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

[kylealden]

Please allow me to introduce you to my friend USB:

At least you were polite enough not to go for HDMI

Sponsored

 

[VSG]

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.

Well yes, if Tesla controls the patent, copyright, and trademark, then every single court will back their right to make whatever change they want to their proprietary technology. The "community" will have to go along and pay their dues - that is what Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo, etc. are agreeing to do right now, as long as "NACS" remains a proprietary non-standard technology.

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.

Tesla's interests are to make as much money as possible. (And to be clear, nothing wrong with that.) They might even periodically change the specifications just to extract updated royalty payments. In fact, this is likely, not just the hyperbole of a conspiracy theory - I can say that because if Tesla's primary concern were to improve the national charging infrastructure then they could have done that years ago by installing CCS plugs and giving everyone the benefit of the superchargers (and STILL make a lot of money, because they would still be collecting money from all those CCS users and they could even charge them a premium for use of the CCS plug). Tesla did not do that (although they promised to). Tesla did not deploy the Magic Docks (although they promised to). Instead, Tesla is opening the superchargers only to those manufacturers willing to pay and willing to sell the Tesla adapter and willing to pledge to add an "NACS" port to their vehicle.

This is not altruism. This is not Tesla contributing to the common good. This is Tesla extracting as much money as they can from the consumer. Don't mistake it for anything else, and don't make assumptions about what will happen in the future on any other basis.

 

[CharonPDX]

Please allow me to introduce you to my friend USB:

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

And by the way, USB4 devices aren't required to support USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps (them's a lot of 2s.) So a USB4 device will support 40 Gbps, and 10 Gbps, but may not support 20 Gbps. (Which annoys the crap out of me. I have three USB4 computers, so I bought a 20 Gbps USB SSD. It only connects to any of them at 10 Gbps.)

 

[mkhuffman]

Well yes, if Tesla controls the patent, copyright, and trademark, then every single court will back their right to make whatever change they want to their proprietary technology. The "community" will have to go along and pay their dues - that is what Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo, etc. are agreeing to do right now, as long as "NACS" remains a proprietary non-standard technology.


Tesla's interests are to make as much money as possible. (And to be clear, nothing wrong with that.) They might even periodically change the specifications just to extract updated royalty payments. In fact, this is likely, not just the hyperbole of a conspiracy theory - I can say that because if Tesla's primary concern were to improve the national charging infrastructure then they could have done that years ago by installing CCS plugs and giving everyone the benefit of the superchargers (and STILL make a lot of money, because they would still be collecting money from all those CCS users and they could even charge them a premium for use of the CCS plug). Tesla did not do that (although they promised to). Tesla did not deploy the Magic Docks (although they promised to). Instead, Tesla is opening the superchargers only to those manufacturers willing to pay and willing to sell the Tesla adapter and willing to pledge to add an "NACS" port to their vehicle.

This is not altruism. This is not Tesla contributing to the common good. This is Tesla extracting as much money as they can from the consumer. Don't mistake it for anything else, and don't make assumptions about what will happen in the future on any other basis.

I understand your arguments and they are reasonable. But I am not worried about it at all.

 

[RWerksman]

Well yes, if Tesla controls the patent, copyright, and trademark, then every single court will back their right to make whatever change they want to their proprietary technology. The "community" will have to go along and pay their dues - that is what Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo, etc. are agreeing to do right now, as long as "NACS" remains a proprietary non-standard technology.

We don't know what the agreement is, and everyone is apparently being VERY tight lipped about it. Are they paying to use the, "standard"? Are they paying to use the SC network? Both? None?

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if it's both.


I'd suspect with SAE getting involved, there will likely be a baseline standard that is essentially agreed upon by everyone and then extra little add-ons that are specific to a company. (e.g. maybe only Tesla's support 1000v total charging throughput - something beyond the standard for the Cybertruck or whatever)

 

[Dark-Fx]

We don't know what the agreement is, and everyone is apparently being VERY tight lipped about it. Are they paying to use the, "standard"? Are they paying to use the SC network? Both? None?

I think there is a chance Tesla is actually paying the other OEMs to perform the port switch. At the very least they are likely helping with the engineering modifications needed to stay on Tesla's seemingly mandated timeline. For me it's the only thing that explains how quickly stacked all of the big OEM announcements are.

Of course I still don't believe that it's an altruistic move. Tesla is still the only automotive OEM that's really deep into the power business at this point. With the Tesla name it actually would be a pretty reasonable pivot if their car making business started crumbling, especially now that all the big auto OEMs are coming out with really competitive high-quality products.

 

[RWerksman]

Of course I still don't believe that it's an altruistic move. Tesla is still the only automotive OEM that's really deep into the power business at this point. With the Tesla name it actually would be a pretty reasonable pivot if their car making business started crumbling, especially now that all the big auto OEMs are coming out with really competitive high-quality products.

Having owned two Teslas prior, I found the company to be the exact opposite of altruistic in just about every dealing I ever had with them. If I had to use a word to describe them, it would be hungry, and this move seems to be very on brand. They're using their aggressively built out charing network to bend their competitors into submission.

 

[R1Sky Business]

Yeah but when does Tesla accuse the SAE of not acting in good faith here?

Today

 

[TexasBob]

[

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

true enough. Thanks to this very helpful SAE nomenclature an American and a European can use the same term - eg “Level 1 charging” - to refer to two very different and incompatible electrical outputs. Before this helpful innovation an American would have said 120 VAC and a European would have said 230VAC. Lol

 

[azbill]

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.

I am a member of an SAE standards group and can tell you that the document becomes the IP of SAE, so Tesla must be handing it over. SAE also controls who gets to be a member, as well as who gets to vote.

 

[VSG]

I am a member of an SAE standards group and can tell you that the document becomes the IP of SAE, so Tesla must be handing it over. SAE also controls who gets to be a member, as well as who gets to vote.

Yes, I am sure that is all true because that's how it works in other standards bodies that I'm a member of. I think that is the correct and proper way to do things, and if that's what's happening I think that will dispel most people's concerns about Tesla monopolizing the national charging infrastructure.

That's why I find it curious that the official press release didn't include any statement attributed to Tesla.

 

[NY_Rob]

Having owned two Teslas prior, I found the company to be the exact opposite of altruistic in just about every dealing I ever had with them. If I had to use a word to describe them, it would be hungry, and this move seems to be very on brand. They're using their aggressively built out charging network to bend their competitors into submission.

Also a brilliant move to get the govt. $$$$$$$ that has been earmarked for CCS only station buildout to now be re-directed to NACS station buildout. After all, if no one is going to be using CCS in a couple of years, it would be completely idiotic to fund CCS station buildout. Elon ends up gobbling up that sweet, sweet free Govt. $$$$ after all... wait and see!

 

[Dark-Fx]

I am a member of an SAE standards group and can tell you that the document becomes the IP of SAE, so Tesla must be handing it over. SAE also controls who gets to be a member, as well as who gets to vote.

What are the consequences if your organization decides not to implement the changes onto an updated specification?

 

[Autolycus]

Also a brilliant move to get the govt. $$$$$$$ that has been earmarked for CCS only station buildout to now be re-directed to NACS station buildout. After all, if no one is going to be using CCS in a couple of years, it would be completely idiotic to fund CCS station buildout. Elon ends up gobbling up that sweet, sweet free Govt. $$$$ after all... wait and see!

There will still be hundreds of thousands of vehicles with CCS on the road in the US for at least a decade. The government isn't going to do a new regulation just to change the CCS requirement unless every automaker switches. They'll leave that requirement in place but allow dual port chargers, which is probably the best solution anyway.

 

[NY_Rob]

There will still be hundreds of thousands of vehicles with CCS on the road in the US for at least a decade. The government isn't going to do a new regulation just to change the CCS requirement unless every automaker switches. They'll leave that requirement in place but allow dual port chargers, which is probably the best solution anyway.

Adapters will be available for all the old style (CCS in this case) vehicles... they can use them to connect to the new stations.

Since NACS connector is now officially going to be the North American standard, why build new stations that use by definition non-standard connectors for EV's produced for North America?

Sponsored