Rivian R1T v Cybertruck Charging Curve Comparison

- Top Graph: R1T Quad Large Pack at RAN
- Bottom Graph: Cybertruck Dual Motor at V3 Supercharger.

We have our first documented charging curve of the Cybertruck (dual motor). Here's a comparison of the charging curves.

R1T has a 135 kWh pack. Cybertruck has a 123 kWh pack. While not exactly the same, I think they're approximately comparable for SoC % purposes here.

YMMV

Sources:
- Rivian: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...e-9-81-data-from-broomfield-co-station.15592/
- Cybertruck:


kW v SoC %








kWh Added v Elapsed Time







Someone on Reddit compiled the graphs to compare more clearly.

I thought the 4680 cells were supposed to be better? Is this a software issue?

Thanks for posting! Pretty poor charging curve for the CT. Tesla doesn’t seem to have confidence in the 4680 cells yet since the curve for CT and the 4680 model y are terrible (see Branden flasch testing).

COdogman said:

I thought the 4680 cells were supposed to be better? Is this a software issue?

Click to expand...

4680s have historically done poorly versus the 2170s

COdogman said:

I thought the 4680 cells were supposed to be better? Is this a software issue?

Click to expand...

They are the worst charging teslas actually. Which is shocking.

Maybe they will dialing in the charging curve over time, but it's looking like it won't ever be faster than the R1 platform. Maybe the 4680 cells will end up being cheaper to produce, but extracting heat out of a larger cylinder seems to be a challenge.

Combine this charging curve with the early efficiency reports, and the CT is going to be a pretty terrible road tripper. It will be useless for any long distance towing.

Drive 60 minutes. Unhook trailer. Back into Tesla charging station. Charge for 50-60 minutes. Hook up trailer. Drive for another 60 minutes. Repeat.

COdogman said:

I thought the 4680 cells were supposed to be better? Is this a software issue?

Click to expand...

They are supposed to be cheaper, it's well known that the big problem with physically larger cells is charge speed because they are difficult to cool. Tesla claims the 4680 cell design mostly overcomes this problem, but it's pretty unlikely they can get the charging performance to match the older cells.

The CT should do a lot better on a V4 SC, because of the 800V architecture. I am pretty sure the V3 SC is limited to 400V.

It is interesting how far ahead the SC network is, except for 800V charging. There are fewer high speed charging options for the 800V CT, than for the 900V Lucid.

mkhuffman said:

The CT should do a lot better on a V4 SC, because of the 800V architecture. I am pretty sure the V3 SC is limited to 400V.

It is interesting how far ahead the SC network is, except for 800V charging. There are fewer high speed charging options for the 800V CT, than for the 900V Lucid.

Click to expand...

This charging curve isn't limited by the charger. It's the truck itself.

The CT splits the pack when charging at 400V to simulate two 400V packs on V3 chargers. I don't think there is a difference in cooling within the truck under these conditions. Plus look at Rivian's charging curve or many other 400V vehicles like my Mercedes EQS. They are able to hold higher power with 400V architectures.

The 800V will help with cooler charging cables and allow the charger itself to run at higher kW.

I think it's important to remember that Rivian has bumped up their charging rates several times since initial release. Tesla might just need more data to increase their confidence.

As much as I want my Cybertruck, when Tesla do send me my invite to purchase my Cyberbeast, I think I'll pass and wait for a while to allow them time to iron out all the kinks

Dark-Fx said:

I think it's important to remember that Rivian has bumped up their charging rates several times since initial release. Tesla might just need more data to increase their confidence.

Click to expand...

Tesla has had over a year with the 4680 cells in the model Y. This should have been plenty of time to fine tune the cells. Funny how everyone though the 4680 was a miracle but it turns out to just be a way for tesla to drive cell cost down... Also, to note structural packs are not reparable and if you have one 4680 fail you must replace the whole pack. Videos have been shown on this. With the older batteries you could punch the single unit out and still have a functioning pack. This was actually a big reason I picked the Rivian over the CT.

A member on Reddit compiled the graphs to compare more clearly

Eric9610 said:

Tesla has had over a year with the 4680 cells in the model Y. This should have been plenty of time to fine tune the cells. Funny how everyone though the 4680 was a miracle but it turns out to just be a way for tesla to drive cell cost down... Also, to note structural packs are not reparable and if you have one 4680 fail you must replace the whole pack. Videos have been shown on this. With the older batteries you could punch the single unit out and still have a functioning pack. This was actually a big reason I picked the Rivian over the CT.

Click to expand...

Chemistry on the CT cells is different.

DuoRivians said:

- Top Graph: R1T Quad Large Pack at RAN
- Bottom Graph: Cybertruck Dual Motor at V3 Supercharger.

We have our first documented charging curve of the Cybertruck (dual motor). Here's a comparison of the charging curves.

R1T has a 135 kWh pack. Cybertruck has a 123 kWh pack. While not exactly the same, I think they're approximately comparable for SoC % purposes here.

YMMV

Sources:
- Rivian: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...e-9-81-data-from-broomfield-co-station.15592/
- Cybertruck:


kW v SoC %

kWh Added v Elapsed Time

Someone on Reddit compiled the graphs to compare more clearly.

Click to expand...

For me what matters is the average charging speed over the SoC that you charge. This matters if I recharge at Electrify America (or other). It matters very little if I charge at home & overnight. I'm estimating an average from these graphs visually (since I don't have a data table) and my eye sees 125 kW for the CT and 130 for the R1T.