happy would have slowed it immensely.
Early in a technology's development standardization tends to hamper growth and optimization. Later, once requirements are understood and the rate of improvement slows, it becomes more possible to standardize.
Some early stupid digital cellular phone standards (IS-54 cellular anyone?) tended to demonstrate this. Likewise, pretty much everyone who supported GSM or 802.11 Wifi is out of business and Qualcomm, the leader with a proprietary system, dominates today.

 

[wwu123]

Standards change all the time. Real standards have independent governing bodies or consortiums that control subsequent development and collectively decide the direction and evolution based on shared interests.

Tesla could decide tomorrow to unilaterally change their “standard” in a way that would render existing implementations useless, close off their charging network to competitors on a whim, whatever they want. No current automaker is willing to take that risk, for good reason.

There a lot of good points being made on both sides of the debate, but I think this statement is unfortunately commingling other automakers adopting a Tesla-submitted standard, with automakers completely using/relying on Tesla's own implementation of said standard (in charging stations, not cars). Those are different things.

If other automakers had agreed to adopt NACS as a standard, per the typical standard committee conventions mentioned in another thread, Tesla would be obliged to release all patent/royalty claims, and changes would be agreed by committee going forward, it often stifles innovation but does keep the standard evolution stable. But more to my point, other automakers and third-parties wouldn't just build cars, but would build standards-compatible chargers and networks as well.

So Musk could very well cut off others from the Tesla charging network, it doesn't even have to be due to the standard, could be a billing/subscription reason - but there would be other compatible charging stations unaffected. The reality that the other automakers are too cheap/shortsighted to build charging networks is a different flaw.

When you said "History would seem to prove that automakers were wise to not put the fate of their vehicles in the mercurial hands of Elon Musk", I initially thought you might be referring to recent history - Musk cutting off third-party access to Twitter's API (an interface specifically put out there for third-party access). That API is not an industry standard, but it is an example of being subject to the whims of someone else's implementation. (To be fair to Musk, Twitter themselves back in 2012 cut off API's for most third-party end-user apps, after they bought Tweetdeck - so it's not just Musk alone....)

 

[Earl]

There a lot of good points being made on both sides of the debate, but I think this statement is unfortunately commingling other automakers adopting a Tesla-submitted standard, with automakers completely using/relying on Tesla's own implementation of said standard (in charging stations, not cars).

Its even more confusing than just the 2 conflicts you astutely point out since the majority of stakeholders in this business actually want nothing to do with EVs or EV charging. They would stick with ICE since that is where all of their corporate knowledge, IP, and investment is.
Its kind of like having Kodak, Nikon, and Fujifilm working on digital photography standards.

 

[MP3Mike]

And it has happened: https://media.ford.com/content/ford...n-access-to-12-000-tesla-superchargers--.html

Ford EVs will have access to the entire Supercharger network next year, and after that Ford will start putting NACS receptacles in new vehicles.

 

[TesslaBull]

And it has happened: https://media.ford.com/content/ford...n-access-to-12-000-tesla-superchargers--.html

Ford EVs will have access to the entire Supercharger network next year, and after that Ford will start putting NACS receptacles in new vehicles.

I was browsing the Mustang Mach-E forums and mentioned that a manufacturer who embraces the Tesla plug and strikes a deal with Tesla to use their superchargers will gain a distinct advantage over all other non-Tesla EV's. I was surprised someone hadn't done so yet...whether Hyundai/Kia or Mercedes or whatever. Guess Ford beat everyone to the punch.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one having the same line of thought that I had in the OP. Wonder if this will cause a domino effect where now maybe Mercedes will follow suit. Then Volvo. At some point, it could turn the tide completely away from CCS while we still only have about 5% of the charging infrastructure in the country in place. Since no other manufacturer is aggressively expanding the charging network, would be great if CCS just fades into the past and NACS officially takes over.

I would happily grab a CCS/NACS adapter for our Kia Niro if it allowed full access to the SC network. I suspect that it will involve hardware and software capability in the vehicle to make it fully compatible with Tesla, hence why the 2025 time frame for Ford.

 

[TesslaBull]

Now that 2 manufacturers are using the NACS, doesn't that open up normal SC stations using NACS to federal funds?

 

[MP3Mike]

Now that 2 manufacturers are using the NACS, doesn't that open up normal SC stations using NACS to federal funds?

No. The NEVI standards are only available for CCS Type 1 connectors, though you can have a NACS as well that isn't funded by NEVI. (There are no provisions in the standards for any other connector to get NEVI funding.)

Then there are all of the other requirements that Supercharger stations don't currently meet. For example, location on a approved corridor ~50 miles from the closest NEVI station, minimum power of 150kW available at all times, free/open API access to current stall status, ability to use third party apps to start charging, etc...