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

[zefram47]

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.

This isn't entirely accurate. Rivian locks down their chargers at the moment because there is no way for a non-Rivian to authenticate on the network. Rivian recently added the ISO 15118 plug and charge system in a recent software update to the trucks, but that's just a small step towards allowing non-Rivians to charge and be charged for use. Similarly, Tesla's network requires authentication/authorization between the vehicle and the network using some form of plug and charge as well...thus limiting access to non-Teslas. As above, adding Ford/GM vehicles means they have to enable that auth on both sides before anything will work.

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivians]

This isn't entirely accurate. Rivian locks down their chargers at the moment because there is no way for a non-Rivian to authenticate on the network. Rivian recently added the ISO 15118 plug and charge system in a recent software update to the trucks, but that's just a small step towards allowing non-Rivians to charge and be charged for use. Similarly, Tesla's network requires authentication/authorization between the vehicle and the network using some form of plug and charge as well...thus limiting access to non-Teslas. As above, adding Ford/GM vehicles means they have to enable that auth on both sides before anything will work.

Yeah, sorry. The ISO implementation was part of my reference that the charger is still in beta

 

[Donald Stanfield]

This isn't entirely accurate. Rivian locks down their chargers at the moment because there is no way for a non-Rivian to authenticate on the network. Rivian recently added the ISO 15118 plug and charge system in a recent software update to the trucks, but that's just a small step towards allowing non-Rivians to charge and be charged for use. Similarly, Tesla's network requires authentication/authorization between the vehicle and the network using some form of plug and charge as well...thus limiting access to non-Teslas. As above, adding Ford/GM vehicles means they have to enable that auth on both sides before anything will work.

If this is true then it's a pretty valid reason to limit charging and if Tesla allows Ford/GM now on their superchargers then that just strengthens the argument to limit everyone that doesn't have an agreement with Tesla that allows data communication between the vehicle and the Tesla charger.

 

[Longreach]

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.

NACS connector IP will be licensed, just like Yazaki and Mennekes connector IP is licensed for CCS-1/2. That’s how standards bodies work.

 

[Zorg]

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

That's completely irrelevant and matters to no one but you. The issue is that whoever has access to Tesla SC has a competitive advantage. I don't want Rivian to be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the more adopt NACS, the bigger the disadvantage for those that don't. Not that hard to grasp.

 

[Longreach]

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”.

No trust issues involved. The IP is made available as a condition of standardization. That how standards bodies work.

Once again you inseparably link the connector standardization with use of the supercharger network. Very misleading. The connector standardization is happening and everyone can use it, vehicle or network. Using the supercharger network is a separate issue, obviously of great interest to Ford and GM. But you don’t have to use it if you don’t like the terms.

 

[DuoRivians]

That's completely irrelevant and matters to no one but you. The issue is that whoever has access to Tesla SC has a competitive advantage. I don't want Rivian to be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the more adopt NACS, the bigger the disadvantage for those that don't. Not that hard to grasp.

When Microsoft had a significant chunk of the PC market and they tried to use their market dominance to determine which browser “won”, they eventually lost to Netscape in the antitrust case

Don’t be so sure to think that the US will just allow Tesla to use their superchargers to dictate how the EV evolves and who captures extraordinary profit.

If transportation is going to EVs in mass, the US has a strong interest to ensure an even playing field.

So, it matters to a lot of people, not just me.

Lets be real. This whole debate is really about access to widely available charging infrastructure, not just a silly plug.

 

[DuoRivians]

No trust issues involved. The IP is made available as a condition of standardization. That how standards bodies work.

Once again you inseparably link the connector standardization with use of the supercharger network. Very misleading. The connector standardization is happening and everyone can use it, vehicle or network. Using the supercharger network is a separate issue, obviously of great interest to Ford and GM. But you don’t have to use it if you don’t like the terms.

Realistically, why would Ford/GM adopt NACS if it weren’t for Supercharger access?

The only reason is for supercharger access

 

[Zorg]

We are a long ways from an anti trust issue especially with NEVI funded fast chargers coming. Tesla had great foresight and executed better than anyone. Now they are reaping the benefits.

I am hoping that Tesla will steer the market toward charging port placement standardization because that would be terrific for everyone.

In some way, I am still surprised that Tesla is willing to let their biggest competitive advantage go. It's impressive.

 

[DuoRivians]

NACS connector IP will be licensed, just like Yazaki and Mennekes connector IP is licensed for CCS-1/2. That’s how standards bodies work.

It doesn’t matter who makes the product. It matters who determines the specs going forward and how that is done.

Are you saying that Tesla will no longer be able to, legally or implicitly otherwise, try to unilaterally change the specs of NACS?

 

[DuoRivians]

We are a long ways from an anti trust issue especially with NEVI funded fast chargers coming. Tesla had great foresight and executed better than anyone. Now they are reaping the benefits.

I am hoping that Tesla will steer the market toward charging port placement standardization because that would be terrific for everyone.

In some way, I am still surprised that Tesla is willing to let their biggest competitive advantage go. It's impressive.

Are your initials XW?

 

[Longreach]

When Microsoft had a significant chunk of the PC market and they tried to use their market dominance to determine which browser “won”, they eventually lost to Netscape in the antitrust case

Don’t be so sure to think that the US will just allow Tesla to use their superchargers to dictate how the EV evolves and who captures extraordinary profit.

If transportation is going to EVs in mass, the US has a strong interest to ensure an even playing field.

So, it matters to a lot of people, not just me.

Lets be real. This whole debate is really about access to widely available charging infrastructure, not just a silly plug.

The connector is very important because it enables universal access. For GM and Ford it enables access to superchargers, which is very important for them. But it also enables access to other networks, now that we will have common North American connector standard (post 2025, gotta start somewhere).

Unfortunately you’re exclusively hung up on using the supercharger because of your emotional anti-Elon perspective. Which is fine, just use another network with the now (or soon) universal NACS connector on your vehicle.

 

[DuoRivians]

The connector is very important because it enables universal access. For GM and Ford it enables access to superchargers, which is very important for them. But it also enables access to other networks, now that we will have common North American connector standard (post 2025, gotta start somewhere).

Unfortunately you’re exclusively hung up on using the supercharger because of your emotional anti-Elon perspective. Which is fine, just use another network with the now (or soon) universal NACS connector on your vehicle.

You keep harping about anti-Elon. Is that your go-to retort when throwing out brand names and attempts at logic (rational!) fails? As said before, this is my stance:

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/gm-too-gm-adopts-teslas-nacs-standard.15890/post-344560

 

[Longreach]

It doesn’t matter who makes the product. It matters who determines the specs going forward and how that is done.

Are you saying that Tesla will no longer be able to, legally or implicitly otherwise, try to unilaterally change the specs of NACS?

IP (Intellectual product), not manufacturer. Yazaki and Mennekes own their respective IP, it is licensed and available without prejudice. New IP, including changes, is submitted for standardization approval. That’s how standards bodies work.

 

[DuoRivians]

IP (Intellectual product), not manufacturer. Yazaki and Mennekes own their respective IP, it is licensed and available without prejudice. New IP, including changes, is submitted for standardization approval. That’s how standards bodies work.

And who will comprise of the NACS standards body?

Sponsored