SAE is standardizing the NACS connector – making it less dependent on Tesla

Administrator · Jun 28, 2023

SAE is standardizing NACS – making it less dependent on Tesla

SAE is Standardizing NACS Connector

https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/sae-standardizing-nacs-less-dependent-on-tesla/

SAE International today announced it will standardize the Tesla-developed North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector. This will ensure that any supplier or manufacturer will be able to use, manufacture, or deploy the NACS connector on electric vehicles (EVs) and at charging stations across North America. Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Rivian, and a number of EV charging companies recently announced plans to adopt the NACS connector through adaptors or future product offerings.

RyZt · Jun 28, 2023

I don’t really see the point of this kind of standards.

It’s like web standards. It doesn’t really matter what the HTML standard or JavaScript standard says. What matters is Chrome’s implementation. When they don’t match, they actually treat is as a bug in the standard and issues an errata to fix the standard to match the Chrome implementation.

jgcom · Jun 28, 2023

RyZt said:
I don’t really see the point of this kind of standards.

It’s like web standards. It doesn’t really matter what the HTML standard or JavaScript standard says. What matters is Chrome’s implementation. When they don’t match, they actually treat is as a bug in the standard and issues an errata to fix the standard to match the Chrome implementation.

High-power electronics is largely not programming. Chrome cannot catch fire fueled by a hundred kW of power, for example. When more than one manufacturer is involved, the specs have to go into nitty gritty detail on materials, heat treatments, wear rates, dimensional tolerances, thermal behavior, mechanical and electrical failure modes, etc. It is nearly impossible to exactly reproduce the initial reference manufacturing process, so standards ensure interoperability despite this.

What I do involves building complex scientific instrumentation. At first, everyone argues for their design choices. Then it comes time to cut metal and most hardware arguments end. Sadly, the software people never finish arguing, which is a pity.

... just my two cents.

timbop · Jun 28, 2023

jgcom said:
High-power electronics is largely not programming. Chrome cannot catch fire fueled by a hundred kW of power, for example. When more than one manufacturer is involved, the specs have to go into nitty gritty detail on materials, heat treatments, wear rates, dimensional tolerances, thermal behavior, mechanical and electrical failure modes, etc. It is nearly impossible to exactly reproduce the initial reference manufacturing process, so standards ensure interoperability despite this.

What I do involves building complex scientific instrumentation. At first, everyone argues for their design choices. Then it comes time to cut metal and most hardware arguments end. Sadly, the software people never finish arguing, which is a pity.

... just my two cents.

Exactly. On all accounts: having to get vendors together, codifying how things are supposed to work, and software people being a PITA. Software engineers always want to "refactor" (ie rewrite) everything. It drives me crazy at my current job - a small group with a nebulous command structure means anyone can decide to just rewrite a module no matter where we are in the release schedule.

With that said: it doesn't matter what the SAE does; if Tesla does something differently so will everyone else.

JohnFoxeSheets · Jun 28, 2023

I spent a couple decades leading US and international standards working groups in the area of payments. Nothing that would cause a fire, but oddly people do care about……money and hope it’s handled. We also care about light bulbs and being to screw them in. And plumbing. And electrical outlets. And door heights. And tire sizing. And gas pump nozzle (yes, even folks on this forum). And.

macchiaz-o · Jun 28, 2023

timbop said:
Software engineers always want to "refactor" (ie rewrite) everything. It drives me crazy at my current job - a small group with a nebulous command structure means anyone can decide to just rewrite a module no matter where we are in the release schedule.

Speaking as a software engineer, I desperately want to entirely rewrite your post (*) but I can't due to my overriding compulsion to please my product owners with on time, half-assed deliverables of the sprint story points I've begrudgingly already committed to.

(*) Just kidding. You're a great writer, Tim.

JohnFoxeSheets · Jun 28, 2023

timbop said:
With that said: it doesn't matter what the SAE does; if Tesla does something differently so will everyone else.

In the short term, certainly yes. But in the long term, especially if we see a robust set of NACS DCFC networks beyond Tesla, then not necessarily. Ideally we'll get to a place where Tesla just has a seat at the table along with everyone else.

kodiakng · Jun 29, 2023

JohnFoxeSheets said:
In the short term, certainly yes. But in the long term, especially if we see a robust set of NACS DCFC networks beyond Tesla, then not necessarily. Ideally we'll get to a place where Tesla just has a seat at the table along with everyone else.

agreed. tesla appears to be satisfied with the current connector "standard" as they've written it and the glide path it will take from here on out.

the main standardization issues moving forward are in the communication protocols running over the connector and it appears even tesla is succumbing to the ISO-15118 standard there.

HuntingPudel · Jun 29, 2023

As a dog who has worked for companies that sat on standards committees, I am glad to see that an actual standards organization has added the Brand T charging interface specifications to their standards. Prior to this, “NACS” was only a de-facto standard due to its having been in place for a while. Now, it is an actual standard. Kudos to Brand T and the SAE. ??

the golden eel · Jun 29, 2023

jgcom said:
... At first, everyone argues for their design choices. Then it comes time to cut metal and most hardware arguments end. Sadly, the software people never finish arguing, which is a pity.

... just my two cents.

I work in an electronics lab where we design and develop electronic controls and circuit boards. First rule of troubleshooting is "Hardware will someday fail, and software will someday work."

HuntingPudel · Jun 29, 2023

the golden eel said:
I work in an electronics lab where we design and develop electronic controls and circuit boards. First rule of troubleshooting is "Hardware will someday fail, and software will someday work."

Bring-up firmware always works. It’s always an environmental factor that causes it to go haywire. ??

SAE is standardizing the NACS connector – making it less dependent on Tesla

Administrator

Administrator

RyZt

Well-Known Member

jgcom

Well-Known Member

timbop

Well-Known Member

JohnFoxeSheets

Well-Known Member

macchiaz-o

Well-Known Member

JohnFoxeSheets

Well-Known Member

kodiakng

Well-Known Member

HuntingPudel

Well-Known Member

the golden eel

Well-Known Member

HuntingPudel

Well-Known Member

Similar threads