Talk:North American Charging System/Archive 1

Archive 1

European Tesla plug

Someone should write up a companion article on the Tesla variant of the (non-CCS) Type 2 plug. Currently the general Type 2 article contains only a bit about Tesla's own variant that no other automaker and no regulator chose to accept, and the EU forced Tesla to end using it. IIRC, Tesla used the Type 2 plug because the NACS plug does not support 3-phase power for level-2 charging, while Europe is full of 3-phase power, North America is not. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

NACS is not a standard

It's not controlled by a standards body, it's Tesla IP, it should not be referred to as a standard until Tesla gives up the control. Calling it "open source" under "good faith" conditionals does not change the fact that it is absolutely not a standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.210.115 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many standards that are proprietary in the world, that does not mean it isn't a standard. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Like 64.229.90.172, I would disagree with the OP. Many "standards" are de facto standards, not merely paper standards that some standards body puts out. There are potential standards, including paper/published/group standards, that never get good adoption and thus never really become standards in the market. With three of the largest auto companies in the world (Ford, GM, Tesla) already announced to be adopting the NACS for North American markets, then it's a standard.

Moreover, it is the correct name for the article, per WP:COMMONNAME: North American Charging Standard (NACS)—N2e (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It can be a standard without the IEEE IEC, or the SAE publishing it. We in the Satcom industry have a saying: "The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." EVJohnO (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Protocols

IIRC, I remember reading that the Tesla plug uses a protocol similar to ChaDeMo, thus making them intercompatible with an adapter (thus why Tesla had a ChaDeMo adapter, but not CCS until Tesla got a port update) If this is correct, it should be added to the article -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is an article discussing what the cost and what cars need to be updated. https://insideevs.com/news/654875/tesla-450-dollars-optional-upgrade-for-ccs-adapter-use/ EVJohnO (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Aptera

Aptera does not seem to be as relevant as this article seems to assume. They are referenced three times despite not having a production vehicle yet. Including them with the list of manufacturers that have adopted NACS (Ford and GM), which together produce 30,000 EVs a quarter, seems inappropriate. Sources mentioning Aptera are generally online-only industry-outsider journals, and lack the noteworthy usually required for inclusion in an article. I think Aptera’s inclusion should be considered for removal/modification. ICTaylor (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. So feel free to help reduce the overemphasis. Aptera clearly doesn't need a bunch of advertising in this article on the NACS EV charging standard.

I've tried to do the same with some of the many charging stations that were adding Tesla adpaters, often via very klugey adapters, during 2019-2021 after Tesla sold so many cars into the market and the ev charging station providers were trying to stay relevant.—N2e (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's an important point that Aptera created a petition to make it a standard in July of 2022, before Tesla announced. I see that you removed it. I think I should add it back in. EVJohnO (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not correct; I did not remove it. That info remains in the article. But the point made by ICTaylor is valid: this is a very large amount of Aptera mentions/adverts in this article for a company that, like many startups, has not even gotten their EV to production yet. The article is simply not about Aptera, but about an EV charging standard. Aptera could be mentioned as a planned user of an NACS port on their vehicles without the overemphasis on Aptera with multiple mentions in this article about NACS. N2e (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Article needs a technical "Description" section

The article covers the big picture of this standard, when it originated (proprietary) and when and how it has began to become a multi-manufacturer adopted standard.

But it still requires a good technical description of the standard, and its evolution technically from v1 Superchargers to v2, v3, and v4 (1MW capability) with Cybertruck and other after 2024. I can add it if no one else gets to it, but it'll be a while as other things have come up. So, anyone else can add it to improve the article. N2e (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to User:RickyCourtney who did a super piece of work to add the pinouts and charge pins overview. This section is now well into a "Start" section and well beyond a stub. There is more no doubt, but the article now begins to summarize the technical aspect as well. N2e (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)