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

[DuoRivians]

Did I call it a standard?

While you didn’t officially declare it a standard, you did say:

“NACS can be an open standard, *and* Tesla can still retain control over which brands get access to the Tesla supercharger network.”

That *and* is my emphasis. Those two statements cannot be both true

Sponsored

 

[True Grit]

How much this devalue our cars in the next few years if we don’t have the right port.

 

[SASSquatch]

I think everyone is getting excited about the Tesla Super Charging network and what you all aren't considering is that Tesla is already struggling to meet demand of their EXISTING network for Tesla vehicles.

Tesla is delivering 422,000 vehicles a quarter (last quarter). There are roughly 2.65M Teslas on the road all competing for about 17,000 chargers.

What do you think is going to happen if you flood those chargers with other brands?

There is too much worldwide momentum (double the number world wide of CCS vs NACS) for CCS. In the US there are plans to install tens of thousands of CCS chargers.

We need both networks, and we need compatibility across both to meet demand. There will never be a single standard.

 

[Autolycus]

How much this devalue our cars in the next few years if we don’t have the right port.

If Tesla really does win this war and their connector because the "standard" used on all new cars sold in NA at some future date (which would likely be 2026 or later at the earliest), maybe a small devaluation, but probably not a ton for a very long time. There will have to be adapters like what both Ford and GM have said they'll offer. As long as there's an adaptor and the ability to use any charger, the value drop won't be very high.

 

[izgoy]

We've seen a press release saying they will submit it to a standards body. Doesn't say which one. Doesn't say they'll relinquish IP rights including necessary patents and trademarks. For now, calling it a standard is no different than Elon saying a Tesla will drive coast to coast without a single driver intervention. It's all press release "promises" without tangible support.


At no point in time has Apple claimed that Lightning is an open standard. Quite the opposite, actually. It is NOT an open standard. It is very intentionally a walled garden.

And so is the Tesla Supercharger network. It’s about time you started understanding the difference between the NACS specification and the Tesla Supercharger network. The former is an open specification (soon to be an open standard), while the latter is a walled garden. You have to comply with the Tesla rules to use the latter, but there is no dependency on Tesla if you use the former with another network.

 

[Autolycus]

I think everyone is getting excited about the Tesla Super Charging network and what you all aren't considering is that Tesla is already struggling to meet demand of their EXISTING network for Tesla vehicles.

Tesla is delivering 422,000 vehicles a quarter (last quarter). There are roughly 2.65M Teslas on the road all competing for about 17,000 chargers.

What do you think is going to happen if you flood those chargers with other brands?

There is too much worldwide momentum (double the number world wide of CCS vs NACS) for CCS. In the US there are plans to install tens of thousands of CCS chargers.

We need both networks, and we need compatibility across both to meet demand. There will never be a single standard.

I agree with all of that except for the last sentence. Having all of the networks competing doesn't necessarily mean no standard port. In fact, a single true standard port that's open to all who meet the specs, as defined by an independent body, would mean MORE total investment in the charging infrastructure than a split market.

 

[SASSquatch]

I agree with all of that except for the last sentence. Having all of the networks competing doesn't necessarily mean no standard port. In fact, a single true standard port that's open to all who meet the specs, as defined by an independent body, would mean MORE total investment in the charging infrastructure than a split market.

I don't disagree I just don't see a standard port happening. Too much has already been invested, especially in the European market which is a bigger market than the US in the CCS port.

 

[2025R1S]

Buffalo NY can manufacture like 25k stalls/yr.

I have more faith in Tesla making functioning Superchargers than all the rest making CCS.

Just look at the data

supercharge.info
fastcharger.info

CCS was never expanding at a pace that could keep up with CCS automobile sales, if every automobile was to rely on public DCFC.

I think everyone is getting excited about the Tesla Super Charging network and what you all aren't considering is that Tesla is already struggling to meet demand of their EXISTING network for Tesla vehicles.

Tesla is delivering 422,000 vehicles a quarter (last quarter). There are roughly 2.65M Teslas on the road all competing for about 17,000 chargers.

What do you think is going to happen if you flood those chargers with other brands?

There is too much worldwide momentum (double the number world wide of CCS vs NACS) for CCS. In the US there are plans to install tens of thousands of CCS chargers.

We need both networks, and we need compatibility across both to meet demand. There will never be a single standard.

 

[DuoRivians]

And so is the Tesla Supercharger network. It’s about time you started understanding the difference between the NACS specification and the Tesla Supercharger network. The former is an open specification (soon to be an open standard), while the latter is a walled garden. You have to comply with the Tesla rules to use the latter, but there is no dependency on Tesla if you use the former with another network.

If NACS is an open standard, then whatever interface uses that open standard cannot be a walled garden, if that open standard is being used for its purpose.

Take usb cables. Its purpose is to transmit data and power. Any receiving device connected to it must be able to receive power and data via the cables.

(the usb open standard doesn’t specify that all privileged data should be open to all, however, just that it can send data).

Afaik, kwh is kwh. You can’t control who gets to get it.

 

[Craigins]

so Tesla has the following:
https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge

I'm not sure how legally binding that is. And they have a broad disqualification section of that agreement:

"Tesla Patents" means all patents owned now or in the future by Tesla (other than a patent owned jointly with a third party or any patent that Tesla later acquires that comes with an encumbrance that prevents it from being subject to this Pledge). A list of Tesla Patents subject to the Pledge will be maintained at the following URL: https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-list.

A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

• asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
• challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
• marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

Tesla could argue that their case against Rivian for Trade Secret Infringement would disqualify Rivian as they are not "acting in good faith" in the eyes of Tesla.

I couldn't find many other cases from my quick unprofessional google search.

In theory, Tesla should spin off the Supercharger business to a subsidiary and isolate it from Tesla Motors, akin to Google and Alphabet. Along with the split, transfer the IP related to the port, charging circuitry, and software API. This would help eliminate any anti-competitive behavior with the charging network.

 

[izgoy]

While you didn’t officially declare it a standard, you did say:

“NACS can be an open standard, *and* Tesla can still retain control over which brands get access to the Tesla supercharger network.”

That *and* is my emphasis. Those two statements cannot be both true

I called it a specification, but it will become an open standard.

What you quoted means absolutely something that you still do not understand. NACS is not the same thing as the Tesla Supercharger network. NACS is already used by EVGo. You can have a vehicle equipped with a NACS charging port and yet have no access to the Tesla Supercharger network. You can’t simply drive up to a Tesla charging stall, plug the NACS charging handle into a NACS charging port and initiate the charging session. Do you comprehend this? Your Make/model must be authorized by Tesla to use the Tesla Supercharger network. However, your make/mode can have a NACS charging port without any authorization by Tesla because NACS is now an open specification (soon to be an open standard) for anyone to use.

 

[Autolycus]

And so is the Tesla Supercharger network. It’s about time you started understanding the difference between the NACS specification and the Tesla Supercharger network. The former is an open specification (soon to be an open standard), while the latter is a walled garden. You have to comply with the Tesla rules to use the latter, but there is no dependency on Tesla if you use the former with another network.

Oh, believe me, I understand the differences quite well. The problem is that without actual proof of any of the "NACS" press release BS coming true in a legally enforceable handoff of all relevant control and IP association with it to an independent organization, it's all just BS cover for Tesla maintaining a walled garden. It's perfectly fine for them to maintain such a walled garden. You just can't call ANYTHING to do with that walled garden an "open standard". And I will continue to say that any Tesla competitor who agrees to play in Tesla's walled garden is being stupid.

 

[DuoRivians]

so Tesla has the following:
https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge

I'm not sure how legally binding that is. And they have a broad disqualification section of that agreement:



Tesla could argue that their case against Rivian for Trade Secret Infringement would disqualify Rivian as they are not "acting in good faith" in the eyes of Tesla.

I couldn't find many other cases from my quick unprofessional google search.

In theory, Tesla should spin off the Supercharger business to a subsidiary and isolate it from Tesla Motors, akin to Google and Alphabet. Along with the split, transfer the IP related to the port, charging circuitry, and software API. This would help eliminate any anti-competitive behavior with the charging network.

Yes, “good faith” broadly means that no company can sue another, especially Tesla in this case, for possible IP infringement:

“Tesla’s patents are only free to use if: you do not enforce any right against Tesla, you do not enforce any patent right against another party, you do not oppose Tesla’s patents or copy Tesla’s designs.”

- https://www.vennershipley.co.uk/ins...t “in the,the advent of sustainable transport.

A spin off of the Supercharger network and relinquishing any related NACS patents to an open standards org would be excellent compromise for all of the EV industry in the US

 

[scottf200]

[update: sadly it turns out EVgo was just putting in a 50 kW plug from a Chademo interface]

 

[izgoy]

If NACS is an open standard, then whatever interface uses that open standard cannot be a walled garden, if that open standard is being used for its purpose.

This is 100% wrong.

Rivian DC chargers use the CCS1 standard, yet they don’t allow any non-Rivian’s EVs to charge. It’s a walled-garden charging network with a standard-based CCS1 adapter.

Sponsored