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

[SeaGeo]

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

That would seem odd

The dual motor large pack builders have two different inverters. Here's a good excerpt on it from a motor trend article.

"employs both silicon IGBT chips and silicon-carbide MOSFET chips. SiC chips convert DC to AC and back with better than 99 percent efficiency, while silicon does the job at around 98 percent. That seemingly small difference can boost range by 3 percent, but at a cost of well over $100."

Again, just guessing, but I suspect the out the SiC inverter in the inverter for the rear motor as well to increase efficiency. The cost doesn't matter since the max pack is such a significant added cost.

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivians]

The dual motor large pack builders have two different inverters. Here's a good excerpt on it from a motor trend article.

"employs both silicon IGBT chips and silicon-carbide MOSFET chips. SiC chips convert DC to AC and back with better than 99 percent efficiency, while silicon does the job at around 98 percent. That seemingly small difference can boost range by 3 percent, but at a cost of well over $100."

Again, just guessing, but I suspect the out the SiC inverter in the inverter for the rear motor as well to increase efficiency. The cost doesn't matter since the max pack is such a significant added cost.

Munro needs to do a max pack teardown and get to the bottom of this haha

 

[NCRivian]

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?

I sit in the truck a lot for work on job sites. My average speed is way higher than 36. I drive 45 hwy miles each way 5 days a week at 75-80 mph. Then I dart around from job site to job site. So that 36 mph is not an accurate average speed.

 

[Supratachophobia]

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

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


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.


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.

Original advertisement for R1S max was 390. So was the fudge factor enough for them to justify 400 for marketing/bragging rights?

 

[SeaGeo]

Original advertisement for R1S max was 390. So was the fudge factor enough for them to justify 400 for marketing/bragging rights?

You mean the non-default adjustment factor? No.

 

[PBRAZ]

I think you would need to have a very specific use case to justify the extra cost associated with a larger battery. Frequent towing, frequent road trips, extremely long work commute, unavailability of chargers on your traveled routes, etc. But if your are like the remaining 99% of us that primarily charge at home, there is no point.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

The quad had some usable capacity opened up since launch. That could explain the difference in the EPA docs.

It's possible they are using silicon carbide in the front and rear on max pack.

I was getting 2.6 mi per kwh with the truck loaded in conserve mode and temps in the 50s. I was doing 70 with cruise set. This was in my T.

One has to decide if they think it's worth it. I will tell you it's not for me and we do quite a bit of towing with both. Best I have gotten with my 5,000 lb travel trailer is 1.25 mi per kwh. Usually closer to 1.1. An extra 11 kwh would get me an extra 12 miles of towing range. Not worth it to me for 10k.

With that said, if you don't tow and your regularly driving in ideal conditions, at low speeds, and your bladder can handle it, I say go for it.

When my bladder says stop I'm charging anyway. Anytime I stop I charge to make efficient use of time so the large pack suits it just fine. My wife and daughter were on the verge of complaining at over three hours between stops.

I want Rivian to succeed and the only reason I make a point to share my opinion onac pack is because I don't want to see folks disappointed in the brand.

For folks highway driving you may see an extra 32 miles with max pack according to this data under ideal conditions.

 

[LL75]

Well it is good to see the EPA test results are better than *advertised.
R1T DM
21"-427 miles (*MP 410/LP 352)
22"-388miles (*MP 380/LP 341)
R1S DM
21"-411 miles (*MP 400/LP 352)
20"-384 miles (*MP 355/LP 307)

Still surprised it is that much more from 14kwh.

The R1T is 16 miles more efficent than the R1S all due to aerodynamic ?

 

[mkhuffman]

The R1T is 16 miles more efficent than the R1S all due to aerodynamic ?

It is surprising that a vehicle with a bed is more aerodynamic than an SUV, but that is the most logical explanation.

For folks highway driving you may see an extra 32 miles with max pack according to this data under ideal conditions.

32 miles on the highway is worth $10k to me, but I admit it seems over priced.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

It is surprising that a vehicle with a bed is more aerodynamic than an SUV, but that is the most logical explanation.



32 miles on the highway is worth $10k to me, but I admit it seems over priced.

It has to be aero. R1T has a spoiler and drops off at the back. S has a shorter wheelbase and is shaped more like a box. The T is at least 150 lbs heavier than the S but it has a longer wheelbase so it can tow more and is more stable feeling where the S feels more nimble.

 

[vandy1981]

The R1T is 16 miles more efficent than the R1S all due to aerodynamic ?

If the R1T has lower surface area than the R1S it would make sense.

 

[cardad]

I’m a big fan of the max pack! It gets meaningful more range and can get 287 miles in ~35 minutes from a DCFC. Large pack can’t do that.

Is it worth $10k more? To me, ?

Not in the winter. I got 2.04 mi/kwh in my R1S with no aerodynamic limiters on a cold 200+ mile drive last night and a max pack wouldn’t have changed anything.

I don’t think the economics make any sense especially compared to an 800 kw platform vehicle that charges much faster. If anything this makes me lean towards the new Ram PHEV for longer trips because of towing range. That extra battery will depreciate hard so you’re just throwing that cash to the wind.

 

[Epicloop]

Frequent towing, frequent road trips, extremely long work commute, unavailability of chargers on your traveled routes, etc.

Also camping with trailer, off grid camping/overland/off-roading, off grid job sites & once they have V2H (cabin) the extra is also valuable. They dropped the ball on this feature.
It however is certainly is not a value at the 6X up-charge.

 

[vandy1981]

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?

Again, just guessing, but I suspect the out the SiC inverter in the inverter for the rear motor as well to increase efficiency. The cost doesn't matter since the max pack is such a significant added cost.

I'm not sure, but I think MPGe includes losses incurred from level 2 charging. If that's the case, a more efficient on-board charger could also help the Max Pack numbers. I agree that a rear SiC inverter is also a possibility.

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.

This is an important thing that get's lost in the conversation. Extra range is of less use if it eats into the payload. The Hummer EV has a giant battery and the payload is 1300 pounds. The long-range Silverado EV WT isn't much better at 1400 pounds. My R1S MP payload is 1779, so there's plenty of capacity for people, gear and tongue weight because the battery isn't much heavier than the LP. Not to mention that a physically larger MP wouldn't have been possible in the R1S.

 

[SeaGeo]

I'm not sure, but I think MPGe includes losses incurred from level 2 charging. If that's the case, a more efficient on-board charger could also help the Max Pack numbers. I agree that a rear SiC inverter is also a possibility.

It does, but the efficiency I was going off was the achieved range and the battery size not the mpge.

Sponsored