What would you do? Get LE version (300+) or wait for MaxPack (400+)?

[DucRider]

imagine the amount of mileage and recharge/discharge cycles would play big part. 8 years and I may have 150-200k miles on this thing ?‍ Who knows. Hope you are correct

Warranty is 8/175K, so right in the ballpark

Sponsored

 

[SANZC02]

Warranty is 8/175K, so right in the ballpark

The warranty is it will have 70% after 8 years or 80k miles.

I think it will be well over that, I have over 90% of the initial range in my Model S after 5.5 years and most of that loss (about 6%) was the first couple of years.

 

[ajdelange]

In the q&a with RJ, he kind of said the trucks efficiency in passing....

He said 2to3 miles per kWh. That would be better than I would expect.

Three mi is 333 Wh/mi. That's too good to be true for the freeway and a little optimistic for around town. Two is 500 Wh/mi and I think that's about where it's going to fall for highway. Perhaps a bit more. ABRP is using 516 (for 65 mph) in their alpha model for R1T.

However an EV this size is still an unknown, the public has no reference to understand what av EV truck is doing at highway speeds...

Sure we do. The details are going to be different but the physics are the same. If you drive a BEV and know a little physics you have, or should have, a pretty good idea as to what is reasonable and what is not. We also know that Rivian's engineers know and have known for years. We know that they have been talking 400+ miles for EPA range for years and that the battery is going to have about 180 kW discharge capacity which implies 450 Wh/mi. We know that + means at most a few miles and that they aren't going to release a vehicle they've advertised for years as 400+ with 370. Putting all this together we can tell that RJ is being a bit optimistic at 333 (implies + = 33 mi EPA range) and probably pretty close at 500 for highway.

So we have to wait for some range tests when people get them.

We do have to wait to see what people are experiencing and what the rated numbers are. This will lead to the usual round of arguments on the flaws of the EPA tests, whether Rivian did all 5 or the minimum 3, whether they are sandbagging etc. It's going to be all the more complicated with these vehicles because they will be taken off road.

 

[ajdelange]

Back in early Nov I posted a poll asking about how people felt about the max pack. This was shortly after Rivian announced that vehicles with the max pack would come later than the mid sized. I was sure that anyone who had driven a BEV would want the max. Here's a summary

123 people have responded so 1 vote swings 0.8%. Keep that in mind
35.8% ± 4.3% of respondents are/were BEV owners
58.5% ± 2.2% of respondents prefer the 180 kWh pack
56.8% ± 7.5% of responding owners want the 180 kWh pack
59.5% ± 5.5% of responding non owners want the 180 kWh pack

In that poll slightly more than half wanted the max pack and it didn't matter whether they had previously driven BEV. In the current poll it's the other way around. Slightly more than half don't want the max pack or are not willing to wait for it.

 

[Party Mode]

I am also in the range is king camp. For several reason I am getting a max pack. Personally I own 2016 Tesla S 75D (wife’s)and 2014 Tesla S 85 (my daily driver 115k miles on it) both those cars new were 255-260mile range cars At 100% charge, both get up 235-240 Miles on 100% charge today. I live in the Midwest and that range is fine for in town driving but barely good enough to make it a few towns away and not enough to get back, we must charge. Thank you Tesla for a robust supercharger network! Point for me is, I would love to have another 150 miles range vs 50 more on my current real life range. And in the rain driving or heavy winds, or extreme cold that rang every takes about a 15-25% hit. Also based on my opinion, in watching Teslas sell later used you get most of that increase battery cost back. Today a 100d used cost about the exact same cost difference as the 75d new. I am not suggesting get the bigger pack for resale, but just saying at the end of the ownership you may recoup most of that 10k back!

 

[gorwell]

We know that they have been talking 400+ miles for EPA range

Yes we know the EPA range which is a mix of city and fairly slow highway speeds.

We really don't know how the truck behaves at highway speeds like 65 to 80mph. There no other EV at this size on the highway to see how much more battery drain it is going get when actually driving at more realistic road trip highway speeds.

 

[ajdelange]

when talking with RJ about the 300 vs. 400 mile batteries, he said the weight difference would be in the 300-350 pound range.

I held off responding to this in the hope that the member whi was concerned about battery weight would explain his concern but he didn't. Having a bound on the weight increase will help in looking at what the ∆ weight impact might actually be. Of course to do that I need the curb weight. I'm assuming an even 3000 kg (6600 lbs). Do you have a more precise number? For now a ∆ of 350 implies a weight increase of 5.3%

That came up when he was explaining the decision to upgrade the MaxPack version to make it as fast or faster than the LargePack, in part to acknowledge the extra outlay for those buying the top-of-the-line vehicle in either body style.
I know we saw at least one set of inverters for the MaxPack. I'd guess any increase in weight for those would be minimal, especially compared to the battery.

The power required for a given rate of acceleration is P = a*m*v (acceleration times mass times velocity) which is directly proportional to mass (at any rate of acceleration or speed). Thus the max truck is going to need 5.3% more power if it is going to do 0 - 60 in the same time as the large. Is the inverter for the max different from that for the large? It only has to handle an extra 5.3% as it would have to do if you add a couple of people or put 7 sacks of malt in the bed.

While we didn't discuss the specific effect on range by carrying that extra weight, I'm guessing you probably have that down to a very specific effect.

In writing the last paragraph it became clear to me that there are a whole host of effects such as whether the inverter would be different, what the losses in the inverter would be as the necessary current would go up, if briefly during acceleration but not briefly when going up a long hill but that would be offset by lesser loss in the bigger battery (135/180ths of the current in each cell)....

Am I right in guessing that once the vehicle is up to speed, the increased weight has less of an effect on "mileage" during sustained highway driving than it does in start and stop driving, where you're having to routinely accelerate and slow with more weight in play? If that's the case, I'm guessing that at least a small percentage of that range-loss from acceleration would recaptured by the extra regen created by slowing that extra mass, is that correct?

Inertial loss is more important in town than it is on the freeway but it is a load in either case and yes, the regen system is going to recover the majority of it. That is I think why ABRP uses the same number for all three models of the R1T in its 65 mph model. Regen is also responsible for recovering most of the energy you use in going up a hill when you come down. Just to throw out a number suppose you go up in elevation 1 mile (1600 m) in the course of driving 10. That requires
(350/2.2)*9.8*1600/3600/10 = 69.3 Wh/mi of which you get 80% back when you come down making the net cost 13.8 Wh/mi.

This leaves rolling resistance which also goes up with weight. Assuming a coefficient of 0.01 the cost per mile of the extra 350 lbs is
(350/2.2)*9.8*0.01*1600/3600 = 6.9 Wh/mi

Thus it appears that for highway cruising on nominally level terrain my consumption might increase by 1.5% and on hilly terrain by 4% because of the extra battery weight but that extra weight is giving me over 30% more range. Is the man concerned about his electric bill?

I always appreciate your specific factual calculations, input, and feedback.

And I appreciate the specific facts you have brought to us and I am sure I am not alone in this.

 

[ajdelange]

Yes we know the EPA range which is a mix of city and fairly slow highway speeds.

We really don't know how the truck behaves at highway speeds like 65 to 80mph. There no other EV at this size on the highway to see how much more battery drain it is going get when actually driving at more realistic road trip highway speeds.

Your bio squib says you drive a BEV. You should have some idea as to how it performs relative to its rated consumption when you drive it at 65 to 85. The CT is going to have a worse drag coefficient and larger projected area and is going to weigh more but if you know a little physics you ought to be able to put a little "english" on the EPA number and if you don't you can always go to ABRP and let them do it for you. No, you won't get the exact number. As you should know from driving a BEV there is no exact number. In any case many of us have a pretty good idea of what we are going to get when out trucks finally arrive.

 

[DuckTruck]

I held off responding to this in the hope that the member whi was concerned about battery weight would explain his concern but he didn't. Having a bound on the weight increase will help in looking at what the ∆ weight impact might actually be. Of course to do that I need the curb weight. I'm assuming an even 3000 kg (6600 lbs). Do you have a more precise number? For now a ∆ of 350 implies a weight increase of 5.3%

The power required for a given rate of acceleration is P = a*m*v (acceleration times mass times velocity) which is directly proportional to mass (at any rate of acceleration or speed). Thus the max truck is going to need 5.3% more power if it is going to do 0 - 60 in the same time as the large. Is the inverter for the max different from that for the large? It only has to handle an extra 5.3% as it would have to do if you add a couple of people or put 7 sacks of malt in the bed.

In writing the last paragraph it became clear to me that there are a whole host of effects such as whether the inverter would be different, what the losses in the inverter would be as the necessary current would go up, if briefly during acceleration but not briefly when going up a long hill but that would be offset by lesser loss in the bigger battery (135/180ths of the current in each cell)....


Inertial loss is more important in town than it is on the freeway but it is a load in either case and yes, the regen system is going to recover the majority of it. That is I think why ABRP uses the same number for all three models of the R1T in its 65 mph model. Regen is also responsible for recovering most of the energy you use in going up a hill when you come down. Just to throw out a number suppose you go up in elevation 1 mile (1600 m) in the course of driving 10. That requires
(350/2.2)*9.8*1600/3600/10 = 69.3 Wh/mi of which you get 80% back when you come down making the net cost 13.8 Wh/mi.

This leaves rolling resistance which also goes up with weight. Assuming a coefficient of 0.01 the cost per mile of the extra 350 lbs is
(350/2.2)*9.8*0.01*1600/3600 = 6.9 Wh/mi

Thus it appears that for highway cruising on nominally level terrain my consumption might increase by 1.5% and on hilly terrain by 4% because of the extra battery weight but that extra weight is giving me over 30% more range. Is the man concerned about his electric bill?

I always appreciate your specific factual calculations, input, and feedback.

Now I can say, "AJ, Thank you for your specific factual calculations, input, and feedback. I expected nothing less. As always, I appreciate your help in answering my questions and those of others. Have a great rest of your weekend!"

As to the initial question of the poll in this thread, I am in the camp of staying with the Launch Edition, which currently sits as 55.1%.

 

[ajdelange]

As to the initial question of the poll in this thread, I am in the camp of staying with the Launch Edition, which currently sits as 55.1%.

Yes, but you have tasted the fruit!

 

[bajadahl]

Here's a question for you BEV owners out there.... How far do you think you'd have to drive to get a decent sense of range?

For my test drive I am hoping to get up to highway speed for 20 miles or so and then attempt to calculate for myself how far I could reasonably go in similar conditions with a full charge.

Do you think 20 miles is enough to gauge range? (ignoring weather and terrain for now)

 

[ajdelange]

Here's a question for you BEV owners out there.... How far do you think you'd have to drive to get a decent sense of range?

For my test drive I am hoping to get up to highway speed for 20 miles or so and then attempt to calculate for myself how far I could reasonably go in similar conditions with a full charge.

Do you think 20 miles is enough to gauge range? (ignoring weather and terrain for now)

No, I don't. You can't ignore weather and terrain. Both are big factors. For example drag starts to emerge as a the major load above around 65 mph and it increases as the square of the speed. A 20 mph head wind increases drag, relative to 65 mph, by a factor of (85/65)^2 = 1.71. In addition to that a surprisingly small amount of water on a smooth roadbed can increase consumption appreciably.

Because range is appreciably different on wet roads from what it is on dry roads and in hot weather and cold weather as opposed to warm weather and at high speed relative to low speed and in hilly terrain relative to flat and is different going to re coming from if the elevations are different and effected dramatically by winds I'd say you need to experience all those in order to fully appreciate what their effects on range are. Thus I'd say it's going to take months or years (I'm a couple of years in and still learning) to gain a full appreciation. But, as with many other things, the learning curve is pretty steep here and I think you will have a pretty good feel in a month or two.

Often your sense of range will change in the course of a trip because conditions change (weather). The trucks will have tools to let you monitor this as you progress. This is done, obviously, to let you change charging plans should the situation require it.

A big question in your mind right now is probably "What should I expect if I take this truck to xxx?" You can learn a great deal about what to expect by playing with A Better Route Planner (ABRP). It has models for the Rivian vehicles and for wind, rain, load and driving speed. It also knows about terrain. So use it to plan a trip to xxx and see what it tells you as you vary speed, load and weather.

 

[DuckTruck]

Here's a question for you BEV owners out there.... How far do you think you'd have to drive to get a decent sense of range?

For my test drive I am hoping to get up to highway speed for 20 miles or so and then attempt to calculate for myself how far I could reasonably go in similar conditions with a full charge.

Do you think 20 miles is enough to gauge range? (ignoring weather and terrain for now)

I'm pretty certain the diagnostics on the dashboard will give you a good feel (i.e. accurate idea) for charge used and available range left after driving 20 miles on a flat surface at highway speed.

I can only speak to the experience in my Cadillac, but if it tells me I have 37 miles worth a range, it pretty much nails it by the end of that drive. That's especially the case when doing what you've laid out, that of maintaining a fairly constant speed in a highway setting. With our Rivians, I'm guessing we're gonna be pleasantly surprised. RJ and his team didn't seem to indicate that even the A/T tires were going to keep us from reaching their claimed range.

It's not like anyone made a proclamation that "Thou Shall Garner The Advertised Range!", it was just that they didn't seem to be concerned that these things wouldn't be able to produce the range we're expecting. After my factory pick up and during my drive back to Oregon, I'll take the over on whether the 300-mile range is attainable while on the highways, even with the A/T's.

Now, if I decide to play in the mountains of Colorado and the dirt of Utah's canyons along the way, I know my range will suffer. But that's also true for our ICE-Shakers when getting off of the pavement. I know I'll be stopping in Salida to visit P.T. and his distillery. The extra weight of a few cases of mostly-full bottles might negatively impact my range a little, but that payload should have a sizable and positive impact on my perma-grin. ????

 

[ajdelange]

I'm pretty certain the diagnostics on the dashboard will give you a good feel (i.e. accurate idea) for charge used and available range left after driving 20 miles on a flat surface at highway speed.

You will find that you come to think of your fuel condition in a very different way than you are used to doing from your ICE driving experience. I can talk about it all day long but you won't appreciate it until you experience it. In reality the world isn't any different in a BEV than it is in an ICE vehicle. If conditions chage en route such that your fuel consumption goes way up your range will go way down (if the condition persists) and you will run out unless you top up. The way in which your experience is different is that if that happens in an ICE vehicle (the light comes on way before your next planned fuel stop) you just pull off at the next exit and get gas. In a BEV you don't because there probably is no place to charge at the next off ramp. This results in obsession with fuel condition at all times throughout the trip. I don't have to explain this to pilots because they already know all about it.

A pilot knows how many gph his plane burns and what it's airspeed (TAS) is and picks an altitude where the wind speed is such that his ground speed is sufficient to get him to his destination with a comfortable reserve. A BEV driver knows how many Wh/mi his car burns when there is no wind an recognizes that head winds don't change his ground speed but that they increase the Wh/mi he will consume. He knows that he may not make it to his destination unless he can lower than Wh/mi number (which he does by slowing down) or can refuel.

Most of you don't want to mess with any of the stuff I have just described and so the car gives you a display like this one:

The gray line shows how much energy the car thought would be used in accomplishing this trip - that you will start out with about 80% charge and arrive with about 20%. Note that the line is not of constant slope because the navigation system knows where you are planning to go, that the speed limits vary and that the terrain isn't level. Sometimes the jogs in the line are much more dramatic than they are in this example.

The heavy red line shows the actual trip consumption history up to the open circle (your location) and a projection based on recent history beyond that point out to the destination. In this case the first 20 or so miles confirmed the original prediction but at that point it starts to become clear that you are really going to do better than the early prediction and at 150 miles you have obviously done quite a bit better than originally thought. Consequently the prediction for the destination is much better than the planner originally said things would be. The planner would use the rated range adjusted for terrain and speed limit to make its prediction of 20% SoC at the destination so obviously the rated range is not the appropriate range to use here. Why not? Probably, in this case, because of a tail wind but a more conservative than average driver might be the answer too. Were I to drive this route a month or even a day later the result might be substantially different. Your job is to observe what conditions lead to better and what conditions lead to worse performance. Or at least to understand what you need to do if the red meatball dips beneath 0 at the destination end of the plot.

There is much more detail on this plot in another thread but the essence is somewhat obscured in that thread by extensive discussion about what the planning system can and cannot know a priori.

The obvious assumption in all of this is that the Rivians will have a similar display as I think they must.

I can only speak to the experience in my Cadillac, but if it tells me I have 37 miles worth a range, it pretty much nails it by the end of that drive.

It's inherent with this sort of estimator that it is always going to be right at the end. The real question is as to whether being told before setting out you will have 37 miles range left at destination you can be assured that you will in fact have 37 miles range when you get there. No display can do that because it can't know that it might start raining heavily or that a head wind might spring up mid trip. It is the job of this graph to let you know if something that does impact end SoC comes up in enough time that you can do something about it if that's necessary.

That's especially the case when doing what you've laid out, that of maintaining a fairly constant speed in a highway setting.

This example picture shows that the story based on the first 20 miles can be deceptive with regard to the rest of the trip (especially if it is a long one). But note that just as this display can warn you that you had better slow down and/or charge sooner than plan it tells us, in cases like this example, that we could, on observing the more favorable than anticipated consumption at, say the 35 mile point, dial another 10 mph into the auto pilot. This means more consumption so as we drive at this higher speed the red line slope increases and the red meatball starts to descend the right axis. If it stabilizes at a lower SoC value lower than we are comfortable with we just dial the autopilot back a bit. Getting used to this is what requires the experience and some thought.

But With our Rivians, I'm guessing we're gonna be pleasantly surprised. RJ and his team didn't seem to indicate that even the A/T tires were going to keep us from reaching their claimed range.

Some will be pleased and some will be pissed off. I can guarantee posts in this forum a few months hence to the effect that that Scaringe bastard is as much of a scoundrel as that Musk bastard. These will come from people who have no clue about the physics involved and who think they should get 300 + miles range while driving 85 mph in hot weather. No reasonable person would think that but these are not reasonable people. I sure RJ is being fitted for his lead underwear as launch approaches.

It's not like anyone made a proclamation that "Thou Shall Garner The Advertised Range!", it was just that they didn't seem to be concerned that these things wouldn't be able to produce the range we're expecting.

This may be one of the hardest things for new BEV drivers to grasp. You will almost never achieve the advertised range. Sometimes you will get more and sometimes you will get less. It depends on how you drive, where you drive and when you drive. In the west where there are long stretches of road with 75 mph speed limits you will not get 300+ miles of range. On the east coast where speed limits are lower you will and might even get a bit over.

 

[IHScout]

I live in the PHX metroplex and have a place in Pinetop-Lakeside in eastern AZ with my brothers. It's a great area year round. It's about 180 miles uphill (both ways in the snow!!!) and we try to go several times a year. The 300 mile pack just isn't enough to get up there comfortably every trip and there are no CCS chargers on either of the direct routes up the hill.
Thus, I'm holding out for the Max pack. As @TessP100D would say - Range is King!

On a side note, I bought my daughter a Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus that has a 240 mile range and I regret it every day. I should have purchased the Long Range.

Electrify America, in cooperation with APS, are installing fast chargers in Payson, Show Low, and Globe. Expected completion is spring 2022. Not sure if that changes your mind. We travel to our favorite camping location just south of Big Lake and that area was a concern for me also.

Sponsored