Mountain Driving Range

[sahRIV]

Rule of thumb is that 1000' of climbing burns about 10 miles of range. So theoretically, it would require 270 miles of flat range to get there (pass at ~7000'). I would expect stopping in Auburn or Colfax for a quick top up.

Suppose the question is whether R2 flat range is in line with EPA. I find for my R1S that it is and get into Truckee a comfortable margin. Whether that's also true for the R2 based on recent tests is more debatable

Sponsored

 

[Zorg]

Suppose the question is whether R2 flat range is in line with EPA. I find for my R1S that it is and get into Truckee a comfortable margin. Whether that's also true for the R2 based on recent tests is more debatable

I would not rely on official range based on what we've seen. I suspect that at normal speeds R2 will require a stop in the way up.

 

[Just Passing By]

Seems like a not insignificant factor in addition to altitude gain will the speed OP drives on the freeways? I presume ABRP assumes driving at legal limits, which IIRC are mostly 65mph apart from I5 on the Stockton-Sacramento stretch.

However, if you're driving at 80mph every opportunity you get then its questionable if you'll make it, if driving at a more mellow 65mph then perhaps achievable even with winter temps. Although in the latter case, as already stated and acknowledged, one wouldn't choose to push it if there's even the slightest risk of bad weather.

 

[sahRIV]

Seems like a not insignificant factor in addition to altitude gain will the speed OP drives on the freeways? I presume ABRP assumes driving at legal limits, which IIRC are mostly 65mph apart from I5 on the Stockton-Sacramento stretch.

However, if you're driving at 80mph every opportunity you get then its questionable if you'll make it, if driving at a more mellow 65mph then perhaps achievable even with winter temps. Although in the latter case, as already stated and acknowledged, one wouldn't choose to push it if there's even the slightest risk of bad weather.

The interesting thing is that ABRP shows a similar result for the R1S and R2. I know from experience I'll make it with the R1S going 70-75 mostly

 

[usulio]

Rule of thumb is that 1000' of climbing burns about 10 miles of range. So theoretically, it would require 270 miles of flat range to get there (pass at ~7000'). I would expect stopping in Auburn or Colfax for a quick top up.

This is my rule of thumb for R1 too but maybe it will be slightly better for R2. Hm, maybe not.

My math says that the physics required to lift R2 to 7000' above sea level is very roughly 14 kWh, which is 16% of the battery pack. So the absolute best case scenario here is like doing a flat 200 mile drive on 84% of the battery.

 

[Zorg]

Good news is that R2 charge curve is great. It should be a really quick top up. Auburn and Colfax are the best locations to arrive at lower SOCs and getting faster charging speeds. Will be interesting to see real world results.

 

[keamoro]

I've made the trip from Berkeley, CA to Tahoe Vista, CA in my 2020 Model Y Performance on winter wheels + a Thule XL cargo carrier on top without charging. Did I need to? No. There's like a hundred chargers between here and there. But I tried it and it was fine. Coming back was even easier.

Let's say the R2 is just as good as my old Model Y, then yeah, it can. But there's no reason to do it if you don't want to push it.

 

[ksurfier]

It will 100% for sure make it, as long as you are drafting behind a semi going 55 mph. But really the speed will have a significant impact, on average it will likely get 30 miles less range than R1

 

[SlaterGS]

Well, you won't be driving 70mph all the time , due to traffic, speed limits in most areas we'll below 70, so maybe

I feel like this keeps getting overlooked.

Everyone keeps talking about “real-world range” and saying that RJ misled us, when in reality, a 70 mph range test isn’t “real world” for me, and probably isn’t for most people more than once or twice a year.

Real-world driving is traffic, varying speed limits, hills, weather, and plenty of other factors. Under those conditions, I expect most of us will be very happy with the R2’s “real-world range” for 99% of our driving, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up being pretty close to the EPA estimate.

There’s a reason Rivian got rid of the actual radio: the number of Rivian drivers who use that feature is essentially nonexistent. They clearly designed the R2 around how they see or want people to actually use the vehicle, rather than optimizing it specifically for long-distance, 70-mph road-trip range. This will excel as a daily driver + some light adventuring, not a dedicated road-tripper.

So I don't really see this as Rivian manipulating the numbers. They set an EPA target based on the vehicle as a whole, and a 70-mph test represents a very specific, and relatively uncommon, use case.

If you regularly drive 70+ mph for hours at a time, then yes, your range is going to be lower. But for normal day-to-day driving, I think there’s a good chance the EPA number will be much more representative than people are giving it credit for.

Sorry OP, that doesn't answer your question. Curious to know the results!

 

[Redline]

So this might be of no help for you, but last Sept, we took our Gen 1 R1S from Minnesota to Yellowstone and back. I asked for some range and charging help here, and was sort of surprised how a few members here got spooked and flew to Jackson instead.

Obviously the worst part of our trip was going through North Dakota and part of Montana, once we got into the mtns, and speeds lowered, the range and efficiency the R1 got was amazing.

The efficiency in actual Yellowstone was incredible. We never once had to worry about charging in the park, at all. On the drive one day from Driggs to Jackson, we actually GAINED miles lol.

 

[ksurfier]

I feel like this keeps getting overlooked.

Everyone keeps talking about “real-world range” and saying that RJ misled us, when in reality, a 70 mph range test isn’t “real world” for me, and probably isn’t for most people more than once or twice a year.

Real-world driving is traffic, varying speed limits, hills, weather, and plenty of other factors. Under those conditions, I expect most of us will be very happy with the R2’s “real-world range” for 99% of our driving, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up being pretty close to the EPA estimate.

There’s a reason Rivian got rid of the actual radio: the number of Rivian drivers who use that feature is essentially nonexistent. They clearly designed the R2 around how they see or want people to actually use the vehicle, rather than optimizing it specifically for long-distance, 70-mph road-trip range. This will excel as a daily driver + some light adventuring, not a dedicated road-tripper.

So I don't really see this as Rivian manipulating the numbers. They set an EPA target based on the vehicle as a whole, and a 70-mph test represents a very specific, and relatively uncommon, use case.

If you regularly drive 70+ mph for hours at a time, then yes, your range is going to be lower. But for normal day-to-day driving, I think there’s a good chance the EPA number will be much more representative than people are giving it credit for.

Sorry OP, that doesn't answer your question. Curious to know the results!

To be clear, you are saying that the R2 might actually achieve the EPA rated efficiency of 3.75 MPK?

if so, that would imply that it’s 65% more efficient than the R1, more or less that is saying the R2 has the same efficiency of a Model 3….

Even if I plug in a 45 mph drive I still only get around 3.1 MPK, which is 20% less the EPA range.

 

[SlaterGS]

To be clear, you are saying that the R2 might actually achieve the EPA rated efficiency of 3.75 MPK?

if so, that would imply that it’s 65% more efficient than the R1, more or less that is saying the R2 has the same efficiency of a Model 3….

Even if I plug in a 45 mph drive I still only get around 3.1 MPK, which is 20% less the EPA range.

Maybe?
I was getting 3.2 MPK with the R1S Max pack loaner I had over a 7 day period (My LE R1S is significantly less, though I have different tires on it that don't help).
600ish miles of driving and a mix of highway and country driving. Seems reasonable that I could get ~17% increase with an R2?
All I'm saying is everyone keeps looking solely at the 70mph test and acting like they have gotten the wool pulled over their eyes. Of course the brick on wheels will lose efficiency at a quicker rate the faster you go, but it will begin to see more parity the slower you go.
Ultimately for those that only travel highways, then maybe it's not for you.

Sponsored