Any tests done on Vampire battery drain?

[DJG]

You could do that…

Or you could buy a Lyriq, Mach-e, Lightning, Ionic 5, EV6, Bolt, Leaf, Aria… All of which actually turn off when you turn them off.

As much as I admire the Rivian’s capabilities, it’s becoming clear it’s more of a novelty vehicle part of the high efficiency environmentally conscious future that is needed.

I hope I don’t get the call before they decide what kind of future car company they really want to be.

That's kind of a nonsensical response, but you're welcome to it. First of all, I wasn't opining on whether the current drain is competitive with other vehicles (it's not), or not a problem (depends who you ask), or anything like that. I merely said that this person's experience is out of line with expectations (which it is), and is due to circumstances unique to them that Rivian can help diagnose and fix. Once they do that, they should expect to only see about 1.5% or less in drain per 24 hours on current software, not 6%.

From there, the expectation is that improvements will continue (but no guarantee) based on history and their statements, and Rivian has committed to getting it to a point where it is a "non-event" for customers. That means something different to everyone and is for them to decide. For me it already is that, so anything more is nice but not needed. For others, they need to see more improvement for it to work for them.

Nonetheless, if vampire drain was the number one and only consideration in choosing a vehicle, no one has any reason to buy a Rivian, now or in the future. It's not a revelation that a Rivian is a novelty vehicle, that's literally what it is. It's far beyond the needs of anyone. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think you're wrongly expecting Rivian to lead the world in energy efficiency and environmental consciousness. In 20 years, they will be the equivalent of today's Ford and GM trucks/SUVs. That doesn't mean that they are not still an important part of making the environment a better place. Someone has to get truck/large SUV owners to buy electric, because you're not going to get them to buy a Leaf....

Sponsored

 

[Longreach]

….. I think you're wrongly expecting Rivian to lead the world in energy efficiency and environmental consciousness….

If not, then what do they actually have to make them able to survive?

Peeling the covers, I’m not seeing the engineering and manufacturing innovation that could differentiate Rivian from others. Systemic inefficiency is just one example, and a particularly significant one given the underlying purpose behind the EV push.

As for “someone has to get truck/large SUV owners to buy electric” it seems Ford and GM (even Tesla) are making more significant strides on addressing that customer base, as opposed to building a niche novelty vehicle using conventional methods and outsourced components.

I really would like to see Rivian prosper, but unless they fess up and address the poor efficiency caused by a “desktop PC” vehicular architecture, the novelty feature hubris, and the incredibly high production costs caused by lack of innovation, they may not survive.

I am keeping my reservation for now, but the last thing I want to buy is an orphaned vehicle.

 

[DJG]

If not, then what do they actually have to make them able to survive?

Peeling the covers, I’m not seeing the engineering and manufacturing innovation that could differentiate Rivian from others. Systemic inefficiency is just one example, and a particularly significant one given the underlying purpose behind the EV push.

As for “someone has to get truck/large SUV owners to buy electric” it seems Ford and GM (even Tesla) are making more significant strides on addressing that customer base, as opposed to building a niche novelty vehicle using conventional methods and outsourced components.

I really would like to see Rivian prosper, but unless they fess up and address the poor efficiency caused by a “desktop PC” vehicular architecture, the novelty feature hubris, and the incredibly high production costs caused by lack of innovation, they may not survive.

I am keeping my reservation for now, but the last thing I want to buy is an orphaned vehicle.

I think you need to educate yourself on the product, company and industry. While the current product is nowhere near perfect, there are plenty of things that differentiate it from the competition. As just one example, it's quite ludicrous to overlook the software engineering that went into figuring out how to make four independent motors work in a wide variety of applications with no previous example to work from (it's never been done before). It has the most widely capable suspension system every produced. Quite plainly, it's the most differentiated vehicle in existence today (amongst consumer vehicles bought by the general public), and anyone who strongly disagrees likely hasn't seen or driven one in person. Every single competitor would kill themselves to be in the competitive position with lack of alternatives that Rivian currently enjoys. There is a reason there was such enthusiasm for the IPO, because at that time all that existed was the product/s and it was clear to everyone how special it was (no one knew anything about how hard it is to scale production, or general changes in capital markets, etc.).

That doesn't mean it will always be that way and they can rest on their laurels, but the current products are without equal in their respective fields and that's really not even that debatable. They aren't for everyone by any means, but for who they are for, there are literally no other options. While I don't think it will take them that long, they have several years to figure out how to reduce something trivial like vampire drain from 1.5% to less than 0.5% before it has any meaningful impact on their business.

And yes, they have accomplished that partly with using and adapting existing third party components, which doesn't make it any less impressive. That being said, they will be developing and integrating their own motors and batteries in future vehicles, as well as many other things as they continue to scale and integrate.

Lucid is a great example of the opposite, where they have created some truly ground breaking advancements and technology out of the gate, particularly in the area of motors (aided by their long history in the racing world). However, they fall far short of Rivian so far both in creating truly attractive products or the ability to produce them.

They could max out their annual production capacity of R1 vehicles even if they cease to improve upon them from where they are today. So if you're worried about the company surviving, there shouldn't even be any discussion around the R1 product line, because that has little bearing on that outcome. The company will live or die on the mass market product line of vehicles, which no one outside the company knows much of anything about yet other than that they will incorporate more in house designed components, including the motors, which are more efficient, powerful and lighter than what they are currently using.

Energy efficiency and environmental friendliness get far too much play as the reason behind the shift to EVs in my opinion. If fact, I'm convinced it's doing the transition a disservice, and it would happen significantly faster if the focus was merely on the fact that they are a better means of propelling a vehicle in both performance and cost of operation. There are a whole lot of people that are resistant to EVs simply because they hate the idea of being forced to be green, that they don't even bother or get to the point where they can appreciate the fact that they are just better.

 

[Longreach]

I think you need to educate yourself on the product, company and industry. While the current product is nowhere near perfect, there are plenty of things that differentiate it from the competition. As just one example, it's quite ludicrous to overlook the software engineering that went into figuring out how to make four independent motors work in a wide variety of applications with no previous example to work from (it's never been done before). It has the most widely capable suspension system every produced. Quite plainly, it's the most differentiated vehicle in existence today (amongst consumer vehicles bought by the general public), and anyone who strongly disagrees likely hasn't seen or driven one in person. Every single competitor would kill themselves to be in the competitive position with lack of alternatives that Rivian currently enjoys. There is a reason there was such enthusiasm for the IPO, because at that time all that existed was the product/s and it was clear to everyone how special it was (no one knew anything about how hard it is to scale production, or general changes in capital markets, etc.).

That doesn't mean it will always be that way and they can rest on their laurels, but the current products are without equal in their respective fields and that's really not even that debatable. They aren't for everyone by any means, but for who they are for, there are literally no other options. While I don't think it will take them that long, they have several years to figure out how to reduce something trivial like vampire drain from 1.5% to less than 0.5% before it has any meaningful impact on their business.

And yes, they have accomplished that partly with using and adapting existing third party components, which doesn't make it any less impressive. That being said, they will be developing and integrating their own motors and batteries in future vehicles, as well as many other things as they continue to scale and integrate.

Lucid is a great example of the opposite, where they have created some truly ground breaking advancements and technology out of the gate, particularly in the area of motors (aided by their long history in the racing world). However, they fall far short of Rivian so far both in creating truly attractive products or the ability to produce them.

They could max out their annual production capacity of R1 vehicles even if they cease to improve upon them from where they are today. So if you're worried about the company surviving, there shouldn't even be any discussion around the R1 product line, because that has little bearing on that outcome. The company will live or die on the mass market product line of vehicles, which no one outside the company knows much of anything about yet other than that they will incorporate more in house designed components, including the motors, which are more efficient, powerful and lighter than what they are currently using.

Energy efficiency and environmental friendliness get far too much play as the reason behind the shift to EVs in my opinion. If fact, I'm convinced it's doing the transition a disservice, and it would happen significantly faster if the focus was merely on the fact that they are a better means of propelling a vehicle in both performance and cost of operation. There are a whole lot of people that are resistant to EVs simply because they hate the idea of being forced to be green, that they don't even bother or get to the point where they can appreciate the fact that they are just better.

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the promoted product. I too had the same enthusiasm.

So did Ford, which is why they invested heavily early on. It was a hedge against their own product development under the assumption Rivian was ahead. They even planned a Lincoln top hat built on the Rivian platform.

But it didn’t take long for Ford to realize there was nothing there they couldn’t do themselves, even in the same time frame. Rivian had a good story, but very little true innovation under the hood. In fact, costly design (like 120 fasteners in a door panel compared to Ford’s class leading modular door assembly as used in the Mach-e) probably left them speechless.

Ford dropped the Lincoln top hat and board membership, then started a Rivian stock exit program.

The result is the fast-to-market Lightning, which by all 3rd party accounts is pretty competitive (including much lower idle mode power losses enabled by a more appropriate vehicular software architecture). And Ford (like GM) is already working on the next generation EV truck which will probably include better efficiency and leverage more state-of-theart manufacturing innovation.

The Rivian is certainly a cool product, but it’s not efficient, not cost effective (cost, not price), and not really innovative (wizz bang novelties aside). Most of the pieces that seem innovative (motors, air suspension) were just bought in.

I may still buy one, but I’m pretty sure the R1 is already yesterdays vehicle. Unless Rivian dramatically changes its ways with R2, I question their ability to survive the new competition.



BTW, I agree with your Lucid assessment. High innovation, but unable to scale or differentiate models due to resource constraints at this time.

 

[DaveA]

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the promoted product. I too had the same enthusiasm.

So did Ford, which is why they invested heavily early on. It was a hedge against their own product development under the assumption Rivian was ahead. They even planned a Lincoln top hat built on the Rivian platform.

But it didn’t take long for Ford to realize there was nothing there they couldn’t do themselves, even in the same time frame. Rivian had a good story, but very little true innovation under the hood. In fact, costly design (like 120 fasteners in a door panel compared to Ford’s class leading modular door assembly as used in the Mach-e) probably left them speechless.

Ford dropped the Lincoln top hat and board membership, then started a Rivian stock exit program.

The result is the fast-to-market Lightning, which by all 3rd party accounts is pretty competitive (including much lower idle mode power losses enabled by a more appropriate vehicular software architecture). And Ford (like GM) is already working on the next generation EV truck which will probably include better efficiency and leverage more state-of-theart manufacturing innovation.

The Rivian is certainly a cool product, but it’s not efficient, not cost effective (cost, not price), and not really innovative (wizz bang novelties aside). Most of the pieces that seem innovative (motors, air suspension) were just bought in.

I may still buy one, but I’m pretty sure the R1 is already yesterdays vehicle. Unless Rivian dramatically changes its ways with R2, I question their ability to survive the new competition.



BTW, I agree with your Lucid assessment. High innovation, but unable to scale or differentiate models due to resource constraints at this time.

I for one would rather Ford not be associated with Rivian at all…those Ford recalls could be contagious.

 

[Rousie13]

Back on topic, my truck has been sitting unplugged for the last two days. I lost 2% in the first 24 hours and have lost 1% in the last 24 hours. So we’ll just average that to 1.5% per day and that’s with me opening the app 4 times to check the status of the truck. We’ll just use my current energy rate of $.1366/ kWh, so that’s roughly $.25 per day. So in a 30 day month, we’re talking $7.50 of vampire drain. Obviously it would be great if it was $0, but if you’re losing sleep over $5-10/month, then this purchase is probably not for you.

 

[DJG]

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the promoted product. I too had the same enthusiasm.

So did Ford, which is why they invested heavily early on. It was a hedge against their own product development under the assumption Rivian was ahead. They even planned a Lincoln top hat built on the Rivian platform.

But it didn’t take long for Ford to realize there was nothing there they couldn’t do themselves, even in the same time frame. Rivian had a good story, but very little true innovation under the hood. In fact, costly design (like 120 fasteners in a door panel compared to Ford’s class leading modular door assembly as used in the Mach-e) probably left them speechless.

Ford dropped the Lincoln top hat and board membership, then started a Rivian stock exit program.

The result is the fast-to-market Lightning, which by all 3rd party accounts is pretty competitive (including much lower idle mode power losses enabled by a more appropriate vehicular software architecture). And Ford (like GM) is already working on the next generation EV truck which will probably include better efficiency and leverage more state-of-theart manufacturing innovation.

The Rivian is certainly a cool product, but it’s not efficient, not cost effective (cost, not price), and not really innovative (wizz bang novelties aside). Most of the pieces that seem innovative (motors, air suspension) were just bought in.

I may still buy one, but I’m pretty sure the R1 is already yesterdays vehicle. Unless Rivian dramatically changes its ways with R2, I question their ability to survive the new competition.



BTW, I agree with your Lucid assessment. High innovation, but unable to scale or differentiate models due to resource constraints at this time.

We have different takes on the Ford history, but no one knows for sure so it's open to opinion. Mine is that they, like their peers, didn't believe in the entire concept of EVs or whether they would even be bothered by them. Once they were convinced (partly by what Rivian was able to show them), there was only one outcome and that was to separate from Rivian. Unless they bought them entirely (not available), it would look utterly foolish to hold on to a minority investment in another company in your own industry. Investors don't own Ford to get exposure to Rivian. It would show weakness and uncertainty of their own ability. It also ended up being a huge windfall for them, so even easier to exit.

However, where we also differ is in whether Ford or GM products have anything to do with Rivian, at least at this time. Despite the people that clearly evaluate both, ordered both, etc. etc. there's simply no comparing the two. Not because one is clearly better, but because they are simply different markets. Rivian doesn't need to steal any of the preexisting truck market to sell 30-35k R1T's per year (data shows most buyers have never even owned a truck before), so it's irrelevant what Ford or GM or Ram do with their trucks, they will be left to compete with each other has they have forever.

That's all they plan to make/sell of that vehicle, and an equal number of R1S's. That's it, 65k total (perhaps a little more with factory expansion). The SUV will end up with more competition with time, but I've still yet to see anything announced that will compete directly with it. It will have to be a newly conceived model from scratch, because it, like the R1T straddles on/off road like nothing else has ever done. No, the Kia, Hyundai, Polestar, Volvo, or even Porsche offerings will not compete directly with the R1S despite plenty of people that will cross shop them. The only one announced is the new Scout program by VW, but it's unclear if it will match the on road abilities, and it's nothing more than a vision/dream at this stage.

The R1T is the most efficient electric truck on the market, so not sure why you'd say it's not efficient (because these things need to be relative). Nor do I understand why that's at all important. People like to talk about range, etc. but at the end of the day energy efficiency in an EV is no different than ICE vehicles before it. Yes, all else equal you will choose the more efficient one, but it's never equal, and certainly not in Rivian's case. Also, I don't even know what to say if you don't think the Rivian is innovative in comparison to the Lightning. There is literally nothing innovative about the lightning, and that was intentional and how it was "fast to market". The only thing would be the frunk design, hardly proprietary as it's already being copied by their competitors. But that's also why it will be really popular for the market it's intended for (existing ICE truck owners). That market does not want innovation that comes at the cost of reliability. I think you're in for a rude awakening if you expect Ford or other legacy OEMs to be more innovative than someone like Rivian or Tesla. The latter will live and die by innovation, the former have everything to lose by rocking the boat. And that's the interesting game that will play out over the next 10 years.

But again, it's not about Ford vs. Rivian, because that's not the story. The market share that will be left behind from the demise of Toyota, Subaru, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Chrysler, etc. will be more than enough to prop up people like Rivian and for Ford and others to continue to thrive.

 

[Longreach]

… That's all they plan to make/sell of that vehicle, and an equal number of R1S's. That's it, 65k total (perhaps a little more with factory expansion)…

…The R1T is the most efficient electric truck on the market…

I agree with that number, it would be financially impossible to sell more with the current cost structure.

Rivians only road to success lies in the R2 product, which will have to be radically different in design innovation (not wizz/bang user features) and manufacturing cost. I hope they’re up to it, but the current product suggests they are far from where they need to be.

Regarding efficiency, the issue is not driving efficiency, but unacceptably high losses when not driving. It betrays a immature vehicular electrical architecture which seems unsuited for a BEV application.

 

[Longreach]

I for one would rather Ford not be associated with Rivian at all…those Ford recalls could be contagious.

Ha!!!

I make no apologies for Fords warranty costs, which are highest in the industry. There is no excuse, most of it is very low hanging fruit.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I think you need to educate yourself on the product, company and industry. While the current product is nowhere near perfect, there are plenty of things that differentiate it from the competition. As just one example, it's quite ludicrous to overlook the software engineering that went into figuring out how to make four independent motors work in a wide variety of applications with no previous example to work from (it's never been done before). It has the most widely capable suspension system every produced. Quite plainly, it's the most differentiated vehicle in existence today (amongst consumer vehicles bought by the general public), and anyone who strongly disagrees likely hasn't seen or driven one in person. Every single competitor would kill themselves to be in the competitive position with lack of alternatives that Rivian currently enjoys. There is a reason there was such enthusiasm for the IPO, because at that time all that existed was the product/s and it was clear to everyone how special it was (no one knew anything about how hard it is to scale production, or general changes in capital markets, etc.).

That doesn't mean it will always be that way and they can rest on their laurels, but the current products are without equal in their respective fields and that's really not even that debatable. They aren't for everyone by any means, but for who they are for, there are literally no other options. While I don't think it will take them that long, they have several years to figure out how to reduce something trivial like vampire drain from 1.5% to less than 0.5% before it has any meaningful impact on their business.

And yes, they have accomplished that partly with using and adapting existing third party components, which doesn't make it any less impressive. That being said, they will be developing and integrating their own motors and batteries in future vehicles, as well as many other things as they continue to scale and integrate.

Lucid is a great example of the opposite, where they have created some truly ground breaking advancements and technology out of the gate, particularly in the area of motors (aided by their long history in the racing world). However, they fall far short of Rivian so far both in creating truly attractive products or the ability to produce them.

They could max out their annual production capacity of R1 vehicles even if they cease to improve upon them from where they are today. So if you're worried about the company surviving, there shouldn't even be any discussion around the R1 product line, because that has little bearing on that outcome. The company will live or die on the mass market product line of vehicles, which no one outside the company knows much of anything about yet other than that they will incorporate more in house designed components, including the motors, which are more efficient, powerful and lighter than what they are currently using.

Energy efficiency and environmental friendliness get far too much play as the reason behind the shift to EVs in my opinion. If fact, I'm convinced it's doing the transition a disservice, and it would happen significantly faster if the focus was merely on the fact that they are a better means of propelling a vehicle in both performance and cost of operation. There are a whole lot of people that are resistant to EVs simply because they hate the idea of being forced to be green, that they don't even bother or get to the point where they can appreciate the fact that they are just better.

The last paragraph is 100% my view. I'm not an environmentalist, my opinions on things like climate change wouldn't be very popular on this forum I suspect. The thing is, if EV's are to succeed they need to attract buyers like me. The it's good for the environment message isn't going to get it done on a large scale, not even with all the people on the left end of the spectrum.

At the end of the day most people are going to make their purchasing decisions on what's best for them directly. I'm buying the Rivian truck because it's the best one on the market in the areas I care about. It's the fastest, best handling truck out there. It's small enough to be a daily but still has the full size truck capability. I can take my family on trips, even off roading with it too.

Plus I won't have to go to the gas station and filling it with electrons is cheaper than filling a truck with gas or diesel. We need to tell people how electric vehicles are good for THEM.

 

[Longreach]

Back on topic, my truck has been sitting unplugged for the last two days. I lost 2% in the first 24 hours and have lost 1% in the last 24 hours. So we’ll just average that to 1.5% per day and that’s with me opening the app 4 times to check the status of the truck. We’ll just use my current energy rate of $.1366/ kWh, so that’s roughly $.25 per day. So in a 30 day month, we’re talking $7.50 of vampire drain. Obviously it would be great if it was $0, but if you’re losing sleep over $5-10/month, then this purchase is probably not for you.

Sure, as an individual you can afford that. But look at the bigger picture on energy efficiency.

Remember when governments provided incentives to switch from incandescent to LED lights for similar energy savings. Based on your numbers, a better return could be achieved by providing similar incentives NOT to buy a Rivian vs other EVs.

Of course this is not comparable because the Rivian sales numbers are so low. But the same principle could apply over large volumes of EVs sold. Energy efficiency, both active and idle, has to be a key part of any modern device design, including EVs. If you ignore that reality, you are not part of the future.

 

[Rousie13]

Sure, as an individual you can afford that. But look at the bigger picture on energy efficiency.

Remember when governments provided incentives to switch from incandescent to LED lights for similar energy savings. Based on your numbers, a better return could be achieved by providing similar incentives NOT to buy a Rivian vs other EVs.

Of course this is not comparable because the Rivian sales numbers are so low. But the same principle could apply over large volumes of EVs sold. Energy efficiency, both active and idle, has to be a key part of any modern device design, including EVs. If you ignore that reality, you are not part of the future.

I fully agree that efficiency is important….both active and idle. The first delivery folks were talking about their Rivians using several % of battery daily sitting idle and it’s now down to 1-2%. I’m sure Rivian will improve this to make it even more efficient while idle.

If your sole purpose is getting the most efficient EV possible, then obviously the Rivian is not that vehicle. As it sits, I think the Rivian is very efficient overall for what it is…..an 800+hp truck/suv. And I know Rivian will continue to improve it via software (and future hardware) updates to make the R1 platform even better.

 

[emoore]

Sure, as an individual you can afford that. But look at the bigger picture on energy efficiency.

Remember when governments provided incentives to switch from incandescent to LED lights for similar energy savings. Based on your numbers, a better return could be achieved by providing similar incentives NOT to buy a Rivian vs other EVs.

Of course this is not comparable because the Rivian sales numbers are so low. But the same principle could apply over large volumes of EVs sold. Energy efficiency, both active and idle, has to be a key part of any modern device design, including EVs. If you ignore that reality, you are not part of the future.

I agree that if you are looking for efficiency the Rivian isn’t for you. The people interested in being as efficient as possible aren’t buying trucks. They were buying civics and Corolla’s and Priuses. As for your led analogy there are many different leds that vary in efficiency. A 800 lumen build can draw 5w or 10w, depends on the bulb and manufacture.

 

[elektrode]

Sadly watching my battery bleed out as truck sits in service center parking lot…

 

[DJG]

For insight into the process and upcoming improvements:

Sponsored