Top 5 Reasons Switching to a Tesla Dominated NACS Standard is a Colossal Mistake for the Consumer

[COdogman]

Nobody wants to use NACS because it's better, they want to use NACS to make a deal with Tesla for Supercharger access. NACS without supercharger access is pointless because all the 3rd-party chargers will still be the same unreliable mess.

Agree 100%. And before we automatically assume this will be the easiest and bestest transition ever, Tesla now has to run a network for multiple manufacturers, not the same walled garden they have up to this point. Things just got much more complicated for them. They are certainly capable, but it won't be as easy as it has been.

Sponsored

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Agree 100%. And before we automatically assume this will be the easiest and bestest transition ever, Tesla now has to run a network for multiple manufacturers, not the same walled garden they have up to this point. Things just got much more complicated for them. They are certainly capable, but it won't be as easy as it has been.

Maybe, maybe not. You or I don't really know what the closed door agreements say and they could have a certain software communication protocol mandated for each OEM to talk to Tesla. Something made by Tesla or made in collaboration so that the vehicle software will talk to the chargers in the same way native Tesla software does.

Then there's no reason to believe it won't work just as well as it does for Tesla. That's the one benefit to a company controlling all the hardware everyone uses, especially in areas where there is no standard like EVs that are really in the Wild West of adoption and standardization. Look at the difference between Apple and Android. Android is open and you can change it and do whatever you want with it. You can also use whatever accessories will plug into it, even ones that will torch your phone or tablet.

Apple is locked down and restricted but all their stuff works out of the box with very little setup from the end user. Same with any software on their App Store, it meets minimum requirements and therefore works pretty well. You give up some choice in software and accessories but gain a seamless experience. I for one happily make this trade as computers are not something I need to get into the intricacies of and I just want it to work. I don't see the superchargers being any different than Apple in this scenario and if I was Tesla all those closed door agreements mandate certain communication standards to make a seamless function with their chargers.

 

[NY_Rob]

Say Tesla opens their SC network to all, and it's all good for a couple years then one day Elon poops green, gets in a mood and decides to restrict his SC network to only Tesla vehicles... well no big deal because all the other EV recharge stations will be using the NACS plug so just use those instead of Tesla's network.

if Elon does that then we will be back to the CCS vs. NACS debate all over again and that's what people are worried about with Elon in control of the "standard". He can change it anytime he wants.

This was simply a "what if " scenario, not something that I actually think would happen.. but even if it did happen.. why would it go back to a "CCS vs. NACS debate all over again"? In a few years every charge station in the US will probably be using the NACS plug so all you would be losing is access to Tesla's network, all the other 1,000's of non-Tesla owned stations using NACS connectors would still work with your vehicle.

 

[COdogman]

Maybe, maybe not. You or I don't really know what the closed door agreements say and they could have a certain software communication protocol mandated for each OEM to talk to Tesla. Something made by Tesla or made in collaboration so that the vehicle software will talk to the chargers in the same way native Tesla software does.

Then there's no reason to believe it won't work just as well as it does for Tesla. That's the one benefit to a company controlling all the hardware everyone uses, especially in areas where there is no standard like EVs that are really in the Wild West of adoption and standardization. Look at the difference between Apple and Android. Android is open and you can change it and do whatever you want with it. You can also use whatever accessories will plug into it, even ones that will torch your phone or tablet.

Apple is locked down and restricted but all their stuff works out of the box with very little setup from the end user. Same with any software on their App Store, it meets minimum requirements and therefore works pretty well. You give up some choice in software and accessories but gain a seamless experience. I for one happily make this trade as computers are not something I need to get into the intricacies of and I just want it to work. I don't see the superchargers being any different than Apple in this scenario and if I was Tesla all those closed door agreements mandate certain communication standards to make a seamless function with their chargers.

I agree with that. There isn't much reason to believe they won't get it right. But I'm one of those "I believe it when I see it" types

 

[s4wrxttcs]

100% agreed!

Maybe people should think of it this way...
All 120V household outlets in USA are the same style/standard configuration... but just because your devices can plug in to that outlet does not mean you have permission to go plug in your loads to your neighbors 120V outlets without their consent. If everyone converts to the NACS connector, fine.. but you still need permission from the system's owner to use their equipment.

Say Tesla opens their SC network to all, and it's all good for a couple years then one day Elon poops green, gets in a mood and decides to restrict his SC network to only Tesla vehicles... well no big deal because all the other EV recharge stations will be using the NACS plug so just use those instead of Tesla's network.

I think the biggest contention is over how various people interpret the unknowns.

Someone like me see's Elon has this huge liability because he is an irrational person with no ethical or moral backbone. I would never sign any kind of agreement with a company he has control over. He'll just stab you in the back the second you get comfortable.

Other people will either view him more favorable or won't really know the dangers. His fan base truly believes that he will do what it takes to transition us to sustainable transportation.

Then there is a single sole who believe this whole thing is stunt. I like their perspective simply because its unique.

 

[SASSquatch]

Agree 100%. And before we automatically assume this will be the easiest and bestest transition ever, Tesla now has to run a network for multiple manufacturers, not the same walled garden they have up to this point. Things just got much more complicated for them. They are certainly capable, but it won't be as easy as it has been.

Somebody, anybody, pay these men!

 

[emoore]

This was simply a "what if " scenario, not something that I actually think would happen.. but even if it did happen.. why would it go back to a "CCS vs. NACS debate all over again"? In a few years every charge station in the US will probably be using the NACS plug so all you would be losing is access to Tesla's network, all the other 1,000's of non-Tesla owned stations using NACS connectors would still work with your vehicle.

Because it's not the connector that make the charging network reliable, it's the operators. Tesla could be using CCS and it would be just as reliable as NACS. And if EA offers NACS but doesn't improve reliability then it will be the same Tesla vs. everyone else as it is today.

 

[SASSquatch]

Because it's not the connector that make the charging network reliable, it's the operators. Tesla could be using CCS and it would be just as reliable as NACS. And if EA offers NACS but doesn't improve reliability then it will be the same Tesla vs. everyone else as it is today.

Pay the man!

 

[MP3Mike]

Rivian ISN"T giving up on RAN or CCS. They are building out RAN for the next few years with CCS before even considring switching or adding NACS.

Not exactly true. RJ has already considered adding NACS and decided that they will add NACS connectors to the RAN: https://www.reuters.com/business/au...an-adopt-teslas-charging-standard-2023-06-20/

Scaringe said Rivian's network will also adopt Tesla's standard plugs, opening up a significant revenue stream from Tesla owners using Rivian chargers. "The network will actually become cash flow positive fairly quickly," he said.

He just didn't say when they would start adding the NACS connector, but it sounds like he really wants Tesla owners to use it, so the sooner the better. (But I could imagine that they eventually leave CCS off.)

3.) All new infrastructure from the 5 billion dollars from the federal government must include CCS. Does that register for you? The other OEMS see that as a powerful incentive to not get in bed with Elon Musk because the future infrastructure must and will include CCS.

And Texas has added a rule that all state/NEVI funds spent on chargers has to include a NACS connector along with CCS. I imagine other states will do the same thing. And even if they don't the people installing the chargers will probably want to put NACS connectors paired with CCS anyhow.

It will be interesting to see how many other OEMs make the switch. I expect most, if not all of them will over the next year or two. (The VW group may be a holdout given their ownership/investment in EA, not that that makes any sense.)

 

[MP3Mike]

And before we automatically assume this will be the easiest and bestest transition ever, Tesla now has to run a network for multiple manufacturers, not the same walled garden they have up to this point.

Tesla has been running an open network for years in Europe. So they have plenty of experience supporting non-Teslas. But that probably doesn't matter for Ford, GM, and Rivian where Tesla will be working with them directly on the implementation for billing, etc.

 

[MP3Mike]

It appears just about everyone, automakers included, want to get their fingers in the details of the process of making NACS an official standard:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charin-e.v._charin-ccs-mcs-activity-7077308863091257344-NJad

Of course, one important, and one not so important, company are missing from the current list...

The question is why do they want to be involved? Do they want to speed it up so they can make the switch? Are they trying to slow it down?

 

[SASSquatch]

Not exactly true. RJ has already considered adding NACS and decided that they will add NACS connectors to the RAN: https://www.reuters.com/business/au...an-adopt-teslas-charging-standard-2023-06-20/



He just didn't say when they would start adding the NACS connector, but it sounds like he really wants Tesla owners to use it, so the sooner the better. (But I could imagine that they eventually leave CCS off.)



And Texas has added a rule that all state/NEVI funds spent on chargers has to include a NACS connector along with CCS. I imagine other states will do the same thing. And even if they don't the people installing the chargers will probably want to put NACS connectors paired with CCS anyhow.

It will be interesting to see how many other OEMs make the switch. I expect most, if not all of them will over the next year or two. (The VW group may be a holdout given their ownership/investment in EA, not that that makes any sense.)

Your post says nothing. I didn't say RJ wouldn't add NACS to RAN - but rather RAN will be built out with CCS for the next few years to meet the demand of 10's of thousands of Rivians already on the road with CCS.

What does it matter what Texas decides? The federal government has mandated CCS to be on all infrastructure as part of the $5 Billion Fast Charger Roll Out.

My points are counterpoints to the gleefully ignorant on this board declaring "CCS Dead." CCS isn't going anywhere simply as a matter of serving the millions of CCS vehicles on road by 2025.

 

[MP3Mike]

Your post says nothing. I didn't say RJ wouldn't add NACS to RAN - but rather RAN will be built out with CCS for the next few years to meet the demand of 10's of thousands of Rivians already on the road with CCS.

Of course what I posted says something; it points out that you make stuff up, and then try to cover it up when called out on it. (Or maybe you just really suck at expressing what you really mean in written words?)

This is what you said:

Rivian ISN"T giving up on RAN or CCS. They are building out RAN for the next few years with CCS before even considring switching or adding NACS.

But the fact is that they have already considered adding NACS, and in fact have decided they will. (So, what you stated is factually wrong.)

 

[SASSquatch]

Of course what I posted says something; it points out that you make stuff up, and then try to cover it up when called out on it. (Or maybe you just really suck at expressing what you really mean in written words?)

This is what you said:



But the fact is that they have already considered adding NACS, and in fact have decided they will. (So, what you stated is factually wrong.)

What are you talking about? Who's making stuff up?

What does "considering adding NACS" mean? They are building out CCS until at a minimum they implement NACS in their R2 which isn't happening until 2025.

They aren't going to EXCLUDE CCS. That would be insanity. You understand - maybe you don't - they already have 10's of thousands of Rivians on the road, and likely will have hundreds of thousands of Rivians on the road by 2025 - all CCS, right?

 

[MP3Mike]

What does "considering adding NACS" mean?

Really, you use words that you don't know what they mean? I guess I can help by providing a link to a dictionary/definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consider

1: to think about carefully: such as
a: to think of especially with regard to taking some action
is considering you for the job

considered moving to the city

b: to take into account
The defendant's age must be considered.

2: to regard or treat in an attentive or kindly way
He considered her every wish.

3: to gaze on steadily or reflectively
The old gentleman considered him attentively.—Edith Wharton

4: to come to judge or classify
consider thrift essential

5: REGARD
His works are well considered abroad.

6: SUPPOSE
I consider it's best that he left when he did.

It sure seems like they had to have considered it, according to the first definition, to make the decision/announcement that they were going to deploy NACS alongside CCS on the RAN. But maybe you don't think Rivian's management is very good, so they didn't think about it carefully, they just blurted out that they are going to add NACS without any thought?

They are building out CCS until at a minimum they implement NACS in their R2 which isn't happening until 2025.

I guess that cements that you don't think their management is very good. As that would be silly. They really should install NACS on the RAN before they start shipping R2s. So, they really shouldn't wait until 2025.

they already have 10's of thousands of Rivians on the road, and likely will have hundreds of thousands of Rivians on the road by 2025 - all CCS, right?

Highly unlikely that they have hundreds of thousands on the road by 2025. They have what ~30k now? And plan to have another ~30k this year, and ~50k next year? That gets you to ~110k... (I don't see it possible for them to deliver ~140k next year.)

Sponsored