Out of Spec: Rivian R1T Highway Range Test

[manitou202]

Considering my Audi E-tron gets about 2.18mi/kWh in the 70mph range test versus 2.32mi/kWh for the Rivian with off-road tires, I'm very impressed. The R1S will be replacing our E-tron and the extra range will be a big improvement. The Audi only has 86.5kWh of usable capacity versus the R1S has 125kWh (according to Kyle's test).

Charging speed is the only thing they need to improve.

Sponsored

 

[SeaGeo]

I can tell you, if I can get that on the R1S with the 22s I would be thrilled. That puts me over 200 miles at 85%, I was estimating around 175.

I'm guessing the 22s will clip that 300 mile mark. They should have less rolling resistance. The other nice thing is the GOM seems pretty accurate.

 

[SeaGeo]

Charging speed is the only thing they need to improve.

Agreed. And I keep seeing a couple employees with a curve that doesn't look like someone programmed it while drinking, so I'm not sure why that wasn't in the current software version. I've literally seen it pulling 500Amps, and I just saw someone pulling 120kw at 68%. Which is reasonably close to the "target" curve I included when plotting the curves up this weekend.

 

[hed]

Good result but not amazing. I'd like to see the test in All Purpose mode as it sounds like conserve isn't the most enjoyable to drive in, especially for those of us with beat up highways.

I'd also like to see the test at 80-82ish MPH, which is the real speed most of us will highway cruise at. There tends to be a large efficiency drop from 70 to 80.

I would like to see a 'all purpose mode' at 80 mph test as well as that is the way I'll drive my Rivian most of the time.

Going by my own experience in the EVs I've had, anything over 75 really starts to eat into the battery. On a decent day, at 80 mph on the interstate, my Model 3 performance gets a real world 200 miles of a full range charge (which is rated around 312 miles).

I would guess 314 miles on range mode on the R1T is probably 200 miles going 80 down a interstate on a non winter type day as well.

 

[Guy]

I'm guessing the 22s will clip that 300 mile mark. They should have less rolling resistance. The other nice thing is the GOM seems pretty accurate.

Hopefully Kyle charged from zero to 100% to confirm that 124KW value.
Will be interesting to see his trip down to Phoenix in all purpose mode and see what effect that has (if speeds are steady too).

 

[SeaGeo]

Hopefully Kyle charged from zero to 100% to confirm that 124KW value.
Will be interesting to see his trip down to Phoenix in all purpose mode and see what effect that has (if speeds are steady too).

0 to 100 wouldn't confirm the capacity because of charging losses. That's why he's relying on consumption from driving. He did do a test to try and confirm the reported consumption includes HVAC.

 

[R1Sky Business]

Agreed. And I keep seeing a couple employees with a curve thst doesn't look like someone programmed it while drinking, so I'm not sure why that wasn't in the current software version. I've literally seen it pulling 500Amps, and I just saw someone pulling 120kw at 68%. Which is reasonably close to the "target" curve I included when plotting the curves up this weekend.

It'll improve with software updates.

 

[R1Sky Business]

Hopefully Kyle charged from zero to 100% to confirm that 124KW value.
Will be interesting to see his trip down to Phoenix in all purpose mode and see what effect that has (if speeds are steady too).

He did.

 

[SeaGeo]

It'll improve with software updates.

I think so too. I just don't get why they pushed it out with this behavior.

 

[R1Sky Business]

I think so too. I just don't get why they pushed it out with this behavior.

Just get trucks out there at this point....

 

[Guy]

0 to 100 wouldn't confirm the capacity because of charging losses. That's why he's relying on consumption from driving. He did do a test to try and confirm the reported consumption includes HVAC.

Thanks, I didn’t see his charge back up. These videos from Kyle are very informative. Appreciate your input too.

 

[SeaGeo]

Just get trucks out there at this point....

They've been testing for years, and have a full quarter of "production," data, and they have a more realistic curve. What they sent out seems to literally be the worst curve above about 60% of any recently released BEV. It's just so weird it doesn't make sense to have not implemented even an average curve that other EVs achieve.

 

[SeaGeo]

Some context to the range here. Hopefully this isn't too confusing.

The EQS that Kyle tested got like 344 miles with a 107kwh pack. The R1T has 125kwh usable. And we know the EQS has a drag coefficient of 0.2, which is literally the best for a production car

Adjusting for battery size the EQS would go about 398 miles with a 125 kwh pack. OR have a drag coefficient of about 0.28 to get 290 miles if range on a 125kwh pack. Now, remember force = cross sectional area * drag coefficient.

Remember, the R1T is a much larger vehicle in cross section, and is a truck with what should be a higher drag coefficient as well. So it just points to how good this result is for the R1T. It seems uniquely slippery and efficient for a truck. I'll be really interested to see how the F150 Lightning does at speed.

 

[E.S.]

Take into consideration that with the 20", the projected range with a Large pack was stated to run about 15% lower (267 of the 314 miles). I think the run at 70 mph did well.

 

[sevengroove]

This is a good result, but one mitigating factor I didn't see brought up explicitly is that the EPA test was not done entirely in Conserve mode. IIRC it was a mix of modes, potentially averaging out to being in All-purpose the whole time. So that 314 mi EPA range would likely be even higher if it were done all in Conserve, increasing the delta between Kyle's test and the EPA numbers.

In other words I think Rivian's preliminary estimates of a 10-15% EPA range hit on the 20" ATs would still pencil out had Kyle used All-purpose mode - I suspect the range would have dropped from 290 to 270ish.

Sponsored