The efficiency history gauge is propaganda

[sfvR1S]

Is there an option to delete moronic posts?

Sponsored

 

[eRacer]

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.

Curious as to what the expected outcome would be? Should Rivian move the line up to 3 or even 4? Then you would be complaining that I can't see my numbers...

Am I missing something?

 

[Marchin_MTB]

Curious as to what the expected outcome would be? Should Rivian move the line up to 3 or even 4? Then you would be complaining that I can't see my numbers...

Am I missing something?

Oh I’m not complaining, nor making a value judgement. Just noting that this visual display is probably not the result of a conspiracy but rather a deliberate (visual) design choice.

 

[eRacer]

Oh I’m not complaining, nor making a value judgement. Just noting that this visual display is probably not the result of a conspiracy but rather a deliberate (visual) design choice.

I didn't mean to insunuate that you were complaining. I was referring to the OP.

 

[NY_Rob]

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

That's not the EPA Test Cycle.

Rivian uses the same EPA STANDARD TEST CYCLE everyone else uses which makes it a meaningful comparison so you can judge vehicle efficiency vs other vehicles. If the EPA changes their test cycle parameters (which is probably due) then Rivian will adhere to the new test cycle parameters. Rivian is not going to use some off the wall test cycle parameters when everyone else is using the standard EPA cycle.

OT- @ThirteenElectrics, you know you're on a Rivian forum right?
It seems like you come here looking for a fight in every new thread you start. While there are some here who might happily oblige and throw down with you at length, many will just start ignoring your posts or just put you on their ignore list. Better to choose your battles over time which will not impact your credibility as a forum member vs just posting everything that irks you no matter how minor it may be.

 

[SANZC02]

Efficiency in an EV just like in ICE vehicles is all about how and where you drive. I know when I was driving around in southeast MA with a lot of long flatter back roads and 35-45 mph speed limits my gauge was usually over 3 m/kWh.

Around my house in SoCal with higher speed limits, lots of stop lights and shorter trips of 10 or 15 minutes, I can struggle to see 2 m/kWh. The longer the trips things warm up and it goes higher.

My Model S is 2k pounds lighter and has lower drag than my R1S, I usually see 3 m/kWh in that so I had zero expectation my R1S would be around 3.

I have done enough road tripping in my R1S to know the trip meters are not 100% but they are pretty close. A few legs on my trips I would reset the trip meter and log the miles that leg then compare how many kWh the trip meter said compared to how many the next charge took.

I’ve never reset trip B so lifetime for my R1S is around 2.41 (there is a discrepancy in the readout, if you divide the miles by kWh used it is 2.48 but I went with the lower 2.41), at 2.41 my large pack with 22s gets me 313 miles.

 

[SDH]

seriously, who cares? Just drive the damn thing and enjoy it.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Artist recreation: ThirteenElectrics digging deep to find something to complain about.

 

[Spork8]

And here I thought that the MPGe rating from the EPA is based off of the energy from a gallon of gasoline converted to kWh.

Mind blown....

 

[DB-EV]

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.

Hey, I am gen 1 quad on all terrain. EPA said 270 and then I think they released some extra battery room.

Preheating car in the winter in drive up between 20 and 30 degrees I got 240 miles of range with 42 left before stopping to charge (so 282 for us math whizzes). I was somewhat miserly with heating, mostly using heated seats and wheel, with a full car and 3 passengers. Speed like 65-75. Not bad in my opinion.

Often in spring conditions I will surpass the EPA rating on my Gen 1 LE.

I will say in cold conditions in short trips, you clearly take a beating, but that makes sense. On the same trip to NY's ADKs, on the four mile drive to and from the mountain, the efficiency was really bad. But that makes total sense to me since I was driving around with a cold-soaked battery.

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH

Feels like every day I see someone complain about EPA numbers and their "70 mph non-stop commute". Where I live is one of the most traffic-congested regions of the country. Most days it takes more than 30 minutes just to get out of my neighborhood or to the grocery store. The commute to my office is hours sitting on the highway, rarely exceeding 30 mph. So leave the EPA numbers alone. The vast majority of drivers are not going nonstop 70 mph all day long. Quit pretending like they are. ?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Feels like every day I see someone complain about EPA numbers and their "70 mph non-stop commute". Where I live is one of the most traffic-congested regions of the country. Most days it takes more than 30 minutes just to get out of my neighborhood or to the grocery store. The commute to my office is hours sitting on the highway, rarely exceeding 30 mph. So leave the EPA numbers alone. The vast majority of drivers are not going nonstop 70 mph all day long. Quit pretending like they are. ?

If anyone has something to complain about it’s you and your commute.

 

[beatle]

Not sure why they can't make it more useful like the Tesla graph:

This is the full screen graph and not the one in the cluster, but the principle is the same. Have the baseline horizontal line correspond to the rated EPA range for your vehicle and go from there. Some might be 2.7mi/kwh, some might be 2.9. Don't baseline on an arbitrary 2mi/kwh. When I got my R1T I initially thought I was always doing better than rated range until I realized they put a rose colored filter over the graph.

Whether the EPA range is ever achievable, reasonable, or needs to be changed is irrelevant. Right now the trucks are advertised with a given range estimate and it's useful to be able to easily see at a glance how you're doing against that estimate.

 

[Zoidz]

WASSYM!! HELP!!!! WASSYM!!!!!

please Please PLEASE make the graph user configurable with adjustable min and max so stupid threads like this go away!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jonger1150]

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.

Mine should be 2.68 mile/kWh. I can hit that if I drive 65 mph.

Sponsored