|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Hello, I'm your host, Grayson Brulte. Welcome to another episode of SAE Tomorrow Today, a show about emerging technology and trends and mobility with leaders and innovators to make it all happen. On today's episode, we're absolutely honored to welcome back Dr. Rodney McGee, Chairman of the SAE J3400 NACS Task Force and Christian Thiele, Director of Global Ground Vehicle Standards, SAE International.
For listeners who may have missed it, Christian and Rodney were on episode 175 last summer to discuss the launch of the SAE J3400 NACS Task Force and how it would enable standards and technology to work together and efficiently manage EV charging pain points for consumers in scale production. It's been a little over a year and the committee is about to publish an update to the document.
Christian and Rodney are back to share what's progressed over the past year. We hope you enjoy this episode. Gentlemen, welcome back to SAE Tomorrow Today. Thank you.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Thank you very much, Grayson.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
It's wonderful to have you here because J3400 is the Tesla developed North American charging standard for electric vehicle connectors.
So gentlemen I'm, really curious since I haven't I have an accident How has the SAE J3400 standard changed with the latest revision?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Yeah standards move through different maturity levels, and we're going to a higher level of maturity of the document. And really what that does is get more details, cover more technology areas.
really make sure that we have the kind of pieces we need to support things like adapters, which I know we might talk about later and also new technologies like. Vehicle to grid vehicle to home, and so that's I think an important part of the standardization process is ensuring interoperability and having the reliability that people expect from the next system.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, how do you know when a standard reaches a maturity level? Is it a vote on the committees or internal process where you start that? How do you know?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah. So at the end of the day, it is a vote. We, as we had the TIR, the technical information report, published in December.
And that was the start of the process, so to speak, and now that we are focused on the RP, which is the Recommended Practice, which by the way will be published this month, it is the next level in the process. And from a robustness purpose, from a quality purpose, it is very close to a finished standard.
What is going to happen in the next several months, it will be fine-tuned and tweaked with some additional comments that will be addressed that were reflected here at the RP level, and then it will be a full-blown standard. Let me be clear. It doesn't stop there. Once it is a standard, a finalized standard, we continue sleep, improve those through opening up a whip and in a timely fashion, adopting and adapting to the latest technology that is out there to make certain that this is a relevant standard in moving into the future.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
As the standard evolves, matures, will I get a software update to my vehicle to meet the new. Perhaps what the committee is going to vote on for next or how am I going to experience that? Or will I experience that as a?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Yeah, so largely the standard is based on the system as originally designed by Tesla. There are a number of things that they didn't necessarily address in their own vehicles that when you have 20, you know, or more different.
Manufacturers involved with there's going to be features like, for example, there are car companies that support vehicle to grid. Tesla doesn't do that with their vehicles today. So there are places where the standard goes beyond. And then there's additional requirements that come in with some of the existing infrastructure.
So I'll give you an example. If you plug a NACS vehicle into a J1772 infrastructure, but infrastructure that's been updated to be NACS aware, or J1772 vehicles which have been updated to be aware of NACS infrastructure, you’ll get a better charging experience when adapting across system types. And so there is the potential for updates for some existing vehicles, some existing charging stations to have to add either more features or more awareness of things like adapters so that you have better performance.
Additionally, there are a few things that have been proved as a result of the standard. And NACS vehicles that are compliant to the standard could need changes over time. These electric, cars, when they charge it's a little bit like it, there, there's a lot going on there.
And many vehicles are serviced as software as a service is a term you hear a lot. And so these vehicles get updates all the time to either address issues, fix things, improve experience, add support for new things. So yeah, there'll be updates. related to some of the changes as a result of the standard updates related to opening up the Tesla network to other users and vice versa when other manufacturers are building NAC stations. So definitely you're going to see changes.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, building on that, and since I switched out the charger from to a NACS charger and the general electrician came and told me there was a new standard for The power box in my house needed to put special things in there to protect for a fire It got me thinking what you said around the standard Is there any standards that cover the materials, the plug, the adapter, the housing, is that all covered by the standard as well?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Yeah, so SAE J3400 NACS standard covers charging stations, vehicles, and how they connect. When you move up the infrastructure side, you start to get into other domains like national electric code and CUL standards related to the sort of the supply side of the infrastructure, local inspectors, local code, things like that come into play.
And then of course, once you get on the vehicle, there's a number of other SAE ISO standards related to vehicle technologies.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, does the standard get into thermal management on oil since that plays such a large role because there is electricity going through the conduit?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah, from a safety perspective, you have to understand that it has to address that in the TIR, it was referenced briefly, but then it's more involved and more engaged here in the IRP and definitely defined.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Where does the from the gentleman that you're the director of global vehicle standards? Where do you find the individuals?
Do they volunteer? So if you have an individual that has a thermal management background and a PhD in thermal management, do you invite them to the committee? Or where do you find these individuals with this deep expertise?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
At the end of the day, we're looking for subject matter experts. We have a library of about 200, 000 plus members out here of which we have over 11, 000 active engaged engineers and technical experts that work on these committees, let's take a look at the J3400.
We here at the J3400 have 120 plus members actively engaged in the task force, of which they are all technical experts of something. We have people from the automotive industry, software people, infrastructure people, government people. So everybody, mechanical engineers so EEs, electric engineers, thermal mitigation experts. And they all convene, and they all bring something to the table.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
And then, Rodney, from a task force perspective, does each one of those 120 members get a vote? Or is there certain members in, say, the electric subgroup, the software subgroup that they vote up, and then they get a vote, and then each part of the standard gets a vote? Or how does that work from a voting perspective?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Yeah, so the, primarily, the task force exists to help the document sponsor prepare the document for the committee. Basically, as the chairman, both of the task force and the document sponsor, it's my responsibility to actually write the document for the in this case, the EV hybrid committee.
And they also vote on it. We have votes within the task force. If it's not obvious that we have a consensus on, just verbally when meetings and then certain complex topics, we have subgroup meetings within the task force on topics like communications sometimes the mechanical topics testing.
So we've had, since we kicked off this effort since last year, we've had several subgroups come in and out and we'd circulate drafts at different levels and proposals that people make. And then the first real formal vote is the vote at the committee level, and then those comments get addressed and then eventually goes to the motor vehicle council.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian in general, is there any patterns or trends and how often standards update and evolve as the market and technology changes?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah it, it all depends on the newer technologies. We've got over 99 electric standards right now that we have developed or are in the process of developing and whips.
These newer emerging technologies. The whips are almost open immediately right after one is published to continue working on it because it's an evolving space, even from the automated driving in a desk base software to find vehicles that's moving just as rapid. same thing. We open up right after we publish something to continue improving it just because the technology is moving at such a rapid rate.
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
I always say the only standards that aren't changing are the dead ones, right? We're not working on new, modes for VHS or anything like that, if there's no more standards made in the topic, it's either something that's like very mature and it does its job and it's done, which is actually pretty rare.
Even those groups still need to talk about small issues that come up, updating references, like small changes. Documents have to be touched every five years anyway. But yeah, yeah, the standards keep going as long as they're, as long as that technology is still being used.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Running from a J3400 standpoint, how is the task force staying ahead of the trends? Because there's obviously the EV trends are changing globally. We have the rise of the $18,000 Xiaomi car in China. We have Tesla. What's happening with Europe? So there's a lot of changes. How is a task force staying ahead of these changes so the standards could be leading the way?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
So the SAE process is actually quite advantageous for that in the sense that when you compare it to other standard, it's an industry led standard versus something like iso, for example Good organization, but they're like country based.
It's much more levels of bureaucracy. There are things in the process that bake in months, right? So you want to go to this step. It takes a lot of time, even if. Even if there's an industry consensus to move very quickly, there are things that just can't go on. The SAE process is a consensus-based process, but we vote at an expert level, and the voting kind of happens one place and time at different levels of the process, and it can move very quickly.
And so because the industry need is clear. And we have wide consensus to move the document in a direction quickly for the needs. We're able to do that within the process.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, at its core, what does J3400 unlock for the global OEMs?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
From, let's look at it from a perspective of design and development. What standards drive is to bring industry together to help define that black box where folks can design and develop a product relatively quickly and faster, i.e., Tesla was doing this on its own. That's why it developed the next but bringing industry together to refine. The J3400 even more bringing in the outside world makes it much more effective and efficient for them to be able to design and develop across the board.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
When, I won't say if, because I believe I'll make a statement when more OEMs adapt the J3400 standard will you have to revise it again and on the back side of that If and when the standard does go international will you have to revise it again as well?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
You always have to look at a revision opportunity or potential. Okay, there's always a potential for that on an international scale. Since we are consensus based standard and we are a standard anybody can adopt it. Anybody can move forward with it, but there are always challenges moving on an international scale, based on grid, based on ability, even looking at third market environments, you start going to South America, Africa. Those challenges may be even much more dramatic.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
How would that process start? If there was a consensus from the industry that came to the J3400 commission, okay, we would like to expand this into X, Y, Z market. How would that process start running? Would there be a vote? Where the committee would vote to say yes, let's explore the opportunity or how would that process start and what would it look like?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
It would be a proposal, a call to action to meet a certain market, niche, grid, environment. And then we would develop that standard and bring those experts in from those regions.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
So that's it truly is global.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
It's very simple. What happened on June in 2023 was somebody said, hey, we want to convert everything to NACS.
The industry said, we want to go to NACS. What are we going to do? We wrote up collectively, not us SAE, but the industry wrote up a call to action. A few key experts said, here's what we want to do. Here's the proposal. Do we agree? Do we want to set a standard to it? And there was a vote and people said, let's go.
Within a week, we were had a task force. And within six months, we had a TIR published. And now within almost 14 months, we have an RP which is really close to a standard that's going to be published. So it can move quickly.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Is this one of the fastest moving ones in history of SAE?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Some more simple ones have moved quickly in our process with the voting and in the process of the balloting and voting, there's a certain amount of time that's left, especially from a technical vote, which is your level one vote.
There's 28 days allowed, and people say, why do we need 28 days in today's world and technology? That was designed decades ago with snail mail and everything. I said, careful, 50 years ago, technology. It's not nearly as, as challenging as we have today. The car sat on four tires. Everything inside that shell of that vehicle was handled within that vehicle.
Today we have infrastructure. We have technology. We have software defined vehicles. We have communication between vehicles to vehicles. We have things that are moving exponentially at a technology rate. You can't do it at a faster rate just because there's so much more that's involved from tech. So yeah, from the communication protocol within the committee itself, that may have speeded up with email and things of that nature. But the technology has also evolved exponentially.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, how do you get all the various committee members with their own interest to come together for the greater good of the industry?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Yeah. So we do have a, it is consensus based. So one person disagreeing cannot slow it up, but we still hear everyone's proposals out and discuss the merits of them and then have to make a group decision.
I wrote a blog for SAE where I talked about some of the changes we made to AC charging. And, we had 90 some percent support on, for example, supporting the same AC charging voltages that Tesla's currently support. And a few didn't, but the industry recognized it was better to do that for the industry.
And so the consensus wins. So you make the decisions based on that. I don't think there was any decisions we literally had to make 51. Okay, we got one vote it. We really try to drive what really typically happens is we'll have someone make a comment or a disagreement. And what changes is we usually address their comments.
And even though they might not have gotten exactly what they want. they can deal with it at this point. They got some improvement; they got some change. And so that's really my job to lead that. Sometimes there's be a disagreement of engineering opinion. Ultimately, it's at this level, they're technical, it's, the document is led by experts acting as individuals.
And so they have to make their arguments based on merit. Technical merit. And so if, if somebody was making an argument that was based on, oh, that, you can't, no one does, no one has done this. But if someone came up and said my boss told me that this is the way it needs to be. So this is the way it needs to be.
It's I don't even need to consider that on its face value. It's an invalid technical comment. So I just, I would be like, all right, if that even happens, but we talk about that at the beginning of every meeting, for example. So that's the way. And even if it is your company's opinion, you need to be able to express it as your technical viewpoint.
That's justifiable. You need to have the math behind it. You need to show why, because the way this works is companies. They have standards people, and they have expert conversations inside of their company. And it's why do we want this to say this? What's the problem it's addressing?
And then they're like we've seen these kinds of field incidents, so we want this to be addressed. And then they need to bring that to the committee, and we need to have that conversation and address that issue. So that's how it's that's how it's that's how it happens. That's how it's supposed to work.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, is that common across the board? Rodney described with all the standards committees that you oversee for ground vehicles.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah, at the end of the day, what's important data science technology drive. Your standards, right? And if you don't have it, you can't come with a fiction, fictional story right to the table.
It needs to be real and understand and recognize everybody brings biases. We obviously have individuals, these subject matter experts that are working on these standards. All they all bring their biases from history and work history and current employers, right? You can't be naive not to think that's not happening.
Okay, but it also is very valuable and because you are getting insight within other organizations within the industry that bring some valuable input to help drive and develop that standard. And you're counting on that a little bit too in the background.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
How do you maintain the standards? Is it a chair of the task force come up to me and says, Christian, I think it's time to revise this. Or how do you maintain the standards over long periods of time?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah, active standards and standards that committees that meet on a regular basis, they will advise whether a revision is needed.
That happens on a regular basis. Some, i. e. motor oil, does need to be refined every month, right? But now with fluid dynamics and things that are involved from an electrification point of view, that is changing. So that may be evolving a little more quickly, especially with the heat that needs to happen from a thermal point of view.
Perspective there. So the fluids that manage that and handle that. Now, in a new technology, you may need to meet more with the fluid folks and engage those standards and revise those standards or establish new ones. We've clearly, from an electrification point of view, we have bolted up, I think 10 years ago, 12 years ago, we had 5 or 6 standards that we were focused on.
Now, we have 99 standards that are in the hybrid committee that are voted in the hybrid committee. We have 23, I believe, that are currently whipped. That are not fully standards yet, but are at some level, either or shortly before being a standard that's published.
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
We also have some electric vehicle standards on the truck and bus council side, more related to bigger vehicles. And so they have standards too. NACS currently, it's not limited to, but it's really focused on passenger, light duty trucks and up through medium duty. There's a gray area, and then, when you get into transit buses, they're not going to be plugging in with NACS connectors.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
So the beauty is we are working on other charging environments for the heavy duty arena. Wireless, et cetera, other opportunities that are out there.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, will those be separate committees, or will that be all part of this task force that Rodney's leading?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
No, they may be separate committees because they're focused on something, but there may be Many subject matter experts that are working in all the, all these committees because they bring certain value to it.
The beauty is, with the NACS and with other standards in this arena, you've already got the groundwork and the footing that's established, so you're not reinventing the wheel. So you can carry some of those technologies forward. From a standard perspective to commercial vehicles, AG, et cetera.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, where does software come into play with the J3400? Does it play such a crucial role from a user? I don't know, from technical, but from a user experience, Oh boy. Oh boy. The software is front and center. When you use a NACS plug, where does it come from a standards perspective?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
Most forms of, yeah, pretty much all forms of DC charging use digital communication between a charging station, electric vehicle with AC charging.
The most common form today is actually analog. It's not digital, but even with that, there's software involved in taking those analog measurements and then converting them into DC. You know the limits related to charging and so Software is part and parcel to the whole kind of thing working and No, electric vehicle is charged without A lot of pieces of software functioning correctly.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, are there committees today or being formed in the future that are just dedicated to vehicle software since the whole term software defined Vehicle is starting to take on a life of its own the vehicle's becoming a computer on wheels to say the least.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yeah, let's be clear. A software defined vehicle is a computer on wheels. It makes our phones look somewhat funny. Now, even I get into a vehicle, and I've got a 12-inch screen. I got more stuff going on at screen and what needs to. I'm certain it for me personally. But at the end of the day, yeah. The communication protocols, the infrastructure protocols that are happening, the communication between the vehicle and vehicle, the vehicle to X, everything else out there is vitally critical.
How the software defined vehicle will be designed moving into the future, all the OEMs are trying to figure out what path that is and how it's going to sit, but at the end of the day, these will be driving, walking, Systems computer systems that will be communicating with the outside world will get continuous updates and will continuously evolve just from a software perspective.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, part of this if you want to use the term ups following Christian’s lead on software this update or the We use a technical term revision. It was vehicle to grid was added to the J3400 standard why add vehicle to grid now?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
There are a number of manufacturers which have Various levels of products coming to market in that area is already have been existing products in the DC space doing vehicle grid for some time. There's been a number of manufacturers announced their vehicles support V to G with AC connections.
There's a number of vehicles where you can pull power out the inlet of the vehicle for what we call a vehicle to load our vehicle to home, and they do it with different methods. and part of electrification in general of transport is that we find ways to make this new electric load able to be a user of renewables.
And to do that, there needs to be a certain amount of coordination with the vehicle and the charging station and the needs of the drivers to basically make sure, okay, the vehicle could be charging opportunistically, or it could be even providing storage for the grid. But first and foremost, a car is for transportation.
And it's really important that the vehicle meets all the rules when providing power for the grid. But it's also important that what the driver needs in terms of the operational needs of the vehicle are met first. And so standardization is a really key part of that v to G demonstration projects.
I worked on one during the Bush administration. They've been technically possible. For a long time, where they fell apart was in regulatory, standards and being a standard defined thing across, multiple manufacturers and regulatory acceptance. And so having this addressed in the standards means that those technologies are able to come to market in a sort of mass production way.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, where does weather come in? I asked from a heat perspective, a cold perspective, and then I'm just curious because it happened last night, a thunderstorm. Where does that, because you have electricity in a thunderstorm, it's not a very good combo. Where does weather come into the standard process?
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
There's two ways to look at that, right? Another thing about a thunderstorm is your power goes out, and there's no probably bigger storage of electrical energy in your house if you have an EV than your EV, so there's an opportunity potentially there related to weather. And then there's also challenges related to weather.
Electric vehicles have the potential to be, a Swiss army knife of energy. In terms of, you drive out to a worksite, you power the worksite, you drive out to a campsite, you then are able to cook and things off, you can tailgate. With your electric vehicle, and then you can then drive it back home and maybe you're providing energy storage for utility in turn for discount, energy usage.
Electric vehicles per, in terms of weather, I think it's there's risks and there's opportunities and specifically, within the, speak to the standards. We want to make sure, and we've had, comments on handling low temperatures really well, make sure the connectors are durable, that they meet certain drop tests and things like that, and those are done across and over different temperatures.
And you want to make sure that, the connectors don't get iced up and things like that. So we're we get into that within the standards and that's something that since. This is the beginning now, we're well into the electrification of vehicles. And so we are approaching next with a bit more experience then we were able to approach it when we started J1772 and the early 90s.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, how do committees in general determine the priority? So this latest standard just added the J3400 just added vehicles a grid. How do committees determine? What they want to look to incorporate as they go to revise. Does that go to a ballot measure? How, or how does that whole process in general work?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
That actually is brought up within the committees and maybe even outside sources bring that into the committees. For instance, J3400, right now I've had people from the outside say from a disability perspective, how are we handling the charging element?
As it relates to how is the person that is disabled in a wheelchair able to adapt and deal with charging a vehicle? That's a great question. Are we incorporating this? Is there thought being put into it from a disability perspective into the charging protocol and into the charging into the J3400? From an ergonomic perspective, it's necessary and so that was like, yep, we got to pay attention to that, and it won't be an ADA separate standard. It should be incorporated in from a development of the charging people as well as the vehicle designers.
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
We actually are addressing some things related to that. For example, within 3400, we're addressing robots that plug in the vehicles for you.
And you have to have certain space around the inlet so the robot can, approach and plug it in. There's a minimum or maximum needed insertion forces, right? of 100 Newtons, for example, in the case of that, there are a number of items that relate to the specification of the connector. The actual disability requirements come from, national, local laws and things like that.
And to the extent that someone comes to us and says, okay, we need NACS to cover automated connection devices, which is those robots that I was talking about that plug in the cars and charge them. People made proposals about the inlet geometries and the dimensions that are around that inlet. It's not our job to set those accessibility requirements that are independent of electric vehicle stuff.
But to facilitate technology functions, people make proposals of certain things, and then those get put into the document. So I gave you a couple examples there.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, do all committees take that, that large of a holistic approach of looking from robots to ADA to neutrons? Do they all take a holistic approach to the ecosystem?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Absolutely take a look at the landscape of the ecosystem that's involved and engaged with a particular standard. We just gave an example here with the J3400. There are others from automatic driving systems that we have, safety systems that we have that take that in consideration as well. Steering, vehicle steering, things of that nature also that, that are impacted and influenced by that.
For us, it is important to recognize and understand the ecosystem isn't just the car anymore. It's everything that's around it, that interfaces with that car.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
And since we're staying on new technologies, this is the curiosity, so I have to ask. Steer by wire, now in the Tesla Cybertruck, it's starting to become widely talked about. Is that a committee form for that, or is that something that will be standardized potentially in the future?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Yes, that could potentially be driven in the future from a design development point of view, the standard, yes.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Christian, in your opinion, what is the future standard? Because the world's going to keep revolving, the wheels are going to keep turning, and we're going to need more standards.
So in your opinion, what are the future standards?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
It's I wish I had that little Magic ball in front of me or the eight ball in front of me and tell you, hey, this is what it's going to be. Recognize and understand the automotive and especially with a software defined vehicle. Where is it going to go to next?
Recognize the key issue of safety that is driven by NHTSA and the Department of Transportation with a heavy focus on the vulnerable road user. How can we incorporate some of the devices that we have like our cell phones? And other things to help mitigate the fatalities that we have in the world.
That is a huge focus right now as well. And understanding standards what standards will, especially consensus-based standards, collaboration from industry and industry experts will only make design development more effective and efficient. Moving forward, and as technology evolves, the more collaboration that happens, the better and the greater the benefit is to those individual organizations that are focused in that industry.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Rodney, sir, you, it's really amazing what your task force has been able to build through the collaboration of, I'll say this very boldly, putting egos aside and doing what's right for the whole world as it relates to. So thank you so much for shedding the light on that, and Christian, the stuff that you do with standards is nothing short of magnificent.
I was trying to have my daughter count the number of standards that were in the vehicle one day. Side view mirrors, seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, and we went down the line. Gentlemen, this was wonderful to have you back to talk about the revised J3400 standard. As we look to wrap up this insightful conversation today, what would you like to take away with them? Gentlemen.
Rodney, we'll start with you, please.
|
|
Rodney McGee:
|
I think the, what J3400, the base document really does is requires that, charging stations and vehicles be adapter aware, which is the first time that's been done and requirements that those two sides be aware of adapters, and then that's going to allow documents like J3400/1 to then come in and then define additional requirements for the adapters themselves.
That's going to be really important to have a transition to the next connector in North America, we've really set things up quite well with industry, consensus viewpoint on how to scale up AC charging infrastructure so that vehicles can start the day with the energy they need from the place that they normally park.
This is a really important part of electrifying transport, and we've addressed those issues head on in the document, along with increased reliability for all of those connection types. So we hope now that, manufacturers can take these SAE documents and, continue to build cars around and compliant to them.
That regulators adopt these new standards to allow the industry to coalesce around NACS for infrastructure and then we'll continue to improve the standard as we have some of the first deployment of NACS, third party vehicles, and then turn that around those into future revisions of the document to build this next generation of electric vehicles.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
There's nothing more than consumers love for a vehicle is number one thing they want more than anything is reliability. And that's what standards give them is reliability. Christian, what would you like our listeners to take away with them?
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Recognize when industry gets together and understands the importance and the value of what is standards.
And collaborating and getting a consensus-based standard built, it can happen quickly when it's supported recognize. We're here 14 months into an RP of a very involved standard. The J3400 collaboration is key. We can't emphasize it enough that efficiency, effectivity. Is a benefit to all organizations.
It's in the return on investment for them. It helps them design and develop vehicles faster or more quickly, but also what it does. It drives a quality product, a robust quality product in a consensus-based standard is 2nd to none because of the level of. Interface from the experts to deliver that quality standard that will.
The reliability that you want in your EV, in your software defined vehicle, and in safety features within a vehicle.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Quality and reliability go together like peanut butter and jelly. Standards make the world go round. Today is tomorrow. Tomorrow's today. The future is J3400. Christian, Rodney. Thank you so much once again for coming on SAE tomorrow today.
|
|
Christian Thiele:
|
Thank you.
|
|
Grayson Brulte:
|
Thank you for listening to SAE Tomorrow Today. If you've enjoyed this episode, please kindly rate and review on your favorite podcast platform. Your feedback is invaluable to us as we work to produce world class content. Be sure to join us next week for another episode of Tomorrow Today Unplugged, where I'll discuss how really great software unlocks magical user experiences.
SAE International makes no representations as to the accuracy of the information presented in this podcast. The information and opinions are for general information only. SAE International does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this podcast.
|
