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

[2025R1S]

SAE ignored Tesla. SAE is legacy automotive. Tesla was never going to influence the design or spec of CCS because they were blocked from it.

SAE ignored Tesla until it looked like the Model S would really be a thing (and Tesla wasn’t going to bankrupt themselves before deliveries started). Once Model S looked real; then SAE started forming a committee that would draft the CCS spec and design.

Tesla did some David vs. Goliath stuff here. They made the better mouse trap. Call me a communist, but as an American, I say we reward innovation, allow companies to compete on the best solutions, and allow them to even make money from it.

Maybe I misunderstood the timeline, but I think the CCS standard was adopted in 2012. The first charging station was not installed until late 2013 and vehicles using the connector were not sold in the US until 2014. Tesla began selling Model S's in 2012, suggesting their connector was already developed and implemented well before CCS was a thing. As a new startup with an already in-market connector, it was a prudent decision not to engage with a new charging standard while already in production with its own connector. Good or Bad, the US free market doesn't like standardization for fear of stifling innovation.

Sponsored

 

[2025R1S]

It’s a plug problem, too.

I’m so over CCS. I am done defending it. Everyone needs to get on the same page - NACS plug in a corner or on the front/rear, boom - done.

End of the day the biggest issue is not the plug but the location on the car. Right now it's all over the place and it's a pain. Yesterday I saw an Audi parked at an EA station taking up 2 spots because of plug location and station design. CCS or NACS ports can work with an adapter if need be. But if the port location can't be reached easily it messes up everything.

Otherwise RAN chargers seem pretty reliable so far, though they're most likely not used that much so far

 

[Autolycus]

The major thing you are missing is that there were initially kW speed limits that did not meet Tesla criteria early on.

IEC 62196-1:2011 specified an output rating of 500V DC at 400A (200kW). I can also find evidence of CCS demonstration chargers from early 2012 that had 100kW, the same as Gen 1 Tesla superchargers.

SAE ignored Tesla. SAE is legacy automotive. Tesla was never going to influence the design or spec of CCS because they were blocked from it.

SAE ignored Tesla until it looked like the Model S would really be a thing (and Tesla wasn’t going to bankrupt themselves before deliveries started). Once Model S looked real; then SAE started forming a committee that would draft the CCS spec and design.

Tesla did some David vs. Goliath stuff here. They made the better mouse trap. Call me a communist, but as an American, I say we reward innovation, allow companies to compete on the best solutions, and allow them to even make money from it.

It’s a plug problem, too.

I’m so over CCS. I am done defending it. Everyone needs to get on the same page - NACS plug in a corner or on the front/rear, boom - done.

"I think people should be allowed to innovate, but everyone needs to get in line with what I prefer." is a pretty funny position to take. Literally everyone but Tesla HAD gotten on the same page. Tesla needs to get in line with everyone else.

 

[2025R1S]

Don’t forget a little company known as Nissan. They refused CCS, too.

It isn’t that I prefer Tesla. It’s majority rule. It’s momentum > reinventing the wheel. It’s I am sick and tired of this crappy charging system (CCS) holding the entire EV movement back.

If SAE can make a better CCS plug - I’d love to use it. I just hate crappy products and services. Rivian is awesome, CCS is not.

IEC 62196-1:2011 specified an output rating of 500V DC at 400A (200kW). I can also find evidence of CCS demonstration chargers from early 2012 that had 100kW, the same as Gen 1 Tesla superchargers.



"I think people should be allowed to innovate, but everyone needs to get in line with what I prefer." is a pretty funny position to take. Literally everyone but Tesla HAD gotten on the same page. Tesla needs to get in line with everyone else.

 

[Autolycus]

Don’t forget a little company known as Nissan. They refused CCS, too.

It isn’t that I prefer Tesla. It’s majority rule. It’s momentum > reinventing the wheel. It’s I am sick and tired of this crappy charging system (CCS) holding the entire EV movement back.

If SAE can make a better CCS plug - I’d love to use it. I just hate crappy products and services. Rivian is awesome, CCS is not.

If Tesla had adopted CCS instead of its own port, we wouldn't be talking about CCS holding anything back because Tesla would have made a solid CCS network, just like they did in Europe.

 

[Zorg]

I think that the NACS plug is a better design from an user perspective, but all that people care about is the ability to plug in reliably. Right now EA lack of maintenance plus plug location are an issue. Even when Tesla opens up it's SCs to other manufacturers, the port location will be an issue. Right now, it's almost impossible to plug a F150 Lightning at a V3 because the port is too far back, and the cover is in the way. The real standard should be on where to locate the damn outlet. For the rest, let adapters fill the gap

 

[Jarico75]

The first proposed Combined Charging Standard was published in October 2011. Before the end of 2011, BMW, Daimler, Ford, GM, and VW/Audi/Porsche had all committed to using CCS. Tesla could have easily done the same and started building the supercharger network based on the proposed standard and made any adjustments necessary once the final standard was approved.

SAE J1772 also predates CCS by more than a decade. Tesla could have used J1772 for AC. Instead, they chose to use their own proprietary port and force a divide in the market for home chargers as well. Thankfully that one is a much simpler adapter to deal with than high-power DC ones.

"I acknowledge that the initial publication of CCS's charging standard was in 2011, but it wasn't widely accepted until 2012. The crucial point to note is that Tesla had already begun manufacturing vehicles based on its standard in 2012 and cars with the CCS standard were not around until 2014. Although J1772 was already in existence, it did not support DC fast charging. In contrast, Tesla built its first DC supercharger in 2012.
As both a Tesla and Rivian owner, I am not biased towards one standard over the other. However, I find Tesla's charging infrastructure to be more reliable than CCS, and I prefer having access to a greater number of charging locations, regardless if that is with an adapter or an upgrade to the station. The appearance and functionality of the charging plug are not significant to me, nor does it matter who controls the standard.
It is worth noting that our current gas pumps are not governed by a standards consortium, and various components are patented by different companies. Yet, we do not engage in debates about who owns the gas pump nozzle."

 

[Autolycus]

"I acknowledge that the initial publication of CCS's charging standard was in 2011, but it wasn't widely accepted until 2012. The crucial point to note is that Tesla had already begun manufacturing vehicles based on its standard in 2012 and cars with the CCS standard were not around until 2014. Although J1772 was already in existence, it did not support DC fast charging. In contrast, Tesla built its first DC supercharger in 2012.
As both a Tesla and Rivian owner, I am not biased towards one standard over the other. However, I find Tesla's charging infrastructure to be more reliable than CCS, and I prefer having access to a greater number of charging locations, regardless if that is with an adapter or an upgrade to the station. The appearance and functionality of the charging plug are not significant to me, nor does it matter who controls the standard.
It is worth noting that our current gas pumps are not governed by a standards consortium, and various components are patented by different companies. Yet, we do not engage in debates about who owns the gas pump nozzle."

There's no debate about gas pump receptacles and nozzles because they've been subject to explicit legal requirements for decades, including federal statutes. For better or worse, Europe imposed a similar mandate for EV chargers, but the US has not. (I tend toward worse wrt the US. Interoperability standards are really important for critical infrastructure.)

 

[scottf200]

SAE ignored Tesla. SAE is legacy automotive. Tesla was never going to influence the design or spec of CCS because they were blocked from it.

IEC 62196-1:2011 specified an output rating of 500V DC at 400A (200kW). I can also find evidence of CCS demonstration chargers from early 2012 that had 100kW, the same as Gen 1 Tesla superchargers.

CCS did not have power levels to meet Tesla projections and SAE being a committee it did not appear to move fast enough to keep up. That is how it was back then. Tesla had to move on based on projections/plans ... the Supercharger network was the *key* to their success.

Tesla Motors Launches Revolutionary Supercharger Enabling Convenient Long Distance Driving

Ford, GM, and other committee players could have slowed things down for Tesla. Many many car companies were killed off by the big players (link).

CCS power levels did turn out to be OK in hindsight eventually with 350 kW.

 

[COdogman]

Every time someone refers to Tesla's plug as "NACS" an angel loses its wings. Stop this indoctrination.

 

[SANZC02]

A simple solution to the charge port location without a standard out there is place a charge port on the right and left either in the front or back of the vehicle. I would pay a premium for this option. It is not only the Tesla stations that are an issue, there are many CCS stations with layouts that can block other cars based on port locations and how the driver pulls in to charge.

 

[Autolycus]

CCS did not have power levels to meet Tesla projections and SAE being a committee it did not appear to move fast enough to keep up. That is how it was back then. Tesla had to move on based on projections/plans ... the Supercharger network was the *key* to their success.

Tesla Motors Launches Revolutionary Supercharger Enabling Convenient Long Distance Driving

Ford, GM, and other committee players could have slowed things down for Tesla. Many many car companies were killed off by the big players (link).

CCS power levels did turn out to be OK in hindsight eventually with 350 kW.

Tesla's initial supercharger specs were 100kW. I don't dispute that they had chargers of that speed in 2012. I'm disputing your narrative that Tesla was forced to create its own port by SAE's reluctance to do something. The CCS proposal was published before Tesla built a single Model S or supercharger station, and its spec was always for 200kW, literally double Tesla's 100kW spec. "Sufficient charging speed" can't be a reason for CCS not working for Tesla. Wanting a monopoly is the only reason Tesla didn't play with everyone else.

 

[zefram47]

Don’t forget a little company known as Nissan. They refused CCS, too.

Well that's disingenuous at best. Nissan used CHAdeMO, mainly because there was a large installed base in Japan as driven by TEPCO. CHAdeMO also predated Tesla by several years in 2009. It didn't become a recognized standard until 2014, which still means that CCS even beat that as a standard. Nissan has since seen the writing on the wall and made the Ariya and future EVs use CCS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAdeMO

 

[cdub]

If Tesla had adopted CCS instead of its own port, we wouldn't be talking about CCS holding anything back because Tesla would have made a solid CCS network, just like they did in Europe.

Tesla designed their port before ccs was a thing.

 

[scottf200]

A simple solution to the charge port location without a standard out there is place a charge port on the right and left either in the front or back of the vehicle. I would pay a premium for this option. It is not only the Tesla stations that are an issue, there are many CCS stations with layouts that can block other cars based on port locations and how the driver pulls in to charge.

The vast majority of Tesla Supercharge sites are being planned with the prefabricated 4:1 'pre-assembled supercharger units' which means the vehicles left-rear or front-right is key so vehicles like Rivian (etc) don't take up 2 stalls.

Tesla's presentations by the execs in that area state this allows them to install them faster in weeks instead of months and at *much* cost savings (investor day pres). That, of course, lets them install even more for the same overall expense budget.

https://insideevs.com/news/657795/tesla-shows-how-prefabricated-supercharger-units-save-time-costs/

Sponsored