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

[DuoRivians]

Okay. So Tesla can use every charger if they buy an adapter but that isn't true going the other way. Am I thinking of that right?

Here’s the CCS to NACS adapter that Tesla sells for $175.

https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter

And how convenient because CCS is a true open standard and Tesla can just offer it without any CCS DCFC provider to “permit” it.?

Sponsored

 

[izgoy]

From what I understand Teslas can ALREADY fast charge on any CSS charger with an adapter that is provided free with every Tesla.

Wrong. The CCS adapter is not provided for free. It costs a couple hundred dollars. The adapter that’s provided for free is for charging from a J1772 connector (L2 charging).

 

[DuoRivians]

Because companies never make their business agreement public.

But if it’s really about open standards and advancing EVs, why not?

 

[Zorg]

But if it’s really about open standards and advancing EVs, why not?

It's about business terms and those usually stay private.

Either way, it's game over for CCS at this point. The only holdout will be VW. The only question is how long before Rivian does the same. Due to their investment in the RAN, i assume that they will adopt a dual port strategy. CCS on the left and NACS on the right.

 

[Longreach]

This is reminiscent of the last time you use garbled references in an attempt to sound intelligent. Remember the time you were adamant nevi funding wasn’t dependent on CCS compatibility?

If your creativity allows, imagine that you cannot trust Elon, because well, his past behavior and erratic acts.

Imagine we all want an EV world where true competition results in cheapest to deliver pricing for energy to power our cars.

5-8 years from now, I would prefer a world where no one company determines any standard or aspect of EV tech. Do I trust Elon to play a fair game? Absolutely not.

I especially don’t trust these closed door agreements in place between Tesla, Ford, and GM. If they’re straightforward, why not tell the public what the arrangements are? Perhaps then, we can all make more informed assessments?

As stated before, this is my stance on this issue:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/gm-too-gm-adopts-teslas-nacs-standard.15890/post-344560

It seems your emotions, including hatred for EM, have overcome your rational thought. Regardless, it’s happening, with or without you.

 

[DuoRivians]

It seems your emotions, including hatred for EM, have overcome your rational thought. Regardless, it’s happening, with or without you.

Oh to be so certain in life… only a fool’s errand and not rational

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Here’s the CCS to NACS adapter that Tesla sells for $175.

https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter

And how convenient because CCS is a true open standard and Tesla can just offer it without any CCS DCFC provider to “permit” it.?

I really don't want to wade into this debate but aren't the port standard and the charging network two different things? Anyone can use the port would make it an open port, but that doesn't necessarily entitle anyone to use the Tesla chargers as they are privately owned. Unless what you're saying is that in order to be an open standard you need to be able to use all chargers with the connector to that port because without the chargers the port is useless.

Honestly I could see arguments either way and I'm not versed enough in anti trust law to give an educated opinion.

 

[DuoRivians]

I really don't want to wade into this debate but aren't the port standard and the charging network two different things? Anyone can use the port would make it an open port, but that doesn't necessarily entitle anyone to use the Tesla chargers as they are privately owned. Unless what you're saying is that in order to be an open standard you need to be able to use all chargers with the connector to that port because without the chargers the port is useless.

Honestly I could see arguments either way and I'm not versed enough in anti trust law to give an educated opinion.

The latter part is correct.

CCS is open standard, so DCFC providers offering CCS can’t discriminate who gets to charge on it. Teslas, GM, Ford, Rivian can all charge on CCS if they can receive it.

NACS right now isn’t truly open. If someone made a hypothetical adapter to go from NACS to CCS, then anyone with CCS that can use this adapter should be able to charge at any station with an NACS plug.

Clearly, Superchargers aren’t this way. So, just because NACS plug’s specifications are public, it doesn’t mean that it’s truly open.

 

[DuoRivians]

It's about business terms and those usually stay private.

Either way, it's game over for CCS at this point. The only holdout will be VW. The only question is how long before Rivian does the same. Due to their investment in the RAN, i assume that they will adopt a dual port strategy. CCS on the left and NACS on the right.

If Tesla gave up all rights to NACS and truly made their superchargers available to all, then I think Rivian should move toward NACS only.

But those two asks are enormous.

It wouldn’t be too expensive to convert RAN to NACS, if needed. After all, Tesla sells an adapter for $175

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The latter part is correct.

CCS is open standard, so DCFC providers offering CCS can’t discriminate who gets to charge on it. Teslas, GM, Ford, Rivian can all charge on CCS if they can receive it.

NACS right now isn’t truly open. If someone made a hypothetical adapter to go from NACS to CCS, then anyone with CCS that can use this adapter should be able to charge at any station with an NACS plug.

Clearly, Superchargers aren’t this way. So, just because NACS plug’s specifications are public, it doesn’t mean that it’s truly open.

So what you are saying is that no manufacturer can deploy charging stations that are brand specific or brand restricted if they are using a CSS connector? I thought the RAN chargers were Rivian only.

 

[zefram47]

I suspect the reason both Ford and GM have to wait until 2024 for adapters is because there is more to it than just making an adapter. The engineering teams have to be working on confirming the specifics and making changes where necessary.

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.

First, Tesla releasing "NACS" was done with the implication that it came with access to the Supercharger network if implemented. These closed door agreements that will likely never be released for analysis by prospective buyers say that implied access is a lie. You'll only get access if your manufacturer negotiates some nebulous deal with Tesla that can likely be revoked at any time. Not a good basis to form your buying decision on for your next car purchase. Imagine buying one of these non-Tesla "NACS" cars only to find that Elon cuts you off and none of the other charing operators have implemented it and now you're stuck using an adapter in perpetuity.

As for adapters...here's the kicker. Tesla doesn't have screens or payment terminals on their chargers, so you're forced to either use the Tesla app or whatever their specification is for plug and charge. The app is only being used for Magic Dock locations at the moment, and likely nothing else. So any adapter that gets released will probably work as the Tesla to CCS adapter on EVGo with Autocharge+ via an adapter ID that is registered to an account and on the network. Begs the question what the black market looks like for these adapters after their release, assuming Tesla can't tell whether or not a Ford or GM product is using it. The time required (early 2024) is likely so that Ford and GM can setup their apps/backends to talk to Tesla's authentication servers be it for the ISO spec plug and charge or the registering of adapters to the manufacturer's app accounts and again linking to Tesla. Because of that payment authentication/authorization, it would be all too easy for Tesla/Elon to just cut everyone off...technologically at least. Legally will be a different question and problem.

If not for gaining access to the Supercharger network, the vast majority of vehicle owners or prospective owners won't care about the plug. They want access to the network and assumed ease of charging. If they can't get it...they'll be pissed, especially at the outset with no non-Tesla chargers supporting the plug natively save for a few EVGo stations.

 

[DuoRivians]

So what you are saying is that no manufacturer can deploy charging stations that are brand specific or brand restricted if they are using a CSS connector? I thought the RAN chargers were Rivian only.

Rivian will open up to all brands. They’re in testing/refinement mode now. Which is why it’s free to all Rivians still. Call it “beta” mode that Elon likes to say

 

[Longreach]

I really don't want to wade into this debate but aren't the port standard and the charging network two different things? Anyone can use the port would make it an open port, but that doesn't necessarily entitle anyone to use the Tesla chargers as they are privately owned. Unless what you're saying is that in order to be an open standard you need to be able to use all chargers with the connector to that port because without the chargers the port is useless.

Honestly I could see arguments either way and I'm not versed enough in anti trust law to give an educated opinion.

Yes, they are unrelated. Standardization of the NACS connector means anyone can use it, including the non Tesla networks. And they will now, for sure.

In the meantime, both Ford and GM users get unfettered access to the supercharger network, which is an obvious benefit that helps with EV adoption overall. From that perspective they appear to be linked, but that’s mainly the marketing story that benefits GM/Ford.

 

[DuoRivians]

First, Tesla releasing "NACS" was done with the implication that it came with access to the Supercharger network if implemented. These closed door agreements that will likely never be released for analysis by prospective buyers say that implied access is a lie. You'll only get access if your manufacturer negotiates some nebulous deal with Tesla that can likely be revoked at any time. Not a good basis to form your buying decision on for your next car purchase. Imagine buying one of these non-Tesla "NACS" cars only to find that Elon cuts you off and none of the other charing operators have implemented it and now you're stuck using an adapter in perpetuity.

As for adapters...here's the kicker. Tesla doesn't have screens or payment terminals on their chargers, so you're forced to either use the Tesla app or whatever their specification is for plug and charge. The app is only being used for Magic Dock locations at the moment, and likely nothing else. So any adapter that gets released will probably work as the Tesla to CCS adapter on EVGo with Autocharge+ via an adapter ID that is registered to an account and on the network. Begs the question what the black market looks like for these adapters after their release, assuming Tesla can't tell whether or not a Ford or GM product is using it. The time required (early 2024) is likely so that Ford and GM can setup their apps/backends to talk to Tesla's authentication servers be it for the ISO spec plug and charge or the registering of adapters to the manufacturer's app accounts and again linking to Tesla. Because of that payment authentication/authorization, it would be all too easy for Tesla/Elon to just cut everyone off...technologically at least. Legally will be a different question and problem.

If not for gaining access to the Supercharger network, the vast majority of vehicle owners or prospective owners won't care about the plug. They want access to the network and assumed ease of charging. If they can't get it...they'll be pissed, especially at the outset with no non-Tesla chargers supporting the plug natively save for a few EVGo stations.

Exactly, there is so much: “just trust us” being said by Tesla/Elon.

The entire point of standards and having multiple providers, both for EV cars and DCFC chargers, is for market competition to be the enforcer of “trust”.

 

[Grabs10]

The Tesla CCS adapter only works on Teslas newer than some point in 2020. If you have an earlier model you need to pay for a module upgrade to get it to work. I think it is around $450 to get it converted. I would pay that for the Rivian if available but no plans to convert the Model S.

I have the the adaptor in my trunk of the my 3. Have yet to use it over 43k miles. Not really needed as of yet.

So what you are saying is that no manufacturer can deploy charging stations that are brand specific or brand restricted if they are using a CSS connector? I thought the RAN chargers were Rivian only.

you have a point…. I couldn’t charge a Tesla at a Ran even with the adaptor…. Kind of blows open that all CCS connectors are open to all.

I think other companies other than Tesla have DC fast chargers with the NACS connector available…. Just have a card to swipe or as n account with that charger company and you can fast charge a Tesla on a NACS connector that isn’t Tesla….

Sponsored