YouTube Video: The 2025 Rivian R1T Tri-motor Max Pack Does Its Best With All Terrain Tires! 70-MPH Range Test

[Donald Stanfield]

I don't really understand the people who ride on the 20's then worry about range. That doesn't make sense to me.

Sponsored

 

[DayTripping]

I didn't buy the 20" Goodyears for efficiency, but that doesn't mean it doesn't factor in my purchasing calculus. I am driving an EV and range does matter to some extent. I may drive to a place for offroading and that may be in an area without a good charging network nearby. Having more battery left when my wheels finally touch dirt isn't a bad thing. Or when leaving, I may have used more energy than planned.

Not to mention I do care about the resources I use. That is why I'm not driving a Raptor or another G Wagon now. That and I am an adrenalin junkie and my Rivian is quicker than my last G 63.

If I was super focused on efficiency, I wouldn't be buying a Rivian in the first place. If I did, I'd buy a dual motor version as that should have the best efficiency.

I bought the Goodyears in a 20" as I wanted more sidewall for better ride quality (than the 21's) and survive curbs better when my wife is driving. If you saw her Tesla wheels, you'd understand my concern. I wanted a better tire for offroad usage that wasn't super noisy, had good wet and dry traction, was capable in snow, and had decent efficiency. I didn't want them to look like minivan tires.

 

[DuoRivians]

There is no way my Gen 1 R1T Quad Large on 20” ATs gets 289 miles at 70mph.

I wish it did, but it’s probably closer to 240-250 miles max, on a very good day.

Approx 1.8-1.9 miles/kwh at that speed * 130 kWh pack = 234 to 247 miles

All of this just shows how much nonsense OOS testing can be.

 

[DB-EV]

The test seems pretty realistic to me as many people prefer to run all terrain tires for a variety of reasons. Kinda crazy that the test is so far from the EPA rating which I think is around 329-miles on 20" all terrain tires.

I guess it's just about 9% off from EPA rating which is not a 70-mph highway only test. The eye opener for me is how close the Gen 2 Tri-Motor Max Pack on All Terrain wheels is to the Gen 1 Quad-Motor on All Terrains; only 3% better for the Tri-Motor!

And epa on gen 1 at is 270. That is what I have.

I can fairly often beat epa with my launch even in cold weather if preconditioned.

 

[Tejkalra]

It says 346 miles on full charge. If I get 298. That's great. However advertised mile is 371, getting 298 compare to 371 is bad.

 

[ElGuano]

It says 346 miles on full charge. If I get 298. That's great. However advertised mile is 371, getting 298 compare to 371 is bad.

Is there an advertised mileage for 20" on conserve? I thought 371 is with the sport wheel/tires.

 

[mkhuffman]

I think it's accurate. You can define "much" however you would like. Let me put it another way:

Rivian charges much more for the Max Pack Tri-Motor on All Terrains than the Large Pack Quad-Motor on All Terrains, however, the Max Pack does not drive much further than the Large Pack even though it costs much more.

You are putting way, way too much weight on the OOS Large range test.

You hopefully know that at 70 mph aerodynamics and rolling resistance are the primary factors that impact range, and if you have the same body and same tires, you should get the same results. There is no way the Large Gen1 with the same aerodynamics and same tires is more efficient than the Gen2 Max. No way.

Worst case they are the same. But Gen2 does have powertrain efficency improvements so it might be measurably better at 70. Definitely not worse.

The OOS test of the Gen1 Large was a fluke. It should not be used to claim the Large is somehow more efficient than the Max at 70 mph. Such a conclusion defies logic, IMO.

 

[strykerwsu]

There is no way my Gen 1 R1T Quad Large on 20” ATs gets 289 miles at 70mph.

I wish it did, but it’s probably closer to 240-250 miles max, on a very good day.

Approx 1.8-1.9 miles/kwh at that speed * 130 kWh pack = 234 to 247 miles

All of this just shows how much nonsense OOS testing can be.

Do you live at high elevation? That is the difference from what your experiencing.

 

[DayTripping]

Aero will be the biggest impact for sure. Tires and drivetrain are nowhere near aerodynamic drag at higher speeds I'd estimate that at 65% of total drag at 75 mph since the Cd is fairly good for a truck. Tires are still going to be a big factor but less than aero. We have to take Rivian's word on how efficient the drive train is compared to previous gens.

I didn't check to see how many miles were on either one. Newer tires are typically less efficient. Maybe the heatpump isn't as efficient as it has been touted. They could still be dialing it in.

If we just look at aero and tires, that is probably close to 85-90% of total energy consumed ~70 mph. That would leave the rest for drivetrain, HVAC and accessories. Even if you tripled the efficiency of the new drivetrain, that doesn't leave much real-world impact to overall efficiency since it is a small part of overall energy used at speed.

Aero is the real energy hog at speed. Everything else combined is less than aero from about 60 mph and up.

 

[JeromePowell]

You are putting way, way too much weight on the OOS Large range test.

You hopefully know that at 70 mph aerodynamics and rolling resistance are the primary factors that impact range, and if you have the same body and same tires, you should get the same results. There is no way the Large Gen1 with the same aerodynamics and same tires is more efficient than the Gen2 Max. No way.

Worst case they are the same. But Gen2 does have powertrain efficency improvements so it might be measurably better at 70. Definitely not worse.

The OOS test of the Gen1 Large was a fluke. It should not be used to claim the Large is somehow more efficient than the Max at 70 mph. Such a conclusion defies logic, IMO.

Thanks for setting me straight and explaining how aerodynamics and rolling resistance work. Please feel free to post your own testing procedures and results at your leisure.

I think I will just keep my Gen 1 and forego upgrading to a new Gen 2 Tri-Max. My used Gen 1 R1T cost me $55k before tax, title, and tags. A new Gen 2 Tri-Max would cost me about $105k on the low side. It just does not seem worth it whether or not the OOS testing(s) had a fluke or possibly both tests were flukes.

Seems the Tri-Max is at best marginally quicker with marginally more range based on the only information available to me other than EPA testing done by Rivian.

 

[Tejkalra]

Is there an advertised mileage for 20" on conserve? I thought 371 is with the sport wheel/tires.

Oh... I was talking about 22" range.

 

[mkhuffman]

Thanks for setting me straight and explaining how aerodynamics and rolling resistance work. Please feel free to post your own testing procedures and results at your leisure.

I think I will just keep my Gen 1 and forego upgrading to a new Gen 2 Tri-Max. My used Gen 1 R1T cost me $55k before tax, title, and tags. A new Gen 2 Tri-Max would cost me about $105k on the low side. It just does not seem worth it whether or not the OOS testing(s) had a fluke or possibly both tests were flukes.

Seems the Tri-Max is at best marginally quicker with marginally more range based on the only information available to me other than EPA testing done by Rivian.

Personally I compare them from a range perspective by comparing available battery capacity. When new, 10 kWh is the difference. So if you can get 2.1 mi/kWh in your R1, and assuming your battery SoH is 100%, you would go an additional 21 miles in the Max.

Of course the Gen2 Large has a smaller battery than the Gen1 Large, resulting in a bigger difference when compared to the Max.

The OOS range tests prove how hard it is to control all the variables and conduct a repeatable range test. There was obviously something outside of their control that caused different efficiencies with the R1 wearing the same tires at the same speed.

Maybe there was really something different about the tires? They didn't record the number of miles on the tires. Maybe that was it. One set was more worn and got better efficiency? Or maybe it was the weather? They didn't run them side by side like they did against the Cybertruck. That was a good comparison because they followed each other.

 

[Ecupip]

There is no way my Gen 1 R1T Quad Large on 20” ATs gets 289 miles at 70mph.

I guess it depends on elevation, weather, and traffic conditions. I run 80-mile distances weekly at 70mph and see nothing less than 1.9m/k in 20-degree weather and 2.2m/k in summer with my quad with ATs.

 

[Tejkalra]

Thanks for setting me straight and explaining how aerodynamics and rolling resistance work. Please feel free to post your own testing procedures and results at your leisure.

I think I will just keep my Gen 1 and forego upgrading to a new Gen 2 Tri-Max. My used Gen 1 R1T cost me $55k before tax, title, and tags. A new Gen 2 Tri-Max would cost me about $105k on the low side. It just does not seem worth it whether or not the OOS testing(s) had a fluke or possibly both tests were flukes.

Seems the Tri-Max is at best marginally quicker with marginally more range based on the only information available to me other than EPA testing done by Rivian.

Good decision.. Keep your Gen1 QM. Also Tri Max is marginally slower and marginally same range when compare to Gen1. Don't make mistake of upgrading. I regret.

Sponsored