• moronmonday526@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, so how do you want to word it, then? Tesla and 3rd party providers could have employed any protocol with the open-sourced hardware, but they settled on CCS since that’s what nearly all non-Tesla EVs already use?

    • BuySellHoldFinance@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, so how do you want to word it, then? Tesla and 3rd party providers could have employed any protocol with the open-sourced hardware, but they settled on CCS since that’s what nearly all non-Tesla EVs already use?

      That’s up to the 3rd party providers. But NACS is not a communication protocol.

      • moronmonday526@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been staring at our exchange, and I finally understand why you were so adamant about your point. The way I worded my position implied that Tesla would be dropping their proprietary protocol when communicating with Tesla vehicles and switching entirely to CCS for v4 and converted v3 sites.

        I know that is not the case at all, and I see now that my wording left open that possibility. I think we all understand that Tesla-branded superchargers will run multiple protocols over the same connector, while 3rd party providers will not have access to Tesla’s proprietary protocol and will therefore run CCS-only. If Tesla dropped their proprietary protocol, they would abandon hundreds of thousands of drivers with older cars that do not have CCS support (like mine).