Consumption needed to hit advertised range?

[beatle]

Does anyone have a chart that shows what mi/kwh you need to reach to hit the advertised range for a particular config? Looking at the efficiency graph, it shows "green" or above rated range at ~2mi/kwh, but that seems awfully low, and the math doesn't add up. My R1T PDM Max with 20ATs advertises 355 miles, and with a 143 kwh battery, I'm calculating I need to hit 2.48mi/kwh which seems more reasonable. Quad trucks would be different, as would 21" or 22" configs. Perhaps standard batteries are slightly different still as they are lighter and may have better efficiency and would require the driver to hit a higher mi/kwh number to meet rated range.

I could build a chart using the chart on range/wheel/battery/motor on Wikipedia, but I know the max pack kwh is wrong in that article, so perhaps other numbers are also wrong.

Sponsored

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

It's just a quick math calculation. Divide range by kwh usable capacity.

In your case max pack has 142 kwh usable when new so you would need to average 2.5 mi per kwh for an entire trip to get that range.

Of course that's a 100% to 0 run as well.

A more realistic range on the highway doing 70 with your config would be 2mi per kwh or 284 miles.

Now if you were doing town stop and go that 355 might be achievable.

It's similar with the dual/max/21 road. Would need 2.9 mi per kwh to get 410 mi of range. That's not realistic on the highway IMO.

 

[beatle]

I'm familiar with all the things that knock you back from the advertised range, I just didn't know how to tell when I was to actually getting it. I use ElectraFi to track my consumption, but unlike TeslaFi, it doesn't show you the % efficient metric which is a function of how close to the advertised efficiency you got for that trip.

I think it's kind of misleading to see the graph show green above a line that actually isn't the consumption needed to meet the advertised range. Since the truck needs to reach ~2.5mi/kwh, that's a pretty big error of over 20% on the graph. Tesla had this problem as well with its energy graph, but it was only about 10% off. I think the graph was calibrated to show 292wh/mi to meet rated range, but I needed 272wh/mi or something in that ballpark.

 

[RWerksman]

21" equipped version is 2.9 mi/kw. 20" version is 2.5 or so.

That graph basically sucks. They have 2.0 is the midpoint and the little tiny 'range impact' bar graph to the right that everyone misses. Both need some TLC.

 

[beatle]

I can see the tiny range impact square, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. It would appear unnecessary if they have an entire graph to show you range impact. The manual has no information on the efficiency graph, only how to bring it up via the steering wheel buttons.

 

[racekarl]

I can see the tiny range impact square, but I'm not sure how to interpret it. It would appear unnecessary if they have an entire graph to show you range impact. The manual has no information on the efficiency graph, only how to bring it up via the steering wheel buttons.

I have no idea if this is correct but I interpret the tiny bar graph to be the integral of the chart. That is, it’s showing the net effect of your last 15 minutes of driving using the area under the curve.

Agreed that the efficiency graph is not very useful and poorly documented.

 

[Zoidz]

It sounds like what you are looking for is an “almost instantaneous” mi/kw display similar to ICE mpg displays? I agree that the 15 minute graph isn’t much help if you are trying to adjust your driving to optimize your efficiency.

One possible solution would be to modify the energy consumption crescent with some additional colors. There was a comment a while ago that it was a poor choice for Rivian to change the color to yellow on the consumption curve. I agree. This curve could be reworked to perhaps blue when you are above 2.5 and gradient change to yellow and red as efficiency drops.

 

[beatle]

Looking at the bar graph, I now understand that I've been in the negatives for the length of my ownership. I kinda get that as I have a lot of short trips and then my highway trips have been above 70mph. But that tiny important graph is overshadowed by the misleading line graph.

Ideally I'd like to see a graph of the entire trip, but I don't think that will happen as it would require dynamic scaling, and it may ultimately be confusing. As compromise, just being able to see mi/kwh for the entire trip in the gauge cluster would be helpful. Right now I have to remember to reset one of the trip odometers at the start of each leg, and then dig into the main screen to see that. I know I'll never do that.

But if sticking to the contents of the line graph, the horizontal centerline should be the mi/kwh needed to reach the advertised range. In my truck's case, it would be 2.5. Anything above that line would indicate efficiency is better than advertised, below it, worse. As it stands, Rivian uses an abitrary 2mi/kwh which is kind of a meaningless benchmark. I'm averaging 2.3mi/kwh which isn't too bad, but it's still just under 10% worse than advertised. That's to be expected, but I see green on my graph all the time.

 

[HaveBlue]

2.69 for the Max pack with 22s. 380mi/141kwh
2.52 for the 20s

 

[beatle]

My trip to work often gets me pretty good numbers as I get closer as there is about 200 ft of elevation drop. I was able to capture the somewhat rare "above rated" range impact:

:

Typically this shows as a tiny black square below the centerline as I'm not often above 2.5 mi/kwh which actually does appear to be the point at which it goes above/below the line. I'm assuming people with other configs have a calibrated "Range Impact" indicator - for example 2.69mi/kwh for those with 22s?

To be perfectly fair to the rest of the graph, Rivian has vague "more range" and "less range" labels, and not more useful "above/below rated" labels. Perhaps this is not dishonest, but still misleading.

 

[MidnightM00N]

Rebooting this thread for others to reference for the future. R1S Gen 1 and 2 usable kWh, rated range/efficiency, and 100%-0% ranges at different efficiencies:

The new DM Large battery rated range/efficiency stands out to me the most and seems suspect at best

 

[beatle]

Thanks for the correction on the rating on DM Max, 20AT. I originally thought it was 2.5, but it's more like 2.6, and the graph tracks with that.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Does anyone have a chart that shows what mi/kwh you need to reach to hit the advertised range for a particular config? Looking at the efficiency graph, it shows "green" or above rated range at ~2mi/kwh, but that seems awfully low, and the math doesn't add up. My R1T PDM Max with 20ATs advertises 355 miles, and with a 143 kwh battery, I'm calculating I need to hit 2.48mi/kwh which seems more reasonable. Quad trucks would be different, as would 21" or 22" configs. Perhaps standard batteries are slightly different still as they are lighter and may have better efficiency and would require the driver to hit a higher mi/kwh number to meet rated range.

I could build a chart using the chart on range/wheel/battery/motor on Wikipedia, but I know the max pack kwh is wrong in that article, so perhaps other numbers are also wrong.

2.79 miles per kw.

Edit, sorry. 2.89m/kw

Sponsored