245
Toyota to adopt Tesla charger for North American EV models (mainichi.jp)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

NEW YORK (Kyodo) -- Toyota Motor Corp. said Thursday it will adopt Tesla Inc.'s charging standards for its electric vehicles to be sold in North Ameri

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Makes sense. Why not use infrastructure that's already available?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because using proprietary standards puts you at the mercy of the technology owner

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0094

    There is a placed by law standard in the European Union, don't know if the US has the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nah can't have standards in the USA, let the market solve that and Canada just follows whatever the USA does for these things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    In this case there is, it's called the North American Charging Standard! Granted, Tesla did name it that way just last year, before it became a standard, but hey, at least it worked out in the end. Probably.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It's not a standard unless it's made mandatory by the state, it's just an agreement between manufacturers and sadly it seems like States always wait too long to establish standards and we end up with incompatible tech that lose support in the long term because of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    that is absolutely not true. most standards AREN'T mandated by law. ANSI is voluntary for example. USB is a standard that isn't written into law, you get the picture

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My point is that at any time a manufacturer can just go "Fuck them, I'm creating my own interface" for this reason, the standard isn't mandated by law! Case in point: Apple

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I guess I don't understand the problem. Companies use the superior standard. Innovation is good. Look at NACS charging plug, everyone has given up on CCS in the US and signed up to switch. Despite the government mandating CCS in charge stations

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Companies don't necessarily use the superior standard, maybe you're too young to have known or you don't remember the time when each cellphone brand had their own plug and sometimes had a different plug for different phones...

    Heck, the car charging ports are a perfect example, the government could have stepped in and imposed a standard in the early days of EVs, instead it had to wait nearly two decades for manufacturers to agree with brands using one of multiple standards for their car and now we'll end up with charging stations that will be borderline useless in a couple of years because no one will be carrying a bunch of adapters just in case they try to charge somewhere with the wrong plug for their car and if the stations are updated then it's still a whole lot of waste for the landfills and owners of older cars will need to carry adapters with them so they're able to keep charging their car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    While I understand with what you're saying, I personally believe that regulating standards during the early days of an industry is just asking for trouble.

    It often isn't until later on that we truly understand what we need out of a standard. This can take iterations and different approaches. I think it is too big a risk to potentially be hamstrung with a shitty solution later on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It often isn't until later on that we truly understand what we need out of a standard

    Guess we shouldn't be using the Tesla standard then because it's what's been used by them since the release of the model S in 2012... You know, the early days of wide adoption of EV cars?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    EDIT: the guy I'm replying to edited his comment. Originally he asked something along the lines of "why didn't they mandate the tesla plug"

    so the government should've mandated a closed protocol that wasn't a standard?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The government should have sat down with manufacturers, telling them "Better come to the table cuz that's where we'll decide what the legal standard will be." and come up with a solution instead of letting manufacturers do whatever they want until 8 standards came to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think it's easy to say that with hindsight, but you don't know where standards are needed when things are first getting going

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We had a standard before that, it was called CCS. Musk changing the name of his charger doesn't make it a defacto standard, no matter what the Muskites tell you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    because, from what I understnad, only the newest tesla chargers will support non-teslas charging, which is gonna leave a shitton of older chargers as tesla exclusive.

    and overnight renders all the investment and infrastructure thats been built for J1772/CCS Type1/2 completely pointless and wasted effort almost overnight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    and overnight renders all the investment and infrastructure thats been built for J1772/CCS Type1/2 completely pointless and wasted effort almost overnight.

    I could be mistaken, but I don't think it's that grim. J1772 will still be good for supporting vehicles and locations that don't support DC charging. Level 2 will continue to be useful for years since the grid doesn't support Level 3 charging just anywhere.

    And CCS 1/2 will support NACS with relatively simple adapters as I understand it. Existing DC charging stations can simply replace their CCS 1/2 ends with NACS over time when they would be replaced for maintenance anyway, and perhaps provide adapters in the meantime.

    I highly recommend this video from Technology Connections which changed my mind about this.

    (To be fair, as an owner of a PHEV that can't use DC charging anyway it doesn't make much difference to me though.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •