Talk:North American Charging Standard

Standards
''Tesla's decision to name its connector the "North American Charging Standard" has been criticized, because it has not gone through process to be published or recognized by a standards development organization. The process to be published or recognized is collaborative and allows all interested parties to contribute their ideas.''

This sounds very bitter or angry. I'm not sure whos permission they need to name their connector whatever they want, and like it or not, it will be a standard, maybe de-facto, now that Ford, GM and Rivian are adopting the connector. Everyone else will going forward or nobody will buy their cars. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The text you quoted has been changed now, to indicate that it was an initial criticism in late 2022 as Tesla open sourced their previously-proprietary connector and indicated they would share the tech with other manufacturers. Also, the criticism has been attributed; it was from the competing charging standards body behind the competitive CCS charging standard.  I think the prose is okay now.  But other editors should review. N2e (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While Tesla can name it what they like. It is important to note that naming something as a standard, does not make it a standard. It can be standardized, which as of this reply it has been by SAE. Naming it such does not make it so. As of right now, NACS is standardized by SAE as J3400 as its official name is "North American Charging System" not standard.
 * The proper edits to the page should be made to make sure this discrepancy between what Tesla named it versus what it has actually been named in the public domain. Mango0521 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Peaceray (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

NACS OEM connectors?
Wondering where EV and charger companies will get jacks, plugs, harnesses, cable assemblies. Will keep eyes and ears open. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Presumably from the same suppliers that provide the existing connectors? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we’ve got your answer: Volex. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

NACS draft
FYI, there's a draft article covering this at Draft:North American Charging Standard. If there is anything salvageable, that salvageable material should be merged here, and redirected here. If nothing is salvageable, it should just be redirect here -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo request
It would be good to have a comparison of the physical size of the NACS and CCS1 connectors. My desire would be something like the image at the bottom of this Tesla blog post. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It is good to have a photo comparison, but the existing photo used in the lede is not the right one. Actually, is a misleading graphic, as the three connectors are not comparable in capabilities.  The NACS connector can handle AC home charging and DC fast-charging. The J-1772 is only AC home (low-ish to mid-current) charging.  While the "Level 2" connector is AC home charging and DC at only mid-currents; can't handle DC fast charging; the version of the CCS connector that can is MUCH larger.
 * It could be an appropriate photo in the article body, as long as the rather large differences in capability are described in the photo caption. But fixing that in the caption would be too much text for the lede photo. N2e (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried to show that with a side-by-side comparison of the two connector diagrams. however, I think the photographic illustration I mentioned above would be far more effective. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be. But that is an image licensed/copyrighted by Tesla.  Got to get Tesla to put it into a CC license so can be added to Wikimedia.  Or, as an alternative, someone could take some side by side photographs, or draw up their own image, and CC-license it to Wikimedia.  N2e (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Proximity detection, not proximity pilot
J3400 / NACS / J1772 (type 1) does not have a "proximity pilot". Proximity pilot is used on type 2 connections where the cord is detachable, it signals the current capacity of the cord itself. The other control pin should be called (properly) Proximity Detection, or PD, or just "proximity". CecilT77 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Tesla’s NACS technical specification document consistently refers to that specific pin as the “proximity pilot.” RickyCourtney (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Tesla connector ≠ NACS
They look the same, but they use different protocol. Tesla connector uses CANbus for communication while NACS uses PLC for communication. Only Tesla vehicles built after October 2020 supports NACS. Tesla vehicles built prior to October 2020 must be upgraded to support NACS. Furthermore, only V3 Superchargers support NACS. Older Superchargers (i.e. V2 Superchargers) don't support NACS. NACS has more in common with CCS than the Tesla connector. Any CCS vehicle is compatible with NACS using a simple pass through adapter. On the other hand, Tesla vehicles prior to Oct 2020 require hardware upgrades to be compatible with NACS. TheHoax (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source, please share and add that information. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * https://chargedevs.com/features/ev-charging-is-changing-part-2-no-nacs-is-not-todays-tesla-connector/ TheHoax (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Destination Charger Network and NACS-to-J1772 adapters
I think this article should also cover the low/mid-power AC charging that is rolled out across North America, as it uses the same plug. The NACS-to-J1772 adapters have been around from the beginning and work with any J1772-compatible car. The article already covers J1772-to-NACS Tesla adapters. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)