? Official EPA Range and MPGe Numbers for R1T & R1S

[crashmtb]

Very helpful, thank you!

Adjust the energy usage to what you think it might Be with AT tires, etc.

Sponsored

 

[SeaGeo]

I was hoping for little bit better range with such a large pack. The efficiency of Rivian is making me pause purchase, until further info on upcoming EV's, namely Volvo XC90 replacement due to debut next yr.

What energy consumption were you looking for? It's extremely efficient for a vehicle of it's size and shape. Shit, the xc40 isn't much better and it's a compact SUV. The Etron is marginally better and quite a bit smaller as well, and a Wrangler is much worse. The XC90 is smaller than an R1S, and is definitely likely to be less efficient anyway. The R1T already uses about 18% less energy than the XC90 PHEV on electricity. The Rivian is probably required about 50% more energy to overcome drag than a model X just because it's bigger and not shaped like half an air foil.


I know I'm responding to you, but I'm confused by people in general wanting it to have lower energy consumption. It's obviously less aerodynamic than say... A model 3, and a hell of a lot bigger. It's honestly amazing how efficient it is. Gonna be interested what people say when they see what that the Hummer does.

 

[simpsonhomer]

So an honest question. If this is suppose to be an off road truck and the 20’’ tires are for off roading, and we know that 22’’ tires ride worse and are for street driving… why would anybody get the 22’’ tires for an off reading type of truck?

Because in reality, hardly anyone will ever take a $70K+ vehicle to do off-roading that requires the use of those all-terrain tires. Let's be honest with ourselves here—these are aspirational purchases and only a tiny fraction of people will actually take theirs off-road (though plenty will claim that they will—just like how everyone buys a gym membership after New Year's). There's a reason why 6% of SUV owners have ever taken their SUVs off-road.

Jacked-up Jeeps are some of the most spotless vehicles on the road. SUVs became a huge hit because it allowed owners to falsely give the impression that they live active lifestyles. It's all about marketing leading to sales.

 

[azbill]

Looking for any thoughts on highway grade degradation and regeneration, if I missed it in the thread please point me to it. I live in Phoenix, AZ and my cabin is 150 miles north in Happy Jack, AZ. On the 20" wheels do you think I can make it to the cabin (where I have a charger) going up I-17 and the 260 without having to plug in to top it off? As I came down the mountain last weekend I was pondering what regeneration might exist just going downhill as I was recalling the R1T's getting towed to charge the batteries in the show Long Way Up. I have seen test Rivian's driving between Phoenix and Flagstaff, maybe one of the engineers is a lurker on here and can drop a hint. Thanks!

I have a MAch E California Route 1 with 305 EPA range. I drove it to the Grand Canyon from Phoenix and on the way up charged in Williams. For me that was 183 miles distance and I had 33% of my battery left. My Mach E was showing I still had 105 miles remaining. I drove the 6000ft elevation change on I-17 at 75mph. Plus Flagstaff to Williams was also at 75mph.

Made it all the way home without charging and had something like 150 miles left when I got home. The Mach E got 3.1 mile/kwh going up the hill, coming down it got 4.4 mile/kwh.

I doubt the Rivian will be as good as the Mach E on that climb, but it should not have any issues making 150 miles up hill. And you are not going to be at 75mph across the 260.

Payson should have an APS/Electrify America charger in early 2022. Then you can just take the Beeline highway.

 

[Zeroemit]

That’s about $25 cheaper than filling my Mazda that gets 33 mpg

Definitely every person's electric v gas, driving habits, traffic...etc. will effect their cost of operation. I wish my cost of electric is like yours, i would have made deposit for R1S long ago.

 

[crashmtb]

Because in reality, hardly anyone will ever take a $70K+ vehicle to do off-roading that requires the use of those all-terrain tires. Let's be honest with ourselves here—these are aspirational purchases and only a tiny fraction of people will actually take theirs off-road (though plenty will claim that they will—just like how everyone buys a gym membership after New Year's). There's a reason why 6% of SUV owners have ever taken their SUVs off-road.

Jacked-up Jeeps are some of the most spotless vehicles on the road. SUVs became a huge hit because it allowed owners to falsely give the impression that they live active lifestyles. It's all about marketing leading to sales.

fun fact, looking at the R1’s competitors… you cannot buy a Range Rover with all terrain tires from the factory. And LR markets the hell out of their off road chops.

Personally, I don’t need all-terrain tires for off road use like Moab or something, but I do need them for winter, and what the department of highways charitably calls “unimproved roads”.

 

[lg3103]

I look forward to sitting in a Range Rover quality cabin in the R1S with the capabilities of my Jeep across Loveland Pass or Vail Pass during a Colorado Snowstorm. I know people on here talk about EVs using more tires…every high HP, high torque vehicle will use more tires. Had a BMW X5M and a Porsche Cayenne GTS a few years back…those massive tires lasted 20,000 miles because the rubber was so soft. Great grip (in the summer) but the tires didn’t last and it cost $2k to replace them…not including the extra winter tires needed in the winter. The Rivian is a sports car (0-60) that I can take up any dirt road and across any pass without having to worry about my tires, traction, etc. can’t wait to get behind the wheel and to have fun. Even if it means an extra 30 minute coffee break to recharge because I had too much fun.

 

[kanundrum]

I did find the charge times at 13 hours for Both vehicles. At 11.5kW/hr that makes the battery pack 149.5. Could be just erroneous information as well or multiple factors included like lower amps etc.

Battery Charge Time

240V Charge Time at 240 volts (hours)

2022 Rivian R1S (SUV)

13​

13​

2022 Rivian R1T (Pickup Truck)

13​

13​

 

[SeaGeo]

I did find the charge times at 13 hours for Both vehicles. At 11.5kW/hr that makes the battery pack 149.5. Could be just erroneous information as well or multiple factors included like lower amps etc.

Battery Charge Time

240V Charge Time at 240 volts (hours)

2022 Rivian R1S (SUV)

13​

13​

2022 Rivian R1T (Pickup Truck)

13​

13​

toss in 10% energy loss and you run into a very familiar number.

 

[LaunchGreen]

Definitely every person's electric v gas, driving habits, traffic...etc. will effect their cost of operation. I wish my cost of electric is like yours, i would have made deposit for R1S long ago.

where do you live. Even in high cost California I have EV plans available

 

[SeaGeo]

updating this here. For people that were worried about the 15 to 18 mph charging, it looks like that's because the clipper creek charger they were plugged into was set to 32 amps (best guess). This would make sense if the facility opted for a plug-in solution rather than hardwired (which appears to be the case).

The location they were charging at isn't on plugshare, so it took some sleuthing. BUT, the Inn did shave a blog post that did say you can charge at ~25 mph. I'm assuming they got that from clipper creek or someone. 25 mph for most cars is ~32amps. Going back to the MT review that showed charging between 15 and 18 mph, that would align fairly well with 25 mph @48 amps.
https://www.skylinevillageinn.com/electric-vehicle-charging-comes-to-the-skyline

 

[LeoH]

where do you live. Even in high cost California I have EV plans available

Where I live I can get a really good variable rate plan, where at night I get below 2c per KW. If I factor in taxes and all other charges, its like 5c a KW, so if I have an empty 135Kw, it would cost me theoretically $6.75 for a full charge, during that day it would cost me around $20. The city next to me has municipal power, their rates with taxes and surcharge jumps to 30c a kw, so their full charge would be $40.5.

if we assume 300 miles, and they have a 30mpg car, at 3.5 a gallon, that's $35 in gas.

So in some areas, buying electric is actually more costly.

 

[SANZC02]

where do you live. Even in high cost California I have EV plans available

In Orange County, CA the rate for the TOU plan for EVs is TOU-D-Prime with the best rate being 17 cents per kw. Based on EPA charging on 490 watts per mile, to go 316 miles would require a charge using 155 kw and cost 26.35.

In Cochalla Valley, CA you can find the best rate of 11.69 cents a kw so the same 316 miles would be 18.12

Compare that to my Jeep GC where I can get 20mpg on a trip, at 3.79 (cheapest price at Costco, over 4.00 at other stations) a gallon the same 316 miles would cost 58.24

If I had a car getting 33mpg, the same 316 miles would cost 36.29

All of that is assuming you do not have a properly configured solar system to offset the electricity cost.

 

[DuckTruck]

Both the 21 and 22 are M+S. The 20s are 3-peak.

So, as to the question raised previously by @PastyPilgrim,

"Would the ATs provide a significant upgrade for hazardous weather?",

do we agree that the 20's are at least an upgrade within Rivian's wheelhouse (pun intended) for hazardous weather, if not a fully-dedicated winter tire? "Significant" is perhaps subjective.

Per snowtyres.com:

https://snowtyres.com.au/learn/tyres-explained/#:~:text=Compared to M+S tyres,tyre or a winter tyre:

"3PMSF winter tyres explained

Winter or snow tyres that receive the official snowflake marking, also known as the 3PMSF ‘3 Peak Mountain Snow Flake’ symbol, provide verified safety for demanding snow conditions.

The definition of a winter tyre is stated in the European ECE regulation 117.02. It states that the tyre’s tread pattern, tread material or structure must be primarily designed in order to provide better characteristics than ordinary tyres in terms of acceleration, traction and stopping under demanding winter conditions, and that it must be verified.

The 3PMSF symbol is standardised and controlled by EU authorities, guaranteeing that the product meets the conditions of rigorous testing and is suitable for operation in difficult weather conditions.

3PMSF marked tyres have been approved through regulation tests to guarantee a higher level of performance under winter conditions stated in the European ECE regulation 117.02.

3PMSF winter tyres are designed to stay flexible in temperatures below 7°C and provide excellent grip on snow, slush, wet roads and bare asphalt. The aggressive tread design and siping provides grip and stability in snow and will disperse away water and wet snow slush.

Compared to M+S tyres, 3PMSF winter tyres offer superior braking and cornering performance on wet and rough ice, soft and hard-packed snow, and slush. A tyre without the 3MPSF marking cannot be marketed as a snow tyre or a winter tyre.

M+S tyres explained

The M+S symbol on tyres is very misleading. It’s a declaration from the tyre manufacturer that the product can operate in mud and snow better than their regular models. However, there is no performance standard or traction/stopping tests to pass as the M+S designation refers only to the tread pattern."

According to TireRack.com:
https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=125:

"Tires branded with the 3PMSF symbol are expected to provide improved snow traction beyond a standard M+S branded all-season tire"

(The bolding and italics are mine.)

 

[Hopper]

So just so I’m clear. That’s only 268 miles on range on a fully charged battery using the off road 20’’ tires? Is that correct?

and only 241 miles of range charged at 90%?


is this correct?

In perfect weather.

Sponsored