Dual Motor Lag

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

I think this lag that people refer to is the throttle curve or map assigned to each of the drive modes. In my quad motor, and in Conserve, the throttle map is less responsive and less linear than All-purpose and even less so when compared to Sport. Dual's default mode is effectively Conserve (FWD), so don't expect it to be linear or anywhere close to it. Plus, remember, you are also attempting to accelerate 7,000+ lbs. There is some degree of delay, but nowhere near what it's like trying to accelerate an anemic 4-cylinder gasoline powered commuter car. All configs of R1 have ample torque and available at your command.

Don't overthink what the journalists or bloggers say, or take it out of context. They are often splitting hairs (i.e. comparing 2 motors to 4 motors providing drive/traction).

Sponsored

 

[R1Tom]

I don’t know if it’s a “fact” that a quad in Conserve gets the same efficiency as a dual motor. Someone posted it here, but that’s not a “fact”.

I have an R1T dual motor, 6500 miles on it. Tell me what my efficiency is.

Unfortunately it is a tough comparison since I don't use conserve almost at all.

But the QM motor is probably in the high 90% efficiency range, so odds are the motors arn't all that much more efficient. Even if 5%, which I highly doubt, that would only account for 15 miles of range difference. The rest comes from more time with motors decoupled than the motors themselves.

 

[Rivdog]

I don’t know if it’s a “fact” that a quad in Conserve gets the same efficiency as a dual motor. Someone posted it here, but that’s not a “fact”.

I have an R1T dual motor, 6500 miles on it. Tell me what my efficiency is.

Quad is EPA rated at 328. The test is done in the default drive mode, which is All-Purpose where both axles and all 4 motors are always engaged. Conserve obviously gets slightly better range, which people seem to believe was around 350 based on anecdotal evidence. This doesn’t seem like much of a stretch as it’s just 7% more range with 2 of the motors and an axle disengaged.

A DM sometimes has both axles engaged depending on how you’re driving at any given time, yet is rated at 352. It weighs just a little less than the quad so that helps, but if you can get 352 in the default DM mode, that would be essentially the same real-world range as conserve on a quad. It would be at least close enough to negate any practical difference one way or the other. I’d bet conserve on a quad would get *slightly* better range in a perfectly controlled test.

I don’t know of Rivian ever confirming the range based on the EPA testing criteria for conserve mode on a quad though, to your point.

 

[HaveBlue]

I was a little worried about this as well at purchase but you can lock the truck in AWD manually using any of the other drive modes including when a trailer is attached.

Fact is I don't even think about when it switches back and forth. As soon as you need some power it's already switched in AWD to prevent torque steer. Non-issue imo.

 

[Golfer04]

Quad is EPA rated at 328. The test is done in the default drive mode, which is All-Purpose where both axles and all 4 motors are always engaged. Conserve obviously gets slightly better range, which people seem to believe was around 350 based on anecdotal evidence. This doesn’t seem like much of a stretch as it’s just 7% more range with 2 of the motors and an axle disengaged.

A DM sometimes has both axles engaged depending on how you’re driving at any given time, yet is rated at 352. It weighs just a little less than the quad so that helps, but if you can get 352 in the default DM mode, that would be essentially the same real-world range as conserve on a quad. It would be at least close enough to negate any practical difference one way or the other. I’d bet conserve on a quad would get *slightly* better range in a perfectly controlled test.

I don’t know of Rivian ever confirming the range based on the EPA testing criteria for conserve mode on a quad though, to your point.

I have 55,000 miles on my QM and have used conserve extensively. I've never touched 352 miles of range. I don't think I've ever really gone over 300. My lifetime efficiency is 2.27. I'm not sure why, but QM owners love to say Rivian couldn't have improved on the Bosch motor. My guess would be Bosch could now build a better motor than the one in my Quad R1T.

 

[nrcooled]

On my Dual Motor, the delay is related to how I tip into the accelerator. Sometimes I'll feed in pedal slowly and it'll initially think I'm not going to give it the beans then have a bit of a delay.

If I mash the accelerator there is no delay at all. Or even if I tip in more assertively there is no delay. I can recreate it whenever I want so I expect it. It's not intrusive at all or take away from the driving experience.

 

[CaptainMax]

Thanks for the input everyone. Just confirmed my order for the dual performance.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Quad is EPA rated at 328. The test is done in the default drive mode, which is All-Purpose where both axles and all 4 motors are always engaged. Conserve obviously gets slightly better range, which people seem to believe was around 350 based on anecdotal evidence. This doesn’t seem like much of a stretch as it’s just 7% more range with 2 of the motors and an axle disengaged.

A DM sometimes has both axles engaged depending on how you’re driving at any given time, yet is rated at 352. It weighs just a little less than the quad so that helps, but if you can get 352 in the default DM mode, that would be essentially the same real-world range as conserve on a quad. It would be at least close enough to negate any practical difference one way or the other. I’d bet conserve on a quad would get *slightly* better range in a perfectly controlled test.

I don’t know of Rivian ever confirming the range based on the EPA testing criteria for conserve mode on a quad though, to your point.

For crying out loud.

Weight. Doesn't. Matter.

 

[Rivdog]

For crying out loud.

Weight. Doesn't. Matter.

Wait, so you’re saying that if I have 2000 pounds of payload then I’ll get the same efficiency? Cool!

Re-read my quote before calling me out. If you think that an extra 300 pounds will make absolutely no difference whatsoever, then, well, go ahead and think that.

 

[SeaGeo]

This fact...has been very interesting to watch how Rivian has marketed and seemingly convinced much of the customer base...that somehow they developed a significantly more efficient motor than Bosch....but in reality is mostly attributable to automatic disengagement of rear motor.

I don’t know if it’s a “fact” that a quad in Conserve gets the same efficiency as a dual motor. Someone posted it here, but that’s not a “fact”.

I have an R1T dual motor, 6500 miles on it. Tell me what my efficiency is.

Unfortunately it is a tough comparison since I don't use conserve almost at all.

But the QM motor is probably in the high 90% efficiency range, so odds are the motors arn't all that much more efficient. Even if 5%, which I highly doubt, that would only account for 15 miles of range difference. The rest comes from more time with motors decoupled than the motors themselves.

. It would be at least close enough to negate any practical difference one way or the other. I’d bet conserve on a quad would get *slightly* better range in a perfectly controlled test.

Dual motor is a out 5% more efficient than quad in conserve per their EPA documents.

 

[R1Tom]

Dual motor is a out 5% more efficient than quad in conserve per their EPA documents.

Correct...but is that 5% from motor/inverter efficiency gain or is it from decoupling rear motor strategy? I would argue most if from decouple strategy.

 

[SeaGeo]

Correct...but is that 5% from motor/inverter efficiency gain or is it from decoupling rear motor strategy? I would argue most if from decouple strategy.

It's comparing decoupled quad (conserve) to whatever condition dual motor. So it's motor/inverter.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Wait, so you’re saying that if I have 2000 pounds of payload then I’ll get the same efficiency? Cool!

Re-read my quote before calling me out. If you think that an extra 300 pounds will make absolutely no difference whatsoever, then, well, go ahead and think that.

It's like saying an extra one of you in the car will make a noticable difference in range. It won't. Unsprung weight? Sure. What amounts to an extra passenger? Nope.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Correct...but is that 5% from motor/inverter efficiency gain or is it from decoupling rear motor strategy? I would argue most if from decouple strategy.

There's a thought floating around that the rear inverter is silicon carbide like the front, hence that, and the fact you have less motors, gets you your 5%.

The 5% is combined range and where the EPA tests differ the most, is applications where the rear motor is used, aka, city driving.

 

[CrazyOne]

I am sure there is a small lag compared to quad. However, you are unlikely to notice. Clutches are very fast.

Lag in Audi/VW cars is pretty bad. I couldn't keep up with a Prius in stop and go traffic in an A4 with 2.0T. A rental Jetta with 5 cylinder wouldn't move till I have half throttle. This was a while back though.

Sponsored