Max Pack Battery Capacity Confirmed - 149kWh

[vandy1981]

Why does it matter whether the extra 50 miles comes from an extra 20 kWh or an extra 200 kWh?

It's better to do more with a smaller battery than to eat into the payload or passenger space with a physically larger and heavier battery pack?

I'm beginning to see Rivian's point when they were trying to deemphasize the kWh specs for the Max Pack. What's most important is the range improvement.

Sponsored

 

[R1TS]

Why does it matter whether the extra 50 miles comes from an extra 20 kWh or an extra 200 kWh?

It's better to do more with a smaller battery than to eat into the payload or passenger space with a physically larger and heavier battery pack?

I'm beginning to see Rivian's point when they were trying to deemphasize the kWh specs for the Max Pack. What's most important is the range improvement.

And, the range improvement of 48 miles for $10K is terrible.

 

[vandy1981]

And, the range improvement of 48 miles for $10K is terrible.

That's an opinion that I don't share.

 

[aAlpine]

Or, is Rivian becoming less conservative, and maybe using the EPA test cycle that Tesla uses to justify 410 miles of range? Does it make sense that the max pack is more efficient than the large pack? It doesn't make sense to me.

I would bet the former, Rivian probably fudged EPA the numbers a bit on the max pack to break the 400 mile mark just for marketing reasons. Which if true, would make the max pack even more of a worse deal. The radio silence from Rivian on the details is further evidence to a disappointing reality.

 

[Rivdog]

The usable capacity increase is actually just 13 kWh if this article is to be believed. That makes it even worse for a $10K upgrade.

Totally agree. I don’t care about the range, I just want the biggest battery possible. Doesn’t matter if the range is only 100 miles total so long as we get more kilowatts!

/s.

 

[vandy1981]

Totally agree. I don’t care about the range, I just want the biggest battery possible. Doesn’t matter if the range is only 100 miles total so long as we get more kilowatts!

/s.

Rivian doesn't want GM to monopolize the market for inefficient trucks with huge batteries.

 

[Rivdog]

If they deliver on the promised range it is a massive bonus if the pack is just 13 kWh greater.

It means the gravimetric power density is much improved.

The weight has gone down while the energy stored goes up. Efficiency goes way up.

I think this is a very good thing to get that much more range with a smaller than expected battery pack. 9000 pound vehicles that achieve 400+ miles of range but less than 2 miles per kWh are simply not practical for many reasons. Here’s a few:

- the electrical grids aren’t anywhere near ready for even the most efficient EV’s;
- our roads will wear significantly more quickly. EV’s are heavy enough already;
- can your driveway and garage handle 18,000 pounds, assuming you have 2 EV’s? Mine probably cant
- increases the time people will need to spend at public DCFC stations that are already severely insufficient. You won’t just be waiting longer for your vehicle to charge, but also those in line in front of you.
- people make mistakes. If you get hit by a 9,000 pound vehicle, it’s gonna be a lot worse than a 7,000 pound vehicle, which is a lot worse than a 5,000 pound vehicle, and so on.

410 miles in the Rivian with a 149 kWh battery indicates that they’re doing something with the batteries that others can’t. That means Rivian has some technology that is more advanced than anyone else, including Tesla. That’s a really, really good thing for the future of Rivian.

 

[vandy1981]

410 miles in the Rivian with a 149 kWh battery indicates that they’re doing something with the batteries that others can’t.

That is the most interesting thing about the Max Pack story. It would be great if Rivian would communicate what generally makes the Max Pack able to achieve that range with that amount of stored energy.

I suspect that others can use the battery tech but they've decided that it's not worth the extra cost. The key point is that Rivian's decision allowed for the same Pack to be used in the R1S without impinging on cabin space.

 

[DuoRivians]

That is the most interesting thing about the Max Pack story. It would be great if Rivian would communicate what generally makes the Max Pack able to achieve that range with that amount of stored energy.

I suspect that others can use the battery tech but they've decided that it's not worth the extra cost. The key point is that Rivian's decision allowed for the same Pack to be used in the R1S without impinging on cabin space.

And no real difference in weight of the car.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

So on the other thread ABRP says their system has it as a 180kwh battery so we can't rely on my ABRP numbers. I think we stumbled onto something with the EPA numbers shown on the window sticker earlier.

Fueleconomy.gov clearly shows combined MPGe as 78 but the windows sticker shows it as 84. So either Rivian is fudging with the numbers to make the large pack look less efficient and the max pack more efficient or Rivian made some tweaks in software to get more efficiency out of DM.

What happens to the range of the DM large pack if you apply those same efficiency numbers? Also, why isn't max pack listed on fueleconomy.gov?

I am having mathematical challenges this morning. So 2.89 mi per kwh would give the DM large a range of 373 miles on a full charge with 129 kwh usable. 2.33 mi per kwh (shown on fuel economy website as 43kwh per 100 mi) would give 301 mi range.

I think what this boils down to is real world testing needs to be done. But like was said already, Rivian really isn't making any other claims...just a modest increase in range.

I still don't think its a good deal absent further evidence to the contrary.

 

[vandy1981]

And no real difference in weight of the car.

Agreed. Important for handling and payload.

 

[R1TS]

Totally agree. I don’t care about the range, I just want the biggest battery possible. Doesn’t matter if the range is only 100 miles total so long as we get more kilowatts!

/s.

This isn’t some magical battery. The new battery chemistry isn’t light enough or power efficient enough to magically get a heavy truck that does 2.5mi/kWh to do even 4 mi/kWh. So, for something as small as a 13kWh usable battery capacity bump, it’s still a measly 13kWh.

 

[mkhuffman]

410 miles in the Rivian with a 149 kWh battery indicates that they’re doing something with the batteries that others can’t. That means Rivian has some technology that is more advanced than anyone else, including Tesla. That’s a really, really good thing for the future of Rivian.

Which IMO is very, very unlikely. I think it is more likely the usable capacity is 149 kWh, and they are assuming an efficiency of 2.75 mi/kWh.

Does anyone get 2.75 mi/kWh in real life? Most posts for highway efficiency I have seen have it 2.2 or lower. 2.2 provides a highway range of 328 miles, assuming 149 kWh usable capacity.

 

[HyperionMark]

Why are people forgetting that a company can rate the EPA numbers down if they want. I'm fairly confident they did this with original pack. I'm constantly surprised on the range I can get on ours.

In other words, please quit taking the EPA range as gospel truth. Real world tests like Kyle does, while not perfect, are much more accurate metrics to go by.

 

[mkhuffman]

Why are people forgetting that a company can rate the EPA numbers down if they want. I'm fairly confident they did this with original pack. I'm constantly surprised on the range I can get on ours.

In other words, please quit taking the EPA range as gospel truth. Real world tests like Kyle does, while not perfect, are much more accurate metrics to go by.

What is your typical efficiency in mi/kWh? It is easy to figure out range if you know that.

Sponsored