24" wheels on R1S

[jjswan33]

Highway range will take a big hit. But I do like how they look.

Relative to what? Over the 21s maybe but my expectation is a push with the 22" wheels and a gain over the 20" wheels.

The weight of the tire and wheel shouldn't be that different than the stock 22, if anything the biggest hit would be city range not highway due to any weight difference. On the highway weight of the tire/wheel is a nearly irrelevant factor, tread pattern and aero matter more so with that in mind the lack of an aero cover could impact you a little but not much different than the stock 22 again.

Sponsored

 

[Rob O]

Those (Vossen forged S17-01s) are what I use for the winter set up on my RS5 (paint matched). They look great on the R1S as well ... although I wouldn’t go 24s personally.

 

[mkhuffman]

Relative to what? Over the 21s maybe but my expectation is a push with the 22" wheels and a gain over the 20" wheels.

The weight of the tire and wheel shouldn't be that different than the stock 22, if anything the biggest hit would be city range not highway due to any weight difference. On the highway weight of the tire/wheel is a nearly irrelevant factor, tread pattern and aero matter more so with that in mind the lack of an aero cover could impact you a little but not much different than the stock 22 again.

The 24" rim is replacing 2" of smooth tire sidewall with lots of open spaces to catch the air. So I think there will be a measurable range hit due to worse aerodynamics. In addition, the Rivian 22" tire is a low rolling resistance tire, and the tires that can go on the 24" will not be. The impact will be significant at all speeds.

Maybe someone will try it out and let us know what they find!

 

[jjswan33]

The 24" rim is replacing 2" of smooth tire sidewall with lots of open spaces to catch the air. So I think there will be a measurable range hit due to worse aerodynamics. In addition, the Rivian 22" tire is a low rolling resistance tire, and the tires that can go on the 24" will not be. The impact will be significant at all speeds.

Maybe someone will try it out and let us know what they find!

Well I agree we will have to wait until someone shows us results, I certainly won't be buying them as it isn't my style.

I have seen reports that the aero covers on the 21s are at most a 5% savings so my take is that the difference between these 24s and the stock 22s would be negligible. Hard to say about the tread pattern but I personally doubt they have significantly more rolling resistance than the 22s, at least with the tires shown. Regardless we can agree to disagree here.

 

[mkhuffman]

Well I agree we will have to wait until someone shows us results, I certainly won't be buying them as it isn't my style.

I have seen reports that the aero covers on the 21s are at most a 5% savings so my take is that the difference between these 24s and the stock 22s would be negligible. Hard to say about the tread pattern but I personally doubt they have significantly more rolling resistance than the 22s, at least with the tires shown. Regardless we can agree to disagree here.

FYI - it isn't tread pattern that is the issue, it is the rubber material that has the biggest impact on rolling resistance. Unless the tire is designed for low rolling resistance, it will be worse than the stock Rivian 22" tires. For sure.

How much? I don't know, but I bet it is measurable. Just as I am sure the increase in air resistance from the larger rims will be measurable. Those are big ass rims, and not aerodynamic at all. There is a 58-mile range difference between the 21" wheels and the 20" ATs on the DMP truck. The difference is due to aerodynamics and rolling resistance. 58 miles is significant.

We can agree to disagree. ?

 

[Chiefhawk]

FYI - it isn't tread pattern that is the issue, it is the rubber material that has the biggest impact on rolling resistance. Unless the tire is designed for low rolling resistance, it will be worse than the stock Rivian 22" tires. For sure.

How much? I don't know, but I bet it is measurable. Just as I am sure the increase in air resistance from the larger rims will be measurable. Those are big ass rims, and not aerodynamic at all. There is a 58-mile range difference between the 21" wheels and the 20" ATs on the DMP truck. The difference is due to aerodynamics and rolling resistance. 58 miles is significant.

We can agree to disagree. ?

Thank you for this debate. This is the type of response I was wanting. I have the 20"AT currently and really wanted the 22" from Rivian. I got impatient and took a different model than the one I was waiting on. I like the look of a bigger rim but I have a little range anxiety. Thankfully right now its just a city cruiser but I do take the occasional road trip.

 

[jjswan33]

Thank you for this debate. This is the type of response I was wanting. I have the 20"AT currently and really wanted the 22" from Rivian. I got impatient and took a different model than the one I was waiting on. I like the look of a bigger rim but I have a little range anxiety. Thankfully right now its just a city cruiser but I do take the occasional road trip.

I guarantee you would have better range on these than the 20s. If you like the look and have the coin I say go for it but you can't go wrong with the stock 22s either, at least until it snows

 

[mkhuffman]

I guarantee you would have better range on these than the 20s. If you like the look and have the coin I say go for it but you can't go wrong with the stock 22s either, at least until it snows

I don't think you can be so sure about that.

In the following post, someone replaced the ATs with All Season tires that I would have expected to have a lower rolling resistance than the AT tires. But it appears they do not. Best case, they are similar, but the initial observations suggests they have higher rolling resistance.

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...a-20-tire-your-wait-is-over.21866/post-445236

The AT tires on the Rivian are not as efficient as the 21s, but they are definitely designed for low rolling resistance. So it is very possible there is no 24" tire that can be used on these rims that have a lower rolling resistance.

My bet is these 24" rims with normal tires will have worse efficiency than the 20" ATs. How much? IDK. But definitely it is not guaranteed to be better.

 

[SANZC02]

I can give you an example I had on a Tahoe. I went from 20 all season to 24 all season. Highways in CA are not as bad as northeast so ride was a bit harsher but not bad, handling was better. My mileage hit was ~15% which surprised me as the weight difference was less than 5 lbs.

I think the biggest challenge will be the load rating on 24s. The ones linked above are only 112 which is less than the max GVWR on the R1S, lowest based on numbers is 113 but Rivian’s have been coming with 115/116 ratings. 112 is certainly under the GAXR so most tire shops would not want to put them on.

 

[jjswan33]

I don't think you can be so sure about that.

In the following post, someone replaced the ATs with All Season tires that I would have expected to have a lower rolling resistance than the AT tires. But it appears they do not. Best case, they are similar, but the initial observations suggests they have higher rolling resistance.

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...a-20-tire-your-wait-is-over.21866/post-445236

The AT tires on the Rivian are not as efficient as the 21s, but they are definitely designed for low rolling resistance. So it is very possible there is no 24" tire that can be used on these rims that have a lower rolling resistance.

My bet is these 24" rims with normal tires will have worse efficiency than the 20" ATs. How much? IDK. But definitely it is not guaranteed to be better.

Of course you're not. What happened to agree to disagree?

You are putting way too much emphasis on the tread compound and it's effect on rolling resistance. I think you are reading too much tire industry propaganda or something. Plenty of folks running 'regular' tires that are getting better efficiency than the 20" stock Pirellis.

Anyone that thinks that this tire:

is going to be more efficient that this tire:

needs to share whatever they are smoking because you are not seeing clearly. I mean there is 14" more rubber as compared to the 9" on the 24" wheel with that tire, the largest factor in tire efficiency is the hysteresis (how much the tire flexes when it meets the road). They won't even be close at the same pressure. On top of that the tread is significantly taller and more aggressive on the AT.

@SANZC02 does make a good point about the load rating though, I don't see any tires that meet OEM load ratings in that size.

 

[mkhuffman]

Of course you're not. What happened to agree to disagree?

You are putting way too much emphasis on the tread compound and it's effect on rolling resistance. I think you are reading too much tire industry propaganda or something. Plenty of folks running 'regular' tires that are getting better efficiency than the 20" stock Pirellis.

Anyone that thinks that this tire:

is going to be more efficient that this tire:

needs to share whatever they are smoking because you are not seeing clearly. I mean there is 14" more rubber as compared to the 9" on the 24" wheel with that tire, the largest factor in tire efficiency is the hysteresis (how much the tire flexes when it meets the road). They won't even be close at the same pressure. On top of that the tread is significantly taller and more aggressive on the AT.

@SANZC02 does make a good point about the load rating though, I don't see any tires that meet OEM load ratings in that size.

This is a frustrating debate because tire manufacturers could tell us the rolling resistance of their tires, but they do not. So all I am saying is you cannot tell the rolling resistance by looking at the tire. You cannot "guarantee" that the a rim with high air resistance mounted with a tire that is not designed for low rolling resistance will be more efficient than the Rivian AT setup.

Is this

more efficient than this?

Looking at the tires, I would guess "yes", but it does not appear they are.

That is what I am saying. And any tire that is not designed for low rolling resistance is likely to be worse than the ATs that are. Maybe not, but it is my opinion they will be.

Ideally you want to replace the ATs with a tire designed for EV use, that is designed for low rolling resistance. If you do that, I bet you may even get close to the 21s in efficiency with the 20" stock rims. Maybe. One day we might be able to test that, when a tire company finally release a tire that we can test.

And yes, I can agree to disagree. That doesn't mean I am not going to express my disagreement, though.

I agree about the load rating issue, though. We can agree to agree on that.

 

[jjswan33]

This is a frustrating debate because tire manufacturers could tell us the rolling resistance of their tires, but they do not. So all I am saying is you cannot tell the rolling resistance by looking at the tire. You cannot "guarantee" that the a rim with high air resistance mounted with a tire that is not designed for low rolling resistance will be more efficient than the Rivian AT setup.

Is this

more efficient than this?

Looking at the tires, I would guess "yes", but it does not appear they are.

That is what I am saying. And any tire that is not designed for low rolling resistance is likely to be worse than the ATs that are. Maybe not, but it is my opinion they will be.

Ideally you want to replace the ATs with a tire designed for EV use, that is designed for low rolling resistance. If you do that, I bet you may even get close to the 21s in efficiency with the 20" stock rims. Maybe. One day we might be able to test that, when a tire company finally release a tire that we can test.

And yes, I can agree to disagree. That doesn't mean I am not going to express my disagreement, though.

I agree about the load rating issue, though. We can agree to agree on that.

I can follow your sentiment. Between the two tires you show I too expect that the Michelin would be more efficient but much closer than the debate we were having. Also I would be hesitant to assume they are less efficient based on that one anecdotal report, I guess seasonal factors could be at play also should give the tires time to wear a bit.

 

[mkhuffman]

I can follow your sentiment. Between the two tires you show I too expect that the Michelin would be more efficient but much closer than the debate we were having. Also I would be hesitant to assume they are less efficient based on that one anecdotal report, I guess seasonal factors could be at play also should give the tires time to wear a bit.

True. Worn tires are more efficient than new tires (of the same tire, of course).

Once BEVs become more common, I imagine tire companies will find a way to compare the efficiency of their tires with the competition. I hope. Right now they just say "designed for EVs" or something like that. Even then you really don't know what that means, because part of what they "design" is a quieter tire and one that can handle more weight, which has nothing to do with rolling resistance of course.

One common low rolling resistance tire trait is poor "bad weather" performance. Low rolling resistance tires tend to do worse on wet roads or in the snow. You can see that in Tire Rack reviews. But a tire that performs poorly in the snow is not necessarily a low rolling resistance tire. Frustrating.

 

[ksurfier]

There are >1 million reasons a 24” tire is a terrible idea, a couple important ones:
Brakes are not likely suitable
Tires are not likely available for load (>116)
Efficiency will be terrible
Ride quality will suffer and potential for blowouts will be much higher
There is a lot of good info on the forums showing 20” tires to be best for all things (including efficiency depending on which tire is used). Most/all tires tested fall within 1.5 to 3.0 miles per kilowatt hour (with >80% in the 2.1 to 2.3 range).
Biggest factor is if you plan to tow/offroad, if not then should aim for a tire that gets ~2.5, likely 3-4 options…

Sponsored