Tesla engineer urges Rivian to move charge port location on R2, R3, R3X for Supercharger access

[Dukecj]

Tesla cares about making EVs affordable enough for mass market adoption. Shorter charge cables are part of that. Long cables get run over and are left in an unsightly mess. Supercharger customers never have to tough a cable that has been lying in the filth on the ground. Longer cables require more frequent replacement and cost more to replace. The cost is significant.

EVs (in the collective) consume HUGE amounts of electricity. If a longer cable has 1% more resistance, that makes all the miles travelled by Superchargers 1% less efficient. Tesla made an optimum decision to keep the cables short and RIvian should avoid making decisions that could reduce future sales and lead to bankruptcy. To be successful Rivian needs to make 99% optimum decisions. Charge port location is part of that.

Tesla must adapt to the new environment or die. Only people living in the EV bubble care about the stuff you mentioned, and 90% of the population care more about EV cost. The charge port location reduces costs for Rivian which will reduce the vehicle price at scale. Tesla will be one of many charging options in the future, and if they don't adapt people will just go to the other random chargers across the parking lot.

Sponsored

 

[COdogman]

Well, 75% of EVs in North America are Tesla.

There's a reason for that and it's not because a Tesla employee thinks the world revolves around Tesla, it's because Tesla has made optimal decisions. Every penny matters when it comes to building quality EVs at affordable prices. That's how Tesla sells in enough volume to afford the Supercharger Network. Also, the design and manufacture of Superchargers in-house is an important cost savings to making it all work.

And 75% of all high-powered DCFC in America are Superchargers. All the other charging companies combined can't match that. Because they have sub-optimal cost structures. People are paying big bucks to charge at some of them, cost efficiency matters.

You literally just attempted to make an argument the world *does* revolve around Tesla without saying thoe words. I don’t care if they sold 99% of the EVs in the US - they still made a mistake with their choice of port location.

Humans are terrible at parking in general. Asking them to park backwards makes it worse. Yet there is a solution that could allow the back in or front pull in EVs to work either way. Make your chargers with long enough cables they can reach either side of the parking stall.

Instead of looking at the issue and coming up with a solution that works for everyone, Tesla took the predictable Tesla approach and decided they should try to dictate to other companies where they put the charging port on their vehicles. And coming from the designer of the Cybertruck, the criticism is especially hilarious.…

What percentage of superchargers will be open to all EVs? That is the important number… we know it won’t be 100%.

 

[Axel]

The charge port location reduces costs for Rivian which will reduce the vehicle price at scale.

Cost is an impact in the front vs rear debate. R2 didn't get the same charge port location as R1 because it's less expensive to put the charge port in the rear of the vehicle.

Rear-driver and rear-passenger locations are a cost-neutral options.

What percentage of superchargers will be open to all EVs? That is the important number… we know it won’t be 100%.

Should match up with the other OEMs. Ford is saying 15,000 in this press release: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/02/29/ford-customers-can-now-charge-on-tesla-superchargers-in-u-s---ca.html#:~:text=Ford has increased the estimated,than 17,250 confirmed and growing.


One Tesla will block two supercharger stalls for a Rivian driver. Where this becomes interesting is when a supercharger site is >50% full with Tesla's. There's a decent chance that half-full supercharger sites have zero open charging stalls for a Rivian.

75% full supercharger and the Rivian driver can expect to most likely need to queue up and wait longer to get an open parking stall. For all the work going into this transition to NACS, this seems suboptimal given R2 and R3 are ground up designs.

 

[SANZC02]

I see a lot of interesting opinions in this thread but sometimes the decision is made for you when you look at input.

The R2/R3 are going to be available in EU where curbside charging is a thing. The Rear of the vehicle makes the most sense because of the rear motor options on these models to control overall cost. You also have the rear passenger side aligning with your own charging network. The chosen location certainly makes sense to me.

Sure the argument now is going to be the RAN is still in the early buildout stage, they could change those layouts to accommodate the Tesla location for the remainder of the buildout. Do you think Rivian would really want to poke all of the R1 owners in the eye doing the remainder of the RAN buildout making it a challenge for them?

There are so many things in the world to complain about, seems like 12 pages on this topic seems excessive and now I’ve added yet another opinion to it…

 

[RivianRunner]

Tesla must adapt to the new environment or die. Only people living in the EV bubble care about the stuff you mentioned, and 90% of the population care more about EV cost. The charge port location reduces costs for Rivian which will reduce the vehicle price at scale. Tesla will be one of many charging options in the future, and if they don't adapt people will just go to the other random chargers across the parking lot.

Tesla must adapt or die? Why do I think that applies more to Rivian than Tesla? Hmmmm.....

Yes, cost matters a lot! And the design considerations I mentioned have everything to do with cost. Who do you think ultimately pays for EV charging infrastructure and electricity resistance losses? That's right, EV drivers!

Tesla has always looked at the entire system costs of owning an EV as well as user convenience, not just the purchase price. That's why they put the charge port on the driver rear. Not only does this location cost the same as the passenger rear, but it is also more convenient. And providing a consistent location on every Tesla model keeps fast charging infrastructure costs low. This is how Tesla, a struggling EV startup that experts gave a low probability of succeeding, became the most successful EV maker in the world.

That's how Tesla took the coveted title of "Best Selling Car in the World" last year. It's how they built the largest, most reliable and most cost-effective fast charging network in the world. It's how they sold more EVs last year than Chinas most efficient EV manufacturer, BYD.

These are huge successes that even a large company like GM, Ford or VW would be proud to achieve. Instead it was done by scrappy little Tesla. Now an even scrappier little company, Rivian, thinks they have a better way to do it.

In reality, RJ is just tired of people thinking his company is following in Tesla's footsteps, so he is always trying to differentiate his company from Tesla by making bold decisions that he thinks makes him look like a leader. Guess what? Putting the charge port on the passenger rear is bold. Boldly stupid. Bold decisions are only good if they help you win. Rivian is not winning, they are headed for a massive bailout in which investors lose 90% or more of the value of their investment.

If RJ was bold, he would raise the money they need now, not wait until both Tesla and BYD are producing 4 million EVs annually. And he would put his ego aside and put the charge ports in the least expensive, most convenient location. Because Tesla is not slowing down and neither is the size of the Supercharger Network. Sure, a little longer cable on Version 4 SC's might allow the cable to reach a passenger side rear charge port, but it will not be optimal. Sometimes the best solution is the most obvious solution.

 

[RivianRunner]

What percentage of superchargers will be open to all EVs? That is the important number… we know it won’t be 100%.

That's a good question. Nobody knows what percentage of the Supercharger Network will be open to Rivian and other EVs in the long run. We know 100% of all Supercharger locations will be available for Tesla vehicles. The availability for other brands will depend upon how easy it is to accomodate them. Common sense says the bigger the problem, the fewer locations will be open to vehicles that are not as easy to accommodate.

RJ may want his Rivian charging network to rival Tesla's someday, but his "bold" decisions are driving the company into being a bit player in the EV space. This is a pattern I see him repeatedly re-enforcing. These are unforced errors that will stack up to be Rivian's demise if RJ is not quickly replaced with someone having a smaller ego and making more optimal decisions. Passenger rear is a dumb decision caused by illogically putting curbside charging on a pedestal that doesn't exist. It costs the same amount to put it on the driver's rear. Sure, he has two reasons that appear to justify his non-optimal decisions, but they don't hold water. That's why he must go. I want to see Rivian succeed, and help the world transition to sustainable energy, not fail. Watch how this all plays out. It will not end well.

 

[RivianRunner]

75% full supercharger and the Rivian driver can expect to most likely need to queue up and wait longer to get an open parking stall. For all the work going into this transition to NACS, this seems suboptimal given R2 and R3 are ground up designs.

If a Rivian has an incompatible charge port location, "queing up" in this example could cause a very long wait indeed because freshly arriving Tesla will back into the stalls between two other Tesla while the Rivian driver is still waiting for a compatible stall to open up. It's like RJ either thinks Rivian drivers won't use the cheapest, most reliable charging network enough to matter, or he simply hasn't thought this through. It's a supremely dumb decision considering there is no additional cost to use the obvious choice, the driver's side rear.

RJ is just letting his ego irrationally get in the way of good decision making. And an EV startup cannot afford poor decision making. He just doesn't want to be seen as following Tesla and has no idea how this will come back to bite him. A good leader can change his mind, but RJ tends to just dig himself in deeper, probably because he thinks this gives the appearances of a steady hand. Elon, on the other hand, changes positions on a seeming whim. He is not overly concerned with being a "steady hand" because he knows it is over-rated. The results speak for themselves.

 

[emoore]

You literally just attempted to make an argument the world *does* revolve around Tesla without saying thoe words. I don’t care if they sold 99% of the EVs in the US - they still made a mistake with their choice of port location.

Humans are terrible at parking in general. Asking them to park backwards makes it worse. Yet there is a solution that could allow the back in or front pull in EVs to work either way. Make your chargers with long enough cables they can reach either side of the parking stall.

Instead of looking at the issue and coming up with a solution that works for everyone, Tesla took the predictable Tesla approach and decided they should try to dictate to other companies where they put the charging port on their vehicles. And coming from the designer of the Cybertruck, the criticism is especially hilarious.…

What percentage of superchargers will be open to all EVs? That is the important number… we know it won’t be 100%.

And the sad thing it's not even 100% of eligible superchargers. I understand V1 and V2 chargers not being open since they aren't hardware/software compatible. But choosing which V3s are open seems shady to me.

 

[RivianRunner]

And the sad thing it's not even 100% of eligible superchargers. I understand V1 and V2 chargers not being open since they aren't hardware/software compatible. But choosing which V3s are open seems shady to me.

You should teach Tesla a lesson and boycott all Supercharger use by non-Tesla!

 

[COdogman]

That's a good question. Nobody knows what percentage of the Supercharger Network will be open to Rivian and other EVs in the long run. We know 100% of all Supercharger locations will be available for Tesla vehicles. The availability for other brands will depend upon how easy it is to accomodate them. Common sense says the bigger the problem, the fewer locations will be open to vehicles that are not as easy to accommodate.

RJ may want his Rivian charging network to rival Tesla's someday, but his "bold" decisions are driving the company into being a bit player in the EV space. This is a pattern I see him repeatedly re-enforcing. These are unforced errors that will stack up to be Rivian's demise if RJ is not quickly replaced with someone having a smaller ego and making more optimal decisions. Passenger rear is a dumb decision caused by illogically putting curbside charging on a pedestal that doesn't exist. It costs the same amount to put it on the driver's rear. Sure, he has two reasons that appear to justify his non-optimal decisions, but they don't hold water. That's why he must go. I want to see Rivian succeed, and help the world transition to sustainable energy, not fail. Watch how this all plays out. It will not end well.

That's fair. But since we don't actually know how many SC stations we will have access to, I think Tesla should probably keep their opinions on where the charge port is located for other manufacturers to themselves. If only 25-50% of the eligible Supercharger stations are open to us, then it's not worth the effort to re-engineer a vehicle based on what a single Tesla engineer says.

Ultimately I don't think the charger design should be leading vehicle design. Chargers should be designed for the vehicles. That is why I suggested a longer cable would solve the problem for everyone. It wouldn't matter which side or front/ rear the port was on. I feel the same about that whether it's Tesla superchargers, RAN, or EA stations. If they are open to all EVs and accepted NEVI money, they should work for all EVs.

 

[LivingInKaos]

My takeaway here is that Wes thinks R1 owners are jerks.

 

[emoore]

You should teach Tesla a lesson and boycott all Supercharger use by non-Tesla!

Will do.

 

[SANZC02]

And the sad thing it's not even 100% of eligible superchargers. I understand V1 and V2 chargers not being open since they aren't hardware/software compatible. But choosing which V3s are open seems shady to me.

From the Superchargers I am familiar with it seems like all of the newer V3 are included. The only exceptions I have found are where there are mixed V1/V2 and V3 chargers. Seems like those locations are not NACS compatible, I would venture to say there very well could be some early V3 stations out there that may have the older infrastructure from V2 that also may not be compatible.

Has anyone actually seen a newer V3 station that is not open to NACS? I’m watching the new station almost open in Destin, FL, I’m curious to see if it is on the NACS list once opened.

 

[LivingInKaos]

From the Superchargers I am familiar with it seems like all of the newer V3 are included. The only exceptions I have found are where there are mixed V1/V2 and V3 chargers. Seems like those locations are not NACS compatible, I would venture to say there very well could be some early V3 stations out there that may have the older infrastructure from V2 that also may not be compatible.

Has anyone actually seen a newer V3 station that is not open to NACS? I’m watching the new station almost open in Destin, FL, I’m curious to see if it is on the NACS list once opened.

Yeah, there is one near me - V3 just installed less than 6 months ago, not open for nacs

 

[SANZC02]

Yeah, there is one near me - V3 just installed less than 6 months ago, not open for nacs

Thanks for confirming, it is a bit puzzling.

Sponsored