The efficiency history gauge is propaganda

[ThirteenElectrics]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel, which shows a heavy black line around 2 mi/kwh. They thought it was the "target", roughly equivalent to the EPA rated range, and felt good when they got close to it (though few exceed it, normally). Yesterday I told them that EPA efficiency is almost 3, not 2 (it's 2.90), so off by 50%. They were shocked and asked why the black bar isn't at three. I had no good answer other than it's Rivian trying to dark pattern lie to their customers.

Even the EPA rating is a lie, as most people think it means "maximum range", but it's not. It includes a blend of city efficiency, which is normally greater than highway efficiency for EVs. For gas cars, the EPA rating is actually very close to highway range (it's pessimistic in this case, because it includes the lowball ICE city number), but for EVs it is totally wrong when used as a road trip indicator. Most people are coming from gas cars, so they are fooled by the sticker. Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

Sponsored

 

[ElGuano]

This u?

 

[madhat]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel, which shows a heavy black line around 2 mi/kwh. They thought it was the "target", roughly equivalent to the EPA rated range, and felt good when they got close to it (though few exceed it, normally). Yesterday I told them that EPA efficiency is almost 3, not 2 (it's 2.90), so off by 50%. They were shocked and asked why the black bar isn't at three. I had no good answer other than it's Rivian trying to dark pattern lie to their customers.

Even the EPA rating is a lie, as most people think it means "maximum range", but it's not. It includes a blend of city efficiency, which is normally greater than highway efficiency for EVs. For gas cars, the EPA rating is actually very close to highway range (it's pessimistic in this case, because it includes the lowball ICE city number), but for EVs it is totally wrong when used as a road trip indicator. Most people are coming from gas cars, so they are fooled by the sticker. Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

Write to your congressman to have EPA change their test/ratings standards. Why would rivian give numbers that don’t align with what they are required to test to? Does Ford rate their crap ecoboost engines off real world or EPA testing?
If you want change, then be a voice asking for it not from the manufacturer but from the governing body.

 

[zefram47]

Someone sure has an axe to grind for some reason. With the old outdoor package with RUS and 20" all-terrain tires I've had much better efficiency than 2 mi/kWh. Is it worse than that at 80 mph in the middle of winter, of course...but so is ICE efficiency in the cold and with varying road conditions. I have a 4.9k mile trip meter showing 2.33 mi/kWh average. Before accidentally clearing the meter, 10.4k miles with 2.23 mi/kWh that included a chunk of winter driving as well. Individual trips have been much higher (and lower) than that, including one at 180 miles with 2.59 mi/kWh, 132 miles with 2.47 mi/kWh, 262 miles at 2.31 mi/kWh, etc. My daily drive into the office routinely sees close to or exceeding 3 mi/kWh with a roundtrip efficiency upwards of 2.3 mi/kWh over 30 miles.

 

[mudito]

Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

Every company would advertise whatever the higher number they can legally advertise. In this case, ruled by the EPA.

I do agree that, in America, the EPA at least for electric cars should (must?) be tweaked and it should include probably best and worst (i.e.: 70mph constant hw speed with climate on heat with a 32F outside temperature AND City Driving at 77F with climate on Auto) values.

But you can't ask manufacturers to advertise real-world when the competition would just go by EPA and Market the CRAP out of your numbers vs theirs

 

[sherold]

The black line is better used as a range efficiency target. If you want to achieve the displayed range keep it at the line or above. if you are under, your range will drop. The "dot gage" to the right of this also indicates how much of an impact this is having on your range. I will say they don't do the best job on conveying this info exactly but, they are not lying about anything. What other vehicles display whether you are achieving the EPA rated efficiency?

The EPA rating is by no means a lie. It might not be rated solely at the "road trip" aka highway driving style but, its truthful information. Why would someone rate a vehicles efficiency for one driving condition? (one that also is inefficient).

ICE & EV are different vehicles and, should not be driven under the pretense that they are to be driven the same and achieve the same results. Most people need to learn to educate themselves and read what the information actually says. If everyone keeps looking at the data with "ICE" goggles on, they will never understand why it isn't working the way they think it should. EVs are not currently the best overall option for road trips compared to ICE vehicles. That is just the reality we live in TODAY.

The easy digestion of this information is the challenge that the EV industry faces for easier adoption of EVs. Understanding they are not and, will not be the same is the hurdle that has to be cleared. Some will clear it faster than others...

 

[COdogman]

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Wow another thread by thirteenelectrics digging deep to be negative on Rivian. Who would have guessed? Get a new tune, this one is old.

 

[good2go]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel, which shows a heavy black line around 2 mi/kwh. They thought it was the "target", roughly equivalent to the EPA rated range, and felt good when they got close to it (though few exceed it, normally). Yesterday I told them that EPA efficiency is almost 3, not 2 (it's 2.90), so off by 50%. They were shocked and asked why the black bar isn't at three. I had no good answer other than it's Rivian trying to dark pattern lie to their customers.

Even the EPA rating is a lie, as most people think it means "maximum range", but it's not. It includes a blend of city efficiency, which is normally greater than highway efficiency for EVs. For gas cars, the EPA rating is actually very close to highway range (it's pessimistic in this case, because it includes the lowball ICE city number), but for EVs it is totally wrong when used as a road trip indicator. Most people are coming from gas cars, so they are fooled by the sticker. Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

Wow, that incredible, how did you learn that all drivers live in 40 degree climate and drive 70 everywhere?

what about the fact you are encouraged to charged to 70% daily. There is a loss of 30%.

personal I just drive my vehicle. Charge it up. Don’t hesitate to take it on short or long drives.

I think all these concerns are called range anxiety.

my guess is most people can charge nightly and have no problem doing their daily driving with their set charge level. My guess is that’s 90+ percent of driving. Just my opinion.

 

[Mathme]

People surely get wound around the axle when it comes to advertised range vs. real life range. Remember when looking at advertised range, the phrase "your mileage may vary" is key to the disclaimer.

on my Gen 1 Quad with ATs, I've gone as far as 225 miles on a roadtrip charge, and as few as about 100 miles (crawling up the Sierra Nevada's for example). The Key is to slow down and your efficiency will likely improve. On road trips at about 70mph, I'll get between 150-180 out of an 80-20% charge. That's about 2.5-3 hours of driving...which is plenty as most occupants in the truck are ready for a stretch break by that time.

If I were to buy a new Dual Max with an advertise range of ~400 miles, I would expect more mileage than I'm getting out of my current truck, but I wouldn't ever expect those 400 miles.

 

[DayTripping]

I thought that little line was for what you'd expect to see on Texas highways running with the traffic. It is about dead nuts on most of the time.

 

[Thedude]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel, which shows a heavy black line around 2 mi/kwh. They thought it was the "target", roughly equivalent to the EPA rated range, and felt good when they got close to it (though few exceed it, normally). Yesterday I told them that EPA efficiency is almost 3, not 2 (it's 2.90), so off by 50%. They were shocked and asked why the black bar isn't at three. I had no good answer other than it's Rivian trying to dark pattern lie to their customers.

Even the EPA rating is a lie, as most people think it means "maximum range", but it's not. It includes a blend of city efficiency, which is normally greater than highway efficiency for EVs. For gas cars, the EPA rating is actually very close to highway range (it's pessimistic in this case, because it includes the lowball ICE city number), but for EVs it is totally wrong when used as a road trip indicator. Most people are coming from gas cars, so they are fooled by the sticker. Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

Have you looked at how the EPA tests ICE vehicle economy? It’s just as flawed and not representative at all of real world highway economy.

 

[Marchin_MTB]

Why the plot is centered at 2, as opposed to some other average needs to achieve a stated range, is a valid question. I suppose it’s because the graphics designer who worked on this display thought whole numbers and symmetry looked better.

 

[f1racer328]

https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range

R1S Dual Motor Max Pack 21" - 346 miles
R1T Dual Motor Large Pack 21" - 345 miles
R1T Dual Motor Max Pack 21" - 335 miles
R1T Quad Motor Large Pack 20" - 289 miles
R1S Quad Motor Large Pack 20" - 287 miles
R1S Dual Motor (Gen 2) Standard Pack 22" - 241 miles

All gen 1 except the last one.

Here's your real range test. Kyle and his team do a great job, and his videos have a ton of information in them. I know not everyone is a fan of his channel, but this is awesome data to have. It's what pushed me to buy an EV if I'm honest. I've learned a lot.

 

[zefram47]

Why the plot is centered at 2, as opposed to some other average needs to achieve a stated range, is a valid question. I suppose it’s because the graphics designer who worked on this display thought whole numbers and symmetry looked better.

Probably the same reason they stupidly max it out at 4 mi/kWh when it's pretty easy in the mountains to see far more than that.

Sponsored