-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Rivian Vs Tesla
- Thread starter bayx
- Start date
T3slaOwner
Member Extraordinaire
I don't agree at all. I believe (and it is a belief rather than a fact of course) that Tesla is too new a company for the majority of potential EV buyers to consider buying a car from, much less an EV. I believe the majority of new car buyers will buy from a more established company than Tesla once they are comfortable with buying an EV. While Tesla has been very innovative in many areas of EV design and manufacturing, many of those innovations either have not made up for Tesla's lack of experience in mass producing autos or lack of institutional knowledge in designing cars that mainstream buyers want.
We can argue these points all day long, but the real issue that overrides all these is that Tesla is straining at every seam to open a new factory in China while bringing a new model Y to market. GM and Ford will be bringing dozens of models to market by the time the Tesla pickup production is announced. No matter what Tesla does, the big iron auto makers will swamp them with new models that don't try to reinvent the car buyers preferences, but rather cater to them. With ever larger production numbers will come ever lower prices as well and the contest will be over.... maybe...
I read that Tesla has some new patents that may make some huge cost improvements for them, but the devil is in the details. So we will see if innovation can best established auto wisdom.
You are wrong.
Charge time is the same. Range is same if consumption is doubled, since battery capacity is also double the size.
It's not rocket science. If you drive x miles at y Wh/mi you must replace x*y Wh to replenish the battery to the same SoC at which you started out. The Rivian specs suggest 450 Wh/mi. Telsa's numbers are appreciably less than that (around 300). Therefore, to drive the same distance in a Rivian you will need 1.5 times the kWh as you would in a Tesla and, for the same size charger, will have to charge 1.5 times longer.
Again I encourage people to try hypothetical trips in Abetterrouteplanner. This effect will be obvious if you do.
Again I encourage people to try hypothetical trips in Abetterrouteplanner. This effect will be obvious if you do.
If let's say it is charged on a max 150kW charger. A car with a 100kWh battery starts reducing max power with increasing SoC sooner. While a car with a 150kWh battery can charge at max speed for longer period. So even in that case the 1.5x doesn't apply.
AndreyATC
Member
I dont think Rivian can charge at 350Kw, like Taycan, but here is my $0.02:
Rivian needs roughly 80-90 min (@ advertised 150kw) to be able to drive next 400 miles
So one stop gets you ~800 miles when you start your trip fully charged from home.
Tesla will need at least two charging sessions, 40min each to get 200 twice + 3rd quick 20min stop for final 100 miles
300+200+200+100=800miles
Efficiency is good and all, but less stops = less time you occupy the charger. And bigger battery = faster sustained charge
In this rough estimate it could be very similar for both, depending when Rivian will start tapering off and V3 availability for Tesla.
So, it's a draw
P.S. Think about comparison between new raven X and Model S 75D. Which car will have longer stops and gets to destination sooner?
One is more efficient, but smaller battery
Rivian needs roughly 80-90 min (@ advertised 150kw) to be able to drive next 400 miles
So one stop gets you ~800 miles when you start your trip fully charged from home.
Tesla will need at least two charging sessions, 40min each to get 200 twice + 3rd quick 20min stop for final 100 miles
300+200+200+100=800miles
Efficiency is good and all, but less stops = less time you occupy the charger. And bigger battery = faster sustained charge
In this rough estimate it could be very similar for both, depending when Rivian will start tapering off and V3 availability for Tesla.
So, it's a draw
P.S. Think about comparison between new raven X and Model S 75D. Which car will have longer stops and gets to destination sooner?
One is more efficient, but smaller battery
Last edited:
It's not just ridiculous, but its likely the opposite.
Here is what likely happens.
Company A comes out with an EV, and a handful of people check it out. Of those people that check it out a small percentage will buy it, and this causes more people to look at it. This grows steadily as more, and more people look at it. Lots of people are initially reluctant with new things unless they have a friend or family member that has one.
Eventually Company B comes out with an EV that might be slightly different, but with a lot of carry over. To the Model X this would be the E-Tron, and the Rivian. This Company B will have it's own marketing, and sales pitches. They'll fly media out to check out the car, and they'll wine and dine them too. Like what Porsche is currently doing with lots of websites checking out the Taycan. So this causes more and more people to look into EV's. Some of them will like the offering from company A, and some will like the offering from company B.
It doesn't eat into the sales of Company A because it added so many more customers to the pool.
Especially if it's something exciting like a Porsche or a Rivian.
Something that people check out, but don't have the money to afford.
The marketing for Rivian has been especially good so I'd be surprised if that alone hasn't caused more people to strongly consider an EV SUV/Pickup as their next vehicle.
JonathanDandrea
Member
I think Rivian has some really nice concepts and can’t wait to get in one to check it out but 700 million from ford and amazon doesn’t get you a decade of real world powertrain and battery research and development. Porsche spent billions and have much better engineers than ford and are still lagging behind with their not even released product.
I am hopeful but show me a real product before I draw any conclusions. Tesla is pretty far ahead in the area that matters most whether you like their product or not.
I am hopeful but show me a real product before I draw any conclusions. Tesla is pretty far ahead in the area that matters most whether you like their product or not.
Only if charger is infinite capacity.
I poked around and found some not working. How do you tell functional status and how many occupied while on the road?
The network provides this information. Mercedes EQC has already implemented it. I guess everyone will adopt this feature over time.
OK, lets say we run a Tesla such that we use 80% of its battery (80 kWh) which should carry me 266.67 mi at 300 Wh/mi which is what I get. Assume we arrive at a 150 kW charger with 10% remaining and want to replace the charge we used on the trip. Thus we'd need to charge from 10% to 90% . A charger with with 80% linear taper (20% of rates at 100% SoC) will require 59.48 minutes to charge the Tesla from 10% to 90%. Running that same 266.67 miles in a Rivian at 450 Wh/mi uses 119.73 kWh which is 66.5% of its 180 kWh battery's capacity. Assuming it also arrives at the charger with 10% it would need to be charged to 76.5% of capacity to replace the 119.7 kWh. A 150 kW charger with the same taper would require 77.72 minutes to charge the Rivian. That's a factor of 1.3 times longer. This ratio does not, BTW, depend on the size of the charger but it does depend on the taper curve. I used a linear one for simplicity and another linear of different slope will give a different answer as will ones with different shape. For example, if I use an exponential taper (faster at low SoC) but to the same level at 100% SoC then the ratio increases slightly (1.314).
And, of course, charging at home where there is no taper the ratio will be 1.5.
Thus taper does have an effect which depends on the taper but the basic concept, that you will have to charge longer if you are adding more charge because your Wh/mi requirement is higher, remains clear as common sense dictates.
Again I suggest experimentation with ABRP to help you grasp this.
Last edited:
They promise "up to 160kW" only. I would be surprised if that's true even if they stay on the 400V system.
Audi E-tron can keep charging at 140kW net speed on the ~95kWh battery up to 70% SoC.
Using the same technology the 180kWh Rivian could charge at 265kW flat up to 70%. Can reach 350kW at low SoC.
Mercedes EQC (~90kWh) charges flat at 110kW up to 40%, reaches 100kW at 50% SoC. 80kW at 70%.
That equals for Rivian to 220kW / 200kW / 160kW
I guess ABetterRoutePlanner uses 160kW max, I put the Raven S LR and the Rivian in there from Brussels to Munich. They reach the destination at nearly the same time.
Tesla 6:25h, 783km, Rivian 6:16h, 767km
When you factor in the taper, do you adjust it to the size of the battery? Taper is a function of the battery, not the charger.
Look at the more conservative Mercedes EQC comparison in my previous post. If Rivian matches the Mercedes EQC tech, the 180kWh pack could take 160kW charge speed up to 70% SoC. If we use a 150kW charger with 10% efficiency loss, 119.7 kWh / 135kW = 53 min.
Yes, taper was adjusted to the battery and assumes that Rivian's tapering scheme and Tesla's are the same. We do see claims from time to time that manufacturers have new battery technologies that allow charging without taper or with reduced taper. If Rivian, or any other manufacturer, can recharge without taper it will have a tremendous advantage over Tesla which does taper. By adjusting the relative taper profiles on vehicles being compared you can come up with any answer you want. Knowing what we know now it seems reasonable to assume the tapers are the same. I don't know what ABRP does in this regard but I still think its a good idea to try some trips with it. If I put in a couple of routes for my annual migration from Quebec to Virginia (about 600 miles) total trip time is about 11 and a half hours in the X100D and about an hour and a half longer with the R1T. Note that not all the extra time goes for charging. Some goes to extra miles that need to be driven to get to the chargers as the EA etc. terminals are not as dense as the SC's. I sure that one can find, however, routes (for example between two Walmarts) where EA chargers are better located that Super Chargers. At this point ABRP is probably the best way to determine what your Rivian experience is likely to be for you.
Of more concern than an hour or so extra charging to me is the bad press the EA network is getting. It's interesting to browse the i-Pace users group to see what they have to say about charging their cars. One thread advocates getting a "Tesla Tap" and using Tesla destination chargers. Sample quote: "I really like this car in most respects, but it is an extreme understatement that almost everything about the charging seems poorly thought out. I suspect that in the coming years higher speed charging for non-Teslas will become more readily available. BUT, for now, it is horrid." That was dated today.
I have to say that this has NOT been my experience in Quebec where most of the non Telsa charging has been Circuit Electrique. Every one of their stations I have used worked smoothly and I have not had to wait.
Of more concern than an hour or so extra charging to me is the bad press the EA network is getting. It's interesting to browse the i-Pace users group to see what they have to say about charging their cars. One thread advocates getting a "Tesla Tap" and using Tesla destination chargers. Sample quote: "I really like this car in most respects, but it is an extreme understatement that almost everything about the charging seems poorly thought out. I suspect that in the coming years higher speed charging for non-Teslas will become more readily available. BUT, for now, it is horrid." That was dated today.
I have to say that this has NOT been my experience in Quebec where most of the non Telsa charging has been Circuit Electrique. Every one of their stations I have used worked smoothly and I have not had to wait.
Last edited:
Tesla uses NCA chemistry, everyone else uses NMC. NCA has lower thermal runaway temperature, therefore it has to be tapered faster than NMC. There is a reason why Audi and Mercedes can hold the charging speed high for longer.
I did, see above. Replying to someone else's comment.
Actually the Model 3 with the latest software update matches the NMC's quite well,
Tesla raises Model 3 charge capacity to 200 kW - electrive.com
it reaches 80kW charging speed on a 80kWh battery at displayed 73% SoC. Real SoC = (4kWh+73%*76kWh)/80kWh = 74%
If you had used this tapering curve, that puts the Rivian to 180kW net charging speed at 74% SoC.
Audi on the video included in the link above reaches 95kW on it's ~95kWh battery at displayed 83%. That is 83%*83.6kWh/95kWh = 76% real SoC.
Tesla raises Model 3 charge capacity to 200 kW - electrive.com
it reaches 80kW charging speed on a 80kWh battery at displayed 73% SoC. Real SoC = (4kWh+73%*76kWh)/80kWh = 74%
If you had used this tapering curve, that puts the Rivian to 180kW net charging speed at 74% SoC.
Audi on the video included in the link above reaches 95kW on it's ~95kWh battery at displayed 83%. That is 83%*83.6kWh/95kWh = 76% real SoC.
Last edited:
T3slaOwner
Member Extraordinaire
You can say the power train matters "most" but unless the differences are visible no one is going to buy based on that. Tesla has a lead, but I believe it will be very easy to overcome if others make quality products and don't fall down in the ways that Tesla does.
So far GM seems to have completely dropped the ball on the Bolt. I spoke to them twice and each time got no useful info on charging. That is their shortcoming, not that it's not available, but that they aren't involved in it. That is changing, they are teaming with Bechtel to put up their own network and I am pretty sure it won't be a slouch. Can't say why they even came out with the Bolt since they also don't promote it and many dealers don't carry it or service it. I guess they have that in common with Tesla, but at least they aren't trying to pump out half a million a year.
In a couple more years it will be very different. Tesla will be struggling with getting the semi and pickup into production and GM, Ford and others will have multiple choices for the consumer with a much larger charging network to help promote the cars.
If the other charging networks hit the consumer up with higher fuel costs than at gas stations it won't be good, but 95% of buyers will charge at home so it won't matter so much. Still, they have to be in place and they have to be highly visible meaning they have to be in every city, town and county where you want to sell EVs.
I was playing around with ABRP and comparing my my current X90D, X Raven, and then Rivian R1S 135 and 180. I did some trips from Chicago to Colorado and the difference in total trip time from a Raven to the 180k Rivian was pretty small (I think about 20 minutes faster for the Raven). The 135 falls shorter than the Raven, but I was pretty impressed with the overall times on the large battery Rivian.
The trip that I make most is from Chicago to a place in Wisco which is about 4 hours. We always have to stop about halfway to Supercharge the X90D for about 30 minutes. When I switch the plan to the Raven I still have to stop and charge about 10 minutes. When I put in the 180 Rivian, there is no stopping.
I will say that the estimate cost for filling up on the EA network was crazy. I believe Chicago to Denver was like $257 estimate.
The trip that I make most is from Chicago to a place in Wisco which is about 4 hours. We always have to stop about halfway to Supercharge the X90D for about 30 minutes. When I switch the plan to the Raven I still have to stop and charge about 10 minutes. When I put in the 180 Rivian, there is no stopping.
I will say that the estimate cost for filling up on the EA network was crazy. I believe Chicago to Denver was like $257 estimate.
Personally I pre-ordered Rivian R1S and canceled it after seeing it in NYC auto show. Rivian had to cover long way to match with Tesla and it will match at some point, charging is the main issue as Electrify America charge rates at present r very expensive. Autopilot also had a long way to go as their fleet is yet to start on roads.
Range is one thing I am interested, SUV looks more boxy in shape not sure how much drag coefficient they achieved with that design. Prototype they showed had shifters which can be used for torque vectoring (not for re-gen braking like other models in market).
In the first place no one, except Rivian, knows whether the Rivian cathodes will be NCA or NMC. NCA doesn't start to run away until somewhat over 150 °C. I doubt they would allow charging to take place at temperatures that high (higher than the boiling point of some of the commonly used electrolytes). NMC is better in this regard (240 °C) but of course normal charging temperature is even less likely to approach that. Thus I don't think fear of runaway due to cathode chemistry choice is what determines taper. I believe, and I am no battery expert by any stretch of the imagination, that taper is applied for the sake of battery longevity (at higher charge rates lithium ion intercalation is less complete resulting in irreversable plating of lithium metal onto the electrode and common sense says this effect is more prevalent at high and low SoC) and, skeptical SOB that I am, to get you out of the SC faster. In any case I don't presume to understand how or why, in detail, how Tesla or anyone else tapers.
I'm sure there is but I have no idea what it may be..
You live in California but ran Munich to Brussles? I think you'll lean more by running some of the trips you make most often. And you need to do several and understand why you are seeing what you are seeing.
Similar threads
- Article
