GM adopts Tesla's NACS standard! Munro begs Rivian to switch

[COdogman]

Yes, I will admit that it is less user friendly - because there hasn't been a good enough effort to standardize to that standard.

Look at what the Europeans did. They forced a standard to CCS-2 and usability is quite good.

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I want to reiterate something again. I am not opposed to the NACS port. I am opposed to adopting a standard that one entity has dominant influence and control over.

I would have much rather have had Ford and GM say "Hey, we are going to adopt the NACS port - and we are going to spend our $$ helping third parties already in the development pipeline institute this as a standard"

Vs. what they actually said:

"We don't care about the consumer. We don't want this problem. It is way cheaper to pay a ransom to Elon Musk and conserve billions in cash so that he can deal with it how he wants."

People complain about the fact that the CCS charger is bulky. Is it any bulkier than an existing gasoline nozzle?

The user friendly aspect is because the experience Tesla offers to Tesla drivers is standardized. You will only get that when you use a Tesla run Supercharger - and then you don't even know what it will be like when you are dealing with a different OEM that just has the port. You are likely going to have to jump through some hoops.

Third party NACS machines will act like CCS machines of today - the experience isn't standardized because Tesla isn't running it. So to get the more user friendly experience you have to submit to using a Tesla run supercharger. That will push you towards Tesla and make competition very difficult.

GM has said recently they did not pay Tesla anything for this partnership, that it is their customers who will pay Tesla. That’s like being invited to the arena for the NBA finals and when you get there it’s actually the Roman coliseum and you‘re expected to fight a lion for your seat.

Yes, they increased the number of chargers their customers will have access to, but at what price? They took the lazy way out.

Sponsored

 

[TexasBob]

I’ll believe ccs is dead when EA or another charging company starts installing the Tesla plug.

Ecercharge just announced

It's not odd at all. Do you think Toyota, Honda, Subura, Dodge, Jeep, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Kia, VW, Audi, and Porsche aren't going to take larger and larger EV market share as fans of those brands finally decide to switch? EV market share is TINY compared to the overall auto market. Those manufacturers are titans in the industry. Your entire argument relies on Tesla continuing to sell 60+% of all EVs sold in the US. If you believe that's going to happen, I've got a seat on a ship to Mars leaving next year that I'd like to sell you.

The next few weeks will tell the tale, but I disagree. All the brands you listed come down to a handful of companies so let's review each.

1) Stellantis - the dutch/french company that owns Jeep / Dodge / Ram makes roughly zero EVs for the North American Market today. It is massively behind and has exactly nothing whatsoever to gain from adopting the CCS1 standard for its upcoming N.A. vehicles and everything to gain from adopting NACS (bigger, better charging experience, better hardware, better software integration).
2) Toyota - identical to Stellantis. Has no vehicles today everything to gain and nothing to lose from adopting NACS
3) Honda - It is going NACS like it or not. The only vehicle it has coming to market near term is built on a GM platform. It will be expensive and not worthwhile to fight GM on this and gain nothing whatsoever in return.
4) BMW - it does not really have a dog in this fight one way or another. It will go with the flow.

That leaves the only two companies who actually have a reason to support CCS1: VW and Hyundai.
1) Hyundai - has a vested interest in CCS1 because its home market (South Korea) is the only significant market outside N.A. that uses CCS1. It wants to keep CCS1.
2) VW Group (VW, Audi, Porsche) - has a vested interest in CCS1 because of its ownership of Electrify America. If the industry goes NACS, the VW takes it on the chin, and goes from being the market leading charging solution for non-Teslas to being propping up an unreliable, expensive, poorly performing network in need of a big capital upgrade.

So battle lines are drawn: Ford, Tesla, GM, and logically Honda, Stellantis versus VW and Hyundai with Toyota and BMW probably sitting on the sidelines.

 

[DuoRivians]

Boy, I've doubled the size of people to ignore permanently here! Probably a high correlation with people who bought blue checks on Twitter.

 

[SASSquatch]

GM has said recently they did not pay Tesla anything for this partnership, that it is their customers who will pay Tesla. That’s like being invited to the arena for the NBA finals and when you get there it’s actually the Roman coliseum and you‘re expected to fight a lion for your seat.

Yes, they increased the number of chargers their customers will have access to, but at what price? They took the lazy way out.

Interesting. Have they released the details of the partnership? Barra stated that the partnership would save them 400 million from the 750 million they were planning to spend.

GM isn't building superchargers, so I wonder where is the $350M going? Technically, GM may not be paying for the partnership, but they could paying for the buildout of the Supercharger network.

 

[MP3Mike]

I don't want his thoughts or preferences to dictate or influence what an entire industry does because he controls 100% of the NACS charging infrastructure.

But he won't control 100% of the NACS charging infrastructure.

There are a number of CPOs, and suppliers, that have recently announced that they will be supporting NACS: ABB, AmpUp, Autel, Blink, Circuit électrique, EverCharge, EVgo, EVPassport, FLO, and FreeWire. (More will likely announce at EVS36 which starts tomorrow.)

CPOs adding a NACS connector won't give them the same reliability as Tesla Superchargers. They can still have crappy chargers, crappy software, or spec/make crappy NACS connectors. So you will likely continue to get to experiencing crappy infrastructure even if it uses the NACS connector. (If Tesla sold connectors/cables that might make sure things would be better, but it doesn't sound like they are going to do that.)

 

[COdogman]

Interesting. Have they released the details of the partnership? Barra stated that the partnership would save them 400 million from the 750 million they were planning to spend.

GM isn't building superchargers, so I wonder where is the $350M going? Technically, GM may not be paying for the partnership, but they could paying for the buildout of the Supercharger network.

No real details yet, but it seems like they would just keep that money.

Financial details of the agreement between the two companies were not released Thursday, but GM spokesman Darryll Harrison said GM isn’t paying Tesla.

“Tesla will get better utilization of their network and all the new charging revenue, which will help them expand the network further,” Harrison said. “There are other opportunities both companies can take advantage of as a result of the agreement.”

https://fortune.com/2023/06/09/general-motors-cuts-deal-tesla-use-charging-network/

 

[NY_Rob]

Boy, I've doubled the size of people to ignore permanently here! Probably a high correlation with people who bought blue checks on Twitter.

With all the personal/nasty comments going back and forth in this thread, I was going to mention something about making use of the Ignore Feature. It's just not worth ruining your day battling with someone on the internet who may be arguing just to aggravate you.

 

[izgoy]

Realistically, why would Ford/GM adopt NACS if it weren’t for Supercharger access?

The only reason is for supercharger access

And yet, those two parts are not directly linked. If the NACS specification were opened from the get go, CCS1 would unlikely take root in the US (and Canada), as the NACS connector is so much better than the CCS1 connector.

 

[izgoy]

I ask again: And who will comprise of the NACS standards body?

And for the second time it goes grammatically incorrect.

 

[COdogman]

And yet, those two parts are not directly linked. If the NACS specification were opened from the get go, CCS1 would unlikely take root in the US (and Canada), as the NACS connector is so much better than the CCS1 connector.

Except that didn’t happen

 

[izgoy]

Except that didn’t happen

We all know that, but that doesn’t mean that the ability to equip an EV with a NACS receptacle in the charge port must come bundled with the access to the Tesla Supercharger network. These are two separate things.

If tomorrow EA announced that they will equip every stall with a NACS handle (in addition to the existing CCS1 handle), an EV manufacturer (say Fisker) could decide to change their charge port from the CCS1 receptacle to the NACS receptacle without making an agreement with Tesla to gain access to the Tesla Supercharger network.

Why would they do this? Because the NACS handle is so much easier to operate than the CCS1 handle, so even without access to the Tesla Supercharger network, there is a significant advantage to equipping an EV with the NACS charge-port receptacle.

 

[COdogman]

We all know that, but that doesn’t mean that the ability to equip an EV with a NACS receptacle in the charge port must come bundled with the access to the Tesla Supercharger network. These are two separate things.

If tomorrow EA announced that they will equip every stall with a NACS handle (in addition to the existing CCS1 handle), an EV manufacturer (say Fisker) could decide to change their charge port from the CCS1 receptacle to the NACS receptacle without making an agreement with Tesla to gain access to the Tesla Supercharger network.

Why would they do this? Because the NACS handle is so much easier to operate than the CCS1 handle, so even without access to the Tesla Supercharger network, there is a significant advantage to equipping an EV with the NACS charge-port receptacle.

I’m well aware of that.. And I honestly could care less about It. I only have a problem with those claiming CCS is dead and we should anoint Tesla’s plug the new “standard” in North America. That’s it. Otherwise I want as many chargers for everyone as possible.

 

[izgoy]

EVgo with NACS plug will charge any car that can accept it and provides simple payment. EVgo isn’t telling cars where their NACS plug receiver needs to be either.

Tesla Supercharger with NACS plug will not charge any car. Right now, as a result it is not an open standard here. If/when Tesla super chargers enable anyone to charge with simple payment method, eg could even mean downloading the Tesla app, then NACS could be an open standard here.

This makes zero sense. Rivian operates RAN, which is CCS1 based DC charging network that doesn’t allow access to any other brand. It’s doesn’t make CCS1 not an open standard.

 

[izgoy]

I wouldn't trust anything that CutTheLine Kyle has to say on this issue. Saying CCS is dead is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and I will believe it when I see it.

CCS is not dead. CCS1 is dead.

 

[SANZC02]

Everyone that seems to be able to see the future of CCS in the US can you use those clairvoyant skills and share next weeks winning lottery numbers? ?

Sponsored