Hyundai, Kia To Adopt Tesla EV-Charging Standard From 2024 In US (reuters.com) 59
Hyundai and Kia said on Thursday that they will adopt Tesla's electric vehicle charging technology in the United States. Reuters reports: Joining their global peers, including Ford Motor, General Motors and Nissan in adopting Tesla's North American Charging Standard (NACS), Hyundai's and Kia's moves take the Elon Musk-led company's superchargers closer to becoming the industry standard at the expense of the rival Combined Charging System (CCS). Hyundai and Kia's new EVs will come with a NACS port, starting in the fourth quarter of 2024 in the United States, the companies said.
However, in Canada, Hyundai EVs equipped with the NACS port would be available in the first half of 2025, while Kia's EVs with the technology by the end of 2024. The move gives Hyundai and Kia EVs with NACS ports access to more than 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the companies said. The South Korean automakers also said that they would offer adapters to owners of existing and future Hyundai and Kia EVs with the current CCS giving them access to Tesla's Supercharging Network in the first quarter of 2025.
However, in Canada, Hyundai EVs equipped with the NACS port would be available in the first half of 2025, while Kia's EVs with the technology by the end of 2024. The move gives Hyundai and Kia EVs with NACS ports access to more than 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the companies said. The South Korean automakers also said that they would offer adapters to owners of existing and future Hyundai and Kia EVs with the current CCS giving them access to Tesla's Supercharging Network in the first quarter of 2025.
In addition (Score:4, Informative)
In addition, no more locks on the doors to make them even easier to steal. And you can start the engine without a key. Just say "Let's Go" real loud and the engine starts.
Re: (Score:1)
They can also act as a fire starter if you forget your matches.
For once... (Score:2)
Betamax beats VHS, and GUS beats Soundblaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Betamax beats VHS, and GUS beats Soundblaster.
Tesla's charging network is superior in terms of coverage and reliability, but as to the charging connector? The main difference is that Tesla puts the hardware for switching between L1/L2 charging or DC fast charging in the vehicle itself and uses the same pins for both, whereas with the old non-Tesla standard the DC fast charging input is on physically separate pins. It's a minor nit-pick for sure, but it means there's one more potential point of failure.
Also, it's highly likely Tesla isn't planning to
Re: (Score:3)
It's a failure that as far as I can tell has literally never occurred, and if you look at the wiring diagram you can see why.
It's a much more compact, less unwieldy connector (CharIN, when you find yourself putting a handle on your handle, you need to stop and fire your designers), and not a design-by-committee kludge for backwards compatibility.
It's easier to conceal under trim.
It's easier to fit into smaller vehicles (such as motorcycles) or vehicles with other design constraints (such as Aptera's high le
Re: (Score:2)
It's a failure that as far as I can tell has literally never occurred, and if you look at the wiring diagram you can see why.
The idea is that once 3rd party automakers start implementing it, they might cut corners to save a few bucks and now you've got the potential failure mode of the wrong type of power being connected to the wrong circuitry. It's probably the sort of failure that'll be more likely to rear its ugly head when we're talking about cars that are 12+ years old and they start developing the typical old car electrical gremlins.
Re: (Score:3)
The locking mechanism is a problem, especially at higher voltages where air insulation gaps need to be much bigger.
The NACS system is reliant on the charger detecting disconnection from the car electrically, and fast enough to prevent arcing. Having the charger control the lock is much safer, as it can refuse to unlock until it has disengaged the high voltage.
The issue of getting stuck isn't really much of a thing, because the chargers have to have a mandatory emergency stop button on them. That button cuts
Re: (Score:2)
> Having the charger control the lock is much safer, as it can refuse to unlock until it has disengaged the high voltage.
This isn't a thing on CCS type 1 (North America) connectors. For Type 1 the charger side has a thumb tab or similar manual latch, and the vehicle has a solenoid or motor that captures it to prevent it being removed during charging. Only Type 2 (Europe) connectors have an electromechanical latch controlled by the charger. Why they developed two versions is going to forever be a mystery
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's charging network is superior in terms of coverage and reliability, but as to the charging connector? The main difference is that Tesla puts the hardware for switching between L1/L2 charging or DC fast charging in the vehicle itself and uses the same pins for both, whereas with the old non-Tesla standard the DC fast charging input is on physically separate pins. It's a minor nit-pick for sure, but it means there's one more potential point of failure.
That minor nitpick has considerable side effects. One is that the connector is big & bulky, and ugly. Another is that there are two sets of high-amperage wires in the cable, which make the cable also bigger and bulkier. And the cable is exposed to the elements, meaning that in cold climates the cable gets cold and can become stiff, MUCH more than Tesla. Not only can it make the difference between needing one hand vs two hands to plug in, but the difference is an actual usability issue for some disabilit
Re: For once... (Score:3)
Well at least it's not ugly ... I can't believe that was one of your first points
Like who gives a fuck
Re: (Score:3)
>Another is that there are two sets of high-amperage wires in the cable, which make the cable also bigger and bulkier.
CCS has only one pair of high current cables. The pins in the non-DC portion of the connector are not used except for signaling.
Tesla's cables are thinner because the wire is undersized for the power rating. They get away with it by 1) using temperature sensing to reduce charging power as necessary, and 2) only reaching peak power for a relatively brief period, so the average power is wel
Re: (Score:2)
>Another is that there are two sets of high-amperage wires in the cable, which make the cable also bigger and bulkier.
CCS has only one pair of high current cables. The pins in the non-DC portion of the connector are not used except for signaling.
Tesla's cables are thinner because the wire is undersized for the power rating. They get away with it by 1) using temperature sensing to reduce charging power as necessary, and 2) only reaching peak power for a relatively brief period, so the average power is well below peak.
And 3) using water cooling in the cable and connectors, though I don't think the current cables do that right now. (There was a period a few years ago when a few stations were using the experimental cables, and it is planned to be rolled out more broadly as part of the Cybertruck upgrades, I think.)
Re: (Score:2)
CCS1 has two sets of high voltage, high current charging cables (plus thin communication cables).
- One set is for AC charging (usually 240 volts RMS AC up to 60 amps about 15 kW)
- A second set for DC charging (usually 400 or 500 volts DC up to 500 amps about 250 kW)
These two sets of charging wires make the cable and connector thick and cumbersome.
NACS has one set of high voltage, high current cables (plus thin communication cables).
The charging circuit and communication protocol detects whether you have AC
Re: For once... (Score:2)
Tesla especially initially, had a lot to gain to develop a reliable and wide reaching charging network. Only selling Electric Cars means a poor charging experience would kill themselves. Other automaker GM, VW, Ford, Hyundai, KIA... See EV as a new business expansion opportunity however, they are not tied to the Charging network, as their business has more options. So they relied on third party (or mostly so) charging companies, expecting them to do all the work. While these third parties are smaller comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point. Betamax, aka Beta, was the consumer version that was beaten out by the technically inferior VHS in the marketplace in the 1980s.
The comment implied that finally the technically superior yet underdog technology (NACS aka Beta) beats out the more widespread (CCS aka VHS), making this a victory for quality over quantity.
Nobody outside of the professional industry even knew of Betacam, nor did they ever compare it to VHS. Note that due to Sony providing 7 years of support on EOL products, an
Re: (Score:2)
Fitting comparison for one point given Betamax doesn't give people the same run time as VHS, just like Tesla is behind its competitors in terms of charging speed, and also fitting in ignorance since those who claim superiority for Betamax simply never looked into the details of what consumers were actually getting.
This is more of a case of NTSC vs PAL. Tesla is not the best charging system out there. Far from it. They are behind in development significantly, but in the USA they are simply the sensible optio
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is not the best charging system out there.
Yet then you say...
the abysmal state of alternatives.
So Tesla isn't the best, but everyone else is worse?
take what Musk gives you, and like it! (Score:2, Troll)
So much for 800V charging. Nothing like engineering faster charging into your products, then letting your main competitor determine your charge rates.
The industry will regret the short term benefit of sucking Musk's cock, and the customer will always be forced to accept two standards.
Yeah, that's not how charging works. (Score:5, Informative)
800V is the voltage of the cable. It's not the voltage that the cells see. All the cells see in the ballpark of 4 volts, regardless of the cable voltage - 800V just means cells arranged more in series, while 400V means more in parallel. All that matters to cells is amps, and all that matters to the pack as a whole is kilowatts. Which can be achieved with any combination of high current or high voltage. I'll repeat: high cable voltages do NOT mean fast charging. You need kW figures for that.
There are advantages to 800V. The main being thinner conductors for a given amount of power, which can save a bit of mass (or need less liquid cooling, as high-power cables are liquid-cooled) and cost. But that's where the good news stops and the bad news starts.
Minor is the fact that you need to insulate 800V better.
It tends to be easier to engineer a good 400V drive unit than 800V (due to arcinig), and drive units operate at pack voltage.
Unless you want to only be able to operate on 800V stations (aka, a relatively small minority), you need to be able to switch between 800V and 400V. This means either a pack that can switch modules between series and parallel, or a high-power DC-DC converter. Both add mass, expense, and part count.
If you design a vehicle for charging 250kW at 800V, and you plug into a 400V station that can do 250kW, guess what? You're only getting 125kW, because 800V wiring sized for 250kW is 312,5A, but 400V at 250kW is 625A, and you can't take that. But a manufacturer who designed their car for 400V at 250kW has 625A wiring and thus can take it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 800V is bad. Far from it. But it's a balancing act. It's simply wrong to say "800V is faster" or "800V is better".
Oh, and FYI? Supercharger V4 delivers up to 1000V, so this entire conversation is moot anyway. Maybe once the vast majority of fast chargers out there support 800+ volts then it might be fine to ditch support for 400V and not have to worry about most of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, you need 800V to get those really high charge rates because the current at 400V is just too high to build a reasonably usable system out of.
For example, we have 400kW chargers in Europe. Those would require 1000A to deliver that power at 400V. It's rather difficult to dissipate the amount of heat required to generate that much current in the charger, but the bigger issue is that the cable will need to be ridiculously thick. I couldn't even get a value for it because all the manufacturer's calcu
Re: (Score:2)
but it seems like sub 10 minute charging times are required to convince some people
A lot of charging development is not aimed at convincing people. Most people already will spend upwards of 10minutes at a forecourt on a motorway, and upwards of 7minutes on the forecourt of a local petrol station.
But you and I aren't the only ones there. The question of charging systems starts becoming far more important when that Amazon delivery truck shows up and needs to sit there for an hour to charge at 250kW. Just like the diesel pumps the trucks stop at aren't the same as the ones cars stop at, the
Re: (Score:2)
It very demonstrably is not.
You can run insane currents through a thin cable if it's liquid cooled. The normal rules for cables that are passively air cooled are irrelevant. Stop going to calculators for passive air-cooled cables.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is the charging system and the battery system are rarely linked in lock step with one another. The entire point really is moot. Hyandai and the like benefit immensely from economies of scale. They most definitely *will* be using whatever voltage system best suits their design and will be implementing systems to switch between available charging systems. They will not throw away the entire drive train and charging system designed for one country just build something new for another country. They w
Re: (Score:2)
>Supercharger V4 delivers up to 1000V, so this entire conversation is moot anyway.
Maybe for people who like low build quality and giving money to a fascist.
Today my Hyundai charges faster at nominal 350 kW chargers than most other cars do. I get a rate between 150-200 usually.
What REALLY sucks about this news is that Tesla's so-called Universal chargers are only deployed in certain states (not mine), are undocumented, and today they don't work with the Hyundai / Kia platform ie. they will not actually
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what did you say? I was too busy looking at reports on Teslas consistently getting the best owner satisfaction ratings in the industry year after year and consumer surveys from third parties showing how much owners love their cars. You were saying something about them being crap?
Re: (Score:2)
Owner satisfaction and Elon's fascism != owner satisfaction. I value quality over status
https://www.reddit.com/r/whatc... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So much for 800V charging.
It's not super clear what you're saying, but I think you're saying that automakers will regret using NACS at 400v when they could have had J1772 at 800v. Except NACS has nothing to do with that, NACS is just the form factor of the plug, plus the clever trick of using the same wires for two different uses (AC vs fastcharge). And Tesla and J1772 use the same signaling protocol, so the big difference will soon be if you want to transport a car between North American, Asia, and Europe. Big whoop.
And Tesla isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. NACS is under control of the SAE, and EVERYONE has to change.
First, SAE is raising the voltage up to 1000V.
Second, SAE is implementing BOTH DCFC standards - the existing Tesla standard used at the Superchargers AND the
Re: (Score:2)
It was reported back in June that Hyundai was reluctant to switch to NACS without assurances from Tesla that it had a solid schedule for rolling out its latest v4 Supercharger standard, which supports 800V charging. VW supposedly had similar concerns. My guess is that v4 Superchargers will be rolling out in number sooner than later.
Times Change (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla has:
1. Scale
2. Vertical integration
3. A non-union workforce
4. No parasitic dealer network
5. Better cars
These are all significant advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
5. Better cars
That's subjective. If the EV fairy showed up tonight and gave me the option to swap my ICE for the EV of my choice completely gratis, I'd pick the F-150 Lightning Pro.
Better cars (Score:2)
The F-150 Lightning Pro is not a car, its a truck.
Of course some people might need a truck...
Re: (Score:2)
I presently own a car because my work vehicle sucks down ungodly amounts of gas. Now, if my work vehicle didn't suck down ungodly amounts of gas, I'd just use it as my daily driver and wouldn't need a separate car. So yeah, the truck would be great (in the fantasy world where I could afford such a thing).
Sure, Tesla is technically going to start shipping a truck-like vehicle, but I really don't want to get into all the reasons why it's just a huge nope as what I'd need from a work vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
> 5. Better cars, care to elaborate or expand on this idea, because the internet has fuckall,
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't say better cars. Lots of gripes about fit and finish.
Also, why is a non-union workforce a good thing? Unions have done a lot of good. If you like vacation time, retirement benefits, health plans, weekends, 40 hour a week jobs, overtime, and having your kids out of the coal mines, then better thank unions for that. However, I'm guessing people slaver working at a Chinese 997 job because of Stockholme syndrome.
Re:Times Change (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, why is a non-union workforce a good thing?
Have you been reading the news?
Unions have done a lot of good.
Perhaps. But we're not talking about general goodness to workers or society, but benefits to the manufacturer.
You'd have to be delusional to believe unions benefit Ford and GM.
Re: Times Change (Score:2)
How does one have 40 hour work weeks and ot?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why is a non-union workforce a good thing?
Lower costs for the vehicle being assembled.
Re: (Score:3)
The risk is that Musk doesn't deliver on his promises about the Tesla connector, and it wouldn't be the first time he's over-hyped and under-delivered something.
The US was in a bad position, with three less than ideal connectors. Tesla has questions about if it can reach higher power levels that CCS2 already delivers in Europe. CCS1 can't reach those power levels either, and is a bit unwieldy. CHAdeMO was only ever used by Japanese manufacturers, and all of them have adopted CCS2/Tesla outside of Japan now
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone thought Tesla as a company was making a foolish business move by open sourcing their patents in the name of advancing electric cars for the world. Why give away your technology to competitors when you can license it to them or profit from it yourself? Finally competitors are catching up 9 years later, so is it finally shooting themselves in the foot or have companies taken too long to acknowledge Tesla's technology and is it too late for them to adopt it now and compete with Tesla's scale?
Given Elon's history on doing an about face if not doing the exact opposite of what he's claimed I'd be hesitant to tie my company to his technologies.
Whilst it's difficult to "un" open source a patent it's relatively easy to make changes that are patentable that can be charged for/used to restrict competition. As traditional manufacturers get into the EV game (still a fad I suspect will fall apart in a few years) they're going to come up with better, cheaper models than Tesla, as Elon won't be able to b
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Everyone thought Tesla as a company was making a foolish business move by open sourcing their patents in the name of advancing electric cars for the world. Why give away your technology to competitors when you can license it to them or profit from it yourself? Finally competitors are catching up 9 years later
False. No. You simply don't recall history or didn't look into the details. Tesla didn't open up any patents. They offered patent swaps. There were nothing but downsides to adopting Tesla's proposal for everyone else. And those downsides stayed true for 9 years. In fact the terms Tesla offered were so far from "open source" that standards organisations actively stated they cannot incorporate Tesla's designs into any standard.
November 2022 is when Tesla dropped their "open in name only" policy in favour of s
Re: (Score:1)
Tesla's "technology" is inferior to the existing standard. The connector is a little smaller, but it's not like the other one is too heavy to lift or anything, and the other connector supports twice the charge rate. That doesn't matter for econoboxes, but it does matter for larger future vehicles like pickup trucks with enough battery to tow meaningfully. So we're going to end up either with two standards at once for a long time, or with a painful and expensive transition to a superior connector later.
Stop giving Elno modpoints (Score:2)
No matter how many times you mod me down, Elon, your connector will still be inferior to CCS2. And you'll still be a cowardly bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone thought Tesla as a company was making a foolish business move by open sourcing their patents in the name of advancing electric cars for the world. Why give away your technology to competitors when you can license it to them or profit from it yourself? Finally competitors are catching up 9 years later, so is it finally shooting themselves in the foot or have companies taken too long to acknowledge Tesla's technology and is it too late for them to adopt it now and compete with Tesla's scale?
Opening the patents up is not the same as opening the standard. All that does is set the stage for a fragmented battle over what version 2 will look like because no one controls it (but Tesla would have been in the best position because of its installed base). That’s why no one moved for 9 years.
Within days of Tesla opening it as a standard, however, Aptera signed on, and in less than a year we’ve seen over a dozen others, most of whom waited for SAE to formally adopt it so that it would have in
I guess that's when I'll start looking at them (Score:3)
I lived for 10 years without a car and I was planning to get an EV as my next vehicle. I think it's unquestionable that the Supercharger Network is more reliable in general, so I'd rather wait for built-in support. The EV6 and Ioniq 5 look like great vehicles, so I guess I'll just wait. Maybe prices/interest rates will come down a bit by then. Right now dealers are charging insane fees on top of the MSRP and I'd rather not have to deal with that just because stock is low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is that Hyundai and Kia, while they make good EVs, make no money on them, so they solve that "problem" by not making that many of them. Which means that dealers mark them up like crazy, thus ruining the stats-to-dollar ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
The tax rebate eligibility situation changes next year and it may render some vehicles ineligible for the full amount, so you might not actually end up saving any money by waiting. As to the charger compatibility, there will be dongles available sometimes next year. How annoying it ends up being to deal with a dongle depends entirely on your anticipated need for DC fast charging. Most people primarily charge their EVs at home anyway, because the "fuel" savings quickly evaporates once you start paying jac
Re: (Score:3)
While Hyundai and Kai don't qualify for the $7,500 tax rebate, they've been offering 0.99% financing on their cars for some time now. Markups are an individual dealer thing. If you're seeing a lot of markups, pick a different dealer. I purchased an Ioniq 6 in August for MSRP, no extra fees.
Check out the various Reddit forums and you'll find the dealer allocation spreadsheets and can see who has the most in stock, allowing you to avoid the scarcity-markup situation.
standards (Score:1)
rather have a battery swap (Score:2)
There is one car maker that is building cars where all you have to do is to swap batteries instead of charging. They claim it only takes five minutes to swap the batteries as opposed to charging stations that can take hours. Seems to me, it would be easier just to let your local convenience store carry the batteries in a system similar the propain gas they sell for bbq grills.
Re: (Score:2)