Gen2 Efficiencies?

[bfilippo]

Hi Folks,

I am wondering if anyone has done any testing of the new battery pack efficiencies with different wheel/tire setups for Gen2?

I ask because I have a Dual Standard with the new 20" AS tires (which are really AT tires basically), and it's rated at 258, which is pretty close to what I get, while the 20" range tires for the new Standard (LFP) are rated at 270.

Meanwhile, the new Large battery pack Dual sees a major differential in EPA range, going from 329 with 22" range/sport to 279 with 20" AT which are very similar to the AS on the Standard

Obviously there is different battery chemistry at play here, but I am still wondering if anyone has actually seen the 329 range with the new Large battery pack that has lower capacity than the previous, and if anyone has put 22" sport/range wheels on the Standard to see what the actual differential is?

Forgive me if this has been examined somewhere already and I have missed it, I just figured since the new Large battery started rolling out about 2 months ago, someone may have recently tested this out.

Mostly for me, I am wondering what real world differences there are, given the battery chemistry difference, charging ability (100% vs 80%) and weather affects, along with wheel/tire size.

Thanks!

Sponsored

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

The larger the battery the more affect the percentages have on efficiency and hence the range number.

For example if you have a 100 kwh battery and a 140 kwh battery and the tire/wheel changes result in a reduction of 10% you lose 4 additional kwh from the larger pack than you do the smaller one. More energy more lost range.

Another way to look at it is with the range. let's use 2.3 mi per kwh as an example. 2.3x100 is 230 miles. 10% would be 23 miles. 2.3x140 would be 322 and 10% would be 32.2 miles.

 

[bfilippo]

The larger the battery the more affect the percentages have on efficiency and hence the range number.

For example if you have a 100 kwh battery and a 140 kwh battery and the tire/wheel changes result in a reduction of 10% you lose 4 additional kwh from the larger pack than you do the smaller one. More energy more lost range.

Another way to look at it is with the range. let's use 2.3 mi per kwh as an example. 2.3x100 is 230 miles. 10% would be 23 miles. 2.3x140 would be 322 and 10% would be 32.2 miles.

That makes sense, I guess I’m also wondering if the real world differentials reflect the estimates for folks in Gen2.

I can’t see how anyone would get 3mi/kwh based on what I’m seeing on my truck driving conservatively - can the tire/wheel make a .5-1 mi/kwh difference?

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

That makes sense, I guess I’m also wondering if the real world differentials reflect the estimates for folks in Gen2.

I can’t see how anyone would get 3mi/kwh based on what I’m seeing on my truck driving conservatively - can the tire/wheel make a .5-1 mi/kwh difference?

Real world range is usually lower than the EPA estimates. So the difference will be slightly lower too than the EPA stated difference. 3mi per kwh is certainly not the norm. 2.5 ish in the mild weather and 2.0 when its really cold here in the northeast. Sometimes slightly higher or lower depending on other conditions.

I do know the ATs have a significant range penalty regardless. The sport wheels/tires and the range version are pretty close. On gen2 the range wheel/tire setup is also a 22" ...but its a LRR tire and so it will not be able to put as much power down as the sport tire.

On the larger batteries it doesn't affect it so much because the reduced range is still adequate for what most people do daily.

 

[pickupman2022]

The 20" all season on the dual standard are 33" diameter (275/60R20) while the 20" AT tires on other models are 34" diameter (275/65R20). This will cause a good part of the discrepancy you are seeing. I have a new dual large at just this morning on the way to work i got 2.84 mi/kwh. Mine came with the 22" Sport but I am running aftermarket 20" wheels with 275/60R20 Tires. (Both are 33" diameter so no speedometer error). Since the 22" sport are also 33" diameter I do not think it would make much difference vs the stock wheel and tires on yours. I have not done any range testing but based on efficiency I don't expect to see 329 mi. Never saw 316 miles on my gen 1 quad either.

 

[bfilippo]

The 20" all season on the dual standard are 33" diameter (275/60R20) while the 20" AT tires on other models are 34" diameter (275/65R20). This will cause a good part of the discrepancy you are seeing. I have a new dual large at just this morning on the way to work i got 2.84 mi/kwh. Mine came with the 22" Sport but I am running aftermarket 20" wheels with 275/60R20 Tires. (Both are 33" diameter so no speedometer error). Since the 22" sport are also 33" diameter I do not think it would make much difference vs the stock wheel and tires on yours. I have not done any range testing but based on efficiency I don't expect to see 329 mi. Never saw 316 miles on my gen 1 quad either.

Thanks!

I’ll have to try the 15min interval option versus Trip A & B. Wish there was a more involved energy tracker like in Tesla so I can modify my driving habits to get maximum range more easily.

 

[DayTripping]

Hi Folks,

I am wondering if anyone has done any testing of the new battery pack efficiencies with different wheel/tire setups for Gen2?

I ask because I have a Dual Standard with the new 20" AS tires (which are really AT tires basically), and it's rated at 258, which is pretty close to what I get, while the 20" range tires for the new Standard (LFP) are rated at 270.

Thanks!

What tires do you have? Can you say what make and model they are?

 

[bfilippo]

What tires do you have? Can you say what make and model they are?

Goodyear Wrangler Territory AT, marketed as “AS 3 snowflake” by Rivian for Gen2 dual standard.

 

[DayTripping]

Thx. Those are the new ones designed specifically for Rivians. How do you like them so far? How is the ride, braking and noise levels?

 

[bfilippo]

Thx. Those are the new ones designed specifically for Rivians. How do you like them so far? How is the ride, braking and noise levels?

The ride is quite good honestly, better than anything else I’ve personally driven before. Braking seems solid, even with snow and ice we’ve had these past 2 weeks.

I noticed a bit more road noise than expected at first, but I mentioned to SC when I brought in for a very minor issue where 1/32” of the door panel overlapped by the width of finish paint and they drove it with me and I think it was literally because they were brand new tires and I had never driven on brand new AT style tires before. Has gone down significantly since then and I just get wind noise due to the profile and I suspect the constant elevation changes and wind where I am on the Maine coast.

 

[DayTripping]

Thanks, this is very helpful. They were one of the replacement tires I was considering. My main concern was a very noisy tire. It would drive my wife crazy.

 

[usulio]

People care about range on the highway, which is much lower than EPA range. The higher the listed range, the bigger the discrepancy to what you can actually get at highway speeds.

As you pointed out and as has been discussed on here, some of Rivian's Gen 2 range numbers just don't make much sense relative to the others.

 

[Rade]

Interesting discussion. I have been using the "Efficiency Graph" on the drivers console and I can't quite corroborate what the graph indicates to what is happening while I drive. It kind of reminds me of the drivers efficiency arrow we had on our Saturn Vue Hybrid a decade or so ago, "Try to keep it in the green!".

With the R1T, there are times it's way up in the green, and other times down low, and I really am not changing or noticing anything about how that segment of my drive is going (acceleration, braking, general speed, topography, etc.). I kinda agree with the general assessment that it's just a gizmo.

...but a gizmo that looks like it's doing something important!

Rade

 

[tjrivian]

Interesting discussion. I have been using the "Efficiency Graph" on the drivers console and I can't quite corroborate what the graph indicates to what is happening while I drive. It kind of reminds me of the drivers efficiency arrow we had on our Saturn Vue Hybrid a decade or so ago, "Try to keep it in the green!".

With the R1T, there are times it's way up in the green, and other times down low, and I really am not changing or noticing anything about how that segment of my drive is going (acceleration, braking, general speed, topography, etc.). I kinda agree with the general assessment that it's just a gizmo.

...but a gizmo that looks like it's doing something important!

Rade

The times its very high in the green are the times when you are going from driving speed and are approaching a red traffic light that you coast or regen towards to stop. It's essentially meaningless information.

 

[Rade]

...but as I mentioned, it does not corroborate with the actions going on. I could accept if I were accelerating or braking, etc. but in a solid, straight line. No hills, no acceleration or braking, and the line is just waffling up and down.

Technically, I would think the higher the number the better...

Sponsored