Ford/Tesla Deal: Access to Superchargers, adapter coming, future EVs will have NACS (Tesla) port

[MountainRatMatt]

It’s not. Once it goes past the AC to DC inverter inside of a CCS car, it’s all the same. After this point, there is a single line of cable for power (not two).

Again, Tesla cars have to determine which sort of current is going down its wire, before it sends the current to AC/DC inverter first or straight ahead to battery. You cannot mix the two. This added logic comes from added circuitry, which is costly too.

Edit: furthermore, there are actual advantages to this CCS setup, including more straightforward implementation of V2H, V2G solutions

V2H and V2G require additional hardware on the vehicle side. I believe the lightning is the only vehicle that currently has the additional hardware. Please correct me if there are others. Does Rivian include the extra hardware in the vehicle side? I'm really not sure about it on the R1T and R1S.

Sponsored

 

[SANZC02]

V2H and V2G require additional hardware on the vehicle side. I believe the lightning is the only vehicle that currently has the additional hardware. Please correct me if there are others. Does Rivian include the extra hardware in the vehicle side? I'm really not sure about it on the R1T and R1S.

RJ has confirmed all of the Rivian’s are capable and they are working on the Bi-Directional chargers.

 

[DuoRivians]

V2H and V2G require additional hardware on the vehicle side. I believe the lightning is the only vehicle that currently has the additional hardware. Please correct me if there are others. Does Rivian include the extra hardware in the vehicle side? I'm really not sure about it on the R1T and R1S.

RJ said no additional hardware necessary on R1 vehicles to enable V2*. Just software update

 

[MountainRatMatt]

RJ said no additional hardware necessary on R1 vehicles to enable V2*. Just software update

This is a worthwhile feature. Does require additional hardware on the home but once implemented will be very valuable, especially in California with our stupid expensive power rates and even more stupid NEM 3.0 rates.

 

[DuoRivians]

This is a worthwhile feature. Does require additional hardware on the home but once implemented will be very valuable, especially in California with our stupid expensive power rates and even more stupid NEM 3.0 rates.

V2H inverters for home cost around $5k last time I saw. Powerwall costs $12k for 13.5kwh. So, I think there’s a lot of potential in V2H. For two car EV households with V2H, one could be left at home while the other is driven.

 

[Longreach]

Plenty of pointless bickering in this thread. Disappointing there wasn’t more informed dialog.

Yes there will some additional interlock relays on the Tesla, but the cost is trivial compared to the copper cable savings over CCS with the Tesla common cable switchable AC or D.C. implementation. The Tesla implementation is better in every measurable way and it is blatantly obvious why. And there is no way Ford will implement dual sockets going forward because that dramatically adds cost.

The next key player to watch is Stellantis. GM will fight NACS the whole way because it is in their “my way or the highway” culture, but if Stellantis goes NCAS it is all over and NACS becomes the de facto North American standard. Although CCS might stick around for captive commercial applications only.

Fringe players like Rivian will have no choice but to follow the de facto standard when it becomes clear. In the meantime, caveat emptor.

 

[Dark-Fx]

The Tesla implementation is better in every measurable way and it is blatantly obvious why.

In a world where things never fail, maybe true. I don't live in that world though.

 

[Longreach]

In a world where things never fail, maybe true. I don't live in that world though.

- Cost, including materials economy
- Historical reliability
- Size, weight
- Ease of use
- Mechanical lock simplicity
Is there anything that CCS-1 does better?

 

[Dark-Fx]

- Cost, including materials economy
- Historical reliability
- Size, weight
- Ease of use
- Mechanical lock simplicity
Is there anything that CCS-1 does better?

It doesn't make the charge port dangerously unusable if the DC charging contactors get welded shut.

 

[DuoRivians]

Plenty of pointless bickering in this thread. Disappointing there wasn’t more informed dialog.

Yes there will some additional interlock relays on the Tesla, but the cost is trivial compared to the copper cable savings over CCS with the Tesla common cable switchable AC or D.C. implementation. The Tesla implementation is better in every measurable way and it is blatantly obvious why. And there is no way Ford will implement dual sockets going forward because that dramatically adds cost.

The next key player to watch is Stellantis. GM will fight NACS the whole way because it is in their “my way or the highway” culture, but if Stellantis goes NCAS it is all over and NACS becomes the de facto North American standard. Although CCS might stick around for captive commercial applications only.

Fringe players like Rivian will have no choice but to follow the de facto standard when it becomes clear. In the meantime, caveat emptor.

Another fanboy entered the room! More regurgitation of tropes mentioned by the usual suspects.

Looks like another ignore on deck

 

[Longreach]

Another fanboy entered the room! More regurgitation of tropes mentioned by the usual suspects.

Looks like another ignore on deck

Not true, I have never owned a Tesla and never will own one. Don’t like them, don’t like the management. Nor do I hang around here spewing Tesla propaganda.

But I’m not stupid enough to ignore the plug engineering nor the impact reality of Ford’s decision.

Go ahead and put me and others on ignore, it won’t change the reality or the discussion, or the outcome.

 

[Longreach]

It doesn't make the charge port dangerously unusable if the DC charging contactors get welded shut.

Rubbish, that is simply a design issue that will be engineered to suit the purpose, including safety. That’s what engineers do, and apparently have done for years in the Telsa implementation case.

 

[DuoRivians]

Not true, I have never owned a Tesla and never will own one. Don’t like them, don’t like the management. Nor do I hang around here spewing Tesla propaganda.

But I’m not stupid enough to ignore the plug engineering nor the impact reality of Ford’s decision.

Go ahead and put me and others on ignore, it won’t change the reality or the discussion, or the outcome.

Ford’s decision is nothing more than an attempt to get short term boost in sales. There have been absolutely no details on the arrangement. It’s all soft commits. Ford can change/delay their mind indefinitely, especially if they don’t see any boost in their EV sales with this news. No company would be foolish to commit further to Tesla IP unless they think they’ll see a significant boost in sales (at minimum).

The engineering costs between the plugs strictly is really immaterial at the end of the day, even including a bit more copper wire to get to the AC/DC inverter. At scale, the costs between the two isn’t that much, maybe ~$100 or so, and certainly something that oems can pass onto consumers. But the cost for oems outside of the plug, when considering long term strategy, can be significantly higher.

CCS-2 in Europe, which is the same size as CCS-1, has been totally fine and common.

The use of ccs or NACS when done well both work great. RAN’s execution with ccs has been fantastic.

 

[Longreach]

Ford’s decision is nothing more than an attempt to get short term boost in sales. There have been absolutely no details on the arrangement. It’s all soft commits. Ford can change/delay their mind indefinitely, especially if they don’t see any boost in their EV sales with this news. No company would be foolish to commit further to Tesla IP unless they think they’ll see a significant boost in sales (at minimum).

The engineering costs between the plugs is really immaterial at the end of the day. At scale, the costs between the two isn’t that much, maybe ~$100 or so, and certainly something that oems can pass onto consumers.

CCS-2 in Europe, which is the same size as CCS-1, has been totally fine and common.

The use of ccs or NACS when done well both work great. RAN’s execution with ccs has been fantastic.

I think you might be under estimating the impact of the large Supercharger deployment, which is universally seen as far superior and reliable to any CCS-1 implementation. It is a decade ahead and makes long distance travel practical thus relieving range anxiety.

Note that had the CCS-1 crowd got their act together earlier, which would have included some major help from a manufacturer like GM, things might have turned out differently. But GM famously took the “not our problem” approach, and the result was a mess of underfunded and unreliable small companies with the predictable dismal results. Catching up at this point will require a massive capital infusion and operating subsidy, which just isn’t happening at the required scale.

Neither Ford or GM have the capital or will to fix CCS, so Ford has made this bold decision, which relieves the long distance issue and make buying a Ford EV a much more attractive proposition. It’s a blatantly obvious win for Ford, and they will go all in with only NACS plugs on their second gen EVs. Analysts are universally praising Ford for making the move, it is definitely a hard commit.

It is way more significant than just boosting short term sales. We are near the tipping point, so watch for one more major player, maybe Stellantis, to follow Ford. If so, then NACS will become the eventual standard with GM howling all the way to that inevitable conclusion. If not, we could end up with two standards, which would be a terrible waste and drag on the EV industry.

Note that in either case, Rivian is a fringe player with little influence and will therefore simply follow the winner. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is simply a matter of scale, another reality.

As for your idea that dual plugs are only $100, you clearly underestimate the auto industry focus on product cost. Manufacturers will make major investments to save <$1, let alone $100, so there will not be dual plugs. It’s all a matter of saving money at scale.

BTW, CCS-1 and CCS-2 are not the same, only the D.C. pins. The AC part is based on the Mennekes design which supports 3 phase AC, something that is essential in Europe home power deployments. Note that the Tesla system cannot support 3 phase, so was a non starter in Europe from day one. You will find people in Europe who are disappointed the efficient Mennekes design was contaminated by the bulbous D.C. add on. However there is no alternative on the horizon in Europe. Fortunately few people drive across the Atlantic, so compatibility is not an issue.

 

[DuoRivians]

I think you might be under estimating the impact of the large Supercharger deployment, which is universally seen as far superior and reliable to any CCS-1 implementation. It is a decade ahead and makes long distance travel practical thus relieving range anxiety.

Note that had the CCS-1 crowd got their act together earlier, which would have included some major help from a manufacturer like GM, things might have turned out differently. But GM famously took the “not our problem” approach, and the result was a mess of underfunded and unreliable small companies with the predictable dismal results. Catching up at this point will require a massive capital infusion and operating subsidy, which just isn’t happening at the required scale.

Neither Ford or GM have the capital or will to fix CCS, so Ford has made this bold decision, which relieves the long distance issue and make buying a Ford EV a much more attractive proposition. It’s a blatantly obvious win for Ford, and they will go all in with only NACS plugs on their second gen EVs. Analysts are universally praising Ford for making the move, it is definitely a hard commit.

It is way more significant than just boosting short term sales. We are near the tipping point, so watch for one more major player, maybe Stellantis, to follow Ford. If so, then NACS will become the eventual standard with GM howling all the way to that inevitable conclusion. If not, we could end up with two standards, which would be a terrible waste and drag on the EV industry.

Note that in either case, Rivian is a fringe player with little influence and will therefore simply follow the winner. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is simply a matter of scale, another reality.

As for your idea that dual plugs are only $100, you clearly underestimate the auto industry focus on product cost. Manufacturers will make major investments to save <$1, let alone $100, so there will not be dual plugs. It’s all a matter of saving money at scale.

BTW, CCS-1 and CCS-2 are not the same, only the D.C. pins. The AC part is based on the Mennekes design which supports 3 phase AC, something that is essential in Europe home power deployments. Note that the Tesla system cannot support 3 phase, so was a non starter in Europe from day one. You will find people in Europe who are disappointed the efficient Mennekes design was contaminated by the bulbous D.C. add on. However there is no alternative on the horizon in Europe. Fortunately few people drive across the Atlantic, so compatibility is not an issue.

CCS1 and CCS2 are the same size, and in Europe this plug size is being used fine. Your notion that just because “NACS is smaller and as a result is better” is false.

All else equal, saving a $1 in costs makes sense, but this isn’t an all else equal comparison. Marrying further into Tesla’s IP has definite strategic costs that far negate an all else equal comparison.

All that the US market needs is an *external NACS to CCS adapter*. Then, all superchargers will instantly become available to all EVs too, without needing integrated NACS ports. This adapter also solves the case that we end up with two charging standards in the US.

Charging network will become a commodity, and ultimately the plug type shouldn’t determine which one “wins”. If NACS and all down-the-line to inverter patents were freely given up by Tesla, this would be a different topic today. But they’re not, and again, no company would be foolish to give up an important part of their hardware to Tesla’s effective control, unless they got something big out of it.

CCS networks are getting a huge incentive via IRA’s NEVI funding.

Side note: looking back at your comments here, I find a pattern of using big words and/or illustration of “knowing it all”. Yet, I can’t find anything that actually turns out to be true as you predicted.

Sponsored