How close do you think real world range will be to EPA range?

[DucRider]

I agree. I'm hoping R1T LE will do 240-250 miles on the interstate.

At 60 mph? 70? 85?
At 60 almost certainly (at least in moderate temps and dry conditions without towing, headwinds or significant elevation changes). At 85 - somewhere between unlikely and fat chance.

Sponsored

 

[Rivianmd]

https://teslike.com/ I’ve referenced this chart to gain a sense. Personally, I would be disappointed if range is <90% @70mph with ideal conditions, no elevation gain, etc

 

[DucRider]

https://teslike.com/ I’ve referenced this chart to gain a sense. Personally, I would be disappointed if range is <90% @70mph with ideal conditions, no elevation gain, etc

90% of what?
EPA combined range (the commonly published number)?
EPA Hwy test?

In either case, I would expect a bigger hit than to most EVs given the size and shape of the Rivians (CD, frontal area, ride height, etc.). Elevated speeds are most likely to extract a greater penalty as compared to something that has better aero.

 

[SANZC02]

I have been burned by Tesla before which was on the overly optimistic side and my commute is less than ideal. I would be suprised, in my situation to see anything better than 25% less than EPA.

In Canada, there are 2 seasons. Winter and preparation for the next winter. Heating decreases significantly the mileage we can achieve on each charge, making EPA numbers almost impossible to achieve. I hope Rivian do better in that regard.

This is interesting to me as I think for the most part my Model S is pretty close. Tesla estimates are based on 290 W/Mile. I can get pretty close to that when I try, I just need to keep the hunk of lead out of my right shoe.... My 320 watts per mile is more on me than the car's capability.

 

[davrow_R1T]

This is interesting to me as I think for the most part my Model S is pretty close. Tesla estimates are based on 290 W/Mile. I can get pretty close to that when I try, I just need to keep the hunk of lead out of my right shoe.... My 320 watts per mile is more on me than the car's capability.

And that is my definition of "real world". It's how I drive, not what can be done in a lab, or theoretically calculated.

 

[DucRider]

And that is my definition of "real world". It's how I drive, not what can be done in a lab, or theoretically calculated.

The only way to get that number is for you to drive it and figure it out. Your "real world" will be different (at least to some degree) than anyone else. Rivian has no way to know what that will be for each potential customer, and they are required by law to perform the EPA test and put the results on the Monroney label.

If you have experience with other EVs and how close you get to the EPA figure, you can combine this with anecdotal reports from other owners (if they get theirs first) to gauge how close you might get to the published number.

There is no standardized test that will give each individual an accurate range number for the varying usage and environmental conditions they will encounter. The EPA test isn't great, but it's what we have.

As much as I've heard people complain about the EPA test, I've not seen anyone propose something to replace it (and it is usually more realistic than the WLTP or NEDC). A sustained 70 mph component would perhaps be useful, but would need to be done in the lab like all the other tests and would have the same constraints in translating to each individuals "real world".

 

[mkennedy1996]

Anyone looking at the EPA numbers needs to use it as a baseline and tool to compare to other vehicles.

Except that the EPA test is useless as a BEV comparison tool. The EPA test allows the manufacturers to choose the test cycles used in the test to alter their adjustment factor from the baseline 30%. So all BEVs are not using the same test. The results of the EPA results in a lab environment vs real world testing using realistic test parameters and isolated variables leads to VERY different results. See the Edmunds data for an example of this comparison to see just how much variation there is between the EPA results and a realistic test. There is no way to use the EPA data to reliably compare the range of these BEVs. Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

I dont know of any manufacturer that "fluffs" their numbers. The differing results vs "real world" are a result of the limitations of the defined test procedures.

You need to look closer. Tesla makes the decision to use the EPA test cycle that they use, knowing full well that the resulting range numbers are not realistic on average over time for their BEVs!

 

[jjwolf120]

Based on data collected on other Evs, it is likely to be plus or minus 10% ish. It could of course be way off, like the Taycan, but I'm not expecting that.

 

[mkennedy1996]

As much as I've heard people complain about the EPA test, I've not seen anyone propose something to replace it (and it is usually more realistic than the WLTP or NEDC). A sustained 70 mph component would perhaps be useful, but would need to be done in the lab like all the other tests and would have the same constraints in translating to each individuals "real world".

They could start by using the same test cycles for all manufacturers and not allowing them to choose between different test cycles leading to a mismatch when comparing BEVs.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

They could start by using the same test cycles for all manufacturers and not allowing them to choose between different test cycles leading to a mismatch when comparing BEVs.

I understand why they want a simple # to put on the Monroney... But a lot of EV shoppers are savvy, and I'd love to see "more" data available -- even if I have to view it online instead of on the window sticker. Why can't they have more complex test routes and let us see data for a wide range of secenarios? It'd be great to see a W/hr consumption for every 5mph increment between 0 and 80, for example. And why not at various grades, too? Maybe even at certain temperatures.

 

[mkennedy1996]

I understand why they want a simple # to put on the Monroney... But a lot of EV shoppers are savvy, and I'd love to see "more" data available -- even if I have to view it online instead of on the window sticker. Why can't they have more complex test routes and let us see data for a wide range of secenarios? It'd be great to see a W/hr consumption for every 5mph increment between 0 and 80, for example. And why not at various grades, too? Maybe even at certain temperatures.

I agree. They advertise the acceleration on many of these BEVs as a defining feature, yet you cannot try to use that acceleration if you want to come anywhere near the EPA results. The EPA test uses acceleration following a standing stop at a leisurely pace equivalent to a 0–60 time of 18 seconds.

City driving data on the range at various acceleration profiles - 0-60 times (4 sec, 5 sec, 6 sec etc) would be beneficial.

The R1S and R1T are going to have this same "problem". They are performance vehicles that are going to be range rated using the 0-60 in 18 seconds, when nearly all of us will not be driving them like that .

 

[jjwolf120]

They advertise the acceleration on many of these BEVs as a defining feature, yet you cannot try to use that acceleration if you want to come anywhere near the EPA results.

That would also be true of ICE cars. If you drive with a lead foot, your mileage will be below the EPA estimates.

 

[Gearhead500]

I agree. They advertise the acceleration on many of these BEVs as a defining feature, yet you cannot try to use that acceleration if you want to come anywhere near the EPA results. The EPA test uses acceleration following a standing stop at a leisurely pace equivalent to a 0–60 time of 18 seconds.

City driving data on the range at various acceleration profiles - 0-60 times (4 sec, 5 sec, 6 sec etc) would be beneficial.

The R1S and R1T are going to have this same "problem". They are performance vehicles that are going to be range rated using the 0-60 in 18 seconds, when nearly all of us will not be driving them like that .

More like 0-60 tank turns in 18 seconds. Right?!

 

[MReda]

Reminds me of an oldish episode of Top Gear where they drove a Prius around a track as hard as they could, and followed it with an M3, to test fuel efficiency when driven fast...

(yes, I know Top Gear is about entertainment, not education, still fun to watch)

 

[mkennedy1996]

That would also be true of ICE cars. If you drive with a lead foot, your mileage will be below the EPA estimates.

Very true. But the context here is RANGE and not MPG. Range is rarely a consideration in an ICE car, but is more frequently an issue in a BEV, so the impact of that acceleration is felt much more pronounced in a BEV.

Sponsored