Rivian Max Pack EPA Data (document shows 141-142 kWh usable battery)

[jjswan33]

Mine is off too, and that is my expectation that preconditioning, gear guard, etc. add to the total energy number but don’t impact the miles per kWh.

And anyone who thinks Rivian didn’t “cook the books” the best they could to get to 400 miles has drank way too much kool aid.

I mean why not drink the Kool Aid??? I was fricken raised on the stuff

Seriously though I don’t think it will be any harder to hit 400 miles with a max pack than it is to hit 352 with the DM large pack. It’s just going to require driving 55-60 mph in ideal conditions in either case.

Sponsored

 

[Epicloop]

Yes, they dropped the quad motor/max combo, but also the price. I don't have a comparison to quad, but I think the dual performance is a very good setup. I never had any plans for serious off-roading so for me it's a non-issue. Keep in mind that this max pack didn't add weight or ate into storage. Anyways, I can't complain about range or price/performance ratio compared to when I reserved the truck. My advice: always get the largest battery pack if you can afford it, even it appears to be a rip-off, it pays dividends in the long run.

Those in the towing crowd will always want more kwh since that is the real indicator of towing range.
I think is is great they achieved more range with no penalty to payload.
Range rules & that is why they are going to loose some towing customers to trucks with higher kwh and/or 800v.
The T has space for more modules with no storage penalty hopefully its not too long a wait for the real max pack.

 

[R1TS]

I’m actually at 2.63 now.

I don’t think it’s that hard to achieve 2.6mi/kWh if the average speed is just 36mph. Or, am i missing something?

 

[mkhuffman]

I don’t think it’s that hard to achieve 2.6mi/kWh if the average speed is just 36mph. Or, am i missing something?

2.6 x 142 = 369 miles.

Still wondering if anyone can actually achieve 400 miles. Maybe a Max Pack owner will report even better efficiency at 36 mph. Seems like a long shot to me.

 

[Supratachophobia]

I think the difference in usable pack size is closer to 142 - 128 kWh = 14 kWh

Sorry, yes. 14kwh would allow more of a scientific explanation than a magic explanation. And it makes sense for Rivian to have 7kwh buffer for both like Tesla does 4kwh.

 

[Supratachophobia]

I think the large pack is getting sandbagged. The gross capacity of the large is 141kwh and the api reports 127 usable

No, the math adds up if you follow the sandy Munro teardown and the Samsung cells are confirmed to be 4800-4900mah.

Based on all the information we have, I'm actually in agreement with @DuoRivian that is 135/149. If you are seeing 142 going into a large pack, it's because they are adding in AC charging losses.

 

[Ronaldinho]

Sorry, yes. 14kwh would allow more of a scientific explanation than a magic explanation. And it makes sense for Rivian to have 7kwh buffer for both like Tesla does 4kwh.

I'm with you but I think 127-128 kWh usable is (just?) for Quad Large? Like @240vPlug alluded to earlier, the Dual Large test group data shows 131-132 kWh usable, I think. Is this the correct interpretation of this data?

R1S 21" Dual Large (page 24):

R1T 21" Dual Max (page 27):

Quad Large for reference:

 

[Supratachophobia]

I'm with you but I think 127-128 kWh usable is (just?) for Quad Large? Like @240vPlug alluded to earlier, the Dual Large test group data shows 131-132 kWh usable, I think. Is this the correct interpretation of this data?

Dual Large:

Dual Max:

Quad Large for reference:

Well now I just don't know. There should be several different large pack test results. And one is prior to them unlocking the extra capacity and one after. And I think they are apples to apples with quad motor. So much data.....

 

[opnwide]

Nerds. — And no, getting Molly Ringwald to go to prom with you doesn’t count.

 

[SeaGeo]

Is it enough to get the R1S from 390 to 400?

I don't know what you're asking here...

And does it make sense that the MPGe increased just because of the Max Pack?

That's the only known change. They cells may be more efficient at a low c rate. That's purely a guess though.

For city, it can't be the weight attributing to higher regen. Maybe it's like someone else said about running 1 inverter for acceleration and 2 inverters for braking.

And 11kw divided by 32 miles is that infamous ~2.9 miles per kWh. At what speed can you achieve such good efficiency; 55mph and 70 degrees? I'm asking honestly because the large pack used different efficiency numbers, hence my comment about miles not being equal.

I'm not buying inverter theories, other than maybe that they swapped in the same inverter from the front to the rear for some added efficiency. Which may explain why there isn't a difference at cruising speeds with the rear motor disabled.

I think the difference in usable pack size is closer to 142 - 128 kWh = 14 kWh

My truck reports 130 kwh from the API. The EPA docs also showed 130.7

I think the large pack is getting sandbagged. The gross capacity of the large is 141kwh and the api reports 127 usable

API reports more for both of my quad Rivians. And, more importantly, the EPA data showed the energy for both...

I'm with you but I think 127-128 kWh usable is (just?) for Quad Large? Like @240vPlug alluded to earlier, the Dual Large test group data shows 131-132 kWh usable, I think. Is this the correct interpretation of this data?

R1S 21" Dual Large (page 24):

R1T 21" Dual Max (page 27):

Quad Large for reference:

My quads have shown 130kwh from the API.

 

[SeaGeo]

So I copied and circled here the relevant info for *R1S 21 DUAL MOTOR*. Only difference is battery pack.

Large Pack

Max Pack

For hwy, we see about a 32 mile difference (364.87-332.52). Like you said, could be explained by the 11 kWh battery pack difference.

And you’re right, the city numbers are quite disparate. 429.60 - 368.05 = 61.5 miles.

Since the only difference between them is the battery pack (presumably), is there anything in these EPA docs that would suggest Rivian is fudging the city numbers? Or, is there a good possibility that these could be legit and we need to understand how?

I have no reason to believe they aren't real. They're just not where most people want them (at high speeds).

Just drive around really slowly. ?

 

[Ronaldinho]

My truck reports 130 kwh from the API. The EPA docs also showed 130.7

API reports more for both of my quad Rivians. And, more importantly, the EPA data showed the energy for both...

My quads have shown 130kwh from the API.

Awesome, thanks for confirming. I had the old test group data pulled up.

 

[SeaGeo]

The more I think about it the more I'm guessing they put the inverter from the front in the rear to increase efficiency when both motors are on.

 

[DuoRivians]

I have no reason to believe they aren't real. They're just not where most people want them (at high speeds).

Just drive around really slowly. ?

I think that’s a valid point re: city or highway.

For my use case, I like the max pack for driving off-road into terrain away from chargers. I presume city driving speeds would be more appropriate then.

Also, it seems to DCFC faster, as measured by miles obtained not % soc.

 

[DuoRivians]

The more I think about it the more I'm guessing they put the inverter from the front in the rear to increase efficiency when both motors are on.

They swapped the inverter only in a dual motor + max pack configuration, but not dual motor + large pack?

That would seem odd

Sponsored