Max Pack vs Large Pack range test (by Out of Spec)

[McMoo]

Here it is. Max pack definitely not worth the cost.

Large pack driven: 308.3 miles
Large pack max range with using buffer: 317.2 miles

Max pack driven: 334.5 miles
Max pack max range with using buffer: 339.5 miles

So the theoretical difference is 22.3 miles.

Sponsored

 

[Joseph D]

TLDW;
It was cold out, expect around 20~ more miles during the summer.
50° outside temp when starting. Around low 40°s finishing driving portion of the test.
70 MPH Freeway Test
Stock 21" wheels, stock 48 cold psi air pressure.
Battery Capacity test was obtained by sitting at the charger blasting the heat after hitting 0% charge.
Ran in all purpose low suspension height (no conserve mode on dual motor).
Climate set at 70° auto.

Large Pack, Dual Motor:
308.3 Miles
128.2 KWH Used
2.41 Mi/KWH
Capacity of large pack 132.1 KWH
3.3 KWH Buffer below zero left.

Max Pack, Dual Motor Performance:
345.5 Miles
141 KWH Used
2.38 Mi/KWH
Capacity of Max Pack 143.3 KWH
2.3 KWH Buffer below zero left.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

Max pack was always a tough pill to swallow for what originally was only 100 mile difference, but when that gap narrowed to 50, it made the switch down to Large a lot easier.

While I think the sizing of the vehicles is great, It's hard not to imagine what the R1 series could have been, had they kept the skateboard on the S, the same as the T. It would have afforded them the space for a 165+kWh pack without interior space sacrifice, and larger cargo capacity in the S, not to mention, a full sized spare . The suspension team would have also had an easier time as the geometry/weight would be nearly identical.

Devils advocate, it made sense to develop a space constrained max pack that fit both vehicles, rather than just the T.

 

[DuoRivians]

The delta in testing results seem to resemble the delta in epa results for highway:

Max Pack:

Large Pack:

 

[240vPlug]

We already knew the usable capacity from the EPA docs. I did a video on that.

So it's 11 kwh (like the EPA docs say) usable. I say it still might be worth it for some. This test still doesn't tell us the value, which I have said will be on longer road trips in the form of public charging time savings.

11kwh is 11kwh lower efficiency lower the additional range. Higher the efficiency the higher the difference.

 

[jebinc]

Here it is. Max pack definitely not worth the cost.

Not surprised, at all.

 

[Eric9610]

$10K for an extra 22 miles is crazy! how can you justify that. No way a charger can't be found in that 22 mile radius as stated.

Save the $10k buy a wall charger, NEMA 14-50 wire kit and a 12,000 watt generator. Cost $2,500 and unlimited range adder.

 

[Throwdown]

More is more, but it's a travesty to me. 10 bands for that over a large is ridiculous. I like how he said it should be a no cost option. I say it should be 1k more and stop making the large pack

 

[McMoo]

TLDW;
It was cold out, expect around 20~ more miles during the summer.
50° outside temp when starting. Around low 40°s finishing driving portion of the test.
70 MPH Freeway Test
Stock 21" wheels, stock 48 cold psi air pressure.
Battery Capacity test was obtained by sitting at the charger blasting the heat after hitting 0% charge.
Ran in all purpose low suspension height (no conserve mode on dual motor).
Climate set at 70° auto.

Large Pack, Dual Motor:
308.3 Miles
128.2 KWH Used
2.41 Mi/KWH
Capacity of large pack 132.1 KWH
3.3 KWH Buffer below zero left.

Max Pack, Dual Motor Performance:
345.5 Miles
141 KWH Used
2.38 Mi/KWH
Capacity of Max Pack 143.3 KWH
2.3 KWH Buffer below zero left.

Some incorrect data above.

Large pack driven: 308.3 miles
Large pack max range with using buffer: 317.2 miles

Max pack driven: 334.5 miles
Max pack max range with using buffer: 339.5 miles

So the theoretical difference is 22.3 miles.

 

[SeaGeo]

So it's 11 kwh (like the EPA docs say) usable. I say it still might be worth it for some. This test still doesn't tell us the value, which I have said will be on longer road trips in the form of public charging time savings.

11kwh is 11kwh lower efficiency lower the additional range. Higher the efficiency the higher the difference.

The large and max pack have the same highway efficiency... And it doesn't appear that the charging time is better in any meaningful way. As far as I can tell the only potential benefits beyond the 11kwh are in conditions similar to the city test cycle.

 

[Count Orlok]

jump the line guy forgets to mention that 10k is a rounding error for some people

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

So the theoretical difference is 22.3 miles.

Precisely why after waiting almost 2 years and multiple product changes (and taken away)—revealed at seemingly last minute—I saw no point in paying more for just 22.3 miles. Do I need 835 hp? Nope. But paying $7~8k more for just +22.3 miles is not a good value. Didn't they also walk back the hp for Performance Dual? Pretty sure I have an email from them claiming 700hp when they forced my config from Quad-Max. Product changes happen for a start-up, I get it. But all the small course changes and missteps in customer comms also left a certain bad taste.

 

[Supratachophobia]

I've been critical of max pack since I found out in June it was only going to be a chemistry change. Can someone give me *any* reason why max pack would be a better choice for any reason besides 11kwh?

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

I've been critical of max pack since I found out in June it was only going to be a chemistry change. Can someone give me *any* reason why max pack would be a better choice for any reason besides 11kwh?

Depends on typical travel distances. For some that extra 22 mile could be the difference between making it to the next charging stop, or not. Though, I think most are choosing it because of current pricing and/or range anxiety (because you can theoretically get 400+ if configured with 21" wheels)—large numbers of Rivian owners are first-time EV owners.

 

[SANZC02]

Max pack was always a tough pill to swallow for what originally was only 100 mile difference, but when that gap narrowed to 50, it made the switch down to Large a lot easier.

While I think the sizing of the vehicles is great, It's hard not to imagine what the R1 series could have been, had they kept the skateboard on the S, the same as the T. It would have afforded them the space for a 165+kWh pack without interior space sacrifice, and larger cargo capacity in the S, not to mention, a full sized spare . The suspension team would have also had an easier time as the geometry/weight would be nearly identical.

Devils advocate, it made sense to develop a space constrained max pack that fit both vehicles, rather than just the T.

I would have been disappointed if the S was as long as the T and had the longer wheelbase. I like that it is more manueverable with better angles.

Sponsored