20" Nitto Recon Grappler AT tires 25% more efficient than Pirelli OEM AT! The holy grail!

[ksurfier]

Just FYI the OEM Pirelli AT is a SL rated tire. Rivian thinks a SL rated tire is fine from the factory and they don't mention any restriction to hauling or towing with them. Not to dispute the LT tire's more rugged build but my guess is Rivian was trying to max the efficiency with the OEM tire while meeting their other payload and towing specs.

The best I can gather is that there is some weird ratings going on between 40 to 50 pound tires...But I think I've started to figure out why 116 is the preffered load. For SL tires (like the Pirelli), it's standard practice to derate the load by 10% when being used in XL territory. So if we remove 10% from 2756# then we end up with a 2480# XL rating.
This results in max load of ~9,920# (15.9% above the max load limit Rivian lists at ~8,560#).
XL rated tires do not exist below 116, and similarly, almost no SL rated tires exist above 115...
Derating 113, 114, and 115 SL tires yields the following load limits 2281#, 2341#, and 2411#. Applied to the full load of the vehicle means saftey factors are very low (6 - 13%).

Maybe the biggest reason to not use a 44 psi tire is that it does not achieve the contact patch that Rivian designed to be used...maybe they decided ideal contact patch was between 6.1 and 6.7 inches long/wide and by using 44 psi the patch is between 6.4 and 7 inches long/wide...
Bigger contact patch=better dry traction
Smaller contact patch=better wet, snow, & ice traction
So the 44 psi tire may not be ideal for rain/snow...

Sponsored

 

[R1Sky Business]

I’ll do it when I go back home today. That’s 30 miles and avg speed should be around 60-65 due to traffic. This morning coming I did around 2.6, but going back usually is less.

Update?

 

[cardad]

My hypothesis is that it depends on the number of those micro gooves that make tires better in the snow… the more a tire has, the more snow rated and the more the tire flexes, hence increasing rolling resistance. I think rolling resisntance is a function of tire softness and deformation. That’s proably why 3 peak rated tires have lower MPG efficiency… but that just my thought… These grappler ATs don’t have many micro grooves for slow…

You can sipe any tire with a siping machine and it only marginally affects your efficiency. Rolling resistance has more to do with the tire compound. Wheel aerodynamics also plays a role as wider wheels with tires that overhang the rim are less efficient than narrower wheels with tires that align with the rim (and stay in the fender well).

 

[cardad]

Agreed with you but would point out that I noticed that awful drone seems to have mostly disappeared after I passed about 24k miles (and still with decent tread). It was pretty awful from an about 15k or so through 24k…but seems to be gone now (mostly)

Is that because your tires are bald? I’m at 25k with basically bald tires up front and there is still a lot of noise compared to my R1S with 21s.

 

[moonjeong]

Update?

I couldn’t do a controlled measurement back home cause I had to do a few errands. But did get around a 2.3 efficiency on the way back. Next week in my commute I’ll do it right.

 

[Flexia]

It looks like the nito tire is a little lighter than the OE pirelli. Here are the specs of both tires

 

[moonjeong]

I recently switched from stock 21" Pirellis to Atomic AW09 wheels and Michelin LTX Platinums. I may be testing the Costco return policy soon! Despite Michelin advertising these as an EV-ready tire, the Platinum's rolling resistance must be quite high. I don't have much data to go on yet since I only had them installed on 2/29, but so far they haen't been what I expected.

Use ElectraFi's Wh/Mi data on a route I drive frequently, plus a spreadsheet to do the math and adjust for the size difference:

• Pirelli average Mi/kWh from November through February 28: 2.12
• Michelin Platinum avg Mi/kWh from Feb 29 to today: 1.92

And this doesn't even take into account the difference in temperature. There were some damn cold weeks in KC from Nov to Feb. My lifetime average on the Pirellis is 2.20 over 28k miles. That includes some trips towing a camper getting under 1.0 for hundreds of miles.

I recently increased the pressure on the Platinums to 63psi. I was running about 53. More data to come.

The ride on the Platinums, being a LT tire, makes me feel like I'm driving my dad's F250...

You 1.92 is almost an exact 1.9 that I got over a few thousand miles. You did better than me on the Pirellis though. Agree the platinums not recommended!

 

[ksurfier]

You 1.92 is almost an exact 1.9 that I got over a few thousand miles. You did better than me on the Pirellis though. Agree the platinums not recommended!

Apologies if you already covered this, but on a typical drive is your average 20-30 minute speed 40, 50, 60, or 70 mph? This is the difference between high and low MPK (2.5 vs 1.9) for any given tire (hence why a 15 minute test at using All Purpose (60/65/70/75 mph) would allow pinpointing the tires efficiency given road and weather conditions). If you are really getting high MPK at 65+ speeds with this AT then that’s remarkable! I’m guessing it’s around 2.2-2.3 at 60 mph, show us the #s! For your use case, it sounds like the bigger tires really hurt your MPK due to higher rolling resistance (especially at low speeds) and change in speed/momentum (hills), use of conserve will also add ~0.3 MPK…

 

[moonjeong]

Apologies if you already covered this, but on a typical drive is your average 20-30 minute speed 40, 50, 60, or 70 mph? This is the difference between high and low MPK (2.5 vs 1.9) for any given tire (hence why a 15 minute test at using All Purpose (60/65/70/75 mph) would allow pinpointing the tires efficiency given road and weather conditions). If you are really getting high MPK at 65+ speeds with this AT then that’s remarkable! I’m guessing it’s around 2.2-2.3 at 60 mph, show us the #s! For your use case, it sounds like the bigger tires really hurt your MPK due to higher rolling resistance (especially at low speeds) and change in speed/momentum (hills), use of conserve will also add ~0.3 MPK…

I recorded a trip earlier today 60 miles at 70mph gps, it gave me exactly 2.0 m/kw I am carrying a 200lb e-bike and have a little over 300 lbs of ammo and guns… the e-bike alone knocks about 10-15% off efficiency historically. I’ll do the math later when I get home.

 

[moonjeong]

OK so I had some time to put this little video together today from a trip by made to talk about the Nittos

 

[ksurfier]

OK so I had some time to put this little video together today from a trip by made to talk about the Nittos

Awesome - thanks for the detailed review! Your efficiency for having the bike and all the extra weight is solid.
Since you are running conserve and 70 mph, that would be right about equal to 1.9 MPK in All Purpose @65 MPH, I’m not sure how the weight effects it but guessing your average MPK should be very close and maybe slightly better than OEM 20” tire, which makes sense as they are pretty similar.

For anyone looking for a better tire than the OEM this is a solid option.

This post really highlights how one tire can have multiple versions (8 in the case of the Recon Grappler).

Another benefit you may be getting with SL instead of XL is in the compound and construction, this may help with better efficiency too.

Appreciate the time you spent responding and I owe you a beer!

 

[moonjeong]

Awesome - thanks for the detailed review! Your efficiency for having the bike and all the extra weight is solid.
Since you are running conserve and 70 mph, that would be right about equal to 1.9 MPK in All Purpose @65 MPH, I’m not sure how the weight effects it but guessing your average MPK should be very close and maybe slightly better than OEM 20” tire, which makes sense as they are pretty similar.

For anyone looking for a better tire than the OEM this is a solid option.

This post really highlights how one tire can have multiple versions (8 in the case of the Recon Grappler).

Another benefit you may be getting with SL instead of XL is in the compound and construction, this may help with better efficiency too.

Appreciate the time you spent responding and I owe you a beer!

On the oem, the e-bike took avg 2 m/kw to about 1.7 to 1.8 at highway speeds ~70 Mph

 

[Dr Gonzo]

I’ve been running the nitto grapplers on my Range Rover TD6 l405 for years, and also the exo grapplers on my rover in Iceland. I much prefer them to the stock ATs on the Rivian. I haven’t had a chance to air down and rock crawl around Colorado with the Rivian yet, but much prefer the snow/ice performance of the Exo grappler. I am glad to hear about the efficiency, maybe it’s time to make the switch earlier.

 

[goldburger]

OK so I had some time to put this little video together today from a trip by made to talk about the Nittos

In your video you’re driving in conserve mode— is your 2.4 claim in your original post based on conserve or AP? I don’t know about anyone else but AP should be the efficiency metric we’re discussing, right?

 

[moonjeong]

In your video you’re driving in conserve mode— is your 2.4 claim in your original post based on conserve or AP? I don’t know about anyone else but AP should be the efficiency metric we’re discussing, right?

It’s in conserve mode. Here’s my thought: everyone has a different driving behavior, environmental conditions, etc… therefore holding AP constant and getting data across various users with different conditions will only be good for a distribution of outcomes - not really a comparison of tires.

The value of my review is that everything is held as constant as possible and the only thing changing is the tire. For example, my wife has an R1S with 21” tires - on that one when I’m driving in my conditions, I don’t get more than 2.4 miles/kw in my commute, which is what I get in the Nittos. Also attaching pictures of our first 667 miles almost all in conserve and never towed. We are averaging 1.92 M/KW - almost all are local except for a few commutes I did on the highway.
No, my wife and I do t drive all 835 horses everyday, but we live in an area with a lot of ups and downs.
So again, the value of my review is only a tire comparison holding everything else constant. Most of the tire reviews out there don’t do that.

Sponsored