Tesla Charging cannot be the standard NA adopts to.

[Zorg]

Your arguments are all based on ignorance. The fact is still that Tesla has a patent on their connector that the other OEMs will have to license. The "SAE-NACS" connector will still be encumbered by this patent unless Tesla releases it. They have not done so yet.


Absolutely hilarious that you have this attitude and summarily dismiss my arguments as just being "anti-Elon".

Good day sir.

And yet somehow just about everyone is switching over. Quick, call RJ and explain his mistake to him... LoL

Pretty sure that all agreements to switch come with a perpetual license to use NACS. That's basic business.

Sponsored

 

[Dark-Fx]

Pretty sure that all agreements to switch come with a perpetual license to use NACS.

Let's see the agreements? Why have none of the companies signing on done this yet if they are so fair and reasonable? Will I be accused of more anti-Elon rhetoric by that other guy?

That's basic business

It's obvious there are a lot of complaints about the non-proprietary networks today. I could definitely see OEMs signing a several year agreement hoping that the industry catches up regardless of what Tesla does. Perpetual seems very unlikely from Tesla's standpoint (aren't they a business too?). Again, let's see these agreements.

I know, kind of an unfair argument since even "anti-anti-elon" arguers are probably interested in knowing the full details.

 

[SoCal Rob]

You lost me about halfway through ...

I could provide an even simpler example but you probably wouldn’t bother reading that, either. Let’s just agree that the issue is more complex than you care to understand and there are strategies which can be used by an unscrupulous person in a position of power to manipulate the availability of critical infrastructure.
Edit:typo

 

[SoCal Rob]

Tesla has also shown, especially this year, that they are not opposed to putting pressure on other vendors by slashing prices. If they come out too high and are losing market share they would adjust that.

This is exactly my concern but in slightly different words. Tesla is not opposed to putting pressure on other vendors when it suits them. If they are losing market share in car sales they could manipulate the desirability of competing EVs by making charging worse than if someone buys a Tesla.

Once Tesla sells cars (which they already do) AND they can control the largest network of EV fast charging for brands other than Tesla (which they cannot do today but will be able to do once non-Tesla vehicles can use Superchargers en masse) then Tesla can give themselves a competitive advantage in EV sales by manipulating the pricing and/or availability of Superchargers whenever it suits them. This would also have the effect of making the lives of existing owners of non-Tesla EVs costly, miserable, or both.

 

[DevSecOps]

This is exactly my concern but in slightly different words. Tesla is not opposed to putting pressure on other vendors when it suits them. If they are losing market share in car sales they could manipulate the desirability of competing EVs by making charging worse than if someone buys a Tesla.

Once Tesla sells cars (which they already do) AND they can control the largest network of EV fast charging for brands other than Tesla (which they cannot do today but will be able to do once non-Tesla vehicles can use Superchargers en masse) then Tesla can give themselves a competitive advantage in EV sales by manipulating the pricing and/or availability of Superchargers whenever it suits them. This would also have the effect of making the lives of existing owners of non-Tesla EVs costly, miserable, or both.

Everything you just said is 100% speculation. We could worry about California falling off into the ocean because we've had big earthquakes before, but why? I don't understand the stress over this especially from Rivian owners in California. You have a $100k vehicle and you're worried about a potential of a few cents extra for DCFC when you take a family vacation twice a year, if and only if, you decide to use a Supercharger and your speculative outlook is correct. Did you move out of California when our gas prices were $1.50 more than Nevada because our Government manipulates our prices higher than anywhere else?

In the USA there are more L3 chargers that are non-Tesla than Superchargers, by 4000 (cited). The answer shouldn't be bash on Elon or Tesla, it should be more RAN, more EA ... better and more reliable infrastructure. We don't have just one gas station brand, we have many. More competition, historically, drives prices down, not up. It's not Tesla's fault that EA, EVGo and others suck and it's not going to be required to charge at Superchargers.

It's very evident by the responses in this thread that many people are very happy that we'll be able to use Superchargers, myself included. I would be more than happy to pay extra to use a reliable network in a safe location with plenty of available units. I DCFC about 100 times a year and I have a feeling that most people complaining probably DCFC twice a year. If you don't want to use them then don't, stick with EA. Why rain on everyone else's parade?

 

[SoCal Rob]

Everything you just said is 100% speculation. We could worry about California falling off into the ocean because we've had big earthquakes before, but why? I don't understand the stress over this especially from Rivian owners in California. You have a $100k vehicle and you're worried about a potential of a few cents extra for DCFC when you take a family vacation twice a year, if and only if, you decide to use a Supercharger and your speculative outlook is correct. Did you move out of California when our gas prices were $1.50 more than Nevada because our Government manipulates our prices higher than anywhere else?

In the USA there are more L3 chargers that are non-Tesla than Superchargers, by 4000 (cited). The answer shouldn't be bash on Elon or Tesla, it should be more RAN, more EA ... better and more reliable infrastructure. We don't have just one gas station brand, we have many. More competition, historically, drives prices down, not up. It's not Tesla's fault that EA, EVGo and others suck and it's not going to be required to charge at Superchargers.

It's very evident by the responses in this thread that many people are very happy that we'll be able to use Superchargers, myself included. I would be more than happy to pay extra to use a reliable network in a safe location with plenty of available units. I DCFC about 100 times a year and I have a feeling that most people complaining probably DCFC twice a year. If you don't want to use them then don't, stick with EA. Why rain on everyone else's parade?

Yes, it is speculation. Given the behavior of Tesla, as mentioned by @SANZC02, it is not unreasonable to speculate that Tesla could take steps which place pressure on others.

I can’t figure out if you’re intentionally misreading/misinterpreting what I wrote or if you truly don’t see how Tesla could gain a stranglehold on infrastructure which will become more important over time.

I never wrote that I was concerned about paying more for gas or to charge. I’m relatively insensitive to energy costs. I wrote that I was concerned that Tesla limiting access or increasing prices could shift demand to infrastructure which could be left ignored because people don’t care about it as long as everything is okie-dokie with Superchargers… right up until it isn’t.

A big reason we have multiple gas brands is because Standard Oil got broken up in 1911 for having an outsized influence on the petroleum industry. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil

I’m not raining on anyone’s parade and I have absolutely NO problem using the Supercharger network when the time comes. I’m just very concerned about the consequences of our country elevating a single company (any single company, this just happens to be Tesla) to near-monopoly status for important infrastructure. This is infrastructure which more and more people will rely on if they cannot charge at home/work or if they want to travel long distances in EVs.

I simply do not have blind faith in any for-profit company to do the right thing for the public when that conflicts with an opportunity for the company to make more profit.

 

[DevSecOps]

I can’t figure out if you’re intentionally misreading/misinterpreting what I wrote or if you truly don’t see how Tesla could gain a stranglehold on infrastructure which will become more important over time.

I don't see it that way. Tesla is a public company and Elon has a fiduciary duty that he must uphold. Comparing Tesla to "X" is not the same. One is public, one is private. He can do whatever he wants with "X". The comments surrounding him pushing the limits with technology and vehicle safety are likely not all him. He has a bunch of younger go-getters working at Tesla that all have visions. I think you'd be giving the man too much credit to say that he is the one pushing all these different things (i.e. yoke). Additionally, I commend Tesla for pushing the limits. Because he pushed the envelope, we have EVs. As someone myself in my late 30's and having been a key player in one of the largest global cloud networks, I love pushing those envelopes and always reaching for the sky. I'm not worried about Elon one bit.

As I pointed out, there's more non-Tesla DCFC units in the USA than Superchargers. We wouldn't be elevating one company to hold a monopoly. My hope is that EA and all the other charge networks will see it as a threat and improve if they want to stay viable. It could easily spur creativity and improvements across the board.

Another point that we differ on to a major extent is that I have far and above more faith in a for profit company than our government. Yes, Tesla has a duty to make their shareholders a profit. That's not a secret. That's also the reason that they wouldn't do anything shady.

My distaste with this thread is that the OP is advocating that we don't move to NACS because of Elon. I think that's a selfish stance. NACS has been proven to be the superior connector and it will be an SAE standardized format by the time it's implemented in non-Tesla vehicels. It will not be owned by Tesla. Not wanting something because some rich guy funded it's development is weird. No one will be forcing the OP or anyone else to use Superchargers. It's just a connector that was likely designed and engineered with little input from Elon. It's the same as all those who say "If -insert name here- becomes president I'm moving to Canada".

 

[emoore]

I don't see it that way. Tesla is a public company and Elon has a fiduciary duty that he must uphold. Comparing Tesla to "X" is not the same. One is public, one is private. He can do whatever he wants with "X". The comments surrounding him pushing the limits with technology and vehicle safety are likely not all him. He has a bunch of younger go-getters working at Tesla that all have visions. I think you'd be giving the man too much credit to say that he is the one pushing all these different things (i.e. yoke). Additionally, I commend Tesla for pushing the limits. Because he pushed the envelope, we have EVs. As someone myself in my late 30's and having been a key player in one of the largest global cloud networks, I love pushing those envelopes and always reaching for the sky. I'm not worried about Elon one bit.

As I pointed out, there's more non-Tesla DCFC units in the USA than Superchargers. We wouldn't be elevating one company to hold a monopoly. My hope is that EA and all the other charge networks will see it as a threat and improve if they want to stay viable. It could easily spur creativity and improvements across the board.

Another point that we differ on to a major extent is that I have far and above more faith in a for profit company than our government. Yes, Tesla has a duty to make their shareholders a profit. That's not a secret. That's also the reason that they wouldn't do anything shady.

My distaste with this thread is that the OP is advocating that we don't move to NACS because of Elon. I think that's a selfish stance. NACS has been proven to be the superior connector and it will be an SAE standardized format by the time it's implemented in non-Tesla vehicels. It will not be owned by Tesla. Not wanting something because some rich guy funded it's development is weird. No one will be forcing the OP or anyone else to use Superchargers. It's just a connector that was likely designed and engineered with little input from Elon. It's the same as all those who say "If -insert name here- becomes president I'm moving to Canada".

Does Tesla own the patent to the NACS plug and communication protocol?

 

[DevSecOps]

Does Tesla own the patent to the NACS plug and communication protocol?

I've discussed this in detail previously in this thread. They own the patent to the Tesla Charging Standard. NACS or J3400 is the SAE standard that is a work in progress. Per the director of the SAE NACS Taskforce the J3400 standardization will be complete by year end and Tesla is cooperating with them to release the patent. Once the SAE J3400 standard is in place Tesla will not own it. No one owns SAE standard protocols. No other EV manufacturer will be adopting NACS until it is a SAE standard (slated for model year 2025).

 

[emoore]

I've discussed this in detail previously in this thread. They own the patent to the Tesla Charging Standard. NACS or J3400 is the SAE standard that is a work in progress. Per the director of the SAE NACS Taskforce the J3400 standardization will be complete by year end. Once the SAE J3400 standard is in place Tesla will not own it. No one owns SAE standard protocols. No other EV manufacturer will be adopting NACS until it is a SAE standard (slated for model year 2025).

So what about in 2024? Does Tesla own the standard when I’m trying to charge with my CCS to NACS adapter?

 

[DevSecOps]

So what about in 2024? Does Tesla own the standard when I’m trying to charge with my CCS to NACS adapter?

End of year is 2023. Also NACS is protocol agnostic. It can use CCS as a protocol. NACS wouldn't have been considered as the new standard if it wasn't agnostic. It could also be said that the NACS plug supports legacy and future protocols.

 

[emoore]

End of year is 2023. Also NACS is protocol agnostic. It can use CCS as a protocol. NACS wouldn't have been considered as the new standard if it wasn't agnostic. It could also be said that the NACS plug supports legacy and future protocols.

But does Tesla still own the patent in 2024?

 

[DevSecOps]

But does Tesla still own the patent in 2024?

If it becomes a standard, no. SAE standards are not owned by any one person or company. Per the director, "[Telsa] is leaving the future of NACS up to a consensus-based standards process."

Here's the interview with the director.

 

[emoore]

If it becomes a standard, no. SAE standards are not owned by any one person or company. Per the director, "[Telsa] is leaving the future of NACS up to a consensus-based standards process."

Here's the interview with the director.

So as of right now Tesla will still own the patent for NACS going onto 2024. Doesn’t Tesla need to release the patent? instead of “leaving it up to a consumer based standards process”? I will never trust anything elon says unless it required for him to do it by law.

 

[Zorg]

Let's see the agreements? Why have none of the companies signing on done this yet if they are so fair and reasonable? Will I be accused of more anti-Elon rhetoric by that other guy?


It's obvious there are a lot of complaints about the non-proprietary networks today. I could definitely see OEMs signing a several year agreement hoping that the industry catches up regardless of what Tesla does. Perpetual seems very unlikely from Tesla's standpoint (aren't they a business too?). Again, let's see these agreements.

I know, kind of an unfair argument since even "anti-anti-elon" arguers are probably interested in knowing the full details.

Those agreements are private and will not be shared. That's how it is for virtually all business transactions. Perpetual license are very common. Have you ever bought a software that runs on your computer? License to use that software is perpetual.

Your hatred of Elon makes you say stupid things. Large companies like Ford and others would not agree to switch to a new plug without any warranty that their investment is protected. They have access to good lawyers to ensure long term use of the plug (the perpetual license) and access to the supercharger network (who knows what they negotiated there).

You should listen to people who actually understand business contracts rather than mouthing off nonsensical conspiracies.

Sponsored