Search results

You are under false impressions regarding standards ownership. Just about all standards contain proprietary IP licensed under FRAND conditions as a precondition to standardization. The J1772 plug on which CCS-1 is based is a proprietary Yazaki design which is licensed to anyone who wants it...

Agreed. Of all the plug standards, the European Mennekes based CCS-2, the China G/T plug, Telsa NACS the next Gen CHAdeMO (not the old one), the J1772/CCS-1 is the absolute worst physical implementation. WE DESERVE BETTER! I would prefer any of those chosen over CCS-1, but for North America...

To be fair, Ford has electric Transit vans too. At the end of the day, commercial users are driven by TCO, so Rivian’s main challenge is to ensure they are cost competitive with e-Transits, Brightdrops, e-Sprinters and any other e-vans coming down the pipeline.

Very true. Auto industry CEOs are under heavy pressure during this electrification transition period, so have to say the things Wall St wants to hear. They all understand it’s part of the job. Some CEOs have a friendly relationship like Farley and Musk, so they understand talking points are...

And that is why one should always remove your company livery before selling a vehicle! Just like the police remove their decals before selling cruisers so people don’t pretend to be cops (well, some nutters probably still try, but at least they're forced to make fake decals).

Hardly……. Ford dominates the small fleet business, just look around your neighborhood. And Amazon (UPS & FedEx too) buy tons of Transit vans. Amazon has always said they will not have a single source supplier. Rivian picked off some potentially profitable segments to help get their business...

I think people underestimate the role of GM as the cause of so many bad CCS deployments. Of the legacy manufacturers, only GM had the scale and resources to drive/fund a public charging network deployment, or at least drive/fund a common industry effort for a viable national network. They chose...

- CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different for reasons explained, do some homework - Tesla has opened NACS IP, so no issue; Back end protocol is actually same as CCS, do some homework - No one ‘wants’ adapters, they put up with them waiting for the proper solution - Everyone wants one plug, right now there...

I think you might be under estimating the impact of the large Supercharger deployment, which is universally seen as far superior and reliable to any CCS-1 implementation. It is a decade ahead and makes long distance travel practical thus relieving range anxiety. Note that had the CCS-1 crowd...

Rubbish, that is simply a design issue that will be engineered to suit the purpose, including safety. That’s what engineers do, and apparently have done for years in the Telsa implementation case.

Not true, I have never owned a Tesla and never will own one. Don’t like them, don’t like the management. Nor do I hang around here spewing Tesla propaganda. But I’m not stupid enough to ignore the plug engineering nor the impact reality of Ford’s decision. Go ahead and put me and others on...

- Cost, including materials economy - Historical reliability - Size, weight - Ease of use - Mechanical lock simplicity Is there anything that CCS-1 does better?

Plenty of pointless bickering in this thread. Disappointing there wasn’t more informed dialog. Yes there will some additional interlock relays on the Tesla, but the cost is trivial compared to the copper cable savings over CCS with the Tesla common cable switchable AC or D.C. implementation...

Agreed, that would be the ideal configuration, especially for someome who regularly does long distance driving. It shouldn’t be a unicorn, but most manufacturers are dropping PHEVs like a hot potato, except the Japanese. In addition to Toyota/Lexus, a possible contender would be the new Mazda...

Well effectively this could provide that capability. The primary motor gear ratios could be upped for higher speeds whilst still supporting low end grunt using the second gear reduction. But such a configuration wouldn’t impact high speed range significantly since the motor rpm at the upper end...

It’s very likely because these units are for the domestic US market and not intended to be shipped by sea. The main reason (from the manufacturers perspective) for having a threaded eye bolt is for tying down on RoRo ships.

Yes, market cap is about $15b, so close to cash value. But they’re going to spend it all regardless, so not a useful measurement. Better to look at it in context of its peers. Rivian is currently worth about 1/3 of Ford or GM or Stellantis, all of which have strong existing sales and competent...

Hot tip for Kyle Out of Spec videos: Run it at 1.5x playback speed. It’s the only way to filter out the key information in a reasonable amount of time without dying of boredom or drowning in verbal diarrhea.

Nice. A $55 solution to what should have been done properly at the factory. Wish I could get rid of the glass roof altogether.

Went to the Dallas show and tell event yesterday, asked several RivIan staff about the tonneau and got a different answer from each one. Bottom line is no one knows what the plan is, and any one, rep or guide, who tells you differently is just bullshitting you. In fact, listening to some of...