Lower Range?

[Canthoney]

Did anyone notice the R1S range got lowered from 410+ to 400+ miles? Or did I just never notice it on their website?

Sponsored

 

[JR Rowley]

It definitely used to state that the R1S would get 410 mile range.

 

[Canthoney]

It definitely used to state that the R1S would get 410 mile range.

That’s what I thought. I know it’s not deal breaking but I thought it was interesting. Maybe it’s on larger wheels?

 

[ajdelange]

Remember that this "range" is a number derived from dynamometer testing in which the vehicle is stationary and spins its wheels against a Prony brake. Thus the test vehicle experiences no actual drag but to obtain realistic energy consumption data clearly drag must be accounted for. This is done by loading the brake more heavily in accordance with the vehicle "speed" which is calculated, obviously by wheel speed.

When the car was originally revealed obviously Rivian had some idea from engineering calculations, simulations and perhaps even some wind tunnels tests done on models from which drag information could be derived. Also they knew which motors they were going to use and had data on them and so on for the batteries, inverters etc. As they built pre-production models and ran them around they collected tons of data which allowed refinement of the efficiency model and, of course, they could put the pre-production trucks on the dyno. When EPA testing day comes they must follow the EPA profile but they can put any drag coefficients they want into the brake as long as EPA agrees that they are acceptable. Thus my guess is that while early modeling indicated a probably EPA range of 410 miles more recent refinements to it indicate that it is now going to be closer to 400.

I just looked at the page in the OP. Note that it does not say EPA range. Don't remember what it used to say. Those here who do not currently drive BEV (the majority) won't have a full appreciation of what these numbers mean, EPA or not. They are only a general guideline for comparing performance of cars under a particular set of conditions with the intention that they be used for that purpose. My current car is EPA rated 351 mi. Can I go that far in it? Under the right conditions (mostly down hill, tail wind, dry roads in good condition, slow speed) yes. Would I ever drive it that far? No. Will there be conditions where I can only drive it less than 200 mi? Yes.

I think the only conclusion to draw here is that Rivian has concluded, based on its testing of pre-production trucks, that its original range predictions were a little optimistic.

 

[DucRider]

I think the only conclusion to draw here is that Rivian has concluded, based on its testing of pre-production trucks, that its original range predictions were a little optimistic.

I draw the opposite conclusion.
I think they decided that the 410 mile estimate was too precise and did not adequately reflect the fact that the current range figures are rough estimates. None of these vehicles have been subjected to the EPA tests and the range numbers are conservative estimates.
The 135 kWh R1T with the 300+ estimate listed on the website has been stated to be targeted at at least 325 miles.
The Chevy Bolt was announced and promoted, it was with a 200+ mile estimated range. EPA testing came in at 238 miles.

Getting production spec vehicles off the line and doing the EPA tests on them may be one of the delays in the configuration utility we are all waiting for. It would not be out of character for Rivian to have that info buttoned down before releasing configuration/price/delivery options.

 

[Hmp10]

The phrase "up to 400+ miles" is a bit cagey. Usually when saying "up to" one is signaling a hard upper limit. Adding the "+" does nothing but make the range estimate all squishy again.

"Up to 400 miles" means you might well see a range below that, but should not expect to see one above that.

"Up to 400 miles+" means you could see a range below 400 miles but also pretty much anything above that . . . i. e., meaningless.

 

[electruck]

The "up to" phrasing accounts for the various pack sizes. The "+" accounts for YMMV with the largest pack. I wouldn't fret over this shift in language. There are lots of marketing reasons they may want to do that. It could also have been a simple typo, similar to the rather unfortunate "Looking for Power" video on the R1S product page that should have been captioned "Looking for Powder".

 

[ajdelange]

.

 

[Canthoney]

.

? I think your post cut off

 

[ajdelange]

No, I cut it off intentionally. I decided that what I had written would not really contribute to the thread.

 

[Canthoney]

No, I cut it off intentionally. I decided that what I had written would not really contribute to the thread.

Oh, ok. Just wanted to check.

 

[DucRider]

Manufacturers almost always put the "up to" disclaimer in front of all range claims/ratings.

 

[NitroCorey]

With Rivian’s mantra under promise and over deliver I am hoping that the package I am ordering 180 kW battery pack will at least give me 350 miles,And with technology and software advancing as fast as it is maybe I will get over 400 miles plus.

 

[ajdelange]

They are promising 400 EPA now. You can be pretty sure that you will get a vehicle with a rating of 400 EPA or a smidgeon over. Of course if you drive it in deviation from EPA-like conditions you will get more or less than that in actual daily driving.

 

[jarross]

They are promising 400 EPA now. You can be pretty sure that you will get a vehicle with a rating of 400 EPA or a smidgeon over. Of course if you drive it in deviation from EPA-like conditions you will get more or less than that in actual daily driving.

...or more (much more) if you aren't doing highway speeds.

Sponsored