Overheat Protection Needed

[iforbes]

So we are suggesting that 100,000 cars should sit running AC all day with no one in it so the poor car doesn’t get too hot? Or because we can’t remember to precondition the car?

F the world I guess.

Sponsored

 

[racekarl]

I thought that Tesla's cabin overheat protection was always about protecting the screens and not about keeping people in the car safe or comfortable. The original Tesla screens were computer screens and not automotive rated, so they were more sensitive to high temperatures.

Also, FWIW the rate of heat transfer is relative to the difference in temperature between the inside and outside of the car. (The greater the difference in temp the more heat is transferred per unit of time) Everything else being equal, it's always more efficient to let the car heat up and then cool it down just before use than to keep it sort-of cool for a long period of time.

 

[RivAW]

Why can’t my Rivian prevent the internal cabin temp from going over 90(?)F? All my Teslas had this simple feature. Yes it can drain the battery, so we should have the option to turn it on or off. I don’t always remember to pre-condition the cabin before going to it. I chose the light seats, so that’s helpful, but it routinely gets over 100F inside the cabin and summer has only just begun…

This is no different than any other vehicle you’ve ever owned…it’s just in your face because you can view the temp via your app. If your overly concerned start by parking under shade, use aftermarket window covers, and/or monitor with your app to crack the windows and/or turn on the ac. Put on your big boy/girl pants and stop needing everything to be automated

 

[jeeden]

I continued to be amazed by this discussion that pops up every few months. It is a case study of unintended consequences of need-to-know information, similar to the motor temperatures discussions

It's amazing the post the altitude of aircraft on the entertainment screens with maps, although I'm sure every flight they pilot gets inquires from passengers in the back asking "Are you sure the smooth air is at Flight level 350 and not 380? Don't you think that MINNIE to DAFIE is an unreasonable routing to Orlando given the current air traffic? I don't think the altitude air density for our airport is at a level to justify breaking noise abatement rules on takeoff!"

 

[SeaGeo]

The Tesla's primary overheat protection would simply run the fans, which is very low power, if the temperature got into the hundreds. I don't recall the exact number. You could ALSO enable active AC-based cooling at an even higher temp. I use used fan, and liked it.

Remember that Tesla is a decade ahead in maturity. Many features we are missing now also were not in their early cars. I had a Tesla for four years and saw many new features.

Rivian's will cool the vehicle automatically if it gets too hot for the screens. They just aren't wasting energy to keep it below 90 for no real reason.

 

[JayinNJ]

I thought cabin overheat was primarily a safety feature in case a child was accidentally left in the car, or a pet was left in the car and the owner forgot to turn on dog/pet comfort mode.

Yes that was the original reason they added it. Also it only works for 12 hours.

 

[JayinNJ]

I thought that Tesla's cabin overheat protection was always about protecting the screens and not about keeping people in the car safe or comfortable. The original Tesla screens were computer screens and not automotive rated, so they were more sensitive to high temperatures.

Also, FWIW the rate of heat transfer is relative to the difference in temperature between the inside and outside of the car. (The greater the difference in temp the more heat is transferred per unit of time) Everything else being equal, it's always more efficient to let the car heat up and then cool it down just before use than to keep it sort-of cool for a long period of time.

Nope. It specifically got added after a kid died in a car, when he was accidentally left it it. Also it will only run for 12 hours, so it is not to protect things.

 

[SwampNut]

Rivian's will cool the vehicle automatically if it gets too hot for the screens. They just aren't wasting energy to keep it below 90 for no real reason.

Yeah, 90 would be retarded.

 

[Riv E In]

Rivian's will cool the vehicle automatically if it gets too hot for the screens. They just aren't wasting energy to keep it below 90 for no real reason.

Any idea what temperature the overheat protection kicks in? I’ve never seen it and I think I’ve been up to 120.

 

[srnyoung]

Y'all. OP has a feature request. I like my Camp Speaker, some people like Mustard Yellow. Everyone walks their own path.

It's a terrible idea for the planet (unless you're only talking about an hour of keeping cool, it'll use way more energy to stay at 80F than heat up and cool down at the end of a long day) but if that's how OP wants to spend his energy savings from going electric, so be it.

 

[devildog125]

This has been prolly one of the worst threads I’ve seen on this forum. Derogatory terms like “retarded”, putting OP down etc. Kinda makes me regret being a Rivian owner. If I wanted this garbage from other owners, I would’ve stayed a Tesla or Ford owner. Mods aren’t gonna do anything I guess. ?‍

 

[SwampNut]

This has been prolly one of the worst threads I’ve seen on this forum. Derogatory terms like “retarded”, putting OP down etc. Kinda makes me regret being a Rivian owner. If I wanted this garbage from other owners, I would’ve stayed a Tesla or Ford owner. Mods aren’t gonna do anything I guess. ?‍

Note that nobody used that supposedly derogatory term about a person.

The idea that somehow a car brand owner is better than another car brand owner is hilarious, and very sad at the same time.

 

[Wokka1827]

saw this pop up on my phone - not sure what temp it was at before it kicked in, but I believe others have said it already has this feature it seems? (New to Rivian so still learning and catching up on the various threads)

 

[emoore]

It would be interesting to see a test to see what uses more electricity.

I would expect that running the fan on low all day uses less electricity than running the AC on max for the amount of time that it takes to cool the surfaces. Especially in a R1S where there is no AC in the 3rd row.

It takes a lot of pre-conditioning to get the buckles cool enough to not burn the kids fingers. It is way more than 10 minutes.

Not a chance keeping the AC on all day would mean less electricity than on max to cool the surfaces. It would be the case if the temperature curve was linear and there was no loss to the outside environment. But that’s not reality.

 

[sub]

Not a chance keeping the AC on all day would mean less electricity than on max to cool the surfaces. It would be the case if the temperature curve was linear and there was no loss to the outside environment. But that’s not reality.

That assumes that the compressor is doing 100% of the work. But that will usually not be the case.

If it is 80F outside and you want to keep the cabin below 100 you can probably accomplish this with no compressor at all. Just running the fans on low to pump some of that relatively cool 80F air into the cabin for a few minutes every hour will probably be sufficient to prevent the cabin from overheating and will use a negligible amount of electricity.

It is like leaving all the windows down without letting in bugs, badguys, and rain.

On the other hand if you let the sun heat the cabin to 140, you are going to have to drop the temperature down to well below ambient to cool the hot surfaces in a reasonable amount of time. And that requires running the compress on max for quite a while which uses way more power than a fan.

Does the fan on low for 8 hours use more power than the compressor at 100% for 30 minutes? Possibly, possibly not. Without testing i do not think you can say that the compressor on max is a clear winner.

Sponsored