R2 Highway Efficiency Test: 80 MPH vs 70 MPH Changed Everything

[ksurfier]

Listen, we are talking about 65

EPA highway is based on a cycle that isn't steady state. It averages well under 65mph.

I like Tom, but he's just guessing in this case. His stated wind impact was limited to less than 2hrs of almost 4hrs of driving. I think he's under-estimating the impact of altitude since he never does them at altitude.

I already "calibrated" using 20" AT EPA dyno data.

Site is a perpetual work in progress. Data gets added when I need to support an argument...
And then my argument adapts because there's always nuance

I usually try to note conditions, but we also have to recognize no test is perfect, so I have multiple tests for some vehicles.

I treat Toms and OoS tests basically the standard.

I split tests by trim that matter for range (tire, battery), but I've been applying EPA data to multiple because it's separately labeled.

I'm still feeling out what this site can/should be.

Somebody should let Rivian/ABRP know that there's something seriously wrong with their estimates if R2 does in fact get 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (which is doesn't)...and we can confirm that it doesn't because the Model Y does and we can also compare cDa of MY, R2, and R1 to see relative differences - Brain cell(s) unite!

Sponsored

 

[Jeremy3292]

Listen, we are talking about 65

Somebody should let Rivian/ABRP know that there's something seriously wrong with their estimates if R2 does in fact get 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (which is doesn't)...and we can confirm that it doesn't because the Model Y does and we can also compare cDa of MY, R2, and R1 to see relative differences - Brain cell(s) unite!

Here's a wild thought: ABRP understates everything so people don't get stranded. Its a fun tool to play around with but it is not the real world.

Model Y AWD gets 3.63 MPK. 298 miles in the OOO test. So yeah again R2 getting 3 MPK not surprising when you consider the Model Y AWD rating also.

298 miles / 82 kWh = 3.63 MPK

You don't have to take my word for it, you can just listen to @Indy avocado if you prefer. He has the same data on his website. It's easy to continue to argue. It's much harder to just say "hey man maybe I underestimated a little bit and should recalibrate with new information."

Have a great rest of your day!

 

[ksurfier]

Here's a wild thought: ABRP understates everything so people don't get stranded. Its a fun tool to play around with but it is not the real world.

Model Y AWD gets 3.63 MPK. 298 miles in the OOO test. So yeah again R2 getting 3 MPK not surprising when you consider the Model Y AWD rating also.

298 miles / 82 kWh = 3.63 MPK

You don't have to take my word for it, you can just listen to @Indy avocado if you prefer. He has the same data on his website. It's easy to continue to argue. It's much harder to just say "hey man maybe I underestimated a little bit and should recalibrate with new information."

Have a great rest of your day!

Yes, have a nice day as well!
Here's Colorado ABRP routing which shows the R2 at 3.0 MPK at ~63 mph vs 55 mph at sea level...notice the range is also nearly 10% more at the higher elevation.
70 mph at sea level, ABRP suggests 2.4 MPK (~210 miles range).
Colorado 70 mph, it's a bit better, 2.75 MPK (242 miles range).
I'm jealous of the mile high peeps!

We can't defeat physics in the case of the R2, unfortunately...

 

[blipit]

Listen, we are talking about 65

Somebody should let Rivian/ABRP know that there's something seriously wrong with their estimates if R2 does in fact get 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (which is doesn't)...and we can confirm that it doesn't because the Model Y does and we can also compare cDa of MY, R2, and R1 to see relative differences - Brain cell(s) unite!

We just have to wait for someone like Out of Spec to do a constant 70mph test. I would bet they will bring along a Model Y for comparison. Same day, same conditions. I know State of Charge got 2.97 mpk for R2 LE, but the area where the testing was done wasn't ideal.

 

[Indy avocado]

Listen, we are talking about 65

Somebody should let Rivian/ABRP know that there's something seriously wrong with their estimates if R2 does in fact get 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (which is doesn't)...and we can confirm that it doesn't because the Model Y does and we can also compare cDa of MY, R2, and R1 to see relative differences - Brain cell(s) unite!

I am a huge downer on the R2 range and charging. It's inadequate for what I want out of this class of vehicle. But I think that all evidence says that 2.9-3.0 is possible in good conditions on 21" wheels and tires. Perhaps you're mixing the 20" and 21" variants? the 20" ATs should land around 2.67mi/kWh at 70mph (sea level), which I think is the range you are arguing. The same math says 2.95mi/kWh for the 21" wheels.

Check your ABRP settings. I turned off wind and disabled the 5% assumed battery degradation.

Also, if you have charging, it will estimate preconditioning energy consumed.

For 21" R2:

ABRP shows 2.98 mi/kWh at ~74mph on this [ROUND TRIP] route at elevation.

And for your route, it shows 3.5mi/kWh at 52mph, sea level. 3.45mi/kWh round trip.

 

[ksurfier]

I am a huge downer on the R2 range and charging. It's inadequate for what I want out of this class of vehicle. But I think that all evidence says that 2.9-3.0 is possible in good conditions on 21" wheels and tires. Perhaps you're mixing the 20" and 21" variants? the 20" ATs should land around 2.67mi/kWh at 70mph (sea level), which I think is the range you are arguing. The same math says 2.95mi/kWh for the 21" wheels.

Check your ABRP settings. I turned off wind and disabled the 5% assumed battery degradation.

Also, if you have charging, it will estimate preconditioning energy consumed.

For 21" R2:

ABRP shows 2.98 mi/kWh at ~74mph on this [ROUND TRIP] route at elevation.

And for your route, it shows 3.5mi/kWh at 52mph, sea level. 3.45mi/kWh round trip.

Still talking about 70 mph, right?

 

[mkhuffman]

Still talking about 70 mph, right?

What are all the other variables the impact efficiency for each of those vehicles? I can do massively better than 1.93 in my R1T.

 

[Indy avocado]

Still talking about 70 mph, right?

Yes and no - I am generally, as that seems to be the popular comparison point for highway range (70 or 75mph).

Are these values based on the route you provided above? Because there's a lot of city streets and whatnot involved here. And besides, I got different efficiency than you using the default speed settings with approximately the same travel speed.

Finally, it shows that ABRP will provide 2.98mi/kWh at 74mph between Denver, Colorado springs, and back. My calculator shows 2.97mi/kWh for a 21" R2 at 5000ft.

So ABRP and my calculator are pretty well calibrated for steady state highway trips. And the calculator shows 2.95mi/kWh @ 70mph at sea level.

Can you share a link to the ABRP route?

What are all the other variables the impact efficiency for each of those vehicles? I can do massively better than 1.93 in my R1T.

Agreed. 1.93 is what I would get at ~78-80mph. At 70-75mph *on a windy day in winter* I've gone 230mi. That's 1.83mi/kWh.

 

[Jeremy3292]

Yeah I mean ABRP thinks you can make it 310 miles on one charge in R2 at 70 mph. Actually longer since I have 3% left according to it below trip.

Like I've said before, ABRP is a fun tool but nothing to be taken too seriously.

 

[mkhuffman]

Yeah I mean ABRP thinks you can make it 310 miles on one charge in R2 at 70 mph. Actually longer since I have 3% left according to it below trip.

Like I've said before, ABRP is a fun tool but nothing to be taken too seriously.

The default vehicle settings in ABRP are not based on anything scientific. I think some programmer makes them up based on his understanding of the vehicle. There is no evidence the efficiency in ABRP is based on anything. Seriously. Using ABRP as evidence of real world results is ridiculous. I know you agree.

This is why ABRP has a million settings you can modify to match how your vehicle actually performs. When I adjust those settings to line up with what I have experienced with my truck, ABRP is practically perfect when predicting SoC at destination, and it does an excellent job picking from the charger networks I specify. It is the tool I always start with then planning a trip I have never taken before. I highly recommend it - as long as you don't just use the default settings.

 

[Zathras]

My range model was forecasting this at 229 (+/-) at 80. If your data holds over longer distances, the model may be very optimistic.

Won't the system be calibrating itself for better accUracy as you drive? Retesting in a few months of typical driving might shed more light.

 

[Jeremy3292]

The default vehicle settings in ABRP are not based on anything scientific. I think some programmer makes them up based on his understanding of the vehicle. There is no evidence the efficiency in ABRP is based on anything. Seriously. Using ABRP as evidence of real world results is ridiculous. I know you agree.

This is why ABRP has a million settings you can modify to match how your vehicle actually performs. When I adjust those settings to line up with what I have experienced with my truck, ABRP is practically perfect when predicting SoC at destination, and it does an excellent job picking from the charger networks I specify. It is the tool I always start with then planning a trip I have never taken before. I highly recommend it - as long as you don't just use the default settings.

Agreed on all counts

 

[ksurfier]

The default vehicle settings in ABRP are not based on anything scientific. I think some programmer makes them up based on his understanding of the vehicle. There is no evidence the efficiency in ABRP is based on anything. Seriously. Using ABRP as evidence of real world results is ridiculous. I know you agree.

This is why ABRP has a million settings you can modify to match how your vehicle actually performs. When I adjust those settings to line up with what I have experienced with my truck, ABRP is practically perfect when predicting SoC at destination, and it does an excellent job picking from the charger networks I specify. It is the tool I always start with then planning a trip I have never taken before. I highly recommend it - as long as you don't just use the default settings.

ok, are you for real??!


ABRP’s own documentation states that its reference consumption is a baseline value at 65 mph (110 km/h) under near-ideal conditions. Route calculations then adjust that baseline for speed, elevation, temperature, wind, and other factors.

In other words:

• The underlying model is based on vehicle physics (aerodynamics, speed, weather, elevation, etc.).
• The default reference consumption is intended as a reasonable starting point for that vehicle model.
• ABRP can further calibrate the model using live vehicle telemetry or by manually adjusting the reference consumption.

 

[mkhuffman]

ok, are you for real??!


ABRP’s own documentation states that its reference consumption is a baseline value at 65 mph (110 km/h) under near-ideal conditions. Route calculations then adjust that baseline for speed, elevation, temperature, wind, and other factors.

In other words:

• The underlying model is based on vehicle physics (aerodynamics, speed, weather, elevation, etc.).
• The default reference consumption is intended as a reasonable starting point for that vehicle model.
• ABRP can further calibrate the model using live vehicle telemetry or by manually adjusting the reference consumption.

I prefer not debating with your AI bot.

 

[ksurfier]

I prefer not debating with your AI bot.

What debate?

Sponsored