SAE is standardizing NACS this year – making it less dependent on Tesla

[TexasBob]

I never looked looked at Level 1, 2, and 3 as charging speed, always went by

Level 1 120 volt, AC
Level 2 240 volt AC
Level 3 DC

Anything from the government is a hot mess. If I ever want a good laugh (or cry) I just read some of the tax codes. ?

Thank goodness SAE was here to help us out with this, because obviously "Level 1" is much, much clearer than 120V AC. Who was it that said "Standards bodies are where bad engineers go to make good engineer's lives miserable?"

Sponsored

 

[WSea]

Cybertruck MSRP comes to mind!

Or automonous Tesla's thinking Burger King signs are stop signs
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...p&cvid=8083da66872642dcc7b979b4b68f4ff4&ei=14

 

[Dark-Fx]

But at least they did a super-good-job of creating the EV Charging nomenclature. Let's see... there is: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 (someone needs to buy these guys a thesaurus). But Level 3 is something as low as 50 kw or maybe 500kw and operates on 400V or maybe 800V but it is all Level 3 because anything else is too complicated.

I guess we will have Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 NACS? Hopefully they put a stronger team on this one and, seriously, someone buy those guys a thesaurus. Even better, hire them an English major. They are inexpensive.

Funny you say that because there is no level 3 according to the SAE.

 

[Yossarian]

Notably missing from the announcement is any information from Tesla. Did Tesla submit their proprietary specification to SAE? That would imply Tesla signed a statement of intent saying they would transfer their IP and copyright/trademark rights to the standards body as part of the process. Absent some positive statement from Tesla saying they are relinquishing their "NACS" control, it sounds to me more like SAE is just joining the mob to be relevant and undertaking this process on their own. If Tesla hasn't committed to adhering to the PKI part, for example, then it doesn't matter if "NACS" becomes a standard connector - we still won't be able to charger at superchargers without kissing the ring.

Perhaps its my limited understanding of the role of the standards body, but I thought that the originator retained the rights to their IP, and was free to impose whatever royalties or license fees for its use. The standards body, in this case, the SAE would be the administrator of Tesla's IP, releasing whatever data, drawings, etc were necessary for its use, but subject to the user providing the appropriate fees to Tesla. The use of the technology is open, so Tesla could not block its use, but they still retain ownership and would continue to receive remuneration for its use.

 

[R1S88]

Didn't SAE help define the inferior CCS1 standard? Are we sure their involvement here is a good thing? I am curious what the better informed here think.

 

[RWerksman]

Hopefully SAE will do a better job of this than they did with defining automated driving systems

Level 1 - Level 5 but Level 3 can be more capable than Level 4 as long as Level 4 is more capable in a specific geo-fenced environment even if it cannot drive at all in some environments where Level 3 can drive just fine. And Level 5, which can also be the same level of driving capability as Level 3 but has a fail to safe mode if the DDS system fails... never mind.

Please allow me to introduce you to my friend USB:

No, wait, that's the old one. Here is the simplified version:

But here is what the labels actually mean:

• USB 5Gbps: USB 3.0 and 3.1 Gen 1
• USB 10Gbps: USB 3.1 Gen 2, 3.2 Gen 2×1, and 3.2 Gen 1×2
• USB 20Gbps: USB 3.2 Gen 2×2
• USB 40Gbps: USB4’s initial version as currently shipping

Oh, and here are the connectors:

And did you know there is more than transfer rate? Here are just the labels for USB-C:

 

[sub]

I have nothing inherently against Elon or Tesla.

It’s not a moot point. Even though the marketplace has made the CURRENT implementation a standard, this ensures that ALL FUTURE development/enhancement/implementation is a standard, and that multiple companies are guiding that standard.

Without a law stating that SAE's version of the standard is the "real" version and that manufactures must comply with its version, this has no impact Tesla's control over the standard.

If SAE proposes a change that Tesla does not agree with, Tesla will be free to continue to do whatever they want. And everyone else will have to decide if the proposed change is worth losing access to Tesla's chargers and vehicles. Unless Tesla'a market dominance changes drastically, they will choose to follow Tesla as they have done this time.

As long as Tesla controls most of the cars and most of the chargers, nothing short of a law can remove Tesla's total control over the standard.

 

[Zoidz]

Thank goodness SAE was here to help us out with this, because obviously "Level 1" is much, much clearer than 120V AC. Who was it that said "Standards bodies are where bad engineers go to make good engineer's lives miserable?"

SAE has a goal of making standards globally universal. Level 1 = 120 VAC is not universal. Level 2 the same, exact voltage and frequency vary throughout regions of the world.

"Level 2 EV charging ... utilizes a 208-volt to 240-volt AC outlet in North America and a 230-volt (single-phase) or 400-volt (three-phase) outlet in Europe."

https://www.powerstream.com/cv.htm

 

[Zoidz]

Didn't SAE help define the inferior CCS1 standard? Are we sure their involvement here is a good thing? I am curious what the better informed here think.

Here comes the VHS vs Betamax debate in 3....2....1.....

 

[crashmtb]

Imagine Elon Musk in a SAE committee meeting ??

 

[mkhuffman]

This is how you spell "landslide".

 

[ohseedee]

What happens if there is a disagreement between the two? Will we end up with even more fragmentation?

If that happened EV OEMs would have a choice. break away and lose access to Tesla SC or stick with Tesla. Since the entire point of switching to NACS is Tesla SC access, pretty clear that will never happen. A massive Tesla SC gives Tesla the power.

And my assumption is all these agreements have some sort of Tesla SC investments that the other OEMs have to pay. And if that's true you got a lot more money coming for the Tesla SC build out. So that power is going to only grow. While NACS might be "open" the reality is any standards body that wants to get involved is going to have to work with Tesla as they hold the power.

 

[VSG]

Perhaps its my limited understanding of the role of the standards body, but I thought that the originator retained the rights to their IP, and was free to impose whatever royalties or license fees for its use. The standards body, in this case, the SAE would be the administrator of Tesla's IP, releasing whatever data, drawings, etc were necessary for its use, but subject to the user providing the appropriate fees to Tesla.

Well, no. But of course it depends on the standards organization. The ones I've been involved in require all members who provide IP required by the standard to relinquish that IP so it can be used by everyone equally. There is typically (again, in my experience), a "reference implementation" that is freely available and requires no royalties to use. There may of course be proprietary implementations (e.g. better algorithms) that do the same thing and can be licensed, but no licensing is *required* in order to be standards compliant.

The standards body needs ownership of the copyright/trademark - that's how they can legally enforce the standard. If a company advertises something as "NACS compliant" or uses the "NACS" logo for a product when they haven't passed the necessary compatibility testing, the standards body would then have standing to bring a lawsuit to stop that company from selling or advertising its products. Without ownership, the standards body couldn't do anything and ANYONE could sell any POS adapter and label it as "NACS". And specifically, even Tesla would be subject to this compliance testing, so once the standards organization has control then the standards organization is the one who decides / approves any changes to the standard - that can't be done unilaterally, and one party can't just make changes and force everyone else to follow.

The use of the technology is open, so Tesla could not block its use, but they still retain ownership and would continue to receive remuneration for its use.

If this were true, then Tesla could *effectively* prohibit anyone else, or any specific company, from using "their" technology - all they would have to do is impose prohibitive terms. In order for the technology to be truly standard, all parties need to be on an equal footing when it comes to implementation and when it comes to evolving the standard over time.

 

[mkhuffman]

Well, no. But of course it depends on the standards organization. The ones I've been involved in require all members who provide IP required by the standard to relinquish that IP so it can be used by everyone equally. There is typically (again, in my experience), a "reference implementation" that is freely available and requires no royalties to use. There may of course be proprietary implementations (e.g. better algorithms) that do the same thing and can be licensed, but no licensing is *required* in order to be standards compliant.

The standards body needs ownership of the copyright/trademark - that's how they can legally enforce the standard. If a company advertises something as "NACS compliant" or uses the "NACS" logo for a product when they haven't passed the necessary compatibility testing, the standards body would then have standing to bring a lawsuit to stop that company from selling or advertising its products. Without ownership, the standards body couldn't do anything and ANYONE could sell any POS adapter and label it as "NACS". And specifically, even Tesla would be subject to this compliance testing, so once the standards organization has control then the standards organization is the one who decides / approves any changes to the standard - that can't be done unilaterally, and one party can't just make changes and force everyone else to follow.

If this were true, then Tesla could *effectively* prohibit anyone else, or any specific company, from using "their" technology - all they would have to do is impose prohibitive terms. In order for the technology to be truly standard, all parties need to be on an equal footing when it comes to implementation and when it comes to evolving the standard over time.

But imagine Tesla decides to make a change to the NACS standard that everyone (literally) in NA uses, and the user community objects to the change. Imagine. What will happen? Ford, GM, Rivian, and all the rest go to court over who really controls the patent. Do you really think Tesla will get away with it? No way. The user community will prevail.

Not that it will happen anyway. It is in Tesla's best interest to ensure the users of their NACS standard are not in revolt, and are happy with it. The sky is not falling. Everything will be OK.

 

[CharonPDX]

In other words, it will have Tesla's fingerprints all over it. Since so many of you guys have Tesla/Elon issues, don't know if this helps you or not.

I don't care that he touched it, I just don't want him still holding it.

It's not about "not having his fingerprints on it", it's about not having him have a death grip over it.

Once it's an approved SAE standard managed by CharIN, Elon can't do a Lucy and pull the football away. He can't go "hah! Psych! Y'all can't use it any more. I'll pay the Ford/GM/Rivian lawsuits out, I just destroyed all Tesla's competitors!" (Note: I don't actually expect that he would have done this; but some form of shenanigans wouldn't surprise me. And by having it no longer under his control, that possibility is gone.)

Sponsored