this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
838 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59123 readers
4873 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Other manufacturers should have stuck with CCS.
Why? NACS is a lot better. It's not owned by Tesla, other charging networks will be using it and replacing CCS with NACS as well
It was developed by Tesla and they lobbied the government to change the standard from CCS to NACS.
Originally, the government said they'd make CCS the standard, so many car companies made their vehicles CCS. Obviously, this would be mighty expensive for Tesla since they'd have to upgrade their infrastructure. So instead, they claimed that out of the goodness of their hearts, they'd release the NACS specification to all car manufacturers (something that they still haven't done completely).
Once Tesla said that, the government changed their tune and made NACS the standard. While you are correct that NACS can handle more power, CCS was having a newer version developed (with the same connector) which would have likely been the standard moving forward, had Tesla not been successful in their lobbying.
Tesla owns over 50% of the electric car chargers in the US. It makes more sense for other companies to be compatible with the largest network than for the largest network to make itself work with everything else.
Whether you like Musk or Tesla or not, this just made more sense for the sake of adoption.
Sure, that is a valid argument. But it doesn't change the fact that the government was successfully lobbied into changing what their grant money could be used for, seemingly overnight. When the grants were announced, CCS was said to become the standard. Due to that, many car companies stuck with CCS, and no doubt that some consumers (myself included) bought a CCS vehicle expecting it to be further developed.
That's all I was trying to say - I'm more miffed regarding the lobbying than the connector itself.