Charging Station Rating in new Rivian software update -- Wassym interview

[56huck]

Here’s another YouTube video on the next update

Sponsored

 

[TheWoo]

Definitely curious about their algorithm and what info they're actually collecting...more detail than what was in either the OoS or State of Charge videos. I just looked at some of the stations along I80 in Nebraska that I hit in January and they were all rated A. Looking at recent PlugShare reviews for the EA in Ogallala, NE for instance shows a couple Rivian charges that had slow charging and had to move to other stalls...so it's odd that the score would still be an A.

Like you're suggesting, max charge rate isn't necessarily relevant. I had an EA station in Colby, KS give me over 180 kW before derating to 30 kW after 5 minutes (suspect cable cooling failure) and then faulted out. That site is also showing an A score.

Interestingly, the EV Connect station I used in Abilene, KS last week is rated a C and showing an average top sped of 154 kW while also showing the station is rated for 350 kW. PlugShare and the EV Connect app also show that station as 350 kW, so I guess the scores do work? The sad thing is that the location is way more convenient than the Salina EA station since that one is so far off the interstate and the EV Connect site is at a truck/travel stop with amenities. Also pricey at $0.59/kWh.

I'm new to Rivian so haven't learned the quirks of its charging curve nor even been out to test it, but I've charged my Lightning at that Abilene EVConnect multiple times and it's been very solid, topping out in the 170s which is very near the fastest you can get with a Lightning. I wonder if Rivian's approach to charging doesn't work as well with EVConnect or if it's a different reason it grades lower ...

 

[Ottoman]

The Tesla network is going to continue to be our best option with the least crowding (aside from popular locations in California) and most up time. And, pretty accurate real time congestion info (through the Tesla app).

Unless someone decides to call the cops on you

 

[edman007]

I'm new to Rivian so haven't learned the quirks of its charging curve nor even been out to test it, but I've charged my Lightning at that Abilene EVConnect multiple times and it's been very solid, topping out in the 170s which is very near the fastest you can get with a Lightning. I wonder if Rivian's approach to charging doesn't work as well with EVConnect or if it's a different reason it grades lower ...

The real benefit with the way Rivian is [hopefully] doing it is they have access to the requested charge rate, so they can detect charger derating (which they still don't show on the screen), but also exclude issues due to slow charging from a cold battery. That is, they can compute the average speed, as it applies to a 400V vehicle, and excluding vehicle problems and charge curve issues.

This means they can differentiate between chargers that have true 500A, and only boost 500A, and chargers that do 350kW at 800V but not at 400V

Rivian hits 200kW+, many chargers will top out at 175kW or so, which could be a reason, also boost means you don't get those speeds when you need it

 

[jeeden]

Unless someone decides to call the cops on you

Microsoft copilot"s got you....

In a bizarre twist of electric vehicle (EV) rivalry, a Tesla owner was reported to have called the authorities after catching a Rivian owner in the act of giving the Tesla Supercharger an "F" rating on the Rivian's exclusive charging network app. The Tesla owner, who prefers to remain unnamed but is characterized by a distinct aura of electric elitism, argued that the Rivian owner's low grade was "an act of outright sabotage." When law enforcement arrived, they discovered the two EV aficionados locked in a fierce squabble over amperage and charge times. "This is about honor," the Tesla owner proclaimed, "and I simply cannot tolerate such blatant disregard for our unparalleled charging infrastructure." Meanwhile, the Rivian owner persisted in drafting a critical review, lambasting the charger for its "utter lack of rugged charm." The situation escalated until the officers intervened, proposing that the two demonstrate inter-brand solidarity by charging their vehicles in tandem. This peculiar confrontation has ignited a fiery discussion across the nation regarding EV charging station decorum and the ethics of public charger grading.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Do they just start Electrify American at 'F' by default?

 

[CharonPDX]

Major problem with it I've already discovered: Stations with completely "out of service" stalls don't seem to affect the rating. I just mapped a route, and it wanted me to stop at a station that had only 1 of 6 stalls open, with 2 of the stalls completely "out of order." So that's 1/3rd of stalls out of order, and 3/4 of the remaining in use. And it was given an "A".

With *ANY* stalls out of order, this should not even be possibly considered an A. Any stalls out of service should automatically drop one rating. Two stalls should drop 2 ratings, etc.

 

[superfly_snook]

I think this feature could be very helpful. In my travels there have been some really bad EvGo sites where the delivered charging speeds were disappointing, chargers were installed in ways that made it hard to impossible to utilize them fully and other issues - would definitely appreciate a data-driven rating and this could pressure the plug providers to fix the issues as they compete for traffic.

 

[TheWoo]

Major problem with it I've already discovered: Stations with completely "out of service" stalls don't seem to affect the rating. I just mapped a route, and it wanted me to stop at a station that had only 1 of 6 stalls open, with 2 of the stalls completely "out of order." So that's 1/3rd of stalls out of order, and 3/4 of the remaining in use. And it was given an "A".

With *ANY* stalls out of order, this should not even be possibly considered an A. Any stalls out of service should automatically drop one rating. Two stalls should drop 2 ratings, etc.

It's based on accumulated ratings - if stalls just went down it won't impact the ratings. Any idea how long they've been down? If stalls go down but are quickly brought back online, that may not impact ratings.

What's unclear is what happens when some stalls are down but Rivian owners charge effectively at other stalls.

 

[strykerwsu]

Definitely curious about their algorithm and what info they're actually collecting...more detail than what was in either the OoS or State of Charge videos. I just looked at some of the stations along I80 in Nebraska that I hit in January and they were all rated A. Looking at recent PlugShare reviews for the EA in Ogallala, NE for instance shows a couple Rivian charges that had slow charging and had to move to other stalls...so it's odd that the score would still be an A.

Like you're suggesting, max charge rate isn't necessarily relevant. I had an EA station in Colby, KS give me over 180 kW before derating to 30 kW after 5 minutes (suspect cable cooling failure) and then faulted out. That site is also showing an A score.

Interestingly, the EV Connect station I used in Abilene, KS last week is rated a C and showing an average top sped of 154 kW while also showing the station is rated for 350 kW. PlugShare and the EV Connect app also show that station as 350 kW, so I guess the scores do work? The sad thing is that the location is way more convenient than the Salina EA station since that one is so far off the interstate and the EV Connect site is at a truck/travel stop with amenities. Also pricey at $0.59/kWh.

Colby has always worked well for me so would agree on the A. However that is the difference in a small dataset vs a much larger dataset Rivian has.

 

[edman007]

It's based on accumulated ratings - if stalls just went down it won't impact the ratings. Any idea how long they've been down? If stalls go down but are quickly brought back online, that may not impact ratings.

What's unclear is what happens when some stalls are down but Rivian owners charge effectively at other stalls.

Depends how busy it is, it seems everyone but EA let's Rivian get the available count, if they know there are good stalls and they are available, what do you care that some are down. As long as nav takes that into account and attempts to avoid routing you to full stations it's fine.

 

[TheWoo]

Colby has always worked well for me so would agree on the A. However that is the difference in a small dataset vs a much larger dataset Rivian has.

I've had both good and bad experiences at Colby. And that's the reason I like the data-driven approach (at least in theory - we'll see if it holds up in real usage) as it won't be driven by anecdotal experiences and user error or unfamiliarity. If I go by Colby twice and have ones good experience and one bad one, 50% of my experiences is a lot to be bad. But if my bad experience was on one bad day and otherwise thousands are charging there with no problem then that's what's important.

 

[sub]

Major problem with it I've already discovered: Stations with completely "out of service" stalls don't seem to affect the rating. I just mapped a route, and it wanted me to stop at a station that had only 1 of 6 stalls open, with 2 of the stalls completely "out of order." So that's 1/3rd of stalls out of order, and 3/4 of the remaining in use. And it was given an "A".

With *ANY* stalls out of order, this should not even be possibly considered an A. Any stalls out of service should automatically drop one rating. Two stalls should drop 2 ratings, etc.

I don't think the number of offline stalls should have any weight. The number of broken stalls doesn't matter. What matters is the number of available stalls. Which would you prefer?

A 6 stall location where every stall is working and 4 are usually occupied, (2 available)
A 12 stall location where 2 stalls are broken and 4 are usually occupied (6 available)
A 30 stall location where 14 stalls are broken and 4 are usually occupied (12 available)

Even though nearly half of the stalls at the largest location are broken, I would select that location every time as long as the brokken stalls are clearly reported as broken so I don't have to waste time figuring out which stalls work via trial and error.

Another complication of using outages (or occupancy) is that this isn't something Rivian can detect on their own. If a stall is so clearly broken that no one bothers to try to use it, then Rivian will never know that it is broken unless the vendor tells Rivian about it.

Rivian only has this data because some providers share it with them. If Rivian subtracts points when a provider tells Rivian about the out of order stall, but doesn't ever subtract points from providers that don't report it(since they will never know about it), then Rivian would discourage providers from reporting the outages which is the opposite of what Rivian or drivers would want.

 

[Tahoe Man]

So what does this do, go through the plug share data and use that? At any rate, this is just another indicator how bad public DCFC is.

 

[paranee2]

so far no updates avaliable for me ? Ontario , Canada

Sponsored