Expected efficiency metrics - what’s the consensus?

[dgcassidy]

We got our 2023 R1S Quad Large two weeks ago and so far we’re loving it! Seeing a lot of posts about efficiency metrics got me wondering: is there any consensus on the expected efficiency for each car model and configuration? I imagine the numbers might be quite different between the dual, triple, and quad motors, for example, and of course weather and terrain will impact the numbers too.

Sponsored

 

[usulio]

General efficiency comments

It's very hard to say because of so many potential factors.

• Driving speed. Air resistance is quadratic, so going 75mph gives almost twice at much air resistance as 55mph.
• Tires. For example, on your vehicle the All-Seasons are listed as 15% more range than the All-Terrains, a big difference.
• Temperature and pre-heating. Cold air is thicker and heating the vehicle takes energy. Even pre-heated, driving at below 20 degrees could cut, say, 25% off your efficiency compared to 70 degrees (very ballpark/guess). Not pre-heated, the vehicle will use a lot of extra energy to get the battery and cabin up to temperature as well.
• Net elevation gain: I use a rough rule of thumb that going up 1,000ft uses 10 extra miles of range, although that's a bit conservative. In my experience a hilly route with a net gain of zero is not much different efficiency-wise than a flat route.
• Other factors are aerodynamics (roof rack, hitch accessories), wind speed, heat/AC use. At higher elevations, the air is thinner and efficiency is better.

Because of that, the most useful data is often an apples-to-apples comparison that varies as few of these factors as possible. Usually constant-speed highway range tests. In city driving, there are too many variables, and people don't care about city range nearly as much anyway.


Different configurations

Gen 1 large packs are pretty good about hitting or exceeding their advertised and EPA range even on the highway at moderate speeds (I'd say 65-70).

Highway efficiency is only slightly different between all configurations of the R1S or R1T (assuming conserve mode where applicable). R1T is a bit better than R1S (maybe 5%?). Dual is slightly more efficient than equivalent Tri or Quad, but Conserve mostly negates this. Different battery sizes on the config have barely any impact. Gen 2 are slightly more efficient, but the battery packs are a lot smaller (except the Max) and the advertised range is much more optimistic.


Numbers

Here's some data I'm aware of, you can find more by searching the forums and digging through.

• Out of Spec has done a bunch of videos at 70mph steady 100%-0% on the same route. They are at elevation in Colorado, so subtract up to maybe 10%. They recorded the Gen 1 R1S Quad Large on AT tires at 2.3 mi/kWh. The same for the same config but R1T on a windier day. In a cold weather video, they found the same R1S config got 1.81 mi/kWh. They found the Gen 1 Dual R1S on AS tires to get 2.5 mi/kWh. On a cooler day of 40-50*, the Gen 1 R1T Dual got 2.4 mi/kWh.
• Budman has a bunch of data on the same route with temperature differences and a few models:https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...-pack-efficiency-and-charging-analysis.37135/

Summary:

• At 70mph steady in perfect summer conditions, the original AT tires ought to get around 2.0-2.1 mi/kWh if not more, and efficient AS tires such as the original 21" combo ought to get 2.3-2.4 if not more.
• In city driving or steady speeds below 50mph, the numbers should be much better, e.g. summer numbers 2.5-3.0 or better.

 

[dradam]

So many variables.... I have a 23 large pack quad vin 23xxx delivered 11/23, 21 OEM pirellis, 3 cargo bars.

Just shy of 10K miles now. Mainly a daily driver two and from work and a few road trips. no off roading.

In my ownership my average miles/kw has been 2.4. Sometime 1.8 in the cold to 2.5/6 in warmer temps.

Hope that helps.

 

[malditofman]

We got our 2023 R1S Quad Large two weeks ago and so far we’re loving it! Seeing a lot of posts about efficiency metrics got me wondering: is there any consensus on the expected efficiency for each car model and configuration? I imagine the numbers might be quite different between the dual, triple, and quad motors, for example, and of course weather and terrain will impact the numbers too.

Ugh. Ignore the minutiae videos. Just drive and enjoy your Rivian. AT tires are unnecessary and kill range. Keep highway speed to no more than 60 mph as speed and increasing wind resistance both kill range. Use heated or ventelated seats instead of heater or AC and dress for the weather. Basically, drive like a reasonably intelligent and sane person. You'll be fine. Drive well.

 

[Jonger1150]

In my ownership my average miles/kw has been 2.4. Sometime 1.8 in the cold to 2.5/6 in warmer temps.

Dual Motor Performance.

This is what I found too. If I wanted to hypermile, I could average 2.75 or better in the summer.

 

[COdogman]

Somewhere between 0-10.

 

[dgcassidy]

Appreciate everyone's perspectives -- thanks!

 

[portdirect]

My lifetime efficiency works out to 2.03 m/kWh over two R1s: Quad R1T and Dual R1S. To get that number I and my wife drove it like we do, at the places we drive, in the weather that was present. Your milage may vary.

Sorry for the tongue in cheek answer - the number is valid though, just so many variables that comparison is super hard.

 

[mkg3]

We got our 2023 R1S Quad Large two weeks ago and so far we’re loving it! Seeing a lot of posts about efficiency metrics got me wondering: is there any consensus on the expected efficiency for each car model and configuration? I imagine the numbers might be quite different between the dual, triple, and quad motors, for example, and of course weather and terrain will impact the numbers too.

Environmental factors, topology and speed variation makes people posting results from all parts of the country almost useless.

There is a horizontal bar on the energy consumption on the driver's screen on the left-hand side. The bar is at 2 miles/kWh. Consider that as the baseline and its a relative +/- from there.

 

[mikehmb]

Environmental factors, topology and speed variation makes people posting results from all parts of the country almost useless.

There is a horizontal bar on the energy consumption on the driver's screen on the left-hand side. The bar is at 2 miles/kWh. Consider that as the baseline and its a relative +/- from there.

^^^ this

As an example, I have two primary routes to the office, about the same speeds and one about 6 miles longer (but less traffic).

On the shorter route, I'll easily see >2.5mi/kWh r/t.
On the longer route, which is undulating for 20 miles, will see 2.2 or less. It's also often windier on that road, esp in the afternoons on the way home.

 

[iansriv]

OP-based on the aerodynamics of a slightly rounded brick; I was not expecting much effeciency from my R1S when I got it. It is efficient for a large SUV but nowhere close to a Lucid sedan. I believe the best efficiency a R1S can get is about 2.5. The Lucid gets about twice that. For those who have the self control to drive 60mph in a 70mph zone, it will improve the efficiency. I always end up driving with the flow of traffic, which ends up invariably higher than the posted limit. Enjoy the ride!

Sponsored