Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

All discussion of Rivian Automotive

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
While it hasn't been explicitly stated AFAIK, my 100% belief is that other manufacturers cannot and will not be able to charge at non Magic Dock Tesla Superchargers without an agreement with Tesla. I agree with Rob here. If you believe otherwise, can you offer any reason why?

BTW, I have yet to see the NACS communication/authentication specs. Has anyone else seen it?
  1. 4.5.1 For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN 70121.
  2. 4.5.2 The North American Charging Standard is compatible with “plug and charge” as defined in:ISO-15118https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
    As an additional point, those two standards DID 70121 and ISO-1511 are also applicable standards for CharIN. The interconnections are therefore quite uniform and uncontroversial. Anyone who already complies with CCS in either version is already working with those standards. The crucial point for interoperability is ISDO-15118 which IS REQUIRED for any plug and charge. For several manufacturers it seems that is a difficult task, primarily because the payment component is quite explicit, and ends out eliminating the OEM apps, although those apps are themselves effectively required to replicate ISO-15118 communications, while bypassing the simpler and more elegant vehicle to charger communication , payment for which must be preauthorized through Tesla software.
There will certainly be some innovation enabling different standards that organize pass-through of some sort enabling plug-and-play but bypassing the existing Tesla-only process. This is a very thorny standards issue that was long debated until someone had the bright idea of following established PowerLine Communications Standards:

The bottom line is that Tesla, in NACS used universal standard protocols that were used in houses, buildings and everywhere else, so compliance from the Supercharger to the vehicle is simple. That, however, was novel, but CharIN did the same thing, so evolving to ISO-15118.

ISO standard documents are simple to download but are quite expensive, so you really need specific technical specifications to pay the price.
 
Last edited:
  1. 4.5.1 For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN 70121.
  2. 4.5.2 The North American Charging Standard is compatible with “plug and charge” as defined in ISO-15118https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Charging_Standard_Technical_Specification_TS-0023666_HFTPKZ.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22North-American-Charging-Standard-Technical-Specification-TS-0023666.pdf%22
    As an additional point, those two standards DID 70121 and ISO-1511 are also applicable standards for CharIN. The interconnections are therefore quite uniform and uncontroversial. Anyone who already complies with CCS in either version is already working with those standards. The crucial point for interoperability is ISDO-15118 which IS REQUIRED for any plug and charge. For several manufacturers it seems that is a difficult task, primarily because the payment component is quite explicit, and ends out eliminating the OEM apps, although those apps are themselves effectively required to replicate ISO-15118 communications, while bypassing the simpler and more elegant vehicle to charger communication , payment for which must be preauthorized through Tesla software.
Have you seen the spec? As usual for these standards, they aren’t free. Costs a lot to download the documents.
 
Have you seen the spec? As usual for these standards, they aren’t free. Costs a lot to download the documents.
I have, including early drafts. The entire standard was really almost identical to preexisting PLC standards, although newer versions have diverged somewhat. FWIW, HomeLink technology has also been used by Tesla, but PLC has supplanted RF primarily for security. When we access our cars with Bluetooth I'm not certain that PLC is much more secure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Rivian's spend on public chargers seems primarily designed to influence their typically naive potential buyer. But they do seem to have backed off on funding a lot of level 2 chargers.

But Rivian's fundamental problem remains the need to sell R2 at a rate of a couple hundred thousand per year at a profit.
 
Looks like a pretty good quarter, while inventory continues to increase, they are down to 41 days of supply.

1688393495302.png
 
Nice! Also nice to see inventory reducing. Unlike Lucid, which seems to be on life support, Rivian has a shot at making it. Margins will be important since Rivian’s margins have been extremely negative. The street will be looking for a significant improvement with some words on a a path to break even. Still not out of the woods yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJD and mspohr
Unlike Lucid, which seems to be on life support, Rivian has a shot at making it.
Yes, I've been saying exactly this. They aren't out of the woods, but they've at least found the path. These Q2 numbers are a big boost.

Margins will be important since Rivian’s margins have been extremely negative. The street will be looking for a significant improvement with some words on a a path to break even.
Margins will be awful until their huge parts and supplies purchase commitments roll off. That's a 2024 thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr