Dual Motor Lag

[Rivdog]

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.

You got any evidence to indicate that 300 pounds won’t make any difference whatsoever? You’re now changing the goalposts, by the way, as you’re saying it won’t make a “noticeable difference” in range when all I said it that “it helps” increase the total range.

6870 vs 6585 is a 4.1% weight reduction and that’s gonna make some degree of difference whether you want to believe it or not - especially in a hilly area. Will it add 20 miles? Of course not. But that weight reduction is gonna give us something, even if it’s only 2-3 more miles.

Facts don’t change just because you don’t like them or whatever.

Sponsored

 

[Supratachophobia]

You got any evidence to indicate that 300 pounds won’t make any difference whatsoever? You’re now changing the goalposts, by the way, as you’re saying it won’t make a “noticeable difference” in range when all I said it that “it helps” increase the total range.

6870 vs 6585 is a 4.1% weight reduction and that’s gonna make some degree of difference whether you want to believe it or not - especially in a hilly area. Will it add 20 miles? Of course not. But that weight reduction is gonna give us something, even if it’s only 2-3 more miles.

Facts don’t change just because you don’t like them or whatever.

I've never waivered from my claim the weight difference between dual, max, and quad makes no discernable/measurable difference in range. Certainly not a statistically significant one if you want to get pendantic.

 

[usofrob]

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.

FYI:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...dual-motors-from-epa-filing.17123/post-365634

The DM is about 121 pounds lighter for the same configuration. Not likely measurable in efficiency, but still something.

The EPA tests with All Purpose and Conserve (for Quad Motor). The 350 mile estimate in Conserve is based on the adjusted range of the EPA documents showing 348 miles for R1T.

 

[Supratachophobia]

FYI:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...dual-motors-from-epa-filing.17123/post-365634

The DM is about 121 pounds lighter for the same configuration. Not likely measurable in efficiency, but still something.

The EPA tests with All Purpose and Conserve (for Quad Motor). The 350 mile estimate in Conserve is based on the adjusted range of the EPA documents showing 348 miles for R1T.

As far as I was able to read, they do not have a conserve quad EPA cert because they have to test in "normal" or a default drive mode. But as someone else pointed out, they don't have a 21" large pack dual EPA cert either (I think they have a 20"), presumably because they want as big a differentiation as possible for dual/max to push people into that higher margin trim.

 

[Rivdog]

I've never waivered from my claim the weight difference between dual, max, and quad makes no discernable/measurable difference in range. Certainly not a statistically significant one if you want to get pendantic.

Again, you changed the goalposts. You have any evidence to indicate 285 pounds makes no difference? You’re just trying to say it into existence for some reason. But you do you.

 

[Rivdog]

FYI:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...dual-motors-from-epa-filing.17123/post-365634

The DM is about 121 pounds lighter for the same configuration. Not likely measurable in efficiency, but still something.

The EPA tests with All Purpose and Conserve (for Quad Motor). The 350 mile estimate in Conserve is based on the adjusted range of the EPA documents showing 348 miles for R1T.

Yeah I saw that, it’s odd that the 21 inch config is somehow 285 pounds lighter but the 22 inch is only 121. I was using 285 based on my personal config with the 21’s.

 

[usofrob]

As far as I was able to read, they do not have a conserve quad EPA cert because they have to test in "normal" or a default drive mode. But as someone else pointed out, they don't have a 21" large pack dual EPA cert either (I think they have a 20"), presumably because they want as big a differentiation as possible for dual/max to push people into that higher margin trim.

They do test the Conserve mode in the EPA documents.
The post shows the EPA documents for Large Pack Dual Motor for R1S in 20", 21" and 22", but not for the R1T. It seems the R1T is slightly more efficient.

Yeah I saw that, it’s odd that the 21 inch config is somehow 285 pounds lighter but the 22 inch is only 121. I was using 285 based on my personal config with the 21’s.

NOTE4: For the Dual R1T 21", someone clearly put in the wrong number here. I suspect this should be 6749 based on the weight difference in the quad.

The weight differences for the R1S are fairly consistent. It seems extremely unlikely that just the R1T is a lot lighter and the R1S isn't.

Sponsored