POLL: Would you like Rivian to adopt NACS Tesla charging standard?

[manitou202]

The NACS standard is open, but the SC network is not. I am pretty sure you know this.

The SC network is not "open", but it will be for Ford and GM vehicles. And I am sure if Rivian works out a deal with Tesla, it will be open to Rivians also.

I don't see the point in Rivian switching to NACS unless they also get on the SC network or unless EA and all the others switch to NACS also. Which they could.

It really isn't. Tesla still owns the IP for the NACS. Unless Tesla transfers the IP to an independent third party it isn't open. Legally Tesla could sue any competitor who uses the NACS plug in their vehicle, unless they sign a contract with Tesla specifically allowing its use. The IP attorneys at any automaker wouldn't let engineers use the plug without a signed contract.

Sponsored

 

[manitou202]

Here is a good article and a post from Alex on Autos about non-Tesla vehicles using NACS and some of the problems encountered.

Some quotes:

"Tesla's reputation for reliable charging is due to two factors: better station maintenance and an [until now] closed ecosystem. Tesla is the "Apple of cars" if you will, they control the charging standard, cars, stations, everything. When a new car or station is released, the software is harmonized. The trouble with Magic Dock (aside from the silly name) is that the experience is more like a typical CCS station since the BZ4X and EV6's software is *NOT* harmonized or tested by Tesla.

Next, you have to deal with the cord situation. This is a problem. Teslas all have charge ports in the driver's rear tail lamp. This means that the stations are designed for you to back in and connect via a short (6-6.5-foot) cable designed EXACTLY for your Tesla and that parking spot. If you didn't know it yet, there is no such standardization of charge door in other EVs. Most have the port in a front or rear quarter panel. (In the EV6, the port is on the back... but on the wrong side.) In the BZ4X, it is so far from the front that you have to park at an angle or straddle two spots and pull so far forward you're almost touching the station to get the cable to reach. Tesla says the V4 stations will add an extra 3.5-4 feet to the cable which will help, but not eliminate this issue. (New EA stations have 18-20 foot cords.)

Then we have charge reliability. Charging the BZ4X took two tries to start. The first time it was connected, the car showed a charging error, then timed out. You have to re-dock to re-start the charge. No, you can't just wiggle the connector and try again. After charging for 15 minutes we changed parking spots to try a different charge station. It didn't go well. After 4 tries we gave up, it just wouldn't connect.

On the EV6 there was a different issue: speed. (Well, it also took several attempts to connect, but speed was the bigger problem.) The EV6 *should* charge at speeds over 150 kW when connected to a 400V station, but the max we got was 50. [Sad trombone]. Here's why (we finally got an official answer from Kia, Hyundai, and Genesis): The voltage boost circuit in E-GMP vehicles that allows 800V charging from a 400V station causes the load to have more of a reactive/inductive profile than the station is expecting. The station assumes this is a charging fault because if a Tesla were to present with these load characteristics, something would be very wrong. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis worked with Tesla, and a solution is still coming, but in the meantime the stations cut power to a very slow 50 kW to keep the system from erroring out and killing the session."


https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...on-much-more-than-access-and-nacs-216347.html

 

[MidnightRivian]

I just want Tesla to sell me an adapter and open their network up. Slowly upgrade the cable/magic dock and increase the length.

I already have the Tesla app installed and setup to charge non-tesla vehicles.

 

[manitou202]

And this quote from the article above highlights NACS is not an open standard and adapting non-Tesla vehicles to the plug will require support from Tesla. This support could easily be stopped if Tesla has a disagreement with a competitor, unlike a true open standard managed by an independent third party.

"The station assumes this is a charging fault because if a Tesla were to present with these load characteristics, something would be very wrong. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis worked with Tesla, and a solution is still coming, but in the meantime the stations cut power to a very slow 50 kW to keep the system from erroring out and killing the session.""

What if the Cybertruck isn't selling as well as the new Rivian Truck? Tesla could throttle charging speeds for the Rivian and/or refuse support. Why would they want to help the competition?

Or another example. Tesla makes an upgrade to the NACS which allows for higher charging speeds. This upgrade requires new firmware/hardware on the vehicle. They could prioritize these upgrades for their vehicles only giving them an advantage. They are under no obligation to share these upgrades with the competition.

 

[quartz]

IMO, Tesla owning the standard will lead to fragmentation later down the line, similar to Microsoft forking Chromium for their Edge browser. Having multiple flavors of the same standard makes interoperability a nightmare.

 

[HaveBlue]

Nacs isn't an open standard if company's need to sign a contract with Tesla. They are just holding everyone hostage like thunderbolt to get access.

No matter the connector, every car on the road will need an adapter today. Either one too get to nacs from ccs or vs versa lest we throw out half the connectors.

The sun isn't always shiney as I mentioned in another post. Where I am the Tesla's all charge on ccs because it's cheaper.

What the consumer wants are more options, not less. The elephant in the room is supercharger access, not the connector.

 

[DTown3011]

As long as there is an adapter and I can use the Tesla network, I don't care what they adopt!

 

[izgoy]

The NACS standard is open, but the SC network is not. I am pretty sure you know this.

The SC network is not "open", but it will be for Ford and GM vehicles. And I am sure if Rivian works out a deal with Tesla, it will be open to Rivians also.

I don't see the point in Rivian switching to NACS unless they also get on the SC network or unless EA and all the others switch to NACS also. Which they could.

The reason for Rivian’s to switch now even without a deal with Tesla is to future proof itself. Just consider how few Rivians have been delivered so far and compare it to the number of Rivians that will be delivered between today and a year from now. A year from now this problem will be 10 times as difficult to solve as today.

Rivian can’t switch to (or at least add) the NACS receptacle soon enough. The announcement needs to have happened already.

The best way today is to add the NACS to the right front and keep CCS until the dust settles. Rivian needs to quickly figure out a way to retrofit the NACS adapter onto existing vehicles that are already in the hands of customers or have been / are being manufactured to ensure there is no collapse in demand in the coming weeks/months.

I don’t think this is a huge engineering challenge. I’m sure there is enough room to run a charging cable from the right front to the BMS. The only thing that will have to be replaced is the front bumper and possibly the BMS.

Those who bought their Rivians at the discounted price should be able to have the NACS installed at a cost to them. Those getting Rivians at the full price should have their Rivians either delivered to them with both charging ports or have them retrofitted at no cost to them. Otherwise, we will see a colossal drop in demand within a month or two of today. I can’t imagine many knowledgeable people paying $90K -$100K for an EV with an outdated charging standard without at least a promise of the access to the largest charging network in North America.

 

[SASSquatch]

This is the point. CCS2 has a compelling case to make. CCS1 does not. I would vote for CCS2 every time. But since CCS2 is not an option, I am glad we are moving to NACS in the US.

We aren't moving to NACS yet. 2 out of dozens of car manufacturers decided to partner with Tesla, who was already struggling to provide enough supercharger access to their millions of Teslas on the road (especially in the highest density EV parts of the country on the East/West coast) and now has invited even more drivers to use that limited resource.

Have fun getting into fights with a Tesla driver who doesn't want your Chevy Bolt there to begin with and that is blocking two charging stalls because the cable isn't long enough.

 

[MP3Mike]

The rules of the funding require that chargers include CCS (which is the global standard) and that customers can swipe a credit card (no apps needed) and pay for a charging session as simply as they pay for gas at a gas station.

No, the NEVI funding doesn't require the ability to swipe a credit card. But you are correct that you have to be able to use it without an app. (Which could be calling a toll-free number to activate charging or activating via a web site either on your phone or on-site kiosk.)

I will also note that swiping a credit card is an antique technology that is almost never used outside the US which is a decade or more behind on cashless payment systems.

Interesting that you mention that. But haven't they recently made it a requirement in Europe that all DC fast chargers have to have a payment terminal, because people were complaining about having to use all the crappy apps? I've seen Bjorn mention that some sites have started to add them.

A company has started a tracker for companies pledging support for NACS, they are up to 15 so far, mainly charging providers: https://evstation.com/tesla-nacs-charger-adoption-tracker/

 

[HaveBlue]

I'm going to trust that rivian has better insight to this. They are in the middle of a lawsuit with Tesla and have many Tesla employees on staff. Tesla moved their operation to tx because of California idiocy. Our government rarely does the right thing for us either so let's see.

 

[av8or]

Interesting pole and social experiment. The tone of the minority gets louder as their arguments against change become less listened to. There is probably an official name for this. Psychologists what say you?

I wonder if eventually there’ll be just one standing on a corner next to their Leaf, with a megaphone screaming something about how we should have stuck it out with CHAdeMO and Elon and his evil empire?

 

[COdogman]

Interesting pole and social experiment. The tone of the minority gets louder as their arguments against change become less listened to. There is probably an official name for this. Psychologists what say you?

I wonder if eventually there’ll be just one standing on a corner next to their Leaf, with a megaphone screaming something about how we should have stuck it out with CHAdeMO and Elon and his evil empire?

No one has said we can’t or shouldn’t “change”. Only people saying that IF we change it should be to something that is not controlled by a single company. That is purely common sense IMHO.

 

[sparetimetoys]

I’m a yes, but would like to see it like fords proposed method. My understanding is that they will have both plugins on the F150. This way it doesn’t matter where you go to charge.

 

[SeaGeo]

own government is pushing for NACS so I am going to assume that NACS has won.

Where has the gov pushed nacs?

There is also a decent chance they would run into some compatibility problems.

Like not charging egmp cars...

Rivian needs to quickly figure out a way to retrofit the NACS adapter onto existing vehicles that are already in the hands of customers or have been / are being manufactured to ensure there is no collapse in demand in the coming weeks/months

This isn't really feasible. At a minimum I think they'd have to rip out the inverter and have a different one because it's exposed to DC power with the way nacs is setup. It's not just a simple receptacle swap. Hence ford and GM not adding it until 2025 and an adapter for existing vehicles.

Sponsored