Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb
It's funny though that they don't follow what happens in tech, since so much of an EV is electronics and software. In tech, someone thinks "wouldn't it be great if we could jam more bandwidth down the wire", then they send their wizards to a conference where a spec is roughed in. A few iterations later they publish it, and people start building stuff around that spec. Spec first, stuff next. Although if you go back to, say, the POTS modem days, people built stuff first and chased the spec afterwards. (I'm thinking 56K modems.)
Okay so EV tech is still in its infancy. Specs should be along presently, if history is any indication.
|
EVs have been around too long to be called in its infancy. The push for widespread use is in its infancy. I did work on a research project dealing with EVs back in 1993. So the fact there hasn't been even a basic framework from which simple guidelines are worked from is shameful and sloppy.
No one would argue that Tesla is the 800 lb gorilla in the industry. If the Feds are really serious about making this push to EV work long term aside from the infrastructure challenges, they would set up a governing body and then to expedite things, have what Tesla has done be the baseline for development moving forward.
From your IT analogy, Cisco being the 800lb gorilla in the networking industry has had huge influences on IEEE standards if not having IEEE standards be based on their proprietary protocol development. Case in point, multigig Ethernet (2.5 and 5 Gb networking) is a Cisco proprietary protocol until IEEE adopted it as an industry standard.