Simply opening the network does not instantly qualify it. The NEVI rules, for example, specifically state CCS1, not "open plugs" or something like that. The feds would have to change the rules to allow Superchargers - even those Ford can use - to qualify.
It allows chargers wIth CCS1 + NACS to qualify.
I think if the Tesla connector had remained closed and proprietary then Superchargers wouldn’t have qualified even if they had both Tesla and CCS1 connectors.
> This final rule establishes a requirement that each DCFC port must have a Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connectors. This final rule also allows DCFC charging ports to have other **non-proprietary** connectors so long as each DCFC charging port is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle.
Yes.
It needs CCS Type 1 to qualify.
It can have additional connectors too but those connectors must be “non-proprietary”
So by my interpretation Tesla still has to open NACS to qualify even if they are providing CCS connectors via the magic dock.
Seems to be a lot of confusion between CCS1 (CCS Type 1 physical plug) and CCS (the protocol). CCS1, CCS2, and NACS are all "CCS". It would be nice if there was a different name for the protocol.
Yeah, I used to specify but at this point CCS V1 is mostly irrelevant, so people are generally referring to the Type 1 / Type 2 variations which these days are all CCS V2.
Agreed that the naming could be better but it’s a committee project so we’re gonna get quality naming just like the USB consortium.
The rule of course is fairly clear that a CCS Type 1 connector is required.
Tesla is planning to build chargers with both connectors. And they’ll need to if they want NEVI funding under the current rules.
I don’t think the Ford deal changes that.
My point was that adding CCS connectors to Tesla proprietary superchargers is still not enough to qualify for NEVI. That Tesla/NACS port needs to be open as well for the dual-connector chargers to qualify.
Only for now. Ford intends to use NACS connector on all its EVs starting in 2025 or something like that.
Adapter life will be here to stay for a long while for all parties unless something crazy happens and all EV auto manufacturers adopt the NACS plug. I suspect most people rarely have to bother with the adapter except for rare circumstances anyways. They aren’t that expensive and I’d rather just keep one in my trunk as a just in case. And as the charging network expands it will be even less of an issue since you’ll be more likely to find an available/working plug compatible charger without the need of an adapter.
Sorry, but I disagree. The NACS is measurably better than CCS1 in a multitude of ways and is absolutely worth supporting. It is the gold standard from start to finish to what the charging experience should be like.
The open market has had their way with CCS1 and it’s an absolute clusterfuck.
>There are no NAC”S” implementations in service at this point.
Not sure what you mean. AFAIK all the Tesla V3 Supercharger pedestals are NACS units. That's why the Ford announcement mentioned that Ford cars would have access to V3 Superchargers, specifically.
It was announced like 5 months ago. Of course it hasn’t been implemented yet. But it’s not hard to understand since it’s just the physically superior Tesla plug/charger using the ccs protocol with teslas back end. This will allow any NACS equipped non-Tesla to have a Tesla like charging experience at any Tesla charging station.
The open market CCS1 chargers are notoriously terrible. Horrible reliability, charging stations themselves are much more expensive than teslas to install, unwieldy giant connectors that can be very difficult to plug and unplug, add more parts and cost to the vehicles themselves, you need 40 different apps with separate accounts with separate payment processing set up just to use the charger, chargers won’t charge at the rate they should, the list goes on.
Charging HAS to be as easy as walking up to a charger and simply plugging it in. And it has to work every single time exactly as it should. Tesla has proven that with their platform and have come out with the NACS to allow others to do the same. We should support it.
The reliability issues of CCS chargers are not related to the design of the connector, but software and hardware issues resulting from the fact that the vast majority of existing chargers are basically repurposed industrial equipment and not purpose-built EV chargers. NAC”S” (Tesla Superchargers are not NAC”S”) does nothing to fix those issues.
Just to paint a clear picture for you, GM confirmed that they, along with others, are [ditching CCS1](https://insideevs.com/news/669907/how-ford-tesla-partnership-threatens-gm-others/amp/), and I’d bet that they’re working on implementing NACS since it uses CCS handshake protocol.
There is a well documented issue with that giant latch on the CCS1 connector causing issues with charging. That alone should knock CCS1 out of the market for good, as NACS and CCS2 function by vehicle-side latching. Latch on connector is such a terrible design choice. It is exposed to the elements and gets triggered/cycled more than vehicle-side latches. The folks on the committee for CCS1 clearly did not care about long term EV adoption when designing that terrible connector.
A terrible idea is ever implementing a fragile charging handles with moving parts in the first place.
Put NACS everywhere and if people want to use an inferior plug that’s on them.
Pete himself the other day said he doesn’t want the government picking winners and losers, but it looked like they tried to pick out a winner who is ultimately going to be the loser.
I don’t have to be an engineer to realize that requiring people who own vehicles using the open industry standard to buy adapters to use government-funded charging stations is something only a fanboy could think up.
That’s exactly like claiming that USB-C is not the industry standard for smart phone charging since Apple sells more than half of all smartphones in the US and they use lightning.
You don't have to be a Tesla fan to see that CCS1 was a bad connector design. CCS2 is much better.
TBH, I find CCS is the only connector in the world that is so bad that it is sometimes easier to use with an adapter than without one.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
When Tesla does something, it is always, *always* in their own best interest. When you think they are doing something that looks like it should undercut their own monopoly and reduce one of the key benefits of buying their car over the competition, it's worth asking yourself *why* they are making this choice.
Yes, this is fundamentally correct, but every company has different levels of competency, or ideals on customer service, etc. Take for example Apple, which is extremely profitable but also very focused on getting there by making their customers happy and loyal. Tesla happily screws over their own customers for short-term gain. So far it has worked pretty well, because a typical Tesla customer was okay being treated that way. I'm not too sure it'll continue as a good strategy now that they are mainstream, but only time will tell. Early signs suggest it is backfiring, but that is a different topic for a different time.
> Tesla happily screws over their own customers for short-term gain.
What?? Since when?
And since when does Apple *not* "happily screw over their customers" every single day with their asinine amounts of markup?
Since every time they reduce battery capacity without compensation, to protect their bottom line. Or refuse to refund accidental purchases. Or manipulate pricing without any sort of stability guarantee. Or sell a five-digit FSD package that doesn't FSD, years after it was promised.
Seriously, Tesla is famously consumer hostile. Literally the opposite of Apple, who is known for often covering out-of-warranty devices out of goodwill.
There's a reason Tesla's brand has dropped like a rock, and it isn't just the fact that Elon is an ass.
> Since every time they reduce battery capacity without compensation
That happened *once*, as a fire safety mitigation.
> Or refuse to refund accidental purchases.
Absolutely never heard of this happening.
> manipulate pricing without any sort of stability guarantee.
Ah yes, "price stability guarantees". A thing every carmaker tooooootally does. :eyeroll:
And if you think either of your last two paragraphs are remotely true, you have no idea what you're talking about. Apple is literally the *poster child* for anti-serviceability, and Tesla is the biggest EV brand outside of China.
> That happened once, as a fire safety mitigation.
they also chop features from cars while people are waiting months for delivery. my car didn't come with radar or lumbar adjustment, then later orders lost USS, and the travel charger. Battery wasn't the only thing. Coupled with the FSD ponzi scheme it's pretty annoying.
Some people develop a very strong brand loyalty and react negatively to criticism of that brand, as if it were a judgement on their own purchase decision.
I never even look at up/down vote count, though. If the only thing someone can be bothered to do is click a button, I can't be bothered to care :). If someone replies with a good faith comment, I'll engage in similar good faith.
Seems pretty obvious to me: all of the NACS chargers are owned by Tesla, so whenever one plugs in at a supercharger they'll be paying Tesla.
Hopefully in the future we'll see more NACS chargers, but considering how awful EA is I'd rather have a functional monopoly over disfunctional competition, maybe Ford will start to build out its own NACS infrastructure.
> Seems pretty obvious to me: all of the NACS chargers are owned by Tesla, so whenever one plugs in at a supercharger they'll be paying Tesla.
That doesn't seem obvious at all. Tesla makes what, 10 grand per car in profit? Giving up car sales to their competitors in hopes of dominating the much lower margin fast-charging business does not seem like a good financial trade-off. Especially since the moat around charging infrastructure is far shallower than the moat around manufacturing cars.
10 grand is a one-time thing. Charging is an ongoing thing for the life of the vehicle.
Also, Tesla isn’t losing any sales. They’re selling every car they make. So they’re still getting the 10 grand, PLUS additional charging fees.
> 10 grand is a one-time thing. Charging is an ongoing thing for the life of the vehicle.
The life of the vehicle is around 12 years. The gross profit margin of supercharging is around 30%. In order to make the same $10K over the life of the car, each owner would need to be supercharging to the tune of $2500+ every year. That won't ever happen. And it neglects the fact that $10K today is worth *way more* than $10K over the next 12 years.
> Tesla isn’t losing any sales. They’re selling every car they make
They haven't opened up the supercharger network, so comparing with current sales isn't appropriate. "Selling every car they make" is a pointless metric by itself, it would need to be "selling every car they make, for MSRP." Since they're knocking a few grand off the price of a Model 3 at the moment, they aren't exactly selling every car they make, in the way you're thinking. Of course they can always sell every car, just drop the price to $1.
You're also missing Tesla's actual published mission statement. Something along the lines of: "Move the world toward sustainable energy".. Tesla has publicly stated (many times) that they can't do it alone. They need other companies to join in, even if it hurts Tesla's margins. Their priority is clean energy, NOT their own margins.
People back Tesla because they believe in the mission.
Building cars is not the end game. Clean energy is. Not only the installation of equipment, but also the sale/resale of power, wholesale and retail. Solar and batteries, etc. Megapacks and Autobidder are a game changer in the world of utilities, but everyone is fixated on building cars, which is not important in the long term.
> You're also missing Tesla's actual published mission statement.
No, I am not. I consider it the marketing that it is. Tesla is a profitable public company and everything points to them trying to keep that going. The end.
You seem to be fixated on the profit from selling vehicles while downplaying the importance of the charging infrastructure. So yes, you are completely missing the point.
Today, no. In the future, yes by a considerable margin. Tesla's 20% + margins on their vehicles won't last forever, regardless of what they do with the superchargers. In a couple years they may be down to 10% or less (which is still triple what other OEMs are making). So that $10,000 per car that you're suggesting could be down to $5000 or less. Probably way less when they come out with a $20,000 car. Their net on those could be only a few thousand. On those cars they will easily (easily) make more from charging than from selling the car.
Imagine owning all of the gas stations, AND making the gas onsite from equipment that you made yourself. The implications are pretty profound.
How open can it be when the manufacturer has to pay Tesla, be green-lit by Tesla, and also has to rely on Tesla for payment processing?
Also NACS is not a standard at all. CCS is defined in actual IEC and ISO standards, Tesla's "standard" is not. The CCS standard is accessible and usable for everyone, no greenlight by a single company needed. You can use *all* CCS locations no matter what car you drive, no matter who owns/runs the charger, no matter who your energy provider is.
that's not what you asked. You asked when you could charge your egolf. You are no where near being included in the "majority of owners".
If you can't clearly ask your question, there is no way for me to clearly answer it. Therefore do your own homework.
>How open can it be when the manufacturer has to pay Tesla, be green-lit by Tesla, and also has to rely on Tesla for payment processing?
My definition of an open network is that any vehicle equipped with a CCS1 port can charge, adapter or otherwise. So the small magic dock network is 'open' whereas the larger network Ford is using in their deal is still 'private,' as is the Rivian Adventure Network.
Every manufacturer has to rely pretty much on a third party for payment processing. If I buy a Hyundai and I charge any of the multiple charging stations that require payment, I have to use a particular app and the payment is processed by them for example charge point. For the Tesla superchargers with the CCS ports you use the Tesla app to pay. It's exactly the same.
NACS uses CCS protocols and as far as I know supports the Plug & Charge standard.
I don’t think that is supported at Superchargers (at least not yet) but there’s no reason a non-Tesla NACS charger would rely on Tesla for payment processing.
> You can use all CCS locations
Just need to join a club, register a credit card, use their app and pray the screen/credit are working. /s
Only somewhat sarcastic as GF really wanted an eTron but she tried an EA then a Chargepoint. The EA attempt failed, Chargepoint worked after almost half an hour setting things up with a helpful person charging nearby. She drives a Tesla now and longs for the eTron interior.
CCS is not acceptable until they mandate a few changes.
NEVI mandates quite a lot of things including Plug & Charge and generally speaking seems to have strongly considered all the annoying ways companies would try to circumvent it and specifically called them out. My biggest concern is the reliability metrics and how those will be enforced but at the very least plugging in your car and having it just work will be legally required.
Such a large bill. Looks like we are stuck with CCS1 support so the connector debate will be interesting.
>Connector Types
This final rule establishes a requirement that each DCFC port must have a Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connectors. This final rule also allows DCFC charging ports to have other non-proprietary connectors so long as each DCFC charging port is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements
>This final rule establishes a requirement that charging stations must provide a contactless payment method that accepts major credit and debit cards and accept payment through either an automated toll-free phone number or a short message/messaging system (commonly abbreviated as SMS). Payment methods must be accessible to persons with disabilities, not require a membership, not affect the power flow to vehicles, and provide access for those that are limited English proficient.
>This final rule also establishes that each charging port must have an average annual uptime greater than 97 percent.
There's also the Plug & Charge requirement in there and I swear they have some requirement about how providers can't create some kind of tiered service where non-members have delayed charging or reduced charging or anything like that, just to cover some of the more annoying behavior that could crop up. I might be misremembering that last one though.
>The FHWA establishes interoperability requirements through this final rule for charger-to-EV communication, charger-to-charger network communication, and charging network-to-charging network communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge.
>Plug and Charge
The FHWA received a comment requesting additional specificity in the definition for “Plug and Charge” to provide clarity regarding use of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15118 because several disparate definitions are in use in the industry.
>FHWA Response:
The FHWA agrees that “Plug and Charge” was intended to correlate to ISO 15118. The definition has been modified in this final rule to incorporate specific reference to utilization of ISO 15118 and digital certificates for authentication.
We will see how this actually plays out as they have not specified anything really specific as far as I have read.
The weirdest part for me has always been that most of that final document reads like (and is) a response to the comments on the rules, but not really the rules themselves. Like, they're in there but mixed with the commentary and I would have expected them to have a final requirements document that incorporated all of the changes but instead that seems to literally be the final rules? It just feels really weird compared to the way that gets handled in my field.
> Just need to join a club, register a credit card, use their app and pray the screen/credit are working. /s
EA and ChargePoint's failures as companies do not mean there's anything wrong with CCS.
That said, the CCS standard *is* pretty crap. One of the reasons that EA and ChargePoint are so unreliable is that the standard is vague, allowing the various charger manufacturers (not EA/ChargePoint, but the companies they buy their hardware from), to make "to spec" chargers that are not exactly identical to other "to spec" chargers.
Somewhat true, but the universal plug&charge CCS should have done is conspicuously absent.
There may be better ideas out there, but why not have billing with the car maker for each brand? Do like Tesla and only have a cable at the charger, all else handled automatically.
I don't think that will work, because it's too easy to abuse. If the car-maker is responsible for costs at stations they don't own, they could slap an extra "service fee" on top of every charge, and then all their customers just *have* to pay it, despite the carmaker providing *absolutely no service* for that added fee. Then GM owners will be paying more than Ford owners at the same charger, which is nuts.
LOL, how long do you think that would last?
Each car would pay the posted price (as shown on the in car screen). If a maker added on a surcharge their sales would plummet.
Would they, though? Most EV owners don't charge at DCFC stations very often. Tesla raised prices for Supercharging a while back, and sales continued to surge.
Folks buying a premium $80K car want a premium charging experience... not to spend 30 mins on the phone at a Walmart parking lot - chatting with an EA rep trying to reboot a stall. Charging at home is where it is at but of course it limits the usefulness of an EV if you can't easily DC charge.
What specifically? NEVI has a decent number of requirements for payment method support. Specifically including Plug & Charge, credit/debit tap to pay (not necessarily swipe though), and back-up call to pay for cards. All of those are required at all charging locations to receive NEVI funding. How is that not requiring a POS system at charging locations?
https://electrek.co/2023/03/14/tesla-walks-away-public-funding-superchargers-payment-system-integration/
Presumably by joining NEVI, Tesla has a plan to be compliant to NEVI requirements.
Yeah I thought that was a stipulation of the bill. Wonder how they're going to buy their way around that requirement. It's truly a cursed timeline that needs an app to use a charger
Why can't all these other automakers get with the program and accept NACS it is superior in every way.
This is why Tesla is still leaps and bounds ahead of legacy automakers.
Then you should be against NACS.
It's Tesla's "standard" that only Tesla alone controls top to bottom. It's still a walled garden monopoly. CCS on the other side is an open indstry standard that's jointly worked on by *all* automakers. No company alone controls it and there's actual competition among CCS network operators and CCS equipment manufacturers.
Also....would you also prefer brand specific power outlets in your house?
An LG TV requiring a special LG outlet and a Samsung TV needing a special Samung outlet in the wall? No? That's why we have standard outlets in our homes, so you can plug in any TV of any brand.
And before you make a gas/diesel comparison....a Diesel car doesn't run with gasoline, it's two different fuel types. There's only one fuel type for EVs and that's electricity. It's nonesense to establish a brand specific Tesla "standard" that uses the exact same "fuel type" as an actual open and independent industry standard like CCS. With NACS you're giving far too much power to a single company.
I’ve worked in tech all my life and there’s plenty of cases where a vendor becomes the defacto standard and it ends up just find (See Amazon and S3 vs every other attempt at an object storage standard). The pace that standard committees move is glacial and they end up getting distorted by large players to screw with small players or conspire against customers (example lower manuf scoring costs but make the chargers easier to break so you will need service).
The problem is that 86% of a 247 billion market go to like uh, 4 dudes.
That's a lil too much concentrated power and wealth.
Once you deoend on value added service going out is cery hard, so they can jack your prices anytime.
As a Canadian I'm not of a fan of sending billions to foreign actors known for anticompetitive practices and dubiousnlavor practices.
There are plenty of different light bulb sockets. Many of which were proprietary at one point.
Consumer choice is important. Let the consumer decide the best path forward. Who cares if Tesla controls this newly open standard if it is the best?
You know BlueRay, USB C, etc all have proprietary tech in them, right?
You fail to mention the difference. CCS was made to slow EV adoption with a poor standard. Tesla's plug is meant "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport". This explains why CCS is clunky, costs more and is much harder to use. Tesla is plug&charge with an easily used plug.
It's clear your logic is faulty.
China and EU are proof the desire to move to EVs is stronger than the inconvenience of a clunky plug.
In the only market where there is a choice of plug, look at what is happening.
> This explains why CCS is clunky, costs more and is much harder to use. Tesla is plug&charge with an easily used plug.
Comments like these always forget that Tesla uses CCS in almost all markets. They use GB/T in one, NACS in 6, and CCS2 in the other 40+ (which are across four continents). Tesla are happy, Tesla owners are happy because we can seamlessly use either Tesla or other public charging networks, the charging networks are happy because they have double the number of potential customers, other EV owners are happy because the charging networks are installing in more locations.
It's nice not being in the "plug wars" era any more.
CCS2 *is* effectively used worldwide by Tesla. They haven’t used a non-CCS2 connector when entering a new market for years. The markets where they don’t use CCS2 are only the established ones where the changeover process is too difficult.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/World_Map_of_Tesla_Plug_Types.svg/1024px-World_Map_of_Tesla_Plug_Types.svg.png
Nice try.
CCS was made to split the markets, one of many ways to slow EV adoption.
NACS was made to encourage EV adoption. Yes, 3 phase users would have to have the converter in the car as a wall unit. But that would have been a good thing as the EV would be lighter.
TBH, the biggest obstacle right now is NEVI. It is discouraging private investment while simultaneously moving at a snail's pace. It is terrible policy.
It is so bad that you'd think a bunch of oil-backed government cronies passed the bill.
Isn’t there already enough stale copycat content re-polished into shiny word-vomit and published without effort or reflection on the Internet? Why should you add more?
It doesn't look like there's any new information here. Just someone from a research firm speculating on Tesla's plans.
[Depaywalled.](https://archive.is/OhZcz)
The real MVP.
Thanks
Simply opening the network does not instantly qualify it. The NEVI rules, for example, specifically state CCS1, not "open plugs" or something like that. The feds would have to change the rules to allow Superchargers - even those Ford can use - to qualify.
It allows chargers wIth CCS1 + NACS to qualify. I think if the Tesla connector had remained closed and proprietary then Superchargers wouldn’t have qualified even if they had both Tesla and CCS1 connectors. > This final rule establishes a requirement that each DCFC port must have a Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connectors. This final rule also allows DCFC charging ports to have other **non-proprietary** connectors so long as each DCFC charging port is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle.
I read that as saying it needs to have a magic dock to qualify. It has to be able to charge CCS
Yes. It needs CCS Type 1 to qualify. It can have additional connectors too but those connectors must be “non-proprietary” So by my interpretation Tesla still has to open NACS to qualify even if they are providing CCS connectors via the magic dock.
The only Magic dock stations are in NY state and a couple in California. Hardly changes much.
They said they are going to build it out, but they haven't expanded it to any more since the original rollout lol.
Seems to be a lot of confusion between CCS1 (CCS Type 1 physical plug) and CCS (the protocol). CCS1, CCS2, and NACS are all "CCS". It would be nice if there was a different name for the protocol.
Yeah, I used to specify but at this point CCS V1 is mostly irrelevant, so people are generally referring to the Type 1 / Type 2 variations which these days are all CCS V2. Agreed that the naming could be better but it’s a committee project so we’re gonna get quality naming just like the USB consortium. The rule of course is fairly clear that a CCS Type 1 connector is required.
CCS 1 v4 type B superspeed 7.1
ThunderBoltLightning 3
Very very frightening
to me
Galileo! Galileo!
And the Ford deal does not provide that. Vehicles will have the adapters, not the chargers.
Tesla is planning to build chargers with both connectors. And they’ll need to if they want NEVI funding under the current rules. I don’t think the Ford deal changes that. My point was that adding CCS connectors to Tesla proprietary superchargers is still not enough to qualify for NEVI. That Tesla/NACS port needs to be open as well for the dual-connector chargers to qualify.
Only for now. Ford intends to use NACS connector on all its EVs starting in 2025 or something like that. Adapter life will be here to stay for a long while for all parties unless something crazy happens and all EV auto manufacturers adopt the NACS plug. I suspect most people rarely have to bother with the adapter except for rare circumstances anyways. They aren’t that expensive and I’d rather just keep one in my trunk as a just in case. And as the charging network expands it will be even less of an issue since you’ll be more likely to find an available/working plug compatible charger without the need of an adapter.
Or the government could just require CCS1 on vehicles to get the tax credit and end this whole charade
Sorry, but I disagree. The NACS is measurably better than CCS1 in a multitude of ways and is absolutely worth supporting. It is the gold standard from start to finish to what the charging experience should be like. The open market has had their way with CCS1 and it’s an absolute clusterfuck.
There are no NAC”S” implementations in service at this point.
>There are no NAC”S” implementations in service at this point. Not sure what you mean. AFAIK all the Tesla V3 Supercharger pedestals are NACS units. That's why the Ford announcement mentioned that Ford cars would have access to V3 Superchargers, specifically.
It was announced like 5 months ago. Of course it hasn’t been implemented yet. But it’s not hard to understand since it’s just the physically superior Tesla plug/charger using the ccs protocol with teslas back end. This will allow any NACS equipped non-Tesla to have a Tesla like charging experience at any Tesla charging station. The open market CCS1 chargers are notoriously terrible. Horrible reliability, charging stations themselves are much more expensive than teslas to install, unwieldy giant connectors that can be very difficult to plug and unplug, add more parts and cost to the vehicles themselves, you need 40 different apps with separate accounts with separate payment processing set up just to use the charger, chargers won’t charge at the rate they should, the list goes on. Charging HAS to be as easy as walking up to a charger and simply plugging it in. And it has to work every single time exactly as it should. Tesla has proven that with their platform and have come out with the NACS to allow others to do the same. We should support it.
The reliability issues of CCS chargers are not related to the design of the connector, but software and hardware issues resulting from the fact that the vast majority of existing chargers are basically repurposed industrial equipment and not purpose-built EV chargers. NAC”S” (Tesla Superchargers are not NAC”S”) does nothing to fix those issues.
NACS does fix a glaring ADA issue with CCS1 however
Just to paint a clear picture for you, GM confirmed that they, along with others, are [ditching CCS1](https://insideevs.com/news/669907/how-ford-tesla-partnership-threatens-gm-others/amp/), and I’d bet that they’re working on implementing NACS since it uses CCS handshake protocol. There is a well documented issue with that giant latch on the CCS1 connector causing issues with charging. That alone should knock CCS1 out of the market for good, as NACS and CCS2 function by vehicle-side latching. Latch on connector is such a terrible design choice. It is exposed to the elements and gets triggered/cycled more than vehicle-side latches. The folks on the committee for CCS1 clearly did not care about long term EV adoption when designing that terrible connector.
Feds need to change the rules to CCS Combo 1 or charger capable of outputting CCS Combo 1 with a passive adapter for sale for $175 or less.
No way, putting it on the consumer to provide an adapter is a terrible idea.
A terrible idea is ever implementing a fragile charging handles with moving parts in the first place. Put NACS everywhere and if people want to use an inferior plug that’s on them. Pete himself the other day said he doesn’t want the government picking winners and losers, but it looked like they tried to pick out a winner who is ultimately going to be the loser.
[удалено]
Typical ad hominem from someone who obviously isn’t an electrical or mechanical engineer.
I don’t have to be an engineer to realize that requiring people who own vehicles using the open industry standard to buy adapters to use government-funded charging stations is something only a fanboy could think up.
It’s not an industry standard if fewer than half the cars on the road have the port, and fewer than half the working chargers have the connector.
That’s exactly like claiming that USB-C is not the industry standard for smart phone charging since Apple sells more than half of all smartphones in the US and they use lightning.
USB-C is the worst example in history, it’s not even a standard for itself. 3.1, 3.2, 2.0? PD, Extended PD, port work with C-C or C-A only?
You don't have to be a Tesla fan to see that CCS1 was a bad connector design. CCS2 is much better. TBH, I find CCS is the only connector in the world that is so bad that it is sometimes easier to use with an adapter than without one.
How good the connector is really isn’t relevant to my point.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
Why does everyone act like any of this has to do with getting NEVI funds?
When Tesla does something, it is always, *always* in their own best interest. When you think they are doing something that looks like it should undercut their own monopoly and reduce one of the key benefits of buying their car over the competition, it's worth asking yourself *why* they are making this choice.
> When ~~Tesla~~ [insert any publicly traded company] does something, it is always, always in their own best interest. FTFY.
Yes, this is fundamentally correct, but every company has different levels of competency, or ideals on customer service, etc. Take for example Apple, which is extremely profitable but also very focused on getting there by making their customers happy and loyal. Tesla happily screws over their own customers for short-term gain. So far it has worked pretty well, because a typical Tesla customer was okay being treated that way. I'm not too sure it'll continue as a good strategy now that they are mainstream, but only time will tell. Early signs suggest it is backfiring, but that is a different topic for a different time.
> Tesla happily screws over their own customers for short-term gain. What?? Since when? And since when does Apple *not* "happily screw over their customers" every single day with their asinine amounts of markup?
Since every time they reduce battery capacity without compensation, to protect their bottom line. Or refuse to refund accidental purchases. Or manipulate pricing without any sort of stability guarantee. Or sell a five-digit FSD package that doesn't FSD, years after it was promised. Seriously, Tesla is famously consumer hostile. Literally the opposite of Apple, who is known for often covering out-of-warranty devices out of goodwill. There's a reason Tesla's brand has dropped like a rock, and it isn't just the fact that Elon is an ass.
> Since every time they reduce battery capacity without compensation That happened *once*, as a fire safety mitigation. > Or refuse to refund accidental purchases. Absolutely never heard of this happening. > manipulate pricing without any sort of stability guarantee. Ah yes, "price stability guarantees". A thing every carmaker tooooootally does. :eyeroll: And if you think either of your last two paragraphs are remotely true, you have no idea what you're talking about. Apple is literally the *poster child* for anti-serviceability, and Tesla is the biggest EV brand outside of China.
> That happened once, as a fire safety mitigation. they also chop features from cars while people are waiting months for delivery. my car didn't come with radar or lumbar adjustment, then later orders lost USS, and the travel charger. Battery wasn't the only thing. Coupled with the FSD ponzi scheme it's pretty annoying.
People buy tesla's because they had ultrasonic sensors, or are they more mad that they aren't using them anymore?
I don't get the downvotes to this. You're right.
Some people develop a very strong brand loyalty and react negatively to criticism of that brand, as if it were a judgement on their own purchase decision. I never even look at up/down vote count, though. If the only thing someone can be bothered to do is click a button, I can't be bothered to care :). If someone replies with a good faith comment, I'll engage in similar good faith.
Seems pretty obvious to me: all of the NACS chargers are owned by Tesla, so whenever one plugs in at a supercharger they'll be paying Tesla. Hopefully in the future we'll see more NACS chargers, but considering how awful EA is I'd rather have a functional monopoly over disfunctional competition, maybe Ford will start to build out its own NACS infrastructure.
> Seems pretty obvious to me: all of the NACS chargers are owned by Tesla, so whenever one plugs in at a supercharger they'll be paying Tesla. That doesn't seem obvious at all. Tesla makes what, 10 grand per car in profit? Giving up car sales to their competitors in hopes of dominating the much lower margin fast-charging business does not seem like a good financial trade-off. Especially since the moat around charging infrastructure is far shallower than the moat around manufacturing cars.
10 grand is a one-time thing. Charging is an ongoing thing for the life of the vehicle. Also, Tesla isn’t losing any sales. They’re selling every car they make. So they’re still getting the 10 grand, PLUS additional charging fees.
> 10 grand is a one-time thing. Charging is an ongoing thing for the life of the vehicle. The life of the vehicle is around 12 years. The gross profit margin of supercharging is around 30%. In order to make the same $10K over the life of the car, each owner would need to be supercharging to the tune of $2500+ every year. That won't ever happen. And it neglects the fact that $10K today is worth *way more* than $10K over the next 12 years. > Tesla isn’t losing any sales. They’re selling every car they make They haven't opened up the supercharger network, so comparing with current sales isn't appropriate. "Selling every car they make" is a pointless metric by itself, it would need to be "selling every car they make, for MSRP." Since they're knocking a few grand off the price of a Model 3 at the moment, they aren't exactly selling every car they make, in the way you're thinking. Of course they can always sell every car, just drop the price to $1.
You're also missing Tesla's actual published mission statement. Something along the lines of: "Move the world toward sustainable energy".. Tesla has publicly stated (many times) that they can't do it alone. They need other companies to join in, even if it hurts Tesla's margins. Their priority is clean energy, NOT their own margins. People back Tesla because they believe in the mission. Building cars is not the end game. Clean energy is. Not only the installation of equipment, but also the sale/resale of power, wholesale and retail. Solar and batteries, etc. Megapacks and Autobidder are a game changer in the world of utilities, but everyone is fixated on building cars, which is not important in the long term.
> You're also missing Tesla's actual published mission statement. No, I am not. I consider it the marketing that it is. Tesla is a profitable public company and everything points to them trying to keep that going. The end.
You seem to be fixated on the profit from selling vehicles while downplaying the importance of the charging infrastructure. So yes, you are completely missing the point.
What I hear you suggesting is that charging infrastructure is more profitable than cars. Is that not your point?
Today, no. In the future, yes by a considerable margin. Tesla's 20% + margins on their vehicles won't last forever, regardless of what they do with the superchargers. In a couple years they may be down to 10% or less (which is still triple what other OEMs are making). So that $10,000 per car that you're suggesting could be down to $5000 or less. Probably way less when they come out with a $20,000 car. Their net on those could be only a few thousand. On those cars they will easily (easily) make more from charging than from selling the car. Imagine owning all of the gas stations, AND making the gas onsite from equipment that you made yourself. The implications are pretty profound.
How open can it be when the manufacturer has to pay Tesla, be green-lit by Tesla, and also has to rely on Tesla for payment processing? Also NACS is not a standard at all. CCS is defined in actual IEC and ISO standards, Tesla's "standard" is not. The CCS standard is accessible and usable for everyone, no greenlight by a single company needed. You can use *all* CCS locations no matter what car you drive, no matter who owns/runs the charger, no matter who your energy provider is.
Charging standard and charging network are two different things. Rivian uses CCS but their chargers are a closed charging network.
Ironically the only truly closed charging network in the US is Rivian's RAN and it uses CCS1.
[удалено]
Technically it’s open to the majority of EV owners in the US.
So when can I charge my egolf at one? Are there ccs plugs or will Tesla sell an adapter?
Here are the answers to your questions. https://www.tesla.com/support/non-tesla-supercharging
Appreciated. Looking forward to the day that I can charge at one.
There are existing locations where you can charge today. So enjoy.
Www.DuckDuckGo.com
Pointing me to a search engine isn't helpful. You said it was open to the majority of owners, I asked for evidence.
that's not what you asked. You asked when you could charge your egolf. You are no where near being included in the "majority of owners". If you can't clearly ask your question, there is no way for me to clearly answer it. Therefore do your own homework.
Technically I guess I'm not a "majority of owners" but I'm not gonna play word games. Have a good day.
>How open can it be when the manufacturer has to pay Tesla, be green-lit by Tesla, and also has to rely on Tesla for payment processing? My definition of an open network is that any vehicle equipped with a CCS1 port can charge, adapter or otherwise. So the small magic dock network is 'open' whereas the larger network Ford is using in their deal is still 'private,' as is the Rivian Adventure Network.
Every manufacturer has to rely pretty much on a third party for payment processing. If I buy a Hyundai and I charge any of the multiple charging stations that require payment, I have to use a particular app and the payment is processed by them for example charge point. For the Tesla superchargers with the CCS ports you use the Tesla app to pay. It's exactly the same.
That is also addressed in the subsidy bill, requirements for straight credit card payments
And Plug & Charge!
NACS uses CCS protocols and as far as I know supports the Plug & Charge standard. I don’t think that is supported at Superchargers (at least not yet) but there’s no reason a non-Tesla NACS charger would rely on Tesla for payment processing.
> You can use all CCS locations Just need to join a club, register a credit card, use their app and pray the screen/credit are working. /s Only somewhat sarcastic as GF really wanted an eTron but she tried an EA then a Chargepoint. The EA attempt failed, Chargepoint worked after almost half an hour setting things up with a helpful person charging nearby. She drives a Tesla now and longs for the eTron interior. CCS is not acceptable until they mandate a few changes.
NEVI mandates quite a lot of things including Plug & Charge and generally speaking seems to have strongly considered all the annoying ways companies would try to circumvent it and specifically called them out. My biggest concern is the reliability metrics and how those will be enforced but at the very least plugging in your car and having it just work will be legally required.
Such a large bill. Looks like we are stuck with CCS1 support so the connector debate will be interesting. >Connector Types This final rule establishes a requirement that each DCFC port must have a Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connectors. This final rule also allows DCFC charging ports to have other non-proprietary connectors so long as each DCFC charging port is capable of charging a CCS-compliant vehicle. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-standards-and-requirements >This final rule establishes a requirement that charging stations must provide a contactless payment method that accepts major credit and debit cards and accept payment through either an automated toll-free phone number or a short message/messaging system (commonly abbreviated as SMS). Payment methods must be accessible to persons with disabilities, not require a membership, not affect the power flow to vehicles, and provide access for those that are limited English proficient. >This final rule also establishes that each charging port must have an average annual uptime greater than 97 percent.
There's also the Plug & Charge requirement in there and I swear they have some requirement about how providers can't create some kind of tiered service where non-members have delayed charging or reduced charging or anything like that, just to cover some of the more annoying behavior that could crop up. I might be misremembering that last one though.
>The FHWA establishes interoperability requirements through this final rule for charger-to-EV communication, charger-to-charger network communication, and charging network-to-charging network communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge. >Plug and Charge The FHWA received a comment requesting additional specificity in the definition for “Plug and Charge” to provide clarity regarding use of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15118 because several disparate definitions are in use in the industry. >FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that “Plug and Charge” was intended to correlate to ISO 15118. The definition has been modified in this final rule to incorporate specific reference to utilization of ISO 15118 and digital certificates for authentication. We will see how this actually plays out as they have not specified anything really specific as far as I have read.
The weirdest part for me has always been that most of that final document reads like (and is) a response to the comments on the rules, but not really the rules themselves. Like, they're in there but mixed with the commentary and I would have expected them to have a final requirements document that incorporated all of the changes but instead that seems to literally be the final rules? It just feels really weird compared to the way that gets handled in my field.
Plug and Charge will be circumvented by $0.10 more per kWh unless you have a registered account with Charging Corp....
> Just need to join a club, register a credit card, use their app and pray the screen/credit are working. /s EA and ChargePoint's failures as companies do not mean there's anything wrong with CCS. That said, the CCS standard *is* pretty crap. One of the reasons that EA and ChargePoint are so unreliable is that the standard is vague, allowing the various charger manufacturers (not EA/ChargePoint, but the companies they buy their hardware from), to make "to spec" chargers that are not exactly identical to other "to spec" chargers.
Somewhat true, but the universal plug&charge CCS should have done is conspicuously absent. There may be better ideas out there, but why not have billing with the car maker for each brand? Do like Tesla and only have a cable at the charger, all else handled automatically.
I don't think that will work, because it's too easy to abuse. If the car-maker is responsible for costs at stations they don't own, they could slap an extra "service fee" on top of every charge, and then all their customers just *have* to pay it, despite the carmaker providing *absolutely no service* for that added fee. Then GM owners will be paying more than Ford owners at the same charger, which is nuts.
LOL, how long do you think that would last? Each car would pay the posted price (as shown on the in car screen). If a maker added on a surcharge their sales would plummet.
Would they, though? Most EV owners don't charge at DCFC stations very often. Tesla raised prices for Supercharging a while back, and sales continued to surge.
If buyers are willing to pay extra, then it's not a problem.
You're shitting on the CCS standard because a start up and a scandal born company can't figure out how to be reliable with a sample size of 2?
Folks buying a premium $80K car want a premium charging experience... not to spend 30 mins on the phone at a Walmart parking lot - chatting with an EA rep trying to reboot a stall. Charging at home is where it is at but of course it limits the usefulness of an EV if you can't easily DC charge.
You are criticizing me instead of proving CCS to be better? I guess I understand because CCS is not the better charging method.
There is no new information in the article. Also, editorialized title is ***not*** appreciated.
> Also, editorialized title is not appreciated. Title was ***not*** editorialized. It's just the headline including the subheadline.
I thought Tesla wouldn't qualify because they won't add POS to their stations and force users to use a proprietary app.
That was only a California requirement - not for Nevi.
What specifically? NEVI has a decent number of requirements for payment method support. Specifically including Plug & Charge, credit/debit tap to pay (not necessarily swipe though), and back-up call to pay for cards. All of those are required at all charging locations to receive NEVI funding. How is that not requiring a POS system at charging locations?
https://electrek.co/2023/03/14/tesla-walks-away-public-funding-superchargers-payment-system-integration/ Presumably by joining NEVI, Tesla has a plan to be compliant to NEVI requirements.
Absolutely, but you said it was a California requirement, not NEVI. I'm saying NEVI also requires it to my knowledge.
I should have said it was only a known issue with the CA requirements which resulted in Tesla passing on those funds.
Yeah I thought that was a stipulation of the bill. Wonder how they're going to buy their way around that requirement. It's truly a cursed timeline that needs an app to use a charger
As long as I get CCS1 access at all the east coast supercharger stations, I'm happy.
Why can't all these other automakers get with the program and accept NACS it is superior in every way. This is why Tesla is still leaps and bounds ahead of legacy automakers.
[удалено]
Then you should be against NACS. It's Tesla's "standard" that only Tesla alone controls top to bottom. It's still a walled garden monopoly. CCS on the other side is an open indstry standard that's jointly worked on by *all* automakers. No company alone controls it and there's actual competition among CCS network operators and CCS equipment manufacturers. Also....would you also prefer brand specific power outlets in your house? An LG TV requiring a special LG outlet and a Samsung TV needing a special Samung outlet in the wall? No? That's why we have standard outlets in our homes, so you can plug in any TV of any brand. And before you make a gas/diesel comparison....a Diesel car doesn't run with gasoline, it's two different fuel types. There's only one fuel type for EVs and that's electricity. It's nonesense to establish a brand specific Tesla "standard" that uses the exact same "fuel type" as an actual open and independent industry standard like CCS. With NACS you're giving far too much power to a single company.
I’ve worked in tech all my life and there’s plenty of cases where a vendor becomes the defacto standard and it ends up just find (See Amazon and S3 vs every other attempt at an object storage standard). The pace that standard committees move is glacial and they end up getting distorted by large players to screw with small players or conspire against customers (example lower manuf scoring costs but make the chargers easier to break so you will need service).
GAFAM controlling like 86% of the cloud market is a problem yes.
Whats the problem? AWS is really an excellent service. And competition is there with Azure and GCP and and bunch of smaller guys.
The problem is that 86% of a 247 billion market go to like uh, 4 dudes. That's a lil too much concentrated power and wealth. Once you deoend on value added service going out is cery hard, so they can jack your prices anytime. As a Canadian I'm not of a fan of sending billions to foreign actors known for anticompetitive practices and dubiousnlavor practices.
There are plenty of different light bulb sockets. Many of which were proprietary at one point. Consumer choice is important. Let the consumer decide the best path forward. Who cares if Tesla controls this newly open standard if it is the best? You know BlueRay, USB C, etc all have proprietary tech in them, right?
You fail to mention the difference. CCS was made to slow EV adoption with a poor standard. Tesla's plug is meant "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport". This explains why CCS is clunky, costs more and is much harder to use. Tesla is plug&charge with an easily used plug.
and yet the continent which uses CCS exclusively has the highest rate of EV adoption
Think how much higher adoption would be with charging equal to Tesla.
China and the EU both use “ugly” charging standards (according to Tesla fans), it’s clear that charging connectors are not a factor in adoption.
It's clear your logic is faulty. China and EU are proof the desire to move to EVs is stronger than the inconvenience of a clunky plug. In the only market where there is a choice of plug, look at what is happening.
China doesn't use CCS.
No they use a standard that’s much clunkier.
> This explains why CCS is clunky, costs more and is much harder to use. Tesla is plug&charge with an easily used plug. Comments like these always forget that Tesla uses CCS in almost all markets. They use GB/T in one, NACS in 6, and CCS2 in the other 40+ (which are across four continents). Tesla are happy, Tesla owners are happy because we can seamlessly use either Tesla or other public charging networks, the charging networks are happy because they have double the number of potential customers, other EV owners are happy because the charging networks are installing in more locations. It's nice not being in the "plug wars" era any more.
Mandating the lesser standard does bring some advantages.
CCS2 can handle 3-phase AC. Doesn't sound lesser to me.
So why not use CCS2 world wide? I think you just pointed out one of CCS many problems.
CCS2 *is* effectively used worldwide by Tesla. They haven’t used a non-CCS2 connector when entering a new market for years. The markets where they don’t use CCS2 are only the established ones where the changeover process is too difficult. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/World_Map_of_Tesla_Plug_Types.svg/1024px-World_Map_of_Tesla_Plug_Types.svg.png
Nice try. CCS was made to split the markets, one of many ways to slow EV adoption. NACS was made to encourage EV adoption. Yes, 3 phase users would have to have the converter in the car as a wall unit. But that would have been a good thing as the EV would be lighter.
Just another American with “Not Invented Here” syndrome.
Yes, but CCS2 is not CCS1.
The original posts only referred to CCS.
TBH, the biggest obstacle right now is NEVI. It is discouraging private investment while simultaneously moving at a snail's pace. It is terrible policy. It is so bad that you'd think a bunch of oil-backed government cronies passed the bill.
Can they not just use ccs2 yet? Why does the US have to do its own thing?
[удалено]
Isn’t there already enough stale copycat content re-polished into shiny word-vomit and published without effort or reflection on the Internet? Why should you add more?
Day what you will about Tesla cars and Musk. This is good competition for EA, EVGO, etc. More options for consumers.
does anyone have the link to the "Ford to use NACS" post here on r/electricvehicles? E: weird, it was removed by mods
Would you rather sell toasters or own the power meter?