Drive Mode Question: any particular reason not to just stay in conserve?

[Stearmandriver]

To recap on this, the concerns I see are:

1. Uneven tire wear / over reliance on front motors. But in the gen 2 vehicles, the rear motors are used for every start from a stop, and for any aggressive acceleration. So this seems to be a moot point.

2. Feeling of rear motors engaging / disengaging? I've watched the monitor and tried my best, but I cannot feel ANYTHING, not the slightest bit of a shift, even when looking for it. So, if this was an issue it seems it's been addressed.

3. Lack of all wheel drive in low traction scenarios - but the rear motors will re-engage anytime traction control sees the need. So, seems like a moot point.

4. Subpar acceleration performance - again, all motors are used off the line now, but also engage any time you stomp on it. Plus, I don't really drive a car for "performance". So, wouldn't seem to apply.

So from what I'm seeing so far, there really ISN'T a reason to not just stay in conserve with a gen 2. Does anyone have anything else they can think of?

Thanks!

Sponsored

 

[CANCERDOC]

With minimal effort you will find a lot of information on this.
The amount of wear on your tires from driving in conserve mode will quickly outpace any economics of efficiency gain. Conserve mode is meant for highway driving at highway speed….or at least constant speed driving without frequent stop/starts

Only true for gen1 quad. Dual motor and all gen2s engage the rear motor always on initial acceleration and fwd only happens on light duty where tire wear is minimal. I wouldn’t worry about using conserve on a trimotor.

 

[LiamM]

To recap on this, the concerns I see are:

1. Uneven tire wear / over reliance on front motors. But in the gen 2 vehicles, the rear motors are used for every start from a stop, and for any aggressive acceleration. So this seems to be a moot point.

2. Feeling of rear motors engaging / disengaging? I've watched the monitor and tried my best, but I cannot feel ANYTHING, not the slightest bit of a shift, even when looking for it. So, if this was an issue it seems it's been addressed.

3. Lack of all wheel drive in low traction scenarios - but the rear motors will re-engage anytime traction control sees the need. So, seems like a moot point.

4. Subpar acceleration performance - again, all motors are used off the line now, but also engage any time you stomp on it. Plus, I don't really drive a car for "performance". So, wouldn't seem to apply.

So from what I'm seeing so far, there really ISN'T a reason to not just stay in conserve with a gen 2. Does anyone have anything else they can think of?

Thanks!

well the real problem isn’t the fwd It’s that conserve lowers the vehicle by default AND goes fwd only, the dirty little secret of adjustable ride hight is that the camber of the wheels changes depending on your hight you have. The vehicle is aligned from the factory at the standard ride height as you lower it you introduce negative camber meaning the wheel is angled in at the top this reduces the contact patch of the tire on the road concentrating more load and thus wear on the inside of the tire, this combined with only fwd operation wears the tires RIDICULOUSLY quickly, you can mitigate this a bit by adjusting the ride height in conserve back to standard height. Consequently this is why you get better cornering in sport at low ride height

• low ride height = heavy negative camber so better cornering worse tire wear
• normal/standard height = balanced optimal wheel alignment for tire longevity everyday driving
• High/off-road height = very reduced negative camber possibly veering into positive camber territory, terrible handling on pavement

Bottom line if you’re spending any time driving in a mode that’s not at standard/normal ride height you’re basically driving an un aligned vehicle. Not a problem for occasional use but a bad idea day to day particularly for your tires. Whatever mode you daily drive in at the very least set it to standard ride height

 

[Stearmandriver]

Well, this makes a good point, about the ride height. I think the front wheel drive thing has been shown to be pretty irrelevant, considering the back motors are used basically any time the vehicle isn't in a steady-state cruise. But yes, the negative camber of a low ride height would be a factor.

Interestingly, I recently saw a video where a Rivian owner tested the effects of drive mode and ride height by driving the same ~100 mile route with various combinations of the two variables. What he found was that drive mode made a significant difference (a good portion of this route was highway so conserve mode used quite a bit less power), but ride height didn't really make much difference at all.

I wonder if ride height becomes more meaningful in high wind conditions? On an average day though, seems like the answer may be conserve mode + standard ride height to save tires. Excellent point!

 

[mkhuffman]

well the real problem isn’t the fwd It’s that conserve lowers the vehicle by default AND goes fwd only, the dirty little secret of adjustable ride hight is that the camber of the wheels changes depending on your hight you have. The vehicle is aligned from the factory at the standard ride height as you lower it you introduce negative camber meaning the wheel is angled in at the top this reduces the contact patch of the tire on the road concentrating more load and thus wear on the inside of the tire, this combined with only fwd operation wears the tires RIDICULOUSLY quickly, you can mitigate this a bit by adjusting the ride height in conserve back to standard height. Consequently this is why you get better cornering in sport at low ride height

• low ride height = heavy negative camber so better cornering worse tire wear
• normal/standard height = balanced optimal wheel alignment for tire longevity everyday driving
• High/off-road height = very reduced negative camber possibly veering into positive camber territory, terrible handling on pavement

Bottom line if you’re spending any time driving in a mode that’s not at standard/normal ride height you’re basically driving an un aligned vehicle. Not a problem for occasional use but a bad idea day to day particularly for your tires. Whatever mode you daily drive in at the very least set it to standard ride height

The logic behind your argument is sound, but I don't think it is as significant as you think it is. If Low height was that far out of alignment, Rivian would not use it as the normal height on the highway. Even my wife's Grand Cherokee will lower the ride height automatically when at highway speeds. (It is quite annoying, actually, because in that truck you cannot turn it off.)

I think both trucks are designed so that Low does not cause more wear. When you put it in Sport, you can lower it to Lowest. I imagine that might cause some of the issues you raise. Maybe. But when in Sport, I am driving like a lunatic anyway, so the tires are getting ruined just because of me, not because of the ride height.

Well, this makes a good point, about the ride height. I think the front wheel drive thing has been shown to be pretty irrelevant, considering the back motors are used basically any time the vehicle isn't in a steady-state cruise. But yes, the negative camber of a low ride height would be a factor.

Interestingly, I recently saw a video where a Rivian owner tested the effects of drive mode and ride height by driving the same ~100 mile route with various combinations of the two variables. What he found was that drive mode made a significant difference (a good portion of this route was highway so conserve mode used quite a bit less power), but ride height didn't really make much difference at all.

I wonder if ride height becomes more meaningful in high wind conditions? On an average day though, seems like the answer may be conserve mode + standard ride height to save tires. Excellent point!

I would love to see that video if you can find the link. I have considered doing that exact same test myself to determine how much of an impact ride height has on efficiency. I think if you are driving 80 mph, lower ride height will make a bigger difference than if you are driving at 45 mph. I like to drive at 80 mph.

By the way, you can manually select the ride height. In fact, when I run my truck in Conserve around town, I manually set the height to Standard because it is more comfortable than Low. When I am traveling, I manually set it to Low to maximize efficiency.

 

[LiamM]

The logic behind your argument is sound, but I don't think it is as significant as you think it is. If Low height was that far out of alignment, Rivian would not use it as the normal height on the highway. Even my wife's Grand Cherokee will lower the ride height automatically when at highway speeds. (It is quite annoying, actually, because in that truck you cannot turn it off.)

I think both trucks are designed so that Low does not cause more wear. When you put it in Sport, you can lower it to Lowest. I imagine that might cause some of the issues you raise. Maybe. But when in Sport, I am driving like a lunatic anyway, so the tires are getting ruined just because of me, not because of the ride height.

You can’t design it so low doesn't cause excessive wear, it’s physics and just the reality of the tradeoff of having adjustable height. yes it would impact sport but to a lesser extent because you’re not loading up only the front tires as much. Reality is it’s not an “or” question if you drive like a “lunatic” in low they’re getting ruined because of you AND the camber not you INSTEAD of the camber. As well I left it out for simplicity but changing ride height throws out all the alignment adjustments your toe will typically be off as well for example in any height but standard.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

It’s your vehicle and your $. Do whatever you want and accept consequences. The consequences here is slower throttle response, slower acceleration, software limited power and poorer handling and higher rate of tire wear at the front, especially if you do not keep ride height at standard (but doing so your efficiency isn’t the best it could be at higher speed). If you didn’t buy anything other than Dual Standard, I don’t see why you would spend the $ but only utilize a fraction of what you bought.

 

[mkhuffman]

You can’t design it so low doesn't cause excessive wear, it’s physics and just the reality of the tradeoff of having adjustable height. yes it would impact sport but to a lesser extent because you’re not loading up only the front tires as much. Reality is it’s not an “or” question if you drive like a “lunatic” in low they’re getting ruined because of you AND the camber not you INSTEAD of the camber. As well I left it out for simplicity but changing ride height throws out all the alignment adjustments your toe will typically be off as well for example in any height but standard.

What is your definition of "excessive"? I seriously doubt Low is a problem since it is the default for long distance, highway driving.

And how do you know that the suspension isn't adjusted so Low is in perfect alignment and Standard is the one that causes more wear? Or how do you know they didn't design it so there is no perfect suspension height, and maybe it is perfect when it is between Low and Standard? That way the wear is minimized on those two height settings.

I can't answer those questions. If you can't either, then all we have are opinions based on what we think Rivian did. And I think Rivian is smart enough to design the suspension so a primary mode of driving is not causing excessive wear. Especially after learning from the Gen1 experience.

 

[Stearmandriver]

It’s your vehicle and your $. Do whatever you want and accept consequences. The consequences here is slower throttle response, slower acceleration, software limited power and poorer handling and higher rate of tire wear at the front, especially if you do not keep ride height at standard (but doing so your efficiency isn’t the best it could be at higher speed). If you didn’t buy anything other than Dual Standard, I don’t see why you would spend the $ but only utilize a fraction of what you bought.

I think this is obvious, just looking for a discussion about what those consequences are. The ride height does seem to be a good point, but I think we've put the "higher rate of tire wear at the front" concept to bed as not applicable on the gen 2s.

As far as the rest, I got the tri-motor as the "middle of the road" option for extra grunt when towing over the mountains. I won't do it all that often but it's nice to have available. The rest is subjective; it's just that I don't really drive a car for sport because I regularly do things that make any accelerative force generated by any ground-bound vehicle ever built seem pretty inconsequential. There just won't be a "whee" moment for me in a car, that's all.

 

[SoCal Rob]

Hi there, new R1T owner here: 2026 tri motor. New to EVs in general as well. I note that conserve mode does indeed net me meaningful extra range, and if I understand it correctly, the rear two motors will still be used when traction control deems them necessary. This has me wondering: why not just stay in conserve as my normal drive mode, vs all purpose?

Obviously snow and all the off road modes have their purpose, but for daily driving both around town and highway, what is gained by using all purpose vs conserve? I feel like I must be missing something...

Thanks!

I think some people missed the fact that you're in a Gen2 Tri which handles Conserve very differently than the Gen 1 Quads, as others mentioned earlier.

Here's my take on it as someone who almost never used Conserve in our first Rivian (Gen 1 Quad) and who almost always uses Conserve in our Gen2 Tri on long trips and very frequently around town.

I don't leave the suspension in Auto since a lower height has an effect on ride quality and I don't want to make that tradeoff, especially on long trips. Even in Standard height we see a useful increase in range for long trips. It seems like a good compromise to me.

Even with all that Conserve use, we saw very even tire wear over 15,000 miles on the factory 20" AT Pirellis on our Tri.

On a long trip I will switch from Conserve to All Purpose in bad weather or if coming to a merge where I want more power available quickly, just in case or just for fun.

When I am driving more for fun and not just going from point A to point B, I prefer to keep it in All Purpose / Standard Height / Moderate feel (freeways) or Sport / Lowest / Firm (surface streets). My efficiency goes down and it's totally worth it to me.

I think you should see what works best for you and enjoy your Rivian. There don't seem to be any significant downsides to using Conserve on a Tri as there were with a Gen 1 Quad.

 

[portdirect]

I find conserve in gen2 tri motor still wears tires a bit faster than AP - not enough to go wild about but def noticeable over a couple thousand miles (the same it true on dual motors vs gen1 quad/gen2 tris in AP as well - I dont have any experience with gen2 quad). Quite a bit I think comes from regen, where the front does almost all the work - as they dont connect the rears to help. Now to be fair the fronts do most of the work anyway when braking - but its for this reason I tend to run AP for all stop and start traffic (it also increases the smiles per hour as well), and only use conserve really for *longer* highway stretches (when it really shines anyway).

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

I think this is obvious, just looking for a discussion about what those consequences are. The ride height does seem to be a good point, but I think we've put the "higher rate of tire wear at the front" concept to bed as not applicable on the gen 2s.

As far as the rest, I got the tri-motor as the "middle of the road" option for extra grunt when towing over the mountains. I won't do it all that often but it's nice to have available. The rest is subjective; it's just that I don't really drive a car for sport because I regularly do things that make any accelerative force generated by any ground-bound vehicle ever built seem pretty inconsequential. There just won't be a "whee" moment for me in a car, that's all.

Oh it still is a factor for gen 2. Gen 2 Dual is just switching between FWD and AWD on the fly pending drive mode and throttle input. And Tri's switching between conserve and other modes is manual, just like gen 1 and gen 2 Quad. Correlation between rate of wear and suspension geometry is the same regardless of how may motors and what generation. Having gen 2 doesn't give you a magic exemption. It's still a vehicle with well over 7k lbs of dynamic weight. Gravity (and physics) do not look at your spec sheet and say "oh nevermind".

 

[1stPlace]

1. Uneven tire wear / over reliance on front motors. But in the gen 2 vehicles, the rear motors are used for every start from a stop, and for any aggressive acceleration. So this seems to be a moot point.

Uneven tire wear on the inside vs outside of tire will occur due to camber in low suspension. If you have all-terrains then you may get more road noise sooner. If you are doing a lot of constant highway driving with just the front motors (even in standard height) then you still have greater wear on the front tires vs back. Whenever you have uneven wear on front vs back or inside vs outside, you get even more accelerated wear. You will likely take a few thousand miles off the total mileage you get from each tire set for this reason.

If you get 30,000 miles @ 2.2mi/kWh in all purpose, that's about 13,636 kWh used. If your efficency is improved to 2.4mi/kWh in conserve over the same mileage, you've used 12,500kWh and saved about 1,136kWh, which at a cost of $0.15/kWh =$170 on electrons per set of tires. But wait...stock tires cost $1500-2000 installed on the vehicle. and you just lost 10% of use = $150-200. SO if the reason is not to specifically maximize range on a long trip, I would question the benefit to using conserve over all-purpose. The benefit to using sport mode over all-purpose is clear to me, so I accept the tire wear cost.

2. Feeling of rear motors engaging / disengaging? I've watched the monitor and tried my best, but I cannot feel ANYTHING, not the slightest bit of a shift, even when looking for it. So, if this was an issue it seems it's been addressed.

This is not an issue for you then, but it is still an issue for some dual motor drivers, from what I read.

3. Lack of all wheel drive in low traction scenarios - but the rear motors will re-engage anytime traction control sees the need. So, seems like a moot point.

When the car realizes, it could be too late. Wouldn't risk it. That's partly why you have snow mode (along with the low regen)

4. Subpar acceleration performance - again, all motors are used off the line now, but also engage any time you stomp on it. Plus, I don't really drive a car for "performance". So, wouldn't seem to apply.

I read why you said you got the Tri in another post. I was disappointed it wasn't for the ascend interior...harder to believe you needed the upgrade for towing. But I don't tow, so I don't know. Either way, its a great vehicle, enjoy it and drive well.

 

[mkhuffman]

I think this is obvious, just looking for a discussion about what those consequences are. The ride height does seem to be a good point, but I think we've put the "higher rate of tire wear at the front" concept to bed as not applicable on the gen 2s.

As far as the rest, I got the tri-motor as the "middle of the road" option for extra grunt when towing over the mountains. I won't do it all that often but it's nice to have available. The rest is subjective; it's just that I don't really drive a car for sport because I regularly do things that make any accelerative force generated by any ground-bound vehicle ever built seem pretty inconsequential. There just won't be a "whee" moment for me in a car, that's all.

I think you got the answers you were searching for. There is no proof the Conseve wears the tires faster in a Gen2 Tri. In my opinion, if it does, it is negligible. And nobody has proven otherwise.

By the way, in every vehicle I have owned the front tires wear faster. Even the ones on my MB that was rear wheel drive only. That is why I rotate tires.

I do think the bad weather point has some merit, and I would definitely at least use All Purpose if we started to get some snow on the roads. But other than that, Conserve works just fine for normal driving.

That said, if I think there might be a race from a stoplight, and the competition looks tough, I put it in Sport.

 

[1stPlace]

Would rephrase the question-is there any reason TO just stay in conserve? Is it to potentially (not guaranteed) save $5/month on a $100k vehicle?

I still contend the only reasonable reason for conserve, is for the needed range on a long trip.

Sponsored