Rivian Is the Next Automaker To Adopt Tesla's Charging Plugs (arstechnica.com) 74
Today, Rivian announced that it is switching from the Combined Charging System (CCS) standard to the North American Charging Standard (NACS), tesla's competing standard, in 2024. The automaker joins Ford and General Motors in adopting Tesla's charging plugs for its future electric vehicles. Ars Technica reports: "We're excited to work with Tesla and to see collaborations like this help advance the world toward carbon neutrality. The adoption of the North American Charging Standard will enable our existing and future customers to leverage Tesla's expansive Supercharger network while we continue to build out our Rivian Adventure Network. We look forward to continuing to find new ways to accelerate EV adoption," said Rivian founder and CEO RJ Scaringe in a statement.
In an email to customers, Rivian said that it would make adapters available, so people should not wait for the factory to switch over to the NACS port from CCS1. It also says that it will add Tesla charging sites to its mobile and vehicle navigation apps. From 2025, it will start building NACS ports into its vehicles. Like GM, Rivian is in the midst of deploying thousands of DC fast chargers with CCS1 plugs, and like GM, Rivian says that the switch to NACS does not affect those plans. As with Ford and GM, there are no details as to the terms of the deal between Rivian and Tesla.
In an email to customers, Rivian said that it would make adapters available, so people should not wait for the factory to switch over to the NACS port from CCS1. It also says that it will add Tesla charging sites to its mobile and vehicle navigation apps. From 2025, it will start building NACS ports into its vehicles. Like GM, Rivian is in the midst of deploying thousands of DC fast chargers with CCS1 plugs, and like GM, Rivian says that the switch to NACS does not affect those plans. As with Ford and GM, there are no details as to the terms of the deal between Rivian and Tesla.
Exciting! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Exciting! (Score:2, Informative)
Two of my neighbors have Rivians and love them. Try again.
Re:Exciting! (Score:5, Informative)
I see them all the time. A guy at my workplace has one. Hell I even see one parked at the Rotary Club regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
I finally saw my first R1T the other day, wow is that ugly. The -S looks fine (though, yes, the headlights are weird) but as a truck, yuck.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? The truck is cool. Way better looking than the SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
The truck is cool. Way better looking than the SUV.
Try the rear 3/4 view. It looks like the bed side is melting.
Re: Exciting! (Score:2)
Rivian's headlamps look like a giant pair of USB-C sockets to me.
Re: (Score:3)
I see a few driving around my neighborhood basically every day.
Not really sure what you're on about. Yes, a new auto maker isn't going to be cranking out 20m units a year. Big surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Once Rivian sells it's first EV the owner will have a place to charge it!
That was September 2021. (see. e.g., the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org])
Re:Exciting! (Score:4, Informative)
Once Rivian sells it's first EV the owner will have a place to charge it!
Given that I've seen a Rivian in my rural area of Texas, I don't think they're quite as rare as you're suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, they've sold a few billion dollars worth of them.
Calling it NACS is much more neutral. (Score:2)
Anyone can make cars/chargers with it now, so there's no need to make it "political" or whatever.
it's a superior standard for 1-phase and DC charging, so it's great that in a region where 3-phase isn't needed, we have the best option available.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone can make cars/chargers with it now, so there's no need to make it "political" or whatever.
it's a superior standard for 1-phase and DC charging, so it's great that in a region where 3-phase isn't needed, we have the best option available.
True, we narrowly dodged it being called AHTEOM (All Hail The Emperor Of Mars) connector but thankfully Tesla's marketing department managed to talk Elon out of it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes it superior? It cannot use J1772 charging, CCS1 can. In fact, NACS is nothing more than CCS1 in a different, incompatible package that cannot support already established AC chargers. It is not superior.
Also, NACS IS A POLITICAL NAME. It was named that so that Musk can assert that it is a standard. It is the Tesla proprietary solution, nothing has changed. Perhaps behind the scenes Tesla has dropped its unreasonable licensing, but that is all.
What would be much more interesting news is why s
Re:Calling it NACS is much more neutral. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is J1772 charging important? Does it mean it can charge the EV faster? Because that's the only thing I figure the average consumer is going to care about.
What makes NACs superior: From talking with EV charger installer/maintainers, and those with EV vehicles, I've gathered the following:
1. More capable. While CSS1 has been updated to increase it's capacity into Tesla's range, it was not yet capable of Supercharger levels of DC. From what I've read, NACS still has lots of room to grow, capacity wise, which CSS can't without changing up the physical system again.
2. More compact - NACS is a more compact connector compared to CSS, especially DC fast chargers.
3. More durable - The installer I talked to said that CSS connectors break frequently compared to NACS ones.
4. Easier to use - apparently it's easier to plug in a NACS connector than a CSS one.
As for why they're switching to NACS: Probably because most of the chargers in the USA are currently NACS due to Tesla, and Tesla made them a deal to switch, in the sense of pricing for their customers using the Tesla charging network.
I'm not sure why spinning off the supercharging network needs to be a sign of Tesla being "serious". Serious could be as simple as signing binding contracts for stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing would have been to adopt CCS2. It has the following advantages:
- Faster than NACS, 350kW and supports higher speeds.
- Supports 800V cars natively.
- Used by Europe so reduced cost for development of cars and chargers.
The higher speeds are a big deal, especially for commercial vehicles. Tesla says they have 1000V working, but have not deployed it anywhere. It's a Tesla promise, so... It's not just a question of cranking the power up either, you need water cooled cables and the like. The Tesla c
Re: (Score:2)
Advantages you list:
Used by Europe: Okay, maybe a little. On the other hand, NACS was developed by Tesla on Musk's orders because he didn't like the CCS connector and at the time it wasn't rated to ship enough power. Still, the standard is already developed, so "development costs" aren't that big of a deal anymore.
Supports 800V cars natively - Not an advantage for CSS2. NACS supports 1kV natively. Advantage: NACS.
350kW: NACS has been tested to 900A@1kV = 900kW. Over double that of CSS2. Advantage N
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla claims it supports 1kV but they don't have it working in public. Sounds like BS to me. Maybe one of the reasons why Cyber truck is delayed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of the specification though. Even at the low end, that means that CSS2 doesn't have the advantage, power wise, over NACs.
Re: (Score:2)
My new power supply is specified for over 9000 gigawatts. I've only demonstrated 5W, but it's in the spec so don't hesitate to pin your future on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike 9000 gigawatts, 1kV is a really common voltage. 900A is a lot, but again, something we already ship all the dang time.
What Tesla is claiming isn't absurd - they've apparently actually tested it. So trying to BS about cybertruck delays being because of this is the weird part. There's so many practical reasons why the cybertruck would be delayed, the charging port being the cause is very low on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, I think their issue is the connector and the cable. It's too small to handle that kind of power safely. It can work under ideal conditions, but in the real world ideal conditions don't exist.
CCS2 is bigger not because they couldn't design a smaller one, but because they needed to increase the size of the contact area and allow for thicker cables with built in water cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Like thicker cables and water cooling makes for an easier package...
Re: (Score:2)
However CCS is objectively "better" if we just stop pretending that chargers at "fuel stations" (aka convenience stores) and other chargers need to be the same.
3 phase power. (Score:2)
I'm going to have to disagree.
Okay, one, the main reason why you get fast kettles over in Europe isn't 3 phase power, it's because you can get 240V at the outlets. Electric kettles in the USA are, sadly, limited to 120V, 1500W. We can get higher power ones here, but they're more specialty items for commercial kitchens and such, and as such, are expensive.
Charging in the home in the USA isn't limited to 11kW, it's more 24kW. About the same as Europe. I'm sure some are limited to 11kW, but that's due to l
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, one, the main reason why you get fast kettles over in Europe isn't 3 phase power, it's because you can get 240V at the outlets. Electric kettles in the USA are, sadly, limited to 120V, 1500W. We can get higher power ones here, but they're more specialty items for commercial kitchens and such, and as such, are expensive.
That's because they (almost always) have two legs available at any time because, SURVEY SAYS!, they have 3 phase power on the premises. I got awful used to using high voltage devices because of that fact.
Charging in the home in the USA isn't limited to 11kW, it's more 24kW. About the same as Europe. I'm sure some are limited to 11kW, but that's due to legacy electrical, of course.
Curious, because I double checked home chargers yesterday the highest I saw was "12kw" but that's before overhead. Do me a favor though, I only see single phase chargers - be they in the US or Europe - Tesla or other vendors - listing 11kW for single phase and 22kW for 3 phase. Since 3 phase power in home
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess you are not related to any electricians.
Careful about guessing, it makes you look like an idiot. My brother's an electrician. Which actually detracts from your second point, in that I darn well know that the capability to ship 3 phase power to the car isn't going to help with "smart" chargers. Smart chargers are enabled by making the chargers able to communicate, with the cars and with each other or a control box to keep demand within a wider limit than just "have to be capable of full charging speed to all chargers at the same time". Such as
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also curious about 22kW single phase chargers. I did a quick search for them just in case chargers changed. Didn't matter if it was for sale in the EU or US. Even chargers that support 22kW on three phase state a limit of 11kW on single phase.
Boy. I wonder why Tesla (and EVERYONE ELSE) doesn't make home chargers all DC with cheap and simple re
Re: (Score:2)
Is he a competent electrician? I ask this because an apprentice electrician would be able to tell you the difference between single and three phase charging.
You fail to realize that I know the difference already. And yes, he's competent.
Boy. I wonder why Tesla (and EVERYONE ELSE) doesn't make home chargers all DC with cheap and simple rectifiers? So simple! Remove all the extra charging equipment from the car!
Because they want the capability to charge anywhere there's power, without necessarily needing to modify or install additional stuff. You can, worst case, charge a Tesla off a 15A@120V circuit(hopefully just for a top off or to get to a better charger), or get a useful overnight charge off a dryer socket that's 30A@240V.
Going from a AC to a DC charger, where you're doing a dedicated install anyways, shouldn't be much of a pric
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to realize that I know the difference already. And yes, he's competent.
Then he should start by schooling you on efficiency because what you're spouting is hilarious.
Because they want the capability to charge anywhere there's power, without necessarily needing to modify or install additional stuff. You can, worst case, charge a Tesla off a 15A@120V circuit(hopefully just for a top off or to get to a better charger), or get a useful overnight charge off a dryer socket that's 30A@240V.
B-b-but it's just a couple rectifiers so no big deal to that at home or anywhere with a little dc converter box just like a monitor. (eyeroll)
You backed yourself into a corner and are trying to suck and blow at the same time. DC is easy and cheap adding no real complexity and you need to keep all that heavy conversion hardware in the car so you can charge anywhere.
Going from a AC to a DC charger, where you're doing a dedicated install anyways, shouldn't be much of a price difference(once competition and such happens). Especially for a company like the USPS who'd buy enough to justify a production line all of their own.
B-b-but DC is just a couple rectifiers and su
Re: (Score:2)
B-b-but DC is just a couple rectifiers and such. That's like sooper cheapo and totes not complex at all. You, apparently, also have ZERO understanding about permitting and electrical codes.
Ah, reduced to strawmanning me. You're the one saying a monitor converter would be enough. You're eyerolling at your own statement.
1. Brother agrees with me.
2. Denying that I have knowledge just highlights how you don't actually have any argument, thus need to resort to personal attacks.
Because going after the probable price difference between an AC charging station and a similar power DC charger, especially with the possible costs of extending 3 phase to a building, is apparently too hard for you.
Look
Re: (Score:2)
B-b-but DC is just a couple rectifiers and such. That's like sooper cheapo and totes not complex at all. You, apparently, also have ZERO understanding about permitting and electrical codes.
Ah, reduced to strawmanning me. You're the one saying a monitor converter would be enough. You're eyerolling at your own statement.
No you said above, and I quote:
Going from AC to DC just requires some rectifiers. Not hugely expensive.
1. Brother agrees with me.
The electrical contractors I know question his competency.
2. Denying that I have knowledge just highlights how you don't actually have any argument, thus need to resort to personal attacks.
Because going after the probable price difference between an AC charging station and a similar power DC charger, especially with the possible costs of extending 3 phase to a building, is apparently too hard for you.
What's truly amazing here is you think that businesses (in general) don't have access to 3 phase. Sure your average retail mall customer probably won't have 3 phase at their terminal, but the building has a better than even chance of having it for the multi-ton AC units on the roof. I mean, do you general contract at all? You sound like someone trying to to be smart but not knowing how commercial or industrial struct
Re: (Score:2)
No you said above, and I quote:
Thus proving you were strawmanning me. Why do you persist in proving yourself wrong?
I said that the rectifiers are "not hugely expensive". That is a drastically different statement than that you could use the power supply from a monitor to charge an EV.
Ergo, you rewrote what I wrote, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not, but you did so in order to more easily attack. It's a lot easier to attack something ridiculous like using a small power supply to charge an EV than it is to attack a bit of equipment stand
Re: (Score:2)
You're so adorable.
Re: (Score:2)
NACS replaces J1772 charging by having its own fast-charge functionality, and NACS vehicles can still use CCS J1772 charging via an adapter, so in that sense, NACS does support J1772 charging. This won't matter long-term, since J1772 charging will probably eventually disappear in North America due to market forces.
Some advantages of NACS are the much smaller and easier to use connector, much thinner cable, a much larger number of available charging stations. Disadvantages of NACS are its association with El
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, NACS is nothing more than CCS1 in a different, incompatible package that cannot support already established AC chargers.
You could phrase that equally well the opposite way: CCS1 is nothing more than NACS in a different, incompatible package that cannot support the already well-established Tesla chargers."
Since more than half the electric vehicles sold are Teslas, and Tesla has a coast-to-coast supercharger network already, it makes sense for the standard to be the one that the most cars on the road use.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't even a global standard for on which side of the vehicle to put the steering wheel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NACS is easier to use than CCS. It is smaller, lighter, with a better connection mechanism. The connectors have a longer lifespan and tend to experience fewer errors while charging. An article on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] from last year that decried the poor reliability of fast DC chargers specifically called out CCS cable weight as a contributing factor.
NACS is basically a fork of the J1772 standard. It uses the same five pins, the same signaling for AC charging, and a similar locking system. As such, a Tesla can
Re: (Score:1)
Try to be informed before trying to sound pithy, please.
CCS is horrible. It is a massively bulky charging connector. I have practical experience with this. My first EV was a BMW i3 and I had to charge A LOT... because it had rather low range (even using the Range Extender which couldn't keep up with highway power requirements). CCS uses J1772 and adds on DC Fast Charging that bypasses the charging inverter, but still uses it, as well. Teslas (and now others using the NACS) can use J1772 with a simple a
Re: (Score:2)
It also explicitly acknowledges the inevitable practice of the US once again going for a standard that nothing else on earth apart from them uses [*], just because.
[*] Well, Myanmar and Liberia will probably use it too.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a superior standard for 1-phase and DC charging, so it's great that in a region where 3-phase isn't needed, we have the best option available.
I don't really get this. 3 phase isn't exactly nonexistent in the US. Sure, houses aren't normally wired up to have it, but it's not exactly rare since power is shipped around as 3 phase. Also, you know how a lot of high draw appliances are quoted as 220/208V? The latter is the voltage you get from a 3 phase system.
Any commercial site will have it, and then you'l
Re: (Score:2)
No, appliances rated at 208/220V (often 208/230V, actually) are just that, rated to operate at the current draw and voltage of either. I've worked with a lot of 208V, single phase equipment, see here [marleymep.com] for examples.
You can have 208V/1Ph or 208V/3Ph, or 220V/1Ph or 220V/3Ph. These are all possible and distinct (Though "220V" is usually more accurately identified as 230V or 240
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should add that small customers, like houses, usually get just 2 legs of the three phases plus a neutral. Line to line gives 240V or 208V, line to neutral gives 120V.
Incorrect, US 240V power is single phase that has been split (making split phase), not 3 phase.
Houses and other small customers are powered by a transformer fed from one leg of a 3 phase system, the transformer is is center tapped so it has 2 120V outputs which are 180 degrees out of phase with each other (so one is at +120V and the other is at -120V when compared to ground), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for details
Actual three phase power has each phase 120 degrees apart from each other (which is
Re: (Score:2)
No, appliances rated at 208/220V (often 208/230V, actually) are just that, rated to operate at the current draw and voltage of either.
Yes, but isn't it commonly the case that 220V is available from the standard 220V split phase system most houses have (i.e. 110v from hot to neutral) and 208V is the voltage across any pair of phases if you have a 3 phase supply with each phase to neutral being 110V.
I've come around (Score:4, Informative)
As long as my Mustang gets a NACS to CCS converter I'm all for it now. I was originally pretty upset with Ford for switching and splitting the market. But with GM and others following, I'm pretty happy because NACS is superior.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe vehicle to grid is included in the spec and was part of the design from the beginning.
Re: I've come around (Score:2)
Note that j1772, ccs1, and Tesla's connectors are all 5 pin connectors with the same pin roles. The main difference is that Tesla specifies that there be contactors physically changing whether the on board charger should be connected (ac input) or left out of the circuit (dc charging). Only then it's the source allowed to start providing power. I'm short, ccs/j1772 and nacs should be capable of providing the exact same featureset.
Interestingly, there are v2h solutions that work without the feature that f
Re: (Score:2)
NACS being the standard here will require major reworks that will effectively price out many earlier adopters from fast charging just because Tesla could design an
Apple's "Project Titan" (Score:5, Funny)
Any news on whether Apple is going to retain the Lightning Connector for its upcoming electric vehicle?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it will be the exact same connector as the iphone but the size of a ping-pong racket, apple will say it is wonderful because you can connect it either way, but it will not be watertight and will only charge at USB 2, I mean, level 2 speeds.
It's probably a good thing (Score:3)
Re: It's probably a good thing (Score:3)
The big public spending that went towards ccs was probably why other manufacturers got to use the connector.
Tesla didn't seriously make it available until after the big incentives were announced that would disqualify a proprietary, single vendor plug standard. Then faced with the reality that they would miss out on the cash and the competition would get a boost that could erode their relevance, suddenly it makes sense to allow third party use of their connector, collect that charging revenue and make it le
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you got the "typing lots of stuff" down pretty good. Next we need to move you on to basic math.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I've already posted, otherwise you'd get points. ;)
Like people in the USA would accept a 30 mph universal maximum speed limit. The double nickel was nearly universally ignored. Even lower in cities, yeah right?
It takes special solar panels to utilize concentrated light(the whole putting spotlights on cars to charge them nonsense). How are you getting the power for that? Charging a battery directly is much more efficient than the 10% or so that would be, at maximum.
Also, parents are accountants. IR
Re: (Score:2)
For example, when the 55 mph national speed limit was ended, a friend of mine said "I don't care how high they raise the speed limit, I'm not slowing down."
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Really the best way to refute the "why not just have solar panels on my CAR and let the sun recharge it instead of ever plugging it in" is to point them to the solar car challenge held periodically - cars powered by nothing but the sun. Stripping out every safety feature imaginable (which is what Unscanned is advocating) and making them little more than an enclosed bicycle - no comfort, no passengers, no cargo space, no carrying capacity, no heat or AC, etc. - they STILL can't get moving at more tha
This is a good thing (Score:3)
The CCS connector is bulky and unwieldy and reeks of design by committee
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It requires a car to have separate cables inside the car(adding weight) for AC and DC power. Indeed, it can even take 3 phase power.
While that may be common in Europe, in the USA it's semi-rare. Restricted to industrial sites.
But I've looked at various power solutions, charging solutions, and all that. There's minimal gain in separating AC and DC power. For example, while I wouldn't trust it unless it's engineered and rated for it, most switchmode power supplies should work just fine off of DC
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>> 3 phase AC to the DC electricity that the car battery really need is silly
Which extra weight ?
OBC is the same for US and EU versions.
US version puts the 3 converters in parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
OBC is the same for US and EU versions.
Which OBC are you talking about? On Board Charger, On Board Computer, Other Backward Classes, etc? Just for clarity sake.
And the US putting the 3 converters in parallel is basically the point - that's less wiring going TO the charger, of fairly hefty gauge, so less weight.
It's also less weight in the charging connectors, as they need fewer wires.
AC power (Score:2)
>> that's less wiring going TO the charger, of fairly hefty gauge, so less weight.
>> It's also less weight in the charging connectors, as they need fewer wires.
Nope. 3-phase needs less copper weight than single phase for the same transmitted power, even if there are more wires
>> I don't read AC.
Yes, exactly. your knowledge of AC power is incomplete.
Which AC are you speaking about ? :) Just for clarity sake.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. It requires a car to have separate cables inside the car(adding weight) for AC and DC power. Indeed, it can even take 3 phase power.
No, it can't. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] connector ("Type 1") used in the US doesn't even have the pins for 3 phase power, it uses 1 phase and neutral, or a second phase instead of neutral. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ("Type 2") connector used in Europe can carry 3 phase power, but the power supply to actually deal with it is optional for those vehicles where it is available at all.
But I've looked at various power solutions, charging solutions, and all that. There's minimal gain in separating AC and DC power. For example, while I wouldn't trust it unless it's engineered and rated for it, most switchmode power supplies should work just fine off of DC power input instead of AC. This may break down with safety circuits, building the cheapest power supply possible, filtering, etc...
It looks like you have not understood how DC fast charging works. When in DC mode, the charger (power supply) in the vehicle is bypassed entirely, and, after some safety checks and handshakes, the battery is connected directly to the socket and thereby the charging station. For NACS, you probably need extra switching circuitry to disconnect the vehicle side power supply, because it would probably be unhappy when fed 400V DC.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that the DC from superchargers bypass the on-board charger, with the charging station taking over handling the charging.
But I'm trying to be as generic as possible, and CSS2 has so many charging options that if you want to be able to maximize charging in all situations it can get very complicated. Because there's also modes where you're doing 1 phase power, but double the amperage, because you switch to 2 power and 2 neutral wires, rather than 3 phases and a neutral. There's even an option to ship
Meanwhile outside the USA ... (Score:2)
The rest of the world has their own standard charger connectors ... and has done for some time
Tesla and all the other manufacturers support them already ... or they couldn't sell cars outside the USA
I blame government (Score:1)
This should be regulated as zoo of such standards is harmful to most if not all the parties, but most of all, the consumers.
And before you go into "OMG, government bad", think about USB-C pushed by EU.
80% of recently bought devices can charge over USB-C.
The remaining bit, can still be charged over USB and that includes a vibrator.
Why i haven't bought an EV yet (Score:1)
I'll wait for a car with both types of connectors.
BTW What's with mustangs having the connector on the driver's side? Makes curbside charging really awkward. Stupid.