Anyone have R2 highway driving range to share? (I'm sure the color you picked looks great)

[Jeremy3292]

Good points, except a bigger battery gives you the ability to add more kWh in the 10-80% fastest part of the charging curve. And a bigger battery gives you more flexibility to choose where you want to stop.

I want to stop at a RAN station. There are enough of them in VA for me to solely use them for most long drives I do. A smaller battery might require me to stop at one of those horrible EA things. And they are horrible. (Some are better than others, of course.)

A 180-kWh battery in my R1T would be freaking amazing to me. I will pay extra for it. I am tempted by the GM trucks, but they are just too big. The R1T is the perfect size for me. Now put a bigger battery in there!

Are Tesla superchargers not an option for you? They're everywhere especially in Virginia and work great with Rivians. Plug and charge too. I would never even consider stopping at EA myself.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

Are Tesla superchargers not an option for you? They're everywhere especially in Virginia and work great with Rivians. Plug and charge too. I would never even consider stopping at EA myself.

Yes, but there is a risk I will occupy two chargers if the one on the end is in use. Tesla drivers also have a habit of pulling into every other stall, which may mean even if the station is half full, I cannot charge until someone leaves. I have charged at a SC station a few times and each time I was lucky.

Once all the chargers have long cables so I don't have to count on two charges open next to each other, it will be a better option.

 

[NC-Rivian]

Yes, but there is a risk I will occupy two chargers if the one on the end is in use. Tesla drivers also have a habit of pulling into every other stall, which may mean even if the station is half full, I cannot charge until someone leaves. I have charged at a SC station a few times and each time I was lucky.

Once all the chargers have long cables so I don't have to count on two charges open next to each other, it will be a better option.

Fair enough. However, I almost exclusively use Tesla SC when road tripping in my '22 Tee and I can usually use the farthest right station without taking two places. If that one is being used, the farthest left can be used if it has a trailer station. Otherwise, if I have to use two places, I'm careful to stay just as long as necessary to get me to the next SC.

 

[VegasWeezy]

We all know that 260 is in ideal weather and only after charging to 100%. There may be lots of charging options, but if you are on a long trip, you are charging 10-80%, which is only 70% of the battery. And then in winter you can expect another 20% range hit.

So 260 becomes 260*.7*.8 = 109 miles of range. IMO that is far from "plenty" and one of the huge reasons people are sticking with ICEVs.

In my R1T, I can get about 340 miles of highway range - in good weather and from 100% SoC to 0% SoC. I will never arrive at a DCFC station with 0% SoC. Regardless, on a trip in bad weather with multiple charging stops, the highway range of my R1T is 340*.7*.8 = 190 miles.

That isn't good enough. It is livable, especially since the weather in VA is somewhat mild even in the winter, but dude. It isn't enough. I am really hoping the Gen3 R1 has a bigger battery, like the 180 kWh one they originally planned.

Apologies if this was mentioned previously, but where does the 260 come from? Is this in reference to the dual standard range?

For the R2... 330*0.7*0.8 = 185 miles. This equals approximately 56% (185/330) of the stated EPA range.

Personally, I have never driven through weather cold enough to see this much loss. Even in the winter driving through Flagstaff (while snowing in the mountains) and on cruise control at 79mph, my Mach e was getting the equivalent of 193 miles (compared to its 303 EPA mileage) or roughly 64% of its EPA rating (193/303). That's the worst I've seen for my efficiency, and that was after the vehicle was over 3 years old and had close to 5% battery degradation.

But I also realize that other parts of the country deal with much much colder weather than anything I have ever driven through.

 

[mkhuffman]

Apologies if this was mentioned previously, but where does the 260 come from? Is this in reference to the dual standard range?

For the R2... 330*0.7*0.8 = 185 miles. This equals approximately 56% (185/330) of the stated EPA range.

Personally, I have never driven through weather cold enough to see this much loss. Even in the winter driving through Flagstaff (while snowing in the mountains) and on cruise control at 79mph, my Mach e was getting the equivalent of 193 miles (compared to its 303 EPA mileage) or roughly 64% of its EPA rating (193/303). That's the worst I've seen for my efficiency, and that was after the vehicle was over 3 years old and had close to 5% battery degradation.

But I also realize that other parts of the country deal with much much colder weather than anything I have ever driven through.

260 is what I am estimating for highway range of the R2. So I multiplied 260 by 0.7 for using 70% of the battery (charging 10-80), and 0.8 for a 20% range hit in winter.

 

[VegasWeezy]

260 is what I am estimating for highway range of the R2. So I multiplied 260 by 0.7 for using 70% of the battery (charging 10-80), and 0.8 for a 20% range hit in winter.

Ok I gotcha. That seems reasonable. I've done a few test route plans in ABRP for the R2, and based on those theoretical plans, it seems ABRP is estimating around 265-270 miles of range at highway speeds. And I have it set for speeds of 112% of the posted speed limit so 78mph in 70mph zones or 84mph in 75mph zones.

 

[mkhuffman]

Ok I gotcha. That seems reasonable. I've done a few test route plans in ABRP for the R2, and based on those theoretical plans, it seems ABRP is estimating around 265-270 miles of range at highway speeds. And I have it set for speeds of 112% of the posted speed limit so 78mph in 70mph zones or 84mph in 75mph zones.

I am a regular user of ABRP and find it is highly accurate for planning trips.

 

[Jeremy3292]

It's really going to come down to weather, that's why I just say 250 miles as a benchmark for 75 mpg on interstate. Could be 230, 240, 260, 270 dependent on outside temperature.

 

[VegasWeezy]

I am a regular user of ABRP and find it is highly accurate for planning trips.

I agree. I've used it for several trips between 280 to 600 miles and it has been really good about the SOC at each stop and the overall estimated time of the trips.

 

[tivoboy]

I am a regular user of ABRP and find it is highly accurate for planning trips.

If you make the vehicle and driving style adjustments with ABRP, additional weight, driving style, driving speed delta to other drivers, max speed, real true battery degradation inputs it can be VERY accurate. I’ve been using it >5 years now and find it lands within 1-2% accuracy and nearly exactly what my TM3 LR lands at AT DESTINATION, either the SC or final destinations.. The Tesla predictions are not always accurate WHILE on the drive, but end up empirically where they land at the end. But ABRP Has calculated it IN ADVANCE correctly within 1-2%..

That’s strong.

 

[Gen(R3)Xer]

Good points, except a bigger battery gives you the ability to add more kWh in the 10-80% fastest part of the charging curve. And a bigger battery gives you more flexibility to choose where you want to stop.

I want to stop at a RAN station. There are enough of them in VA for me to solely use them for most long drives I do. A smaller battery might require me to stop at one of those horrible EA things. And they are horrible. (Some are better than others, of course.)

A 180-kWh battery in my R1T would be freaking amazing to me. I will pay extra for it. I am tempted by the GM trucks, but they are just too big. The R1T is the perfect size for me. Now put a bigger battery in there!

It’s kind of a physics problem. A bigger battery takes up more space and weighs more, so then you have to have a bigger vehicle to fit the pack and carry around said weight. Too heavy of a battery can really alter the driving dynamics as well.

I’m sure they’ll redesign the R1T at some point and include a structural battery pack and 4695 cells, like the R2. Not to mention, battery chemistries, their energy density, and components like capacitors will continue to develop and evolve.

 

[mkhuffman]

It’s kind of a physics problem. A bigger battery takes up more space and weighs more, so then you have to have a bigger vehicle to fit the pack and carry around said weight. Too heavy of a battery can really alter the driving dynamics as well.

I’m sure they’ll redesign the R1T at some point and include a structural battery pack and 4695 cells, like the R2. Not to mention, battery chemistries, their energy density, and components like capacitors will continue to develop and evolve.

The physics problem assumes energy density is not improving. It is improving, although much more slowly than some of the click bait headlines promote.

Using my favorite AI to research this (I asked Grok to ignore Chinese advancements because I don't think reporting on those advancements is accurate):

• Cell-Level Energy Density in the R1: The upgraded 2170 NCA cells (Samsung-sourced) in Large/Max are estimated at ~250–280 Wh/kg (up from ~240–260 Wh/kg in earlier gens), aligning with industry trends for high-nickel 2170 cells.
• Historical Pack-Level Density (Non-Chinese Focus):
  • 2020: Average ~150-170 Wh/kg (e.g., Tesla Model 3 with Panasonic 2170 cells ~160 Wh/kg; GM Ultium prototypes ~150 Wh/kg).
  • 2025: Average ~180-210 Wh/kg (e.g., Rivian R1T/R1S NCA packs ~180-195 Wh/kg; BMW iX with Samsung cells ~200 Wh/kg; updated Tesla 4680 packs approaching 200-220 Wh/kg).
• Absolute Improvement: From midpoint ~160 Wh/kg (2020) to ~195 Wh/kg (2025), that's ~35 Wh/kg over 5 years, or 7 Wh/kg per year. Higher-end projections (e.g., with semi-solid hybrids) push to 10 Wh/kg annually.
• Percentage Improvement (CAGR): (195/160)^{1/5} - 1 ≈ 4.0%. Adjusting for optimistic scenarios (e.g., 210/150) yields up to 7%, averaging 5% per year. This aligns with learning curves where density improves 6-7% per doubling of global battery demand (doubling roughly every 3-4 years based on 20% annual demand growth).
• Chemistry-Specific Trends:
  • NMC/NCA (dominant in non-Chinese markets): 20-30% density gains from 2020-2025 via nickel-rich formulations, equating to ~4-6% annual.
  • Emerging (e.g., silicon anodes in Panasonic/Tesla): 15% boost over recent 3 years (~5% annual).
• Projections Beyond 2025: Rates may accelerate to 6-8% annually with solid-state integration (targeting 300+ Wh/kg packs by 2030), but current production trends remain conservative due to scalability challenges.

-----

It is possible energy density will have improved enough in three years (from when the Gen2 started) to increase the capacity of the pack by 20-25% without increasing the weight or space needed. Or maybe they can increase the pack to 160 kWh and give us 50+ more miles of range? It is not only possible, but also likely - at least technically it is.

Unfortunately, IMO Rivian is more likely to keep the same capacity and use the energy density improvement to reduce cost and improve margins. For a business that is burning cash, that would be the smart decision.

I still want more, though.

 

[tivoboy]

The physics problem assumes energy density is not improving. It is improving, although much more slowly than some of the click bait headlines promote.

Using my favorite AI to research this (I asked Grok to ignore Chinese advancements because I don't think reporting on those advancements is accurate):

• Cell-Level Energy Density in the R1: The upgraded 2170 NCA cells (Samsung-sourced) in Large/Max are estimated at ~250–280 Wh/kg (up from ~240–260 Wh/kg in earlier gens), aligning with industry trends for high-nickel 2170 cells.
• Historical Pack-Level Density (Non-Chinese Focus):
  • 2020: Average ~150-170 Wh/kg (e.g., Tesla Model 3 with Panasonic 2170 cells ~160 Wh/kg; GM Ultium prototypes ~150 Wh/kg).
  • 2025: Average ~180-210 Wh/kg (e.g., Rivian R1T/R1S NCA packs ~180-195 Wh/kg; BMW iX with Samsung cells ~200 Wh/kg; updated Tesla 4680 packs approaching 200-220 Wh/kg).
• Absolute Improvement: From midpoint ~160 Wh/kg (2020) to ~195 Wh/kg (2025), that's ~35 Wh/kg over 5 years, or 7 Wh/kg per year. Higher-end projections (e.g., with semi-solid hybrids) push to 10 Wh/kg annually.
• Percentage Improvement (CAGR): (195/160)^{1/5} - 1 ≈ 4.0%. Adjusting for optimistic scenarios (e.g., 210/150) yields up to 7%, averaging 5% per year. This aligns with learning curves where density improves 6-7% per doubling of global battery demand (doubling roughly every 3-4 years based on 20% annual demand growth).
• Chemistry-Specific Trends:
  • NMC/NCA (dominant in non-Chinese markets): 20-30% density gains from 2020-2025 via nickel-rich formulations, equating to ~4-6% annual.
  • Emerging (e.g., silicon anodes in Panasonic/Tesla): 15% boost over recent 3 years (~5% annual).
• Projections Beyond 2025: Rates may accelerate to 6-8% annually with solid-state integration (targeting 300+ Wh/kg packs by 2030), but current production trends remain conservative due to scalability challenges.

-----

It is possible energy density will have improved enough in three years (from when the Gen2 started) to increase the capacity of the pack by 20-25% without increasing the weight or space needed. Or maybe they can increase the pack to 160 kWh and give us 50+ more miles of range? It is not only possible, but also likely - at least technically it is.

Unfortunately, IMO Rivian is more likely to keep the same capacity and use the energy density improvement to reduce cost and improve margins. For a business that is burning cash, that would be the smart decision.

I still want more, though.

Chinese based sodium ion I believe are now going into production CELLS at least that report 330-350wg/kg. That will be quite the step change

 

[Gen(R3)Xer]

The physics problem assumes energy density is not improving. It is improving, although much more slowly than some of the click bait headlines promote.

Using my favorite AI to research this (I asked Grok to ignore Chinese advancements because I don't think reporting on those advancements is accurate):

• Cell-Level Energy Density in the R1: The upgraded 2170 NCA cells (Samsung-sourced) in Large/Max are estimated at ~250–280 Wh/kg (up from ~240–260 Wh/kg in earlier gens), aligning with industry trends for high-nickel 2170 cells.
• Historical Pack-Level Density (Non-Chinese Focus):
  • 2020: Average ~150-170 Wh/kg (e.g., Tesla Model 3 with Panasonic 2170 cells ~160 Wh/kg; GM Ultium prototypes ~150 Wh/kg).
  • 2025: Average ~180-210 Wh/kg (e.g., Rivian R1T/R1S NCA packs ~180-195 Wh/kg; BMW iX with Samsung cells ~200 Wh/kg; updated Tesla 4680 packs approaching 200-220 Wh/kg).
• Absolute Improvement: From midpoint ~160 Wh/kg (2020) to ~195 Wh/kg (2025), that's ~35 Wh/kg over 5 years, or 7 Wh/kg per year. Higher-end projections (e.g., with semi-solid hybrids) push to 10 Wh/kg annually.
• Percentage Improvement (CAGR): (195/160)^{1/5} - 1 ≈ 4.0%. Adjusting for optimistic scenarios (e.g., 210/150) yields up to 7%, averaging 5% per year. This aligns with learning curves where density improves 6-7% per doubling of global battery demand (doubling roughly every 3-4 years based on 20% annual demand growth).
• Chemistry-Specific Trends:
  • NMC/NCA (dominant in non-Chinese markets): 20-30% density gains from 2020-2025 via nickel-rich formulations, equating to ~4-6% annual.
  • Emerging (e.g., silicon anodes in Panasonic/Tesla): 15% boost over recent 3 years (~5% annual).
• Projections Beyond 2025: Rates may accelerate to 6-8% annually with solid-state integration (targeting 300+ Wh/kg packs by 2030), but current production trends remain conservative due to scalability challenges.

-----

It is possible energy density will have improved enough in three years (from when the Gen2 started) to increase the capacity of the pack by 20-25% without increasing the weight or space needed. Or maybe they can increase the pack to 160 kWh and give us 50+ more miles of range? It is not only possible, but also likely - at least technically it is.

Unfortunately, IMO Rivian is more likely to keep the same capacity and use the energy density improvement to reduce cost and improve margins. For a business that is burning cash, that would be the smart decision.

I still want more, though.

Great data. As I mentioned before they will absolutely leverage the new R2 tech and battery andvancements and add them to the R1. Imagine a Max Pack three years from now. We might be looking at enhanced battery chemistries, silicon capacitors that boost charging efficiency, etc. I think with the R1 lineup Rivian will push the envelope a little more since it’s a premium high-end vehicle, especially if the R2 and R3 sell well.

 

[NC-Rivian]

Great data. As I mentioned before they will absolutely leverage the new R2 tech and battery andvancements and add them to the R1. Imagine a Max Pack three years from now. We might be looking at enhanced battery chemistries, silicon capacitors that boost charging efficiency, etc. I think with the R1 lineup Rivian will push the envelope a little more since it’s a premium high-end vehicle, especially if the R2 and R3 sell well.

…. And new efficient motors. Don’t forget that.

Sponsored