Rivian Max Pack EPA Data (document shows 141-142 kWh usable battery)

[GhostAndSkater]

Really interesting, 141.8 kWh usable and 410 miles on EPA 5 cycle, meaning 346 Wh/mi or 2.89 mi/kWh, quite impressive

Sponsored

 

[carsly]

Part of this is battery capacity, sure.

BUT...

I'd wager a good chunk is reduced weight (two motors vs four) AND reduced driveline drag as the dual-motor is typically only running one motor while the quad is running all four in all purpose mode.

So it's not just the battery. Just a hypothesis.

 

[jjswan33]

Part of this is battery capacity, sure.

BUT...

I'd wager a good chunk is reduced weight (two motors vs four) AND reduced driveline drag as the dual-motor is typically only running one motor while the quad is running all four in all purpose mode.

So it's not just the battery. Just a hypothesis.

The weight of the DM Max and DM Large are very close.

The efficiency differences you mention contribute to the difference between the DM and the QM of about 10% (321 vs 352). While the Max pack from the numbers in docs appears to be 11% more range on the highway and closer to 16% in the city. The 11% is consistent with the increased battery size what I don't understand is why the max pack is more efficient in the city test cycle.

 

[Supratachophobia]

These 2 quotes pretty much sum up feelings on the max pack.

Oh for sure. I'm totally sticking with my choice.

 

[mkhuffman]

Really interesting, 141.8 kWh usable and 410 miles on EPA 5 cycle, meaning 346 Wh/mi or 2.89 mi/kWh, quite impressive

Actually, quite deceitful. This is what Tesla does when reporting range. I expected more from Rivian.

 

[Supratachophobia]

They’re not fake miles. Don’t get the max pack. No one is telling you to.

Yes, they are. Because it's two different efficiency results that people are trying to explain away by weight (dumb, the equivalent weight of a passenger isn't going to bump your efficiency 10+% either way), or a magic battery that is somehow more efficient in discharging, which it isn't, that's not how batteries work under the loads we are talking about.

The *only* explanation that remotely makes sense and the one I'm currently leaning towards, are improvements in parasitic drivetrain gains by an idling rear drive unit. But even then I find that hard to believe. Credit to another member that pointed that out.

Oh, and the charge rates are nearly identical so that blows there faster charging claim out of the water.

 

[GhostAndSkater]

Actually, quite deceitful. This is what Tesla does when reporting range. I expected more from Rivian.

Why? It's the EPA rating, not "I'm driving at 80 mph at -35°" rating

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Makes sense. They added range by using fewer and more efficient motors, while minimizing number of additional cells... thereby, ensure a level of baked-in profit (charge a premium for range, while keeping manufacturing cost in check).

 

[DuoRivians]

Yes, they are. Because it's two different efficiency results that people are trying to explain away by weight (dumb, the equivalent weight of a passenger isn't going to bump your efficiency 10+% either way), or a magic battery that is somehow more efficient in discharging, which it isn't, that's not how batteries work under the loads we are talking about.

The *only* explanation that remotely makes sense and the one I'm currently leaning towards, are improvements in parasitic drivetrain gains by an idling rear drive unit. But even then I find that hard to believe. Credit to another member that pointed that out.

Oh, and the charge rates are nearly identical so that blows there faster charging claim out of the water.

Take care. Some days, I wish this site had a proper block function, not just ignore

 

[R.I.P.]

Part of this is battery capacity, sure.

BUT...

I'd wager a good chunk is reduced weight (two motors vs four) AND reduced driveline drag as the dual-motor is typically only running one motor while the quad is running all four in all purpose mode.

So it's not just the battery. Just a hypothesis.

... and the vehicle is suffering the losses of only one inverter instead of four, and the drag of one gear set instead of four. That is not insignificant, especially over the course of 300 to 400 mi.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Why? It's the EPA rating, not "I'm driving at 80 mph at -35°" rating

A self reported number that can fluctuate anywhere between 3-10% depending on the whims of the manufacture. Compare the two documents.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Take care.

Of what? My max pack? I will since higher capacity cells are known to degrade faster.

 

[DuoRivians]

Of what? My max pack? I will since higher capacity cells are known to degrade faster.

Take care, as in please don’t interact with my posts or comments anymore. It’s getting tiresome.

 

[mkhuffman]

... and the vehicle is suffering the losses of only one inverter instead of four, and the drag of one gear set instead of four. That is not insignificant, especially over the course of 300 to 400 mi.

That is the difference between DM and QM. When comparing DM to DM, those losses are the same, right?

 

[Supratachophobia]

Take care, as in please don’t interact with my posts or comments anymore. It’s getting tiresome.

Come come now. If we can't agree to disagree and have a lively debate, you'll just be in an echo chamber with your two Rivians.

Sponsored