Rivian R1T charging curve test 20-80% [by TFL]

[rhuber]

Sorrynotsorry to repeat myself here, but I would encourage you to go read what I wrote. My post is going to continue being buried by speculation so I'll just reup it a few times.... (and yes, I'm damn near certain this explains the TFL charge curve, and I bet a station that is willing to send 500A will see a substantial improvement in this test, same as I experienced on a road trip recently).

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...urve-test-20-80-by-tfl.3417/page-6#post-93227

Sponsored

 

[branden]

Sorrynotsorry to repeat myself here, but I would encourage you to go read what I wrote. My post is going to continue being buried by speculation so I'll just reup it a few times.... (and yes, I'm damn near certain this explains the TFL charge curve, and I bet a station that is willing to send 500A will see a substantial improvement in this test, same as I experienced on a road trip recently).

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...urve-test-20-80-by-tfl.3417/page-6#post-93227

There is no other logical explanation to the charge curve than a 350A limit, especially given that there have been multiple reports of 180+kW on the R1T.

 

[r1t_kev]

I understand the disappointment here. But this does not strike me as a significant issue, given how little it will impact day to day life for almost all of us.

Most of us will charge at home almost all of the time, so this won’t affect day to day commuting: no charging stops are necessary then. And on what are for most of us very infrequent road trips, long charging stops are required no matter what, even for cars with superior charging performance. Is 40 minutes a long time to wait? Yes. But a 30 minute charge is a long break as well - and we couldn’t realistically have expected reliable real world charging faster than that.

the marginal 10 minutes isn’t nothing, and of course I’d rather not spend that time waiting. But for virtually all of us, long road trips are very infrequent, and the marginal impact of a slower charge is not that big.

I had similar thoughts. Personally, between my better half, my other better K-9 half, and I, we're stopping every 1-1.5 hours anyway (stretch, dog potty break, human potty break, snack, fuel, etc). I don't know for certain, but I imagine 20 minute stops being more the norm for me, unless there is a big stretch between charge points or other circumstance.

 

[Max]

$26.66 for 73Kwh at 1.85 mi/KWh is $0.2 /mile
wife’s outback $0.11 /mile. ($3.26/gal in my neighborhood)

 

[Rivian_Hugh_III]

Someone said they wish they could spend an extra $5000 for an 800V system. Wouldn't that be signing up for the Max Pack?

Think of it as:
$5000 for 800V, and
$5000 for +100 miles range

If the rumor is correct that Max Packs will get 800V. Anyone know for sure?

 

[TFLtommy]

Different charger manufacturers?

You saying it peaked at 150 after towing is the very odd result to me. Mostly based on some owner feedback. Obviously that's what you guys saw/ pulled. It's just weird. Which isn't unusual for me vehicles with EA.

Yes, If I recall one location was an ABB unit and the other was Signet.

 

[SeaGeo]

Yes, If I recall one location was an ABB unit and the other was Signet.

Thanks! That's weird. Good job noting that!

 

[Forager]

I’ve never owned an EV or charged one before, so I’m interested an explaination of why EA dispensed (and charged) 86 kWh of power while the Rivian only registered around 74 kWh. I understand transmission and conversion losses, but I would have expected transmission losses to be accounted for in the price per kWh put into the vehicle. This represents 15% loss, and I would have expected very minimal losses when the power source is DC, running through a short cord, and being delivered into DC battery (no conversion loss like you have at home when using AC power).

As it stands DCFC “fuel” costs are about the same for me as in an ICE, did it just become 15% more than I expected?

 

[branden]

I’ve never owned an EV or charged one before, so I’m interested an explaination of why EA dispensed (and charged) 86 kWh of power while the Rivian only registered around 74 kWh. I understand transmission and conversion losses, but I would have expected transmission losses to be accounted for in the price per kWh put into the vehicle. This represents 15% loss, and I would have expected very minimal losses when the power source is DC, running through a short cord, and being delivered into DC battery (no conversion loss like you have at home when using AC power).

As it stands DCFC “fuel” costs are about the same for me as in an ICE, did it just become 15% more than I expected?

I suspect Rivian is pulling a Tesla in this regard and only displaying the energy delivered to the battery rather than energy pulled from the station for battery charging and auxiliary use.

 

[IPTV65]

That has been true historically but now if you look at EV6 and Ioniq 5 they shatter that. 10% - 80% has been tested at less than 20 minutes in those cars. I suspect that will translate to the upcoming EV9 and Ioniq 7 as well which are R1S competitors.

I wonder if they is a battery life "tax" to be paid for these quick charging times? I know it's a balancing act but I don't understand all the ins and outs.

 

[branden]

I wonder if they is a battery life "tax" to be paid for these quick charging times? I know it's a balancing act but I don't understand all the ins and outs.

Only time will tell, but at least on Teslas, degradation acceleration from repeated DCFC is pretty minimal compared to typical degradation.

 

[rhuber]

Only time will tell, but at least on Teslas, degradation acceleration from repeated DCFC is pretty minimal compared to typical degradation.

Yeah - credit where due, My 2019 model X went 50,000 miles, the vast majority of which were supercharging, and often to >90% SoC because I was towing things, and that pack lost 7 total miles of rated range. It was probably the best EV battery pack I will ever own, but alas I sold it for the shiny new thing.

 

[Max]

I wonder if they is a battery life "tax" to be paid for these quick charging times? I know it's a balancing act but I don't understand all the ins and outs.

Heat is the enemy. Battery management systems are getting better in reducing current when battery gets hot.

 

[branden]

Yeah - credit where due, My 2019 model X went 50,000 miles, the vast majority of which were supercharging, and often to >90% SoC because I was towing things, and that pack lost 7 total miles of rated range. It was probably the best EV battery pack I will ever own, but alas I sold it for the shiny new thing.

I sold my 2015 Model S 70D with 198k miles with about 12% degradation.. in the 2 years I owned it, I Supercharged over 1000 times and charged to 100% almost daily without any accelerated degradation.

 

[Dirtman16]

I’ve never owned an EV or charged one before, so I’m interested an explaination of why EA dispensed (and charged) 86 kWh of power while the Rivian only registered around 74 kWh. I understand transmission and conversion losses, but I would have expected transmission losses to be accounted for in the price per kWh put into the vehicle. This represents 15% loss, and I would have expected very minimal losses when the power source is DC, running through a short cord, and being delivered into DC battery (no conversion loss like you have at home when using AC power).

As it stands DCFC “fuel” costs are about the same for me as in an ICE, did it just become 15% more than I expected?

There are losses from heat during any charging session, whether it is on a DC fast charger or on an AC connection at home. Additionally, the vehicles will run the cooling or heating system to optimize the temperature of the battery for charging. That uses some energy that doesn't go into the battery directly. All those things add up to the difference between what the charger outputs and what goes into the battery. It is not atypical for the difference to be 10 or 15%.

Sponsored