2023 Rivian EPA Numbers published on official website

[Yellow Buddy]

maybe somebody answered this, but does this new range apply to our 2022 models?

Technically..no. The Fueleconomy.gov site only has this applying to 2023 models.

That said…Rivian themselves have already updated the software to display these ranges and do we collectively believe a 2022 model wouldn’t be the same?

Sponsored

 

[jjswan33]

maybe somebody answered this, but does this new range apply to our 2022 models?

So I have been confused about this too, if I look in the Rivian menu it says my numbers are based on a range of 274 miles (20" AT) but if you look at the range available mine will show for instance 199 at 70% SOC which would correspond to a 283-284 mile range.

I haven't been to 100% with the update yet or done any kind of range test.

 

[DJG]

So a couple things:

The EPA doesn't run tests quickly enough for this to be entirely reflective of the most recent software update. Their VP of Software stated on Reddit chats in August that they had been making incremental improvements to range over the course of several OTAs up to that point (in addition to range improvements that their work on vampire drain would have). So, in addition to other things, I think this is a just an annual update to EPA figures that is capturing everything done since summer 2021 at launch. The only way the EPA could capture something from the recent update is unlocking more battery, so they could just apply the same efficiency number to a larger usable battery.

None of my range figures changed with the update, but this did happen - I charged to 100% and drove down to about 20%. Upon charging back to 70%, for the first time ever it yielded a range over 200mi (20" AT in All Purpose). Until that point it was always 193-194. The range estimates in the Energy screen had not changed though, and they hadn't ever changed since delivery and 11k mi (293, 270 and 267 in Conserve, AP and Sport). However, a few days later they are now changed to 297, 280 and 267 (I have still never hit the "reset" button on that screen). However, all of the % and Range figures reported at any given time extrapolate to about 289 miles in AP and over 300 in Conserve. I've always experienced a phenomenon where when charging to 100%, my miles would top out at about 97%, and wouldn't increase from there to 100%. So in AP, it would be 280 at 97% and stay there to 100%. But they would then not decrease the first several miles driven, so I just think the BMS is less precise at a full battery.

On a recent charge to 100% in Conserve, it did the same, showing 293 at 100%. However, I drove over 10 miles before either the range or % changed. That outing ended up draining all the way to about 3%, so I've now seen both ends of the battery.

All of the above tells me that in addition to regen tweaks in the last update, they unlocked some of the buffer, and the BMS was trying to recalibrate with the charges to 100% and discharges deep into the battery. A similar thing happened when Audi did the same in the early model eTrons last year.

 

[goldburger]

I think they should remove aero covers and make them optional in the gear shop. Seems like the first thing everyone is doing is taking them off.

I think the wheels are ugly without the aero covers but that apparently is *literally* just me.

 

[rivian1800]

So a couple things:

The EPA doesn't run tests quickly enough for this to be entirely reflective of the most recent software update. Their VP of Software stated on Reddit chats in August that they had been making incremental improvements to range over the course of several OTAs up to that point (in addition to range improvements that their work on vampire drain would have). So, in addition to other things, I think this is a just an annual update to EPA figures that is capturing everything done since summer 2021 at launch. The only way the EPA could capture something from the recent update is unlocking more battery, so they could just apply the same efficiency number to a larger usable battery.

None of my range figures changed with the update, but this did happen - I charged to 100% and drove down to about 20%. Upon charging back to 70%, for the first time ever it yielded a range over 200mi (20" AT in All Purpose). Until that point it was always 193-194. The range estimates in the Energy screen had not changed though, and they hadn't ever changed since delivery and 11k mi (293, 270 and 267 in Conserve, AP and Sport). However, a few days later they are now changed to 297, 280 and 267 (I have still never hit the "reset" button on that screen). However, all of the % and Range figures reported at any given time extrapolate to about 289 miles in AP and over 300 in Conserve. I've always experienced a phenomenon where when charging to 100%, my miles would top out at about 97%, and wouldn't increase from there to 100%. So in AP, it would be 280 at 97% and stay there to 100%. But they would then not decrease the first several miles driven, so I just think the BMS is less precise at a full battery.

On a recent charge to 100% in Conserve, it did the same, showing 293 at 100%. However, I drove over 10 miles before either the range or % changed. That outing ended up draining all the way to about 3%, so I've now seen both ends of the battery.

All of the above tells me that in addition to regen tweaks in the last update, they unlocked some of the buffer, and the BMS was trying to recalibrate with the charges to 100% and discharges deep into the battery. A similar thing happened when Audi did the same in the early model eTrons last year.

 

[RealBillNye]

It is estimating 330 miles on AT tires?

 

[SANZC02]

I think the wheels are ugly without the aero covers but that apparently is *literally* just me.

I saw a set with the factory center caps and they looked a lot like the 22s.

Without the center cap, or at least a center cap, they just look unfinished.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

I'm curious if they'll ever offer the aero caps shown at the LA autoshow in '18 on the 20" rims. I'm guessing the range difference between having them/not was too minimal to justify manufacturing let alone convincing customers to get them.

 

[rivian1800]

It is estimating 330 miles on AT tires?

Nope. 22’ Sports

 

[jjswan33]

Oddly mine says 274 at 100% (20” AT) but then ~240 miles at 85% and ~200 miles at 70%. So confusing but I guess It has creeped up a bit from 270 or so it used to display at 100%.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Oddly mine says 274 at 100% (20” AT) but then ~240 miles at 85% and ~200 miles at 70%. So confusing but I guess It has creeped up a bit from 270 or so it used to display at 100%.

What’s this? Haven’t seen that on my truck.

 

[rivian1800]

What’s this? Haven’t seen that on my truck.

Honestly, this is new to me but I will pay attention when I get back to driving and I will let you know if I can figure out what it is ?
PS
Mine says 330 miles/100% on conserve mode. Your mileage 270/100% is in all purpose mode.

 

[Dark-Fx]

What’s this? Haven’t seen that on my truck.

It's the charging status.

 

[shumdit]

I think the wheels are ugly without the aero covers but that apparently is *literally* just me.

I think the wheels are ugly with or without them. 20 or 22 are my only potential options because of that, and the crazy high price for the only replacement tire for the 21”

 

[Dark-Fx]

Just thought to look and see if the docs had been published yet, looks like they have been.
Looks like they retested with the higher DoD here, since they are calling the model for the tests "R1T2301" :
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=57185&flag=1

Original 2023 filings:
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=57184&flag=1


*And the EDV tests, which apparently show that the EDV is using LFP batteries ( 94.7 kWh ) and a single motor (264kW) already.
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=57320&flag=1

Sponsored