? Rivian Adopts Tesla NACS Standard! (Adapters in 2024, Standard Charging Port in 2025)

[R1Tom]

" Rivian has better things to spend money on. "
If they are able to go cash-flow positive next year (as they claim), the money invested in chargers (and then earning income) will be money well spent (as opposed to sitting in a bank).

I am not convinced that with maintenance, leases, etc.. that the margins will be sustainable once all the convince stores are adding chargers and willing to give the electricity away at near cost, to simply intice business.

Again...maybe I am wrong...but while I am playing armchair CEO, it will be interesting to see it play out over time for sure.

Sponsored

 

[MDH]

Would love to see a RAN in death valley

I don't think there is the infrastructure at Furnace Creek to run a DCFC. For Nevada residents, the adapter would allow us to charge at the SCs in Beatty and therefore cover most of the park.

 

[Dukecj]

Polestar? I think they are 400v, they will actually be able to charge faster at a Supercharger as they advertise their max charge rate as 250kW which they CANNOT reach at a CCS site that only allows 500 amps down the cord. Superchargers can get to 750 amps

Polestar 5 will be 800v

 

[SANZC02]

1. I think this lead time is likely to first build the adapter, and then for Rivian to develop some code for the trucks to work in the Supercharger network

Seems like this lead time is being driven by Tesla, probably changes they need to make on their side. Ford and GM both have the same lead times for the adapters as well as implementing the port on the vehicles in their announcements.

For the adapter, I hope it is dual purpose so it works on L2 and L3, that way we can just replace the L2 one many of us already have with the new one.

 

[jotunheim]

If you have a pre-March priced R1T Max Pack I could see it, but post-March 10K markup for 50 extra miles, less drive modes, and less performance? I’m good. Hard pass.

A roughly 30% increase in battery should equate to a 30% increase in range. The 20" AT DM model is EPA rated at 305 miles, so this potentially could mean a range of over 400 miles, and is significantly more than a 50 mile increase stated - closer to 100 really.

In any case, the range is very important for me when towing and I do not want to putz around with charging every 100 miles when I have a trailer attached. Remember we actually get a winter in Wisconsin. 0-60 times in the 3.5 second range for the dual motor is fantastic and will gladly accept this compromise.

 

[LL75]

Rivian’s can charge on magic docks already as can other vehicles. So the magic dock was a great test for adaptors that we will be able to buy to use on tesla superchargers. The magic dock did prove that almost any EV can charge on supercharger via an adaptor as the magic dock is exactly that…. an adaptor. Then it is just software beyond the adaptor authorizing a supercharger via the Tesla app. Nothing really needs to be done on Rivian’s end but maybe some software updates to update its maps to navigate to supercharger. All manufactures have been able to test their vehicles on adaptors to Tesla supercharger. They realized they have to do nothing hardware related to have their vehicles charge at Tesla supercharger. Even when all these manufactures move to NACS the owners will be able to use CCS chargers via adaptors they could purchase.

Yeap. I see Tesla will be selling these adapters to everyone very soon !!!

 

[2025R1S]

With the exception of ChargePoint; the rest of the names listed don’t make chargers. They actually buy their chargers from other companies. A brand like EVGo slaps a vinyl decal on the charger, and makes an app that accepts payment and remotely authorizes chargers. They spend all their money buying chargers from other companies, and installing those chargers. There are often no margins with dc fast charging, so the stations can operate at a loss on every transaction - unless there is battery storage in-place to reduce demand charges.

The point I am getting at is; I agree Tesla can build a better network. It is a low margin (and often downright unprofitable) endeavor to get into DCFC. Everyone passes the buck, because for a brand to develop their own technology in-house (like ChargePoint) requires way more money. Some of the brands that manufacture CCS chargers might actually make pretty decent chargers, if they are well maintained. But since the companies who are tasked with maintaining them aren’t make any money - service will suffer.

I think this is ultimately why CCS1 failed. No one really spent money on it in a way that ensured its success. Not when the competition is Tesla. ChargePoint is great, but they couldn’t do what Tesla did (access to $, talented staff across the country).

The point here is the reliability of the tesla network. They know how to build chargers that works unlike EA, Evgo, Chargepoint. Majority of us don't use fast chargers often but when the time that we do, I would like to know for sure that it works !!

 

[MDH]

Screw that.

Tesla should not be a monopoly of charge networks. Build out RAN, make a decent option of it.

Monopoly?? This makes no sense whatsoever. There are many third party charging companies. You don't have to use a SC if you choose not to. VW has stated they are not going NACS. So you can use EA whenever desired.

 

[Dark-Fx]

For the adapter, I hope it is dual purpose so it works on L2 and L3, that way we can just replace the L2 one many of us already have with the new one.

Not a very good chance of that since the NACS way of things violates CCS1 isolation. To accommodate that in a single adapter would mean additional hardware and controls, making them significantly more expensive. I'm guessing the adapters are all going to be completely dumb.

 

[theyoungone]

A roughly 30% increase in battery should equate to a 30% increase in range. The 20" AT DM model is EPA rated at 305 miles, so this potentially could mean a range of over 400 miles, and is significantly more than a 50 mile increase stated - closer to 100 really.

In any case, the range is very important for me when towing and I do not want to putz around with charging every 100 miles when I have a trailer attached. Remember we actually get a winter in Wisconsin. 0-60 times in the 3.5 second range for the dual motor is fantastic and will gladly accept this compromise.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. 20” AT DM is rated at 305. Whereas QM is 274. With 21s it’s 400 on DM & ~320 on QM. There is no 30% increase in battery. The Max Pack isn’t a 180kW battery. It’s 165. The difference is that there is no Conserve mode to squeak out more miles on DM. It’s default in Conserve mode and switches to AWD under cases of extreme acceleration. On QM there is a conserve mode and you CAN get up to 350. Which is where the “extra” 50 miles comes in. Default conserve on DM is 400. QM conserve is 350.

I understand the importance in range. But with reduced range due to towing AND the winter, you’re looking at 30-50 extra miles and that’s it. And unless you have pre-March Max Pack pricing on the R1T, that 10K is an INSANE price.

 

[2025R1S]

I think RJ and Rivian is well intentioned. RAN was meant to be the complimentary CCS network that would exist for Rivian owners in locations they were likely to be. In theory; it had a path forward. It might have required getting in the battery storage business (to avoid demand charges and allow them to profitably operate a charging network), and more funding.

I bet RAN has a future, but it is going to be a select location network aiming to satisfy the core-Rivian user who is adventuring across the world.

In the immediate near-term, I think Rivian is going to be going thru its “Model 3/Y phase” with the R2 platform, and sinking all their cash in those. Since they don’t manufacture battery storage solutions like Tesla; i think they will shy away from huge RAN expansion until they have a battery storage solution that gives them an edge.

I am not convinced that with maintenance, leases, etc.. that the margins will be sustainable once all the convince stores are adding chargers and willing to give the electricity away at near cost, to simply intice business.

Again...maybe I am wrong...but while I am playing armchair CEO, it will be interesting to see it play out over time for sure.

 

[Tenn]

After using multiple RAN chargers on a trip from the Southeast to the PNW (as well as many EAs, EVgos and Chargepoints), I can say equivically that the RAN network was Excellent. Zero issues connecting, always got an optimal charge rate, etc.. etc... It was head and shoulders above any other charging system I've ever used including the 2-3 times I've used Tesla Superchargers in rentals.

The RAN chargers are well place, well thought out and most importantly they just work. They're high quality. They 're laid out intelligently and their use feels premium.


I say keep the Rivian Waypoint Chargers in remote locations. They also work well and at 6-11kwh, work well in getting someone enough juice to make it back to civilization.

Please keep building out the RAN! It was an important part of Rivian's initial vision and I would be disappointed if they abandoned it because even though there are none in my home state yet, I find them to be a very important piece of Rivians ecosystem.

 

[2025R1S]

I somewhat disagree.

Tesla manufactures;

• Battery storage
• Chargers
• Charging network software
• Battery management software
• Solar panels
• Solar shingles
• And of course - electric vehicles

There is no other competitor that can profitably manufacture and deliver the services of what I think of as the basics of a profitable DCFC. Those basics are battery storage, the chargers themselves, charging network software, and battery management software.

ChargePoint is the closest comparison that can be made. ChargePoint also doesn’t have a high margin business like EV’s to subsidize the network. It could really be argued that Tesla is too smart, and are too sufficiently able to satisfy the needs of the market, and everyone else is struggling to even get product out the door that functions. Teslas success could now be a liability, in that no one has been nearly as successful as them.

VW is an interesting odd-ball here. EA only exists because of a diesel emissions scandal. We might all be led to believe that the fines VW has paid to create EA has created an emotional bond of sorts for CCS and VW. I don’t know if that is true, but it will be interesting to see. VW is like the new Nissan right now - refusing to go along with the market. It took many years for Nissan to finally give up on Chademo, too.

Monopoly?? This makes no sense whatsoever. There are many third party charging companies. You don't have to use a SC if you choose not to. VW has stated they are not going NACS. So you can use EA whenever desired.

 

[Belem]

 

[SASSquatch]

Now get NACS out of Tesla's exclusive control and into a recognized standards body, and all will be good.

1000% agree with this statement.

It was never about the port - it was always about open standards that one entity doesn't control.

Sponsored