NACS Megathread

[scal_air]

Seriously, now that NACS is the defacto standard...
1. Tesla can now draw government funding for building more SCS
2. Tesla will slow walk compatibility for other manufacturers to use SCS because what is the benefit to have a bunch of other cars using Tesla chargers???
3. Other charging stations will have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit or design new chargers using NACS
4. Even when compatible, SCS will charge more slowly for other manufacturer's cars because - see #2.

It's almost like the lightning USB-C war except that lightning won in this case!

 

[Tâm]

Plenty of us here have rallied against adoption of NACS for this very reason. Time will tell

I am for more chargers. Even with slow Tesla 400V, I still want to have an option to access it.

The fact that Lucid can only charge at 50kw at a Tesla charger doesn't change my view.

It's a Lucid problem as Ford and Rivian are having so much fun to access Tesla chargers as shown on YouTube.

 

[hydbob]

I am for more chargers. Even with slow Tesla 400V, I still want to have an option to access it.

The fact that Lucid can only charge at 50kw at a Tesla charger doesn't change my view.

It's a Lucid problem as Ford and Rivian are having so much fun to access Tesla chargers as shown on YouTube.

Not really, but that's okay to have a difference in opinion. Building a last gen network seems like an AWFUL waste of money and that's the point. Tesla still has not shown the ability to support the higher voltage charging requirements.

 

[borski]

It's too early to say I told you so but....
View attachment 19678

Is it?

 

[no gas]

Plenty of us here have rallied against adoption of NACS for this very reason. Time will tell

Elon Musk cannot be trusted……

 

[Adnillien]

Not really, but that's okay to have a difference in opinion. Building a last gen network seems like an AWFUL waste of money and that's the point. Tesla still has not shown the ability to support the higher voltage charging requirements.

That is the real problem, different companies are bidding different proposals. EA and EVGo and others are bidding 920V systems and Tesla is bidding 500V systems. Hence, Tesla can make a more competitive bid since they are bidding lower capability. I read the Arizona RFP rules and they just reference the Federal rule and guidance for minimum capability. The proposals do not even say what the capability is, only that it meets federal NEVI guidelines. I bet many states are like AZ. The recent guidance is unfair to any company meeting the spirit of the NEVI rule.

In fact the current guidance is absurd in the sense that a charger that was 250V would meet the guidance but would be incapable of charging any modern EV. Anybody with knowledge of EVs knows that battery voltage varies with SOC and that is why a range of voltages is needed. The rule making was written to require a range of 250V to 920V. The recent interpretation is pure BS and completely ignores how batteries charge.

 

[Tâm]

Not really, but that's okay to have a difference in opinion. Building a last gen network seems like an AWFUL waste of money and that's the point. Tesla still has not shown the ability to support the higher voltage charging requirements.

Tesla stations are dirt cheap. In my Tulare, CA area, it's building 12 stalls for $100,000.

In Texas, with the subsidies, Tesla cites the cost for the government as $30,000 per charger, while other companies want $150,000 for each charger.

We are still in the very early stages of EV development, and there are not enough chargers. Thus, it's better to have cheap and many 250kW stalls rather than a few expensive 350kW stalls.

 

[Neurio]

Thus, it's better to have cheap and many 250kW stalls rather than a few expensive 350kW stalls.

It's not 250 kw. It's 250V. Biiig difference...

Edit: Ignore me. I'm tired and being dumb.

 

[segbrk]

It's not 250 kw. It's 250V. Biiig difference...

Huh? They're ~400V * 631A = 250-ish kW. That's what the image earlier in the thread shows. Not that it matters for us with Airs.

 

[Neurio]

Huh? They're ~400V * 631A = 250-ish kW. That's what the image earlier in the thread shows. Not that it matters for us with Airs.

Sorry, been a long week and I misread. But yes, only 50kw for us Air owners, which isn't very helpful.

 

[Pragmatic]

Hard enough to convince some people that government funding is not a wasteful use of tax payer money without a company using those subsidies for equipment that is out of date and favors some OEMs over others.

 

[Pragmatic]

Tesla stations are dirt cheap. In my Tulare, CA area, it's building 12 stalls for $100,000.

In Texas, with the subsidies, Tesla cites the cost for the government as $30,000 per charger, while other companies want $150,000 for each charger.

We are still in the very early stages of EV development, and there are not enough chargers. Thus, it's better to have cheap and many 250kW stalls rather than a few expensive 350kW stalls.

While I agree it is better to have many 250kW stalls than fewer 350kW stalls, it is a mistake to subsidize building stations that will likely stymie future car designs. If new chargers are limited to 500v there will be limited car designs around higher voltages. Yes larger in vehicle dc converters can be installed (weight and cost penalties), or voltage dividers can be used (CyberTruck). But both of these are limiting what can be done with future vehicle designs (especially HD bus and truck). If I'm subsidizing your stations (which is what this is about) I want the design to be future proof. If the Tesla stations are that much cheaper maybe they don't need a government handout.

So in the end if the government is paying it should be for forward looking designs that will not hobble us for 20 years with antiquated lower voltage infrastructure.

 

[borski]

Teslas will be hobbled. Other networks are already building out 800V-1000V stations, and don’t plan on changing that, since their cars need it.

I’m not too worried about any of this except that I hate that Elon won and we’re all going to be stuck wearing adapters for years for literally no tangible benefit for at least the first decade. Anyone wanna take that bet?

 

[Sandvinsd]

Once Tesla allows other cars to use the SC sites, they will migrate to them. That will leave plenty of the 350kW stations open for us Lucid owners to charge at full speed. I would only use the Tesla SC stations in an emergency, especially at 50kW. I’ll be real curious as to how they perform when a dozen different manufacturers and models are trying to authenticate.

 

[Tâm]

Once Tesla allows other cars to use the SC sites, they will migrate to them. That will leave plenty of the 350kW stations open for us Lucid owners to charge at full speed. I would only use the Tesla SC stations in an emergency, especially at 50kW.

Sounds right to me. There's no downside here.

I’ll be real curious as to how they perform when a dozen different manufacturers and models are trying to authenticate.

I have no idea, but my guess is that CCS has a plug-and-charge protocol, and NACS is in compliance with that protocol but with a different plug format.

Thus, if EA could do it, Tesla should, too. So far, it's been smooth with Ford and Rivian. Before this, Tesla opened its chargers to CCS2 and plugs for all brands, and it has been smooth so far except for the short cable in the beginning that took more than 1 functional charging stall for each non-Tesla car.

 

[Tâm]

While I agree it is better to have many 250kW stalls than fewer 350kW stalls, it is a mistake to subsidize building stations that will likely stymie future car designs. If new chargers are limited to 500v there will be limited car designs around higher voltages. Yes larger in vehicle dc converters can be installed (weight and cost penalties), or voltage dividers can be used (CyberTruck). But both of these are limiting what can be done with future vehicle designs (especially HD bus and truck). If I'm subsidizing your stations (which is what this is about) I want the design to be future proof. If the Tesla stations are that much cheaper maybe they don't need a government handout.

So in the end if the government is paying it should be for forward looking designs that will not hobble us for 20 years with antiquated lower voltage infrastructure.

You have a good point, but the culprit is the government, which spells out the rules for getting the carrots.

Those who don't follow the government rules don't get the carrots and those who do, like Tesla, would get the carrot reward fine with no problem.

When the government gives out carrots, they have a specific target in mind.

In Hungary, to encourage more births, newlyweds would get a forgivable $30,000 loan. If they produce less than 3 children, they have to pay back the loan. If they have at least 3 children, they can pocket that $30,000. In this case, it's a misdirection to blame the newlyweds because they did not make the rules. It's the government.

 

[Pragmatic]

You have a good point, but the culprit is the government, which spells out the rules for getting the carrots.

Those who don't follow the government rules don't get the carrots and those who do, like Tesla, would get the carrot reward fine with no problem.

When the government gives out carrots, they have a specific target in mind.

But Tesla is not following the rules, they are following a somewhat warped interpretation of the rules. If you read the FHWAs response to comments on voltage requirements, (in the NPRM) its clear that the 250v - 920v range in the rule was that the chargers needed to supply any vehicles designed around battery architectures utilizing 250v - 920v. Tesla is taking subsidies for chargers designed to operate upto 500v.

Hopefully the State grant administrators will not by bullied by Tesla to accept this faulty interpretation of the rules.

 

[Tâm]

There are just not enough chargers at current.

That's why Tesla is building 164 stalls at Lost Hills, CA station and 200 stalls at Yeehaw Junction, Florida station.

There were reports of long lines for Tesla Superchargers in Eclipse, such as 40 cars waiting for a small town of Van Buren, Arkansas Supercharger station:

Electric vehicles wait in long lines to recharge before leaving Van Buren after the solar eclipse​

Around 40 electric vehicles waited in a long line at Casey's in Van Buren to recharge before heading out of town.

www.5newsonline.com

The next total solar eclipse will be 20 years from now. Hopefully, by then, EVs will be able to drive to watch the eclipse without the hassle of waiting in line for chargers.

 

[SubSailor]

Some more Alex on Autos / Auto Buyers Guide perspective:
"Now that the plug battle is over I'm seeing some revisionist history already creeping into the epitaph being written for CCS so let's try and set history right. NACS won not because it's a better connector (even though it is a better connector), nor because there are more NACS connectors in the wild (because there aren't, but more on that later), or even because they have the largest EV share in the USA (although it has now dropped to ~50% of new EV sales). No, Tesla won the plug war because they made a DC fast charging network that simply works. Tesla could cooked up the biggest, fugliest connector imaginable, and that still would have won in the end.

Pain points are interesting research because they don't have to happen frequently to be a problem. Case in point: DC fast charging. Most EV owners don't do it very often and many never do it at all. BUT, every EV shopper is worried about it when they buy the car. On average under 10% of charging is at a fast charge station.

Oddly that 10% is the only key area where Tesla's connector out-indexes CCS. According to the DOE, Tesla had 24,400 Supercharger ports at the end of 2023 in the USA vs just 14,245 CCS ports. More interesting perhaps: ports that support over the next generation of 300+ kW charging? Around 4,500 and all are CCS, although there are under 100 Tesla V4 stations out there that may one day go over 250kW.

Meanwhile for the 30% of charging that happens on the go, but not on a DC charger what do things look like? Very different. J1772 outnumbers Tesla's destination network by a whopping 11.5:1. There are 115,000 J1772 public ports registered with the DOE and an estimated 40,000 unregistered ports (like the ones at my office that are employee-only). Compare that to 10,000 Tesla destination chargers and an estimated 5,000 unregistered ports. Interesting perspective, isn't it?

Now for the odd part. NACS may be the defacto standard going forward, but it's entirely likely that CCS vehicles will outsell NACS for the next 18-24 months in N. America. That's the awkward part about changing standards.

Now. Why is NACS better? No, it's not the cable size, nor the latch mechanism, or it being easier to repair (it's actually less repairable on the connector side), it's mainly because it's easier to use and using the same pins for AC and DC just makes sense.

Given the N. American appetite for fast charging, you know what might have made more sense? Using the Chinese GB/T standard which would allow EVs to charge nearly 3x faster than the theoretical limit of the Tesla connector..."

Good analysis. I mainly use my home charger, but I will take a free NACS adapter if Lucid offers it in the future. It would allow me more options for fast charging while on road trips. If I opt to purchase the Gravity, I would hope by delivery that the NACS port is standard on it. Of course, then you will need an adapter to use the EA system....and that is why I still own ExxonMobil and Phillips66 stock.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

NACS is not a DCFC miracle, the OutofSpec cross country truck races proved even for the Cybertruck Tesla network is inconsistent in terms of speeds and reliability, and the F150 which can actually use the supercharger network without limited speeds didn’t have an easy time either. I feel like the move to NACS was lateral move as oppose to a forward move. It’s nice we’ll have more options of places to plug into, but I don’t think it’s going to make the DCFC experience any better. The focus should be on efficiency, getting prices of EVs down and building out both L2 and DCFC infrastructure, not making NACS the end all be all. Tesla has failed to roll out V4 anywhere so far, so the fantasy of charging getting closer to an ICE car experience is still a fantasy.