Ford EV will gain access to Tesla Superchargers and come with standard NACS ports starting 2025!

[cvalue13]

the post I was responding to CLEARLY states that the government isn't trying to pick a winner AND states they are only providing that funding to people using the CCS1 standard for charging...

CCS is an open platform. NACS is a closed platform.

imagine Apple creates a phone with a charge cable that only works for Apple phones, and can’t be used by any other phones

now imagine 10 other phone companies create their own phones, that all use the same charge cable, and can be shared between phones from the other 9 companies

Now, if you wanted to increase the availability of charging to the maximum number of people, what would be your plan of incentive?

Force Apple to give the 10 other companies access to its closed platform, and force the 10 companies to change its phones to be compatible with the closed platform?

No.

You’d subsidize the already open platform, and tell the closed platform that it’s welcome to join the party.

Then, six months later, when Samsung, and Huawai announce Apple’s letting them join the closed platform party, you’d think … “come again?”

 

[Greshnab]

CCS is an open platform. NACS is a closed platform.

imagine Apple creates a phone with a charge cable that only works for Apple phones, and can’t be used by any other phones

now imagine 10 other phone companies create their own phones, that all use the same charge cable, and can be shared between phones from the other 9 companies

Now, if you wanted to increase the availability of charging to the maximum number of people, what would be your plan of incentive?

Force Apple to give the 10 other companies access to its closed platform, and force the 10 companies to change its phones to be compatible with the closed platform?

No.

You’d subsidize the already open platform, and tell the closed platform that it’s welcome to join the party.

Then, six months later, when Samsung, and Huawai announce Apple’s letting them join the closed platform party, you’d think … “come again?”

Imagine that same closed system had released their patent for a better design and others simply refused to use it to build on.. would you have the same issues???

to be clearer I would have no problem if they said in order to receive funds you must allow any car to use your chargers ... saying you can only get funds if you use a SET standard is the issue.. that IS picking the winner in the adapter format rules and it works AGAINST tax payers best interest by trying to ensure one standard wins without allowing the citizens to figure out which is more palatable.

 

[cvalue13]

saying you can only get funds if you use a SET standard is the issue.. that IS picking the winner in the adapter format rules

That’s not exactly how the funds work

Tesla can receive funds to build their entire supercharger station, so long as it includes at least 4 CCS

also, regardless, Tesla would have to agree to open their stations to non-Tesla vehicles

that IS picking the winner in the adapter format rules and it works AGAINST tax payers best interest by trying to ensure one standard wins without allowing the citizens to figure out which is more palatable.

You have this same energy when it comes to Tesla having received to date over $10 billion from ICE manufacturers for carbon credit sales, which $ has been the difference between Tesla’s extinction and survival? Basically, due to fed incentive structures, ICE has funded Tesla’s existence through the hardest part of manufacturing life cycle.

Does that expense to ICE manufacturers not work “against” the “best interests” of those who have paid for it in the prices of their ICE vehicles, without allowing them to “figure out which is more palatable” first?

And hey, I’m not trying to say the IRAs charger incentives were structured the most rationally - that’s the whole point here, with noting that the Ford/GM switch evidenced the flaws in the structure.

You just seem to be twisting the issue into, like, “they’re bias does not align with my bias, and Obvi my bias is the better bias”

 

[CyberGus]

"Earlier this year, we developed minimum standards to ensure publicly funded EV charging is accessible, reliable, and affordable for all drivers, and we required interoperability to promote competition. Those standards give flexibility for adding both CCS and NACS, as long as drivers can count on a minimum of CCS," White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson said in a statement.

Patterson said the goal is for every car to be able to use every publicly funded charger. "More drivers having access to more high-quality charging – including Tesla Superchargers – is a step forward," she said.

 

[Diehard]

Tesla could make charging by appointment only and assign charger handle via the Tesla app, Ford app, or other authorized app …

Required charging by appointment is an unnecessary complications when 99% of the time charging stations are available. It should be required only when all stations minus one are occupied if it could be implemented well (someone arriving at a supercharger where they don’t have cell reception and it is the first time they see a full house should be able to get in line before a seasoned supercharger expert cut in front of them)

Let Ford product it’s first-ever BEV platform pickup truck manufactured for volume and profit which won’t occur until 2025 and then see where the chips might fall.

It would be interesting to see. I am not sure if and how much money Ford is losing on Lightning and how they will do with next gen. I do know that I had reservation for Rivian, Silverado and CT. Frankly Ford was in the bottom of my list. Ford announcement to production was the shortest between them and they were the first one to offer me an EV truck and when I told them I only want the cheapest one they have, they gave it to me at a discount. My first car was a Ford decades ago and I never thought I see myself in a Ford again but they got me and frankly although it is too early to say, so far I am fairly happy with it. My point is, Ford seems serious about getting new customers and even though comparing to Tesla they are new to EVs, when it comes to selling cars, they are no spring chicken. I still think CT margins will be better because Tesla is laser focused on reducing production cost at all cost. However I think Tesla’s higher margin will be reduced due to price cuts at some point (several years down the road) once superchargers prove to be useful to non-Tesla owners and after reservations run out. I say this because charging network availability and reliability has had impact on my thinking as just one individual. There are the trips I was not comfortable making with my pro, if I end up feeling more confident in 2024 due to supercharger availability, that reduces the chance of me trading in my truck. That is one less sale for CT. If CT value is significantly higher, I may still trade. I know there are people that will get CT no matter what but there are many more that value is the main driver for them. That is why Elon said we will have to see what the demand is like. Tesla shouldn’t have any problem selling CTs for years but I think post 26, EV scene will start getting very interesting.

 

[cvalue13]

Ford announcement to production was the shortest between them and they were the first one to offer me an EV truck

yes and this is because, unlike the Rivian, Silverado, CT, Ford did not develope a ground-up BEV platform truck

instead, in order to be first (and it’s intangible benefits), and in order to get the sale of people like you and me (and those tangible and intangible benefits), and in order to begin as soon as possible collecting learnings (both manufacturing and software), and in order to begin securing distribution and materials suppliers. etc., Ford instead created a stop-gap mongrel by stuffing BEC guts into an existing ICE F150 platform using existing ICE manufacturing, materials, and suppliers as much as possible.

That is neither the most cost efficient way to produce a BEV, nor does it result in the most all-around fine-tuned version of a BEV.

But it has a lot of value to Ford.

And while that temporary mongrel may not have created the best-in-class BEV truck (we won’t know until competitors are producing), they DID manage to create the best F150 ever built, and arguably one of the best 1/2 ton pickups ever built to date. (Unlike you, I’ve been in pickups for 30 years, most but not all Ford.)

And that ain’t nothing.

Then in 2025-ish when Ford’s first ground-up BEV platform truck is producing, we’ll have closer to apples-to-apples comparisons to make regarding the best ground-up BEV pickup built.

The answer as to which of those is best, will be some part objective, some part subjective.

 

[Diehard]

That is neither the most cost efficient way to produce a BEV, nor does it result in the most all-around fine-tuned version of a BEV.

For the manufacturer it may not be the optimal way to build a vehicle but for consumer, downsides and upsides balances out. Most ground up designs have a few years of teething and customer feedback before they get everything right. I think that will be the case for 2nd gen Lightning as well. Current generation of Lightning may have a lot to learn on powertrain and software but the body and interior is tested and proven (as a truck, may be not EV truck). Although it has nowhere near the cool factor of R1T or highway efficiency, I feel much better about less sophisticated suspension, negligible phantom drain and the huge backseat (all byproducts of a rush job). I am not sure as Tesla gets larger as a company, will it still remain as agile? I am hoping it will and by the time my reservation comes up, they have fixed most of the initial issues we will undoubtably have with CT and have a relatively stable and practical product. People get caught up with 800 vs 700 lb-ft of torque or 250 vs 300 mile of range on this brand vs the other. Regardless of what EVs people will buy in 24 and 25, I think we have come a long way from original EVs:

p.s. is that a Frunk?

 

[firsttruck]

......
You have this same energy when it comes to Tesla having received to date over $10 billion from ICE manufacturers for carbon credit sales, which $ has been the difference between Tesla’s extinction and survival? Basically, due to fed incentive structures, ICE has funded Tesla’s existence through the hardest part of manufacturing life cycle.

Does that expense to ICE manufacturers not work “against” the “best interests” of those who have paid for it in the prices of their ICE vehicles, without allowing them to “figure out which is more palatable” first?

And hey, I’m not trying to say the IRAs charger incentives were structured the most rationally - that’s the whole point here, with noting that the Ford/GM switch evidenced the flaws in the structure.

You just seem to be twisting the issue into, like, “they’re bias does not align with my bias, and Obvi my bias is the better bias”

The legacy autos were not FORCED to pay Tesla.

The legacy auto chose that option (pay Tesla)
instead of making enough EVs themselves ( so not polluting so much of the air everybody breathes, including air of even non-car owners, children, pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, etc)
or paying a fine directly to the government.

The legacy autos were betting that Tesla would still fail even after getting $$ from credits.
Looks like legacy auto probable bet wrong. They could have made EVs themselves but short-term profit was too important to them.

So legacy auto got their short-term profit but now will probable lose long-term profit and some of them their very existence.

 

[cvalue13]

The legacy choose that option (pay Tesla)
instead of making enough EVs themselves

forum post #1: “Tesla had terrible QC early on, and was an verge of bankruptcy for years”

@firsttruck: “yeah, but making EVs is really hard, and extremely expensive, and used to be more risky in terms of finding capital”

forum post #2: “Ford don’t start making EVs until later than Tesla”

@firsttruck: “Ford chose not to make them sooner on no basis other than being a shill for big oil”

 

[Crissa]

they ARE trying to pick a winner.. they are forcing...

They are what?

How?

Should the government just... leave communities without charging behind? Should they pay for chargers that only one company benefits from?

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

They are what?

How?

Should the government just... leave communities without charging behind? Should they pay for chargers that only one company benefits from?

-Crissa

They set guidelines in their own legislation.

They should use that standard or set better guidelines. They’ve now set up this perverse scenario where they are very likely to be funding a charging network which only benefits grifters.

 

[Crissa]

They set guidelines in their own legislation.

They should use that standard or set better guidelines. They’ve now set up this perverse scenario where they are very likely to be funding a charging network which only benefits grifters.

CCS is the same language NACS will use. All they'll have to do is change the handles in the end. And CCS1 handles wear out faster, so they'll have to.

Saying 'it's grifters' when that legislation is supporting hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road and the hundreds of thousands which will be added to the road? And providing the incentive for Tesla to also support them?

Not a good look, Ogre.

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

This thread still going and going?
Like a rechargeable Energizer Bunny using a NACS port...

and going and going ...

- ÆCIII

 

[Ogre]

CCS is the same language NACS will use. All they'll have to do is change the handles in the end. And CCS1 handles wear out faster, so they'll have to.

Saying 'it's grifters' when that legislation is supporting hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road and the hundreds of thousands which will be added to the road? And providing the incentive for Tesla to also support them?

Not a good look, Ogre.

-Crissa

It’s grifters.

As in there are going to be a large number of chargers built and installed with the goal of collecting government funds and little else. We’ve already seen this happening, it’s a huge part of why non-Tesla EV chargers are crap. They aren’t reliable because reliability hasn’t Been part of what they need to collect the government incentives or in EA’s case, meet the obligations created by dieselgate.

You already have places like Texas where they don’t even bother with a bidding process, they just award it to the first bidder… which is a recipe for corruption and grift.

 

[Crissa]

It’s grifters.

As in there are going to be a large number of chargers built and installed with the goal of collecting government funds and little else. We’ve already seen this happening, it’s a huge part of why non-Tesla EV chargers are crap. They aren’t reliable because reliability hasn’t Been part of what they need to collect the government incentives or in EA’s case, meet the obligations created by dieselgate.

Weirdly...

...The Federal monies require a 97% service rate.

So when you're ready to argue what the monies are really paying for, I'll be here.

Why do you think Magic Dock is spreading like wildfire? Because Tesla can instantly grab those monies. They have the stats.

-Crissa