Tesla Charging cannot be the standard NA adopts to.

[rraj2k81]

I am not a fan of Elon at all. However the NACS is not an official standard as of yet, everyone is kind of 'We will figure out using the Tesla style port over the next year or so'. There will be a standard that Tesla will be involved with but it won't be his alone. Will cars have two ports like the Audi/Porsche but make 1 CCS and 1 NACS, we don't know. We vehicles come with adapters, that we know is a big yes. Will both CCS and NACS change to become something new that has more power at faster speeds, totally possible.


This reminds me of the beginnings of Power over Ethernet. Cisco had their thing because they needed it to sell phones. The industry adopted 802.af, a standard that was extremely similar to Cisco's initial creation. Over the years we have had many changes to this but today we have 802.3at which has more than double the power but is available from dozens of vendors globally.

USB is another good analogy.

In the days when USB was becoming a thing, every one and the tech sector was talking up firewire and how it would dethrone USB. But, now USB is the global standard for computer pheripheral connectivity that even Apple gets critiqued for not including USB-C on their iphones.

Now even Thunderbolt is getting rolled into USB4 as a standard.

Sponsored

 

[iansriv]

My guess is that we won't have a meaningful alternative to Tesla network for another 4-5 years. Good news is that Rivian seems to be hitting its stride rolling out RAN.

Looks like Walmart is getting in the business. This may solve the proximity and down-time issues.
Walmart

 

[Zorg]

Looks like Walmart is getting in the business. This may solve the proximity and down-time issues.
Walmart

Best guess is that 10 years from now, we will have multiple providers that cover NA. This issue should be short lived.

 

[HaveBlue]

Honda is also switching to NACS which is interesting considering they are going in on the group to develop stations.

 

[NineElectrics]

Sorry but . . . What? How is Elon musk going to “do a 180”? The plug is the plug.

Here’s one example: all new Teslas move to a new “Elon ego” connector. No new superchargers are built using the old connector. Adapters are given only to existing Tesla owners. Existing contracts are upheld, but no new superchargers are ever built with the old plug. Non-Teslas are excluded from new Superchargers going forward.

There you go.

 

[DevSecOps]

Here’s one example: all new Teslas move to a new “Elon ego” connector. No new superchargers are built using the old connector. Adapters are given only to existing Tesla owners. Existing contracts are upheld, but no new superchargers are ever built with the old plug. Non-Teslas are excluded from new Superchargers going forward.

There you go.

So, by your example please explain how that's any different than right now? If you hate Elon that much would you even use a supercharger?

Let me help all of you who are anti-Elon with some facts -

1 - The SAE J3400 (NACS) connector itself will not generate revenue for Elon
2 - If you hate the man that much don't use Superchargers

That's it, done... There's nothing more that you need to do. If you don't use a supercharger Elon won't get a dime of your money. And if you don't use superchargers because you hate Elon, what do you care if he pulls our ability to use them since you refused to use them anyway?

Now, explain to me why people are so upset about getting a superior connector for our vehicles? Because of unfounded speculation that Tesla might not let us use their chargers? You do realize that RAN does right now to every vehicle other than Rivian right? Let's not be hypocrites.

 

[RandomMcRandomFace]

Here’s one example: all new Teslas move to a new “Elon ego” connector. No new superchargers are built using the old connector. Adapters are given only to existing Tesla owners. Existing contracts are upheld, but no new superchargers are ever built with the old plug. Non-Teslas are excluded from new Superchargers going forward.

There you go.

Sorry, I thought we were living in the real world. I guess he could also create an evil lair inside a volcano and steal all of the world’s electricity.

The current charging situation is Tesla super chargers are awesome, completely reliable, consistent, well located and abudent; CCS chargers suck, are scattered inconsistently, have varying degrees of reliability and require numerous apps/subscriptions, etc. If you are upset about the NACS standard being adopted, it is for only one reason - you hate Elon Musk and think he’s some sort of evil genius that will make irrational decisions (in a public company . . . Not “X”) that will be contractually enforceable.

 

[SoCal Rob]

So what if Elon just "shuts it down" ? We would just be back to the same situation we are in today where non-Tesla's can't use the Tesla SC network. Big deal, we just have to rely on EA and others as we do now (as crap as they are).

That’s true today but not necessarily true once non-Teslas start getting access to Superchargers. As non-Tesla drivers start using the Supercharger network, I think it’s reasonable to assume that there will be more demand for Superchargers and possibly less demand for other networks. We don’t know the scale of the demand discrepancy, but I feel pretty confident there will be one, even if it’s just caused by Tesla owners who replace Teslas with non-Teslas or add non-Teslas to their household because they are used to the Supercharger network.

Given the demand discrepancy, with more and more EVs on the road with each passing day, the number of additional Superchargers added will be greater than non-Superchargers added. This is fine because the total number of chargers will be suitable for the total number of EVs using them. However, if as an example, the number of EVs on the road doubles but the number of Superchargers more than doubles but the number of non-Superchargers increases by anything less, if you stop allowing non-Tesla EVs to charge at Superchargers there are suddenly nowhere near enough chargers for them, and this isn’t something which can be changed quickly.

For an example using numbers with a fictitious small population:
Today there are 12 Superchargers and 4 EA chargers. They are serving 7 Teslas and 3 non-Teslas so there is capacity for all with 10 EVs and 16 chargers.

At some point in the future after Supercharging is open to all, there are twice as many EVs on the road so charging expands to accommodate the increased demand. There are now 25 Superchargers (just over twice the original number of 12) and 7 EA chargers (just under twice the original number of 4). But the mix of vehicles has changed quite a bit with 10 Teslas and 10 non-Teslas. Everything is fine with 32 chargers serving the 20 vehicles.

However, if the non-Teslas are suddenly forbidden from charging or the cost goes up so high that no rational person would pay what it costs, we suddenly have 10 non-Tesla EVs competing for 7 EA chargers.
We’ve gone from a livable situation of 4 chargers for 3 non-Tesla EVs to something that looks like the electric version of the gas crises of the 1970s with long lines because there are now 7 chargers for 10 non-Tesla EVs.

People can use real numbers instead of my tiny examples, but I think the concept is the same. In our free market economy, the network(s) with more demand will increase faster than the networks with less demand. If you temporarily allow the demand to be distributed across all networks and later artificially cut access to the largest network for many or most, it will force a large demand to the smaller network which expanded less to accommodate lower demand. You’ll have a shortage of chargers.

edit: typo

 

[SANZC02]

That’s true today but not necessarily true once non-Teslas start getting access to Superchargers. As non-Tesla drivers start using the Supercharger network, I think it’s reasonable to assume that there will be more demand for Superchargers and possibly less demand for other networks. We don’t know the scale of the demand discrepancy, but I feel pretty confident there will be one, even if it’s just caused by Tesla owners who replace Teslas with non-Teslas or add non-Teslas to their household because they are used to the Supercharger network.

Given the demand discrepancy, with more and more EVs on the road with each passing day, the number of additional Superchargers added will be greater than non-Superchargers added. This is fine because the total number of chargers will be suitable for the total number of EVs using them. However, if as an example, the number of EVs on the road doubles but the number of Superchargers more than doubles but the number of non-Superchargers increases by anything less, if you stop allowing non-Tesla EVs to charge at Superchargers there are suddenly nowhere near enough chargers for them, and this isn’t something which can be changed quickly.

For an example using numbers with a fictitious small population:
Today there are 12 Superchargers and 4 EA chargers. They are serving 7 Teslas and 3 non-Teslas so there is capacity for all with 10 EVs and 16 chargers.

At some point in the future after Supercharging is open to all, there are twice as many EVs on the road so charging expands to accommodate the increased demand. There are now 25 Superchargers (just over twice the original number of 12) and 7 EA chargers (just under twice the original number of 4). But the mix of vehicles has changed quite a bit with 10 Teslas and 10 non-Teslas. Everything is fine with 32 chargers serving the 20 vehicles.

However, if the non-Teslas are suddenly forbidden from charging or the cost goes up so high that no rational person would pay what it costs, we suddenly have 10 non-Tesla EVs competing for 7 EA chargers.
We’ve gone from a livable situation of 4 chargers for 3 non-Tesla EVs to something that looks like the electric version of the gas crises of the 1970s with long lines because there are now 7 chargers for 10 non-Tesla EVs.

People can use real numbers instead of my tiny examples, but I think the concept is the same. In our free market economy, the network(s) with more demand will increase faster than the networks with less demand. If you temporarily allow the demand to be distributed across all networks and later artificially cut access to the largest network for many or most, it will force a large demand to the smaller network which expanded less to accommodate lower demand. You’ll have a shortage of chargers.

edit: typo

I think the one point that should be added here though is if the Superchargers grow because of the demand of all EVs then it would be a horrible business decision to cut out those non-Tesla vehicles as then you end up with a huge network that would be horribly under utilized.

From a business perspective it only benefits Tesla to ensure that growing network is adequately utilized to ensure it is running in the black. Otherwise it would just become another network that is not properly maintained.

 

[SoCal Rob]

I think the one point that should be added here though is if the Superchargers grow because of the demand of all EVs then it would be a horrible business decision to cut out those non-Tesla vehicles as then you end up with a huge network that would be horribly under utilized.

From a business perspective it only benefits Tesla to ensure that growing network is adequately utilized to ensure it is running in the black. Otherwise it would just become another network that is not properly maintained.

Would that business decision be better or worse than the Twitter purchase and all that followed?

Getting back to charging and business decisions, it’s more likely that Tesla would just raise the rates for non-Teslas rather than cut access everywhere. Without alternative capacity, Tesla could charge much more than would otherwise be reasonable. People still have a choice: use a different network, even if it means MUCH longer waits. A massive shift in demand to the smaller networks would probably have other consequences, some foreseeable and intended, others unintended. People aren’t always rational. I was a kid growing up one town away when this happened, so it doesn’t seem quite so outrageous to me: https://timeline.com/gas-crisis-levittown-riot-9a7705c4deb4

 

[SANZC02]

Would that business decision be better or worse than the Twitter purchase and all that followed?

Getting back to charging and business decisions, it’s more likely that Tesla would just raise the rates for non-Teslas rather than cut access everywhere. Without alternative capacity, Tesla could charge much more than would otherwise be reasonable. People still have a choice: use a different network, even if it means MUCH longer waits. A massive shift in demand to the smaller networks would probably have other consequences, some foreseeable and intended, others unintended. People aren’t always rational. I was a kid growing up one town away when this happened, so it doesn’t seem quite so outrageous to me: https://timeline.com/gas-crisis-levittown-riot-9a7705c4deb4

Agreed but in all fairness he wanted out of the Twitter purchase but his mouth forced him into a position he really did not want to be in.

Tesla has also shown, especially this year, that they are not opposed to putting pressure on other vendors by slashing prices. If they come out too high and are losing market share they would adjust that.

 

[EchoDelta]

This is why many of us agree and are against the move unless the Tesla connector is truly standardized by SAE and in no way controlled by Tesla. That means they hand over the patents.

He is a toddler with a big bank account.

Don’t throw shade at toddlers like that...

 

[Dark-Fx]

All of your arguments thus far are anti-Elon talking points.

Your arguments are all based on ignorance. The fact is still that Tesla has a patent on their connector that the other OEMs will have to license. The "SAE-NACS" connector will still be encumbered by this patent unless Tesla releases it. They have not done so yet.

He's on a tangent about Musk and talking about how NACS can't become the standard because of him. Kinda hard to talk about the standard without including the hyperbole in this thread.

Absolutely hilarious that you have this attitude and summarily dismiss my arguments as just being "anti-Elon".

Good day sir.

 

[DevSecOps]

Your arguments are all based on ignorance. The fact is still that Tesla has a patent on their connector that the other OEMs will have to license. The "SAE-NACS" connector will still be encumbered by this patent unless Tesla releases it. They have not done so yet. Good day sir.

The director of the SAE Taskforce for J3400 has said that it will be standardized by year end... Last I checked we are in 2023. Other manufacturers, including Rivian, have said they will adopt it in 2025. No one is licensing it from Tesla and your patent argument is irrelevant. If you have evidence contrary to that of the Director who said that Tesla is fully cooperating and it will be a standard by years end please provide it. I've cited my sources in previous posts. The second thing you quoted isn't even directed at you, unless you think you're the OP now.

I will believe the words of the people who are in charge of the SAE Taskforce over some random forum member who thinks he knows more. In 2 years we can reflect back on this and see who was right. Calling me ignorant is ad hominem, against decorum, pretty low and normally the first step in loosing the argument.

 

[SDH]

That’s true today but not necessarily true once non-Teslas start getting access to Superchargers. As non-Tesla drivers start using the Supercharger network, I think it’s reasonable to assume that there will be more demand for Superchargers and possibly less demand for other networks. We don’t know the scale of the demand discrepancy, but I feel pretty confident there will be one, even if it’s just caused by Tesla owners who replace Teslas with non-Teslas or add non-Teslas to their household because they are used to the Supercharger network.

Given the demand discrepancy, with more and more EVs on the road with each passing day, the number of additional Superchargers added will be greater than non-Superchargers added. This is fine because the total number of chargers will be suitable for the total number of EVs using them. However, if as an example, the number of EVs on the road doubles but the number of Superchargers more than doubles but the number of non-Superchargers increases by anything less, if you stop allowing non-Tesla EVs to charge at Superchargers there are suddenly nowhere near enough chargers for them, and this isn’t something which can be changed quickly.

For an example using numbers with a fictitious small population:
Today there are 12 Superchargers and 4 EA chargers. They are serving 7 Teslas and 3 non-Teslas so there is capacity for all with 10 EVs and 16 chargers.

At some point in the future after Supercharging is open to all, there are twice as many EVs on the road so charging expands to accommodate the increased demand. There are now 25 Superchargers (just over twice the original number of 12) and 7 EA chargers (just under twice the original number of 4). But the mix of vehicles has changed quite a bit with 10 Teslas and 10 non-Teslas. Everything is fine with 32 chargers serving the 20 vehicles.

However, if the non-Teslas are suddenly forbidden from charging or the cost goes up so high that no rational person would pay what it costs, we suddenly have 10 non-Tesla EVs competing for 7 EA chargers.
We’ve gone from a livable situation of 4 chargers for 3 non-Tesla EVs to something that looks like the electric version of the gas crises of the 1970s with long lines because there are now 7 chargers for 10 non-Tesla EVs.

People can use real numbers instead of my tiny examples, but I think the concept is the same. In our free market economy, the network(s) with more demand will increase faster than the networks with less demand. If you temporarily allow the demand to be distributed across all networks and later artificially cut access to the largest network for many or most, it will force a large demand to the smaller network which expanded less to accommodate lower demand. You’ll have a shortage of chargers.

edit: typo

You lost me about halfway through ...

Sponsored