POLL: Would you like Rivian to adopt NACS Tesla charging standard?

[RivAW]

Would they retrofit this to already produced/delivered vehicles?

By the way charging at a supercharger with a non Tesla is much more expensive than using other EVCS.

edit: crazy phone.

No chance. It isn't financial (or likely mechanically) reasonable. Much more likely that a deal would look similar to Ford and GM with future vehicles getting NACS ports and existing owners being offered an adapter to purchase. Also, the Fast Charging cost depends on a bunch of factors including particular memberships, time of day and location. Point in fact, I recently had to pay about .12/kwh more to charge at an EVGO fast charger that when I charged 2 weeks ago at on of the few Tesla magic dock supercharger locations.

Sponsored

 

[scottie]

Getting tired of repeating myself:

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...al-mistake-for-the-consumer.15918/post-346745

Take the L, DuoRivians. The poll results are decisive.

 

[RyanLF]

No chance. It isn't financial (or likely mechanically) reasonable. Much more likely that a deal would look similar to Ford and GM with future vehicles getting NACS ports and existing owners being offered an adapter to purchase. Also, the Fast Charging cost depends on a bunch of factors including particular memberships, time of day and location. Point in fact, I recently had to pay about .12/kwh more to charge at an EVGO fast charger that when I charged 2 weeks ago at on of the few Tesla magic dock supercharger locations.

Tesla did it, why not Rivian? Tesla has a program where you can pay $450 to retrofit older models so they can use Tesla's CCS adapter and charge at CCS stations. I'd gladly pay $450+ to retrofit a Rivian to NACS.

 

[Tatnai]

I voted no, but if control of Tesla’s plug is transferred to an independent body I would possibly vote yes.

This is why I voted undecided

 

[mkhuffman]

You aren't listening. NACS is not Supercharging by default.

As clearly stated in a previous post, I understand that. But Ford has reached an agreement to use the SC network even with my non-NACS MME. They will provide adapters once the SC network is set up to connect to Ford's network. Future MMEs will have the NACS connector built in and won't need the adapter.

I suspect Ford will be taking a cut every time I use a SC (like they already do when I use EA), but I don't care. I just want better public charging. Right now it sucks, as I repeat myself.

 

[mkhuffman]

I don't live in the same world you are. Apparently the richest people in your world are trustworthy and have humanity's best interests at heart in every decision they make.

You assume the benevolent industry standards groups have humanity's best interests at heart. I don't assume anyone does. And a group of industry leaders getting together to set a standard that everyone follows is not necessarily an improvement over one company doing it.

Your fears could be realized, but it is all conjecture. A worse outcome IMO would be to maintain the current inferior standard just because it isn't controlled by one company. NACS is better in every way, except for your irrational fear about one rich man.

 

[Dark-Fx]

NACS is better in every way, except for your irrational fear about one rich man.

NACS is better except that it's designed to not be fail-safe. Let's ignore that huge engineering mistake because it's better. There is a reason the industry decided on a port that separates out the DC pins.

 

[izgoy]

If NACS clearly has feature, reliability, and cost advantage over CCS, I would say yes. It's just a connector and there are adaptors to convert between both easily.
My first time trying magic dock today it was a really smooth and good experience. Hopefully there is also a workable partnership between Rivian and Tesla to share the supercharging infrastructure (access to more stalls using personal adaptors instead of limited to magic docks) and Rivian also supports non-Rivians at RAN.

Magic Dock was an experiment. It will not be expanded. The new solution is NACS on third-party vehicles.

Magic Dock can’t be scaled because it results in one non-Tesla EV blocking two charging stalls. This cannot be expanded beyond the few locations.

There may be an adapter, but it will have to include an extension cable so that a non-Tesla EV doesn’t block two stalls. I also expect the non-NACS EVs being limited to 350A at Tesla Superchargers, which means under 150 kW maximum. The thin cable used by Tesla Superchargers can’t sustain higher amperage at longer cable lengths, so the extension cable will make necessary to limit the amperage to 350A. The connector adapter will not be made without an attached extension cable because that would result in every non-Tesla EV blocking two Tesla stalls. There will be a rebellion among Tesla owners if Tesla allowed this to happen.

 

[Dukecj]

I don't get it. It sounds like the CCS connector is too heavy for current/previous Tesla owners. Sounds like a "soft hands" issue from the outside. This is not about the connector; it is about the service provider.

Tesla has a vested interest in providing a good charging experience, otherwise no one would buy their cars and they would go out of business. The OEM's don't have this problem because the overwhelming majority of their sells are ICE vehicles.

When EVs become a greater majority of vehicles the free market will correct the unavailable CCS charger issue because there will be greater profit loss and the introduction of new competitors to collect those profits left on the table by substandard service providers.

In addition, the Tesla SCN is optimized for Tesla vehicles only. So, just because you had a good experience with the Tesla SCN as a Tesla owner does not mean you will have the same experience as an EV6 owner using the SCN.

If the CCS cable is too much for you to handle you might want to hit the gym. This may explain why more than half the country believes EV owners are latte drinking elitist that are afraid to get their soft hands dirty.

 

[izgoy]

Your reply shows that you clearly aren’t listening. You and many others are only looking at the mechanics of charging and not considering the implications of handing over control of the majority of charging infrastructure in North America to an unstable man-baby.

Pretty much everyone is in agreement that Tesla’s connector is fine if that is what most want. The point we are making is that no steps in that direction should be taken until the patents for that equipment are no longer controlled by Tesla.

The problem is that you STILL can’t comprehend that NACS is a physical adapter specification, and that is ALL. Do you realize that there are no licensing fees involved and that by having a third-party manufacture a NACS connector, an EV manufacturer doesn’t hand anything at all to Musk?

 

[izgoy]

Feb 29, 2025 - Reuters

Elon Musk, CEO of Telsa, Lucid, Aptera and CTO of Twitter, announced today that Twitter will be the used as the real-time network for all 3rd party electric vehicle charging transactions on Tesla/Lucid/Aptera Supercharger and destination charging stations. Owners of Tesla/Lucid/Aptera vehicles will continue to use their native app while owners of other brands will be required use the Twitter transaction network. Musk stated "We are fullfilling the commitment we made years ago to an open, free to use NACS charging interface for all EV owners. Now, by unifying all 3rd party transactions into a single transaction application via Twitter, we can provide a more satisfying and consistent transaction experience to all EV owners, regardless of brand."

The announcement is not without controversy. By the end of 2023, Ford, GM, Stellantis, Rivian, BMW, Volvo, Nissan, Polestar and Hyundai/Kia had announced adoption of the NACS standard. In 2024, Tesla purchased the faltering Electrify America and Chargepoint charging networks, adding more than 22,000 charging locations to the Tesla network and now control the vast majority of charging stations in the United States. In order to use the Tesla charging network, 3rd party vehicles owners must pay $25 a month for the "EV Premium" Verified Twitter account as well as paying non-preferred charging costs per kwh. Tesla, Lucid and Aptera owners will continue to receive the benefits of no monthly fee and preferred kwh rates by using their native vehicle app for all transactions.

This is what’s called FUD. It’s not sarcasm, satire, or comedy. It’s FUD.

 

[pricedm]

F and GM stock increased after their announcement to utilize NACS. As a RIVN shareholder, a positive stock price impact is one of the many reasons I hope Rivian also makes the change to NACS.

And now hardware providers are joining NACS:
https://electrek.co/2023/06/12/tesla-nacs-connector-gains-support-list-companies/

 

[Zoidz]

Lots of FUD around these parts. The sky is falling on the three little pigs I guess.

No fear on my part at all. Uncertainty and doubt? Yup. Elon has a storied history that supports that position, well validated by Wall Street, the SEC, the courts, etc.

 

[Zoidz]

This is what’s called FUD. It’s not sarcasm, satire, or comedy. It’s FUD.

Call it what you want, I don't care. The reality is there's fact and history here that directly supports this scenario. Musk has had this dream of a universal payment system since the 90s (x.com) and he is still trying to build it 20 years later. His reference to X (below) illustrates that.

Unfortunately you can't or refuse to connect the dots.

LA TImes
"By opening its network to outsiders, however, Tesla is positioned to boost its charging revenue and profit margins. (The company had said it would charge higher prices for non-Tesla charging if and when it opened the network.) "

NY Times
“Buying Twitter is an accelerant to creating X, the everything app,” Mr. Musk posted in October, weeks before completing a $44 billion acquisition of the social network. He later said Twitter could be like WeChat, the popular Chinese app that combines social media, instant messaging and payment services.

 

[COdogman]

The problem is that you STILL can’t comprehend that NACS is a physical adapter specification, and that is ALL. Do you realize that there are no licensing fees involved and that by having a third-party manufacture a NACS connector, an EV manufacturer doesn’t hand anything at all to Musk?

Have you read any posts other than your own in this entire thread or any of the others about this same topic? Do you honestly believe it's just a free connector design that's available for anyone to use at any time at no risk to them or their company?

No one is debating it's a physical port/ connector.
No one is debating licensing fees.

This has been shared in this thread multiple times. If you can't comprehend the legal risk of taking advantage of this "pledge", then I give up.

Patent Pledge
On June 12, 2014, Tesla announced that it will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use its technology. Tesla was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport, and this policy is intended to encourage the advancement of a common, rapidly-evolving platform for electric vehicles, thereby benefiting Tesla, other companies making electric vehicles, and the world. These guidelines provide further detail as to how we are implementing this policy.

Tesla’s Pledge
Tesla irrevocably pledges that it will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith. Key terms of the Pledge are explained below.

Definition of Key Terms
"Tesla Patents" means all patents owned now or in the future by Tesla (other than a patent owned jointly with a third party or any patent that Tesla later acquires that comes with an encumbrance that prevents it from being subject to this Pledge). A list of Tesla Patents subject to the Pledge will be maintained at the following URL: https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-list.

A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

• asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
• challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
• marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge

Get that? Tesla is defining for their own purposes what "good faith" means and it is an extremely broad definition, basically allowing them to change their mind about who or what violates it. Why do you think no major manufacturer has taken advantage of this since they "opened" it up in 2014?

Sponsored