Seems like the responses ignore that fact that it’s not illegal to have a monopoly. It’s illegal to unfairly use your monopoly to prevent competition. That’s what this is about.
Google has special treatment for their services in the search results.
I.e. different look for their market, prefers youtube to the search results which has a better text version. Now it shows their hotels booking service instead of actually searching for hotel sites (they had the same thing with online shops). Pretty much killed Yelp by copying features with maps and showing their reviews when searching.
In fact, SoftBank is known for being the one of the stupidest big investors there is. They got lucky being an early investor in Alibaba, but have managed to piss most of that money away on getting left holding the bag on the peak.
It's suicide to have a one-direction patent sharing agreement. The whole idea of patents these days is defensive patents to avoid mutual destruction. That's why patent trolls (companies that buy and hold patents, but don't actual make anything) are so bad for the industry.
It is also written such that if you, your affiliates, or related companies:
* sue anyone over anything EV patent related, or have a stake in someone who does,
* if you ever challenged, or had stake in a challenge to any patent Tesla currently holds, or buys in the future,
* or if you marketed or sold anything that imitates the design or appearance of a Tesla product, or provided any material assistance to someone else who did.
then you are forever excluded from the pledge.
Tesla summaries this as:
What this pledge means is that as long as someone uses our patents for electric vehicles and doesn’t do bad things, such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement, they should have no fear of Tesla asserting its patents against them.
but the actual legal definition goes way above "such as knocking off our products or using our patents and then suing us for intellectual property infringement".
It also has no time bounding, so that patent spat from the 1900s that Ford had probably counts.
Yes, I remember the wording being overly vague. But at the time Tesla was pushing it, they were pretty desperate for $$. I bet if someone had really helped build the supercharger network, they'd have been amenable to changes.
Looking at the way things played out, its obvious that they wouldn't faced competitive pressure due to this.
For the same reasons, the existing industry didn't bother. It was a long time before Ford took EVs seriously.
The CCS-1 connector is designed by committee and objectively worse than NACS. NACS is smaller (cheaper to make and less heavy to use), require smaller wires, can support higher wattage. Also, the significant majority of EVs in North America already have NACS and the significant majority of chargers also has NACS. Superchargers are slowly rolling out Magic Dock so that CCS-1 EVs can use Superchargers. I get the hate on Tesla (or more specifically Elon), but NACS is simply better for everyone.
The MCS (Megawatt Charging System) is also designed by a committee and has been adopted by Tesla for the Tesla Semi, so I don't see how this is even a relevant argument. NACS does only support single phase charging, while CCS2 can do 3-phase charging.
The only truthful argument in this discussion is that Tesla already have a huge charging network using their (previously) proprietary connector and automotive makers want to have access to this. NACS use the same signaling protocol as CCS, which is also why you can get away with a pretty dumb adapter.
It has the same physical limitations as any other cable. If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact.
Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car? And is it even relevant to the CCS part of the standard, when really what CCS adds on top of IEC 62196 is the ability to use DC charging, at which point phases are irrelevant.
The whole point of connectors is, firstly, how much power they can deliver (both NACS and CCS1 appear equally capable), then, how affordable they are to make and how easy they are to use.
Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win. Furthermore, it doesn't require a massive charging port (see how Tesla had to work around CCS2 for the Model S/Y in Europe because their charging port cover is too small), so there's further benefits here.
Ease of use is less objective, but for anyone who has used both, clearly NACS is much, much better. It's lighter, less chonky, simpler (you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs). I think the consensus here is just clear.
So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one. The only argument I can see is that we lose some mild amount of harmony with CCS2 connectors that the rest of the world is going to use, but with the differences between CCS1 and CCS2 that exist anyway, that might be a moot point.
> Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car?
While 240V 3-phase isn't common in the US homes I'd imagine that it would be super handy for places like shopping malls or parking garages where you want to have lots of Level 2 chargers.
> Affordability is objective, NACS is simply cheaper to make. Less materials go into it, and that's a win.
I agree with you there, it looks much better and is slightly easier to handle. I doubt the material difference is much, it's just a little plastic. The amount of adapters likely makes up the difference.
> you don't have to remove a cover over the DC plugs
This isn't really a thing. These hard plastic covers is something people buy thinking it will protect them from being electrocuted. If they had known how the chargers work they'd likely be less worried. Except in France, where they've made CCS Type 3, which is about as French of an idea as you get.
> So what, then, is an objective argument FOR using CCS1 over NACS? I really don't see one.
The main issue here is that US decided to go with CCS Type 1, when it was clear back in 2014 that CCS Type 2 would be a much better and more future proof choice. It's something that should have been solved with regulation a long time ago. And now you're stuck with CCS Type 1 and NACS for the unforeseeable future. It's kinda funny, because in Europe Tesla went from only NACS (V1 superchargers) to NACS and CCS2 (V2 and V3 superchargers) to only CCS2 (V4 superchargers).
240V 3-phase isn't common at shopping malls or garages either. We typically have 208V in such situations. NACS works just fine for that.
> I agree with you there, it looks much better and is slightly easier to handle. I doubt the material difference is much, it's just a little plastic. The amount of adapters likely makes up the difference.
The biggest difference in the US is the latching mechanism. Its a moving part with the US CCS1 connector, and a surprising number also make it an electrically activated latch. Despite the talk about it being rare to be the failure point, it is actually fairly fragile and failure prone. Worse, we've seen a case or two on the forums where the failure mode resulted in a connector stuck to the car!
On top of that, CCS1 still requires an additional active latch on the car.
Both CCS2 and NACS solve this in a much simpler way that puts all of the active latching into the vehicle. It is simpler and more reliable. TBH, I agree with you about the US really messing up with CCS1. CCS2 is marginally more bulky than NACS, but also has some real advantages and the downsides are small.
Regarding the plastic covers, a lot of cars come with them. The concern seems to be that debris could get into the port while AC charging.
"Is that at all relevant for the North American market, where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car?"
Most anyone in an industrial work setting in North America will have 3-phase 240V service installed, minimum. My work has 480V 3-phase for our SMT line. We have permanently-installed charge stations on that 3-phase service. Damn shame they've got nothing for my e-bike, so I just use the benchtop inside and a cable rig.
The benefit with 3-phase is that you now can use a single cable/charger to charge up to three separate cars, which greatly reduces the cost of setting up a lot of chargers in, say, a parking garage. And you can opportunistically deliver up to 11-22kW (240V/400V) to a single car. Greatly reduces the amount of hardware needed.
Plenty of chargers around where I live deliver 208v at 30a, which tells me they're connected to a pair of legs of a 3 phase circuit.
I suppose this means one leg of the circuit is not used, meaning the load between the different legs is always going to be out of balance, but this practice (use 2 legs of a 3 phase feed for "240 er... 208v" for "big" loads such as a drier or EVSE or water heater, so likely any industrial / commercial setting just accepts that you're not going to load up all legs your feeds evenly.
NA built EVs typically don't have the internal circuitry to manage 3 phase charging -- the EV takes care of the AC -> DC conversion on a level 2 circuit, and the extra stuff to do that in NA wouldn't ever be used. The same is true of charging off of 400v AC -- it's super rare and likely not something that's worth engineering to implement.
> where no one would be using three phase power to charge their car
3-phase power is insanely common in commercial buildings for things like HVAC, refrigeration, and massive lighting systems. Sure, it's not at all common in residential areas, but I'd sure love to charge my car when I stop at a grocery store.
MCS is a much better standard than the CCS1 design. The latching mechanism is more similar to NACS or CCS2.
CCS2 is less terrible than CCS1, but the US went with the worst possible choice.
I agree with you with regard to cables. That is a charge provider choice and its basically just coincidence that CCS providers are choosing badly. There's nothing intrinsic to the connector that is allowing Tesla to choose better cables.
> If you want to deliver high power at low voltage you need thick cables, there's nothing you can do to get around that fact.
You can indeed get around this fact (a little bit) if you cool the cables. Tesla's newer superchargers have liquid cooled cables and are thinner than the old cables for exactly this reason.
It's still patent encumbered[1], NACS just gave the physical specification, and says "use CCS HLS". The Tesla-SC protocol is still a black box. I wonder if this is going to involve a rollout of logical CCS on existing SCs.
[1] Tesla's patent pledge is not even close to a grant and its "good faith" rules almost certainly exclude all current major automakers.
It defines good faith as never having done three things, or having an associated or related company do those things.
Those things are (roughly):
1. Having sued anyone over IP used in EVs, helped anyone due so, or had a financial stake in someone who does.
2. Challenged any patent held by Tesla, now or in the future; or had a stake in such a challenge.
3. Marketed or sold a "knock-off" of any tesla product, or providing material assistance to. Knock-off is defined a product that imitates or copies the design of a tesla product.
If I held stock in a big-three automaker when they sued a non-Tesla EV manufacturer over a patent, does that mean I am excluded? Sure looks like it.
Selling a J1772->Tesla-T adapter could also count, and because it's a "never has done" kind of thing, there is no concept of redemption.
Tesla seems fine using the CCS connector everywhere else in the world.
And CCS is capable of of doing 360Kw of charge (with the current 400V units and a chunk more on any 800V unit) which is a tiny bit more than 250 max on the NACS
There is no such thing as "the CCS connector". The CCS2 connector used outside of North America is equally incompatible with both of the two major connectors used in North America, CCS1 and NACS.
Tesla uses NACS in North America because there wasn't any unified industry standard when they started their roll-out. The closest thing there was to a standard for DC fast charging was arguably CHAdeMO; while CCS1 was little more than a press release from the Detroit auto companies.
Yes Tesla could have adopted CCS1 but because of the way history played out, there was never a point where it could have made sense to do so. I think many people forget that Tesla wasn't a profitable company until recently. Many had them on a perennial "death watch". By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.
CCS1 was published in 2011. Tesla didn’t design NACS until 2012. It’s a myth that Tesla had to invent their own proprietary system because no standard was available.
I think it’s insane that you would think that Tesla would replace a connector that already spent months — likely years — developing, with an objectively terrible alternative, merely because a few companies that weren’t making EVs issued a press release.
I don’t think anyone could’ve said with confidence that CCS1 would’ve become the major standard in North America. It could’ve been a future revision of CHAdeMO. Or it could have been CCS3.
> By the time CCS1 was looking like it would win over CHAdeMO, the supercharger network was so large that switching would have been well beyond Tesla's financial means.
Sure, just like adding CCS2 plugs to their European chargers sent Tesla broke and that's why the company folded and we never heard of it again.
Well, Apple got away with lightining for long enough. And for the same reasons Tesla does it to. Can't blame them so, we will see if there are any antitrust issues down the road, or if e.g. the EU steps in. But then US spec cars have always been different from other markets.
The analogy breaks down when you consider that USB-C is an objectively superior and objectively more widely deployed standard than Lightning. The same cannot be said for CCS1 over NACS.
Globally? It is gonna be CCS, unless Tesla manages to convince enough OEMs to use NACS. In which case there will be two competing standards, aka lightning vs. usb. I am in no position to judge which one is better, I do know so that CCS is more open, being a global standard. And if we want more EVs, global standards are better than closed, proprietary solutions.
Ha, you are right, I missed the number after the CCS. It is oess of a problem so, as long as the cars architecture works with either connector. Chinese spec cars are different from US spec and from EU spec anyway. Even if it is the same model, built in the same fab on the same day.
I get the impression that NACS is CCS over the wire. It's the same protocol, just a cleaner design for the physical connector. Remember, Tesla has been part of the CCS committee since it started.
CCS also isn't a "global standard". China has their own standard.
There's a reason why CCS is called "Frankenplug." It's looking like only the EU will be stuck with it. (And they don't have to be, older Superchargers ran over the Menekis (sp?) connector fine.)
Only the EU, plus Australia and New Zealand, plus South America, plus the Middle East, plus Thailand, South Africa, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong,... but yea.
The countries you have listed all use CCS2, which is not compatible with anything in use in North America. So why would that be relevant to the question of North America deciding between CCS1 and NACS?
Tesla did not force Ford to adopt NACS. The announcement is from Ford, not Tesla. Tesla is already opening up Superchargers using Magic Dock for existing CCS-1 EVs. Ford sees the benefit of NACS and simplifying the experience for their customers to the largest charging network. Looks like a win-win to me.
- charging allows for parallel charging while a swap station would allow for 1 vehicle to be swapped, so you could have a line of cars waiting to swap that would take just long or longer than charging
- swap stations need full size battery packs that could otherwise be used to sell another BEV
- battery degradation would upset folks who had a battery with 100% range only to be swapped for a used battery with 80% range
- unless they carry different form factor battery packs, they are limiting their vehicles to same size packs basically forever, so forget about larger packs or smaller packs depending on vehicle size
What I think is of particular concern is perverse incentives, and a race to the bottom.
* Somebody with a pristine battery takes a risk by swapping. They probably won't, because they're extremely likely to get a worse one than they arrived with.
* Somebody ruins their battery in some way. A battery swap lets them with a high likelihood get something better. They'll probably do that.
* People doing a swap have a risk with getting something worse, and getting stuck somewhere. Every time that happens the reputation of the swap stations gets worse.
* All the above results in the quality of batteries being available at the station going down and down, until the entire system collapses.
What are the possible counter-measures? You could have user registration and punish people with a fine if they drop in a broken battery, but the batteries are expensive, so the fine would be large. That'd be a risky proposal.
You’re not getting a worse battery than one you owned, because you don’t own it, you just swap again when you need to. Batteries that get too old get retired by the swap stations.
I'm fascinated by your responses, I genuinely am. And you're not the only one responding in this way. But it's so alien to me.
Here's a way to try to work around things like range limitations in EVs and long charging times, by setting up infrastructure to swap batteries in and out, and your first thought is about maintaining the value of your vehicle, not the utility of the system.
> So who owns it?
Presumably they are all leased from the vehicle company. Think "Battery as a service", not "This is mine".
> What happens when you cross countries or state borders?
I don't know, this seems an odd detail to fixate on though.
> And if people don't own it, why would they take good care of it?
Presumably these are going to be relatively robust, and there will be some sort of conditions of good conduct on participating in the scheme, or part of the lease payment constitutes insurance against maltreatment. And does that particularly matter to you? The swap-stations make sure batteries are in good order before swapping them into your car.
> Here's a way to try to work around things like range limitations in EVs and long charging times, by setting up infrastructure to swap batteries in and out
I think it's for the most part a non-problem. Most EV users don't wait to charge. They charge at idle times and start the day with a fully charged car. The need to charge quickly is far rarer for an EV user than going to the gas station for a gas/diesel user.
> and your first thought is about maintaining the value of your vehicle, not the utility of the system.
No, my concern is how is the system going to maintain its own utility without crashing and burning economically. Because a battery is an expensive component and ultimately has to be paid for somehow, there's no ignoring that.
> Presumably they are all leased from the vehicle company. Think "Battery as a service", not "This is mine".
The problem I see is that a battery isn't a car. With a car you can walk around it and say "you've clearly crashed into something here, we'll send you the bill for the repairs". A battery is a much more obscure component that's easier to abuse and harder to determine it's been abused.
Worse, it's a component that can suffer grievous damage by complete accident -- leave it discharged in the sun for a day or two and that'll probably hurt quite a bit.
> I don't know, this seems an odd detail to fixate on though.
How so? A car is for moving people around. People sometimes want to go far. So what happens when you take stuff you don't own into a country where that company doesn't exist? Is the company going to fine you for charging it with an unauthorized charger?
Is the utility compromised because a good part of the value was the battery swap proposition and you can't do that anymore outside of wherever this particular company has hardware?
> And does that particularly matter to you?
It matters for the survival of the system. If I don't own the battery, it's not my problem that it breaks. Therefore I have less incentive to take care of it. But the battery in the end must be paid for, so either the swap company eats the loss and goes bankrupt, or fines customers until getting a terrible PR and goes bankrupt from lack of customers.
In the case of VinFast, they own it. You can't even buy the car itself, it is a lease from the start. You'd be correct in the economics not making any sense and of course people are ripping on that in their forums. Hopefully, they figure it out eventually. Luckily for VinFast, the entire Vietnamese government is backing them.
What you're imagining though is that you own the battery. In the case of NIO, it is a lease the entire time. When you sell the car, you're selling the lease on the battery with it.
The station could test the battery and charge you/give you a credit depending on the capacity difference. Every battery would have an audit trail as well
The first point barely makes sense if you can have more than one bay. Also it's about how many can you swap in an hour vs charge? The base expectation is you'll be able to do way more cars since they don't have to sit and wait for an hour just like gasoline cards today.
Battery degrading is only an issue if I own the battery instead of getting it like a subscription. A 10% swing in range shouldn't matter in most scenarios as long as I only pay for the energy used.
All these problems here are solvable. I think there are way bigger issues for the company like now they need to own a bunch of batteries and house those on the books.
So I think a part that is forgotten about with battery swap station is that those batteries still need to be charged. Which gets into how many additional batteries does each station need stored to be able to keep up with demand. If it takes 1 hour to fully charge a battery and you want to be able to serve a car every 5 minutes then you are going to need to be able to send out 12 batteries within an hour. So now as a consumer you are going to pay for the electricity to charge those batteries, 12 charging stations, plus the overhead of 12 batteries sitting doing nothing but charging.
Companies could reduce that overhead cost by reducing charging times, but as charging times reduce it becomes more likely the consumer will choose to simply just choose to charge their own vehicle instead of swapping a battery. How much are consumers going to be willing to spend to save 5-10 minutes? I drive past Sam's Club every day after work where people wait in line easily 10-20 minutes to save 5-10 cents per gallon of gas.
This is what I'm referring to as "housing on the books" you've got this insane infrastructure that goes beyond simply charging.
I also agree, how much time are people willing to spend to save money and the answer is, a lot. Grows quite rapidly lower on the economic ladder you go.
To be fair, it's not saving 5-10 minutes. A Tesla supercharger still takes ~15m for only 200mi. To go to full charge, you'd be saving an 30-45m easy. If all the bays are full, 2-3 hours?!
But to agree with you, if you put the battery swap next to a charging station and charged less for the charging station (because less infra), how many people would be willing to simply take the lower cost and wait a bunch of time? Quite a lot I'm afraid.
So the car I am most interested in is the Ioniq 5 which is rated at a 10-80% charge time of 18 minutes. Sure it is not a completely full battery but largely that isn't necessary. But I think the major issue is that technology advancement necessary to reduce overhead costs for battery swap stations will only make charging more appealing, because the only way to reduce the number of batteries required in stock is to be able to charge them faster. So even though right now it might save you 30-45 minutes right now for a full battery, it would cost significantly more. As charging times decrease it will start saving less and less time but still will cost a premium.
