Will Rivian ever give us accurate range estimates in poor efficiency situations?

[Dark-Fx]

Wanted to bring this topic up again, hoping that Rivian will actually consider doing this. For the towing screen, it's obviously using some constant minimum variable behind the scenes, as there is no way to arrive at 165 miles with 0.9 mi/kWh efficiency when pulling our travel trailer on my R1T. This morning when it recalculated at 5000 lbs, it went up to 170 something miles of range but I was still getting the 0.9 mi/kWh efficiency number.

Would also like to have more accurate numbers on the main display as well, towing or not. I've been doing the mental math from %SoC and efficiency numbers but the truck should be able to do it too.

Sponsored

 

[White Shadow]

Wouldn't it be dependent on the specific situation? Meaning, if you're towing, how heavier is the trailer? And is it an open trailer, a box trailer, etc...? Not to mentioned environmental factors or personal driving style. I think it would be difficult to get an accurate predicted efficiency.

I have zero experience towing with an EV, but from what I've seen, some people just choose to chop 50% off the top just as a general rule.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Wouldn't it be dependent on the specific situation? Meaning, if you're towing, how heavier is the trailer? And is it an open trailer, a box trailer, etc...? Not to mentioned environmental factors or personal driving style. I think it would be difficult to get an accurate predicted efficiency.

I have zero experience towing with an EV, but from what I've seen, some people just choose to chop 50% off the top just as a general rule.

The truck is literally displaying what the past energy consumption has been and knows what the current consumption is. I'm seeing closer to a 60% drop in range from EPA with our setup, but the truck doesn't use that figure when displaying range.

 

[White Shadow]

The truck is literally displaying what the past energy consumption has been and knows what the current consumption is. I'm seeing closer to a 60% drop in range from EPA with our setup, but the truck doesn't use that figure when displaying range.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, you'd think that wouldn't be too hard to figure out for Rivian.

 

[jjswan33]

I say lets just get rid of the good old guess-o-meter (GOM) all together or just give us the option to display kWh remaining. I am sure they could make more guess's in the old GOM but would I really trust it?

The Rivian NAV kinda does this already though right, albeit conservatively? At least in my R1T I usually beat the NAV estimates and I average 1.5-1.7 mi/kWh.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I say lets just get rid of the good old guess-o-meter (GOM) all together or just give us the option to display kWh remaining. I am sure they could make more guess's in the old GOM but would I really trust it?

The Rivian NAV kinda does this already though right, albeit conservatively? At least in my R1T I usually beat the NAV estimates and I average 1.5-1.7 mi/kWh.

Navigation is typically closer to accurate for "miles" remaining at destination, but yeah, the issue with that number is the miles remaining is still based off the forced minimum. It's not an accurate representation of miles the vehicle will be capable of once arriving at the destination.

kWh remaining being a configurable option could be helpful for both places though. At the very least, make it consistent by allowing percentage instead of the faux miles.

 

[jtshaw]

The truck is literally displaying what the past energy consumption has been and knows what the current consumption is. I'm seeing closer to a 60% drop in range from EPA with our setup, but the truck doesn't use that figure when displaying range.

Are you talking about the range on the dashboard battery indicator, the range at arrival using nav, or both?

I've always found the former to be best case scanerio and the latter to be very accurate, and clearly taking consideration terrain, etc.

Nevermind, you answered this but I missed it thanks to a refresh bug.

 

[KootenayEV]

I find the navigation display of "rated range remaining" pretty accurate whether I have a ski box on, bikes in the back, etc when in snow mode, all purpose or conserve.

But the towing mode needs serious work as you've highlighted. The 'towing' display has two values that don't agree with each other on the screenshot in your first post, and don't add up to what the range display shows (particularly that the 'range at 100%' is always too high).

Secondly on the driver display, the UI behavior is odd, because when you aren't connected to a trailer, it displays rated range beside the SOC %, but when connected to a trailer, it turns into a GOM. I'd rather it stayed in the rated range for all purpose, at least then I would know how to scale it.

If they provided more insight into how the values are calculated, it would make it a lot easier for us.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I find the navigation display of "rated range remaining" pretty accurate whether I have a ski box on, bikes in the back, etc when in snow mode, all purpose or conserve.

Mine will never drop below what seems like EPA results. At 85 mph, with stuff on the truck, it's significantly overestimated

But the towing mode needs serious work as you've highlighted. The 'towing' display has two values that don't agree with each other on the screenshot in your first post, and don't add up to what the range display shows (particularly that the 'range at 100%' is always too high).

I think there's a chance that if your trailer is particularly aerodynamic, that the value will adjust to reality. Would like to hear from people that are towing pop-up camper style loads if that's true.

 

[KootenayEV]

I think there's a chance that if your trailer is particularly aerodynamic, that the value will adjust to reality. Would like to hear from people that are towing pop-up camper style loads if that's true.

I have several thousand km of trips planned with my Airstream this year and will be watching this value pretty carefully and curious to see what happens! The updated tow mode was released after I stopped towing my TT last fall, so I've only used it with utility trailers so far. I hope you are right

 

[SANZC02]

I find the GOM in the navigation to be pretty accurate on my R1S, it adjust during the trip so if I need to slow down as I get closer to the next charge I can make that adjustment.

The Rivian is way more accurate than my Model S, that one I really do not use and just drive the Tesla based on past experience.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

The truck is literally displaying what the past energy consumption has been and knows what the current consumption is. I'm seeing closer to a 60% drop in range from EPA with our setup, but the truck doesn't use that figure when displaying range.

I'm not sure if it's ever possible. You're basically asking for the future to be predicted without taking into account of data collected from the past; essentially a blind guess. Even trip computers in ICE are based on past driving.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I'm not sure if it's ever possible. You're basically asking the future to be predicted without taking into account of data collected from the past; essentially a wild guess.

It's better than using a correction factor that's impossible to meet. I have never seen the ~1.3 mi/kWh required to hit Rivian's range estimation here. Terrain around here is pretty flat, using recent past performance to predict future performance is pretty reliable for my situations.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

It's better than using a correction factor that's impossible to meet. I have never seen the ~1.3 mi/kWh required to hit Rivian's range estimation here. Terrain around here is pretty flat, using recent past performance to predict future performance is pretty reliable for my situations.

Maybe what they should do is crowdsource the data, if they don't already, so the data set used to predict range is larger, has more depth and closer to reality.

 

[hgpayne]

Navigation is typically closer to accurate for "miles" remaining at destination, but yeah, the issue with that number is the miles remaining is still based off the forced minimum. It's not an accurate representation of miles the vehicle will be capable of once arriving at the destination.

kWh remaining being a configurable option could be helpful for both places though. At the very least, make it consistent by allowing percentage instead of the faux miles.

I have my range display set to show both percent and faux/imaginary miles but the arrival SOC always shows in these fake miles. I end up checking the towing page to see what it thinks I can do and then dividing the stated arrival SOC miles by this number to get my percent I really want to know. As a general rule if the tiny battery is partially green I'm good, if it is yellowish, I am also probably good, and if it is red -- I start doing that math.

I totally agree with the OP in that why does it show I can tow 319 miles when my history with the trailer shows I'm only getting 1.2 miles/kWh?

Sponsored