The Max Pack Will Most Likely Be Canceled - IMO

[mkhuffman]

The vast majority of people do not need 400 miles range. Upscale buyers want it, and potential EV owners have theoretical range anxiety.

I strongly disagree with this. While it is true that a large percentage of driving is done locally, close enough to "refuel" at home, it is not unusual for people to make long drives. In fact, just about everyone I know drives out of town multiple times a year.

If you can drive to your destination without needing to stop at a DCFC station, and you can charge at your destination, the experience will be MUCH better than multiple DCFC stops.

Just last weekend I had to do a 245 mile drive to my mom's house. At 75-80 mph highway speeds, my MME cannot make it without stopping to DCFC. And the DCFC station I stopped at had ONE working dispenser. Arrrg!!!

And worse yet, there was already a car there charging. So I had to wait for them, and then do my 20 minute charge. And I should have charged longer, but there was someone waiting for me to finish so I disconnected early. Then it was raining and cold, dropping my efficiency much lower than I expected, and I had to stop AGAIN! And of course at that stop the charger I picked was not working either.

Nobody, nobody who is a normal person, will want to put up with this. My wife was with me and she said she never wants to take my car again on a trip that requires a charging stop. But if I could go 400 highway miles between charges, my little trip to my mom's house would have been beautiful.

Range is extremely important. And while you might not care, most people will. It is critical that we get to 500 mile range vehicles as soon as possible.

Sponsored

 

[Throwdown]

I don't need 400plus range but I want it, I know it's not necessary but I don't like to fly and I want to be able to skip chargers. I also am weird and like to drive ev like a gas car, I charge all the way and when I get low I recharge.

 

[jznd400]

I've been a lurker here while waiting for my quad/max R1T order to magically appear. Yesterday we got an email from Rivian that they "updated" my order to a dual/max. We didn't request this, so I emailed the assigned guide to ask if this is because they've confirmed a quad/max will never be built.

Has anyone else been unilaterally changed by Rivian from quad/max to dual/max?

EDIT: Another thread has just been started covering this question, so the answer is yes, others' configs have been changed by Rivian. I'm curious to see if the guide will confirm in writing that Rivian will never make the quad/max config.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I've been a lurker here while waiting for my quad/max R1T order to magically appear. Yesterday we got an email from Rivian that they "updated" my order to a dual/max. We didn't request this, so I emailed the assigned guide to ask if this is because they've confirmed a quad/max will never be built.

Has anyone else been unilaterally changed by Rivian from quad/max to dual/max?

EDIT: Another thread has just been started covering this question, so the answer is yes, others' configs have been changed by Rivian. I'm curious to see if the guide will confirm in writing that Rivian will never make the quad/max config.

Rivian has stated they were removing it for now and you've gotten previous emails about it.

They also said they will eventually reintroduce quad+max with more capability. There is no way they are going to offer a discount on it to pre-March1 price-locked reservations.

 

[jznd400]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. The way I'd read the prior emails from Rivian were that, hey, if you want your truck sooner, you can change your config to dual/max if you'd like and save some money while you're at it, but if you insist you can hang on for the quad/max that you ordered - we just don't have any update on when that config would be available.

I must have missed subsequent emails that they are removing quad/max completely for now and our pre March order could not stay in the queue for a future quad/max at the committed price. That's a bit BS but I guess legally they can do whatever they want.

 

[bgoldber88]

After owning a model 3 since 2018 I feel like the range debate is slightly overblown. I suppose if you’re towing all the time then you’ll need a huge battery pack. Otherwise if you’re looking to road trip I think what you really want are fast chargers, a lot of them, and a battery architecture that can handle a fast charge. It’s nice to stop every few hours to stretch your legs, pee, and so on. I feel like driving 350+ miles between stops is not something that a lot of people can pull off with general biological comfort lol! So if I’m pulling off every 200-250 miles, I can plug in for 10-15 mins while I take a short break and then go another few hours. This is achievable today in a Tesla. I’m not sure about Rivian or others because I’ve never had one.

 

[Rivian_Hugh_III]

https://rivian.com/support/article/...Quad-Motor-AWD-Max-pack-R1T-from-configurator


I'm still hopeful they're going to re-introduce quad+max for the R1T at least. Likely what the R1 line shutdown early next year is going to be used for.

If people want Quad+Max (they do) and there’s room in the R1 body for more battery (there is) and a premium can be charged (it can) then they’ll sell them. Probably they want to shake out the pre-March orders through. So they’ll force pre-March Max orders to choose large or max, then introduce a new Quad+Max perhaps a year later, possibly as a Quad+Max+Enduro.

 

[zipzag]

I strongly disagree with this. While it is true that a large percentage of driving is done locally, close enough to "refuel" at home, it is not unusual for people to make long drives. In fact, just about everyone I know drives out of town multiple times a year.

If you can drive to your destination without needing to stop at a DCFC station, and you can charge at your destination, the experience will be MUCH better than multiple DCFC stops.

Just last weekend I had to do a 245 mile drive to my mom's house. At 75-80 mph highway speeds, my MME cannot make it without stopping to DCFC. And the DCFC station I stopped at had ONE working dispenser. Arrrg!!!

And worse yet, there was already a car there charging. So I had to wait for them, and then do my 20 minute charge. And I should have charged longer, but there was someone waiting for me to finish so I disconnected early. Then it was raining and cold, dropping my efficiency much lower than I expected, and I had to stop AGAIN! And of course at that stop the charger I picked was not working either.

Nobody, nobody who is a normal person, will want to put up with this. My wife was with me and she said she never wants to take my car again on a trip that requires a charging stop. But if I could go 400 highway miles between charges, my little trip to my mom's house would have been beautiful.

Range is extremely important. And while you might not care, most people will. It is critical that we get to 500 mile range vehicles as soon as possible.

You are describing a charging problem, not a battery issue. If you had purchased a Model Y instead of a Mach E your trip would have likely been uneventful unless it is far off interstate.

Where long range EVs are needed is off interstate in rural areas without much tourism. There is no need for DCFC in these areas because the locals can charge at home, so DCFC is not being built.

The vast majority of drivers never visit remote non-tourism areas.

 

[White Shadow]

You are describing a charging problem, not a battery issue. If you had purchased a Model Y instead of a Mach E your trip would have likely been uneventful unless it is far off interstate.

Where long range EVs are needed is off interstate in rural areas without much tourism. There is no need for DCFC in these areas because the locals can charge at home, so DCFC is not being built.

The vast majority of drivers never visit remote non-tourism areas.

You're ignoring the fact that people generally have expectations. And unfortunately for EVs, the expectations have already been set by ICE vehicles. To me, a REAL car is a car that can be used for anything from the daily commute to long road trips. If my car can't do that, then it's simply not a real car....it's just a commuter car that's good for work and back....or running local errands.

That said, millions of people hit the roads several times per year on long road trips. Think about Thanksgiving for example. Yes, the airports are busy, but so are the interstates. My family meets up at my brother's lake house every Thanksgiving. It's about 185 miles from my house and takes us about 3.5 hours to get there. With my ICE vehicles, I can get there and back home without ever stopping for fuel. With an EV, I want to be able to do the same thing. 370 miles on a single charge is a tall order for ANY EV these days, especially when you factor in the North East cold weather around Thanksgiving.

Longer road trips that do require refueling are quick and easy for ICE vehicles. We need to get to the point that the same thing is true for EVs. I believe we will get there some day, but we're not there yet.....so that's why I think longer ranges are so important right now. Again, that's for anyone who uses their EV as more than a daily commuter car. I know many people who have EVs, but choose to take their ICE car on road trips just because it's so much quicker and so much more convenient. We need this to change if we ever want to see mass adoption of electric vehicles.

 

[mkhuffman]

You are describing a charging problem, not a battery issue. If you had purchased a Model Y instead of a Mach E your trip would have likely been uneventful unless it is far off interstate.

Where long range EVs are needed is off interstate in rural areas without much tourism. There is no need for DCFC in these areas because the locals can charge at home, so DCFC is not being built.

The vast majority of drivers never visit remote non-tourism areas.

I am an optimist. I believe the charging situation will improve, eventually. And I agree that stopping for 20 minutes to pee while charging isn't a big deal. It is pretty normal to stop for 20 minutes, even when driving ICE vehicles.

However, the amount of power that is required to add 72 kWh (180 miles at 2.5 mi/kWh efficiency) into a battery in 20 minutes is huge. And if you have four cars doing that at the same time, it requires significant infrastructure to support it. You will need stations with 20 or 30 chargers, or more. And on a busy day, the wait could be very long.

Imagine if highway range could be 600 miles. 600 miles at 80 mph is 7.5 hours. I have done 12 hour drives before, but it is very rare. Usually we would break up a long 12 hour drive into two legs, stopping for the night at a hotel. If I can L2 charge at the hotel, and my destination, I will never need a DCFC. And we won't need to build out massive electrical grid capacity, and massive local infrastructure to support huge power draws.

Widespread L2 and long range vehicles is the ultimate answer, IMO. I will bet you that we will get longer range vehicles and more L2 options long before DCFC has a chance of getting to the levels needed to support a bunch of BEVs stopping every 180 miles to charge.

Taking bets...

 

[mkg3]

600 miles range! Yikes. I would never want to drive a vehicle that carried that much weight due to excess batteries.

The figure below is from EPA (Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975).

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/420r21003.pdf

The average fuel MPG for trucks is 19 and truck-based SUV is 23.5. If you assume they carried 25 gal fuel tank, it would result as 475 and 587.5 miles range - still less than 600 miles.

The notion of wanting more just for the sake of convenience is fine but also need to be kept in perspective of realm of reasonableness. If one is towing, these miles change significantly and that may be the reason for wanting more ability - I get it.

From practical point, BEVs are in its infancy compared to ICE and once solid state batteries (SSB) become common place, we'll probably see much better range performance compared to today - just as MPG increased dramatically from the 70s to 80s.

So get something that can do huge range now (ICE) and wait for 3rd gen vehicles by the end of this decade and you'll probably get the huge range options. Personally, I'm hoping that SSB will reduce the vehicle weight significantly so that the driving dynamics improves all around.

 

[mkhuffman]

600 miles range! Yikes. I would never want to drive a vehicle that carried that much weight due to excess batteries.

The figure below is from EPA (Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975).

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/420r21003.pdf

The average fuel MPG for trucks is 19 and truck-based SUV is 23.5. If you assume they carried 25 gal fuel tank, it would result as 475 and 587.5 miles range - still less than 600 miles.

The notion of wanting more just for the sake of convenience is fine but also need to be kept in perspective of realm of reasonableness. If one is towing, these miles change significantly and that may be the reason for wanting more ability - I get it.

From practical point, BEVs are in its infancy compared to ICE and once solid state batteries (SSB) become common place, we'll probably see much better range performance compared to today - just as MPG increased dramatically from the 70s to 80s.

So get something that can do huge range now (ICE) and wait for 3rd gen vehicles by the end of this decade and you'll probably get the huge range options. Personally, I'm hoping that SSB will reduce the vehicle weight significantly so that the driving dynamics improves all around.

600 miles of range would solve a lot of problems, but I agree it cannot be done with today's technology. As you said, I expect SSBs will be lighter and more energy dense, enabling the potential of a 600 mile range vehicle.

I would be very happy with 500 miles of range, or 400 miles of highway range, and that would significantly reduce the burden on DCFC infrastructure.

Sponsored