Ford makes deal with Tesla to share its Supercharger network

Discussion in 'General' started by Domenick, May 25, 2023.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. This is big!
    Ford and Tesla have agreed to share the Supercharger network. Starting in 2024, existing and future owners will be able to charge on the Supercharger network using an adaptor. Ford will also move to adopt the Tesla plug on its vehicles (NACS). Further, Ford has access to the Tesla API, so it can include Supercharger info on Ford apps as well.

    Here's the link to the oficial press release from Ford.
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. There's a lot to talk about regarding this, but I think this really lights a fire under competing networks like Electrify America and EVGo. It's basically sink or swim time for them.
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Ford will survive.

    Bob Wilson
  5. Not too late for tomorrows podcast?;)
    Maybe nuke the CHAdeMO connectors on the faster machines (EA) and replace them with NACS...But then again there is the Tesla API.
  6. This will definitely be our top story tomorrow morning.
    bwilson4web likes this.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. teslarati97

    teslarati97 Well-Known Member

    At least Electrify America is mandated by EPA to stay until at least 2026! Can't say the same for EVGo.
    Domenick likes this.
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I've charged my Tesla at an EVgo station. I only saw 20 kW, not terribly impressive.

    Bob Wilson
  10. 2021 Mach E owner here. I'm still processing this announcement and wondering about the details of the rollout. I do look forward to the InsideEv's podcast discussion on the topic. For me, the next few years of EV adoption just got a lot more interesting.
    Last edited: May 26, 2023
    Robert Bratton and Domenick like this.
  11. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Earlier, I posted "Ford with survive" but forgot to include what I live by:

    W. Edwards Deming: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.”

    Bob Wilson
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. papab

    papab Active Member

    It's good for Ford & Tesla, probably bad for the rest of us until we can charge at any tesla station. Tesla's have it both ways. I've noticed that teslas use CCS stations quite a bit, it must be more convenient for them. I hope Tesla doesn't get gov money unless they open up to anyone with the appropriate adapater.
    Robert Bratton and Domenick like this.
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    That works for me:
    • Tesla manufactures their own chargers which are about 1/3d less expensive
    • Tesla chargers are 2-3 times more reliable than CCS-1 chargers
    • Tesla monitors and repairs their broken units
    • Tesla updates their 120 kW Superchargers to 150 kW (I can't find 120 kW units)
    • Tesla kWh prices are lower than CCS-1 kWh
    • Motels and restaurants vote with their wallets for Tesla L2 chargers to attract customers
    • Tesla opened their charging standard (and Ford is adopting it)
    • Tesla 'magic doc' superchargers handle CCS-1 and Tesla EVs
    Bob Wilson
    navguy12 and Robert Bratton like this.
  15. 2 charging companies respond
    EA re-commits to CCS 1 but also expressed flexibility.
    FreeWire will be installing NACS but will not abandon CCS.
    I expect in the future DC chargers will be CCS and NACS
    Last edited: May 27, 2023
    insightman, bwilson4web and andyG59 like this.
  16. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    OK, as long as they don't parallel it with an existing CHAdeMO circuit like the EVgo I used in Arizona. That unit only delivered 20 kW, $0.41-$0.99/kWh, at a rate of ~80 mi/hr. This is barely 3x faster than a typical 7 kWh L2 EVSE.

    A typical L2 adds 28 mi/hr on commercial power, often free, or 32 mi/hr on residential power, $0.12/kWh (Huntsville AL) or ~$0.03/mile ... ~$3.00/100 miles. The EVgo run ~$0.10/mi to ~$0.25/mi, not very affordable.

    Bob Wilson
    Last edited: May 27, 2023
    Robert Bratton likes this.
  17. papab

    papab Active Member

    I know the CCS network is bad, but it's not bad enuf to keep tesla owners from using the more convenient CCS chargers. There are a lot more CCS chargers than Tesla. Tesla network is not the golden boy that some make it out to be.
  18. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    The Tesla CCS-1 adapter and compatible vehicle controller has only been available for barely over a year. My 2019 Model 3 does not have or even offered the CCS-1 compatibility. But my former 2014 BMW i3-REx really soured me and my ex-wife on CCS-1 charging.
    Then don't use it ... that'll piss Elon Musk off. <GRINS>

    Bob Wilson
    Robert Bratton and electriceddy like this.
  19. marshall

    marshall Well-Known Member

    Well here is Washington state, it appears that Tesla owners pay over 7 million dollars a year in the the state's electric vehicle account. So they should get something for their money.

    From what I'm seeing, Tesla owners are paying a disproportionate amount of money into this account, and not getting one Tesla connector without an adapter for their money.
    Last edited: May 28, 2023
  20. CharIN responds (leading global association with over 300 members) dedicated to promote interoperability based on the Combined Charging System (CCS) as the global standard for charging vehicles of all kinds.

    "The global EV industry cannot thrive with several competing charging systems. CharIN supports global standards and defines the requirements based on the input of its international members. CCS is the global standard and therefore focuses on international interoperability and, unlike NACS, is future-proofed to support many other use cases beyond public DC fast charging. Early, unconsolidated announcements of changes create uncertainty in the industry and lead to investment obstacles.

    Further, CharIN also does not support the development and qualification of adaptors for numerous reasons, including the negative impact on the handling of charging equipment and, therefore the user experience, the increased probability of faults, and effects on the functional safety. There are also a variety of technical challenges related to lower current ratings, variations of electrical requirements, and mechanical loads caused by the weight of the adaptor which may lead to wear and mechanical malfunctioning of the vehicle inlet."

    Not exactly supporting the NCAS standard especially with the comments following:

    "For example:

    • More than 300 domestic and international CharIN members are using or investing in CCS.The majority of major domestic and international automakers are using and supporting CCS, including Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General
    • Motors, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Lucid, Lotus, Mazda, MAN, Mercedes-Benz, Navistar, New Flyer, Nikola, Nissan, PSA Groupe, Proterra, Renault, Rivian, Scania, Stellantis, Subaru, Suzuki, Tata Motors, Tesla, Toyota, Volvo, and Volkswagen.
    • In the U.S., CCS is used in over 50 passenger vehicle models, with more coming soon. The anticipated volume of these vehicles will exceed a single NACS supplier volume soon.
    • Charge point operators, infrastructure/component suppliers, electric utilities and oil companiesrely on CCS with high open market dynamics.
    • The charging ecosystem is still nascent and requires certainty around CCS to be confident ininvestments. Every deviation from CCS will impact market traction.
    • The Combined Charging System can connect to all AC charging stations without an adapter viathe J1772 standard.
    • Worldwide, there are 81,000 DC fast chargers using the CCS connector, compared to 45,000Tesla Superchargers according to data published by CharIN and Tesla.
    • In North America (including the U.S. and Canada) there are 22,262 CCS connectors compared to22,128 Tesla Supercharger connectors and 204,253 J1172 connectors compared to 16,009 Tesladestination connectors, according to recent PlugShare data (includes public and restricted use).
    • CCS cables and connector assemblies are NRTL recognized, which makes it easier for EVSEmanufacturers to adopt the standard and build equipment.
    • The CCS standard has been developed with full backward compatibility ensuring earlyinvestments are relevant to the growth of the industry, unlike other proprietary standards,including NACS.
    In addition to the global dominance of CCS, it is important to note three additional facts:

    1) NACS is not a standard

    NACS is not a published or recognized standard by any standards body. For any technology to become a standard it has to go through due process in a standards development organization, such as ISO, IEC, and/or SAE. Such a process is collaborative and enables all interested parties to contribute their ideas.
    The current CCS standard, including connectors and related communications protocols, is a true international standard that has gone through the standardization process. Any newly introduced idea, including a mechanical improvement to the existing CCS connector design, would have to follow the same process before the industry can safely adopt it. There is a significant chance that what is ultimately approved in the standards development process may not align with what is currently proposed.

    2) This announcement is a proprietary implementation between two automakers and should not re-open eligibility decisions on public infrastructure funding

    Public funding must continue to go towards open standards, which is always better for the consumer. Public EV infrastructure funding, such as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program, should continue to only be approved for CCS-standard-enabled chargers per federal minimum standards guidance.

    3) Recent activities and announcements will address concerns about charger reliability

    CharIN joined the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation and the National Laboratories to support the launch of the National Charging Experience Consortium. The Consortium will address charger interoperability and reliability issues in public CCS deployments, which is appropriate to address jointly as an industry. Additionally, CharIN will announce other major interoperability initiatives in the coming weeks, including upcoming interoperability testing events. The entire EV industry should double down on activities to support public fast charging for the long-term."
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2023
  21. Thanks for sharing. It sound quite defensive, which it has every right to be.
    Their problem is that the actual physical connector is not great. It's overly large, and awkward - and the chargers using it have proven too unreliable for mass EV adoption. Interest in electric vehicles slowed in the first part of this year with fast charging reliability and availability the main culprits. That's not good when automakers are shifting many, many billions of dollars toward ramping up electric vehicle production.

    Automakers need owners to have a good experience and whole routes becoming basically impassable, though sometimes it's for sites to be upgraded, is the limit for Ford, apparently.
    Maybe CHarIN can stop the automotive world from going NACS, but they need to offer something better than what it has so far. There's too much at stake - literally everything - here to not start looking at alternatives to CCS.
    DJP and electriceddy like this.
  22. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    They are too modest. They should also assert:
    1. Model A Ford - There should be only one universal car, options, and color.
    2. Podpeople - There should be only one human female shape and personality.
    3. Mao Zedong line - There should be only one style, color, and shape of clothing.
    The best way to freeze innovation and invention is define fixed "requirements." Fortunately, Tesla doesn't care what these Luddites believe. Customers buying Tesla products is the final verdict.

    Bob Wilson
    electriceddy likes this.
  23. I hesitated when posting however in all fairness there are always many opinions each expressed with their related concerns so in all fairness it is better to have them all on the table.
    I am sure "middle ground" can be achieved with time.
    andyG59 and Domenick like this.

Share This Page