Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

ev-edition.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 761 posts

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#681

Post by simondotau »

iknowstuff wrote: post #595
pathartl wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO then let's standardize on what the replacement to NACS/CCS should be. Personally, I don't see the big deal behind a larger connector, especially if it's a bit more future proof without requiring extremely clever engineering. I mean we've dealt with huge gasoline/diesel pump handles for nearly a century.

NACS is perfectly fine. It’s open now, unlike Lightning

And for ultra-high performance applications (e.g. semi trucks, farm equipment, light aircraft) there is MCS. It has the support of Tesla, Scania, Volvo among others, making it near-certain to be a industry standard in Europe and North America.

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

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#682

Post by josephcsible »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #679
simondotau wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because much of the Supercharger network was deployed with the assumption of only supporting Tesla vehicles. If any third party charging network deployed NACS fast charging stalls in your area, they would absolutely be compatible with any CCS1 vehicle with an adapter.

Would something like a TeslaTap work with a 350kW charger? Or do new adapters need to be created?

Adapters like TeslaTap output J1772, not CCS, so new adapters will need to be created (like the Magic Dock).

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#683

Post by carcostthrow »

revscat wrote: post #680
carcostthrow wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. I mistakenly failed to pay the parking meter on time 7 or 8 years and was issued a ticket. Of course I threw myself at the mercy of the courts; a simple mix up of days I pleaded. It was not the statutory holiday I thought it had been that would have waived the parking fees. And I paid my ticket immediately. But they would have none of it. So unforgivable was my crime, so heinous, so far murder or rape,…

Yeah, you’re lying.

Sure about that?

https://ibb.co/8cjXRHc

...although yes I am lying about being on death row. Canada doesn't practical capital punishment. Certainly not for parking violations.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#684

Post by fomine3 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #675
fomine3 wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheapest Chademo bidirectional V2H equipment for home in Japan costs 500k JPY https://etex.jpn.com/info/v2hhojyo/ https://www.nichicon.co.jp/products/v2h/about/specs/

What's the price of the inverter on the other end? Installation?

This "EV power station" integrates inverter. Don't need additional inverter for other end. Installation is 300k from prev article, maybe discounted a bit when I get real quote.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#685

Post by simondotau »

throw0101c wrote: post #59
pathartl wrote: post #22

I'm not an EV user, so I need some clarification. Is NACS actually a better connector? Or is it just more abundant at the moment? Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. The argument for NACS I've seen is that it's a little sleeker (does this really matter all that much?) and it's already on Tesla's supercharger network.

> Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. He did a video on this Connextras channel about this news: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU While he thinks the Tesla physical connector is probably better, the CCS communications standard is better (AIUI). So once Telsa adopts that, it will probably be a good system. Also: he's ta…

Even in that video, Alec manages to slip in numerous disingenuous arguments, such as when he held up an adapter and suggested size parity between the (larger) female socket end of a complete NACS connector and the (smaller) male plug end of a AC-only J1772 connector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU&t=290s

More to the point, the debate isn't about NACS versus J1772, it's about NACS versus CCS1. If you compare CCS1 to NACS, the difference is substantial. This graphic is probably showing best case for NACS and the worst case for CCS1 but the connectors shown are dimensionally accurate:

https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/...

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#686

Post by simondotau »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #679
simondotau wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because much of the Supercharger network was deployed with the assumption of only supporting Tesla vehicles. If any third party charging network deployed NACS fast charging stalls in your area, they would absolutely be compatible with any CCS1 vehicle with an adapter.

Would something like a TeslaTap work with a 350kW charger? Or do new adapters need to be created?

The most likely outcome is that third party stalls will either mimic Tesla's magic dock or over-provision with two cables per stall, or (most likely) have some ratio of NACS-only, CCS1-only, and CHAdeMO stalls based on demand.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#687

Post by sangnoir »

iknowstuff wrote: post #644
sangnoir wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those 4 represent like 80-90% of EVs in the US I don't doubt they'd like it to remain that way. Starving CCS charging networks of federal dollars that are be relied upon by Japanese, German and Korean manufacturers would be a win for US manufacturers; expanding a Tesla-moat into a US-manufacturer moat. Tesla gets federal dollars, control the standard and keeps its hungriest competitors at bay who most threaten its…

First of all, as is, the legislation requires CCS1. If that changes, nothing is stoping foreign CCS networks from adding NACS connectors.

The law does not require CCS, only interoperability. From https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03...

> Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure. The requirements relating to interoperability similarly address less visible standardization along the national EV charging network. The FHWA is working to establish a seamless national network of EV charging infrastructure that can communicate and operate on the same software platforms from one State to another. The FHWA establishes interoperability requirements through this final rule for charger-to-EV communication, charger-to-charger network communication, and charging network-to-charging network communication to ensure that chargers are capable of the communication necessary to perform smart charge management and Plug and Charge.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#688

Post by SllX »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #612
SllX wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess Japan and China don’t exist in your world.

Incorrect. But, to be fair, the Chinese were still watching movies on CD-I well into the 2000s. So I admit to marginalizing their choice on anything.

> So now, once again, the USA adopts a "standard" shunned by the rest of the world.

Maybe I could have the wrong read, but this sentence structure:

> the USA… shunned by the rest of the world.

Does two things: it implies there's a standard "the rest of the world" has agreed on (there isn't, and there never is, it's one of the things that makes the world big) and it signals you as probably one of the two types of people which might be unintentional on your part, but still:

1. A European complaining about America.

2. An American complaining that we're not doing things the European way.

There are other possibilities, but those are the two most probable reads.

As far as charging standards go, we haven't settled on a standard because there's only one charging network worth a damn in the country, and until Tesla started making agreements with other automakers to sign them on, it was exclusively for use by their customers which isn't great if you're Ford or GM or another startup EV manufacturer and trying to get people to buy your electric cars instead. Right now it looks like (in my opinion, this is not settled) we'll probably settle on NACS, but as opposed to what? CCS? 1 or 2? CHAdeMO/ChaoJi? Is there a technical issue you have with NACS specifically or is it just that it's not a de jure standard somewhere else?

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#689

Post by simondotau »

bombcar wrote: post #538
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla pulled a fast one on the morons at GM and Ford Consumers prefer NACS to CCS. And Electrify America failed, spectacularly, to deliver a working product. (As someone put it bluntly, NACS exists. CCS does not. You bet on the horse, not the unicorn.) The auto industry is standardising around NACS because it will eventually force the standard into the open. That, in turn, enables antitrust questions about the Tesl…

We should have some brand of car install both plugs (as I understand the smarts are in the car, the plug is basically a dumb electrical connection) and then after a year or two see which people are using.

There are many cars on the global market with two AC charging sockets but last time I checked, there are none with two DC charging sockets. Multiple DC charging sockets would be a severe safety risk without a beefy isolating mechanism, which adds weight and a non-trivial point of failure.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#690

Post by nameistaken »

pnpnp wrote: post #652
deadbunny wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. It's a wash because CCS tech which has been out for like 5 years is comparable to some future Tesla project? Tesla the company who have consistently missed fantasy deadlines set by the edgelord-in-chief?

Not that you’re wrong about self driving, but they have been light years ahead of the competition in other areas. I don’t think it’s fair to say that have “missed some deadlines” and generalize to this, when they’ve been a major contributor to bringing electric vehicles to the masses.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN