POLL: Would you like Rivian to adopt NACS Tesla charging standard?

[BigSkies]

I voted yes, but concur with the other opinions that it would actually have to be a truly open standard with universal access across brands and without hidden barriers to use the standard.

I’d otherwise stick with CCS.

While there are valid points about NACS being a more usable form factor, the real issue is chargers reliability and ease of use.

A world with an NACS standard, but frequently broken NACS chargers and Tesla chargers with too short cables wouldn’t serve anyone.

Sponsored

 

[jbowen52]

I voted no, but if control of Tesla’s plug is transferred to an independent body I would possibly vote yes.

Not sure about an independent body, but it would be a huge advantage if all North American vehicles would charge with the same system. Of the two NACS seems to be the most convenient solution. I'm also not sure if just changing the charging plug would eliminate all of the charging problems with the current CCS units.

 

[COdogman]

Not sure about an independent body, but it would be a huge advantage if all North American vehicles would charge with the same system. Of the two NACS seems to be the most convenient solution. I'm also not sure if just changing the charging plug would eliminate all of the charging problems with the current CCS units.

Your second point is a good one. Just adding Tesla connectors to all the EA stations will not solve that problem. And everyone clamoring to use only Tesla made stations will create new problems.

As far as the independent body or consortium controlling the tesla plug. The alternative is allowing one untrustworthy man to control the majority of charging infrastructure in North America. CCS is far from perfect but it is not controlled by any one person or company. I’m fine with Tesla’s plug design if that is what works best, but it should not be the standard Under current ownership.

 

[pricedm]

Not buying a Rivian until they adopt NACS.

 

[SASSquatch]

This is true today. But don’t you think with Ford and GM jumping on NACS that EVGO, ChargePoint, EA, and others will add the NACS to the existing stations? The interesting thing is a lot of people in this thread appear to only be looking at the connector only being available at Tesla chargers.

I do think that 3rd party companies will add a NACS connector and that this will be a good thing for enabling EV adoption.

The issue is that Tesla will have a monopoly on NACS, despite this. They created the standard, they have control over nearly 100% of NACS charging infrastructure, and they will be in a position to control the user experience to levels that 3rd parties likely can't because they are so far behind the curve.

The question isn't whether we should support NACS ports on charging infrastructure - the answer to that should be a resounding yes - but rather, do we want a private, for profit entity like Tesla who has a dog in the fight (Tesla) to have such a dominant position in influencing/controlling charging infrastructure?

I believe the answer to that is a resounding "no." Tesla has an immediate conflict of interest because they are a competitor to every other OEM that would potentially use a NACS charger. It gives them an effective monopoly and the ability to influence user experience, innovation, and charging rates in a way that I believe is anticompetitive.

3rd party charging companies using CCS currently, don't have a dog in the fight. They don't care if you own a Mercedes or a Chevy because CCS is an open standard.

Tesla, however, does care. You will pay a higher rate as a non-Tesla customer because Tesla needs to earn a profit. They also need to incentivize buying a Tesla over all competing OEM EVs. If they open their network, which is one of their strongest selling points, they have to find a way to incentivize people to buy Tesla over another OEM. If they control the charging network, they can make sure Tesla owners have the best experience.

They have too much leverage, too high a conflict of interest, and we need an open, free market solution.

 

[rosspa2]

I voted no. Really can't understand why you would build a car with different ports. Tesla currently builds EU based cars with a ccs type 2 port, adapters exist for ccs type 1 to type 2,so my vote would be move the US to type 2 then as a manufacturer you build a car with just one port for the two major markets.

IMO Tesla will continue to open up the network and the magic dock will become a standalone adapter.

 

[SASSquatch]

OR the third party suppliers will be forced to make something better and just as reliable as the Tesla SC’s. Right now it is a charging nightmare out there. Anyone I talk to with a Tesla has ZERO concerns with range/road trips and finding chargers. Now what could possibly happen is give us access to the SC’s via an adapter and let Rivian build out the adventure network because there’s a shortage of DCFC in remote locations and parks. Rivian could then capitalize and corner that market while also having the security of Rivian owners being able to travel on highways with no worries while ALSO having access to Rivian chargers while camping. ????

I am with you 100% on the state of non-Tesla charging (CCS/DCFC). Here's the problem. The NEVI funding that the White House is making available (7.5 BIllion of which 5 Billion will go to DCFC rollout) is designed to do exactly that: standardize the charging experience.

The rules of the funding require that chargers include CCS (which is the global standard) and that customers can swipe a credit card (no apps needed) and pay for a charging session as simply as they pay for gas at a gas station. This is exactly what we need and that $5 billion is incentivizing that standardization because you can't get access to those funds if you don't follow those rules.

We don't need Ford or GM to adopt NACS in order to incentivize a better experience. $5 Billion dollars is a powerful motivator.

On your second point regarding Rivian continuing with CCS for remote locations, I couldn't agree with you more and I have made the exact same suggestion. Rivian has a great opportunity to fill the gap that the charger infrastructure subsidy from the government is going to leave behind. Fast chargers in remote locations. NEVI funding is aimed at freeways/highways.

Rivian has an opportunity to fill that gap and to pledge that they will make that an open network - but keep CCS. It allows them the same control over their network that Tesla has for the NACS network. Rivian can control the user experience much mroe tightly by having control with a CCS setup vs having to use NACS which is dominated by Tesla.

 

[klownhavok]

I am with you 100% on the state of non-Tesla charging (CCS/DCFC). Here's the problem. The NEVI funding that the White House is making available (7.5 BIllion of which 5 Billion will go to DCFC rollout) is designed to do exactly that: standardize the charging experience.

The rules of the funding require that chargers include CCS (which is the global standard) and that customers can swipe a credit card (no apps needed) and pay for a charging session as simply as they pay for gas at a gas station. This is exactly what we need and that $5 billion is incentivizing that standardization because you can't get access to those funds if you don't follow those rules.

We don't need Ford or GM to adopt NACS in order to incentivize a better experience. $5 Billion dollars is a powerful motivator.

On your second point regarding Rivian continuing with CCS for remote locations, I couldn't agree with you more and I have made the exact same suggestion. Rivian has a great opportunity to fill the gap that the charger infrastructure subsidy from the government is going to leave behind. Fast chargers in remote locations. NEVI funding is aimed at freeways/highways.

Rivian has an opportunity to fill that gap and to pledge that they will make that an open network - but keep CCS. It allows them the same control over their network that Tesla has for the NACS network. Rivian can control the user experience much mroe tightly by having control with a CCS setup vs having to use NACS which is dominated by Tesla.

Agreed on all points! Thanks for the response.

 

[COdogman]

Not buying a Rivian until they adopt NACS.

 

[DuoRivians]

 

[TexasBob]

I am with you 100% on the state of non-Tesla charging (CCS/DCFC). Here's the problem. The NEVI funding that the White House is making available (7.5 BIllion of which 5 Billion will go to DCFC rollout) is designed to do exactly that: standardize the charging experience.

The rules of the funding require that chargers include CCS (which is the global standard) and that customers can swipe a credit card (no apps needed) and pay for a charging session as simply as they pay for gas at a gas station. This is exactly what we need and that $5 billion is incentivizing that standardization because you can't get access to those funds if you don't follow those rules.

We don't need Ford or GM to adopt NACS in order to incentivize a better experience. $5 Billion dollars is a powerful motivator.

On your second point regarding Rivian continuing with CCS for remote locations, I couldn't agree with you more and I have made the exact same suggestion. Rivian has a great opportunity to fill the gap that the charger infrastructure subsidy from the government is going to leave behind. Fast chargers in remote locations. NEVI funding is aimed at freeways/highways.

Rivian has an opportunity to fill that gap and to pledge that they will make that an open network - but keep CCS. It allows them the same control over their network that Tesla has for the NACS network. Rivian can control the user experience much mroe tightly by having control with a CCS setup vs having to use NACS which is dominated by Tesla.

CCS1 is not a global standard it is only used in N.A. South Korea, and Taiwan. The two largest ev markets use totally different and incompatible connectors.

I will also note that swiping a credit card is an antique technology that is almost never used outside the US which is a decade or more behind on cashless payment systems. Time for the us to star catching up rather than having the government mandate another outdated technology.

 

[SASSquatch]

CCS1 is not a global standard it is only used in N.A. South Korea, and Taiwan. The two largest ev markets use totally different and incompatible connectors.

I will also note that swiping a credit card is an antique technology that is almost never used outside the US which is a decade or more behind on cashless payment systems. Time for the us to star catching up rather than having the government mandate another outdated technology.

CCS 1/2 are versions of the open CCS standard. They vary based on Geographic location, but they are based on the same standard - read up on it below.

Europe, which uses CCS version 2, has the largest EV market by market share. They have banned NACS as a standard.

Swiping a credit card is how millions of Americans buy gas. It is simple, straightforward, and painless, which is exactly what the average american consumer wants to be able to refuel their vehicle, whether it is with gas or with ions.

Do you think Grandpa wants to fuck around with apps just to get fuel in his car?

From Wikipedia:

The Combined Charging System (CCS) is a standard for charging electric vehicles. It can use Combo 1 (CCS1) or Combo 2 (CCS2) connectors to provide power at up to 350 kilowatts (kW) (max 500 amps),[1] although higher values are coming. These two connectors are extensions of the IEC 62196 Type 1 and Type 2 connectors, with two additional direct current (DC) contacts to allow high-power DC fast charging.

The Combined Charging System allows AC charging using the Type 1 and Type 2 connector depending on the geographical region. This charging environment encompasses charging couplers, charging communication, charging stations, the electric vehicle and various functions for the charging process such as load balancing and charge authorization.

 

[DuoRivians]

CCS 1/2 are versions of the open CCS standard.

Swiping a credit card is how millions of Americans buy gas. It is simple, straightforward, and painless, which is exactly what the average american consumer wants to be able to refuel their vehicle, whether it is with gas or with ions.

Do you think Grandpa wants to fuck around with apps just to get fuel in his car?

From Wikipedia:

The Combined Charging System (CCS) is a standard for charging electric vehicles. It can use Combo 1 (CCS1) or Combo 2 (CCS2) connectors to provide power at up to 350 kilowatts (kW) (max 500 amps),[1] although higher values are coming. These two connectors are extensions of the IEC 62196 Type 1 and Type 2 connectors, with two additional direct current (DC) contacts to allow high-power DC fast charging.

The Combined Charging System allows AC charging using the Type 1 and Type 2 connector depending on the geographical region. This charging environment encompasses charging couplers, charging communication, charging stations, the electric vehicle and various functions for the charging process such as load balancing and charge authorization.

Okay… twist my arm. I’ll accept switching out CCS1 for CCS2 in the US.

At least it’s run by a proper standards board

 

[SASSquatch]

Okay… twist my arm. I’ll accept switching out CCS1 for CCS2 in the US.

At least it’s run by a proper standards board

Sold!

 

[Dirtcom_AJ]

From a purely ease and usability standpoint the NACS connector is way better than the clunky CCS connector.

There are a lot of assumptions going on in this thread. Let's assume this, Ford and GM wouldn't be stupid enough to sign away and give Tesla full control on the NACS connector. I'm sure there were plenty of stipulations and future promises in their agreements. I'm also assuming that Ford and Chevy agreed to this with the expectation that Elon is going to finally take the U.S. government's hefty offer to open up his charger network. All assumptions. Tesla is getting so much money I'm sure they can lengthen the cables on their chargers.

Also, the CCS connector was conceived by the SAE and they didn't ask you all for your opinion either, yet we all gladly accepted their cumbersome plug. A plug designed by engineers who didn't pay much attention to human factors and usability, and as engineers do, only paid attention to specs and numbers on paper.

Sponsored