R2 vs Tesla Charging Curve Comparison

[Indy avocado]

beats out its main competition which is Tesla.

I think it's actually the Toyota Rav4, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota Land Cruiser, Subaru Forester, etc.


As a goof, here's a Rav4 in terms of "C-rate" vs various EVs.

Sponsored

 

[Indy avocado]

R2 looks like a marginal improvement over 5 year old EVs. IX3 is current gen and actually stands out.

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=chargeRate




And if we look on a "technological" level (C-rate)...

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=cRate


And finally, as a range-rate (miles/min) added, which is what a ddriver actually cares about:

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=rangeRate

 

[shandering]

I've been interested in the differences between R2 and Tesla charging curves. Over the least few weeks, I've done some 10% to 80% sessions at a V4 supercharger (posts) with my 2024 Model 3 Performance (Highland) at 8am before it got hot, so no derating. I plotted them on the graph below using the R2 curve from Tom at SOC. I imagine this would be the same charging curve for Model Y as they share the exact same cells, sans the new MYP.

It is interesting to see this in a graphic visual. It confirms that R2 has a much better curve and also charges quicker than Tesla. The area under the curve for Tesla is crazy. It took a few seconds under 30 minutes each time for the Model 3 for 10% to 80%. R2 did it in just under 27 minutes per Tom. Model 3 took 23 minutes for 10% to 70%, R2 did it in 20 minutes. That might not seem like a lot but shaving a few minutes off is a very big deal from an engineering and thermal perspective. Lest we also forget R2 has an 11-12% larger battery too, so one would think the Model 3 could/would charge quicker - or at the very minimum be the same - but it's worse. This shows how good R2 thermals are coupled with the 4695 tabless cells for better heat dissipation

Yes, we all know it is not 800v. We don't need to bring that up anymore. The point is the R2 is still very capable, very good, and beats out its main competition which is Tesla.

This test shows nothing. Charging curve is useless. You need to look at time. The tesla has a smaller battery pack which is why the curve drops off faster

What matters is the C rate of the individual cells and I think it's more/less the same

The large pack is 95kwh and tesla is maybe 79?

If you take the beginning where the tesla is charging at 250, it is effectively charging at 300 kW if you think about it relative to the rivian battery size and at 80% it's charging about 60kW

If you road trip a rivian r2 and a model Y I think the R2 would lose. The charging is the same on both vehicles but the tesla has more stations.

 

[TexasBob]

Updated original post, my bad. Added your charts to the below. Ironically the BMW looks so much better on the graph below but still takes ~21 minutes 10 to 80%.

Thanks for doing this!

The iX3 335 miles real world range 70mph using 20" winter tires
The R2 260 miles real world range 70mph using 20" all weather

iX3 10-80% = 235 miles real world range
R2 10-80% = 182 miles real world range

To recharge 235 real world miles you are at 21 minutes (charging time only) vs 38 minutes (charging time only) on the same Ionna high-capacity charging station.

 

[Jeremy3292]

This test shows nothing. Charging curve is useless. You need to look at time. The tesla has a smaller battery pack which is why the curve drops off faster

What matters is the C rate of the individual cells and I think it's more/less the same

The large pack is 95kwh and tesla is maybe 79?

If you take the beginning where the tesla is charging at 250, it is effectively charging at 300 kW if you think about it relative to the rivian battery size and at 80% it's charging about 60kW

If you road trip a rivian r2 and a model Y I think the R2 would lose. The charging is the same on both vehicles but the tesla has more stations.

Go away Tesla bot. Your posts are all the same on every thread. Tesla great, everyone else bad. And half of what you say is incorrect, as evidenced by this post here and your shill FSD posts.

 

[Jeremy3292]

R2 looks like a marginal improvement over 5 year old EVs. IX3 is current gen and actually stands out.

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=chargeRate




And if we look on a "technological" level (C-rate)...

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=cRate


And finally, as a range-rate (miles/min) added, which is what a ddriver actually cares about:

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?tab=chart&r=115,97,36,101,119,73&v=21&x=soc&y=rangeRate

iX3 is $10,000 more once you build a similarly featured model to R2. Not really comparable IMO. R2 is comparable to Model Y or a 4Runner, like you said. I said in the original post no need to rehash 800v arguments either. R2 isn’t 800v so comparing it to 800v is silly. It’s most comparable to Model Y.

 

[shandering]

Go away Tesla bot. Your posts are all the same on every thread. Tesla great, everyone else bad. And half of what you say is incorrect, as evidenced by this post here and your shill FSD posts.

Incorrect? Look at the i90 surge race from out of spec motors. They raced the fastest charging EVs across the U.S. and the car that finished in 2nd place was the model 3, beating the ioniq 6 which had better on-paper efficiency and charges nearly twice as fast

The problem was two-fold. Tesla peak charging speed (250kW) does make a difference if you hop between stations. Tesla also hits the peak at 5%. The tesla also had much better efficiency than the ioniq 6 despite on paper being worse.

The other issue was even though the tesla stopped many more times (maybe adding 40 minutes of driving to and from stations), the tesla station placement was better than 3rd party charging. With the 3rd party supercharger access it is only 80% of v3/v4 stations and only about 60% of stations overall. If you don't use tesla stations you lose from poor station placement/reliability. (ioniq was lucky with perfect electrify america reliability), and you also lose from the 800v/400v supercharger difference.

Keep in mind this was all while the ioniq 6 team had to plan charging stops manually. If you use the in-built navigation you will lose to some of the slowest charging EVs on the market

With the exception of the ridiculously fast charging 800v vehicles and driving all the way across the country, tesla is competitive with the best road tripping EVs in America

So back to my original point, for a normal road trip, even with the best charging EVs you can buy, you will often lose handily to a tesla simply because the navigation/charge planning is wrong, the missing 40% of supercharger stations are in critical spots where you need them, and for very short road trips, the peak charge of 250kW is often enough since you don't have to charge much to make the final 100 miles to your destination. For most people an 8 hr road trip is enough, and your car can do most of those miles one one charge.

 

[shandering]

iX3 is $10,000 more once you build a similarly featured model to R2. Not really comparable IMO. R2 is comparable to Model Y or a 4Runner, like you said. I said in the original post no need to rehash 800v arguments either. R2 isn’t 800v so comparing it to 800v is silly. It’s most comparable to Model Y.

400v is a scapegoat for slow charging. It's not the reason for slow charging.

Batteries are made up of a bunch of cells. The speed at which they are charged is the C-rate. All the cells recieve charge at the same time. A rivian battery takes more kW than a model Y for longer because the battery is 15kWh larger

What matters is the speed it takes to go from 0-100% which has nothing to do with 400v or 800v

Some people might argue that tesla/rivian are being conservative to preserve battery longevity. I doubt that is the case because tesla was using BYD blade batteries at one time and the charging curve was very good

Tesla model Y with BYD blade batteries could do 10-99% in 35 minutes and 10-80% in 19 minutes. That's competitive with 800v EVs and this was 3 or 4 years ago

The reason R1 charges below tesla speed (and R2 is similar to tesla speed) is because the R1 battery has inadequate cooling. This is because they used more battery cells than they originally intended to in order to achieve the promised ranges. Back when the cybertruck/R1 were announced, tesla/rivian were too optimistic on future battery density.

 

[Indy avocado]

iX3 is $10,000 more once you build a similarly featured model to R2. Not really comparable IMO. R2 is comparable to Model Y or a 4Runner, like you said. I said in the original post no need to rehash 800v arguments either. R2 isn’t 800v so comparing it to 800v is silly. It’s most comparable to Model Y.

I never mentioned 800V. iX3 is MUCH better charging everywhere.

I know it's more expensive.

Here's R2 compared to cheaper competition on the battery technology front (C-rate / cell stress).

The Chevy Bolt is a perfect match. The Trailseeker would probably be competitive if Toyota allowed higher charging currents.

Sponsored