How close do you think real world range will be to EPA range?

[jjwolf120]

But the context here is RANGE and not MPG.

MPGxTank capacity = Range. Most people just don't think about range when driving an ICE car, but I have always calculated the range from the EPA mileage numbers when estimating how far I can go before I have to fill up the tank.

Sponsored

 

[mkennedy1996]

Most people just don't think about range when driving an ICE car

That is the reason why comparing the impact of acceleration on an ICE range is not relevant to the impact on range to a BEV where one does think about range.

 

[jjwolf120]

That is the reason why comparing the impact of acceleration on an ICE range is not relevant to the impact on range to a BEV where one does think about range.

Agree to disagree. The real reason that people don't think as much about ICE range, is that ICE vehicles generally get their best range a highway speeds and BEVs get their best range at city speeds.

 

[mkennedy1996]

Agree to disagree. The real reason that people don't think as much about ICE range, is that ICE vehicles generally get their best range a highway speeds and BEVs get their best range at city speeds.

So your point is that we should not look at acceleration, HVAC use, towing or any other impacts to range when evaluating a BEV since physics dictates that these also impact ICE vehicles? If not, then I am lost as to the point of any of your comments regarding ICE mpg in this context.

 

[DucRider]

They could start by using the same test cycles for all manufacturers and not allowing them to choose between different test cycles leading to a mismatch when comparing BEVs.

They do use the same tests for all manufacturers. All are required to run the UDDS 30 and Hwy test.
Manufacturers may elect to run additional tests ("high" speed, hot and cold weather) that will (in theory) give a more accurate representation as those tests will yield lower range.

If they elect to use the 5 cycle test (Tesla is not the only manufacturer to do so - Audi , Bentley, BMW, Chrysler, Ferrari, Kandi, Karma, Kia, Mitsubishi, Polestar, Subaru, and Toyota also used it on 2021 models)
If they use it, they have the option of submitting documentation to justify a custom derating instead of the standard 30%. Some do, some don't. If Porsche did, they might be able to put a more accurate number on the labels for the Taycan models. Audi uses 26% on the e tron.

 

[jjwolf120]

So your point is that we should not look at acceleration, HVAC use, towing or any other impacts to range when evaluating a BEV since physics dictates that these also impact ICE vehicles? If not, then I am lost as to the point of any of your comments regarding ICE mpg in this context.

I agree. They advertise the acceleration on many of these BEVs as a defining feature, yet you cannot try to use that acceleration if you want to come anywhere near the EPA results.

My point was that you shouldn't be upset that going fast reduces the range.

 

[mkennedy1996]

They do use the same tests for all manufacturers. All are required to run the UDDS 30 and Hwy test.
Manufacturers may elect to run additional tests

Exactly my point. The results are not comparable when they can choose which tests are included.

Choosing to use additional tests is the same thing as not using the same test. The same test = the same test (no additions and no deletions).

ie. I took the same SAT test, however I chose to add additional tests - finger painting, coloring in the lines and barn animal identification. Once I factored in those results, my score went way up.

 

[mkennedy1996]

My point was that you shouldn't be upset that going fast reduces the range.

I am not upset. I have owned a performance pure BEV for over 5 years and know what to expect. There are many people on this forum that do not own a BEV or a performance BEV. They see a range of 300 + miles published and an advertised acceleration of 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and do not make the connection that the range is computed at the 0-60 in 18 seconds, not the advertised performance of 0-60 in 3.2 seconds.

The point of this thread is real world range of the Rivian BEVs. Acceleration of a performance BEV being one part of "real world", so I find my comments relevant to the thread. Your comments on ICE mpg just seem argumentative and not on topic to the thread.

 

[Lmirafuente]

IMHO, Rivian's brand is good to great right now, and I believe they want to protect and exceed the current brand expectation, especially when the vehicles are in the customers hands in the early stages.

You cannot build revenue momentum with false starts around quality and performance that we are all expecting from Rivian.

I agree with many of the comments made here thus far and I think everyone has a different environment they will be driving on a regular basis as well as how aggressive or conservative the driving habits of the individual are...so "real world" range is debatable.

As long as the EPA estimate is at 300+ (ideally for me 320-350) for the Launch Edition, I can adjust as needed during "my" real world driving.

I think we have to trust Rivian will produce a quality vehicle with competitive ranges.

As an optimist, I voted above the EPA estimates.

Not to be cynical at the same time, EV's are software controlled so a manufacturer can control the outcome of the vehicles performance --- and again I am trusting Rivian will be doing the right thing for the consumers and for their brand.

Just my two cents...

 

[Rivianmd]

IMHO, Rivian's brand is good to great right now, and I believe they want to protect and exceed the current brand expectation, especially when the vehicles are in the customers hands in the early stages.

You cannot build revenue momentum with false starts around quality and performance that we are all expecting from Rivian.

I agree with many of the comments made here thus far and I think everyone has a different environment they will be driving on a regular basis as well as how aggressive or conservative the driving habits of the individual are...so "real world" range is debatable.

As long as the EPA estimate is at 300+ (ideally for me 320-350) for the Launch Edition, I can adjust as needed during "my" real world driving.

I think we have to trust Rivian will produce a quality vehicle with competitive ranges.

As an optimist, I voted above the EPA estimates.

Not to be cynical at the same time, EV's are software controlled so a manufacturer can control the outcome of the vehicles performance --- and again I am trusting Rivian will be doing the right thing for the consumers and for their brand.

Just my two cents...

I hope you are right with better than expected ranges... my guess is that the 20” AT come in at roughly 305, 22” @ 312, and 21 AS @ 320. This would be EPA combined. Hoping for this and a few Kwh release from buffer to offset degradation in use.

 

[DucRider]

Exactly my point. The results are not comparable when they can choose which tests are included

You can always look up the results of the 2 cycle tests (UDDS and Hwy) and multiply by .7 if you want. This will allow a direct comparison between any 2 vehicles

 

[RivianXpress]

Without a glimpse of the RAN these dissuasions will continue.

My Model 3 gets 20% less than the advertised range BUT having access to Superchargers means I don't really care much - right??

 

[mkennedy1996]

You can always look up the results of the 2 cycle tests (UDDS and Hwy) and multiply by .7 if you want. This will allow a direct comparison between any 2 vehicles

That is just simply absurd!

 

[DucRider]

That is just simply absurd!

How so?
It will give you the consistent testing results (apples to apples) you are looking for.
All the 2 cycle results use the 30% derating, so applying that to the 5 cycle vehicles will give you the comparison (same tests) that you asked for.

 

[mkennedy1996]

How so?
It will give you the consistent testing results (apples to apples) you are looking for.
All the 2 cycle results use the 30% derating, so applying that to the 5 cycle vehicles will give you the comparison (same tests) that you asked for.

Because that would require the typical EV buyer to:
1) Know how EVs are tested to a very high level
2) Know that the test reports behind the EPA ratings are available
3) Know where to find the test results
4) Be able to read the submissions (they are all formatted differently)
5) Do the math to come to a base number for each vehicle they might consider

Not only unrealistic, but simply absurd to think that but a tiny number of people would actually do this!

Or, they could have all BEVs use the exact same tests (no more tests and no less tests than anyone else) and then publish comparable numbers with the exact same adjustment factor.

As a second step, they should develop a new test method that does not have a margin of error of 30% (or more) requiring a 30% adjustment to come closer to reality.

Sponsored