Not possible to turn off 1 pedal driving?

[DucRider]

Coasting down a hill (not slowing via regen) and using the momentum to help climb the next hill (or continue on a flat road) will be more efficient. Using regen is ~70% efficient in recapturing energy. Using that recaptured energy is about 90% efficient. The increased downhill speed generates more air, rolling and mechanical resistance but not nearly enough to offset the above losses.

In practice very few road/traffic conditions allow full utilization of this technique.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

Coasting down a hill (not slowing via regen) and using the momentum to help climb the next hill (or continue on a flat road) will be more efficient. Using regen is ~70% efficient in recapturing energy. Using that recaptured energy is about 90% efficient. The increased downhill speed generates more air, rolling and mechanical resistance but not nearly enough to offset the above losses.

In practice very few road/traffic conditions allow full utilization of this technique.

You can do the same thing using 1PD, of course.

 

[rvnxyz001]

After reading this thread, I still don't understand what the problem is with allowing the driver to disable regen or make it very minimal, like some other EVs do. There is absolutely no harm in this. I assume it is not like allowing CarPlay or Android Auto, which is purely a political reason. I guess there is some technical design choice that doesn't allow them to do this, even by modifying the software. Otherwise, I don't understand why they wouldn't implement it.

 

[SwampNut]

There is absolutely no harm in this.

It depends on how you define "harm." Is wasting energy and creating more pollution "harm?" RJ and Wassym think so, environmentally, and just aren't going to let people choose to waste both energy and add more brake dust (which is a problem itself in cities). Is it "harm" to allow people, at a societal level, to keep doing things old ways because they fear/won't deal with change? I think so. I used to think choice was a very important thing, but a long career in tech and dragging people into modernity has told me that a huge percentage of society is clinging to old ways for no real reason. So I've changed my mind, and like Steve Jobs, I think that people need to be told what to do in so many cases.

You can do the same thing using 1PD, of course.

Not exactly, what he's saying is that there's a theory that fully disengaging the drive system from the wheels, truly letting the car just coast without control, may save power. You crest the top of a hill, go into neutral, pick up speed, and use that speed to go up most of the next hill with the engine off. (Idle wastes a shocking amount of gas.). This is both theory, and impractical, which Ducrider notes in his last sentence. I've done it in the middle of nowhere in a 1961 VW bus, just to see what happens. I believe that the gains are ridiculously tiny for many reasons, and obvious one being that as you gain downhill speed you greatly increase aero load. Anyway, this is a fun exercise in theory, there's no real practical application for true, mechanical "coasting."

Speaking of which, here's something I learned recently. Did you know that Albert Einstein was an actual, living physicist? All this time I thought that he was just a theoretical physicist.

 

[rvnxyz001]

It depends on how you define "harm." Is wasting energy and creating more pollution "harm?" RJ and Wassym think so,

I don't think a little regen thing from tiny amount of vehicles can save the world...
If you care so much about pollution, you should probably stop writing messages here, stop taking photos, connecting to the internet, etc. Read how much energy is required to store data produced by billions of people.

People care about pollution ride a bicycle not EV!

 

[SwampNut]

from tiny amount of vehicles

In 20 years will that number still be tiny, or will most cars be EVs? Are you looking at today, or the future of our society, as Wassym and RJ are doing?

If you care so much about pollution

At no time did I say that I do. I stated facts and that the heads of Rivian do, because they said so. Don't assume so much.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Are you looking at today, or the future of our society, as Wassym and RJ are doing?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue the conversation in this direction, it started to feel like a cult thing

 

[SwampNut]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue the conversation in this direction, it started to feel like a cult thing

It absolutely is. Wassym and RJ have formed a cult, and like CarPlay, you cannot question them. I'm reporting, you seem to be assuming (again) that I'm making a personal statement or opinion. I have a Rivian because it's best for ME. I don't join the cult. Same thing I found when I owned a Tesla.

 

[Zathras]

It absolutely is. Wassym and RJ have formed a cult, and like CarPlay, you cannot question them. I'm reporting, you seem to be assuming (again) that I'm making a personal statement or opinion. I have a Rivian because it's best for ME. I don't join the cult. Same thing I found when I owned a Tesla.

Wanting to control the whole software stack is hardly cult-like. It's exactly what Apple does. And I've been a big-time Apple fan-boy since I started using it on the photo desk at the newspaper I worked at in 1992. So I've been an Apple supporter for a long time.

That being said, I understand why Rivian wants to keep CarPlay and AndroidPlay out. For two different reasons at the least, but let's conflate them for this discussion. My issue with allowing CarPlay into the mix is Apple's constant roadblocks to what software developers can do with their software.

As I understand CarPlay, there's an API which allows developers at automakers to take their software and use those APIs to integrate the car's functions with CarPlay's "chrome," the stuff that makes it look like CarPlay, and let's it work with Apple's software.

I have to wonder how that might block Rivian from doing what they want (use Google Maps, not Apple Maps) and deal with Apple's security protocols. (Annoy the user once a month with permission to operate a given app). And if Apple was to decide Rivian was doing something bad, what's to stop the from preventing Rivian doing it?

Let's also consider the possibility that Rivian's unique networking system and hardware is so foreign to every other car maker, that Apple's API's can't deal with it efficiently, or at all. Requiring Rivian to engineer a solution. So add that to learning Apple's APIs and that wastes engineering time when Rivian is stuggling already to make their cars work as an integrated whole.

And then there's Autonomy+ and Rivian AI competing with Siri? And finally, risking Apple dragging its feet going in new directions. Also with Rivian's ambitions to create a software ecosystem that would compete with other software developers, why hand the keys of the Kingdom to a company that loves to buy out and shut down "mere" competitors?

And let's not forget, Apple completely failed to make a car after billions spent. And there's no way I would have bought one anyway because Jony Ive seems to have lost his design chops, as demonstrated by Humane.

 

[Mos Eisley]

After reading this thread, I still don't understand what the problem is with allowing the driver to disable regen or make it very minimal, like some other EVs do. There is absolutely no harm in this. I assume it is not like allowing CarPlay or Android Auto, which is purely a political reason. I guess there is some technical design choice that doesn't allow them to do this, even by modifying the software. Otherwise, I don't understand why they wouldn't implement it.

It's not "doesn't allow" - they made a choice. And they had a range target in mind. Turning off regen would lower the total averaged range based on how the EPA tests for it.

 

[SwampNut]

I have to wonder how that might block Rivian from doing what they want

It doesn't, at all, and this has been proven over and over again in other cars, plus there's a massive thread here about it. Wassym lied about it "taking over" and we know for sure it doesn't.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Wassym and RJ have formed a cult, and like CarPlay, you cannot question them.

I think Wassym and RJ are more like the mascots, not the ones who created the whole thing from scratch.

The groundwork was already laid by marketing people. REJOUICE is the creative/digital agency that worked on Rivian's early launch and web presence. Parliament is the brand strategy agency that helped package the whole "Electric Adventure Vehicle" idea. That's the stuff that made people feel like they were joining some adventure club, not just reserving a car.

Subaru is a good comparison. Their following wasn't magic either. Carmichael Lynch built the modern "Love" campaign, and before that Subaru of America and agencies like Mulryan/Nash were already doing smart niche marketing around AWD, wagons, outdoors, dogs, safety, and practical buyers who don't care about showing off.

The difference is Subaru built that image slowly over decades with real product history behind it. Rivian feels like the startup-speed version: good product, polished branding, waiting-list hype, outdoor lifestyle identity, and then the community does the rest.

So yes, Wassym and RJ helped put faces on it. But the "cult" feeling looks very professionally built...

 

[rvnxyz001]

It's not "doesn't allow" - they made a choice. And they had a range target in mind. Turning off regen would lower the total averaged range based on how the EPA tests for it.

Yes, that's the main reason, I think: "cheat" EPA by aggressive regen, nothing else. And it turned out a feature some people like

 

[Zathras]

Sounds to me like the "cult' accusations are disinformation. Astroturfing.

 

[Zathras]

Yes, that's the main reason, I think: "cheat" EPA by aggressive regen, nothing else. And it turned out a feature some people like

Holy smokes, sounds more like Reddit conspiracy than evidence.

Sponsored