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

[ohseedee]

1.) I'm sorry - Dozens is still dozens.

So I’m actually super curious, who are these dozens of OEMs with CCS commitments with no NACS announcements in North America you speak of? Dozens means more than 1 dozen, so at minimum there are 24 OEMs in North America committed to CCS and not NACS that you are aware of. Can you please list those out for us?

And since you said there are only 4 OEMs with NACS announcement (GM, Ford, Rivan, and Tesla) without including their sub-brands (e.g. GM counts for 1 in your 4 vs including Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, etc.) I’d expect the same rules apply to the 24+ OEMs you list (like VW Group would be 1 vs their many brands). If you do that, I’ll admit you are the king of super strong EV arguments and go away with my silly opinions and predictions.

Sponsored

 

[Joel]

Notice how Rivian said it was continuing to build out the RAN network and it would continue to provide CCS adapters to vehicles in the future.

For vehicles sold before 2025 model is what I read.

 

[Joel]

1.) I'm sorry - Dozens is still dozens. And guess what. The market you speak is the way it is because those dozens of OEMs haven't committed fully to EVs. Toyota has been the biggest vehicle producer by volume for eternity. They just released their first EV. They are late to the game, but they will make up ground - so will all the other OEMS.

Again, when your math actually works, come find me.

2.) CCS chargers outnumber NACS charging stations by a wide margin.

"As of June 21, 2023, there are 5,240 CCS1 charging station locations in the US, compared to 1,803 locations for the Tesla Superchargers.1 day ago

https://insideevs.com/news/673190/nacs-ccs1-locations-charging-standard-tesla/#:~:text=As of June 21, 2023,locations for the Tesla Superchargers.

Looking further into the report and one will notice that Tesla does out number CCS-1 by almost 2-1 when you count ports instead of locations. When traveling I find quantity in a location matters more as most are spaced on average range of EV.

This last trip from Virginia to Florida I wanted for a charger almost every time at EA. This was because most of the locations have 2-6 and of those 2 at each stop were 350’s with the rest at 150.

 

[Joel]

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.

That’s not completely true. I would much rather have the connector. Access to the Supercharger network is a bonus. I fully expect there to be a 10-20% up charge for “non-members” which is similar to what all the other charging companies do in a monthly subscription. One difference could be with the supercharger network in order to get a discount one would have to own a Tesla.

Additionally, NACS connector is much better in ADA compliance than CCS-1.

 

[ohseedee]

Looking further into the report and one will notice that Tesla does out number CCS-1 by almost 2-1 when you count ports instead of locations. When traveling I find quantity in a location matters more as most are spaced on average range of EV.

This last trip from Virginia to Florida I wanted for a charger almost every time at EA. This was because most of the locations have 2-6 and of those 2 at each stop were 350’s with the rest at 150.

Exactly. Like why would it matter that the 2 EAs within 5 miles of each other have 3 stalls each vs a Tesla SC in the middle with 20 stalls. Who would want to go sit and wait at the EA? OP keeps quoting numbers that he thinks proves his point, but only does the opposite. Like says 4 OEMs are on NACS vs dozens (they dont exist, but whatever) on CCS without noting that those 4 make up ~73% of the market. Quotes number of locations vs number of chargers. In another thread noted the number of CCS vs NACS world wide (because all of us care what Europe uses). Next OP is probably going to take advantage of how slim NACS is and give us the total weight in tons for all CCS vs all NACS chargers to prove CCS is winning. The only numbers that matter are, how many NACS chargers vs CCS exist and how many EVs will be built with NACS vs CCS.

 

[Joel]

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.

What would happen if CharIn and the standards body caved and NACS (Tesla connector) became CCS-3?

Additionally, this same NACS connector is already doing 1MW and somewhere near 1000v in the V4 chargers. The V4 chargers is what is being used at Pepsi and other places along the Tesla Semi route. I think Telsa with be rolling out V4 chargers fast as I fully expect the Cybertruck to charge at this level.

 

[Joel]

Exactly. Like why would it matter that the 2 EAs within 5 miles of each other have 3 stalls each vs a Tesla SC in the middle with 20 stalls. Who would want to go sit and wait at the EA? OP keeps quoting numbers that he thinks proves his point, but only does the opposite. Like says 4 OEMs are on NACS vs dozens (they dont exist, but whatever) on CCS without noting that those 4 make up ~73% of the market. Quotes number of locations vs number of chargers. In another thread noted the number of CCS vs NACS world wide (because all of us care what Europe uses). Next OP is probably going to take advantage of how slim NACS is and give us the total weight in tons for all CCS vs all NACS chargers to prove CCS is winning. The only numbers that matter are, how many NACS chargers vs CCS exist and how many EVs will be built with NACS vs CCS.

Also, at the rate the CCS-1 cables get damaged one could assume the next time they have to replace the cable and connector they could change it to NACS. Those third party sites could slow play the remaining stations until either everyone has an adapter and or OEMs have changed all cars. Then swap the other remaining stations at each location over to NACS to complete the cycle.

 

[SASSquatch]

So I’m actually super curious, who are these dozens of OEMs with CCS commitments with no NACS announcements in North America you speak of? Dozens means more than 1 dozen, so at minimum there are 24 OEMs in North America committed to CCS and not NACS that you are aware of. Can you please list those out for us?

And since you said there are only 4 OEMs with NACS announcement (GM, Ford, Rivan, and Tesla) without including their sub-brands (e.g. GM counts for 1 in your 4 vs including Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, etc.) I’d expect the same rules apply to the 24+ OEMs you list (like VW Group would be 1 vs their many brands). If you do that, I’ll admit you are the king of super strong EV arguments and go away with my silly opinions and predictions.

My friend, I’m not your research intern. Google it.

 

[MP3Mike]

Again, what are you talking about? Oregon? WTF?

Rivian is planning to put MOST of their chargers along highways and roads. Obviously some will be in remote areas.

This is literally from the Rivian Website:

The Rivian Adventure Network of DC fast chargers is built for Rivian owners, making it easy to pull up and plug in without touching a button. We’re installing 3,500+ of these chargers at approximately 600 sites along popular routes and highways, to help you charge up and get back on the road, adding up to 140 miles of range in 20 minutes.

https://rivian.com/experience/charging

I'm done beating this dead, uninformed horse.

Here's your sign...

Then if that is their plan, why aren't they applying for NEVI funding? Oh, right. Because they don't meet the requirements to qualify for it.

Even then, "along highways and roads" doesn't exactly mean their plan is along the specific corridors, AFCs, that have been identified for NEVI funding that don't already have compliant chargers. (Since you can't double up coverage using NEVI funds.)

But even their site covers part of the reason for not applying for NEVI funding:

Exclusively for Rivian owners

 

[SASSquatch]

Then if that is their plan, why aren't they applying for NEVI funding? Oh, right. Because they don't meet the requirements to qualify for it.

Even then, "along highways and roads" doesn't exactly mean their plan is along the specific corridors, AFCs, that have been identified for NEVI funding that don't already have compliant chargers. (Since you can't double up coverage using NEVI funds.)

But even their site covers part of the reason for not applying for NEVI funding:

I'm really getting tired of having to bat down your nonsense, and frankly - this thread has more than run its course so in the interest of moving on this is my last post.

"Even though Rivian’s network currently remains closed to drivers of other brands’ EVs, the automaker is planning on opening it to EVs by other manufacturers soon."

https://www.cars.com/articles/rivia...oviding-access-to-tesla-superchargers-467696/

 

[ohseedee]

My friend, I’m not your research intern. Google it.

I did before posting. I don't make claims without making sure I know what I’m talking about. Your claim of dozens of EV makers commited to CCS vs 4 with announcements on moving to NACS is obviously an extreme exaggeration.

EV sales through Q4 2022 (not dozens):
https://caredge.com/guides/electric-vehicle-market-share-and-sales

Next bold prediction: within 90 days 2 or more EV makers on that list above will also pivot to NACS.

You probably make some valid points. But when you make wild extreme statements or use numbers that skew reality (e.g. including world wide CCS vs NACS, including locations vs chargers, counting OEMs vs percent of market share) your valid points get lost.

 

[SASSquatch]

I did before posting. I don't make claims without making sure I know what I’m talking about. Your claim of dozens of EV makers commited to CCS vs 4 with announcements on moving to NACS is obviously an extreme exaggeration.

EV sales through Q4 2022 (not dozens):
https://caredge.com/guides/electric-vehicle-market-share-and-sales

Next bold prediction: within 90 days 2 or more EV makers on that list above will also pivot to NACS.

You probably make some valid points. But when you make wild extreme statements or use numbers that skew reality (e.g. including world wide CCS vs NACS, including locations vs chargers, counting OEMs vs percent of market share) your valid points get lost.

Seriously dude? Do I literally have to list every OEM other then GM, FORD, and Rivian for you? That is what Google is for.

Bold prediction: This thread has run its course. When the math works in your favor - please learn about math before responding to this post - please come back and gloat.

Until then, give it a rest.

 

[ohseedee]

I'm really getting tired of having to bat down your nonsense, and frankly - this thread has more than run its course so in the interest of moving on this is my last post.

 

[MP3Mike]

Seriously dude? Do I literally have to list every OEM other then GM, FORD, and Rivian for you? That is what Google is for.

No, if you want to make the claim, it is up to you to support it, assuming you want to be taken seriously, otherwise everyone will just assume you made it up/exaggerated, like you do for a lot of your claims.

 

[Longreach]

*sigh*

Some people really are on the wrong side of history…

The writing is on the wall, we’re irreversibly moving to NACS continent wide. Your only concern should be how you are going to get there for your specific individual case.

Nothing more to be said!

Sponsored