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

[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.

Mennekes is a manufacturer primarily:

“MENNEKES is a world-leading *manufacturer* of pin and sleeve wiring devices, switched and interlocked receptacles, disconnect switches and power distribution products. But more than that, we build lasting relationships with our customers through sustained product and service excellence.”

https://www.mennekes.com/

Sure, they might invent something along the way to help, but that’s not their core business.

Edit: seems like another attempt to throw brand names in the mix to present a facade of authority

Sponsored

 

[Longreach]

Mennekes is a manufacturer primarily:

“MENNEKES is a world-leading *manufacturer* of pin and sleeve wiring devices, switched and interlocked receptacles, disconnect switches and power distribution products. But more than that, we build lasting relationships with our customers through sustained product and service excellence.”

https://www.mennekes.com/

Sure, they might invent something along the way to help, but that’s not their core business.

Edit: seems like another attempt to throw brand names in the mix to present a facade of authority

Yes, Mennekes designs and manufactures such things. They designed the connector and submitted the IP for standardization in a suitable standards body, in the hopes of manufacturing lots of them if accepted. But as part of standardization the IP must be made available for others to make too. Pretty normal case for industry.

Mennekes is relevant because their design is the basis of the CCS-2 connector. Tesla NACS will be the same process.

Sorry you don’t get it, not sure much more can be done here for you to understand. May I suggest you contact your company’s standards people to further explain it. Failing that, find and contact some ANSI or IEEE committee members to further discuss the process.

 

[DuoRivians]

Yes, Mennekes designs and manufactures such things. They designed the connector and submitted the IP for standardization in a suitable standards body, in the hopes of manufacturing lots of them if accepted. Pretty normal case for industry.

I ask again: And who will comprise of the NACS standards body?

 

[Longreach]

I ask again: And who will comprise of the NACS standards body?

Technically it could be submitted to any ANSI recognized SDO (Standards Development Organization). But since there is an SAE committee with subject matter expertise that worked on CCS, it should go there, with requirements support from CharIN.

Note that CharIN is not an SDO, but an industry interest group created to promote common interest in and drive charging standards development. Their role would be to articulate market requirements for the SDO, which now will include the NACS connector. Since Tesla has already published the documentation, it would be submitted directly to the SDO by their committee participants.

Any former hostility toward NACS will no longer be an issue since Ford and GM participants will be instructed accordingly. The overwhelming momentum created by the Ford/GM decisions means the commercial will to make it happen is now in place.

 

[2025R1S]

I have a disfigured hand, and can only use one hand. I struggle to use CCS and can’t always get the plug to disconnect.

for me, CCS is about usability. I can easily use a Supercharger.

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.

 

[2025R1S]

CCS lobby? Do you mean German dieselgate lawyers?

But, the US government is investing billions in building out a charging network. The CCS lobby has already got their hands in that.

The 17K of Tesla Super Chargers will be chump change compared to what is being invested in CCS.

 

[TXR1S]

Look at that, RJ has just one important call to make on his schedule today.

Regardless of the standards, if Rivian doesn’t get on board quickly they will see pressure on sales. Not a good feeling to take delivery of a CCS Rivian with no supercharger access.

 

[Zoidz]

I see both sides of this debate, but there's a really simple, undeniable fact - from a public standards viewpoint, NACS currently is a standard in name only. Telsa owns it, Tesla manages it, and can make any changes at any time without approval from anyone.

Until the standard is signed over to a true standards organization, it's a standard in name only. When it is signed over, it *could* be only a physical standard, or it could include voltage specs, communication specs, etc. Hopefully the latter. Until then, this is all speculation and subject to Elon's whims.

ELon backed of out the Twitter commitment at one point - anyone think he is above shenanigans with NACS?

 

[Sgt Beavis]

I will gladly accept an NACS to CCS adapter if it means I can use Tesla’s charging network. I just want the reliability that just isn’t there on EA/Chargepoint/EVGO networks.

 

[junkanoo]

Or, if Elon decides, he can basically put Rivian out of business. Seems like a problem to me.
...snip

No way. That would be a serious antitrust violation.

 

[scottf200]

First, Tesla releasing "NACS" was done with the implication that it came with access to the Supercharger network if implemented. ...
...
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.

EVgo has had Tesla NACS plugs for a while. See there tweet from yesterday and continues support/expansion. EA will add NACS plugs and complete with Tesla Superchargers for customers.

 

[evhelphub]

Some conspiracy that popped in my head.

Why are GM/Ford doing these announcements on Twitter? Is Elon literally putting in their contract that they have to do a Twitter spaces event? ?

I would like to know more on charging companies that will implement the NACS standard. I think it is fair to say no one wants Tesla to be the only gas station in town long term.

 

[scottf200]

I would like to know more on charging companies that will implement the NACS standard. I think it is fair to say no one wants Tesla to be the only gas station in town long term.

Did you see EVgo tweet just above your post?
Certainly EA will also add NACS to their stations.

 

[Yossarian]

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

The only reason is for supercharger access

No doubt SC access is the primary reason, but with that access, Ford and GM also gain a substantial competitive advantage over all other EV manufacturers not named Tesla. This may, and perhaps will, translate into increased sales of EV's from GM and Ford, in the short term at least. Some of Ford and GM's new customers will surely be folks that would, absent this newly introduced uncertainty relative to the charging standards & networks, have purchased their EV from other manufacturers.

There may also be another block of potential EV customers who will elect to defer their purchase until there is more clarity around the charging issue. Some of this group may decide to simply forgo an EV altogether, and instead purchase another ICE vehicle. If this happens, it's probably a "benefit" that all legacy ICE manufacturers will enjoy, but it will be at the expense of EV-only makers like Rivian.

While that's all speculation, it's clear that Rivian needs to do something to deal with the challenge that Ford and GM have laid down.

 

[rhuber]

I, for one, am very excited that an adapter is coming in 'Spring 2024', (between 9 and 11 months away) and that there is so little detail about what this means, that these announcements just add uncertainty to everything in EV charging. This is certainly great marketing for Tesla, Ford, and GM, while adding absolutely nothing useful in the short-to-mid term.

Tesla Superchargers can already speak PLC. They could make a passthrough adapter that works with every vehicle, but instead are doing vendor lockups for marketing and hype. Meanwhile, you cannot even buy "NACS" inlet ports from _any_ vendor, and charge handles are 'soon'. Celebrating this as a win for consumers is naive.

In February, I was optimistic and hopeful that Tesla was going to be a actor in this, with the Magic Dock. RIP, this tweet:

Sponsored