I was using that standard as an example where it simply makes things for consumers easier and more convenient. EV drivers in North America can now access the most vast network (Tesla's) regardless of which EV they drive. You cant possible argue that this is a bad thing / progress at least?
Well, is it progress? The NACS system just appears to be a smaller plug, and only matches the charge speeds of the current CCS2 connector (350kW) I don’t see what other benefits it brings. If anything, it’s an example of a dominant player imposing their proprietary standard on everybody else. The Tesla charging network is huge, but then so is Electrify America’s, I guess the latter will be very pleased they have to update/upgrade all 3600 charge points with a new connector plug?
Going on from the last time Tesla made a step change in charging sockets to (ironically) CCS2, they ended up fitting both connector plugs to the Supercharging network which hardly seems like progress.
I'd think that its at least a good start. I don't follow EV charing standards that closely, but me and my wife have different EV's from different brands, but can share the exact same plug and charger at home (CCS) and at most charging locations in the UK.
Yes, and this is a good thing, my wife and I both drive EVs as well, her Tesla and my VW both charge from one charge point at home, using the Type 2 socket, and both use CCS2 for out and about rapid charging.
A new standard of NACS connectors would only introduce complications and/or make the current situation worse.
But yes, I agree, a single charge socket and charging protocol for e-bikes would be a start, not that most people own multiple e-bikes or charge them when out and about.
It’s irked me for some time that my Focus and Specialized e-bikes use the same charge socket, but neither the Focus nor Specialized charger bricks work on both bikes.
I think going any further than that though will be difficult, as long as there are competing motor manufacturers at any rate. You can’t take the power electronics from my wife’s Tesla, fit them into my VW and expect it to work with the battery and motor etc etc, is it reasonable to expect bike manufacturers to make all those things standard and interchangeable as well?
I mean, from the video, this is all about keeping a not very old e-bike on the road by being able to stick a Bafang motor or something into an originally equipped Bosch bike and via some standards expecting it to work? I can’t stick a different motor into my Bosch washing machine and expect it to play happily with the power electronics fitted elsewhere, so why on an e-bike? I’m sure Bosch (amongst others) have worked very hard and spent a shed load of money to develop their e-bike systems to where they are, and I think it’s entirely reasonable to have the battery, motor and software as one entity to gain market differentation, ensure peak performance, and of course safety.
I think we’re somehow conflating innovation, natural obsolescence and ability to repair in this debate.
Standards won’t fix the last one, which is what I think most people care about, bike manufacturers just need to ensure there are spare parts and or assemblies available to keep their bikes running beyond the warranty period. In the past, before e-bikes, there has been the aftermarket to do that for them. Just like in the automotive world, if you want non-OEM manufacturers to make ‘pattern parts’ to support customers, you need to supply them with the data. If there’s a market, they will fill it, regardless of bolt pattern etc.
Electronics and software are the tricky issue, they render many things obsolete when they cease working properly. I’m not saying standards are worthless, but it won’t fix much that’s wrong with the e-bike world currently.
...pedal power to the people against punked products!
I'm on my own and this is not a business, that be accomplished by myself. I do have a lot more plans and ideas, but for now I need to go step by step.
