4 ms·

At this point, the rate at which automakers NACS support is a good proxy for corporate malaise. Everyone sees the writing on the wall for CCS, and if an automa

At this point, the rate at which automakers NACS support is a good proxy for corporate malaise. Everyone sees the writing on the wall for CCS, and if an automaker takes another couple months to announce a migration it simply means the executive leadership has no clue what they are doing with regards to EVs.

echelon 3y ago
Is NACS superior to CCS in any way apart from install base? I was under the impression NACS was inferior.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  NACS is superior to CCS1 (North America) in every way. Size, install base, robustness and more. CCS2 (Europe) has few (if any) of the drawbacks of CCS1.
- option 3y ago
  install base matter A LOT.
- belval 3y ago
  I've used both and while from a technical standpoint CCS might be superior (I have no idea), in practice NACS is sleeker and feels less clunky. Is that a good reason to adopt a standard that isn't open? Probably not. Does the average customer cares and will it have an impact on their day to day? Probably not. EDIT: Seems like NACS is open after all so I don't really understand why we would bother with CCS.
  - tensor 3y ago
    My understanding is that NACS is open: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
    - simondotau 3y ago
      It's open in every respect that matters, but pedants will rightly point out that it hasn't been submitted to a classic standards body (like SAE) to formalise in the way that satisfies middle management and expensive consultants.
  - shmoe 3y ago
    its called NACS because they opened it up.. didn't really have much of a name before.
- zodo123 3y ago
  NACS is dramatically easier to maneuver into the port on the car, and supports higher amperage. CSS requires an extra internal flap on the car side that you have to open and close manually, as well. It’s a seriously underwhelming design.
- simondotau 3y ago
  NACS is smaller and lighter than CCS1. By combining DC and AC onto the same pins, it reduces the part count and weight of bus bars / conductors which run from a car's charging socket and the battery. NACS is a better user experience for people and significantly so for people with mobility issues, disabilities, etc. The pre-eminent NACS fast charging network is markedly better than the totality of all CCS1 charging networks.
- xp84 3y ago
  Suggest to watch the Technology Connections video. TL;DW: it’s fine, it has some advantages and no real disadvantages. It’s annoying that the US will once again be out of sync with the rest of the world, that’s the main drawback.
  - bombela 3y ago
    With a bit of luck they will be able to name the connector in inches, making it even more patriotic.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    The rest of the world does not mean Europe, no matter how much euro nationalists think it does. (China and Japan for example don't use the CCS plug).
    - xp84 3y ago
      Fair enough point!
  - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
    [dead]
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Even with CCS1 the US was out of sync with "the rest of the world", which uses a few different connectors. And in the end it doesn't really matter. I'm not driving my car across the ocean very often. Import processes already tend to make taking a car from one continent to the other a huge hassle, so to the vast majority of people its probably easier to just sell the car in one place and buy another on the other shore.
- rblatz 3y ago
  The form factor is significantly smaller, which means it’s easier to use. But more importantly the charging connector has no moving parts. A common failure on CCS chargers is that the locking pin breaks and the charger will no longer stay firmly attached to the vehicle causing charging issues. On the NACS adapter the locking pin is on the vehicle. Charging infrastructure sees significantly more duty cycles than an individual car so it makes sense to move the wear part to the vehicle.
zodo123 3y ago
I’d say that’s the case for Stellantis (Dodge etc), but I suspect the big European automakers will be slower to get onboard due to the greater investment in CCS in the EU. It’ll require a bigger mental shift, as their leadership may not have as strong a grasp on the North American situation, and will probably have a greater bias toward “standards”. (Yes I realize we’re talking about CCS1 vs CCS2, but it doesn’t practically matter).
- pornel 3y ago
  Nah, Stellantis is just bad. Their EV tech is poor. They have no dedicated EV platform, and they struggle to make profit on EVs. They're not invested in CCS at all — they're still hoping EVs are a fad.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Stellantis has dedicated EVs in Europe. That largely why Stellantis was created in the first place. So FCA would not be totally lost on EVs. The PSA group does have EVs. But you are correct, they are not much invested in CCS in the US. Unlike say Volkswagen.
    - pornel 3y ago
      By lack of a dedicated platform I mean that all of their EVs share the platform with ICE/hybrid versions of vehicles. They're either available with an engine of your choice (like Peugeot and DS), or are only a new body on an older ICE+EV shared platform (like Jeep Avenger is built on Opel/Vauxhall Astra). Contrast this with VW MEB, Hyundai/Kia eGMP, Porsche J1, Mercedes EVA, etc. that were all ground-up EV skateboards without ICE support.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        I thought PSA already had that. But maybe I was wrong.
adrianmonk 3y ago
And/or, since automakers evidently need some sort of agreement with Tesla[1], if it takes a while, it could be due to negotiations. For example, if there are fees for using the connector (not sure), an automaker might hold out to get the best price. There may be terms related to the rates that will be paid for using Tesla's charging stations. There might be other issues. Maybe Tesla wants to qualify automakers' designs so cars don't cause problems with their charging network, or vice versa. The automaker might want access to Tesla engineers or facilities for help with designing or testing stuff. Also, I don't know who's supplying the connectors (that will be built into the cars), but if it's Tesla, the automaker may want commitments about how many will be delivered by what date and at what cost. There could also be some sort of IT integration, like charging location map data or maybe allowing customers a different way to pay for charging (through the automaker's app or something). --- [1] Rivian's press release (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230620267452/en/Rivian-Accelerates-Electrification-through-Adoption-of-North-American-Charging-Standard-and-Access-to-Tesla%E2%80%99s-Supercharger-Network-for-Rivian-Drivers https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230620267452/en/Riv...) says they "signed an agreement with Tesla".
- vel0city 3y ago
  > Maybe Tesla wants to qualify automakers' designs so cars don't cause problems with their charging network, or vice versa. I shouldn't need Exxon and Shell and Phillips and Wawa and Sheetz and whoever to qualify my car to get gas. I shouldn't need Tesla and EA and whoever to qualify my car to get electricity. I don't see how anyone can see that and think its a good thing.
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    I don't like that a single private company is in charge of this standard, but I think this sort of thing is pretty common and necessary when two companies integrate technologies. For example, look at how USB C compatibility worked at first. There was a standard, but there were still lots of problems. In practice, implementers may not correctly understand certain parts of the standard, may not grasp the importance of doing something a specific way, or may try to cut corners. Also, the standard may have omissions or errors. All of this should theoretically be fed back into a future version of the standard, but with evolving technologies, it takes time to get there.

echelon 3y ago

Is NACS superior to CCS in any way apart from install base? I was under the impression NACS was inferior.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
NACS is superior to CCS1 (North America) in every way. Size, install base, robustness and more. CCS2 (Europe) has few (if any) of the drawbacks of CCS1.
option 3y ago
install base matter A LOT.
belval 3y ago
I've used both and while from a technical standpoint CCS might be superior (I have no idea), in practice NACS is sleeker and feels less clunky. Is that a good reason to adopt a standard that isn't open? Probably not. Does the average customer cares and will it have an impact on their day to day? Probably not. EDIT: Seems like NACS is open after all so I don't really understand why we would bother with CCS.
- tensor 3y ago
  My understanding is that NACS is open: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...
  - simondotau 3y ago
    It's open in every respect that matters, but pedants will rightly point out that it hasn't been submitted to a classic standards body (like SAE) to formalise in the way that satisfies middle management and expensive consultants.
- shmoe 3y ago
  its called NACS because they opened it up.. didn't really have much of a name before.
zodo123 3y ago
NACS is dramatically easier to maneuver into the port on the car, and supports higher amperage. CSS requires an extra internal flap on the car side that you have to open and close manually, as well. It’s a seriously underwhelming design.
simondotau 3y ago
NACS is smaller and lighter than CCS1. By combining DC and AC onto the same pins, it reduces the part count and weight of bus bars / conductors which run from a car's charging socket and the battery. NACS is a better user experience for people and significantly so for people with mobility issues, disabilities, etc. The pre-eminent NACS fast charging network is markedly better than the totality of all CCS1 charging networks.
xp84 3y ago
Suggest to watch the Technology Connections video. TL;DW: it’s fine, it has some advantages and no real disadvantages. It’s annoying that the US will once again be out of sync with the rest of the world, that’s the main drawback.
- bombela 3y ago
  With a bit of luck they will be able to name the connector in inches, making it even more patriotic.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  The rest of the world does not mean Europe, no matter how much euro nationalists think it does. (China and Japan for example don't use the CCS plug).
  - xp84 3y ago
    Fair enough point!
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
  [dead]
- vel0city 3y ago
  Even with CCS1 the US was out of sync with "the rest of the world", which uses a few different connectors. And in the end it doesn't really matter. I'm not driving my car across the ocean very often. Import processes already tend to make taking a car from one continent to the other a huge hassle, so to the vast majority of people its probably easier to just sell the car in one place and buy another on the other shore.
rblatz 3y ago
The form factor is significantly smaller, which means it’s easier to use. But more importantly the charging connector has no moving parts. A common failure on CCS chargers is that the locking pin breaks and the charger will no longer stay firmly attached to the vehicle causing charging issues. On the NACS adapter the locking pin is on the vehicle. Charging infrastructure sees significantly more duty cycles than an individual car so it makes sense to move the wear part to the vehicle.

zodo123 3y ago

I’d say that’s the case for Stellantis (Dodge etc), but I suspect the big European automakers will be slower to get onboard due to the greater investment in CCS in the EU. It’ll require a bigger mental shift, as their leadership may not have as strong a grasp on the North American situation, and will probably have a greater bias toward “standards”. (Yes I realize we’re talking about CCS1 vs CCS2, but it doesn’t practically matter).

pornel 3y ago
Nah, Stellantis is just bad. Their EV tech is poor. They have no dedicated EV platform, and they struggle to make profit on EVs. They're not invested in CCS at all — they're still hoping EVs are a fad.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Stellantis has dedicated EVs in Europe. That largely why Stellantis was created in the first place. So FCA would not be totally lost on EVs. The PSA group does have EVs. But you are correct, they are not much invested in CCS in the US. Unlike say Volkswagen.
  - pornel 3y ago
    By lack of a dedicated platform I mean that all of their EVs share the platform with ICE/hybrid versions of vehicles. They're either available with an engine of your choice (like Peugeot and DS), or are only a new body on an older ICE+EV shared platform (like Jeep Avenger is built on Opel/Vauxhall Astra). Contrast this with VW MEB, Hyundai/Kia eGMP, Porsche J1, Mercedes EVA, etc. that were all ground-up EV skateboards without ICE support.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      I thought PSA already had that. But maybe I was wrong.

adrianmonk 3y ago

And/or, since automakers evidently need some sort of agreement with Tesla[1], if it takes a while, it could be due to negotiations. For example, if there are fees for using the connector (not sure), an automaker might hold out to get the best price. There may be terms related to the rates that will be paid for using Tesla's charging stations. There might be other issues. Maybe Tesla wants to qualify automakers' designs so cars don't cause problems with their charging network, or vice versa. The automaker might want access to Tesla engineers or facilities for help with designing or testing stuff. Also, I don't know who's supplying the connectors (that will be built into the cars), but if it's Tesla, the automaker may want commitments about how many will be delivered by what date and at what cost. There could also be some sort of IT integration, like charging location map data or maybe allowing customers a different way to pay for charging (through the automaker's app or something). --- [1] Rivian's press release (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230620267452/en/Rivian-Accelerates-Electrification-through-Adoption-of-North-American-Charging-Standard-and-Access-to-Tesla%E2%80%99s-Supercharger-Network-for-Rivian-Drivers https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230620267452/en/Riv...) says they "signed an agreement with Tesla".

vel0city 3y ago
> Maybe Tesla wants to qualify automakers' designs so cars don't cause problems with their charging network, or vice versa. I shouldn't need Exxon and Shell and Phillips and Wawa and Sheetz and whoever to qualify my car to get gas. I shouldn't need Tesla and EA and whoever to qualify my car to get electricity. I don't see how anyone can see that and think its a good thing.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  I don't like that a single private company is in charge of this standard, but I think this sort of thing is pretty common and necessary when two companies integrate technologies. For example, look at how USB C compatibility worked at first. There was a standard, but there were still lots of problems. In practice, implementers may not correctly understand certain parts of the standard, may not grasp the importance of doing something a specific way, or may try to cut corners. Also, the standard may have omissions or errors. All of this should theoretically be fed back into a future version of the standard, but with evolving technologies, it takes time to get there.