YouTube Video: The 2025 Rivian R1T Tri-motor Max Pack Does Its Best With All Terrain Tires! 70-MPH Range Test

[JeromePowell]

Spoiler: 298.1-miles at 70-mph using Out of Spec testing procedures

Sponsored

 

[DayTripping]

I am lazy today today so I will mostly post what I wrote in another thread that had the same vid.

“Well, for those that didn't watch the vid, the Tri Max barely got more range than the Gen1 quad and overall had worse efficiency. It only went 9 miles more with a 10% larger pack.

Both were wearing 20" AT Pirellis with similar conditions.

I should’ve added, 298 versus 289. Where are all the vaunted efficiency gains?”

That pretty much is my takeaway. I should have added efficiency of 2.1 vs 2.3. I could have spent 50k more on a new Tri and got 9 more miles. That is with a heat pump and a max pack… I think I made the right choice on passing on a Gen2 truck for now. Right for me anyway. YMMV of course.

 

[JeromePowell]

I am lazy today today so I will mostly post what I wrote in another thread that had the same vid.

“Well, for those that didn't watch the vid, the Tri Max barely got more range than the Gen1 quad and overall had worse efficiency. It only went 9 miles more with a 10% larger pack.

Both were wearing 20" AT Pirellis with similar conditions.

I should’ve added, 298 versus 289. Where are all the vaunted efficiency gains?”

That pretty much is my takeaway. I should have added efficiency of 2.1 vs 2.3. I could have spent 50k more on a new Tri and got 9 more miles. That is with a heat pump and a max pack… I think I made the right choice on passing on a Gen2 truck for now. Right for me anyway. YMMV of course.

I concur with your assessment.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Why not test it on efficient tires? This test is useless, it's like trying to see how much range you get doing launches at every light, sure it's information but ultimately useless.

 

[JeromePowell]

Why not test it on efficient tires? This test is useless, it's like trying to see how much range you get doing launches at every light, sure it's information but ultimately useless.

The test seems pretty realistic to me as many people prefer to run all terrain tires for a variety of reasons. Kinda crazy that the test is so far from the EPA rating which I think is around 329-miles on 20" all terrain tires.

I guess it's just about 9% off from EPA rating which is not a 70-mph highway only test. The eye opener for me is how close the Gen 2 Tri-Motor Max Pack on All Terrain wheels is to the Gen 1 Quad-Motor on All Terrains; only 3% better for the Tri-Motor!

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The test seems pretty realistic to me as many people prefer to run all terrain tires for a variety of reasons. Kinda crazy that the test is so far from the EPA rating which I think is around 329-miles on 20" all terrain tires.

I guess it's just about 9% off from EPA rating which is not a 70-mph highway only test. The eye opener for me is how close the Gen 2 Tri-Motot Max Pack on All Terrain wheels is to the Gen 1 Quad-Motor on All Terrains; only 3% better for the Tri-Motor!

That's not surprising. The gains from the max come with the more efficient tires.

 

[JeromePowell]

That's not surprising. The gains from the max come with the more efficient tires.

Efficient tires or not, it has a much larger "Max" battery pack. Just like a larger gas tank, it should have more than 3% range than the smaller "Large" pack.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Efficient tires or not, it has a much larger "Max" battery pack. Just like a larger gas tank, it should have more than 3% range than the smaller "Large" pack.

Saying the max pack is "Much" larger than the gen 1 large pack is a little dishonest don't you think? The max is 140kWh and the large was 131.

 

[JeromePowell]

I think it's accurate. You can define "much" however you would like. Let me put it another way:

Rivian charges much more for the Max Pack Tri-Motor on All Terrains than the Large Pack Quad-Motor on All Terrains, however, the Max Pack does not drive much further than the Large Pack even though it costs much more.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I think it's accurate. You can define "much" however you would like. Let me put it another way:

Rivian charges much more for the Max Pack Tri-Motor on All Terrains than the Large Pack Quad-Motor on All Terrains, however, the Max Pack does not drive much further than the Large Pack even though it costs much more.

Again, this is unfair because prices change, and the new large pack IS substantially smaller than the current max pack. You're comparing one option that no longer exists with one that does. That doesn't do perspective buyers any favors.

 

[JeromePowell]

Again, this is unfair because prices change, and the new large pack IS substantially smaller than the current max pack. You're comparing one option that no longer exists with one that does. That doesn't do perspective buyers any favors.

Not sure what you are on about? If I were a prospective buyer, I would purchase a used Large Pack Quad Motor over a Max Pack Tri-Motor.

If you think that is "unfair" oh well, have a good one!

 

[jjswan33]

I am lazy today today so I will mostly post what I wrote in another thread that had the same vid.

“Well, for those that didn't watch the vid, the Tri Max barely got more range than the Gen1 quad and overall had worse efficiency. It only went 9 miles more with a 10% larger pack.

Both were wearing 20" AT Pirellis with similar conditions.

I should’ve added, 298 versus 289. Where are all the vaunted efficiency gains?”

That pretty much is my takeaway. I should have added efficiency of 2.1 vs 2.3. I could have spent 50k more on a new Tri and got 9 more miles. That is with a heat pump and a max pack… I think I made the right choice on passing on a Gen2 truck for now. Right for me anyway. YMMV of course.

289 miles (2.3 mi/kWh) with the original QM on ATs was a fluke. This video shows best that run to run conditions are very important in tests like this. I also don't think 2.1 mi/kWh in a 70 mph range test with AT tires is that bad either.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Not sure what you are on about? If I were a prospective buyer, I would purchase a used Large Pack Quad Motor over a Max Pack Tri-Motor.

If you think that is "unfair" oh well, have a good one!

I think the comparison of new to used is unfair. It’s not a difficult concept. You buy what you want.

 

[iansriv]

289 miles (2.3 mi/kWh) with the original QM on ATs was a fluke. This video shows best that run to run conditions are very important in tests like this. I also don't think 2.1 mi/kWh in a 70 mph range test with AT tires is that bad either.

Friend of mine has been averaging 2.1 (G1 R1S Quad on 20s) and he drives well over 70 most of the time. I remember another post that concluded that 65mph was the sweet spot for most m/khw.

 

[DayTripping]

I think the interesting takeaway the Gen2 is using a heatpump that should be right in its sweetspot for efficiency compared to the Gen1's traditional system. It is a good apples to apples comparison and wasn't a max range test for what you can eek out of either of them.

So where are the efficiency gains of the new Tri over the old quad? I ran through what I thought the efficiency would be on a new Gen2 when I was shopping them. There wasn't any real world efficiency data out there yet and I didn't see how there were going to see the improvements they were claiming over the Gen1. Let's just call me skeptical at the time. So rather than drop 110K plus on a Gen2 Tri, I bought a lightly used Gen1 as the math wasn't adding up for me.

I come from an aeronautical engineering background so I was pretty well plugged into that aspect of engineering and design (aerodynamics) and worked for several well known car companies. So I knew you could game the EPA ratings. They are at slower speeds than where I normally drive. Aerodynamic drag is the big consumer of energy at 75 mph. So maybe you could show impressive gains at 50-60 mph from drivetrain improvements, but at higher speeds, they would matter less. Now if they made massive aero improvements (which they didn't) than I'd have been more onboard.

I feel Rivian deliberately nerfed the large pack to encourage people to buy the max pack. I didn't see anyway the new large pack which was smaller in size was going to have better range than the outgoing large at the speeds I drive which is typically 75+ mph. To get 3% more range, with a 10% larger pack AND with a heatpump doesn't seem like big improvement to me.

I've been doing some testing on my new 20" Goodyear Territory ATs and have tried to run the speeds that you might see on the EPA tests. So, as long as I could tolerate it, I've been doing trips with the cruise at 62 mph. I've been posting them in a thread I started for the Goodyears. These are the new 20" Factory AT options. At 60 mph average speed, I was at 2.66 out and 2.94 return on the highway, overall at 2.8 with 6 miles of stop and go traffic thrown in. The point is that, in conserve mode, my Gen1 quad is pretty efficient, even on AT tires. I'll be doing 70 mph tests when I have time. I didn't run the heat as I was warm enough with the wheel and seat heated.

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ory-at-tires-saving.37522/page-13#post-712781

Sponsored