Battery Pack Sizes: How did the efficiency between the Gen 1 and Gen 2 change so much?

[mkhuffman]

For us, it made sense to buy the 143.3 kWh MaxPack (even at inflated prices) for our first Rivian.

The max pack has a usable capacity of 141 kWh.

Sponsored

 

[Dave Cundiff]

The max pack has a usable capacity of 141 kWh.

Thanks for the feedback, @mkhuffman!
I've seen lots of different figures for MaxPack usable capacity, all from different sources, all in the low 140's.
I got the figure of 143.3 kWh from Kyle Connor etc. at Out of Spec Reviews.
I get a figure of 143.2 from ABRP Premium's data imports from our R1S MaxPack.
I'm happy to have you use, and teach, whatever figure you think is most reliable.
It seems reasonable for me to adjust my thoughts to 143.2 and use that.
Very best wishes!

 

[mkhuffman]

Thanks for the feedback, @mkhuffman!
I've seen lots of different figures for MaxPack usable capacity, all from different sources, all in the low 140's.
I got the figure of 143.3 kWh from Kyle Connor etc. at Out of Spec Reviews.
I get a figure of 143.2 from ABRP Premium's data imports from our R1S MaxPack.
I'm happy to have you use, and teach, whatever figure you think is most reliable.
It seems reasonable for me to adjust my thoughts to 143.2 and use that.
Very best wishes!

I think 141 is from the EPA filing. Some here have connected to the G1 API and read the data from the car and I think they also read 141. I didn't know Kyle had reported 143 and he is a pretty trustworthy source. Not sure I would trust ABRP, but doesn't Rivian own ABRP?

Anyway, here is another source for 141 kWh:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1143421_2025-rivian-r1t-r1s-ev-lfp-review

The lower number has been consistently reported and it is more conservative.

 

[usulio]

Thanks for the feedback, @mkhuffman!
I've seen lots of different figures for MaxPack usable capacity, all from different sources, all in the low 140's.
I got the figure of 143.3 kWh from Kyle Connor etc. at Out of Spec Reviews.
I get a figure of 143.2 from ABRP Premium's data imports from our R1S MaxPack.
I'm happy to have you use, and teach, whatever figure you think is most reliable.
It seems reasonable for me to adjust my thoughts to 143.2 and use that.
Very best wishes!

https://rivian.com/support/article/what-is-the-usable-kwh-capacity-of-your-battery-packs

 

[HaveBlue]

Kyle might have went into the buffer with his tests ie less than zero miles range.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

https://rivian.com/support/article/what-is-the-usable-kwh-capacity-of-your-battery-packs

If I'm Kyle, my motivation is to post accurate numbers with detailed methodology, so "data geeks" like Kyle and me will watch a lot of video minutes. He can take a single vehicle and analyze it very precisely.

If I'm Rivian, my motivation is to post something that's close enough, while not disappointing anyone enough to sue me successfully for misrepresenting the product. I have to keep in mind that even new batteries will vary in usable capacity.

To me, that difference in motivation would explain most of the discrepancy between Kyle's stated numbers and Rivian's stated numbers. Nobody's misrepresenting, but the consequences of different errors are different for Kyle than they are for Rivian.

Very best wishes!

 

[CANCERDOC]

Lots of discussion about the 22” tire/wheels. Remember, the New Pirelli 22” for Rivian Is the MS tire. It’s an all New 22” Pirelli made for Rivian, and I think/heard very low rolling resistance but no data to be found.

I just traded my 2022 Quad for a 2023 PDM Max..this past weekend we did a good 900 mile trip. Highway driving at ~76 mph, 84 degrees, we were getting 2.47 or ~350 miles of highway driving. Pretty please with this R1T. So to go to a new 2025 PDM Max with a lot of improvement, MS tires, heat pump, improved motors, etc may very get to 400+ which is amazing. Proof will be when some start taking delivery and share their findings.

I don’t think the motors are different for the 2025 dual motors. The “new” motors are just the Enduro motors now on the tri and quad for gen 2.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Can we talk about the faux all seasons?

On the standard pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and 20" AS is 12 miles, 270 vs. 258. You can't get the AT.

On the large pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and the 20" AT is 50 miles, 330 vs. 270. You can't get the AS.

On the max pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and the 20" AT is 40 miles, 410 vs. 370. You can't get the AS.

Questions:

1. Why less of a range hit for max pack on 20" AT? 40 vs. 50
2. Why no 20" AS on max pack? Maybe not enough margin or delineation from 22s
3. Why only a rounding error of difference between the ugly 22" aero and the sexy 22 brights? Tires make the difference, so why bother with an ugly-ass aero?

I'm trying to figure out where the sweet spot is for future tire cost vs. range. I'm doing 25k miles per year, so tire cost is a real thing for me and others. Basic math says the 22" tires are 2x as much money as the 20" ($600 vs $300).

Interesting side note, if you throw the 20" AS on the max pack, you'll end up with 390 miles of range. And if you throw on actual AS tires, according to all of you pioneering on this thread, you get back into the 400's.

Ask that to say, maybe the higher initial cost of the 20" AT is worth it because you still unlock the ability for a huge amount of options, including some very efficient ones. Unless there's something I'm missing with regards to performance, the 22" bright is trying to get by on looks alone. But they do look so good.....

 

[mkhuffman]

Can we talk about the faux all seasons?

On the standard pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and 20" AS is 12 miles, 270 vs. 258. You can't get the AT.

On the large pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and the 20" AT is 50 miles, 330 vs. 270. You can't get the AS.

On the max pack, the difference in range between the 22" MS and the 20" AT is 40 miles, 410 vs. 370. You can't get the AS.

Questions:

1. Why less of a range hit for max pack on 20" AT? 40 vs. 50
2. Why no 20" AS on max pack? Maybe not enough margin or delineation from 22s
3. Why only a rounding error of difference between the ugly 22" aero and the sexy 22 brights? Tires make the difference, so why bother with an ugly-ass aero?

I'm trying to figure out where the sweet spot is for future tire cost vs. range. I'm doing 25k miles per year, so tire cost is a real thing for me and others. Basic math says the 22" tires are 2x as much money as the 20" ($600 vs $300).

Interesting side note, if you throw the 20" AS on the max pack, you'll end up with 390 miles of range. And if you throw on actual AS tires, according to all of you pioneering on this thread, you get back into the 400's.

Ask that to say, maybe the higher initial cost of the 20" AT is worth it because you still unlock the ability for a huge amount of options, including some very efficient ones. Unless there's something I'm missing with regards to performance, the 22" bright is trying to get by on looks alone. But they do look so good.....

Great questions.

On the 22" one, I think the reason the aero wheels don't appear to give better range is one if these:
1. They did all the testing with the aero and have not updated the configurator to show the appropriate range hit of the 22 brights, or
2. The EPA test is not at a fast enough speed to provide a significant benefit from wheel aerodynamics.

There is no way those two 22" wheels have the same efficiency at 80 mph. No way. The aero ones are better. How much? I think measurable, so at least 5%. Just my two cents.

 

[AWDrift0]

Read this entire thread and still no answers lol.

I feel like the play is the 22s Brights with the New MS tires, but if the improvement is coming from the tires, why wouldnt Gen 1s also benefit from this swap?

 

[LiamM]

Weight reduction, tires, updated drive units and software efficiencies all add up

 

[mkhuffman]

Weight reduction, tires, updated drive units and software efficiencies all add up

Do we know how much lighter the Gen2 is? I have not seen that info posted yet.

 

[LiamM]

Do we know how much lighter the Gen2 is? I have not seen that info posted yet.

No not that I've seen, only that it is lighter. But we do know it's new drive units all around, obviously new wheels/tires

 

[Supratachophobia]

Great questions.

On the 22" one, I think the reason the aero wheels don't appear to give better range is one if these:
1. They did all the testing with the aero and have not updated the configurator to show the appropriate range hit of the 22 brights, or
2. The EPA test is not at a fast enough speed to provide a significant benefit from wheel aerodynamics.

There is no way those two 22" wheels have the same efficiency at 80 mph. No way. The aero ones are better. How much? I think measurable, so at least 5%. Just my two cents.

I'm going to go with 2-3% improvemet, which generously comes out to 10 miles or so. That's based on personal knowledge from the original aero wheels that Tesla had really early on.


But I still cannot fathom why Rivian would complicate things with 6 active wheel choices; 20 AS, 20 AT, 22" bright, 22"aero, 22 stagard (which is just literally burning money), and a bastard 21.


A max pack is going to be rated at 350(stagard)/370(AT)/390(AS)/400(21)/410(22 bright)/420(22aero) when it's all said and done.


I guess next quarter it will settle down to 4, but still, geez

 

[Autolycus]

2. The EPA test is not at a fast enough speed to provide a significant benefit from wheel aerodynamics.

The EPA test is done on a dyno. They then do an adjustment to the results based on wind tunnel tests to account for drag.

Sponsored