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

[Acoustic71]

And worst of all he was a Republican!

(as long as you guys are getting tribal)

Pretty sure he was an "Independent", whatever that means. I say that because he went out of his way to piss off everyone - not just me. Since we're getting tribal and all.

Sponsored

 

[SANZC02]

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.

Good point, I was thinking backwards where the high voltage leads would not be used but the adapter would need to handle that.

 

[MP3Mike]

More details on how Rivian will be supplying adapters:

 

[Longreach]

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.

That’s a very important point. From VW’s perspective it is a sunk cost that otherwise would have been a fine, not an investment. They certainly have no interest at all in operating the network. Therefore it should not have any bearing on them moving forward, although it may take some time for them to come to what will be an obvious conclusion that they must move to NACS on vehicles.

 

[docwhiz]

Those are for 240v AC charging and not Supercharging.

No, those are DC charger adapters

 

[SRO]

Well, they tried to be like Tesla ! But can't !

The last thing I want is to be like Tesla. Now Rivian can concentrate on the adventure part of their network. Out of the way locations. If Tesla ever builds a truck, Tesla may want to use the Rivian network. Another reason to change to NACS.

 

[Revelation]

No, those are DC charger adapters

No. The ones available on the market, at this time, are only 240v AC adapters.

 

[Autolycus]

The adapters must be pretty cheap to make if Rivian is going to give them to everyone with a CCS vehicle! Tesla's current Tesla-to-CCS adapter is <$200. I imagine it's going to be a pretty basic nearly-dumb adapter. If there are any electronics, they'll be just some sort of ID verification of the adapter. Something no more complicated than the MFi chips.

 

[CrabtreeMcScree]

New poster to the forum, and I know it's been discussed already in a smattering of places, but this NACS thing has my head going two different roads;

1. DC Fast Charging is difficult to open as a business, except for entrenched or well capitalized companies for CCS1 plugs. It is difficult to justify building L3 chargers because the market penetration of CCS is just not nearly to the Tesla plug. With so many shifting over to NACS, the market for L3 charging station customers is going to grow rapidly, and this will offset concerns about a Tesla monopoly on DC fast charging.
2. Tesla already has a massive L3 network that works great, is relatively inexpensive for Tesla drivers, and is hugely widespread. Other L3 operators are not incentivized to build out competitive networks because Tesla is already so dominant. Tesla cements itself as a monopolistic operator of chargers and 3rd party vehicles pay exorbitant fees to charge.

I want to believe #1 is the most likely outcome. Tesla can't be everywhere at once, after all. But, their ability to scale is legendary. I worry that #2 is the most likely scenario.

Other things that worry me about this:

• If NACS is controlled by Tesla, they control possible kW output, and the voltage and amps that goes into the vehicle. Might that enable some kind of control of battery and BMS design? Maybe that's a good thing, if true?
• If Tesla doesn't hand over design and standards of NACS to a neutral party, what is to stop Tesla from becoming Apple with the Lightning Port?

 

[Dark-Fx]

The adapters must be pretty cheap to make if Rivian is going to give them to everyone with a CCS vehicle! Tesla's current Tesla-to-CCS adapter is <$200. I imagine it's going to be a pretty basic nearly-dumb adapter. If there are any electronics, they'll be just some sort of ID verification of the adapter. Something no more complicated than the MFi chips.

I'll take one for the team and tear one of mine down when Rivian ships them, if no-one else has yet.

And then put it back together to see if it still works.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Other things that worry me about this:

• If NACS is controlled by Tesla, they control possible kW output, and the voltage and amps that goes into the vehicle. Might that enable some kind of control of battery and BMS design? Maybe that's a good thing, if true?
• If Tesla doesn't hand over design and standards of NACS to a neutral party, what is to stop Tesla from becoming Apple with the Lightning Port?

RJ not going onto a twitter space to make the announcement with Elon is somewhat relieving for me here. Departure from what felt like it was becoming an established requirement means there might be other assumptions I'm making about this whole situation. But my pudding still lacks a lot of proof because this is still a closed door deal.

 

[HighVoltOverland]

Wonderful news!
Praise be Daddy Elon
You know how the old saying goes:

"Lack of competition encourages innovation and accountability"

 

[scottf200]

Now if Tesla could support 800V, then GM is all set.

So far there are no Superchargers capable of more than 500V. Both GM and Stellantis have 800V trucks. Tesla needs to specify what there V4 and future chargers will support. We also need some idea about how much an adapter, without cooling, is going to throttle the charge rate. Magic dock is supposedly 350A.

Well the CyberTruck is suppose to be >400V. If 800V+ they could just do like the Hummer and VERY likely would since v2 are 150 kW ~400v and v3 are 250 kW ~400v. v4 is unknown.

For the Hummer they already know how to use either 800v or 400v (see below) so they could just charge at 250 kW for a more sustained period. This is just as good as 350 kW for a short period.

GMC says that while the Hummer EV works in 400V mode during normal driving and operation, when it detects that it has been hooked up to a charger capable of delivering very high charging speeds, it is capable of switching to 800V, thus allowing speeds up to the claimed maximum, as long as the charger can provide it.

Good point about the adapter. Suspect it will be slower (or not as fast for AS LONG) vs the built in NACS that Tesla has or Ford and GM are known to be adding. Unclear if Rivian is but my money is on the deal with Tesla means they need to add a NACS to the front-right or rear-left to be contractual obligations.

 

[jotunheim]

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.

I was operating under the assumption that the R1S max pack was to be 180kWh battery gross, which is what I last saw published this spring. I haven't seen any information that this was revised to 165 kWh. (?) I stand corrected if this is the case.

I also thought it was just a matter of time before a similar Conserve mode was added on the DM version, which has had less time in the development cycle and should offer similar efficiency gains once the software was optimized. This should push the range to be at least the same percentage as the increase in battery size with the DM efficiencies.

Bottom line for me is that my reservation is almost certainly a year (or more) away for delivery, and if Rivian can offer 25-30% more range for $10K at that time, that is actually far from "insane". I would be delighted to drive all the way to Minnepolis or St. Louis without worrying about charging until my destination, plus fewer charging cycles on the battery and I can tow with far less headache. If I keep the truck for 10 years, then the charge for this convenience is only $1k per year, with the upside of a likely higher resale value.

 

[MP3Mike]

The adapters must be pretty cheap to make if Rivian is going to give them to everyone with a CCS vehicle! Tesla's current Tesla-to-CCS adapter is <$200. I imagine it's going to be a pretty basic nearly-dumb adapter.

Elon said that Tesla would be selling the NACS stuff to their partner OEMs at cost. While Tesla sells the CCS to NACS adapter for $175, it probably costs significantly less than that. My guess is that it will cost Rivian ~$100 to ship an adapter to each of their customers.

Sponsored