Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard

[Rocky_H]

I did read the article. What you've cited is meaningless PR-speak. We don't know what Tesla's really doing in this regard.

Then you are just being stubborn. It's reality that a company can't just say so, and have something instantly BE a standard. It takes time for the standards bodies to act. So for this necessity of the passage of time to be deemed by you as dishonest, deceitful, and just PR baloney is your problem.

Given Tesla's history on things like this

What you describe as "things like this" are two drastically different things.

(such as the "poison pills" that Tesla inserted into its offer from years ago to share its IP, while loudly proclaiming that it would share its IP), Tesla gets no credit on statements like that from me.

THIS is submitting something to the actual standards bodies. THAT was just a statement offering for other companies to come try to negotiate deals with them. I didn't give that one too much weight either, since that was so vague as to be whatever the parties could argue and agree to behind closed doors. There weren't details of what Tesla's demands would be. They could have been different demands to different companies, etc. That was useless and is not to be equated to this.

This whole thread is a massive tempest about a vague PR announcement. Nothing real has yet happened. Maybe it will, or maybe it will remain a PR maneuver with little or no real-world effect, particularly among mainstream automakers.

It's not just PR. It's in the hands of ANSI or SAE or whoever on their timelines of accepting and publishing it.

 

[bradtem]

I was referring to two issues:

• Tesla owns NACS (the intellectual property)
• Tesla controls the only (current) NACS-based DC fast charging network (the physical property)

Yes, IF other DC fast charging providers start adding NACS plugs, then the second point becomes less salient -- but perhaps not completely irrelevant, if Tesla Superchargers remain a big part of the NACS marketplace. It's not yet clear that third-party DC fast charging providers will add NACS plugs. (To be sure, I hope that they will, and I even think it's likely that they will; but it's not yet certain. Assuming that this will happen would be reckless for a major automaker.) Even if this happens, though, there's a bigger problem....

From the point of view of GM, Honda, VW, etc., the real problem is that Tesla owns NACS (the IP). Yes, they've "opened" it. The details of what this means are critically important, and unless somebody here is an IP attorney who's reviewed the terms Tesla has offered on this, we're all just speculating wildly about the implications. Still, AFAIK, Tesla has not handed control of NACS over to SAE, NEMA, or some other standards organization; as I understand it, NACS remains Tesla's standard, that they're entitled to modify as they see fit. That's likely unacceptable to a competing automaker, since Tesla could decide, after competitors have begun using it, to change the standard in some way that competitors would find unacceptable. In this situation, competitors might stick with the old version of NACS, but their cars might stop charging at Superchargers, and maybe stop charging at third-party DC fast chargers, too. If I were an executive at a non-Tesla automaker, I'd want NACS to be controlled by an independent third party/industry standards body like SAE, or at the very least to have ironclad legal and engineering assurances that such a scenario could not come to pass.

This isn't to say that NACS will never be adopted by third parties. A small company like Aptera has a decision-making process that's driven more by individuals, who have their own quirks and biases, so they might accept the risks. Even a big company might adopt NACS IF those assurances that it's not a trap can be given. People on this thread who are saying they expect or hope that NACS will win out over CCS1 in North America because of Tesla's "opening" it are getting WAY ahead of things, though. If NACS does drive CCS1 into extinction, it will take many years, and will involve additional developments beyond what Tesla has recently announced. Unless and until those future developments happen, I suspect that automakers look at NACS like this:

I agree, it will depend on what terms Tesla offers and how they assure they will not exert power over their competitors.

Those terms, in turn, will depend on Tesla's goals for this. If Tesla is just trying to get their stations to qualify for subsidies, then they will do nothing more and that is all this is about.

If Tesla truly wants NACS to replace CCS and J1772, then they will have to assuage the fears described, though the biggest issue will be for a vendor to know their cars can charge at Tesla SC at a price not too much more than Tesla drivers pay (ideally on the same terms) and that nothing Tesla does can ever take that away from those drivers. That might be hard for Tesla to promise. They may not promise that "nothing" can take it away but might come up with something acceptable. After all, access to that network is very desired, it's one of the biggest differentiators a car can offer.
And worst case, cars can include a chinese made CCS adapter to it for $100. Which is not that bad, really. For a lot of drivers, fast charging is a pretty rare thing, never done in their home city.

 

[bradtem]

Again, did you even read the Tesla blog post?

It should be noted that prior to this announcement, EVgo was putting Tesla plugs on chargers and others may be working on it.
But a lot of the incentive to do that went away when the CCS adapter came out. It is now much less useful to do the expense of adding a Tesla plug to attract Tesla drivers. It's now just a little nicer. And works for drivers of older Teslas, though next year Tesla will offer the hardware upgrade.

Now, not everybody will take the upgrade or even buy the adapter. But the eager ones will, and this removes a large chunk of the incentive to add the cable, certainly to retrofit it.

While I love the plug and play experience of the Tesla connector, and will pick a Tesla SC over other stations all other things being equal, all other things are never equal.

 

[MP3Mike]

I think that one picture is misleading, as I'm pretty sure that the MCS connector is about the same size as the Type 1 CCS connector.

I was out and about today and I took a detour to a place that had a MCS charger... Here is a picture showing a Type 1 CCS connector next to a MCS connector:

So you can see that the size is fairly similar, and handling the connector wasn't difficult.

 

[Earl]

From the point of view of GM, Honda, VW, etc., the real problem is that Tesla owns NACS (the IP).

These companies have historically preferred to crush EVs and make pathetic compliance cars when pressured to make them. Of course, they don't want to adopt a standard driven by a company committed to the success of that which they detest (ie EVs).
They're basking in their success at driving wedges into charging EVs that is impeding the success of EVs. They hate Tesla because Tesla proves that doesn't have to be the case.
They also hate that Tesla continues to prove wrong their preferred mantras that:
- EV's aren't ready yet
- Even if we're forced to buy them, nobody wants them
Instead, Tesla customers are proving that many people will:
- pay more for a good EV than a basic or even decent ICE
- wait longer for one than they'd ever waited an ICE cars
- accept that their are only 4 barely-different vehicles
- accept one that is built by a newcomer with no legacy
They are proving that:
- driving an EV is more convenient than an ICE
- EVs have less maintenance
- EVs can be driven on long trips nearly as conveniently as ICE, even with minimal, but quality, fast charging infrastructure
- EV driving performant is superior to ICE by nearly every normal measure
- EVs can be made safer than ICE cars
Of course these guys aren't going to support anything that Tesla does, at least not until all of the executives who only know ICE have retired.
and:
Of course Tesla is going to be quite cautious about any relationship with them unless they show some commitment to the success of EVs.

 

[gnuarm]

Wow! I've only read the first page of comments. But has anyone thought this might be a necessary step to opening the Tesla network to other brands of vehicles? They have to publish the standard for the interface if anyone else is going to make adapters, and for them to be approved by Tesla.

 

[gnuarm]

These companies have historically preferred to crush EVs and make pathetic compliance cars when pressured to make them. Of course, they don't want to adopt a standard driven by a company committed to the success of that which they detest (ie EVs).
They're basking in their success at driving wedges into charging EVs that is impeding the success of EVs. They hate Tesla because Tesla proves that doesn't have to be the case.
They also hate that Tesla continues to prove wrong their preferred mantras that:
- EV's aren't ready yet
- Even if we're forced to buy them, nobody wants them
Instead, Tesla customers are proving that many people will:
- pay more for a good EV than a basic or even decent ICE
- wait longer for one than they'd ever waited an ICE cars
- accept that their are only 4 barely-different vehicles
- accept one that is built by a newcomer with no legacy
They are proving that:
- driving an EV is more convenient than an ICE
- EVs have less maintenance
- EVs can be driven on long trips nearly as conveniently as ICE, even with minimal, but quality, fast charging infrastructure
- EV driving performant is superior to ICE by nearly every normal measure
- EVs can be made safer than ICE cars
Of course these guys aren't going to support anything that Tesla does, at least not until all of the executives who only know ICE have retired.
and:
Of course Tesla is going to be quite cautious about any relationship with them unless they show some commitment to the success of EVs.

The big fallacy in your post is thinking any other car company is being "pressured" by governments to build BEVs. At this point, they all see the wave of public choice and know it's either adapt or die. They are struggling to design and build BEVs as fast as they possibly can.

Where have you been since 2018?

 

[DrGriz]

The big fallacy in your post is thinking any other car company is being "pressured" by governments to build BEVs. At this point, they all see the wave of public choice and know it's either adapt or die. They are struggling to design and build BEVs as fast as they possibly can.

Where have you been since 2018?

California has banned sales of IC vehicles after 2035. Many other states will follow the CA lead. Some might consider that governmental pressure.

Yes, there is definitely demand for EVs on the consumer side, but nowhere close to 100%.

California bans the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035

The historic rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board on Thursday, will force automakers to speed up production of cleaner vehicles starting in 2026.

www.cnbc.com

 

[gnuarm]

California has banned sales of IC vehicles after 2035. Many other states will follow the CA lead. Some might consider that governmental pressure.

Yes, there is definitely demand for EVs on the consumer side, but nowhere close to 100%.

California bans the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035

The historic rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board on Thursday, will force automakers to speed up production of cleaner vehicles starting in 2026.

www.cnbc.com

I'm surprised I need to explain this here. No new product has an overnight penetration of the market to 100%, except maybe the pet rock. Driving BEVs is something that promotes itself. People talk to others who have BEVs and learn about the issues they were concerned about. With time and the closing of gas stations as the numbers of ICE on the roads drop, will ultimately convert the staunchest of ICE lovers.

The large automakers understand all this. The reconning came when Tesla was able to ramp up the model 3 production in 2018 and start making a profit, a huge profit. That was the rather belated wakeup call to the auto industry to start playing catchup. Now many car makers are shipping alternatives to the Tesla choices, and this will continue to proliferate.

Sometimes Tesla seems to get in its own way. The gigapress is fine, but they should have never let it get in the way of production schedules. What was it that Musk said about unproductive factories? I believe, "bleeding money like crazy" was the way he put it.

But that's ok. Tesla won't continue to be the dominant factor in BEV production. By 2025 the other automakers will have bypassed Tesla and there will be many, many new choices. Many more consumers will be interested in cars that aren't weird imaginings of Musk.

 

[DrGriz]

I'm surprised I need to explain this here. No new product has an overnight penetration of the market to 100%, except maybe the pet rock. Driving BEVs is something that promotes itself. People talk to others who have BEVs and learn about the issues they were concerned about. With time and the closing of gas stations as the numbers of ICE on the roads drop, will ultimately convert the staunchest of ICE lovers.

The large automakers understand all this. The reconning came when Tesla was able to ramp up the model 3 production in 2018 and start making a profit, a huge profit. That was the rather belated wakeup call to the auto industry to start playing catchup. Now many car makers are shipping alternatives to the Tesla choices, and this will continue to proliferate.

Sometimes Tesla seems to get in its own way. The gigapress is fine, but they should have never let it get in the way of production schedules. What was it that Musk said about unproductive factories? I believe, "bleeding money like crazy" was the way he put it.

But that's ok. Tesla won't continue to be the dominant factor in BEV production. By 2025 the other automakers will have bypassed Tesla and there will be many, many new choices. Many more consumers will be interested in cars that aren't weird imaginings of Musk.

I'm sorry, I understand and agree that there's consumer pressure on the traditional automakers to build EVs. You, however, said that governmental pressure is "fallacy" and not, presumably, playing a role as well.

Nothing you have said is evidence of that.

I get it. You don't believe in governmental involvement in these things. That's your religion. Ok.

I still think government has a role and legislation like that from California constitutes pressure that will bring about transition far faster than consumer demand alone.

I wish you were right.

 

[cleverscreenam]

If this were to become a thing with the Tesla to CCS adapter, could salvage Tesla supercharge by adding a CCS to Tesla adapter?

Tesla->CCS->CCS adapter->Salvage Tesla car

The supercharge ability and 3rd-party DC fast charge ability are stored settings in each individual Tesla vehicle. Tesla superchargers have VIN communication and setting-changing abilities, but so far hasn't used them to blacklist anyone.

 

[gnuarm]

I'm sorry, I understand and agree that there's consumer pressure on the traditional automakers to build EVs. You, however, said that governmental pressure is "fallacy" and not, presumably, playing a role as well.

Nothing you have said is evidence of that.

I get it. You don't believe in governmental involvement in these things. That's your religion. Ok.

I still think government has a role and legislation like that from California constitutes pressure that will bring about transition far faster than consumer demand alone.

I wish you were right.

I don't know what to tell you. Based on the industry's growth to date, 50% a year, if that continues, by 2030 every new car sold in the US will be a BEV. So the 2035 mandates mean pretty much nothing.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to religion. It certainly has nothing to do with me or relates to anything I've said. Please stick to the issues being discussed.

 

[gnuarm]

The supercharge ability and 3rd-party DC fast charge ability are stored settings in each individual Tesla vehicle. Tesla superchargers have VIN communication and setting-changing abilities, but so far hasn't used them to blacklist anyone.

Not completely true. They blacklist cars they don't want on their network, such as salvage cars that have been restored.

 

[DrGriz]

I don't know what to tell you. Based on the industry's growth to date, 50% a year, if that continues, by 2030 every new car sold in the US will be a BEV. So the 2035 mandates mean pretty much nothing.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to religion. It certainly has nothing to do with me or relates to anything I've said. Please stick to the issues being discussed.

The growth rate you are talking about, 50% a year, involves vehicles that are only 25% of new car sales. What is the growth rate in the vehicle segment that Americans actually buy? Cybertruck is vaporware at this point. And anyone who orders a Ford Lightning now may be waiting for years.

There's a good reason that there aren't mass sales in the pickup segment: if they are to do the things we need pickups to do (haul 10000 lbs), they are prohibitively expensive, and if they are hauling significant weights, their range drops to 33% of unladen.

Not saying that this segment won't eventually fill in, but there's a ceiling to the 50% growth rate you are talking about.

Light Trucks Now Outselling Cars 3-to-1

Pickups, SUVs, minivans—light trucks—outsell cars by 3-1. Cars were first overtaken by trucks in 2002. U.S. automakers sell only a handful of car models.

www.forbes.com

 

[terranx]

I don't know what to tell you. Based on the industry's growth to date, 50% a year, if that continues, by 2030 every new car sold in the US will be a BEV. So the 2035 mandates mean pretty much nothing.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to religion. It certainly has nothing to do with me or relates to anything I've said. Please stick to the issues being discussed.

Extrapolating

xkcd.com

 

[Earl]

The big fallacy in your post is thinking any other car company is being "pressured" by governments to build BEVs.

I guess you never heard about the California ZEV mandate of 1990 then and the slew of decent EVs that were crushed (GM EV1, GM S10EV, Honda EV+, Toyota RAV4EV, Nissan Altra, Nissan Hyper-mini, Ford RangerEV from the late '90's or the slew of pathetic compliance EVs that followed in the early 2010's (Leaf, iMiev, FocusEV, SparkEV, Fiat500e, SoulEV).
I've seen $billions fought by the ICE industry against EVs (many for the benefit of CARB), hearing all of the claims that:
"the technology isn't ready."
"there's no market for them"
"Nobody has been interested in buying them" - note that they didn't sell them, they only leased them
"owners don't like the" - this was true since the ICE companies owned them, however, those of us who leased them loved them.
"They were barely able to sell more than about 1,000 of them" - they only made about 1,000 of them so they weren't like to sell more. Actually, they didn't sell any.
"Building new infrastructure is too difficult"
"They charge too slowly"
"They can't go far or fast"
. . .

Where have you been since 2018?

I have been gleefully driving my Tesla Roadster after having driven my late grandmother's old Buick since having my EV1 taking away and crushed in 2003.

 

[gnuarm]

The growth rate you are talking about, 50% a year, involves vehicles that are only 25% of new car sales. What is the growth rate in the vehicle segment that Americans actually buy? Cybertruck is vaporware at this point. And anyone who orders a Ford Lightning now may be waiting for years.

I see you don't worry with a shortage of data. When you don't have any, you make it up! The BEV sales have gone up 50% a year for a number of years now. As the other automakers get more cars in production, they will be part of this annual increase. It may exceed 50% per year. Or Tesla's growth may fall off a bit (not sure they are going to make 50% this year) and other automakers make up for it. Either way, the growth of BEV sales is expected to continue to grow rapidly for years.

There's a good reason that there aren't mass sales in the pickup segment: if they are to do the things we need pickups to do (haul 10000 lbs), they are prohibitively expensive, and if they are hauling significant weights, their range drops to 33% of unladen.

You are being pretty silly with the pickup sales. 95% of pickups never seen anything heavier in the bed than a coffee table. Very few people buy them to tow 5 tons of anything. They are a status symbol as much as anything. They are peacock vehicles. The Ford Lightning won't have any trouble being a part of that group. I can't say about the Cybertruck, but as you have said, they have bucket loads of presales. So which is it, electric pickups are doomed to fail, or are wildly popular???

Not saying that this segment won't eventually fill in, but there's a ceiling to the 50% growth rate you are talking about.

Yeah, around 50%. LOL

Light Trucks Now Outselling Cars 3-to-1

Pickups, SUVs, minivans—light trucks—outsell cars by 3-1. Cars were first overtaken by trucks in 2002. U.S. automakers sell only a handful of car models.

www.forbes.com

That is old news and is irrelevant. By 2030, close to 100% of new car sales will be BEVs. Then it's just a matter of time for a large hunk of cars on the roads to be electric. When that happens, the gas stations will start closing and that will be the final death blow to the ICE. Give me 10 years, and you will agree with me 100%, because you will no longer be able to deny reality.

 

[gnuarm]

View attachment 876266

Extrapolating

xkcd.com

That's funny. I like it. What was the mouseover text?

 

[gnuarm]

I guess you never heard about the California ZEV mandate of 1990 then and the slew of decent EVs that were crushed (GM EV1, GM S10EV, Honda EV+, Toyota RAV4EV, Nissan Altra, Nissan Hyper-mini, Ford RangerEV from the late '90's or the slew of pathetic compliance EVs that followed in the early 2010's (Leaf, iMiev, FocusEV, SparkEV, Fiat500e, SoulEV).
I've seen $billions fought by the ICE industry against EVs (many for the benefit of CARB), hearing all of the claims that:
"the technology isn't ready."
"there's no market for them"
"Nobody has been interested in buying them" - note that they didn't sell them, they only leased them
"owners don't like the" - this was true since the ICE companies owned them, however, those of us who leased them loved them.
"They were barely able to sell more than about 1,000 of them" - they only made about 1,000 of them so they weren't like to sell more. Actually, they didn't sell any.
"Building new infrastructure is too difficult"
"They charge too slowly"
"They can't go far or fast"
. . .


I have been gleefully driving my Tesla Roadster after having driven my late grandmother's old Buick since having my EV1 taking away and crushed in 2003.

Maybe I could get a translation of your post. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Can you give a hint? Even a teensy, tiny one?

 

[bradtem]

We've drifted a fair bit from the question of whether the Tesla connector can or should become a universal connector in NA.
(Not that I haven't drifted topics myself.)

But perhaps a different thread for the question of what EV adoption itself has looked like and will look like.